Annotations on Chrysostom's Homilies on Matthew

Ibid., line 14, βλέπε καὶ τὸ legit etiam D. Infra, p. [not listed], not. 16, idem codex οὐδέπω habet. P. 381, not. 19. Πάνυ γε. Οὐ γὰρ τὴν εἰρήνην cum Mor. Ben. Καλήν γε τὴν εἰρήνην Sav. Proba est lectio vulgata, modo scribas: Πάνυ γε (οὐ γάρ) τὴν εἰρήνην κ. τ. ἑ. Infra p. 412: Πάνυ γε (οὐ γάρ;) ὡς ἡμεῖς ἴδοῦμεν νῦν. Ita enim, ut mihi ipse consentienti, distinguendus est locus. Ironicum οὐ γάρ; nonne? mediae verborum structurae interjectum, quemadmodum apud optimos Scriptores πῶς γάρ; construitur, aliquid animadversionis postulat. Praeterea loca jam memorata redibit infra p. 792, secundum duorum quidem codicum lectionem: Καλά γε (οὐ γάρ;) τῶν ἱερέων τὰ σκεύη. Nunc alia Chrysostomi loca, ubi eadem formula aut legitur, aut legi debet, recensenda sunt. Tom. XII, p. 148: Πάνυ γε· οὐ γὰρ καλῶς μεριμνῶσιν ἀγωνίσασθαι. Frigide Montef. ita sane: non sunt enim solliciti ut recte certent. Tu lege: Πάνυ γε (οὐ γάρ;) καλῶς μ. ἁ. Tom. VIII, p. 395: Καλά γε τῆς ἑορτῆς τὰ κατορθώματα, φόνοις ἀναμιγνύναι τὴν πανήγυριν. « Alii Οὐ γὰρ τῆς ἑορτῆς τὰ κ. » Montef. quod ex Savilii margine descripsisse videtur. Sed istos, quicumque sint, codices lectionem Καλά γε (οὐ γάρ;) τῆς ἑορτῆς τὰ κ. habuisse, post loca a me allata nemo dubitabit. Utimur exemplum sit tom. I, p. 236, ubi Montef. edidit, Καλήν γε οὐκ ἀποδώσομεν τῇ παρθένῳ τὴν ἀμοιβὴν, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν οὐχ ἔγημεν: Savilius autem rectissime tum ad lectionem, tum ad distinctionem, Καλήν γε (οὐ γάρ;) ἀποδώσομεν κ. τ. ἑ. Proxime ab hoc usu abest locus Luciani Dial. Deor. v, 4, ἡδίω ταῦτα, οὐ γάρ; καὶ παρὰ πολὺ ὁ οἰνοχόος ἐκεῖνος ἐμπρέπει τῷ συμποσίῳ τῶν θεῶν. Ubi ante Hemsterhusium legebatur uno tenore, οὐ γὰρ καὶ παρὰ πολὺ κ. τ. ἑ. P. 382, not. 33. Vocabulum πάντες in suo legit Vetus, perperam tamen vertens: ab omnibus jam diu contempta est. Ergo τὰ Κυνικὰ κ. pro quarto casu habuit. P. 386, not. 61. Cfr. p. 500: Μὴ γάρ μοι τὰ παρακείμενα χρέα ἴδῃς; tom. X, p. 42: Μὴ γάρ μοι τοῦτο εἴπῃς μόνον, ὅτι θυσιαστήριον ᾠκοδόμησε, ubi ait legendum ἴδῃς, aut delendum μόνον videtur. P. 387, not. 68. Lectionem plane singularem καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον ταχέως νίψας venditat E. Scilicet scribae observabatur locus Gen. xliii, 30, καὶ νιψάμενος τὸ πρόσωπον, ἐξελθὼν ἐνεκρατεύσατο. Sed unice vera est vulgata. Tom. I, p. 780, ὅταν λυθῇ τὸ θέατρον, ὅταν ῥιφῇ τὰ προσωπεῖα. Ibid. p. 778, τὰ προσωπεῖα ἐκείνων κρύπτεται (fort. ῥίπτεται).

ῥίπτεται). ^A rightly excerpted; it is this: ἀντίρροπον [counter-balance], and he has introduced redundancy to a far greater degree. P. 594, note 35-36. “Vox suspecta,” says Montef. Unjustly. He wrongly translates τῆς τούτων ἐπιβουλῆς, *insidiarum hujuscemodi*. A matching example is offered by Justin. He cites H. Steph. in *Thes.* as saying τοῦ Διὸς ἐπιβουλή, *Jovis insidiae*. And so, page 437, αἱ ἑτέρων εὐεργεσίαι are *beneficia in alios collata*. P. 595, note 44-45. The construction is mixed from two, it seems to me: καὶ ναοὺς ἂν ᾠκοδόμησαν οἱ πολλοί, or εἰ ἐμοὶ δοκοῦσι καὶ ναοὺς ἂν οἰκοδομῆσαι οἱ πολλοί. That this confusion is to be attributed to the Author himself, or to the librarians, no one doubts. The latter reading is by Commelinus and his imitators; for the other I do not know whence Savilius brought it in, who however did not alter the infinitive πεῖσαι. And I have seen it in no manuscript. Ibid., note 52. Ed. ὅτι ἀπαθές. Others ἀπαθές, or ἐμπαθές. Montef. The word εὐπαθεῖν [to be well-disposed/to have comfort] regarding the body is known to us. Vol. X, p. 501, just as healthy things for the body, even if one is fed on bread alone, are well-disposed and vigorous. Vol. XII, p. 176, as much as makes the body bloom and be well-disposed, but harms the soul. P. 596, note 58-59. The readings of the manuscripts A and B I have not reported accurately. ^B For one, this is the body, but the other reads: *this* is the body. It shows the whole passage thus viciously, for from the persona this time the body is encompassed.

^A P. 409, line 4, note 74, *that is*, "he who is about to descend into Hades." Theophylact: "In order that he might save even those there," as the theologian Gregory says, "as many as were about to believe, if he were incarnate in their days."

P. 410, note 86. The word *ekeino*, "that," which means... ^B to ask this same thing about them; unless someone understands it in this sense, to propose.

Ibid., note 89. *Through His body*...

TO HOMILY XXXVI

TO HOMILY XXXVI

Ibid., note 4. "And you looking" Boisius completes from his own ingenuity, *that you...* with a question: "and then" he supplies *therefore* from what precedes. Savilius. But see note, p. 381.

Ibid., note 5. "And this" Boisius: "and therefore." Perhaps "and this" as well. Savilius. Nothing to be changed. Aristophanes, *Plutus*, 460, "Therefore we are not wronged in this."

AD HOMILIAM XXXVII

Ibid., paragraph 2, line 3. "He adds thereafter the prophet." Monf. translated it, then *the Prophet*. The scribe of Code A understood the passage thus, that one should see *after* the prophet. But the prophet here, if I am not mistaken, is Malachi. Cf. p. 527.

P. 416, note 31. Savilius in the text: *semnoteran* [more dignified] of Christ receiving "their suspicion"; and in the margin: "about him." This is, to be noted according to this shorthand: *Others* for "in their stead," have "about him." The reading which should have been noted over all the codices, that is, in this manner, was: *o. X. "about him"*. I do not know what Monf. meant.

P. 418, note 42. That which he added to the seat of the verb *prosechene*, the edition C, E consent. Then if the reading is sound, if the vulgar [reading] is *pros*, there is the force of the preposition [to be] considered, having regard to the sense, as in John XIII, 28, that no one knew for what *pros* [regarding] him. But if one codex (which I seriously saw) has *pros*, there is no reason to return to convoluted arguments.

Page end, note 54. If *aprosphora* [unsuitable] is true, the pronoun *autou* [of him/his] must be joined not with *aprosphora*, but with *legei* [he says]. This reading, which Niceta also has, the Editors pass over in silence.

P. 424, note 76: The Oxford manuscripts C, D, E also read *archangelon*. After *pau*, they have *exon*, whereas A and D have *otan exi* (sic) F.

AD HOMILY XXXVIII

P. 426, line 2 after note 89: *outo kai touto poiei*, i.e., give thanks. It is one thing to give thanks—which misled them, for they read this place—and another thing to give thanks, as it is vulgarly read; rethink it. Ibid., note 93: Niceta correctly affirms the reading *apekruphas* [you have hidden]. Contra Migne 668, 669, the Editors do so. P. 428, note 10: In the place in the Acts of the Apostles, the sacred critics have rightly determined the reading to be *hyper tou onomatos atimasthenai* [to be dishonored for the name]. Indeed, our text is generally called by the name of Chrysostom without the addition of "Christ," and judgment is uncertain about such things in this place. For example, in our place there are few, but very good quality, subsidies; they omit "Christ." In another place, Vol. IV, p. 208, the same Editions read "of Christ," and a certain Cambridge codex (Coll. Trin. B. 8, 2) has *autou*. P. 429, note 17: The words included are also missing in the Royal [manuscripts] as stated. After *pau*, it reads *kathelkei* also. Ibid., line 4 after note 18: *eipe moi* [tell me] *epiponon* [painful] and the rest. P. 430, note 27: *karterein* [to endure] is the reading of the Compiled Editions and More, and the Savilio: *devehi* Ge. Ibid., note 50: Sav. in the text has *ton auton* [the same] *kai phob.* [and fear]. In the margin, "outo. Unde Montef." And others [have] *ton auton* *kai phob.* Correct: but Sav. wished to write *ton auton* *kai phob.* And so by the words *auton* and *phob.* it is repeated; this is the scripture of all the books. P. 431, line 3 before the end: *hom., epituchomen* [let us attain] *apolausomen* [let us enjoy] *mei* [for me] *onnes*.

AD HOMILY XXXIX

P. 431, line 2 after note 55: *tou sabbatou tou kuriou* [of the Sabbath of the Lord]. The Latin interpreters have rendered it *sabbati Domini*, following the Editor’s mistake. The Editor had the "Curia" [Lord] printed with a capital letter, as he did previously with Sav. Only the Interpreter rendered it "Lord of all," but the Latin *suis sabbati propriis vel principalis* [of its own or principal sabbath]. By the same lapse *ipse Dominus* [the Lord himself] is rendered, but the *ipse arbitrium* [the same judgment] determines the reading. Add p. 648: "For he himself is the Lord of all," where it says *Dominus universi* [Lord of the universe]; more correctly, the Vetus, where it appears the Author is playing on the ambiguity of this word in Latin. "When we pray," saying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord," we say among ourselves, and we ourselves are those whom we ask the Lord to have mercy on. P. 432, note 59: *limo machomenous dinekies* [fighting against hunger continually]. This phrase, which the codices alone affirm, is read: *limo emacheto dinekies, kai ouch algei*. After *pau* follows *peinan* A, Ep.; the others [read] *peinon*. Ibid., note 45: And it adds "etc." This saying of Marcus is read in the narration of 1 Reg. 6. P. 433, note 45: *dokei, kan... estin* codices; *dokei, kai...* the Editions [have]. Perhaps one should write *dokei, ei kai...* estin. The particle *kan* and *ei kai* are not infrequently interchanged, see pp. 217, 225 (and see note 591, 424). Nor does the indicative *an* sometimes take the subjunctive in Noster; as on p. 78, *kan* before this was *rhathumos*. Vol. VI, p. 276, *kan basileus en*.

P. 434, note 59: The reading *archiereon* [of the high priests] is now genuine. For they are priests in the margin, inasmuch as they are distinguished from the Levites. Vol. X, p. 192: And having said "the priests to the Jews, and the Levites, [and] the high priests." Ibid., note 61: *autos de kai ton tou nomou didous kai ton tou sabbatou, outos* D. Then *psyche* [soul] has *etiam* F. Regarding the matter, Christians believe the Sabbath should not be kept, as Chrysostom consistently [holds]. Cf. Vol. II, p. 128: "Why then, he said: for in the one he added the law of the Sabbath, but in the case of murder he did no such thing; because the one command was from those prior," (cf. note p. 227) "nor from those understood by us, but it was a partial and temporary one—that is why it was also destroyed after these things." Religion, however, refers the observation of the day of one week, which has become prevalent in the Church, as much to divine precept as to useful and voluntary piety, as is the custom to add arguments. Cf. Vol. IV, p. 80: "Now from the beginning, God provides for us in an enigmatic teaching, training the day in the cycle of the week to dedicate and set aside everything for spiritual work." P. 455, note 2, 3: *eis ten epaggelian eiselthein* [to enter into the promise]. The Interpreter seems to have read *eis ten epaggelias* [into that of the promise]. Sav. translated it more freely, *in repromissionis temporum*. Cf. Vol. II, p. 250: *Outos eisegage ton laon eis ten epaggelian, hosper ho Iesous eis ton ouranon* [Thus he led the people into the promise, just as Jesus into heaven]. P. 455, line near note 69: *Iephonon* [Jephthah] is in the Editions, *Iephthon* in A, *Iephthoni* in D, *Iephonon* in C.

AD HOMILY XL

P. 437, note 78: The words "of the Master," which are absent from the good subsidies, very likely came from copyists. See infra p. 531, and see from there "the ambition." So the codices; *sed ten ph. tou despotou* [but the ambition of the Master] the Editions. Cf. var. lec. at p. 687. Ibid., note 80: The versions have: *quam mitis sit* [how mild he is], *facile omnibus aperiens* [easily opening to all], Ge, as his gentleness teaches.

P. 459, line 4 after note 95: *ta auta tauta* [the same things] F, *ta autou* [his things] Sav. in the margin. Soon the words *therapeuein ep auton perperam* [to heal them wrongly] the Interpreters; but they recognize *sanare vertit* [he translated to heal]; but the Vetus [has] *cum eis esse* [to be with them], and *eos curare* [to heal them]: where *hace exculpsit* Sav. *met auton* [with them] *kai therapeuein autous* [and to heal them]. But *ep auton* [upon them] signifies nothing more than *coram eis* [before them]. P. 460, line of the end: *erons* must be written in the codices.

P. 454, line 7. The word *houto* [thus] is missing in F, in favor of the versions. Ibid., line 3, after 5. *Kai ou monon ouch edoke* [And not only did he not give it]; here [the commentators] twist Montef. *But in no way did he give it*, namely, the daughter. Yet he gave Michal [his] daughter to another. But I think Chrysostom here does not mean that he gave her, but that he only intended it for that favor, [and] David put her to death. But such subtleties our author does not know. However, the explanation is this: Chrysostom says *ouk edoke* [he did not give], not *edidou* [he was giving, i.e., he wanted to give], nor did he give exactly; for he gave her [to another] soon after; the force of the imperfect verb is also known to beginners. Ibid., note 9. *Oplon* [weapon], which I had written against the will of the codices, was finally suggested to me by the codex of the King, 669. Cf. Flor. p. 280: *Ex men gar ton oplon kai ton stratioton to katorthoma gegonen* [For the success has come from the weapons and from the soldiers]. P. 455, line 11. *Ei de me pepisteumenos* [But if you do not believe]. It agrees with the Regii 666, 668, 673; but since it is against the manifest intent of the author, it should not be accepted. Cf. Tom. XII, p. 200: *Hoste kai hotan pisteutes to legomenoi kata tou adelphou sou* [So that even when you believe what is being said against your brother...].

^A nor should one speak in this way, much less be disbelieving. I would like to know whence this reading comes, which, if it were genuine, would have escaped the notice of the blessed Montfaucon.

Ibid., line 7: *amphisthētaménōn* [disputed] — *amphisthēsimōn* T, *amphisthētaménōn* O.

P. 456, line 2: *skēpsis kai próphasis* [pretext and occasion] — F and E, correct. B had *skēpsis kai profáseis*.

Ibid., note 15: *Sav. hypó parapetásmata* [under the veils]. Morell [followed by Montfaucon] writes *hypó parapetásmatos* [under the veil], or *pone velum*. Judges used to sit behind the veil, which in Latin is called *dēindē zēlon* [or *bēlon* for veil]. See Athanasius, Tom. I, p. 297: *autòs gàr eistḗkei prò toû bḗlou* [for he himself was standing before the veil]; and p. 580: *kai tà bēla tēs ekklēsías* [and the veils of the church] — cf. Valesius on Eusebius, *Vit. Const.*, [III, 45]. In the *Analecta*, Montfaucon [notes] p. 280: *ho kritēs toû bḗlou* [the judge of the veil]. The plural form, which almost all manuscripts support, is the one I use. Further on, p. 571: *Katháper gàr toùs dikastás, hótan dēmosíā krínōsi, tà parapetásmata synelkýsantes hoi parestōtes pâsin autoùs deiknýousin* [For just as judges, when they judge in public, have the bystanders draw aside the veils to show them to all]. Tom. II, p. 250: *hótan tōn parapetasmátōn synelkysthéntōn ídōmen autòn eph' hypseloû toû bḗmatos prokathḗmenon* [when, the veils having been drawn aside, we see him sitting aloft upon the tribunal].

P. 470, γ′, line 14, *kaì sṓzetai en*, without the article, F. P. 471, note 95. *Edebatur, ὡς περì ἀμπέλου.* “Some manuscripts,” says Montef., “read *tou dḗmou*, but incorrectly.” In the margin: “This original reading is the correction, which the manuscripts without hesitation repeat, as *perì ampélou* would be *perì toû dḗmou*.” Which means: to speak about the vine is to speak about the people. This interpretation of the structure is supported by Dorvill. on Charit. I, 15, p. 283. Ed. Lips. He has gathered this from the most diligent G. H. Schaefer in *Ad Julian*. Pref. p. xix, which can be almost infinitely expanded from the other writings of Chrysostom. From the many passages for which *dē* is added, one seems particularly noteworthy: “*hōsper gàr hypó tinos daímonos tēs orgēs taútēs kaì tēs baskanias ekbakcheutheis*,” that is, *ekbakcheutheis hypó tēs d. t. k. t. b.*: “As if goaded by some envious demon.” But “*all’ hōs perì oikeíou toû allotríou boulomenos prágmatos*”; and in the editions, the secondary order is read, “*all’ hōs perì oikeíou b.*” t. p.; p. 402, *periérgeia hōs perì en allodapē tē kakia diatribōn*, that is, *diatribōn en tē kakia kathaper en (gē)*; p. 781, *hōsper eís tina antlian tō gēras elthontes*, where the editor himself edits: *eis tēn antlian*. For in syntax the noun, which the preposition precedes, is always *arthron* (the article). See *De Sacerdot*. lib. v, init., *ouk ethelousin pròs toùs didaskálóus diakésthai* [They do not wish to be disposed toward the teachers], to which place the recent editor, Em. Leo, testifies: “The context itself demands that we read *diakésthai pròs toùs légontas*.” Indeed, by no means does it demand this, but as we shall soon see, it suffers it. Tom. II, p. 212, *ân de hōsper eís chōnétrion tou theoû tòn phóbon heautēn embálē*, where the inferior reading of Savilius is *eis t`. eis tou t. ph.* Tom. X, p. 157, *hōsper en ýdati ēsán kai drósō*. Thus the editions; but both hands grasp the reading of the two Regiae manuscripts from the latest editor, the inspector: *hōsper en ýdati ēsán tē drósō*. Similarly in the passage of Plutarch II, p. 175, *exēge dè pollákis toùs Syrakousíous hōs epì strateían kaì phuteian*, Wyttenbach has most truly corrected this to *hōs epì strateían tēn phuteían*. From the passages cited, in such construction before the noun with a comparative, the preposition ought to be absent. However, common usage does not entirely reject the repetition of the preposition, as the editor Schaefer will demonstrate in Greg. Cor. 594 and Stallbaum in Plat. Phædon, p. 67. Similar passages will establish the common reading, as in p. 318, *kathaper gàr eís káminón tina eís tò théatron tēn pólin embálōn*. Tom. II, p. 236, *kathaper en desmōtēríē katakleís eís autòn en tē kibōtō*, where the Cambridge codices confirm the common reading. Justin, M. Apol. I, near the beginning, *kaì mē ōs kat' echthrōn tōn mēdèn adikoúntōn thánaton horízete*. But these do not defend the reading of our author in Tom. IX, p. 528, where Montef. gives: *Ōs epì stéfanoús toínun megístous tréchōmen eís toùs hypèr autoû kündúnous*, noting in the margin: “*Sic Mss. In Editis eis deest.*” The *eis* is absent in Reg. 731, the editor himself testifying in note 2, and it is entirely to be expunged. For the rest, the learned men who have labored over this syntax did not inform us that both prepositions were required, as the regimen of the verb demands they should be.

CONCERNING HOMILIA XLIV

[GREEK COLUMN]

[Actually, truthfulness is ostensibly maintained in the sense that they exclude those who conspired, C, D, E, G, Regg. 673, 688, Barocc. 189, Arm. Com. Mor. Correctly, I am not mistaken; for here the discourse is only about doctrine, not about the subjects themselves. Savilius tacitly introduced these things, whom Montfaucon followed.]

P. 477 (col. 473, line 5-4), *stopping their ears*. I offer a correction to Euthymius ad loc.: "And hearing with bodily ears the words from me, they close those of the soul." Read from Barocc. 28, as I have seen: *they close those of the soul*.

Ibid., not. 55, *and* omitted D. Then *again he confirms them* with the order changed C, E, G. P. 478 (col. 474, lines 15-16). *He is your brother*, namely Christ. Montfaucon introduces this by way of an interrogative, wrongly translating: *Is he your brother, and does he even share your lot?*

P. 479 (col. 476), not. 60. The Vulgate reading *not the eagerness... we demonstrate* is held by D, as far as can be conjectured from the traces of the letters. It is certainly read this way in the royal manuscripts. The subjunctive *we demonstrate* can be added from the examples mentioned in the annotation on p. 498.

[AD HOMILIAM XLVI.]

P. 481 (col. 476, lines 7 from the bottom), *but by means of the choice* the Benedictine editor tacitly made an innovation, 2nd ed. P. 481 (col. 477, line 6). *And giving a share of his word to them*. The passage is obscure and corrupted; it seems certain that it signifies when those who are in favor and high estimation are present, as even Trapezuntius himself held, and who are aided by some favor of the multitude. Montfaucon here translates it, *and they have obtained some estimation*. Wrongly; for *to give a share of the way of speaking*. Above p. 6, *and for neither did they give an account of their words to them, nor did they share the word* is Lucian, Phal. pr. 6, *having sent those responsible, and not sharing the word with them*. Similarly, one is said to be guilty of *having obtained a word* or even *having shared*. However, it is certain that this expression *sharing the word* is placed in a different sense. Tom. IV, p. 450, *and he answers, and he does not share the word, nor does he pity the woman.* Tom. VI, p. 277, *do not share the word (do not share it), nor receive them into the house.*

P. 482 (col. 82, not. 86). The codices *that which has stood* are not in the existing edit. Tom. IX, p. 510, *for what has stood* Ed.; but *and* is omitted in Reg. 731. It can be read *if it has stood*. It is read *if they should stand*. Legitur [It is read], *if these do not fear, where those who are, that is, the reapers* Ep. servi Ge. The pronoun seems to me rather to refer to the *wheat*, i.e., the just.

[AD HOMILIAM XLVII.]

P. 487 (col. 481), not. 20. *and being afraid*. There seems to be a missing *were*, or the participle *being afraid* is placed for the verb *they were afraid*. Sav. Cf. var. lect. *And* against the Epitome. The editor puts *they were afraid*. But it has nothing, and is rightly offensive, the participle. Ibid., not. 22. *For by no means did he say the same thing* Vetus: *for he did not say the same thing: since it is necessary to know the explanation, because they desired*. Boisius supplies the *of this* for *the resolution* from elsewhere. I doubt not that the expression is corrupted, so that it is to be replaced by something, but I do not see what I could supply. But since there is no remedy either in the versions or in the codices, which in this respect are fewer, that it be fixed, let the reader see, whether it is better to leave the whole passage as I have left it: *as those who have left behind the clearer ones; this one, as having a relationship to the aforementioned, and more representing that one (for not even for a second time would he say the same thing) they desire to learn: and as they saw, etc.* P. 487 (col. 482), not. 23. *Although he can fulfill the things mentioned* (Plat. Symp. p. 188, but *if something is missing, or work, or Aristophanes, to fulfill*), I, however, insisting on the traces of the codices, would prefer to read *to fulfill*. Above p. 398, *nor is he vexed by these, but even having unfolded the kind of war*. P. 489 (col. 483, β', line 22). *hidden in the field*. The textus receptus is *in the field*. It has *in some codices, especially the seventh* compared with Matthew, the article is missing. It is also missing in Chrysostom, as Bengel holds. *Middleton on the Greek Article, p. 162, 3rd ed.* I take the occasion to note the perverse habit of Matthew, which led many into error, namely that without distinction, as they did not distinguish between Chrysostom codices N, F. I am invited to investigate. But the note which Middleton uses for fraud, is this: *the* at chap. 1, verse 2, page 6. verse 2. *By which numbers, seventeen are the copies; of which however, verse 9. p. 6. verse 2, they are Chrysostom's, not the Evangelist's codices. Fritzsche on Matthew XIV, 17: Six codices according to Matthew. The *with* are excluded; for the Chrysostom ones are the same six codices as Matthew's, they are the same Critic on Matthew XXII, 10, and on Mark VII, 19. Ibid., post 15 lines. *with* All mine see, codices G, H, K, L, Reg. 688 and Ep. Edd. *with*. Paul with the same codices twice has *with* and so the Eds. except Sav. who once has *with*. Again, p. 580 once has *with*, for *with* have all codices; unless *with* is in M, in L once *with* is read. And this rule of the codices I saw consistently maintained, that *with* is used in the nominative, but in the genitive *with* is written. What distinction in this respect of scholarship Lobeck can easily be considered to have invented in [ad Phryn. p. 288]. P. 490 (col. 484, line 8 from the bottom), *new and old*.

poverty: but Booz, seeing her, neither despised her for her poverty nor shrunk from her for the impiety of her nation: just as Christ also, in taking to Himself the Church, both an alien and suffering from a great lack of good works, joined her to His own fellowship. But just as that woman, Ruth, from among the aliens, would never surely have been ennobled by such a marriage had she not first left her parents, had she not disregarded her home and nation and country and kinsfolk: so the Church also does not become lovable to the Bridegroom before she abandons her former way of life. Concerning which the prophet also, speaking to her, says: *Forget thy people and thy father's house, and the king shall desire thy beauty (Ps. XLIV, 12, 13).* This Ruth is also read to have done, and for that reason, in the likeness of the Church, she became the mother of kings. For from her lineage, others were kings of David, who sprang from the same family. By all these things, then, putting them to shame and persuading them not to be high-minded, He both wove the catalog of the generations and brought these women into the midst. For that great king David, indeed, that alien woman brought forth through her descendants: yet he did not blush at the ignobility of such a mother. For it is not at all, it is not by the virtue or the vice of parents that anyone is worthy of praise or blame: no one is truly either obscure or famous because of that: nay, that we may say what seems incredible, I know not how he shines forth all the more who, from parents altogether alien to virtue, has himself been marvelous in virtue. Let no one, therefore, be lifted up in pride because of the glory of parents, but considering the progenitors of the Lord, let him repress every swelling of the mind and glory only in his virtues, nay, not even in these themselves. For thus also the Pharisee became worse than the publican. But if you wish to show something of virtue sublimely, do not think high-minded things; and then you will show that which you have done to be the more exalted. Do not think you have done anything when you have done it: thus the work will be most absolute. For if even when we are sinners, by judging ourselves to be what we are, we are justified, as the publican was: how much more, when we have been righteous, should we think ourselves to be sinners? Since humility makes righteous men even out of sinners: although that is not humility, but true confession. If, therefore, confession avails so much in a sinner, consider how much humility can avail in a righteous man. Do not, therefore, yourself corrupt the fruits of your labors; do not pour out your sweats in vain; do not direct your course into the void, lest after a thousand circuits you lose the reward of your labor. For your Lord knows, and indeed far better than you, the merits of your virtues: even if you have given a cup of cold water, He will not leave even this unrewarded. If you give one coin, or if even, when you can give nothing at all, you groan: He will receive all with great generosity and will prepare a large reward for these things. But for what reason do you judge your own affairs and strive to thrust them upon us frequently? Are you ignorant that if you praise yourself, you will not at all be praised by God? So on the other hand, if you yourself mourn as though miserable, He will never cease proclaiming you before all. For He does not wish the fruits of your labors to perish; nay, He does everything for your own advantage, and hastens to increase your store, that He may crown you even for small things, seeking from every side occasions through which He can free you from the punishment of hell.

5. And for this reason, even if you work at the eleventh hour of the day, He is nevertheless about to give you the full reward. Even if, He says, there were no occasion for your salvation, I will do it for my own sake, lest my name be polluted (Ezech. XXXVI, 22, 32). And if you only groan and shed tears, He snatches these straightway for the occasion of your salvation. Let us not, therefore, swell with pride, but let us call ourselves useless, that we may pass into the portion of the useful. For if you say that you ought to be praised, you have become reprobate, even if you were previously praiseworthy. But if you confess yourself to be useless, you have become useful, even if you were previously culpable: on account of which the forgetting of past virtues is necessary for us. And how, you say, can we be ignorant of what we know? What do you say, when you offend the Lord daily, you nevertheless take pleasure and laugh, and among great sins you do not even know that you have sinned, consigning all to oblivion: yet you are not able to rightly cast away the memory of things done well? And certainly when the part of fear is much stronger, we, on the contrary, offending the Lord daily, do not even call to memory the sins that we have committed; but if we offer some small alms to a needy person, we cast it up and down: which is of extreme madness altogether, and a great detriment to him who ought to gather up spiritual things. For the treasury of things rightly done is surely safe, namely, the very forgetting of things rightly done. Because just as when we place gold and precious clothing in public, we provoke many to traps: if, however, we store and hide them at home, we shall keep everything in safety: so also the riches of virtues, if we carry them about constantly in our memory as if they were for sale, we irritate the Lord, we arm the enemy, and we invite theft. But if no other person knows that, save He whom no hidden things can escape, the precious things will remain in a most safe place. By no means, therefore, fan these kinds of goods frequently, lest by chance someone plunder them. Which also the Pharisee suffered, carrying them about on that tongue of his: whence the devil snatched them: although certainly he was remembering them with a certain giving of thanks, and was referring all things to the Lord. But not even this, in truth, is enough for him. For it is not the act of giving thanks to upbraid others with their faults, to seek glory for himself from many, and to rise up boastfully over those who have sinned. But if you give thanks to God, let it be enough for you yourself alone, and do not wish to bring them to the notice of men, nor to judge your neighbor. For that is not an act of giving thanks. But do you wish to know how true thanks are rendered to God? Hear the three youths speaking in the midst of the fire: *We have sinned, we have done wickedly: just art Thou, O Lord, in all things that Thou hast done to us, because Thou hast brought all things upon us in true judgment (Dan. III, 29, 27, 31).* For this is to render thanks to God, to confess one's own sins to Him, so that when someone admits himself guilty of a thousand evils, he nevertheless does not think himself to be bearing punishments great enough for them. Let us beware, therefore, of saying glorious things about ourselves: for this makes us both hateful to men and

^A because they grant favors to the crowds, and they excite laughter with slaps on the cheek and with noises. Now let us return to the domestic theater, where the master of the house is said to imitate those on the stage; for what did it profit the head to be struck, unless he was seeking blows and insults from his own associates, just as this parasite plays the part of the buffoons, and stands ready to endure and suffer everything? Juvenal addresses him thus, Sat. v. 170: ‘If you can, and you must. With head shaved bare stand ready To be struck, and fear not the hard blows, To endure the lash, with his feasts and such a friend.’ To this pertains the passage of Suidas: ‘A parasite is a flatterer, a table-licker, a table-companion,’ poorly ^B corrected by Toup (vol. ii, p. 23) in his solicitation. For *kossos* signifies a slap, or ‘to be slapped’ (*kossizesthai: colaphis peti*), as in the passage of Palladas in the Epistolary Letters, page 181, which was cited—whom he ordered to be shaved, and to be slapped most vigorously by little boys. P. 503 (col. 496), note 73. It was printed as ‘serving all these,’ and in the margin ‘those’ instead of ‘all these,’ which words are exchanged quite often. See Jacobs, Ind. ad Anth. Pal. ‘to all these’ — what is meant by ‘to those who feed him,’ says Boisius? Much more fully and more correctly, if you agree. See the ‘to all these’ beyond my own [collection] in the Kings’ [codices] 688, 689, 690, 691, 697. This being accepted, and these things being changed into the same, the most appropriate meaning is drawn forth, just as the Ancient has expressed it with dignity: ‘that they were easily betrayed by the lusts of such baseness.’ [The phrase] ‘use of such baseness’ is employed by Libanius, vol. i, p. 213, and ‘he did these things, with money being present from the service of which I spoke.’

TO HOMILY XLIX

P. 504 (ead. col.), note 79, ‘and his’ from the first edition, but that second one has ‘of his’ in his corrections. ^C P. 505 (col. 497), line 6 before the end. It is thus in the editions of the Church and the Moral [works]: ‘it is acceptable: for Jesus says to them; but what? there is no need.’ The reversed order, which however the Interpreters, and Savilius do not follow, [is corrected]. P. 507 (col. 499), note 10. ‘Others with their own hands works,’ Montef. [remarks]: ‘But the accurate [version] holds: for the hands,’ others omit the ‘own.’ See various readings. It was the intention of the Interpreter to say ‘he sought to occupy himself with the work’; as if he had read thus: ‘distributing, the works of, etc.’ Armen. omit ‘of’ entirely. Ibid., note 12. ‘And he commands’—thus in the Armenian Epistles. Others do not accept the particle. According to the common text, ‘a mat of grass [or straw],’ *torus gramineus*. Below, 655, and ‘a mat of grass.’ Furthermore on 684, 685, where a mat of this kind is attributed to monks reclining. Tom. X, page 94, although he often goes hence, neither the house, nor for the wife, nor for the bed, nor a mat of grass. Yet it must not be denied that the same word can mean a dining couch, so that it might not absurdly be said to recline on a mat [on the floor], ^D instead of on the grass. Tom. 1, p. 784: ‘How many masters on mats,’ it says, ‘reclining, while the servants stand around.’ Add to this, vol. III, p. 453. Basilius, in the Greek of Naz. p. 229 Ed. Hervag. (cited in Bast., Pref. to Greg. Cor. p. lviii): ‘And he calls this couch a mat,’ as in the first of the Invectives. ‘On a high and lofty mat,’ he says, ‘reclining.’ It was necessary therefore for the teacher to advise not to use high mats upon one another for the sake of luxury to the belly in this way. P. 508 (col. 500), line 4 after note 25. ‘philosophy’ — ‘an unphilosophical and unloving [quality],’ Montef. This is my own, which differs from the others, and indeed from the Interpreters. Ibid., note 27. ‘For even money is said to be this. This opinion is very much in our favor. See vol. III, p. 52; tom. XI, pp. 279, 608. Teles in Stob. p. 523, 6: ‘But the ancients used to say that of the goods of men, which is not money, those whom they own—for they do not only not possess them for themselves, nor distribute them to others, but [they are] also wasting them.’ P. 509 (col. 501), lines 8-9 post note 58, ‘the life, our own,’ Boisius prefers ‘to sustain.’ Sav. ‘badly.’ Cf. ad p. 223. Ibid., post 4 lines. ‘For indeed the base [artisan],’ *usus trito banausos*, is unlearned and base artisan: here, however, it signifies that which is prepared for all luxury and comfort. Montef. ‘The Greeks characterize base [arts] as those of mechanics and sedentary [workers].’ Aristot. Eudem. 1, 4, I say that the vulgar [are those] which pursue [their arts] only for reputation, but the base are the mercenary and retail trades. Contrary to the singular inclination of the word, ‘base arts’ are those which contribute to the mere adornment of life. Chrysost. tom. XI, p. 284: ‘He made [the] arts, so that life might be sustained, not that one might separate himself from spiritual things, and attend not to base arts, but to necessary ones.’ Where the Interpreters rightly thought of sordid and illiberal arts. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1, 4: ‘For the base arts, [as they are] called, which provide beyond [necessity] for the senses, the enjoyment of excess—hearing indeed is [for] those commonly called musicians, touch is [involved in] plastic [art], voice is musical, smell is perfumery, sight is [involved in] the impressions of engravers.’ Which passages Suicer cited in his Thesaurus, s. v., but he wandered far afield in explaining them. Furthermore he noted,

^A p. 512 (col. 504, lin. 4), *nothing beyond this* might happen; this is a trivial excuse for sins. See above, pp. 814, 815. Tom. IX, p. 554: ‘For he who has learned to say of each individual sin, *Nothing beyond this*, will little by little destroy everything. This, indeed, introduced wickedness; this opened the doors to the thief; this tore down the walls of the city—to say of each thing, *Nothing beyond this*.’ Plutarch, in libro, *How one might perceive his own progress in virtue*, Opp. II, p. 85, thus in matters regarding virtue, he who does not concede much to himself, [saying,] ‘For what is [the harm] beyond this?’ and, ‘Now it is thus, but again it will be better,’ but paying attention to each thing, even if vice should ever creep into the smallest of sins and provide an excuse, [he is] indignant and vexed. ^B Ubi formulam nostram ver- fet? *Nullum ex hac re fructum percipiam: haec res sive adsit, sive absit, tantumdem erit.* Sed semper, ni fallor, in malam partem dicitur. Cf. Casaub. ad Pers. Sat. v, 67, qui vertit, *Quid tum postea?*

Ibid., not. 75, *rather better [than] forms.* But Boisius prefers *of money*. Sav. [says] the same in several manuscripts and in Arm. [edition], but it is not necessary to change it. Tom. IX, p. 659, *not the form of virtue, but a certain true mode having a natural [character]* not needing external applications and forms, which both appear and perish at once. Ex. min. 2 post not. 76 *most* interpungunt Edd.

P. 513 (ead. col.), not. 79, *of all* ] Thus H, K, L. Edd. silently [omit] *of all*.

—

TO HOMILY L.

Savilius in his notes took a few readings from this Homily from a copy recently brought from the East; these are almost all that have been brought back. P. 517 (col. 507), not. 98. *All manuscripts* have *God regenerates*, and thus it must be read. Morel. and Sav. [have] *God generates*. Montef. Has recalled the old reading after making an interpretation. See lec. on pp. 711, 787.

P. 517 (col. 508, lin. 17). The whole passage should be read in the Eds. thus: *To the Jews, ^C God entrusted the memorial of his benefits as the feast year by year.* Others, *To the Jews, the feasts year by year [as] memorials.* Montef. Therefore, in the locution *to the Jews he entrusted the feasts*, indeed, *as the feast is instituted*, there is nothing that sticks here. In the Georgian version, *And the Jews indeed yearly as memorials of his benefits*, which is the same as the text, is hardly clear. ^D Learned Boisius thinks it can probably be read *entrusted*, or *was ordained*. The Oriental copy reads *entrusted the feasts* [and as Baroce. 189]. Sav. Hesychius indeed [reads] *entrusted for the sake of completion*, a note or interpretation of the Holy Scripture, for they are said to be precepts and rites as if they were burdens to be carried and bound. But this, I think, does not seem possible, since the standard reading cannot be excused. Therefore, another confirmed by good manuscripts [reads] *entrusted the feasts* without any doubt. I now see, however, that the locution is established by the work itself. For below, p. 785, he says, *as unto the Jews, so also here...*

^A ...worthiness of reproof. Savile: As one ought to abide by the ancient Versions, both in reading and in interpretation. P. 521 (col. 511, line 24), τὸν νόμον, the law itself. Gen.: *the law of the elders*. Ep.: *such a tradition* Euth. P. 522 (col. 512, line 28). If *sanum* is used, it should be noted that πρὸς refers to a gift. The old codex, p. 352, reads πρὸς, that is, the gift. For thus the ancients used it, and later it was applied to the division of the dowry. Ibid., not. 59. *Ediebatur* instead of *grammaton*, without notation: although the Vetus translates, *rebus ipsis*, and codex L, from which Montfaucon took many readings, has *pragmaton*. P. 523. Ex Scripturis translates *quod vereor* instead of *apo ton graphon* absolutely requires. Nor let anyone object to me the passage from the Lord, page 706. *mere* instead of *ekeinous tous apelthontas*, and *en tois grammatis* being established, I know that it was correctly understood by the Vetus. The Apostle agrees with me, saying *ta hiera grammata*. The confusion of these words is most trivial. See the Index of Greg. Cor. Ed. Schaef. Above p. 9, *pragmaton* I gave with Savile and many codices: for the vulgar *grammaton*. Cf. var. lect. ad p. 621. Montf. Bibl. Coislin., p. 130: *For this new* *engraptei biblion, tois exousi pragma myriou pothou*. Thus I read: but in mine of the same codex *apo grapho gramma* I read. P. 523 (ead. col.), not. 65. The reading *tote enomothesen*, even if it were to be proved, ought not to be rejected by the Editors *a priori* at all. But *nomothesia* concerning the mountain discourse (as it is called) must be understood. See above p. 210. P. 523 (col. 513, line 8), πρότερον αὐτὸ μεταχει- [text continues below...]

Matth. xv. 17, 18. Do you not understand that everything from outside that enters into a man, cannot defile him; because it does not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

But those things which proceed from the mouth, proceed from the heart, and those things defile the man.

Marc. vii. 18-20. Do you not understand that everything from outside that enters into a man, cannot defile him; because it does not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the draught; purging all foods. He said, that which proceeds out of a man, that defiles the man.

^B Ubi post interpolatam suam animadversionem, Marcus ad verba Domini redit, hac formula, "El- ... ^C ... ^D ... [remainder of page, including annotations on pp. 869-870, follows the scholarly format provided in the instructions.]

ANNOTATIONS ON HOMILY LII.

P. 529 (col. 519, line 2), to pursue the one approaching, ^A *Aptius huic loco feugein, quod contrarium est tõi diokein. Certe diokein, ut ex proxime sequentibus apparet, stare hoc loco non potest.* Boisio by conjecture proposes *apodiokein*. Savile, in the margin, proposes *diothen*, for *diōkō*—to repeat; the old version, however, with common consent, supports *diokein*, which the author uses (not *diōthein*). But *diokein* and *diōkein*, as shown by the following *dias-*, clearly have cognate meanings. Vol. VI, p. 182: "For since he pursued those profaning the temple," Vol. XI, p. 609: "for this absurdity is worse than pursuing, namely to drive out animals with great latitude; where it means to drive men." See Flor. p. 169. Thom. M. p. 895, *diōkō* is to accuse, and to seek, and to drive away. But our author is rightly to be censured for having placed this word between two lines so contrary [to his meaning]. *Nam diokein tous pheugontas est fugie.. tes amice prosequi.* Cf. annot. p. 295.

P. 531 (col. 520, § 1, line 12), *anaischunteste kalen anaischuntian.* "In one codex *kalen anaischuntian*." Montef. Writes codex H, first *anaischunten* having omitted the words inserted afterward, then changed to *anaischunte*, whence Montef's reading is noted. But the codex is not from the number of those which he said were the treatises.

Ibid., note 34, *tauten*... *ei* (if one?). Cf. vol. X, p. 467, *kai tauten de malista he euodia phainetai*, and (if Reg. 741 et marg. Sav.) *oi diephtharmenoi kai poneroi apalluntai*.

P. 532 (col. 521 med.), "But not [thus]" *all ouk [houtos] aute* Sav. Mor. and without brackets Ben. See annot. p. 512.

Ibid., line 4 before the end. "The phrase is not simply words," as the Author himself testifies, cf. vol. X, p. 58, "nor is this simply so." Vol. XII, p. 307, shows that it is not simply so, but it was a type.

P. 533 (ead. col., line ult.), "so that the crowds wondered, the blind seeing, the deaf speaking, the lame whole [and] the lame walking [and] the blind cleansed, and they glorified God." Vol. I. Com. Mor. which the brackets follow and Montef. notes: "This little variety in the words is observed only in Savile, where *lepros katharthentas* is wanting. Which is accurately observed, so the reader may judge: for the reading of Savile is not the text. For the reading at T, the received one B, roc 189, and Mosq. p, eta. The remaining codices can be conveniently matched to ours."

The blind see, the deaf speak, the lame of limb, the crippled, and the blind see. K.

The blind see, the deaf speak, the lame of limb, the crippled, and the blind see. G.

The blind see, the deaf speak, the lame of limb, and the blind... and the blind see. L.

The blind see, the deaf speak, the lame of limb, and the blind see. MN.

The other codex H and Mosq 2, 9, with Ed. Com. agree, which do not have the words *idein* and *kai* (before *cholous*). The last Armenian interpreter translated: "The blind see, the deaf speak, the lame walk." In such a turmoil of books, it would be extreme rashness to take as certain what the Author provided. Matthew, however, in the praised Mosquensis reading, which differs from all the others, so that the crowd marveled, seeing the blind, adds: "This true reading of Chrysostom seems [to be meant], I say, not the Evangelist." But soon: "I marvel, however, why Chrysostom in his interpretation [of the passage] transposed [the order] of 'blind' [namely in the words 'those who do not need attendants']. But of such common words he usually makes smoke. He could better have transposed the 'deaf' with the 'lame'." This smoke itself the learned man makes, hastening a bit, and not being a sufficient estimator of Chrysostom. For the noun 'lame' is properly called blind, or by hands, as is known. Cf. annot. p. 712.

P. 534 (col. 523), note 55, *dei opus est*; but p. *deitai eget*, *se* alms. They interpreted badly. Soon there is read *kan dos mazan artou*, which I fear the language suffers. For another is *maza*, another *artos*, and that one is baser. Vol. X, p. 375, "and not sharing *mazes* to the hungry."

P. 535 (ead. col.), note 57, the immortal. Vol. XI, p. 631, on the monks: "They die, but not themselves, for they are not immortal in body. But they do not know death the immortal." The last one translated [by] Montef: "not death for death." Coldly. "One must read, but not of the death of the body." Donatus. Chrysostom wrote, "but they do not know the death, the immortal."

P. 536 (col. 524), note 63. Note should be the reading of the Eds. Com. and *suggenes* [and] *prosekontas*. Thus, and without brackets, Ben. "In no codex it is read." The Armenian matches codices H, and *suggeneis* the *prosekontas*, which is perhaps better.

ANNOTATIONS ON HOMILY LIII.

P. 537 (col. 525), line 2 after note 76, *nesteis* G, K, M, *nestis* H, *nestis* L, with the three Mosquenses. And so.

P. 538 (col. 526), note 86. *Here the variety is great.* Some manuscripts have *dia tou neumatos* [by an impulse] the baskets. Others *dia tou einai* [by the being] the baskets [of the] same number. Others *dia tou dianeimai* [by the distributing] the baskets. Morel. [after Com.] *dia tou einai* the baskets. Savile, *dia tou emapomenai* [remaining] the baskets. The last one seems to follow Montef. And so Montef admits to being vexed, in that he followed his own codices, having been printed [by] Savile. This one, however, is absurd, that which is found in the print, *emapomenai* he gave, from the authors not moving the word at all. Montef translated and perhaps, if I am not mistaken, it has the dative *komiten*. Therefore, at that time, and at the sense, and at the authority, one must see if this reading is [correct]. Now we must look at the codices. Among these *neimai* and *daneimai* are divided, so that many, namely G, K, L, for *neimai* they hold. To this is added the Epitomator, whose words are, *kai dia tou neimai kai dia tou bastasai tous kophinous*. Lastly, *alter horum* the old one and the Armenian, in how these are distributed. To say nothing more, in the codex of the Epitomator, that *emapomenai* is read in the margin, only as a gloss, and the word *upoleleimmenon* [left over], above (line 2-3 post not. 81).

P. 539, line 22-23. Eds. *diegeirein*. "Assentior Boisio reponenti *diegeirei*; vel explendum *touto poiei*, ut habeat *diegeirein* verbum aliquod, quo *sustentetur*." Savile has no remark.

Montfaucon, although he could have restored *diegeirein* from one certain manuscript, did so finally from the Regent codex, as the most recent editor.

P. 540, line 20 before p. 541, *hypokritas heteroi*: namely, in ch. 22, and others. For in this place, ch. 16, Chrysostom does not have *hypokritai*; the *N* and *F* codices, which agree with him, do not have it.

Ibid., after six lines. The words *ē ton* from the preceding word *echoun* seem to have been absorbed. Euthymius: *ē peri ton helion*. He gave a warning about this reading, which the codex contains. I compared it.

Ibid., 3 lines before p. 541, *en galēnē eudinē*. He expressed Plato’s, *Leg.* XI, p. 919, *galēnēn paraschein*. From the noun *eudia*, an adjective of multiple forms was derived, especially by more recent authors. E.g., in the writings of Chrysostom, the same formula is found: *eudios*, *eudeinos*, *eudinos*. *Etym. M.* gives another form, *eudeinos*, which is held to be a corrupt script for *eudinos*. But let me speak about the others. There is no controversy about the two former; p. 376, accepted into clientage, has no authority from the grammarians among the books. The latter, *eudeinos*, Toup damns; but Suidas and the lexicographers clearly acknowledge *eudeinos*. Suidas: *eudeinos, kai kairos kai anemoi, kai eudinos homoios*. Hesychius: *eudina, praea, katestalmēmena*. The form *eudios*, *eudeinos*, *eudinos* in such cases are frequently interchanged by copyists. See our Tom. I, p. 420; Vol. V, p. 264. In Eusebius, *H. E.* IX, 7, the codices fluctuate between *eudinotatēs* and *eudeinotatēs* and *eudeinotatēs*, the first of which the recent Oxford editor has accepted, so that it might be proven. For *eudinos*, if it is legitimate, it is necessary to shorten the penultimate syllable.

P. 541, line 11, after note 92, *didaskalias*; *Saphōs bouletai*: Eds. I changed the punctuation with codices *K*, *L*, and *Ge*.

P. 542, note 23. The particle *alla*, in my opinion, is better omitted from this sentence. The reading is the same as the *Vetus*. It was slightly harsher. Others add *alla*, another [Origen] by changing it to *prosechete de*.

Ibid., note 26. I do not see how the *Vetus* perceives the sense. Here, the editors of the notes have no comment; but in adorning the translation, they took no account of the reason for this word of Montfaucon.

P. 544, *e*, line 5. That *scripturam ganytai*, which is approved by learned men, is one. Cf. note, p. 592.

Ibid., after three lines. I corrected the order of these words according to the reading of codices *K*, *L*, *M*, and the interpreters: *emalakisthe, ou doxes, ou basileias, ou trapezēs polytelous emnēmoneusen*, note [delta].

P. 545, line 1, note 49. The reading, which I gave, is of the edition; but because I did not warn the reader, the syntax was refined more conveniently, i.e., *doryphorian hē apelause, kai therapeian pollēn*. Had I followed the *Vetus* without notation, as Commelinus often does, unless it was *doryphorian* given for *doryphoriais*. In the old script, it was *ē* (which was born from attraction to the nominative, the other, the accusative *therapeian*, seduced into its society).

Ibid., note 54, *tōn paragenomenōn*. [Eds. | Boisio suspected that *tote paragenomenous* should be read. | Savile. Examination of which is the construction with the genitive, understand *ek*.]

ON HOMILY LIV

Corrections from his fragment in the Imperial Library of Vienna were brought to this Homily. | Savile.

P. 546, line 9, after note 57. The *prosēsan* in all Eds. is faulty; it is printed without suspicion. Shortly (after 13 lines), one *L* has *peplasmēnē* for *peplanēmenē*.

P. 547, *b*, lines 18-19. Eds. *autous eisagōn homologēsai*, without note. When *II* seems to be doing so, the *Vetus* induces the students.

P. 548, lines 9-10. For the words of the Gospel, *kai dōsō soi*, Matthew brought forth from one Muscovite [codex] in all Eds. without suspicion, and the rest *all' egō soi dōsō*. Namely, the eye of the one looking falls into another place. Ibid. (after five lines). It was *hēdeōs an erōmēn*. Boisio and the Interpreter, *hēdeōs ouk an*. | Savile. Shortly (ibid., after 5 lines), *espeire* sense requires, and the interpreter seems to have read *speirein*. | Idem.

P. 549 (col. 536, lines 7-8), *hote tēn archēn tōn ethnōn eisēgage*. *Vetus*: the *Vetus* began to say concerning passion, *hote eisēgage*, instead of *tēn archēn tōn pathōn eisēgage*. Below note 90, *heauton tuentur* all the Muscovites.

P. 551 (col. 537, note 1). Ed. *kai di' ha zōmen, kai di' ha esmen*, which is the reading of codex *G*.

P. 555 (col. 540, line 7), *kai pōs ōdinei ta agatha auta proelthein*. *Vetus*: as if the benefit *plenus* (God) by the haste of bestowing, it rushes forth. Montfaucon: even though it swells (God), that good thing. Both are faulty: for *ta agatha auta* is in the nominative. The word *ōdinei* (swells), missed by the lexicographers, is greatly loved by the *Vetus*. See pp. 172, 723, Tom. IX, p. 159: *epipotō gar idein hymas*. *Oras kai ōdinonta autous idein*, etc.

ON HOMILY LV

P. 556 (col. 541, near note 40), *diathrylein*. The *H*, *L* codices provide another script with a simple *lambda*. Cf. note, p. 590.

Ibid., after three lines. *Kai eph' hymōn symbeinon*. *Vetus*: as *vobis conveniens*. Montfaucon, *et vobis* to be becoming. But since the word is not in the text, as Boisio correctly suggests, these notations: "What is *eph' hymōn symbaiein dynaton, eph' hymin, eph' hymin*?" But the interpreter needs this place, or is not an emender. Without doubt, it must be rendered: *sibi vobis quoque idem contingat*.

* *Eudeinos* (or rather *eudinos*) is *dinē*, *vortex*, as it seems, a conjecture of Hering, *Obs. Crit*, p. 277, to the place of *Orph. Hymn.* XXI, 5, recently accepted into the Lexica.

P. 556 (col. 541, near note 49). To suffer many things and to be killed. I have already said p. 555 that for you, to not want to die is a terrible thing, etc.

P. 557 (col. 542, note 49). For this is to spare. *H*. id. and the others are truly to spare.

Ibid., note 51. Indeed, the reading *aratō ton thanaton autou* greatly pleases me, the other version also having been given. This also, which was hidden in one of certainly his own codices, Montfaucon did not bring to light.

For that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit. A new saying and a wondrous one, and one that transcends human thoughts, going entirely above the laws of nature. How, then, was this man to believe these things, who had never conceived any such thing in his speech? From the revelation of those things which were already accomplished. For this reason the angel revealed all things that were concealed in his mind, by mentioning certainly what he was suffering, what he was fearing, and what he was meditating to do: that when he had recognized these things, he might also accept those. Nor does he lead him into faith only from the preceding things, but also from the coming ones. For she shall bring forth, he says, a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. For not because it is of the Holy Spirit should you think yourself extraneous to the ministry of so great a dispensation. For even if you have nothing in common in this generation—since she remained a virgin intact—yet that which is proper to a father, and which in no way dims the dignity of the Virgin, this I readily grant you, namely, that you might impose this name: for you shall be the first to call him. Although this child who is born is not your son, you will nevertheless show toward him the care and solicitude of a parent: and for that reason I join you to him from the very beginning of the imposition of the name. Then, lest anyone should suspect from this that he was the father, hear how cautiously and how solicitously he added the words that follow. She shall bring forth, he says, a son. He did not say, She shall bring forth to you: but he placed it indefinite and suspended. For she gave birth to Christ not for him, but for the entire world.

^A 7. For this reason the evangelist also recorded that the angel brought his name from heaven, so that from this he might also show that he was a wondrous child, in that he taught that his name was sent to Joseph both through the angel and from God. For the name itself was not placed in vain, as it certainly contains a thousand treasures of good things. For which reason the angel also interprets it, animating the mourner with good hopes: and in this way also he invites him to believe what is spoken. For we are easily drawn to prosperous things, and more readily accommodate our faith to favorable outcomes. When, therefore, he had built up faith from all sides—from the past, from the present, from the future, from the honor of him whom he had promised would be born—he introduced the prophet, then also adding his own calculation to all these things. But before he cites his testimony, he announces the singular good things to be conferred by him upon the entire world. What, then, are these? The remission, namely, and the destruction of sin. For he himself, he says, will save his people from their sins. Here, too, the novelty of the benefit is indicated. For it is not from a visible war, nor from the sword of barbarians: but what is far greater than these, he announces that he will free his people from their sin: a thing which it was never possible for any of men to perform. And for what reason, you will ask, did he say his people as if marked out, and did not also nominate all the nations equally? Lest, namely, the auditor should suffer a scruple about the unaccustomed announcement, although for one who will correctly perceive these things, the Gentiles are also designated. For the people of Christ is not only the nation of the Jews, but also all who come to him and are gifted with the knowledge of him. Consider, indeed, how he has also revealed to us the very dignity of Christ, calling him his people, whom he says are to be saved by him from sins. For this is nothing other than to show that it is the Son of God who is born, and that he does not put forth this speech from any human king. For he could not remit sins, unless the divine nature alone. Being gifted, therefore, with such liberality of a heavenly gift, let us do all things whatever, lest we inflict injury upon such grand benefits. For if, even before we received these gifts, we deserved to be punished on account of sins, how much more after we have obtained ineffable benefits? And I do not say this in vain, nor without a certain good reason for the present: but because I see most people living more lazily after having received the sacrament of baptism than those who have not yet been consecrated by that mystery. For in very many I find no Christian signs of discipline at all. And therefore you would not find it easy to distinguish between the faithful and the unfaithful in public and common places, nor in the assemblies of the church herself. For it is only at the time of celebrating the mystery that it can be discerned, when, namely, you will see some excluded and others indeed being admitted. Yet it was proper for the faith of each one to be indicated not by places, but by morals. For the honors of secular dignities are indeed consequently seen from badges placed on the outside: but ours ought to be understood from our minds. For a faithful one ought not to be recognized only by the communion of the mystery, but also from a novelty of life. For it is fitting that a faithful person should be salt and the light of the world. But if you do not even shine for yourself, and do not even wipe away your own rot and stench, by what indications could I recognize you as faithful? Is it because you have entered the waters of the sacred font? But this very thing which had been given to you for salvation becomes for you a weightier cause of punishment. For the magnitude of honor, to those who do not live worthily of the honor, begins to be a heap of torments. Therefore, it is fitting for a faithful person to shine not only from those things which he has received from God, but also from those things which he himself has offered to God, and to be known and manifest on every side—both from his gait, and from his aspect, and from his garment, and from his voice. And I would say these things, not that we might adapt ourselves to the display of our own selves, but to the edification of those who watch us. But now, wherever I might wish to discern you, I find you proclaimed by contrary things. If I were to take care to know you from the place, I would undoubtedly see you in the circus and theater, spending all your days in those most vain gatherings, or joined with corrupt and pestilent men in the forum. But if I were to seek to have knowledge of you from the very motions of your body, I will see you relaxed in boisterous laughter and the foulest pleasure, like some slack and ruined harlot. But if I should consider you from your garment, I would recognize that you differ in nothing from the attire of a stage-actor. And if I were to wish to learn of you from your companions, I would find you hemmed in by flatterers and parasites. From your speech, I hear nothing sound at all, nothing serious, nothing that relates to our discipline. If from your food, a greater matter of accusation will surely arise from this.

8. From what, therefore, answer me, will I be able to recognize you as faithful, when all these things which we have said carry a contrary judgment about you, and most openly convince you of being unfaithful? And what

ANNOTATIONS ON HOMILY LVIII

P. 575, homil., not. 80. Concerning the reading of the Royal codices, I doubt it today, because I see nothing but confusion in my rough drafts. It is read as *ἑαυτοὺς διεκάφουν* in the Bodleian codex 3019. In the Royal codices, whether they have *ἑαυτοῖς* for themselves, I would not dare affirm. *Ἑαυτοῖς*, which he constructs with the verb *διασαφεῖν* regarding things easy, belongs to Bodl. 3019. But in the later edition it has been left out, and *ἐκεῖνοι ἑαυτοὺς* has been printed. That the reading ^A *ἐκεῖνοι αὐτοῖς*, namely "the disciples of the scribe," received by Montfaucon and certain MSS, is in vain sought for.

P. 577, lin. 4, *αὐτὸν τὸν Ἠλίαν φησί* Ep. against the codices.

P. 579, lin. 2-3 after note 4, *καὶ τοῦ πιστεῦσαι* and *καὶ παρασκευάζων πιστεῦσαι*. Nicetas, in his interpretation. It would be easier if it were *εἰς τὸ πιστεῦσαι*; but there is no need. It is a matter for consideration, and *et ut crederet*, which he uses, is better known from the Holy Scriptures.

Ibid., note 5. Ed. Savil. contains *οὐδὲν ἀντάξιον τῆς αὐτοῦ δυνάμεως ἐφθέγξατο*, which the codex of the majority has. But *ἀντάξιον*, equivalent, like the instance, does not seem to fit here. Chrysostom himself says in Tom. IX, p. 658: "Our soul is not of the same worth as the heavens"; and it is not even the own proper phrase of the heavens; but he rather used a word of its own significance for the looking at the place.

Ibid., near note 9. *Ὁ γὰρ δαίμων, κ. τ. ἑ.* The old Scholiast in N. T. tom. I, p. 60: "Differently, the evangelist calls those possessed by demons being moonstruck, and that suffering is acquired; but since the demon attacks some at identical periods of its own, so that he may come to the creator as a bad maker and blasphemy may arise." Note that in decorating commentaries with such *Scholia* at hand, and indeed in having them in the margin of the codices N. F. which are present today, Chrysostom had the meaning of Matthew. See note to p. 662.

P. 580, not. 11. The common editions have it thus ^B. Mor. relates: "And questioning. To him the ones approaching him privately were asking: for if the work had come to pass, they would have been put to shame [they were put to shame Mor.] for if it were superfluous [but] since it was not yet time, they would be about to ask. And questioning." etc. Savil. changed this silently: "And also to those asking him privately, having come to him, they were ashamed, since they were not yet about to ask him. For the work too... confession." So it is, until "up to here," imitating the peak of the minutely examined editions, Montfaucon with this note: "These things were somewhat confused in Morel, which we restored from the Manuscripts; yet, if some obscurity still remains. Latin-wise, without any scrupulousness, I have expressed everything." Regarding my codices, I will only add this, that I acknowledge that some things have been transposed by Savile. The same is true for the translation of Georgius and the saying of Nicetas.

ANNOTATIONS ON HOMILY LVIII

P. 585 (col. 567), not. 58. *Εἰπόντος δὲ... ἔφη* | In Sav. and my drafts. *Ἔφη* | from the others. *Ὃ δὲ εἶπεν* Mor. Ben.

P. 586 (col. 568, lin. 21). Here Savile, of his own authority, seems to have newly furnished the ^C reader, cod. 3019 constituting the passage thus: "Wherefore also the evangelist marks this by saying, *In that hour*, clearly when he preferred himself over all, and James and John, one of whom," etc. Thus the codex I have just mentioned, unless what is clear is omitted, that is, it clearly has. Ibid. | for the rest. "Five codd. have the vulgate, but the sixth, γ, dissents thus: *Τί οὖν ὁ Χριστός; οὐκ εἶπε, Διὰ τὴν ἀπιστίαν ὑμῶν, ἀλλά, Διὰ τὴν ὀλιγοπιστίαν ὑμῶν, φησίν.*" And I suspect this genuine Chrysostom reading, which he himself fashioned, while others... Matthew. But this codex, as interpreted from the excerpts of Matthew, reports such singular readings.

P. 581, lin. 7-8 after not. 25. *Οὐδὲ γὰρ χασμᾶται καὶ διατείνεται*: *Non enim oscitat neque extenditur*. Montf. "For he does not yawn, nor does he stretch out." The interior part does not seem to know the use of the verb *διατείνεσθαι*, to yawn. Tom. XI, p. 695, *Ἵνα παρασκευασμένους ἡ ἡμέρα εὕρῃ, καὶ μή, ἀνισχούσης [f. τῆς] ἀκτῖνος, τότε ἀρξώμεθα ἀνίστασθαι καὶ διατείνεσθαι*; which Montf. translates delightfully: "that the day may find [us] prepared, and not, when the ray is rising, then we begin to arise and apply the hand to the work!" Add tom. XI, p. 629. Maeris: *σκορδινᾶσθαι*, Attic: *διατείνεσθαι*, Greek.

P. 582, not. 31, *καὶ πάντα ἁπλῶς καταγωγέχοτο καὶ ἀμάρας ἐργάζεται* Ed. | and two MSS. *ἁπλῶς καταγωγέχοτο ἀμάρας ἐργ*. | Montf. This reading, indeed, in my H, K, L and Flor. codices, is not doubted. The same, if you remove the drain, have G, M. In the vulgate, which only the Ed. has, p. 688, *καταγωγέχοτο* has flowed as a gloss of the word, no one sees. The words *ἀμάρα* and *ὀχετός*, which are used for one or the other by Chrysostom. Below p. 796, *ἀμάρας* and *ὀχετοὺς* go together. ^D See tom. X, p. 415, and *ἀμάρας ὀχετὸν* (i.e. *cloaca* or *aqueductum*) as an orifice. Bursbus tom. XI, p. 625: "To drain the drains of the sewers, and the rest immediately produced." In our place, the old Vulgate, and in all my codices, ridiculous.

P. 582, lin. 2 after not. 38-39. *Verba διὰ τὰς πυκνάς... τὰς πονηρὰς* added in codex 694 and Savil. For it was excised in Com. [Mor.] and Montf. on account of *ὁμοιοτέλευτον*. | Editor Ben. 2nd. They have it in all my copies.

P. 583, not. 41. What I have partly given from conjecture, *σκοτοδίνῳ*, now I have learned from Chrysostom himself, can most firmly be established in use. For *σκοτοδίνῳ κατεχόμενος* is read in Montf. *σκότει δεινῷ* they give. Again p. 168, *σκοτοδίνῳ κατέχονται*, but in the codex *σκότῳ δεινῷ*. Later, tom. VIII, p. 141: "nothing is so dizzying [σκότοδινον]." And so Savil. Morel. *ἄλλι σκότος δεινόν*. Bois thinks that *σκοτοδινῶν* should be read. > Montf. In our place he can confirm it. Athen. iv. p. 156, "and here all things, just as those suffering from giddiness [περιστρεφόμενα] to see." *Morbi genus est σκοτόδινος vol.* dizziness, which makes the suffering ones see things moving and rotating. > Casaub. in loc.

P. 585 (col. 587), not. 58. Since it is said... he said | In Sav. and my drafts. "He said" | from the others. "And he said" Mor. Ben.

P. 589 (col. 570), not. 81. Although it is said far more customarily *περιτιθέναι δόξαν τινί*, yet the vulgate can be borne it seems. Note that the locations *ἐπιτιθέναι ζημίαν, τιμωρίαν*, even *αἰτίαν*, from which ours does not differ much. Add Sirac. 31, 31, and *ἐν τοῖς αἱρετοῖς ἐπιθήσει μῶμον*.

Ibid., after two lines, *τρίπηχυς ὤν*. "Chrysostom is accustomed to assign a measure of three cubits to a person."

Our passions cause us to waste away. And then we shall truly possess virtue and health, we who certainly now almost do not differ from the dead. For it is not possible for us to live truly unless the vices within us die completely. These will necessarily destroy us in the future if we allow them to live here. Furthermore, even before that death, they exact horrific punishments from us. For all these vices are full of cruelty and greed, and they do not cease to devour us daily. Therefore, I would not be wrong to call their teeth the teeth of lions, or even more savage. For indeed the lion, as soon as it has been sated, leaves the half-eaten carcass; but these vices are never sated, nor do they ever depart from our soul, and they make the man who has been taken captive by them become very much like the devil. Their power is certainly so great that they demand from their own captives even the same service which Paul, safe and secure, offers to Christ above and below. For if anyone is taken captive by either the love of bodies, or the desire for money, or the pleasure of glory, he immediately despises things above and things below, provided he may serve his vices. We should not, therefore, hesitate to give credence to Paul, who burned with such love for Christ. For when some people are found who are such slaves to their own desires and vices, why is it considered incredible that Paul should have served Christ in this way? We possess a weaker affection for Christ solely because all our strength is consumed in the love of vices. For we serve greed, we plunder the property of others, and we gladly comply with vainglory: what could ever be more base or contemptible than this slavery? For even if you are considered a thousand times famous and conspicuous, you are nonetheless no better than some inglorious person; indeed, you are much more dishonored and much more despicable for this very reason. For when those same people, those "friends" who strive to make you certain of glory and show you as famous, mock you in turn for this very reason—that you seek glory from them—how can it be that such pursuits do not turn to your disadvantage?

10. Furthermore, this vice is stigmatized to such an extent that, just as we all praise the person who does not desire fornication or adultery, so also we proclaim this person, and marvel even more at one who avoids the love of boasting; while, on the other hand, we are accustomed to accuse rather than praise those who seek the praises of men. Why, then, are you eager to pursue this thing, the opposite of which always confronts you? For if you desire to be glorified, despise glory, and you will be more glorious than everyone. But now you suffer exactly what we read that Nebuchadnezzar endured. For he once erected a statue, seeking to hunt down great fame from wood and the dead image of a body, and while alive, he sought to obtain brightness from a thing that was not alive. O, what great madness! He became a laughingstock for the very thing by which he seemed to honor himself. For who, I ask, is not most worthy of laughter, who relies on a dead thing, and considers wood to be more worthy than himself and the powers of his own mind, wishing to be commended not by his character, but by tablets and boards? It is as if someone were to think himself more honorable because of the size and beauty of a house, or because of the stairs and marble steps, than for the fact that he was born a human and endowed with the nobility of reason. And so, many are found even now who imitate him. For just as he then did with the golden image, so now some occupy themselves with precious clothing, others with horses or chariots, or the wideness of columns that are in their houses, and pictures on the walls, and think they are better. Because they have lost what it was to be human, they anxiously go about here and there, gathering glory for themselves from elsewhere, which is surely worthy of every mockery. But those brave and praiseworthy servants of God did not shine with things of this kind, but with those things with which they ought to have shone most. For even when they were still young and strangers—nay, even slaves and captives—and they were completely in need of necessary things, they were much more famous than those who are accompanied by every abundance of things and outward display. And for that Babylonian king, neither that huge image gleaming with gold, nor the prefects of the regions and the leaders of the army, nor the astonishing heap of gold and silver, nor anything else he could devise, could contribute anything to his ambition or to making him that great man: but to these men, who were stripped of the possession of all such things, philosophy alone sufficed. And this, undoubtedly, was what made them more famous than all those who are rich, and even those who shine with diadem and purple, just as the flame of the sun shines much more brightly against some foul mire. For the young men were led out to be a spectacle to almost the whole world—they were slaves, and captives at that. When they had stood before the king, undaunted, he immediately ordered a fire to be kindled in their sight: the leaders of the army, the satraps, the prefects of the regions, and all that theater of the devil stood around, and the sound of pipes and flutes was heard from every side, and the clamor of the trumpets, and the sound of all musical art was carried up into the heavens and crashed against the ears of the saints; and the furnace had been kindled to an immense height, and the flame already touched the very clouds, and all things were full of fear and stupor. Yet none of these things deterred them at all; but as if they were laughing at and despising some childish and frivolous attempts, they showed their strength of mind and modesty in such a secure way: and, raising their voice, clearer than all those trumpets, they said with complete freedom: *Be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, and we will not adore the golden image which thou hast set up* (Dan. 3. 18). And consider the modesty shining through in the very heat of such a great conflict: *Be it known to *you*, O king*. For they did not wish to despise the king also and show him dishonor; but they wished only to show their piety before God, for which reason they did not extend their speech at length, but declared everything in a few words. *There is*, they say, *a God in heaven* (Ibid. v. 17), who is able to deliver us from the furnace of burning fire, and to take us out of thy hands, O king. Why, then, do you show us your spread-out forces of soldiers? Why the furnace burning with unusual globes of flame? Why the flashing swords? Why the terrible battalions of spearmen? For our God is far more sublime and stronger than all of these. Then, understanding that it could happen that God would allow them to be subjected to the passion for a time; lest

they think that the good, and the wicked, and in general everything happens just as it may, for where would the discourse of justice appear? Whence, therefore, etc. ^A Verum, when you have it in this way, we follow the others. Which he brought from one codex, in the same words as my [text]. But if he were to be followed by the others, as if they all leaned toward one and the same reading, let the Reader judge from what was cited above. Whose, however, is the favor, if he could create good things? None surely. Therefore, where is, you ask? Where these—indeed, these were added by the Interpreter himself for the sake of greater argumentation.

Ibid., note 48. Here, according to the common reading, the sentences are written thus: "But God will take them away, he says, one day." But how, etc. ^B The Vetus, you ask, exhausts them. How does it exhaust, or does it destroy them entirely? The codices punctuated, as corrected by me, seem to favor [this].

P. 601 (col. 581), note 4. In the reading, "not a Levite," not "one of the people," you suspect there is a dittography, as Chrysostom might have written: "not a Levite, not a priest,"

ON HOMILY LX

P. 608 (col. 586), note 55. The editions: ^C διπλαῖς κατεδήσασεν ἀνάγκαις. The interpreter seems to have read κατέδησε vel κατεδέσμευσε. Savile: "He bound with a double [necessity]." But take note, Montfaucon, that if you inspect your own codices without prejudice, they do not even contain the note. The Vulgata has: κατεκλείσεν [unus] tantum meorum G habet; κατέδησεν vero H, K, L, M [κατεδέσεν pr. H, κατεδίκασεν, ut videtur, pr. K, sed a scribentis manu corr.] et Nicetas. Add Ep. διπλαῖς καταδεσμῶν ἀνάγκαις.

P. 608 (col. 587, lin. 8). "The unworthy are not those who have heard these things." Montfaucon: "But those who ask are not worthy, who are to be heard." The Vetus: "But they are not heard." The version of Montfaucon has been corrected by M. [The manuscripts] are indeed equal and like, if they are—well, that is what they differ on. It cannot be otherwise: "unworthy to whom the place is granted among them, which they have heard."

^D Ibid., note 61. "The evangelical life," I do not know if it is a Chrysostomic locution. Certainly, the other is in the delights, especially in the ascetic life. See pp. 144, 321. Hence, the passage of the Tomus Theodoretus, III, p. 1195: "In this, finding a certain [place] near the sea inclining or [there], [building] a small house for a little while, he was greeting the evangelical life." Read "evangelical," ibid., p. 1151, "those both, of whom he trained [the life] in the small house for a little while."

P. 609, near note 70. The error of Commelinus, suffering a subscript iota, Savile vainly sustains. But even in the newest edition of the Greek, we read: "For even if a thousand passions are present, for one loving towards the aim of love, he will not depart." The Latin, however: "For even if one who loves thus pays a thousand trials as a price to himself, he will not desire [to depart]." (!)

TO HOMILY LXI

P. 611 (col. 589), note 84. Notable is the reading of two codices, "having moved the master," which, however, comes from a corrector, of which I have no doubt. The passage of Chrysostom himself, of a certain Homily, is opposed to the Matthean [text], Moscow 1776, and "having come they explained, etc. Not he having suffered; for how? being ruled by the chains, but [his] fellow servants" 129.

P. 613 (col. 590), note 94. It does not seem to be about the raving [ones], unless you think the Author was writing about those who are raving, which you will see swapped for another. Infra p. 675, unus G, about those who rave in these things.

Ibid. (col. 591), note 98. The editions: σφόδρα τῷ πάθει μεθύειν. "Others: 'much in the passion to be drunk'." Montfaucon. But Savile's sign, which happens to him elsewhere, he misunderstood.

P. 615 (col. 593, lin. 9-10). "Having departed immediately, and not after a long time, but immediately." Someone might conjecture that Chrysostom [wrote] that "immediately" in his own Gospel copy; which I can hardly believe. Infra p. 648: "Then he was indignant, etc. Then? when? But it is not in the Gospel." And so a hundred times.

P. 618 (col. 596), note 48. I gave ἠτίμασε with one codex instead of the vulgate ἠτίμωσε. For the distinction from Ammonius remains, "he is dishonored by the laws in a thing, he is dishonored by those who are reviled for something, from the sacred writers, e.g. Mk. XII, 14, violated, constantly, observes our [author]. Phavorinus is false, *atimō*, from which *atimon* [is] through a word or *atimou* word [is] to insult; nor was it in the Scholiast in Boisson. *Ad philostr.*, p. 420, *atimazō*, despising, *atimō*, I insult."

TO HOMILY LXII

P. 621 (col. 597, lin. penult.), note 87, συνεπιτίθεσθε [non. corr. mon. invitis codd]. Verbs συνεπιτίθεσθε to do this, which as regards the meaning are not at all necessary, nor are the codices, nor are they missed by the suspicion. Montfaucon indeed translates: "you who do this." But the verb *synepitithesthai*

[LATIN COLUMN continues] are the equals, as many as suffer poverty with thanksgiving. For poverty is more terrible than fire, and is wont to burn more strongly. But just as the fire did not burn them, but because they rendered thanks to the Lord, even their chains were immediately dissolved: so also to you, if you sustain poverty with thanksgiving, your bonds are resolved, and the fire is extinguished: but if it be not extinguished, by a much greater miracle it will imitate the nature of a fountain of fire: which can certainly be seen in those who philosophize according to the Gospel, and who more gladly glory in poverty than the wealthy in their riches. For even then those who had stood in the burning furnace enjoyed a most pure dew: and although the fire was not extinguished, yet standing in the midst of it, it did not touch them at all. Let us by no means, therefore, sit outside the furnace, unmercifully neglecting the needs of the poor, lest we suffer what those who were ministers of the king suffered then. For if you descend of your own accord into the furnace of the poor, you will surely stand with those three youths, and nothing of the opposing fire will work against you. But if you look down upon those placed in the ardors of poverty, as if by superior consent, the voracious flame will immediately consume you. Descend, therefore, into the fire, lest a more horrible fire surround you: nor sit outside the fire, lest the sudden voracity of the flame snatch you away. For if it sees you with the poor, it will entirely desist from harming you; but if separated from the poor, it will fly suddenly, and seize you for punishment. Do not, therefore, depart at all from them when they are cast there, but when the devil commands those to be thrust into the furnace of indigence who have disdained to worship gold: do not be made one of their party who cast them in, but rather of those who are cast into such a conflagration: that you may also be made one of those who are saved, not of those who are consumed. For the dew is great, not to be recalled from the pity of the needy by the love of riches: and they are richer than all who, having contemned riches, have shone in virtue. For even those then, by contemning the king, became more brilliant than the king himself. And you, therefore, if you look down upon the wealth of the world with a faithful mind, will be more precious than the whole world: just like those saints, Of whom the world was not worthy (Hebr. 11. 38). That you may therefore be made worthy of heavenly goods, mock at the present. In this way, indeed, you will shine here in the brilliance of virtues, and in the future in the honor of rewards, by the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and Empire with the Father and the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen.

HOMILY FIVE

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: Isa. 7. 14.

1. I hear many who say that while they are present and enjoying the utterances of the evangelical truth, they lend an ear worthy of such great things, and are drawn in spirit: but upon leaving the church, as they change place, they also suddenly change their mind, extinguishing entirely that whole fire of devotion which the discourse of preaching had enkindled in them. What, therefore, is it fitting to employ, so that this does not come to pass? If, namely, we consider first from whence it occurs. Whence, therefore, does such a great change happen to you? Because of a conversation, clearly, that is little attentive, and because of the assiduous and pestiferous dialogue of vicious men. For it was not fitting to be involved in business contrary to this study at all when departing from the assembly of the church, but returning home immediately to unfold the sacred books, and to call wife and children alike to a collation of the things which were said, and with these things inserted more deeply and thoroughly into the mind, only then to proceed to take care of the things that are necessary for this life. For if, having left a bath, you avoid public conventicles, lest more troublesome business destroy the benefit obtained by the warmth of the bath: how much more, when returning from the congregation of the church, does it behoove you to do this?

ANNOTATIONS

textual or from Homer, *Iliad* II, 126, it is known, but there is no need to compare it to the art of the sculptor.

Ibid., note 17, and "the inhabited world each [had]." *Infra* p. 685, "as if inhabiting another inhabited world." *Tom.* XII, p. 249: "Let, therefore, all the inhabited world come, or rather two, and three, and four, and ten, and twenty inhabited worlds."

Ibid., after 15 lines, the reading *thēmonian* (heap) for *thēmonian* [in] codex G; codex K [has] *thēmonia*, *thēmonia* is exhibited by Hesychius.

P. 654 (col. 608, note, penultimate [line]), "acropolis of evils." Stobaeus, p. 150, 52: Bion the sophist used to say that avarice is the acropolis of all evil. Idem dictum Diogeni Cynico tribuit Diog. Laert. VI, 50, he said that avarice is the acropolis of all evils; *ubi doctissimus Menagius*, allato Chrysostomi loco ait: “Male in vulgatis [acropolis] editum est, quod vel ipsa Aniani, veteris interpretis, interpretatio manifestum facit, qui vertit *metropolim*. De Aniani versione utinam plura nos docuisset vir eruditus; *acropolin* autem una cum omnibus libris tuetur Georgius Trapezuntius.”

ON HOMILY LXIV

P. 634 (col. 609), note 29. The reader must be advised that the consensus of two codices, G and M, and of the ancient translator, regarding this part of the work, is not to be highly valued, since it is evident that they have conspired in manifest errors. A remarkable example can be brought forth from this very Homily, p. 638, where, for the words "by the emulations," it is absurdly read in the aforementioned codices as "by others [i.e., *par’ heterōn* for *par’ hēmōn*]." The old [translator] however had it, translating it as "emulations." See also p. 636 (col. 610), note 45.

P. 640 (end of col.), note 99. The vulgar reading "concerning the Gospels" followed by "of the benefit" is to be defended. Tom. VI, p. 64: "But concerning the Gospels and other [matters] the kind of benefit is to be understood." Ibid., p. 80: "This, and Christ many times concerning the Gospels." The reading of the majority of codices is "concerning the Gospels," as [the author] himself [says], [the] teachers of the Gospel, which in the first edition is printed "Gospels" (sic). The editors made no comment here.

P. 636 (col. 611), note 49. It is to be noted that the usage of the adverb *enteuthen* (thence) instead of *entautha* (here), is very common in Chrysostom’s speech, especially where punishments or rewards perceived in this life are discussed. Adde, pp. 44, 191, 292, 302, 305: "Just as..." showed the rewards there, so too the wages of wickedness. Sometimes *enteuthen* is used with the same meaning; e.g., pp. 501, 634, 636. In our place [where] the editions and codices give *entautha*, it is of no use to rebuke the interpreters for this locution.

P. 637 (col. 611, near note 61), "of his vineyard" [in the] editions, but [all] the Moscow [codices] and mine keep the more gentle reading. Cf. note 22.

P. 638 (col. 612, 13 lines from bottom). The words "of the Gospel" can — I almost said ought to — be absent, when the place is established [as] "having consumed..." he says, "and these things, having to expect no reward," he was annoyed, etc. In the vulgar reading "he was annoyed" or "he led," I require "he was annoyed" and "well, certainly, but he was annoyed."

P. 639 (col. 614, line 6). Furthermore, the active verb *agnoein* (to be ignorant) is not [to be used], although it is more widely known [as] the passive *agnoēthenai* (to be ignored). *Gloss. Vet.* "to be ignorant." Here, *superbire facio* (I make proud). Less correctly [does] the Old [translator, take it to mean] that one might fall back into sloth.

P. 641 (col. 615), note 12. *par’ ouden* (as nothing), means nothing or very little is wanting, *quod* (which is) almost nothing; a rare locution. Notable are the examples [using] *par’ touton*, also *par’ ouden* with the verb *erchesthai*. Chrys. *de Sacerd.* lib. I, Opp. tom. I, p. 369, as having no advantage over victory, but "hardly less than [something]..." where *hētton* is missing in three manuscripts. But the Augustinian edition rightly accepted the reading, [and] the collation having been done very diligently with the other three, in the first volume of the edition. The second edition at the end adds that it is possible that there existed [a reading] of the Montefalconian; [but] it is doubtful. It seems that the gloss of Hesychius pertains [to this]: *par’ ouden* = *eukolon, eucheres* (easy, manageable).

P. 641 (col. 615), note 13. *Apheses* (dismissals) is the old reading, changed by Savile and Montfaucon. The same confusion exists on p. 543, which the learned man forgot to mention, in codices G, H, and [that it should be] *apairese* (removing).

P. 642 (col. 616), note 27, *umeterois* (your own): I have nothing firm in codices G, M, or the Royal [Codex] H.

Ibid., six lines later: The words "those who are approved" are omitted in all editions except the Savilian one.

P. 643 (col. 617), note 28. The words enclosed [in brackets] are translated by the Ge [Georgius Trapezuntius] as: "but finally, of our judgments upon ourselves, as if by a daily spur [we are] stung."

ON HOMILY LXV

P. 644 (col. 617), note 41. The authority of the manuscripts for the shorter reading "which they do not understand, many of those who are spoken of" seems to stand. I fear [that] the construction of "of those who are spoken of," even among others rarely understood, can be defended [by] the usage of Chrysostom. Certainly, he says immediately, "which the things spoken of [mean]." What if the [phrase] "the things spoken of" are nothing?

P. 644 (col. 618), note 47. The vulgar [reading] *katorthoun* (to achieve/make straight), and the nominative *hē anastasis* (the resurrection). Cf. p. 669. Less correctly Montfaucon, who was about to do fine work (Christ).

P. 645 (col. 618, near note 50). "He says" [in] the Com. [Commentary] [and] the [other] manuscripts; [but] "they say" [in] Mor. [and] Ben. In such [cases] Chrysostom very willingly puts the singular verb. I will provide examples in the Index.

P. 646 (col. 619, med.). "They were going before," he says. "I do not understand 'they were going before'." Mark X, 35 has *prosporeuontai* (they are going before). Matthew [has it too]. Montanus in the margin of the Latin Version at v. 35 notes *ad* Euthymium: "first, as Mark says, they alone approach him, that is, they come forward." Theophylact, *ad h. l.*, has the same, but translates *prosporeuontai* through the word *idios erchontai* (they come privately). [Perhaps] the Author wrote *proseporeuthesan* (they went before), which I think is truer, having in mind the words of Mark, 32, "as he Jesus was leading them [on]"; which place seems to reconcile [the] verses.

Ibid. (col. 619, line 11). "expecting to hear what they were asking for." What if [it meant] "that they would receive what they were asking for"? Or [that it meant before, "that they would be granted what they were asking for"? Bois, *Epit.* "they were going before, that they would be heard..."

[in a different way, they were embarrassed by him. But when they were asking for the seat of honor from him, they were indignant. Therefore, neither of them knew his voice.]

P. 650 (col. 625, e'), n. 3. "He is said to be high," when to the length of this body [that he is]. Montfaucon: I formerly conjectured this, which I have brought to light from an excellent codex. The same part also, before "when," very aptly supplies it. Later codices have the subsequent clause as follows: "even to the length of the body of this one," just as Savile had long ago. Nor is it otherwise, as in the Old, but "proceeding of this body." In our reading, "it is high," which seems to have been a corruption by the scribes. Above, p. 415: "Again, they are not of such a nature as regards their ease and lightness; but being subject to luxury and becoming soft, such they become"; where, similarly, the slip of the pen is Bois*, "such" as a conjecture. Again, p. 458: "For he knew that they were lovers of money, that they were such, rather than lovers of men." Cf. note on p. 595.

ON HOMILY LXVI.

P. 654 (col. 626), n. 54. "After achievements," the editors add "and many things greater than those which exist." But led by the authority of two MSS., I have excised it, as being unworthy of Christ and Chrysostom. Did Chrysostom ever say that Christ, when approaching, preached greater things than those which in reality existed? Montfaucon: This opinion is against the sentence of Christ which he seemed to see. And indeed, in my judgment, it is most innocent. If these words are read in all my [codices], they are also read in the Eds. and contain nothing of suspicious fidelity. The last mentioned, it seems, was revealed and exalted by the Old. I do not care if one is accustomed to call the epitomizer [a person who does] everything superfluous.

P. 655 (col. 627, n. ult.). Codices only regarding the reading "sitting on an ass": they fight [over it], and I think it is not far from what ought to be admitted. Certainly, it is similar to what is read in the same [work], XI, p. 608, "high," [of him] sitting on the vehicle. Below p. 657, "the ass on which he was sitting" (omitting "on") the Old has.

P. 656 (col. 628), n. 54. "Our approval of them (sc. the Jews) was misplaced." He has corrupted the passage of the Apostle, Rom. XI, 14. Montfaucon has corrupted the sense of these words, translating "because they were burning with great zeal" that they might be accepted by us. Moreover, the word "misplaced," which Chrysostom uses in this vulgar way, [he soon] uses with a sense of being intransitive, [namely] "to be moved" — he repeats. This usage, regarding which lexicons are silent, appears to taste of a more recent Greek [style]. For our Epitomizer later changed [the word] itself, for "he points out the ass with the foal," saying that "he is the one." He did [it] to compel the Jews to believe in Christ. Again, p. 665, the words "and the harlots and the publicans he brought along, for revelation," which are ambiguous in Chrysostom, but (that the Jews) "are moved by emulation," the interpreters say that it [was] the Epitomizer.

P. 656 (col. 629, n. 5). "The contradiction," "to contradict," which Montfaucon did not grasp, he understands as "to seize" the ass. For, to use the words of Euthymius, "they tried to stop him," that is, their masters, as Luke says: having heard that the Lord had need of them. The Enarrator also says those who were in possession of them were the nations.

P. 658 (col. 630, n. 74). Although in this place I wrote in the unwilling codices without the preposition, I would not say, however, that the formula "little by little," which I found in good writers, [was incorrectly] placed. See Ast, *Lex. Platon.* Vol. II, p. 260. See pp. 295, 675 of this same work. B: "But [of this] it is not a small evil to do a great [wrong], and to harm many a little." Heliod. Aeth. IV, 17, "having struck the shields and having perceived the armor of those ..."

ON HOMILY LXVII.

P. 661 (col. 632, n. ult.). By neglecting the best reading "accuser, saying," entirely in the previous Eds., it is confirmed by Nicetas in [his] Catena, who attributes these [words] to Cyril.

P. 661 (col. 633, n. 16). "This is wonderful," etc. This [wonder] is described in the manner of Euthym., "It is most astonishing that such a wonder [should occur]." For then first the choir of children clearly cried out. Nor were they merely children, but children who were infants and sucklings.

P. 662 (col. 634, n. 4). After "soulless," M. Ep. adds: "Some say that the synagogue of the Jews still remains through the fig tree, which, as fruitlessly having been cursed, they were cut down — but that is not it." This kind of Scholion in the margin of Euthymius, which it is not absurd to transcribe [as follows]: "The fig tree, representing only the synagogue of the Jews with leaves, not having the fruit of righteousness, but only that which is suggested as the [only type] of its deception, which leaves," and otherwise, "the worship of the law in shadows and types, and the Jewish [observances]." Matth. N. T. Vol. I, p. 551: "It is necessary to note the locus of Chrysostom p. 662, [where he says] the law is hinted at; here they say [it]. But this is flatly in the old Scholia: The fig tree is the type of the Jewish synagogue and of the law in shadow, [which is] not having fruit to eat. From these, therefore, Chrysostom is inferred to have used them. But this learned man has not proven it. For this Scholiast, except that he has used such brevity that it could be understood by no one, unless he had learned the same thing elsewhere, has composed [it] in a note, with two allegorical reasons which he has properly distinguished in the Scholia of Euthymius, of which our [editor] remembers only one. The other, however, as we have seen, has crept into a few codices of Chrysostom."

P. 664 (col. 635, n. 30). Eds. "I am going." And others said, "I, Lord, am going." The codices divide between "Lord, I am going" and "I am going"; nothing, it seems, conflates both readings. Savile did not understand the sign of Montfaucon.

P. 666 (col. 637, lin. 3), *those nets of his*. He seems to have had in mind a most beautiful passage in Xenophon, *Mem.* III, 11, 10.

Ibid., *§*. This is found in all editions, both in the reading and in the distinction. *Neither, therefore, should anyone despair of virtue, lest he drowse, nor be so confident.* Many times, for he... etc.

P. 667 (col. 658), lin. 5 before the end. After *it came to pass*, add *and he who first opened the gates of paradise entered in.*

ANNOTATIONS TO HOMILY LXVIII

P. 669 (col. 639), *in the end of the text*. Most manuscripts of the Gospel continue the reading here even further. Montfaucon: *Viz., at the end of verse 44, "he kicked him."* My Moscow copies, and it seems all others except for the one mentioned by Matthew, have it. Codex γ, before Homily LXVIII, has verses 33 and 34. But the Homily itself begins: *Again he speaks to them in parables; or rather, it is better to set forth the whole [passage], and then to add the explanation of it and its clarity.* The subject continues: *Many [things] from the parables, what is stated at the beginning of the Homily according to Montfaucon.*

P. 670 (col. 640), not. 94, *to leave small things to them*. Savile's Mor. [edition] uses *to leave the little things to them*.

Ibid., five lines later, *and a law he gave, and he sacrificed, and he built*. Mor. [edition] reads *and a law he gave, and a city he raised, and he sacrificed, and he built*. Sav. [edition] likewise. The correction arises from the similarity of the clauses, for the fact is that these had either fallen out, or were later put back from an alien source. The order, which I gave in one [codex], and [which is supported] by the testimony of the Ancient Interpreter, is commended.

Ibid., not. 98, *enjoying*. So G; *having enjoyed* H, K, M. The other is uncertain. That is after Savile and the [edition of] Ben. I am inclined to restore the reading *enjoying* to the ancient one. But, as Dorvillius very truly observed, *ad Char.* p. 52 [p. 250 Ed. Lips.], *The Greeks are most tenacious of nouns, and the preceding [part] is understood to be the case in question.* I offer a few examples from our own [texts], and the one which the librarians have inviolate. Supra p. 138, where he jests that he should warn [someone], I produce one [example]. Add the var. lect. pp. 578, 738, 834. A passage very similar to ours is on p. 393: *He says that the former confesses here,* in another place p. 657, *that regarding this hypothesis he often, having said [there is] nothing to be gained from the transposition, [proposes] somethings of an enigmatic nature,* says Savilius. Tom. IX, p. 516, *just as it is worse to be evil than to be blamed,* Savilius conjectures *evil* [for] *worse*; but it seems truer that *evil* [occurs] in the corrigenda [text] p. 731, and *is evil*. Lobeck, *ad Phryn.* p. 750, collected other examples of the construction, specifically by the accusative.

P. 670 (col. 641, lin. 2), *they contend with the former, they are refuted by the pollutions.* Concerning the intensity of these words, while no one, so far as I know, has argued accurately, I find everything tossed together by scholars; thus, let it be permitted to me to speak at somewhat greater length. For if it were useless to try again, or to persist in trying; but the usage has prevailed, and let *contendere* [to contend] be the known sense for the obstinate intensity of the struggle, or *contend* [to struggle], or if you should prefer the former, *contendendo superes* [you may overcome by contending]. For it is used absolutely with that force, just as on p. 621, but as for the [phrase] "they contend," they say, I provide [proofs] favoring the former argument as the new. Tom. X, p. 39: *For they wanted their former [arguments] to be checked, and [they wanted] silence,* just as the [phrase] *to contend* (obstinate in the intent to persist) *was the greater [cause] of the war and of the laughter.* Plutarch, I, p. 65 C: *Besides these [other] proofs being contended [with], with other arguments, [he] to overcome the former, [fleeing] sleep, nor let him be so confident. For very often he… etc.*

P. 667 (col. 658), lin. 5 before the end. After *it came to pass*, add *and he who first opened the gates of paradise entered in.*

^A P. 695 (col. 662), n. 58. The passage is read in the editions as follows: *For when he was asked concerning the manner of the resurrection, and what the resurrection is, he taught more than they had asked, instructing them.* Where there is trouble for the most and the resurrection, it is not sufficiently certain, as Chrysostom has taught from abundance. According to our reading, he did not merely answer the question regarding the quality and nature of the resurrection (v. 30), but he did also prove the future resurrection by arguments (v. 31, 32). Cf. p. 690.

P. 696 (col. 663), n. 79, *prosestênai*. See the annotation to column 659, p. 319. Ev. XI, p. 324: *It seems to me that he refers everything to the Father, so that he might not immediately add the word to them.* In the margin of the Evangelist: *Reg. 743 and margin. Savil. prosestênai. [Ed.] Ben. 2d ed. Imperite [unskillfully]. Read prostênai, but do not let the passage offend you.* Briefly, he might rightly say that [it is] a good better than pleasure. Plut. II, p. 152, that one could call the command of the Ethiopian nothing other than the *scutala* (staff). The vulgate reading seems to imply pipes; but Savill says: "It might be better to read *schetois* (conduits), or *homoia* (similar things), or *ta alla* (those other things), or something like that."

Ibid. (col. 660, lin. antepenult.), *parastêsei... ennoêsei*] Sic. Gev. and all the copies; *parastêsai... ennoêsai* Mor. *parastêsai... ennoêsai* (sic) Ben.

^C

fellowship of the Jewish nation, should desire to depart from his own house and native country, to leave behind even servants, friends, and kin, and to subject himself to the kingdom of another.

2. But if that would have been foolish, much more foolish is that which follows proven to be. For what is this thing, that after traversing such long distances of travel, when they had adored the child and stirred up many tumults against themselves, they immediately returned? And what symbols of royalty were they even said to have seen? A humble shack, to be sure, and a squalid manger, and a tiny child wrapped in cheap rags, and a mother in poverty. Why, then, did they offer those gifts? And for what reason? Do you think there was a law or some custom that wherever in the world kings were born, they rendered this tribute of devotion: that they, having traversed the whole world, should suppliantly adore those whom they knew would be kings from being base and poor, and this before they had even ascended a royal throne? But absolutely no one would say that. By what reasoning, then, did they adore him? But even if they were thinking of some benefit from present favors, what in the world could they hope for in the way of remuneration from an infant and a needy mother? Or was it so that they might secure grace for themselves with the king in the future? And how could they know that he would not forget such a hurried adoration once he was grown in his kingdom, a child who had been adored while still in his very cradle? But if they believed he would be reminded by his mother, they would nevertheless be more worthy of punishment than reward, as those who had delivered him into such open danger by adoring him—or rather, by betraying him. From this, indeed, Herod was thoroughly disturbed, sought the child with every care, and hastened with every desire to kill him. For the situation is such that when anyone, while another is reigning, claims that someone else is going to be king—and makes him known while he is still a child and a private person—he exposes him to a thousand dangers and hands him over to obvious destruction. Do you see how many absurdities arise here, if we believe that these things are to be understood according to human logical sequences and common affairs? And yet, not only these things, but we can also bring forward many other things, possessing a greater problem than these that we have spoken of. But lest, by weaving obscure things with obscure things, we cause you weariness and labor, come, let us now come to explain those things that have been proposed, taking the beginning of the resolution from the star itself. For when we have learned what that star is, or of what kind: and whether it is one of many, or altogether new and distinct from other heavenly bodies, and whether it is naturally a star or merely carries the appearance of a star: when, I say, we have learned these things, we shall easily know the rest. From where, then, can these things be clearly known? From the evangelical history of the reading itself. For that this star was not one of many—nay, as I think, not a star at all, but a certain invisible power fashioned in the guise of a star—is shown from the very start of the journey. For it is not a star, it is absolutely not, that is taught to hold its course through this region of the sky: but whether you talk of the sun, or the moon, or the other stars, we see them all carried from the east to the west. But this star came from the north to the south. For thus, according to the location of the places, Palestine looked toward Persia. Secondly, this can also be proven from the time. For it is not seen at night, but in the full light of day, with the sun shining. Which power of shining not only no star, but not even the moon itself has attained; which, although it shines much more clearly than all the stars, is nevertheless hidden at the immediate rising of the sun: and that which previously illustrated everything is barely seen itself beneath a much brighter star. But this star surpassed even the sun's rays with a certain peculiar, exceptional brightness, appearing clearly to them, and shining all the more resplendently in the midst of so much of their light. Thirdly, however, the novelty of this star is indicated by the very intermittence of its shining. For now it was completely hidden, now it shone with its full radiance. For as they were coming to Palestine, it appeared always as if it were the guide of the journey: but when they had entered Jerusalem, it hid itself again. Then, when they had indicated the cause of their journey to Herod, and, having left him, were heading to the child to adore him, the same star showed itself to them again. But this, the movement of a star does not do, but a certain power full of reason. For that star at that time was not holding any fixed course, but when it was necessary for them to move, it too moved: and when it was necessary to stand, it stood, dispensing all things opportunely and decently, just as that column of cloud in the wilderness once stood in its place to mark where they must make camp according to the opportunity of affairs, or, by moving forward, moved the army. Fourthly, it is also easily and clearly understood from the very method of the demonstration. For it did not show the place of him who was sought by the Magi while established in the heights of the sky—for they could not have learned it in that way—but it descended, and holding the lower part of the air, it affected this. For you know that the star could not have shown from heaven such a tiny and humble place, as a brief shack, which contained the little body—if I may so say—of the child in that place. For the star could not have marked such a brevity of place with its immeasurable height for those who desired to see, just as a certain sign, which certainly can be known very easily from the lunar orbit. For the moon, although it excels the stars, yet since it is diffused into the breadth of such a great earth, is believed to be near to all the inhabitants of the world. How, therefore, did the star show so tiny a place, namely, the shack and the manger, unless it had left that sublime height and come to the lower parts, and stood above the very head of the child? Which the evangelist signified, saying: Lo, the star which they had seen in the east went before them until it came and stood over where the child was. Truly you consider from how many things the evangelist teaches that this star is not one of the others, nor does it show the child to the astrologers according to the sequence of astrology.

3. Why, therefore, did it appear? So as to conviction the disbelief of the Jews more and more.

and might block every path of excuse for the ungrateful. For since Christ, in coming, was to put an end to the Old Testament, but was going to call the entire world to worship Him—He who should be worshipped by sea and land—He opens the door of adoration from the very beginning of His birth, and thus also instructs His domestic worshippers while inviting the strangers. ^A For because the people who heard the prophets, who had often promised His advent, little heeded their words, He caused barbarians to come from distant regions to inquire for the King born among them, that they might learn in the Persian tongue what they were unwilling to learn from the prophets announcing it; so that if they were of good will, they might be assisted by the greatest occasion for believing, but if they should contend against manifest truths, they might be deprived of every excuse. For how could they have covered their impiety, not receiving Christ after the testimonies of so many prophets concerning Him, when they saw that the Magi, by the guidance of a single star, had both inquired for Christ and were found humbly worshipping Him? ^B Therefore, what God did concerning the Ninevites, sending Jonah to them, and what He did in the case of the Samaritan woman and the Canaanite, He also did with the Magi, and for that reason He will say: *The men of Nineveh shall rise and condemn, and the Queen of the South shall rise and condemn this generation (Matt. 12:41-42)*: since they indeed believed in lesser things, but this generation did not believe even in the greatest. And by what reason, you ask, did He lead the Magi to Christ through a star? But in what way ought He to have worked? By sending prophets instead? But the Magi would never have believed the prophets. By a voice sounding from above? They would not have cared for this either. By sending an angel? Perhaps they would have passed him by as well. For this reason, then, God left aside all such things and called them by those things which their habit made familiar to them, by a wonderful dispensation of piety condescending to the salvation of men. ^C He therefore showed the Magi a huge and bright star, one that differed greatly from those stars which we observe, so that He might move them to admiration by the magnitude and beauty of the star, and also by the very novelty of its course. Imitating this, Paul, taking an occasion from an altar, discoursed with the Gentiles, bringing forward testimonies from their own domestic poets; for a time he announced Christ to the Jews without forbidding circumcision, and took the beginnings of his doctrine from sacrifices for those who were still living under the law. ^D For because every man is bound by the affection of his own custom, both God and the men sent by Him for the salvation of the whole world take the materials for their discourse from the manners of each person's own nation. Do not, therefore, think it unworthy that the Magi were called by a star. In this way, He would eventually reject all the ceremonies of the Jews—all the rites and sacrifices, purifications, new moons, the ark, and the temple itself—since all these things took their origin from the rudeness of the Gentiles. But God, for the sake of the salvation of those deceived, allowed Himself to be worshipped through those very things through which they had formerly worshipped demons, changing them for a time for the better, so that He might little by little lead them back from their custom and bring them to a higher philosophy. He therefore kept this same manner of His dispensation in the case of the Magi, whom He called through the apparition of the star, that He might make them higher from that base. After He had brought them—and as it were led them by the hand to the manger with the star leading the way—He spoke to them no longer by the star, but by an angel, thus gradually leading them to better things. It is read that He did this also to the Ascalonites and the Gazans and their neighbors. For when those five cities were struck by a deadly plague as the Ark came toward them, and they could find no liberation from such evils, they called the seers and, gathering a multitude of the people, they sought how that wrath of God might be appeased (1 Kings 5). Then their seers replied that they should yoke to a cart, by which the Ark would be carried, heifers that were as yet unbroken and primiparous, and with no one guiding them, they should let them go whither they would, saying that it would thus appear whether that plague had come from God, or whether they had perished by some common accident and illness (Ibid. 6). If, they said, they broke the yoke with a proud neck and, lowing, returned to their calves, it is manifest that it was done by chance; but if they proceeded on a straight journey, and neither attempted to return to the lowing of their calves nor turned aside into any other region by the error of an unknown path, it would clearly be revealed that these cities had been struck by the hand of God. Since, therefore, the people of those regions then believed those things as the seers said them, and fulfilled their command, God also, with His usual condescension, approved the judgment of the seers; nor did He think it unworthy of His majesty to bring into effect the words of the profane, and to act so that they would seem to have faithfully advised those things. For indeed, it pertained to the greater glory of God if His power were made manifest even by the testimony of enemies, and if these masters of gentility themselves bore a consonant judgment concerning the power of the man of God. And we find that God dispenses many things besides these similar to them. For He kept this same tenor of dispensation in the case of the pythoness also, which you yourselves can already solve according to the aforesaid rule (Ibid. 28). Let it therefore suffice that these things have been said by us on the occasion of the star, about which you will already be able to say more. *For give*, he says, *to a wise man an occasion, and he will be wiser (Prov. 9:9).*

4. But it is time that we return to the beginning of the things that have been read: *When therefore Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king.* And the Magi indeed followed the star that went before them; but the Jews did not believe even the prophets when they sounded forth. By what reason, then, does He designate both the place and the time, by saying, *In Bethlehem*, and, *In the days of Herod the king*? And for what cause did He add the dignity? He surely marked it for this reason, because there was another Herod who had killed John; but that one had the honor of a tetrarch, this one of a king. And He sets forth the place and the time so that He might call back to our memory the ancient prophecies, one of which Micah once foretold: *And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the princes of Judah (Micah 5:2)*; and the other, the patriarch Jacob, who once expressed the time to us diligently and placed a clear sign of the advent of Christ by saying: *A prince shall not depart from Judah, nor a leader from his thighs, until He comes to Whom it is laid up; and He shall be the expectation of the nations (Gen. 49:10).* But I also think that this is worthy of inquiry: whence were they able to understand...

intellegere...

TO HOMILY LXXV.

P. 732 (col. 693, lin. 8 ab imo). ^A Hæc auxit Epit. h. m. ^B Οὐ μόνον δὲ περὶ τοῦ ἀνδριάντος λέγει τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῶν στρατοπέδων. Quasi legisset: Ὅθεν μοι δοκεῖ καὶ τὰ στρ. λέγειν. Paulo infra idem habet, κἂν τὸ γυμνῷ; Euthym. τὸ καὶ γυμνῷ. Neutra emendatio a libris firmatur.

P. 735 (col. 695), proxime a nota 88. Τοιοῦτος ^C γὰρ ἦν ὁ λιμὸς κ. τ. ἑ. Hæc, ni fallor, apud Josephum non leguntur. Chrysostomo, scriptori in libris citandis incuriosissimo, hærebat in memoria alia fames, quæ urbi Samariae ab Adado Syrorum rege obsessae incessit. Vide IV Reg. vi, 25 sqq.; Joseph. Antiq. ix, 4, 4.

Ibid., proxime a not. 89. Θέα] Sic Sav. et codices. Σκόπει Montef. de suo, ut videtur. Nam apud Morelli sic habetur locus: ᾑ τῶν πραγμάτων ἀληθὴς [folio verso, θέα δέ μοι κ. τ. ἑ.]

P. 738 (col. 696), lin. 4 post not. 4, καὶ τὸν καιρὸν καθ᾽ ὃν ϑᾶν. ^D Ben. Etiam librarios male habuit rara constructio τὸν καθ᾽ ὃν. Euthym. ad Matth. ix, 5, ἦσαν δὲ καὶ ἄμφω τὰ περὶ ὧν ἠρώτησε, Θεῷ μὲν δυνατὰ κ. τ. ἑ. Theophylact. ad Matth. xi, 3, ἵνα

ἵνα 5). And how, you will ask, does Paul say: Rejoice in the Lord always (Phil. 4:4)? He indeed said this, I confess; but he is indubitably signifying the pleasure which is born from these tears. For just as the joy of the world is joined to a fellowship of sadness, so too do tears according to the Lord bring forth a constant and certain joy. Thus also that harlot in the Gospel surpassed even the virgins themselves in honor, and being kindled with the fire of an incredible love for Christ, she was cleansed from the greatest filth of sins by the most copious fountain of tears. For because she had perfectly grown warm by repenting, she began, if I may so speak, to jubilate, agitated by desire for Christ. Indeed, she immediately let down her hair, and washing his holy feet most abundantly with tears, and wiping them with her own tresses, she bedewed them with precious ointment. And these things indeed she did all visibly; but the things which she was agitating in the secret of her mind were far more igniting than these, and much greater, which God alone perceived. And therefore everyone who hears of this rejoices with her, and takes delight in her virtue, and judges her to be alien from every crime. If, therefore, we form a malignant judgment concerning this conversion of hers, understand what great liberality of the benign God she already enjoys, and from how many virtues, even before that day, she gathered for herself the fruit of remuneration from that very repentance. For just as after vehement rains the world and the air are made pure: so too does a serenity and tranquility of mind follow the rains of tears, and all that mist poured out from the darkness of sins is dissolved. And just as we are cleansed from water and the Spirit, so again are we cleansed from tears and confession, provided that we do not do this for ostentation and praise. For she who laments with this intent is even more worthy of blame than she who is colored with make-up by the study of bodily beauty and painted with antimony. Those tears, I say, I seek, which do not proceed for show, but for compunction: which are shed secretly, and which flow from that sorrow that is stored within the granary of the conscience and hidden in the recesses of the breast, which roll down afflicted cheeks with no human witness, which slip down in the highest silence and quiet, which well up from the innermost heart, which are born from tribulation and sorrow, and which are offered to the eyes of God alone. Such certainly were the tears of Anna at one time, of whom it is said: Her lips were moved, but her voice was not heard (1 Kings 1:13). But those tears alone will send forth to the Lord a voice clearer than any trumpet: and therefore God changed her barrenness into fertility, and as if from a hard rock rendered the field fertile.

6. If, therefore, you too pour forth tears of this kind, you become an imitator of your Lord. For he himself wept, both when he raised Lazarus, and when he looked upon the city to be besieged (John 11:35; Luke 19:41). But he was also troubled concerning the betrayal and perdition of Judas. And so you may find him weeping fluently, but never laughing, nor even rejoicing by smiling lightly. No evangelist has certainly recorded this. For that Paul also wept, and did so by nights and by days for three years, and others testify of him, and he himself testifies of himself. But that he ever laughed, neither does he indicate anywhere, nor does anyone else indicate it of him. But neither is it narrated that any of the saints at any time indicated such a thing either concerning himself or any other. We read this said truly of Sara alone, but she was immediately corrected by the voice of God. And [we read this] of the son of Noah, but because of that laughter he was rendered a slave from being free. And I say these things not to cut off laughter entirely, but to extinguish dissoluteness completely. For for what cause do you break into guffaws, and frolic, you who have spontaneously become the cause of so many sorrows for yourself, about to stand before that terrible tribunal of Christ, and about to render an account for all your acts with the highest examination, when we are surely to be judged not only for those things which we commit by will and purpose, but even for those which we commit when coerced at times? For, he says, whoever shall deny me before men, I also will deny him before my Father (Matt. 10:33). And certainly it often happens that the denial of God is extorted from someone, but nevertheless that person does not escape punishment. For we shall pay penalties even for this. Nor are we to be punished only for those things which we know, but even for those which we do not know. The apostle says: I am not conscious of anything, but I am not justified in this (1 Cor. 4:4). Nay, even for those things which we commit through ignorance and through knowledge. I bear them witness, he says, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge (Rom. 10:2). Yet this does not suffice them at all for purgation. But also writing to the Corinthians, I fear, he says, lest as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your senses should be corrupted, and you fall from the simplicity which is in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 11:3). For such great sins, therefore, about to give an account, you sit secure, destroying yourself and others with miserable laughter and lamentable jests, and anxious only for the pleasure of delicacies, you consent to eternal goods. If, therefore, you ask, if I do not do these things, but am converted to mourning and tears, what fruit will I finally capture? Truly the greatest, and altogether so much that speech does not suffice to explain it. For in worldly judgments, however much you may lament and weep after the sentence has been received, you will not escape punishment by weeping: but here if you groan to God with your whole heart, you have suddenly dissolved the sentence, and have obtained forgiveness. Therefore Christ speaks much to us concerning mourning, both by beatifying those who mourn, and by pronouncing those who laugh miserable. For we do not gather into a theater, that is, where laughter might be moved, nor into one place for this reason more often, that we may be resolved into indecent guffaws: but rather that we may groan, and from this groaning inherit the future kingdom. For you, certainly, if you stand before the sight of an earthly king, will not dare to smile at all: but having the Lord of the angels present everywhere, do you not stand before him with trembling and the greatest reverence; but even when he is angry, you laugh, and do not see that you provoke him more by this than you provoke him by sinning. For God does not turn away from those sinning as much as he does from those who are secure after sins. And yet some are found so altogether insensible and iron-hearted, that after these words they even say: But would that I had never...

been born. ^A

ANNOTATIONS ON HOMILY LXXVIII.

The text of the Gospel, lines 5. *After these words* [Matt. 25:3], *which* [the foolish ones] *did not take, he says, oil;* immediately the Homily begins. Mort. Savile: *But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. And while the bridegroom tarried*, and so forth. This seems to be drawn, not from Chrysostom’s codices, but from the Bibles, as Field, alongside the Moscow codices G, H, K, L, and others, appears to have verified. — *But thus* Frederick Field, according to his codices G, H, K, L, and the Moscow ones in agreement, [quoting the] Gospel: *Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five were wise, and those five were foolish, which did not take, he says, oil. Then while the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil. But they did not consent, saying, Lest there be not enough for us and you; go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour.* Then he again speaks another parable: *For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. Then of the two who brought the double, he who had been entrusted with one brought that alone, and being accused he says: I knew that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: and I was afraid, and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.*

P. 731 (col. 711), α', line 7. *But here, on the other hand.* Vetus: in *superioribus*. Epit[omizer] and Euthym[ius]: *in the former parable*.

Ibid., post 8 lines, *seeing* [text: *seeking*]. *And they did not return*, Savile notes. Later he gave *of oil* instead of *oil*, whence he made *mercy*. *Oil* in the codices of Morell and the Benedictines. I will speak about the confusion shortly.

Ibid., next to note 58, *with the virgins*. Thus Ge. and Edd. In my manuscripts G, M, and the Epitomizer, I read; in the Parisian ones, however, it is currently confirmed. Instead of *virgins* (l. *virgins*), we were edited [to read] *harlots*, p. 339, and also *harlots* instead of *virgins*, p. 143. Tom. VI, p. 34, [and in] the *harlots* (l. *harlots*), where it was confused by Montfaucon. Cf. Dorvill. ad Char., p. 52 (p. 217 Ed. Lips.). In our passage, however, *harlots* must be held to, since p. it says, the one... the other... who wanted to fail Savile. Immediately, by universal consensus of the books, I gave *to money*, as if it were those virgins which are induced into the parables; the sermon looks to that. For a little later [he says] *to the harlots... for they [failed]* and *the [harlots] failed*, and *the [harlots]* regarding *money*. Certe, one must admit, I fear there is a fault of Chrysostom himself here; it would have been written much more accurately: *the harlots...* for they failed regarding [words]..., ^B and regarding *money*.

P. 752 (col. 712), not 64. *It is no wonder* [in this homily] *that between "oil" and "mercy" there is wavering*, since these words, from the fact that they stand in the Homily by accident, it is established. The vowels *ai* and *e* at that time were accustomed to be pronounced exactly the same. This error is very often twisted into the matter by Chrysostom, e.g., above, 403: *For [it] needs medicines*, and *wounds of oil*, or *a sword*. Tom. VIII, p. 225: *Yet this oil not only has great power, but even when there is sacrifice it blooms: "I will have mercy," he says, "and not sacrifice"*, Add to this [Hom.] XI, p. 225. He compared *alms* with *oil*, above, 244, and also in the place which Hemat cited: ad Lucian. tom. I, p. 411 Ed. Bip. : *As that [man]*... *in the parables*... *by the use of the plant oil, he [has benefited] them and [their] love of mankind. And there can be no doubt that this can exist as the cause of this, our [Homily], why he thought the parable of the ten virgins was only about alms.* More correctly [it is about] good works generally, [as] other teachers of the Greek Church [e.g. Cyril], who, having understood [it] as mercy, says [it means] the good working, [as] interpreted by the Father [Chrysostom], not [about] the poor, but [about] the masters of the doctrine, ^C by whom one learns virtue, he refers. No one of the ancients that I know understood [it] of faith, which [is] in Suicer, Thes. s. v. *Oil* [as] an error.

Ibid., not 68. The editions have *ἄλλ' οὐδὲν ὠνήσαντο*, [with] no observation. The interpreter [has]: *but they profited nothing*. But the aorist form *ὠνήσαντο* [comes] from the verb *ὀνίνημι* only in the Lexicons, and in more liberal ones (e.g. Schleusner Lex. N. F.) it is noted. The ancients used the form *ὤνησαν*, but the more recent ones add *ὠνάμην*. See Lo[beck] ad Phryn. p. 12 sq. *ὠνάμην*, to avoid ambiguity, the verb *ὠνεῖσθαι* [to buy] was made proper. Wherefore, if you keep *ἄλλ' οὐδὲν ὠνήσαντο*, it means *but they bought nothing*; but [it has] that sense, if I am not mistaken, which [has] rather said, *but they profited nothing*, or *but they bought nothing*. But since in two codices the writing *ὠνήσαντο* exists, [we] must see whether this verb is attached [to the next word] by a syllable from the beginning of the following word *τοῦτο* [?]. The form *ὥνησα* is properly active in force, and in this locution *οὐδὲν ὤνησα*, and never intransitive, it seems, it would be; [it has] profited nothing; which in the very similar formula *οὐδὲν ὠφέλησα* is very common. Of which, however, usages, since they are commonly vulgar ones, examples must be set down. Pinto ^D

^A

Vit. Mos. p. 644: "Walk in the way you are hastening; for you will profit—*ὀνήσεις*—nothing." Plutarch II, p. 435 ^B. Since he, having tried every way to save the men, profited nothing. Chrys. Vol. X, p. 77: "But just as if anyone possessing golden weapons were to walk through a river of fire, he comes out the brighter; but if he were to walk through having straw, he not only profits nothing, but he destroys even himself..." ^C Compare Menand. Protect. p. 101 (p. 286 Ed. Niebh.), "But the ambassadors of the Avars, since they profited—*ὥνησαν*—nothing of the things for which they had come to the king as suppliants, etc."—those things which they attempted—they accomplished nothing. ^D

*AD HOMILIAM LXXIX.*

P. 757, text, lines 1-2, *in the glory of his Father*. They are all with me, according to Reg. 688 and Moscow. The words *of the Father*, seized by another (xvi, 27), were deleted by Savilius; nevertheless, the manuscripts even now contain *of the glory*.

P. 759 (col. 718), note 39. Regarding *the figure of the suppliants and those who worship*, which some manuscripts have, says Montf. Vol. XI, p. 530: "Hear, ^A suppliant, not as a master do they use the voice, but as a servant, almost." Read with Dounaeus, *suppliant*. The other: "But he did not take up such a form, neither did the suppliant—*ἱκέτου*—"

P. 761 (col. 720, antepenultimate line). And he made clear, etc. "Chrysostom supposed, therefore, that Zechariah was the father of John the Baptist. Others think otherwise." Montf. See above p. 142. The same hallucination is treated at length in the Homily on the Birth of Christ, Opp. Vol. II, p. 361, where he says that Zacharias, having entered into the holy of holies, offers the sacrifice, that he might prove the birth of the Lord on the twenty-fifth of December. See the Monitum of Montfaucon prefixed to that Homily. Now I will expose the errors of our ancestors born of ignorance of Jewish matters. Therefore, that he falsely affirms the annual successions. Furthermore, I do not know what meaning he attributes to the word *ephemeria*, certainly not its proper one, whence one may conclude that he spoke of the election of the High Priests. Below p. 769, ^B *he drags the holy army* erroneously to the Roman guard, when he refers to the priests and Levites who were ministering in the Temple, and to the sort *of Jews*, according to Archaeology. *It is handed down* (Exod. xxx, 13), surely *not* as the firstborn, as he incautiously hands down to be read (above p. 585), a passage most alien. Vol. III, 45 proving. Finally, in the Homily mentioned above, all things concerning the parts of the Temple, of the altar of sacrifice and of incense, are strangely confused.

Ibid. (col. 721, line 1), *the chief priests, who were of the chiefs of the priests* (Ge. Ben.). Correctly Sav.: *as consuls; the priesthood being fulfilled*.

P. 762 (ead. col.), note 79. *Scripture of very many books*—they did not endure the time passing, of which the Editors did not warn—it seems that it refers to a *gloss*. ^C There is little difference, since in the common reading the word *of the temple* is a corruption, in whose absence the rest were not endured; but he correctly translates *the old*—they had not endured, but in it, etc. However, it must not be dissimulated that the meaning a little deflected from the customary script, so that it might be possible for someone to have no regard for it or for its reason. See p. 785: "But the Magi would not have endured," or, "would not have believed." Again, p. 786, "Since he did not endure even himself, nor the words of the prophet," and so forth. "But nevertheless, because he did not endure the words. Vol. XI, p. 576, *as if he endured nothing*, and *power to do all things*. These things are in our text to be translated, *they had no regard for the (sacred) time*; which as others say, p. 812, *not to have regarded the time*—it seems Euthymius understood the time otherwise, but having found the traitor, they seized the time."

*AD HOMILIAM LXXX.*

This discourse is read on the holy and great ^D and holy and great Friday, and on the holy John, and on Friday. The manuscript is not recent in the Megin manuscripts.

P. 767 (col. 725), note 42. In the common reading, ten manuscripts present the consensus of the high priests; which you cannot wonder at, since all the editors of Chrysostom completely despair of it. One cannot seriously consider this reading as a slip of the pen. I truly feel that Chrysostom somehow came into his mind, that two disciples were at the banquet of Bethany, namely Peter and John, whom the Lord sent as his authors to prepare the Paschal meal in the city. But it is true that this happened, namely on the day of unleavened bread; but that Chrysostom did not pay much attention to the exact temperaments, the reader will now realize, it being certain.

P. 768 (col. 726), note 51. Montfaucon has this: *Morel. they say. Others, he will say these things.* They are the same, if I am not mistaken, Editio Saviliana. Certainly, in Reg. 688, another, and indeed the best reading, I read. The old, consult. It will not be beside the point to mention the place, so that, as Euthymius narrated, one may transcribe: "And so, therefore, if you see some building churches, monasteries, or votive offerings, do not order them to be destroyed, so that you do not extinguish their zeal; but if anyone asks before building, order [him] to give to the poor."

P. 769 (col. 727, γ', lin. 5-6), *and of so much silver, indeed*. The old, at least. Above p. 571, or of so much he shows the apostolic labors to be worthy. Infra p. 845, "I am ashamed if I would have so much to say about poverty, that there is nothing terrible." *These places* Boisius *handled badly*. Add p. 464, *a sea not such, nor so great, but much larger and wilder*. Similar is the usage of the particle *until* for *not further*, of which see the index.

P. 770 (col. 728, δ') In Siracides ch. x, in the eighth and ninth verses, the Codex Alexandrian...

and several others provide this reading: *He that soweth iniquity shall reap evils*, which is how the Vulgate also has it. The common Greek copies have: *He that soweth iniquity shall reap vain things* (or *evils*, if we read κακά instead of μάταια). The Vetus Interpreter often renders these by *vain things*, even if the Greek text contains *evils*, because the later copies often corrupted the term, as the Complutensian edition has it in the middle.

P. 771 (col. 729), note 88. *Nothing evil has he suffered, if he does not pretend*. A verse of Menander praised by many. Plutarch (p. 475 B) says this is *not unsuitable* to the things of Menander. *Nothing suffered*, he says, *if not pretend*. Ibid. p. 599 C; Stobaeus p. 571, 8; Lucian, Jup. Trag. sub finem. Vide Menand. p. 252 Ed. Cleric. et Einend. p. 93. J. van Voorst (Chrys. Selecta, vol. ii, p. 157) has erred humanly: "It occurs elsewhere in Chrysostom in his own habit of using the opinions of ancient philosophers." For example, the one found in Comm. in Matth. Hom. LXXX, *Hear those who philosophize about these things and say*: "Nothing evil has he suffered if he does not pretend." It is also a saying of Plato, *to pretend* (or simulate), see those cited by Duker, and Thucydides (iv, 47) notes the *Vetus Interpreter*, but he does not correct him, nor does Savilius; *unless you sell, [behold] the kin from the kin*, that is, *to be kin*.

P. 772 (col. 730), note 93. In this place we have expressed one codex, K, accurately, with which H, L, and Mor. do not dissent, with few exceptions which we have noted in the margin. After *not to need*, the text progresses: *it is clear that poverty again makes one*, this is especially *that poverty makes one rich*—*more easily than* etc. Another codex, G, has: *it is clear that poverty again above all makes one rich, and that poverty exists and [one should] strive for poverty*. And that it is easier for one to despise wealth in poverty and strive for it; and that [someone] in poverty might despise wealth and desire wealth in such a way, it seems that the Vetus Interpreter intended. Now we must say something about the editions. The ancients, as I said, for the most part have it. Savilius after *not to need* gave these words: *it is clear that poverty above all makes one rich. For it is easier for someone to be in poverty and despise wealth. And to desire it more*, etc. This codex is entirely wrong, as if the Vetus Interpreter was imitating the word *entrepse*, and then stupidly repeats, *it is clear that to be in poverty above all makes one rich. And that one desires it more*, etc. Neither of these men of the codices by a single word alerted us. It is not difficult to investigate the causes of such disturbances.

TO HOMILY LXXXI

In this Homily and the three following, we have used, besides other copies, the Mussipontanus codex, a printed copy of Ducaeus, mutilated indeed and very faulty, yet it did not always err. Sav. from these one homily, which in the Greeks is LXXXII—Mussiponti (or rather Lugduni) in the year MDXCI printed, and had by hand. Besides this, I saw two others, LXXXIX and XC, made public the following year by the same editor, in a small book entitled *Anastasius showing*. These all were transcribed from manuscript codices.

P. 774 (col. 731), note 14. *Morel. and Sav. [omit] to take*, but Sav. suspects one should read *to take*. Others *et Reg. 688 [omit] to take*. Montef. who edited it.

P. 775 (col. 732), note 29. *Sav. holy, Morel. most holy, another most holy*. Montef. Cf. anot. ad p. 295.

P. 777 (col. 754), note 41. *Locum exscribam*. In Ed. Comm. et Mor. it is read: *having spoken again, Woe to that man...* then *it is good for him, if he was not born*. And *he corrected him by dipping the bread and handing it in, as the one who betrayed him*. The words *by dipping the bread and handing it in* are not in the manuscripts, and the *if* is not placed [there], Ben. Furthermore, *but* and *was corrected* are upheld in Sav. editions and the Comm. edition in the smallest details by G, H, M, and the Vetus version translates it. In K, *it is rightfully absent*; with this one exception, it adheres to the others. With all [else] abandoned, the reading of codex L, which seems to us better than the words of the vulgar version, we fidelly imitate, unless that which is absent from it makes us think it should be retained. To this question of resolving the matter, the word *entrepse* has the greatest moment, and is far more apt to our reading, in no way provided for in the vulgate. Indeed, some translate it *turned*, but Vetus, since it is not so corrected; but, Montef. says, which he teaches in the index to be in many [codices], it admits of no other meaning. Moreover, concerning the mentioned codex, the authority of the Epitomator also exists, who in this place is indeed found to have lapsed, but truly see p. 787, where he is also [in the matter] of the betraying sermon, where he brought in that he, having said, *Woe to that man* and, having spoken *again*, he corrected him by saying, *It is good for him, if he was not born*, and he corrected him by dipping the bread and handing it in, as the one who betrayed him by the desire of God. Wait. 47, *by force* [is read in] *by force* K, *by force* L. Cf. anot. ad p. 382.

P. 779 (col. 736), note 64. After *of you* they continue thus in Sav. Ben. *Now they are divided*, etc., omitted by all others except for Vetus. And so, I am utterly astonished at the prompting of Montfaucon: *Morel. now, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, and now they are divided*. All manuscripts and Sav. in the text.

P. 780 (col. 736), the next note 76, *many* etc. Boisius by conjecture reads: *many ask for the body, and they calculate beyond the excess of the flesh and the doctors of the children of the flesh*. The locus *doctors of children* itself, but Boisius, as more experienced, seems to expect. In written books there is nothing of the remedy.

TO HOMILY LXXXII

P. 781 (col. 737), in text. *having taken... bread... cup*. The articles are upheld by the Moscow codices, with the exception of one Ault. Euthym. *having taken bread, that is, that which was lying near him, or even another lying near to him, as a teacher*.

P. 782 (ibid.), note 87, *held*] So besides all my Reg. 688 and Euth. Vetus, revokes. He held *his*, as he had it in the Homily by this [evidence], he seems to have taken from the Mussipontanus Ed. The sequence in Ed. Comm. Mor. is read: *and by words, and by works, and by fear, and by threat, and by honor, and by therapy*. G, H, K, M, Ge. offer a better order. Sav. also, except that he does not have *and by honor*. Note: the preceding Greek lines referring to this entry are preserved as a synoptic table of these variants.

^A Migne’s marginal: *tēs hyposcheseōs, tēs epaggelias tou n. t.*, etc. and so in the MSS. Migne’s note: *pollicitationis et promissionis legis novae*. Montef.: *tēs hyposcheseōs tēs epaggelias tou n. t.* read, *promissionis et pollicitationis legis novae*. Migne again has Ed. Muss. and another in two codices, which Montef. used. In the wording *tēn diathēkēn tēn en tē kainē (diathēkē)*, it hesitates as to meaning. ^B P. 785 (col. 759), no. 1, *epi tēs euerg.* etc. P.P. *tōn mystēriōn* Com. Mor. and Reg. 688. Our lection has Muss. Sav. Ben. Cf. note p. 517. P. 784 (col. 740, line 1), *echōn*] Sic Ep. and codices. *echonta* Edd. except Sav. P. 785 (col. 740), line 9 from the bottom, *en autō tō ethnei*. Sic Ep. Edd. and codices. Some others *en autō tō orei*. Montef. This Montef. in the margin of Savile, but where it is read, he hesitated. P. 786 (col. 741, line 10 from the bottom), *ho deētheis* Savile also added, *pollō mallon eis touto* codex Muss. following. Soon they also read, *Pōs oun euchēs edeito*. P. 787 (col. 743, line 7), *touto, ouk ērk.*] *tout’*, clearly *ouk ērk.* for Ep. this, clearly also from this: *hou gar ērk.* Sav. concerning this construction I have spoken in the note p. 155. P. 787 (col. 743), no. 44. *Etoun* is a faulty reading of the word *etoun*. See Bast. in Addend. to Greg. Cor. p. 876. The same [person] V. in *Adversaria* at the end, Scapulae Ed. Oxon., called this into question, but in vain. For this occurs commonly among the Scholiasts. P. 789 (col. 744), no. 60. *Anōgeōn*] See Muss. Sav. Ben. whom he incautiously followed. *Anōgeion* Com. M. *anōgeon* G, K, *anōgaion* L, *anōgaion* H, M. Some have questioned this difference, Lobeck. *ad Phryn.* p. 297. For the writing *anagāion* see codices N. F. ancient. Ibid. (col. 745), no. 64. The reading of codex C, *horōn tous borborou chalepōteran hamartian echontas kai prosiontas* which the Muss. edition published Sav. Ben. The other *horōn gēs kai borborou* etc. and codices K, L, have Com. and Mor.

TO HOMILY LXXXIII

^A

ad codices. » Matth. *Hormathon* in codices I have seen. Ibid., not. 27. Boisius suggests *to sēma kosmōn*, against the codices. Ibid. (col. 750), not. 28. Delevi suggests *axousi*, ordering everyone, and indeed the codex Augustanus. But that word ought not to be expelled, as it is used by Chrysostom. The same commentator links it to p. 198, *penian epitribōn, limon auxōn*. Ibid., 5’, not. 52. No variation is noted here in the editions, except that *pheresthai* exists in the text, although *heuresthai* exists in the margin. Furthermore, Matthaei warns that in the codex Augustanus one should read *kai oikian kai bion hypo penias*. For what is this? Since the Old Version agrees: *paupertate victum [imo vitam humanam; vide Ind. s. v. bios] et domos dedecore affici: omnia confundentes*. Aeschyl. *Prom*. v. 450, *ephyron eikē panta*. Aristid. p. 112, "But I think all these are the names of those who mix." Philo p. 169, "They confuse and mix all things through all things." Thus Wesseling emended at Diod. Sic. xvi, 80, which see. *Legebatur* *pherousi*. The same medicine does Libanius need, *Orat*. tom. I, p. 221: "But he, having been delivered from his body suffering, was unsettling his soul again, and the marketplace, in no way allowing the prices at each turn to stand, knowing that from a soul that is itself also sick and adrift, there could also be for him some profit." Lacking *phyromenēs*. To be claimed for Chrysostom, tom. X, p. 84, where commonly it is read: *mē kata tous agnōmonas tōn oiketōn phyomen ton logon, mēde nosphizōmetha ta despotika*. It should be read *phyromenēs*. Idem *verbum* *Legendum* *ex marg. Sav. et duobus Regiis ab Editore Ben. 2da citatis*, *phyromen ton logon, rationes conturbemus*. Ibid., not. 31. *Argyrō endedemenas*. "With this one word *argyrendetos*, even *chrysendetos*; with silver, gold-adorned, engraved." See above p. 653, *ochēmata argyrendeta kai chrysopasta*. Tom. VIII, p. 314, *argyrendetos klinē*. Mention is made of beds *lithokollētoi kai holochrysoi*, Euseb. *Praep. Ev*. p. 389 A. » Matth.

TO HOMILY LXXXIV

P. 799 (col. 753, β’), lin. 3. a not. 72. *Mesōn nychtōn*. So the codices, with one exception. It was published *meson nychtōn*, which also displeased Boisius. It is barbarous, which is read in tom. VIII, p. 489: *Mesonychtiōn hodoiporei*, which passage Montef. *monet*. Sav., and Cod. 709 correctly *mesōn nychtōn*. Morel. and Mss. [?] *mesonychtōn*. The Editor of the 2nd ed. added *iclusa*. See Kuehn, at J. Polluc. i, 70. P. 800 (col. 754), not. 87. This reading of the desert codices has been reluctantly embraced by the ancient editions, following the Savilian reading. Although among them there has been an interchange between *peplanēmenos* and *peplasmenos*, which indeed seemed to many to be much more fittingly *peplasmenos*. Furthermore, the reader should apply the same remedy to the places which follow. Euthym. tom. I, p. 817, *monē de tēn tōn peplanēmenōn ēthōn epideixin*. Theodoret. t. IV, p. 343, *kechrētai peplanēmenais apostolōn Praxesi* and other spurious ones. Ibid., not. 89. » Sav. *Kai mēn eipen*, *hoti en trisin*, *all’ ouk eipe*, *dōō*, omitting the others, which however are in agreement, and are present in the Mss. *plurimis*. Ibid., *henaponoia epi ennoia*. Montef. This one, which is mine, does not have the word. Concerning the debated words, let the judgment be under the Reader. It certainly does not please me much. P. 801 (col. 755), proxima not. 3. *Kai prolabōn k. t. ē*. This place by thorns and briars the learned man has surrounded. Boisius, with his conjectures, *non tanquam ex tripode aut libris*: *Kai dia touto probalōn erōtēma ho archiereus, kai tēn phōn par' akroatōn enerkōn... loipon apagei pros ton Pilaton*—so craftily and maliciously they were acting. Sav. *Posteriora* by the Interpreter; for many words of a man, which word thus he does not so much translate as dilate; which the critics have not rarely blamed. In the beginning of the period *unus G*, *Kai dia touto prolabōn*—without the interpreter, *repugnantibus codicibus*. In the beginning of the period *unus G*, *Kai dia touto prolabōn*—without the interpreter, *repugnantibus codicibus*. For if you understand it absolutely, it has no offense. It would have been said, *tēn psēphon par' autōn energōn*, if it had already preceded, ^B it does not bring the vote from himself, but calls it forth from them. Montef. has reached the sense. *Verba: illorum accepta sententia*. P. 802 (col. 756), not. 22. Savilius attributed the reading *nikēsēs* to himself inadvertently, and, on the contrary, Montefalconius was deceived. He here produced a notable emendation by his own hand and that of the codices. For the word *phēsi* credit is to be given, or even the writing of the Holy Scripture itself to be brought forward, because it is adumbrating some story concerning one or another of those Ancients; but of which I have no certain information. But to the Ancients, not to the listeners, this belongs, and the following sequence: *Mē parataxē kai autos exēsis*. Almost having forgotten to warn, I found *touto phēsi* in three codices, H, K, M, and *ante auton* I have read, but it does not exist in A and G. Ibid., post tres lineas. *Mē parataxē*] It was published *Mē parataxē, kai autos exēseis, kai nenikēkas*—this, as Montefalconio translates, *et victoriam referes*. *Verba* "and you have conquered" does not seem to the interpreter to be read; nor do I derive it from the things said. Sav. The words are nothing, says Boisius, and those worthy should be deleted. Montef. follows the margin of Savilius, and marked "Others *exēseis*." In the codices neither *exēseis* nor *exēsei* could be found. I warn the reader concerning this whole part of the work, that Savilius, supported by few subsidies, has corrected a little; Montefalconius, however, as he was rushing toward the end, was negligent, or the codices were used by that man in a way that is standard. P. 803 (col. 756), lin. 5 ab imo). *Kai opsei to tropaion*. Conmelinus, as the others are, agrees. Savilius wrote in the margin: "and you shall see the defeated. What are these words; you have brought in, etc." Montefalconius: "But others 'and you shall see the defeated' words. You have brought in." Thus, if you put it in the place where it is, we shall listen, as though you were over completely and prostrate, you might see them brought forward. A truly marvelous consensus; which, however, does not move me, for the former Editions, with the interpretation, are a manifest change, so it seems to me.

TO HOMILY LXXXV

P. 804 (col. 757, lin. 6 ab imo). *Triōbolimaiōn*] See K, L; *triobol*. K [and so one F, p. 421]; *trōbol*. M. The same diversity is seen in the Ed. Com. *triobolimaion*. Ben. *triobol*. Sav. *triobol*. See Lobeck, at Phryn. p. 709. Ibid. (col. 758), not. 52. Euthym. *kathematizein*

and you suffer the shipwreck of your soul. For that water is a kind of immense sea of luxury, in which not bodies are submerged, but shipwreck is brought upon souls. For she indeed plays naked in the midst of the waters swimming, but you, looking down from a high place, are plunged into the depths of lust. For such are the nets of the devil, catching not so much those who descend into that water and wallow there, as those sitting above. For these are suffocated much more cruelly than Pharaoh was once submerged with his chariots and horsemen. Now, if it were possible in any way to show you the souls floating upon those waves, they would surely appear no different than those bodies of the Egyptians were rolling in the surges. But that is far more dangerous, that they call such ruin pleasure, and term that immense sea of perdition a channel of delight; whereas surely one might cross the Aegean and Tyrrhenian sea more easily and safely than those horrible hazards of that spectacle. For in the first place, through the whole night, with an expectation all too anxious, [the devil] rouses the hearts of such men; then it shows that which had been so eagerly expected, by which it immediately binds them and leads them captive. For do not think that if you have not had intercourse with a harlot, you are immune to sin, since you have committed all that in your will. For if you are possessed by such concupiscence, you will surely be kindled by a greater flame. But if by looking at these things you suffer nothing, you are nevertheless held liable to the fault, having become, of course, an offense to others, and by your encouragement of such pleasure, you confound both your own face and your soul. But lest we seem to act by rebuke alone, let us now suggest remedies for correction. What then is this manner of amendment? I hand you over to be instructed by your wives, when surely, according to the Apostle, you ought rather to be the teachers of your wives. But because through sin the order has been reversed, and the body has become the head and the head the body, let it not be burdensome to return to honorable ways by this path at least. But if you are ashamed of the mastership of a woman, flee sin, and you will quickly be able to ascend to the throne of a teacher, which has been ordained for you by God. But as long as you sin, Scripture sends you not only to a woman, but even to irrational and most vile living creatures. For it is not ashamed to make the animal gifted with the honor of reason a disciple of the bee and the ant: nor is it the fault of Scripture, but of those who have lost their own nobility. We shall therefore take care to do this. And now indeed we assign you to the woman to be taught; but if you despise her instruction, we shall relegate you even to the mastership of the irrational. For we shall show you how many birds, and fishes, and how many kinds of cattle and reptiles excel you in honesty and chastity. But if you are ashamed to be compared to such animals, return to the badge of your own nobility, and remembering that immense sea of Gehenna and the river of fire, flee that pestilential pool of the theater. For this is what immerses its spectators in that flaming sea, and what kindles the depth of that fire.

7. For if he who sees a woman even without these incitements is sometimes drawn to concupiscence, and merely by concupiscing commits adultery: who is not rendered a captive of lust a thousand times over, who not only sees, but sees her entirely naked and disporting herself? Not so did that flood which we read of under Noah extinguish the race of men, as these swimmers utterly suffocate all their spectators with much disgrace. For that rain at that time, even if it brought death to bodies, yet at the same time wiped away the vices of souls. But this water does the opposite, while bodies remain in life, it works the ruin of souls. Yet you, if any struggle arises regarding honor, contend with all ambition, so that you may rule even the whole world; flattering yourselves with the privilege that this first city has imposed the name of faithful Christians (Acts 11:26): but when struggle must be made for honesty and chastity, is it not a shame to be surpassed by even the vilest little streets? Certainly, you say. What then do you bid us do? To depart into remote mountains, and become monks? And what else do I groan over than that you think a virtuous and ordered life is fitting for them alone? And yet Christ established precepts common to all. For where He says: "If anyone looks at a woman with desire for her, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt. 5:28): it is said not only to the monk, but also to the husband. For that mountain where Christ was teaching these things was filled with almost all such people. Consider therefore that theater, and flee these devilish assemblies, and do not blame my sermon as being too burdensome. For I do not forbid marriages, nor do I impede free pleasure: but I wish it to be done with honesty, not with obscenity or crime. I do not command you to go into the mountains and solitudes: but to be kind, and honest, and consistently modest, even living in the middle of the city if you please. For all the mandates of the law are common to us and to the monks, except surely for the covenant of marriage: although here also blessed Paul admonishes, desiring to equal us to monks in all things. "The time," he says, "is short: it remains that those who have wives be as though they had none; for the fashion of this world passes away" (1 Cor. 7:29). As if he said: I do not bid you to live on the peaks of mountains, although I would even wish for that, because cities imitate those things which were perpetrated in Sodom: nevertheless, I do not urge you to that at all. Remain having a house, a wife, children, only do not make them spectators of incestuous pleasures, do not introduce that plague of the theater into your home. Do you not hear Paul saying: "The husband does not have power over his own body, but the wife" (Ibid. v. 4)? Thus he established precepts common to her also. You, however, if your wife visits the church, you become her gravest accuser: but you yourself, spending the whole day in theaters, do not believe yourself worthy of accusation: but since you are so diligent regarding your wife's chastity, that you are not ashamed to be excessive and immoderate, in that you often restrain her from necessary processions, you yet believe everything to be permitted to you. But this will by no means be allowed you...

P. 818, note 80. The passage is read in the common text as follows: "For just as, fearing lest they should seem to be failing in any part of the crime, they slew the prophets with their own hands, and this man by the vote of a judge. In this way they do all things." And "with their own hands" etc. For the Greek codices G, H, K, M, of which three (G, H, M) have "feared"; the same four interpret "of the crime" differently; then "And the prophets" is begun again. All this contributes nothing to the restoration of the passage, although the other codices, as is read, change "they slew" to "slaying." Once the proper reading and distinction have been established, everything flows correctly. The formula "In this way they do all things" in the concluding clause is solemn, just as it was a little earlier on page 801. Bois also saw that the passage was corrupted with great contentiousness and restored it: "For just as... the crime of their fathers (since they slew the prophets with their own hands—those who did this—and this man by their own vote) thus they do all things."

Ibid., note 89. Cf. Vol. X, p. 245: "For even if one were of stone, having thought upon that night, how he was in anguish with the disciples... he becomes softer than wax." Vol. IV, p. 59, "even if he has a stone [i.e., a self-stone] soul." Floril. p. 559: "For if he were stone, for if iron, for if adamant itself." Such things are rarely attempted by librarians: e.g., Vol. IX, p. 464, "even if someone is wealthy, even if consul, even if self-king [emperor himself], but by the vote of a judge, the king himself." ^A Aleiphron. Ep. III, "half-dead, or rather a self-corpse [having seen him a corpse], see note p. 708."

Ibid., note 95. This even in the midst of complete desolation with ^B those things which follow the manuscripts and Nicetas combine; but among the Epitome these do not appear.

P. 819, lines 4-5 note 97. "Nor even he," namely John. But the voice "tasting," which is from Matthew, is not positioned by John. These words belong to the one who said, "But he received the price."

P. 820, line 3 before the *gamma*. "After *gleuazē* [mockery] it seems something is missing, such as: 'but not so persuaded; he felt it,' as Bois notes. The ancient [manuscript], which he imitated, erroneously has 'mockery' for 'he was beaten' [masthē], to which the royal scribe gave the ornamentation of Christ. Cf. p. 818."

P. 821, note 43. "Master," one manuscript excepted, has the beginning. The printed copies have "at start," but Savilius suspects this himself. Montfaucon: the royal margin indeed has "at start" as a note.

P. 822, note 45. The words are passed over by all the Editors, but the ancient [manuscript] has them as in the royal codices 688, 697. The ancient [manuscript] also translated. Many such slips in the end of a long work are evident.

P. 823, note 49. "Some manuscripts [have] 'glorious,' which is better than the printed [editions], which had 'shameful' glory. I spoke about this permutation in the note on p. 712."

Ibid., near note 55, "putting into evil," they were dragging into worse evils. This reading is rarer, and not unjustly suspected by Bois, here, as above p. 708, "dragging them into much greater wickedness than they possess." Our formula possesses the most correct version in Isidore of Pelusium, Lib. V, Ep. 549: "May the divine long-suffering not drag you into evil, but incite you to virtue."

P. 824, line 4, *lima* [lēmâ] L, *līmâ* 1 Mosq. *lamâ* Ben. *sabachthani* [sabachthanei] H, L, 1 Mosq. *sabachthani* M, 1 Mosq. *limasabachthani* E, *leimas abachthoni* Com. *lamasabachthani* Sav. Regarding the writing of these words, let the Scholiast decide. "Eli, limâ sabaktan. Thus it must be read according to the accuracy of the Syrian tongue." The Baroccian codex 189 has the same.

Ibid., line 6, "having heard and the rest," with the others omitted, in the codex all these things are passed over.

P. 825, line 2 note 74. "Another [manuscript]..." Chrysostom, p. 825, where he repeats the verse, adds: "Another, having presented his spear, pierced his side," and though he repeats it in these words, seeing him "already dead"; however, for this place, as he adds, "again having cried out with a great voice [he abandoned the rest]," he is not attributing this to Matthew. That Chrysostom more often explains the words of other evangelists is doubtful, but he attributes this to Matthew. Chrysostom and Theophylact, then Euthymius Zigabenus follow. Yet others, "having taken the spear, pierced his side, and blood and water flowed out," add [words] which Wetstein, C. L. 5, 48, 67, verso. Ethiopian, to which Griesbach added 115, Matthew. More [can be seen] at Wetstein, Ad Matth. XXVII, 49. Silence of our Epitomizer.

P. 827, line 2 note 98. ^C "most [manuscripts] have 'condemned.' The codices; the printed editions have 'condemned.' But infra p. 835, all have 'dishonored.' Such inversions of particles are gladly ^D suffered. Supra p. 317, which indeed, especially [when] one was seen in the house after he was put to death, as Bois hesitates. The note is the formula, "especially as much as possible."

Ibid., near line 2, "and came and surrounded." A graver word seems to be missing. Euthymius, "remained." Theophylact, "held fast."

P. 827, near the previous *gamma*, "and went away and surrounded." The ancient [manuscript]: "as if anointing him himself, they ran up and anointed the body." But not correctly, as Bois's *periechei* [surrounds] must be read. A more exquisite word is *periptuxasthai* [to embrace]. See Villoison, Ad Long. Pastor. p. 194. Add Chrysostom, Vol. IX, p. 528, "but also he embraced and kissed," the interpreter [translator] does not have this. Ibid. p. 759, in the most noble [place]: "Who gave to me to be embraced by the body of Paul," etc. Regarding the dead man, even Lucian, in Lucius, § 13: "His mother and father, from the midst of his relatives, having come forward and embraced him." [He] imitated Ovid, Metam. IV, 360:

And now this youth, now he is surrounded there.

P. 838, note 11. The ancient [manuscript]: "your servant in all anxieties." But after these things, Trapezuntius gave another concluding Homily, which Montanus caused to be printed at the end of this Homily, noting: "These things are not here in the Greek, but other things are, and this Homily has hitherto been missing." The remaining part of this Homily, as also the entire Homilies LXXXIX and XC, which Trapezuntius did not translate, for the same [reason] Montanus himself, while the Greek remains the same from the Royal Library manuscripts, for the first time presented in Latin, in the year of the Lord MDLIV. And these things are from the Version.