PREFACE TO THE THIRD VOLUME OF THE WORKS OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
A It has been the principle of our project in preparing this edition of the works of St. John Chrysostom, that we should place all the *Opuscula* (minor works), of whatever kind they might be, in the first three volumes; and in those following, the Commentaries on the New and Old Testament. Furthermore, we have distributed all the *Opuscula* into five classes. The first class comprises those works which, on account of the variety of their subject matter, cannot be encompassed under a single title, but are placed according to the order of time, so far as that can be done. The second class is that of panegyrical sermons on our Lord Jesus Christ and on the Saints. The first and second volumes contain these two former classes. The third class is of the Homilies which derive their subject matter from various passages of Scripture; these homilies occupy the first part of this third volume. The fourth class is the *Opuscula* pertaining to the disturbances at Constantinople and to both exiles of St. John Chrysostom. The fifth class is of all the Epistles. Therefore, the three latter classes are contained in this third volume, to which are appended a few other pieces, and finally, many spurious ones. Concerning all of these, certain things must be premised here.
§ I. — *On the Homilies which derive their subject matter from various passages of Scripture.*
We begin, therefore, with the Homilies on certain passages of the New Testament, the first four of which explain as many evangelical sentences. The eight following, which were delivered in a single series and continuously, were miserably distracted and dispersed in the Savilian and Frontonian editions; a fact which you must not ascribe to the carelessness or negligence of Savile or Fronton le Duc. For they employed every diligence, not only to collect all of Chrysostom’s *Opuscula* from all parts of the Christian world, but also to place each in its proper order. But since many works had already been given to the press, and others were arriving from all sides, these, having been brought in latterly, were generally placed as chance dictated. Anyone who reads them through continuously will at once perceive at what a cost to the reader’s convenience these works were published in such a distracted and nearly dissipated state. For it usually happens that the subject of the former is only completed in the following one; and all of them have, moreover, such an affinity with one another that you cannot fully understand the following unless you have read the preceding.
Of these eight Homilies, the four former are on the beginning, or the title, of the book of Acts. Yet our John had discourses on this topic in a single series, as he himself testifies more than once; but the second, in which it was asked who the author of the book of Acts of the Apostles was, has perished. I thought I had found it intact, as I said in the Preface to the first volume. But afterward, having more diligently weighed that very long homily, drawn from manuscripts, which is inscribed *On the Ascension*, I discovered that the part where, after some things have been premised about the beginning of Acts, it is most evidently proved that Luke the Evangelist is the author of the Acts, is undoubtedly by Chrysostom; but other portions which precede this part, and far more which follow it, cannot be by Chrysostom. I was certainly hesitant at first, because it encompassed a not-to-be-despised part of that homily, as to whether it should be placed in the series of the others; but I thought it would be ungrateful to the reader if I mixed those other spurious elements which appear in the same homily, some of which smack of a trifling *Græculus* (little Greek), with true works: wherefore it seemed best to relegate the whole homily to the end of this volume.
Likewise, the four Homilies which are inscribed *On the Change of Names* are connected to those four on the beginning of Acts in their natural order: for in these latter ones, Chrysostom pursues the subject of the former, as we said in our *Notice*. The other Homilies are on passages of Paul, and with the preceding, they complete a total number of thirty-four homilies. Moreover, the three Homilies on the *Laws of Marriage*, the first of which is No. 18, on the text: *Because of fornications, etc.*, the second No. 19, *On the Bill of Divorce*; the third No. 20, *In Praise of Maximus, and what kind of wives should be taken*; these Homilies, I say, which are of one and the same subject and were delivered at the same time in one series, as is clear to those who read them, Fronto Ducæus had edited in such a way that the third was separated from the two former by a long interval; but having now been placed in their own order, they will be able to fulfill their parts and offer to the reader, conjoined, the matter once begun and brought to its destined end.
§ II. — *The Opuscula on the disturbances at Constantinople, and on both of Chrysostom’s exiles, what they are.*
The fourth class of *Opuscula* follows this, namely those on the disturbances at Constantinople, as well as on others which pertain to both of Chrysostom’s exiles. It seemed best to publish all these according to the series of time, whereas before they had been separate and had been placed in different volumes in a disorderly work, by chance rather than by design. Of these, not a few in the edition of Fronto Ducæus...
A were obscured by a poor translation, or were burdened with glosses that, by being intermingled with the text, distorted the meaning. But by comparing these with the Greek, we have restored them as much as possible to their pristine integrity. Furthermore, we have brought together into this one volume all the treatises that were written by Chrysostom regarding his exile or during the very time of his exile, since they relate to the same argument. Many of these treat of the very same subjects and are addressed to the same parties, and they are so connected that one requires the acquaintance of the other. The chronological order of these, then, is as follows:
PREFACE
BThese all relate to the history from the year 399 to the year 406. The order of the treatises follows the order of events very well; all those treatises relate to the hardships and the twofold exile of Chrysostom: for the flight of the eunuch Eutropius into the church of Chrysostom and his being seized by the enemies of Chrysostom are related. But that the candid reader may more easily grasp the order of these treatises, concerning which we are speaking, it will be worth the trouble to traverse the history of the events at Constantinople briefly.
Eutropius the Eunuch, one of the chief men of the court of Constantinople, was of great influence with Arcadius. As he had been the author of Chrysostom's elevation to the bishopric of Constantinople, in the beginning he followed his admonitions. But when he was consumed by ambition and the desire to amass wealth, he spoke of riches; he did not speak of fugitives, but of destructive things, which their guardians would suffer for the most part. This he frequently dictated, being ignorant of how to flatter; but because truth engenders hatred, Eutropius, exasperated by the monitor, attempted many things against him; and indeed, he sought to bring it about that the right of asylum and immunity be taken away from the C churches. But by the providential divine will, Eutropius, having incurred the hatred of all in the year of his consulship, the three hundred and ninety-ninth year of Arcadius, having been cast down from his rank, and surrounded by the soldiers of the tribune Tribigild, fled for refuge to the church, the only asylum that remained for him, and was compelled to approach as a suppliant. And he would not have escaped, had not Chrysostom stoutly resisted those who were besieging the church and pressing to invade it. And he delivered the first homily against Eutropius in that same year, 399. A few days after that sermon was delivered, when Eutropius having slipped out of the church had fallen into the hands of his enemies, the doctor delivered a second homily about him; regarding this you see many things in the Admonition. Hence, those who were plotting the destruction of Chrysostom seized the opportunity to accuse him: for they lied, saying that he had betrayed the miserable Eutropius, a fugitive in the church, to his enemies; how far this was from the truth is explained in several places in the Life of Chrysostom.
Gainas, whom the tribune Tribigild had stirred up to plot the destruction of D Eutropius, having become more insolent because of the outcome of these matters, demanded the heads of Saturninus and Aurelianus, who ranked among the nobles of the Empire. But because Chrysostom defended their cause with great vigor, Gainas was satisfied if they were exiled: regarding this, Chrysostom delivered that sermon which bears the title: *When Saturninus and Aurelianus had been sent into exile, and Gainas had departed from the city.* Whether Chrysostom delivered this sermon at the time he had already left the city is not so certain, and the credit to be given to the title is a matter of much debate in the Life of Chrysostom. Be that as it may, it is thought to have been delivered about the year 400.
In the same year began that most hateful business, namely the accusation brought against Antoninus, bishop of Ephesus, who was accused of various crimes, and especially simony. On this account Chrysostom was meditating a journey into Asia. But he was restrained from this by the machinations of Antoninus and certain nobles, who feared the hostile actions of Gainas in Thrace; the journey was put off to the beginning of the following year, after Antoninus had already departed from the living. In Asia, indeed, he remained for more than a hundred days, as he says, he deposed those who were guilty of simony, and ordained others in their place: from which, those who were rightly and according to ecclesiastical rite appointed, were taken by his adversaries, who had reason to slander him, for there is nothing which cannot be perverted when one is narrating it maliciously. On the day after he returned from Asia, he delivered a sermon to the people of Constantinople, after the Pascha of the year 401, of which we have only the Latin translation.
Severianus, bishop of Gabala in Syria, a crafty man and not without eloquence, then being in Constantinople, ingratiated himself with Chrysostom by feigned obsequiousness. But after the latter had departed for Asia, having put off his mask, he strove to win over the people and attempted to turn their affections away from Chrysostom. After Chrysostom had returned, having uttered words full of impiety, Severianus was expelled by a popular tumult and stir. Then, through the agency of the Empress Eudoxia and Arcadius himself, who also consented, he was unwillingly admitted back to the city by Chrysostom. Upon his arrival, in order to mitigate the minds of the people who were exasperated against Severianus, Chrysostom delivered a very short sermon to the people, which exists only in Latin, and of which the Greek has perished. Moreover, on the following day Severianus spoke briefly to the people, and uttered things more magnificent than the words of reconciliation, which also exists only in Latin; both were delivered in the year 401.
These were, as it were, the preludes that happened before the exile of Chrysostom. For he himself, attempting to restore ecclesiastical discipline, which had fallen to an extraordinary degree in Constantinople among the priests and deacons, incurred their hatred; he also exasperated the Empress Eudoxia, because when she demanded a certain office of him, he had attacked the princes and their way of life even more. He had received Theophilus of Alexandria and those called the Tall Brothers, as he was wont, with humanity, having already been hostile to them, but made them even more hostile to himself. Finally, Chrysostom was deposed by the Anti-synod of Chalcedon in the year 403, by the conspiracy of all these factions. All these things, furthermore, are related in the briefest manner, and have provided the material for the longest history in the Life of Chrysostom. After he was deposed, and before he was sent to the place of his exile, he delivered a sermon, which we have preserved in the life of the same Chrysostom by George of Alexandria; the latter part of which, as suspect or at least corrupted, we give; and to it we append
the old Latin interpretation, in which that corrupted part does not appear. We similarly add another [version] taken from the Vatican Codices, which also was corrupted by the rash attempts of copyists. The people, despite whose stubborn resistance and effort to repel violence Chrysostom had willingly allowed himself to be led away, became agitated by anger more and more after his departure, and demanded the return of their bishop to the imperial palace: and in the meantime, while the earthquake shook the palace, Eudoxia Augusta, terrified, took care to have the holy prelate brought back. Chrysostom, having returned, gave an impromptu little discourse, which we provide in Greek and Latin, and on the following day another, slightly longer, appended to the former. Yet that one which is inscribed "Concerning the Canaanite Woman" must have been delivered a few days after his arrival; and having placed it in that same series, we have defended it against those who had raised questions concerning its authenticity and had held it as suspect. All these things were spoken in the year 403. B To these we have added two most beautiful books, of which the title of the first is, *That no one is injured unless by himself*; but the second, distributed into twenty-four chapters, is *To those who are scandalized because of adversities*, etc. These books, although they were written after many of Chrysostom’s Letters, and indeed in about the year 406, as is thought, while he was living in exile, because they could not be placed in the series of the Letters, they close the procession in this fourth class, as no more convenient place could be devised for them.
§ III. — The fifth and final class, which is that of the Letters. Among the works of Chrysostom, nothing is more precious than the Letters, nothing more opportune for compiling the history of his two exiles: a part of ecclesiastical history which you would certainly confess must be numbered among the most important of that century, if you consider with what constancy and strength of mind he endured calamities recorded nowhere else; and if you consider how great the dissension was in a business of this kind between the leaders of the Church and of the Empire; with some standing on the adverse side; with others, the leader of whom was Innocent, the Roman pontiff, strenuously championing the cause of John Chrysostom. We have therefore published these Letters, corrected with as much accuracy as we could. But because we could by no art or labor achieve an order of the time in which they were written, it seemed best to follow the series of Fronto Ducaeus. For although it is entirely C conspicuous that some of them were written before others that already precede them in the edition, since the majority of them bear no mark of time upon them, we would not have acted deliberately if we had removed some of them from their original place, being uncertain whether those which we had disturbed from their ancient seats had been dated before all the subsequent ones.
Beyond the number of the others, Fronto Ducaeus had set before them two Letters to Innocent, the Roman Bishop, as well as that which was written by Chrysostom while in exile to the bishops and priests shut up in prison; in this we also follow Ducaeus. But after the Letters of Chrysostom, we publish two from Pope Innocent taken from Sozomen, which, because they pertain entirely to the matter that is here treated, I wonder how they were omitted in the prior editions. To these we have appended the *Sacra* of Honorius Augustus; they were accustomed to call imperial letters *Sacrae*. But this one treats solely of the Constantinopolitan tumult in the ejection of Chrysostom, and therefore it should not have been omitted in the series of the Letters. There follow two hundred and forty-two letters of Chrysostom, of which the first seventeen were sent to Olympias, while the others were sent to various people, whose names you have in alphabetical order in the *Monitum*, where we have also added the numbers of the Letters to each of the recipients. However, five of these letters placed at the end, namely 237, 238, 239, 240, and 241, are not by Chrysostom, but are by Constantius the priest, a holy man and one most addicted to Chrysostom, as we have proven in the *Monitum* concerning them, both from their style and the authority of the Vatican Codex.
The train of the Letters is closed by that most celebrated Letter to Caesarius the monk which provided the occasion for so many controversies, as it is permitted to see in the *Monitum* placed before it. That piece, moreover, we have adjudged away from Chrysostom for the reasons set forth there: and I hope that now no one will think of bringing a counter-calculation. For if anyone, not a stranger to the reading of Chrysostom's genuine works, compares the Greek fragments of that same Letter, which we now provide in greater and fuller quantity, with the genuine works of Chrysostom, he will doubtless confess that nowhere does such a diversity of style occur： of this Letter, a little after I had handed it to the press, I obtained a copy taken to the faith of an ancient Manuscript, from another Codex it seems, not from that from which Emericus Bigotius had described his copy. I shall write out its various readings here. This note is placed before the copy: *From the parchment Codex, the book of the blessed Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, against the impious Apollinarius on the salutary Epiphany of Christ, from the inheritance of the most learned man Nicolas de Nicolis of Florence, concerning which Nicolas see S. Antoninus and others.* In this Codex, clearly, the book of Athanasius against Apollinarius, on the salutary Advent of Christ, was placed before it, which is the second book in our Edition of St. Athanasius, p. 940, because that book has a certain affinity with the Letter, as we said in the *Monitum* on the Letter to Caesarius. After that note follows the title: *Begins the Letter of the blessed John, bishop of Constantinople, to Caesarius, etc.*, as in our Edition, col. 755–756. Ibid., 1. 5, and ἄκρως, that is, consummately. Ms. and ἐκπεφηνώς (sic), that is, conjunctly; perhaps *conjunctim*. Ibid., 1. 8. Ms. *Et dicas forsitan a pejore ad id quod melius est venisse te*. One must read *a pejore*, and I would prefer this reading, were it not prevented by the Greek καὶ ρηθείη· πάντως ἐκ πλάνης πρὸς τὸ κρεῖττον ἐληλυθέναι. Col. 757, line 6: *factam ex divinitate et carne*. Ms., *facta e deitate et carnis*. Line 13: *Unigeniti imaginatur deitati*. Ms., *Unigeniti imaginamur deitati*. Line 22: *Verumtamen nos recordantes tu*
ae rationis; I prefer the edition's reading. Line 28: *manifestam ostentationem facere*. Ms., *manifestam ostensionem facera*, better, and we have said in the note that this seems to be the way it should be read. Col. 758, line 7: *Unos autem communibus istis nominibus quando dispensationis confitendum est mysterium*. Ms., *Unos autem communibus istis uti oportet nominibus quando dispensationis confitendum est mysterium*. It is most evident that this is the true reading if you read "Nos autem communibus istis uti oportet," etc., instead of "Unos." Shortly after, line 11: *id quod blasphemum est et immane; sed in aliorum hæresum declinasti impietatem*. Ms., *id quod blasphemum est et in Mannet ? sed in aliorum hæresum declinasti impietatem*. This reading of the manuscript, although corrupted, seems to confirm the reading of Bigot: *et in Manetis et in aliorum hæresum declinasti impietatem*, which I consider to be more authentic. Line 16: *et quomodo Dominus dixit*. Ms., *et quando Dominus dicit*. Line 19: *Neque enim ex inhabitanti defraudabatur deitate*. Ms., *neque enim ex hoc ab inhabitanti defraudabatur deitate*. Bigot also reads it this way, as we noted in the same place, and this reading seems better. Col. 760, line 11: *ista dicere audientes?* Ms., *ista dicere audentes?* It is good, and it should be corrected thus. Line 42: *arripientes*. Ms., *accipientes*. We have deemed certain minor errors to be passed over. To the Epistle to Caesarius we add John Chrysostom's most elegant oration in praise of Diodorus of Tarsus, which the distinguished Emericus Bigot had published after that Epistle. And then we have vindicated for Chrysostom that Homily on Pascha which Fronto Ducaeus had cast among the spurious works, as it is genuine and subject to no suspicion. Concerning the following sermon on the Assumption of the Lord, we have said enough above.
IV. — Of the notes: and also of the Latin interpretations of Chrysostom’s works.
There have not been those wanting who complained that we have provided notes that are too few and too small, than they themselves would have desired. But as we have already indicated in the Preface to the first Volume, we have not been moved by a single reason to be quite frugal in our notes. For notes are used either to illustrate the writer’s sentiment, or to explain the intricacies of words, or to explore the meaning of unusual terms. But we are dealing with a writer of such a kind who flows like a river without obstacles, who in the perspicuity of his diction concedes nothing to any of the ancients, and who almost always weaves his discourse with words that are as elegant as they are customary, so that you would scarcely find a place where there is a need for explanation. If you look for notes on the time when he delivered his orations and homilies, and on the occasion through which he was led to deliver them, you have that in the *Monita* which are prefixed to individual homilies, or to several when they are of the same subject. If you desire notes regarding theological dogmas, you will see them collected in the last Volume, and arranged according to the heads of the Christian faith, as we have already indicated in the Preface to the first Volume, with discussions regarding Chrysostom’s true sentiment on individual matters added where there is need. For it is not allowed to burden the bottom of the pages with long dissertations of this kind, lest we increase such a great bulk of volumes with new additions that yield little or no fruit; a caution which he who oversaw the final edition of Augustine also employed. If, finally, you seek notes where many places scattered in various works on the same subject are brought together into one; for example, on almsgiving, on the forgetting of injuries, on the contempt of riches, on brotherly love, on humility, and on similar subjects of Christian discipline that are greatly frequented by Chrysostom: it certainly seemed best to dispense with notes of this kind altogether; for that would be to waste time, and to increase the bulk of the books in vain, when especially the general alphabetical Index, placed at the end of the last Volume, represents these abundantly and offers far more on individual points than it would be allowed to amass in notes.
When someone prepares an edition of a writer of any size, so that, even if he prefixes countless animadversions at the front, he piles up so many notes on the bottom pages that they often exceed the text, and at the foot adds yet other most lengthy observations, but can scarcely reach the size of a proper volume, it is permitted to him, if he wishes, to accumulate annotations at will: although I think one must always foresee and take care, lest there be too much of anything. But here the material for eleven volumes of great size is present; nay, even twelve: for—which I did not think at the beginning—the fifth Volume, which includes the commentaries and homilies on the Psalms and on the rest of the books of the Old Testament, must necessarily be divided into two, and both of proper size; and because from long investigation something new is always being brought to light, who knows whether the number of Volumes, now increased to the twelfth, might not have to be extended to the thirteenth at last, with new little works following? Now, if I had wished to indulge my own genius, and to accumulate notes which were certainly easily preparable for me, I could certainly have extended the works of Chrysostom to twenty volumes with little labor. But who would have approved of me? Who would have supported my calculation? Moreover, there is no small labor, no small caution to be applied in arranging the volumes of Chrysostom. For it is not permitted to transfer a part of any subject matter into another volume, lest the volume to which one is attending should grow to excessive size; it was not permitted, for example, to send the final part of the Epistles into the next Volume, which, however, had to be done if the third Volume, in which they close the procession, had grown to an excessive size from the multitude of notes. And likewise, in the following Volumes, the same method will have to be applied; it is not fitting also to so increase the Homilies on Matthew, which make up a very large Volume, by a multitude of notes that their final part might be sent into another Volume. We have not said these things for the reason that we wish notes not to be applied where there is need: for in many places we give notes, and sometimes longer ones where the condition of the matter demands it; but so that we might make...
much of them, those who appear to rejoice so in the multitude and length of notes that, without having any discrimination among authors, they desire them everywhere, not noting that a writer who is always engaged in Ethics and speaks with the greatest clarity, such as Chrysostom is, does not require so many notes.
There were also those who wished that I had endowed all the works of St. John Chrysostom with a new translation; to them I certainly owe the greatest thanks, in that they seem to prefer me to so many great men who have converted diverse works of Chrysostom from Greek into Latin, and who have achieved the praise of being the best interpreters. But, with their leave let me say, I would not have acted advisedly if I had removed the interpretations of Gentian Hervet, Fronto Ducaeus, and another Jesuit—who brilliantly translated the book entitled *That no one is harmed except by himself*, but kept his name silent—as well as those of Erasmus and others who flourished with the praise of interpreting well, in order to substitute my own. For to remove a well-crafted interpretation and to substitute another is certainly to do the deed twice over; not to mention the risk that the recently introduced interpretation might please less than the one that was removed. For this reason, it is undoubtedly fitting to retain the ancient arrangement: I remove the old translation when the interpreter has converted it from Greek into Latin paraphrastically and multiplies words in vain, such as Godefroi Tilmann does everywhere; or when he deflects too much from the Greeks, or when he attempts an intricate style of interpreting. But when the interpretations are plain, neat, and do not cling to the Greek with too much scrupulosity, yet always insist upon them as far as the reason of the Latin language allows—which is the mode of interpretation I have always followed—then I ought to retain them, provided they are corrected and translated into another form where they did not agree with the Greek or were crafted with less suitable words. This is also what Fronto Ducaeus did, and what other learned men have done. Once this policy is undertaken, I shall keep it to the end. For although some may think that it should be done otherwise, I know well that many wise men will cast their vote with me.
§ V. — Animadversions on certain places of this third volume of Chrysostom’s works.
Since, as it is commonly said, second thoughts are better, in reviewing certain places of this third volume, we have suspected errors again and again, and it would be worth the effort to enumerate all these places here.
In that homily which is inscribed *On glory in tribulations*, the Greek reading has: Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ πρός τινας ἐν Κορίνθῳ διατρίβοντας, καὶ πρὸς τούτους ἀποτεινόμενος μεγαλοφρονοῦντας ἐφ' ἑαυτοῖς, τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν καταψηφιζομένους, τὸν χαρακτῆρα τῆς Ἐπιστολῆς ἀπογράφων, ἀνάγκην ἔσχεν ἐντεῦθεν τῶν καθ' ἑαυτὸν κατορθωμάτων συνθεῖναι ἡμῖν λόγον. Which Fronto Ducaeus translates (col. 163, line 2): "Therefore, even when he wrote to certain ones tarrying in Corinth, and inveighed against those who felt magnificently about themselves, but condemned others, expressing to us the form of the epistle, he was compelled to depict the image of his own right actions." Here, for *epistolam* (epistle), I suspect *apostolatum* (apostolate) should by all means be read; for what do these things which he shortly appends contribute to describing the form of the epistle: *Are they ministers of Christ? I speak as a fool, I more*? These things certainly pertain to the apostolate, not to the epistle: wherefore if this reading is substituted—which, however, is not permitted without the authority of manuscripts—these words, *Apostolatus formam exprimens* (expressing the form of the apostolate) or *Apostolatus conditionem exprimens* (expressing the condition of the apostolate) must be rendered.
In the homily on that text, *To them that love God all things work together for good*, the Greek reading has: Καὶ οὐκ ἠρέμουν οἱ τῷ κηρύγματι πολεμοῦντες, τοὺς μὲν εἰς δεσμωτήρια ἐμβάλλοντες, τοὺς δὲ εἰς ἀπαγωγάς, τοὺς δὲ εἰς μυρία ἕτερα βάρβαρα καθέλκοντες. Fronto Ducaeus translates (col. 166, line 27): "Nor were the adversaries of the preaching of the Gospel resting, but were casting some into prisons, others they sent into exile, others they were dragging to other precipices." Where the phrase "others they sent into exile" did not seem to one reading and repeating it again to express the mind of the writer correctly: for *ἀπαγωγή*, the frequent use of which word is found in Chrysostom, signifies the abduction of a condemned person either to capital punishment or to some other punishment. Thus Chrysostom in the Psalms (Edit. Morel. p. 212, D, 3), πρὸς τὴν γένναν ἀπαγωγάς, *Abductions to hell*; wherefore that phrase, *τοὺς δὲ εἰς ἀπαγωγάς*, I would prefer to be converted: *others they were abducting to punishment*.
In the third homily on that text, *Having the same Spirit*, it is read in the Greek: Διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο ἀέμνησα ὑμᾶς τῶν καιρῶν ἐκείνων τὰ προσοχθίσματα, ἵνα καὶ ὁ ἐν θλίψει νῦν ὤν, ἱκανὴν ἐκεῖθεν λαμβάνῃ παράκλησιν, καὶ ὁ πολλῆς ἀπολαύων ἀδείας, ἀντὶ τῆς ἀτεχνίας τῶν κινδύνων ἐκείνων πολλὴν εἰσάξῃ προθυμίαν εἰς τὴν τῶν ἀτόπων λογισμῶν μάχην. Sigismund Gelenius translated this thus: "For on this account I reminded you of the calamities of that time, so that now both he who is in affliction might receive suitable consolation therefrom, and he who lives in security, in place of those conflicts, might take up a sharp struggle against absurd thoughts." Certainly the latter part of the period is translated obscurely and does not express the author's mind sufficiently aptly; thus therefore I think it must be translated: "And he who lives in great security, inasmuch as he is not exercised in such dangers, might take up much alacrity to fight against absurd thoughts." See col. 293, line 12 and following, of this volume.
The Homily on Eutropius when he was taken (col. 391) begins thus: Ἡδὺς μὲν λειμὼν καὶ παράδεισος, πολὺ δὲ ἡδύτερον τῶν θείων Γραφῶν ἡ ἀνάγνωσις. "A pleasant meadow, pleasant is a garden, but far more pleasant is the reading of the divine Scriptures." But out of the four manuscript codices which we have used, three have *ἡδὺς μὲν* with the edition of Fronto Ducaeus, but one has *ἡδὺ μέν* with Savile. Truly, although the former reading, which is carried in many manuscripts, may seem to be acceptable in some way, I would nevertheless prefer to read with Savile, and the word *ἡδύτερον* which follows shortly fully persuades that this reading is to be substituted for the other.
ADMONITION TO THE HOMILY ON THE PARABLE OF THE DEBTOR OF TEN THOUSAND TALENTS
Chrysostom provides a clear chronological marker in No. 1 of this discourse when he says: "We have plucked one string throughout the whole of Lent, while we were reciting to you the law about oaths; and by the grace of God, the result has been that, for the most part, mouths have been so disciplined among us in this melody of the law that, having cast off the wicked habit, instead of swearing by God as they did before, they now carry nothing on their tongues in every conversation but 'It is,' and 'It is not,' and 'Believe me,' etc."
Compare this, if you please, with almost all the epilogues of the *Homilies on the Statues*, which we have placed at the beginning of the second volume. There, you will find Chrysostom not only exhorting people to avoid oaths, but also, toward the end of Lent, giving thanks to God that he had not set his hand to correcting this vice in vain or without fruit. These admonitions about avoiding the oath pertain to the Lent of the year 387, as we stated in the *Admonition to the Homilies on the Statues*. From this, it follows that this discourse on the Parable of the Debtor of Ten Thousand Talents was delivered in the same year, 387, after Lent.
Clearly, after he had removed oaths from the scene, this excellent physician took up another malady to treat: namely, hatred of one’s neighbor and a vengeful spirit, or the memory of injuries received. Furthermore, he delivered this homily after he had recovered from an illness; from this we also learn that in the same year he had abstained for some time from his customary duty of preaching for that reason. At what time of the year this occurred, we must now inquire.
We borrow some light for the knowledge of this matter from the *First Sermon on Hannah* (Vol. IV), where, shortly after the beginning, these things are found: "For you have now forgotten that we have in the meantime held many sermons on other subjects. For when our father returned from that long journey, it was necessary to recount everything that had happened in his company, and then to dispute with the Gentiles, so that we might encourage them, as they were brought back to a better state of life by the force of the calamity, and, having deserted the error of the Gentiles, had betaken themselves to us; and to teach them from what darkness they had fled to such a light of truth. After those, we occupied ourselves for many days with the festivals of the martyrs; and it would not have been fitting for us, who were spending time near the tombs of the martyrs, to depart devoid of the praises that are due to the martyrs."
These were followed by an exhortation to abstain from oaths. For when we saw the whole nation of rustics entering the city, we deemed that they should be dismissed having been instructed by us with this provision. In these discourses, which Chrysostom enumerates in order, that *Homily after the return of Flavian* leads the way, which we established was delivered on the holy day of Easter in the *Preface to the fourth Volume* and in the *Admonition to the Sermons on Hannah* (Vol. IV).
Next, Chrysostom held a disputation against the Gentiles; whether in one discourse or more, he does not himself declare. Afterwards, the celebrations of the martyrs followed for many days. And since, through repeated admonitions throughout the whole of Lent, he had led the people of Antioch, accustomed to swearing, away from this base custom, he took up other arguments to treat. But because a great crowd of rustics had arrived in the city, in order to deter them also—who had not been present at the previous discourses—from oaths, he repeated the former argument against oaths and delivered this discourse on the *Dominica Salvatæ* [Sunday of the Saved], which I once thought, with Tillemont, to be the Sunday of the Passion. But now I fully accede to the opinion of Leo Allatius, who says that the *Dominica Salvatæ* is that which precedes the Ascension of the Lord, which will be weighed at greater length in the *Preface to the fourth Volume* and in the *Admonition to the Sermons on Hannah* in the same volume.