Preface TO THE TWENTY-ONE HOMILIES TO THE PEOPLE OF ANTIOCH CONCERNING THE STATUES.
A Among the events that occurred in the time of John Chrysostom, nothing is more noteworthy than that sedition of the Antiochians, in which, having cast down the statues of the Emperor Theodosius and his wife Flacilla, and dragged them through the city, they so exacerbated Theodosius that the destruction of the city was contemplated. This provided our Chrysostom with ample material for exercising his faculty for preaching. For as the Antiochians fluctuated between hope and fear, while sudden events offered him a new and unexpected cause for either hope or fear each day, Chrysostom, almost always unprepared and forced to turn his style according to the way events unfolded, spoke those homilies, which are certainly worthy of admiration: sometimes to console a people living in calamity; sometimes to strengthen spirits broken by the magnitude of the danger; and then, especially, to lead the Antiochians, on the occasion of impending evils, to correct their vices and wash away the crimes that had kindled such great wrath of God—an effort which, as he himself confesses somewhere, turned out exactly as Chrysostom had hoped.
The cause of so great a sedition, according to Zosimus, was the excessive exaction of tributes, which were devised anew each day, whether for the celebration of the fifth year since Arcadius had been proclaimed Augustus, and of the tenth year of the Emperor Theodosius, which was beginning in the year 388, or for the preparation of war against the tyrant Maximus, or for both these and other public necessities. Struck by the burden of tribute, the citizens of Antioch—specifically those of a more refined standing—approached the Prefect, and with tears complained of the excessive tax imposed; they implored the help of God. Then, a crowd of itinerant and foreign men from the lowest rabble, having had their spirits stirred, burst into criminal acts: first, they turned everything upside down in the public bath; then they approached the Prefect's house, invading the grilles and doors. And although they were forced back, they turned their fury elsewhere, attacking, defiling, and damaging the painted tablets of the Emperors with stones, and loading the Augusti themselves with insults and reproaches. Finally, they threw down the statues of the Emperor Theodosius and his wife Flacilla, who was already deceased, and dragged them through the districts B of the city; and they had already begun to inflict more damage when they were restrained by a band of archers sent in by the Prefect. The sedition having thus been extinguished, fear succeeded fury, and the expectation of impending punishment caused the forgetfulness of the burdensome and imposed tax. What followed from this will be narrated below in the review of the Homilies. Now, something must be said about the year of the sedition in which these homilies were delivered.
Dismissing the accounts of Sozomen and Theodoret, according to which this sedition and the speeches delivered thereafter would have to be set after the war against Maximus, learned men have already proven—from much more certain chronological notes—that this occurred before the war against Maximus, and Tillemont has asserted this in note 27 to the Life of the Emperor Theodosius. A most valid argument against that former opinion is elicited from Chrysostom’s own words, who testifies in the sixteenth homily, number 2, that this was the second year since he had begun to preach: he began when he was first ordained a presbyter in the course of the year 385, or the beginning of 386. Wherefore these speeches should be assigned to the year 388, or rather to 387. Baronius stands by the former opinion, followed by Petavius and Henricus Valesius, who conjecture them to be in the year 388 because in that year the tenth of Theodosius’s reign began, for whose celebration the aforementioned tribute was introduced. However, what is brought forth from Libanius to support that opinion is entirely intricate and can be twisted to either view. Furthermore, we elicit a note more certain than all these from the fact that the Emperor Theodosius was most certainly in Constantinople during the winter and Lent of the year 387, the year in which the sedition must have occurred: for during the time of the sedition, he was most certainly residing in Constantinople; whereas, in the following year, the Emperor was staying at Thessalonica at this very season. But what is brought forward to the contrary from the celebration of the tenth year of Theodosius, which began in the year 388, is, I say, nothing, since it is certain from the Fasti of Idatius and Marcellinus that he himself anticipated the celebration of his tenth year of Empire by one year, so that he might celebrate the tenth year together with his son Arcadius, who was entering the fifth year of his Empire in 387, just as Maximianus Herculius, when he was only in the eighteenth year of his reign, celebrated his twentieth together with Diocletian, who was in his twentieth. But more on this matter in the Life of Saint John Chrysostom.
A no other, not minor, difficulty arises, concerning which already in the Monitor to the homilies against the Ju
PREFACE
A it was done against the Jews: namely, in a certain sermon against the Jews, held in the month of September of the year 386, Chrysostom, rebuking a great number of the Christians of Antioch who fasted and celebrated Easter with the Jews, or at the time observed by the Jews, says: "For behold," he says, "the first day of Unleavened Bread falls this year on the Lord's Day, and it is strictly necessary that we fast for the whole week. And when the Passion has passed, and the Cross has arrived, and the Resurrection, we still remain fasting." And it often happens that after the Cross, after the Resurrection, the week not yet being completed, we observe the fast. From these words, furthermore, it is clear that those Christians who judaized in observing the fast and celebrating Easter, sometimes fasted when other Christians were celebrating Easter, and sometimes otherwise: they were, namely, fasting on the day of the Resurrection when the Jews celebrated Easter later than the rest of Christians; but they did not fast when the Jews observed the same feast earlier than Christians. In the sermon of Chrysostom mentioned above, and held in about the month of September of the year 386, the subject is undoubtedly the Lent and Easter of the year 387. But in that year, according to the paschal tables, Easter fell on the 25th of April, which is the latest date it can possibly occur. How then could those judaizing Christians have been fasting at Easter in that year, and celebrating Easter later, since Easter cannot occur later than the 25th of April, the day on which the other non-judaizing Christians were celebrating Easter that year, if one is to abide by the paschal tables? Truly a great difficulty, but one which, even by Tillemont's own admission, cannot overthrow the indications of the time by which we assign that homily against the Jews to the month of September of the year 386. For as we said in the same Monitum to the Homilies against the Jews, whether the Antiochenes always followed the calculation of the Alexandrians concerning the Lord's Easter by an invariable law, that is indeed not so fully known to us; and B even if they always followed it, can we affirm that error never occurred in the calculation? Certainly, men most learned in paschal calculations, whom I have consulted, admit that error sometimes occurs in calculations of this kind, and that it has not occurred only many years ago, nor is it always safe to place paschal marks before any other marks of time.
Tillemont, however, who noticed and examined this difficulty in his notes to the Life of Chrysostom, where he treats of the Homilies against the Jews, made no mention of it in his notes to the Life of the Emperor Theodosius, where he orders these homilies of Chrysostom to the people of Antioch as if Easter, as the paschal tables report, had fallen on the twenty-fifth of April. He therefore places the first homily shortly before the sedition; the sedition, indeed, on the twenty-sixth of February, ten days before Lent, which began at Antioch on the second day of our Quinquagesima, falling that year on the 8th of March. The second homily either on Thursday or Saturday before Lent, the 6th of March, the eighth day after the sedition. The third on the following Sunday, the 7th of March, or thereabouts. The fourth on the following Monday, the 8th of March. The fifth on Tuesday, the 9th of March. The sixth on Wednesday, about the 10th of March. The seventh on Thursday, the 11th of March. The eighth on Friday, the 12th of March. The ninth on the Monday of the second week of Lent, the 15th of March. The tenth a few days having passed thereafter. The eleventh, as being transposed, on the Monday of the fourth week of Lent, the 29th of March. The twelfth on the following Tuesday, the 30th of March. The thirteenth on the following Wednesday, the 31st of March. The fourteenth shortly after the one which is numbered tenth, C which was delivered on the fifth Sunday of Lent, the 5th of April. The fifteenth on the Saturday of the second week of Lent, or the 20th of March. The sixteenth on the third Sunday of Lent, the 21st of March. The seventeenth about the end of the fourth week of Lent. The eighteenth on the Sunday of the fifth of April or thereabouts. The nineteenth after the fourteenth, about the 11th of April. The twentieth on the day of Easter, the 25th of April. The twenty-first about the same time as the twenty-second following, which was delivered on the Friday after Passion Sunday, the 16th of April. In this way Tillemont attempts to restore the disordered series of these homilies with the utmost accuracy; to whom, as we agree in many points, in others we are forced to dissent. The order of the homilies as he determined it, we represent here at a single glance.
Tillem. 1. Edit. Front. Prima. Tillem. 12. Edit. Front. Decima sexta. 2. Secunda. 13. Undecima. 3. Tertia. 14. Duodecima. 4. Quarta. 15. Decima tertia. 5. Quinta. 16. Decima septima. 6. Sexta. 17. Decima octava. 7. Septima. 18. Decima quarta. 8. Octava. 19. Decima nona. 9. Nona. 20. Vigesima secunda. 10. Decima. 21. Vigesima prima. 11. Decima quinta. 22. Vigesima.
But before we discuss the individual homilies, and say a few words about both the order and the argument of each, it will be useful to note, from the title of the homily which was once numbered twenty-second, but is now numbered twentieth—which title exists in Fronto's notes and in our manuscripts—that this homily was pronounced D ten days before Easter, and likewise from these words before the end of this ho-
mily: "Forty days have now passed," that Tillemont rightly infers that Lent began among the Antiochenes on the Monday after Quinquagesima, and that the whole of Lent was fulfilled among them in seven weeks, and he validly assigns this homily to the Friday of Lent: for that day was indeed the Lent from the commencement of the fast, and the tenth day before Easter. Hence we hold it as an established fact that Lent, which in some Churches was circumscribed within various limits, was observed at Antioch for seven weeks.
Furthermore, since for the reasons mentioned above we consider the modern Paschal tables, which assign Easter of the year 387 to the 25th of April, suspect—at least for the use of the Church of Antioch—and since it is not clear to us on which day the Antiochenes celebrated Easter in this year 387, we shall refrain from noting the day of the month in our review of the homilies, and we shall be satisfied with having indicated, whenever possible, on which day of the week the said homilies were delivered.
The first homily, therefore, was held a few days before the Antiochene sedition, as is gathered from these words in the third number of the second homily: "I lately extended a long discourse to your charity... and I have received the reward of my labors...." But what was this reward? To punish the blasphemers of the city, and to chastise those who offer insult to God, and to restrain the furious. These words undoubtedly refer to the first homily, and that very long one, on the distresses of the saints and on the providence of God toward His elect who are tortured in this life, where at last he offers this surely worthy observation: "But since words have now been addressed to us concerning blasphemy, I wish to ask one recompense of you all for this discourse and sermon, that you chastise for me the blasphemers in the city: if you hear anyone at the crossroads or in the forum blaspheming God, approach, rebuke him; and if it be necessary to inflict blows, do not refuse: strike his face with a slap, crush his mouth, sanctify your hand by the striking." A mode of correction which certainly would not be accommodated to present day usage.
Tillemont assigns the second homily either to Thursday or Saturday before Lent: it may be said with more safety that it was held on about these days, seven days having exactly passed—as Chrysostom himself says—from the sedition: on which days he says he had been silent because the Antiochenes, dismayed by the immense calamity and the weight of the danger, were not fit to listen to sermons; he says, moreover, that these evils were sent by God because of the neglected correction of the brethren who were blaspheming, and after he has elegantly described their image, he concludes the oration by speaking at length on riches, on the use of riches, on alms, and on poverty.
The third homily follows the second immediately; we think, however, with Tillemont, that it was held on Quinquagesima Sunday, to speak in the modern manner. It deals with the progress of Flavian, the bishop of Antioch, to Constantinople to appease the Emperor, and Chrysostom comforts the people with the hope that the matter will be managed well: he then demonstrates at length that the fast is of no utility unless one abstains from vices: after he had said a few things about avoiding detraction, he deplores the present calamity and narrates that it was raged against most intolerably: "These, indeed," he says, "were put to death by the sword, others by fire, others delivered to beasts, and not only men, but also children; and neither the immaturity of age, nor the tumult of the people, nor the fact that some did these things driven by diabolical fury, nor that the exaction was intolerable, nor poverty, nor that it was a common sin, nor that they promised they would never again dare such things, nor any other thing snatched them away: but without mercy they were led to the abyss, with soldiers armed on both sides driving them and watching that no one might rescue the guilty; and mothers followed, indeed seeing their children dragged away from afar, but not daring to complain of the calamity." For fear conquered affection, and dread overcame nature. All these evils were inflicted upon the Antiochenes by the Prefects or magistrates before Theodosius had heard anything of the sedition, as Chrysostom says in the same place. He concludes the oration, moreover, by warning them to abstain from detraction, from enmities, and from oaths.
The fourth homily, it seems, was held on Monday, which was the beginning of Lent; he describes the goods born of the calamity, and says that the Antiochenes have been changed and brought back from their former ways. In the end, indeed, he repeats those very admonitions which he recalls having given in the preceding one; namely, on avoiding detractions, enmities, and oaths. He says, indeed, in number 6, that he will speak about oaths during this week.
The fifth homily was pronounced on the following day, as Chrysostom says at the beginning, that is, on Tuesday. In it, Chrysostom comforts the afflicted Antiochenes as is his custom, and encourages them to the disregard of death. And in the end, he deals with avoiding oaths in number 7, and indicates some order of the preceding and following homilies with these words: "Therefore, let us first persuade him to begin the change from the flight of oaths, for although I spoke to you about this matter the day before yesterday, I shall not cease today, nor tomorrow, nor the day after, to admonish the same things."
The sixth homily, held on Wednesday of the first week, imparts consolation to the afflicted and bids them hope for a good change of affairs: he says that delays were sent by God to the messengers who were about to tell the Emperor of the Antiochene sedition, and from there he brings good hope to the hearers, and bids them have confidence in obtaining pardon from Bishop Flavian: and after he has discoursed on not fearing death, he speaks against oaths according to his custom.
The seventh homily was held on the following day, as is clear from many signs: "For indeed," says Chrysostom, "we are spending the fifth day in comforting your charity." And this fifth day is counted starting from Sunday, so that he speaks of the fifth day of the week. This deals with the first words of Genesis, *In the beginning God created heaven and earth*, and it is said that God is good not only when He chastises, but also when He bestows benefits, and the oration is closed with avoiding oaths.
Tillemont thinks the eighth homily was on the day following the seventh homily, that is, on Friday
A, or, as he prefers, that it was delivered then. But Chrysostom contradicts this, testifying at the beginning that he had discussed, not yesterday but recently, the words: *In the beginning God created heaven and earth*, which undoubtedly pertains to the seventh homily. Therefore, it must be assigned to the Sabbath, as these words immediately after the beginning also persuade us: *The week has reached its end for us*. He leads the argument of the homily from these words: *God was walking in paradise in the afternoon*. Hence he says that the impious are always fearful and trembling, but the pious are full of confidence. Finally, he speaks in favor of the custom of avoiding oaths, and says that it is already the sixth day that he has been admonishing them to keep this kind of law.
Tillemont probably conjectures the ninth homily to be on the Monday of the second week of Lent. But there appears no note on this matter from which we might establish anything certain or probable. This discourse, however, was delivered after a silence of one or more days, as Chrysostom expressly says in the beginning: contrary to what Tillemont opines—who, when assigning the eighth to Friday and the ninth to the Monday of the following week, says in the *Life of Chrysostom*, art. 15, that the intervening days of the Sabbath and Sunday were undoubtedly marked by Chrysostom's sermons, which have now been lost. At the beginning, Chrysostom praises the Antiochene people because, by obeying his admonitions, they were taking care to drive away the custom of swearing. He also speaks at length upon these words, *The heavens declare the glory of God*, and proclaims God’s providence in the order and harmony of natural things; finally, he closes the oration by admonishing them to abstain from oaths.
The tenth homily was not delivered on the day following the ninth B, although it pursues the same argument, as is indicated by the word *recently*. Chrysostom congratulates his auditors that they obeyed his admonitions. He says that it is far better to hear the word of God than to fast; he then proves that the world cannot stand without God's providence. And finally, he concludes by exhorting them to abstain from oaths.
Tillemont thinks the eleventh homily was delivered after that which is inscribed later as the fifteenth, and also after the following sixteenth; he uses this line of reasoning: In that homily, he says, there is treatment of the dangers and miseries which the city of Antioch was already enduring, which seem to have occurred after the arrival of Hellebicus and Caesarius. However, that arrival of Hellebicus and Caesarius is mentioned in the title of the seventeenth homily, long after the eleventh, of which we are now speaking. Supported by this argument, Tillemont thinks that not only the fifteenth but also the sixteenth homily should be placed before the eleventh. But, aside from the fact that all Manuscripts, without exception, keep the same order as the Editions, we do not know all those dangers, terrors, and threats that happened at that time with sufficient accuracy to decide that something should be changed in the order based on this kind of reasoning. Chrysostom said much, and perhaps he kept silent about much more. Wherefore, until something more certain emerges, we think one should stand by the ancient order. In this homily, therefore, Chrysostom gives thanks at the beginning because the city had recovered from the fear that had been cast upon it; for, terrified by the suspicions spread abroad, very many had fled; at this time of calamity and terror, Chrysostom was silent for several days, as he himself says. Tillemont conjectures that this homily was delivered on the Monday of the fourth week of Lent, and indeed very aptly, as we shall say regarding the thirteenth homily. In this homily, it is treated mainly of the wisdom of God in the constitution of man, and in the end, of avoiding oaths.
Tillemont rejects the twelfth and thirteenth homilies as well, placing them after the fifteenth and sixteenth, for the same reason as above. But I do not know how he understands that which is in this twelfth homily n. 2: *For three days past we were seeking one mode of knowledge of God, and we brought it to an end, interpreting how the heavens declare the glory of God; and what is the dictum of Paul, "His invisible things from the creation of the world are understood and seen by the things which were made"; and we demonstrated how the Creator is glorified by the creation of the world, and by heaven and earth and sea. But today, etc.* Here Chrysostom clearly brings forward the series of three homilies which had been delivered before the twelfth: namely, the ninth, tenth, and eleventh. In the second number of the ninth, he sets as the argument of the discourse this dictum of Paul, *His invisible things, etc.*, and that from the Psalms, *The heavens declare the glory of God*; likewise, in the second number of the tenth, he declares that he is pursuing this very argument; and in the second number of the eleventh also, he testifies that he is insisting on the same argument. Does Tillemont not distort the words of Chrysostom when he wishes the fifteenth and sixteenth to be inserted between the tenth and the eleventh? He only proposes that by doubting in note 29 to the Emperor Theodosius n. 10, 11, etc., and he confesses that the order which we establish is clearly indicated by Chrysostom, but I do not know how he later departs from that same order. Furthermore, when Chrysostom says, *three days past*, it is not understood of three consecutive days, but of the three most recent days on which he had preached before. In this twelfth homily also, which was delivered on Tuesday of the fourth week C, he insists on the same hypothesis regarding the wisdom of God in the making of the world; afterwards, he treats of the natural law, the knowledge of which God implanted in man, and of avoiding the oath.
He said the thirteenth homily was on the day after the twelfth. At the beginning, he gives thanks to God for the changed state of affairs and for the removal of the fear, which had been so great that, he says, the greater part of the city, through that fear and threatening, had migrated to deserts, to the gorges of the mountains, and to the hidden places of the land. Hence he speaks of many being brought to the tribunal, of the horrible examination with lashes and scourges that took place, of others snatched away to punishment, of the mother and sister of someone, about whom judgment was being rendered within, rolling in the dust at the vestibule. Chrysostom describes this pathetically, which had occurred a few days before—that is, before he had the eleventh sermon. Moreover, what Chrysostom has at the beginning: *What sort of past Wednesday we saw, and what sort of present one we see…*
A (a) by which it is declared that the homily was delivered on a Wednesday, and indeed on the Wednesday of the fourth week of Lent, or perhaps the third, according to another method of reckoning. For many centuries now, the Greeks have called the first Sunday and week of the fast that which we call the first week of Lent. Here, truly, the question is only one of terminology. That the homily was delivered on the fourth day of this week is evident both from the series of homilies and from Chrysostom’s silence for a few days between the tenth and eleventh homilies. Furthermore, in this homily, after having spoken at great length about that tragedy in Antioch, he descends to the original line of argument concerning the creation of man, and concludes his discourse with the usual exhortation to avoid oaths.
Tillemont thinks that the fourteenth homily should be placed after the eighteenth, moved by this reasoning: Chrysostom says at the beginning: *The devil has not a little disturbed our city for us yesterday, but God has again not a little comforted us.* These words, he says, signify the arrival of Hellebichus, and that the news had already reached Constantinople. But these things are said by way of conjecture. How many suspicions and terrors do you think were sown among the Antiochenes while their minds were in suspense, and they were ignorant of where such an ill-fated matter would end? As for those terrors and rumors, how can we reason about them, when we are undoubtedly ignorant of the greater part of them, and if we know anything, we perceive it so obscurely that we can scarcely draw any note of time from it? This homily is almost entirely about avoiding the taking of oaths.
Tillemont wishes for the fifteenth homily to have been delivered between the tenth and eleventh, both because of the reasons mentioned above regarding the eleventh, and because Chrysostom has this at the beginning: *It was necessary both today and on the previous Sabbath to raise a sermon about the fast.* Where he understands "previous" (superiore) as if it were the first—meaning the first Sabbath of Lent—though with some hesitation; but we, as does Bernard of Brescia, understand "previous" as the preceding one, and we have already proven above that no other homily can be interposed between the tenth and eleventh. On the occasion of the fear by which the people of Constantinople were affected, he says much about the benefit of fear, and in the end, he preaches against the custom of swearing and of demanding an oath from others.
The sixteenth was delivered at that time when, a certain false rumor of an impending population displacement having spread, they were deliberating about flight. Tillemont also tries to move this one from its place and locate it between the tenth and eleventh, which, however, as we said regarding the twelfth, cannot be admitted. Furthermore, Tillemont relies on these words of Chrysostom: in number 6, the holy doctor says, *We have passed the second week of the fast.* He infers, therefore, that only two weeks of the fast had passed, and for that reason, Tillemont decided that this one should be moved from its place, for he thinks it was delivered on the third Sunday of Lent, counting as the first Sunday that which preceded the first day of the fast, which we call Quinquagesima Sunday. But what if at that time in Antioch that which now, according to present custom, occurs first within the fast was called the first Sunday of Lent? For the fast began on the Monday after Quinquagesima, as it now begins on Wednesday, and the Antiochenes could have not counted that week as the first of Lent, as we do not count it; and in that way, this homily might have been delivered one week later, namely on the third Sunday taken in the modern sense. But even then, a great difficulty would remain: for this homily would have preceded the thirteenth and those that follow. Certainly, all these things are full of obstacles, as Tillemont himself confesses, who is more than once compelled to abandon a position he had embraced. Perhaps usage and long study will bring some knowledge to a matter so obscure, by which we might be able to establish these things more accurately and clearly in the Life of Chrysostom to be prepared at the end of his works. Therefore, we have deliberately decided to leave the matter in doubt. We maintain only one thing: that this homily cannot be placed between the tenth and eleventh, for the reasons mentioned above. After some preliminary remarks about the timidity of the Antiochenes and about avoiding oaths, Chrysostom borrows the argument of the homily from these words of Paul: *Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy the brother,* and he demonstrates that Paul was more glorious from his chains than from the power of miracles.
The seventeenth was delivered after Ellebichus, or Hellebichus, Master of Soldiers, and Cæsarius, Master, sent by the Emperor to inquire into the sedition, had arrived in Antioch. This Hellebichus, Master of Horse or Foot, appears mentioned elsewhere, and was celebrated for the praise of his justice and clemency: Cæsarius also, called Master of Offices elsewhere, enjoyed a similar reputation for probity. This homily, however, was delivered when the Antiochenes were almost free from fear. *Innumerable evils, we expected,* says Chrysostom in number 1, *that the property of all would be plundered, that dwellings would be burned with their inhabitants, that the city would be removed from the middle of the world, and all its remains would perish, that the plow would take up its land: but behold, all these things remained only within expectation, and did not proceed to the act.* Following this, it is narrated how monks came down from the mountains to Antioch to appease the judges, while meanwhile all the Greek philosophers were deserting the city; by which pact the priests also strenuously managed affairs in favor of the people. He says the punishments finally imposed by the Emperor were light and tolerable, nor should one lament that he closed the orchestra and the baths, and took away the dignity of a Metropolis from the city of Antioch. The true dignity of Antioch is that it is where the disciples of Christ were first called Christians; that the Antiochenes brought aid to the holy men of Jerusalem laboring under the famine. Not greatness, but piety adorns cities. In the end, he says that some were still lingering in prison, and others were to be sent into exile. Tillemont compares this homily to the fourth week of Lent after Wednesday; but only by conjecture.
The eighteenth homily was spoken after the middle of the fast, as Chrysostom says at the beginning. He