Preface TO THE HOMILIES OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
1. Far more things here offer themselves for immediate inquiry than in many other of Chrysostom’s commentaries on Sacred Scripture. Indeed, the very inscription of the work raises questions not so easily solved: for it is reported there that after the death of St. John Chrysostom, a certain Constantine, a presbyter of Antioch, published this work, which had been derived from notes. It is asked, therefore: who is this Constantine; what are those notes from which Chrysostom’s homilies were derived; whether that exemplar which Constantine sent forth has reached us sound; and whether it is always to be preferred to other exemplars.
2. Savile and Tillemont think this Constantine, presbyter of Antioch, is Constantius, the presbyter of Antioch—namely, the one who visited Chrysostom when he was in exile at Cucusus (as you may see above, Tom. 3, col. 612), who was with him at Cucusus (col. 670), who clung to his side (col. 743), and the very one whose letters we have adduced (col. 740 and following). Nor does it trouble them that one is called Constantine and the other Constantius; for the interchange of those names is most frequent in manuscripts; and, as we have noted in cols. 741-742, that Constantius who was intimate with Chrysostom, who wrote the letter to his mother and others which we have edited, is called Constantine in a certain codex. It seems likely, then, though not entirely certain, that this Constantine, or Constantius, devoted his efforts to collecting and publishing Chrysostom’s homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews.
3. The inscription or title in printed editions and manuscripts reads thus: *Interpretation by John Chrysostom, etc., on the Epistle to the Hebrews, published from notes after his death by Constantine, presbyter of Antioch.* It is asked what those signs and notes are. I, however, agree with Du Cange—or rather with the scholiast on the *Basilica* whose words he cites—who asserts that those notes were the shorter strokes of the pen (*ductus calami breviores*) by which words and expressions were written down more quickly; it was from such notes that Constantine brought forth these homilies, transcribed in a plain and common manner. But no one agrees with Erasmus, who, when he saw "after his death" in the title, said that the title itself rather bashfully confessed that this work was not by Chrysostom. In these homilies, indeed, the style, diction, wit, and ethical precepts of Chrysostom are immediately perceived by the learned reader. Yet Erasmus quite lightly and more than once put forth censures of this kind which, to those dealing with the matter seriously, seemed very flimsy.
4. It remains now to inquire whether that exemplar which Constantine sent forth has reached us sound, and whether it is always to be preferred to other exemplars. The Greek manuscripts—and indeed the printed editions—often do not agree with each other or with Constantine’s exemplar; frequently, both those which we have seen (which are very few) and those which Savile used contain much more than that exemplar of Constantine the presbyter. Furthermore, no other knowledge of this exemplar remains for us than what is in the Latin version of Mutianus, produced by the command of Cassiodorus. For Cassiodorus says, in *De Divinis Lectionibus*, ch. 8: "We have had the Epistle to the Hebrews, which St. John, Bishop of Constantinople, treated in the Attic tongue, translated into Latin by Mutianus, a most eloquent man." This Latin interpretation of Mutianus was printed at Basel in the year 1517 with this title: *The Exposition of the Blessed John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, on the Epistle of the Blessed Apostle Paul to the Hebrews, published from notes after his death by Constantine, presbyter of Antioch, translated by Mutianus Scholasticus.*
5. Erasmus afterwards published the same Latin version. This interpretation also appears with this title in the Roman manuscripts. Since this Latin interpretation was produced only about one hundred years after Chrysostom’s death, it is entirely likely that it was edited according to the exemplar collected by Constantine, and from this, one can learn what Constantine’s collection was like. Moreover, Henry Savile wonderfully extols the version of Mutianus in his notes (p. 551), and wishes that the recent one, which had been arranged and printed a little before he wrote, be rejected as the worst, and deems that old one as the best, to be placed alongside the Greek text. We concede to Savile’s wish, while we place Mutianus’s interpretation at the bottom of the page*: as it, being produced by the command of Cassiodorus, deserves not to be neglected for that reason alone. However, in other matters we deviate not a little from Savile’s judgment. For we do not think that faith should always be placed in Constantine’s exemplar, which Mutianus followed, nor did we judge that the more recent version—which for the most part expresses a Greek sequence different from Constantine’s exemplar—should be entirely rejected; rather, we judged it should be amended, and we have placed it, corrected, alongside the Greek. For it was not permissible to place Mutianus’s version alongside it, as it differs quite often from the current Greek texts.
6. And so, although Chrysostom’s commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews appears in few Greek manuscripts, a wonderful variety of readings is observed among them: such as is detected