MONITUM
(Mai, Biblioth. nov. IV, 153.)AThat I have for a long time desired to discover in the manuscripts of the Vatican Library some new, remarkable, and indubitable writing of the great Chrysostom, I believe has now finally come to pass. For in a most beautiful and great codex of a catena of Greek Fathers on the Proverbs of Solomon, I have obtained no small remnants of commentaries by Chrysostom on the aforementioned divine book, which, eagerly transcribed and hastily rendered into Latin, I present here. Nothing of this almost unheard-of labor is read, not even in the superlative Maurist edition of the Works of Chrysostom, in which, in Vol. XIII, p. 2, only these words of Montfaucon are said: “In a certain diary, a very brief catalogue of the manuscripts of the Moscow Library is produced, and among other things are held commentaries of St. John Chrysostom on the Proverbs of Solomon, which we find mentioned nowhere else.” Montfaucon further proceeds to say there that he suspects that in the Moscow codex there are extracts of a work, inserted into some catena as happens, rather than that the complete and pure work existed: which, however, I am scarcely persuaded of; for authors woven into catenae are not usually cited in catalogues so absolutely and separately: wherefore I have the greatest desire (if indeed that codex still survives) to know whether by chance such a rich and desirable treasure of the holy Father is preserved there. The Moscow codex, therefore, is the first testimony to the authenticity of this work.
BA second testimony follows from a catena of Greek Fathers on Proverbs, of which only the Latin translation, by the author Theod. Peltanus, has seen the light of day. For there, among other Fathers, a modest number of fragments of Chrysostom is also read, which appear to have been taken from a commentary on Proverbs, not from other writings of his. A third testimony is supplied by a manuscript catena of Greek Fathers on the same Proverbs, which survives in the Coislinian collection (Bib. Coisl. p. 247), where also, among other things, the name of Chrysostom occurs. But what Montfaucon, Opp. T. III, praef. p. 2, opines, that parts of the Coislinian codex were excerpted from various works of Chrysostom, seems to me to be a mistake; especially because he says (T. I praef., cap. 3) that he inspected the writings of Chrysostom in the Coislinian codices not by himself, but through others. But here now joins this work a fourth testimony from the Vatican codex, in which Chrysostom explains the divine book, not incidentally or by some chance occasion while writing about other things, but quite precisely and in order, with the words of the sacred text set forth, and explained without any admixture of alien matter: so that no prudent person, I hope, will doubt that this is the proper and true commentary of Chrysostom on Proverbs, although in the catena it is concise and greatly diminished and interrupted.
CFurthermore, the Vatican catena differs clearly from the Coislinian: first, because the names of the Fathers vary; secondly, because no author is named from the middle of the Coislinian codex to the end; but in the Vatican catena, throughout the entire codex, the titles of individual authors in the individual fragments are always written most accurately in the margin. Nor is the Vatican like the Peltanus catena itself, first because that one is in Latin; again, because the names of the Fathers similarly vary; thirdly, because Chrysostom is much less frequent and rarer there than in the Vatican, and from chapter XX to the end he is absent; which happens differently with us: although the Latin fragments of Peltanus so often agree with our Greek ones that they serve as a new testimony for us that Chrysostom is truly contained in the Vatican codex.
If one must also trust arguments deduced from conjecture, we learn from the sufficiently well-known affirmations of Cassiodorus, Suidas, and Pastrengius that Chrysostom had commented on the entire volume of the Old and New Testament; in which labor who would believe that the Proverbs of Solomon were neglected by him? Since that kind of moral, homiletic work was exceedingly suitable to his eloquence and the education of the people. Certainly, among the lost labors of Chrysostom on the Holy Bible, the explanation of the minor prophets is also to be reckoned: for Ephraem of Antioch mentions his exposition on Zechariah in Photius, cod. 229, p. 819: “The wise John, interpreting the prophet Zechariah.” But did not Cotelerius first bring forth from the Escorial codex the latent explanation of Chrysostom on Daniel? Did not Ghislerius likewise first extract from the Vatican catena the rich abundance of his work on Jeremiah? Which book of Ghislerius Montfaucon long before he published it did not know. But the example of Ghislerius was an encouragement and example to us to investigate, as we have done, the remnants of such a man in the Vatican catenae on the Holy Bible. Bandinius announced to us the unpublished commentary of Chrysostom on Job in the Florentine codex with a specimen of it (Catalog. Gr. T. I, p. 409), and Gallandius repeated that specimen in his *Bibliotheca PP.* T. VIII; which work of Chrysostom from the same Florentine codex Fontanius in *Nov. Delic.* T. III praef., p. 17, formerly promised in vain to edit. Would that someone might arise who would inspect the Florentine writing more accurately, institute a critical judgment on the matter; and if the importance of the work is equal to the name of such a clear author, commend it to the public press! Finally, Suidas explicitly mentions with praise the commentaries (ὑπομνήματα) of Chrysostom on the Gospels of Mark and Luke, which, however, have not yet appeared.
DWe certainly are not starting now for the first time the effort to augment the writings of Chrysostom. For we took his homily on Pentecost from the Vatican codex (*Spicil. Rom.* T. IV). His homily on the Annunciation of the Deipara, led by Nicephorus, whom we published, we have restored to the number of genuine works, against the peevishness of critics (sub fin. *Apolog. pro SS. imag.*, p. 137). Likewise, we have recalled to the same rank of honor the short sermon of Chrysostom on Easter, which critics were taking away from him; but our Studite asserted it with great praise (*Orat. de Paschate*). Finally, the eulogy of Chrysostom written by his contemporary and friend, Martyrius, Patriarch of Antioch, we published at least in part in the second volume of this Library. Indeed, it is certain that the danger and stain of spurious writings must be diligently avoided: nevertheless we have observed for a long time now a moderate number of *anecdota* or unpublished sermons of Chrysostom of good fruit in the codices of various libraries, partly Greek, and partly also translated long ago into the Latin language, and indeed in copies of the greatest antiquity. These, life permitting, or at least a portion of them, we will share publicly with the learned. Moreover, we know that Anianus’s interpretation of the homilies of Chrysostom is still partly unpublished, and we have seen it in the codices. But let no one believe that Montfauco-