Selections from the Notes

SELECTED NOTES OF HENRY SAVILE AND FRONTO DUCÆUS ON THE WORKS OF SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, VOLUMES XLIX-L

We append these notes in a different typeface, preceded by an asterisk.

HENRY SAVILE’S NOTES ON THE HOMILIES ON THE STATUES

^A Col. 16, line 6, in the title. Read *homiliae ad populum antiochenum*. For all the manuscripts in all libraries, as I think, acknowledge this title. And indeed, almost all the writers of those times—Theodoret, Sozomen, Zosimus, Libanius in his oration, and others—mention the overthrow of the statues of Theodosius and Placilla. It is well-established that there are no more than twenty-one *Homilies on the Statues* to be found in libraries; and Fronto Ducæus correctly saw and was, as far as I know, the first to note that all the others, besides these twenty-one, were patched together from other works of Chrysostom, especially from his ethical passages. Furthermore, we have prepared this edition from my best manuscript and two from Oxford—one in New College (which the most learned John Harmar expressed in his edition) and the other in the University library—to which was added a fourth, that of our friend Croshaw; we have also utilized the variant readings from the eight Royal manuscripts of Paris and the corrections represented by the most learned Fronto in his notes.

Col. 17, line 13. *Of the ordinations*. Isidore of Pelusium treats this extensively in those various epistles which he wrote to Eusebius, who sold priestly ordinations for money. Yet I will not withhold my conjecture on this passage. Where it reads *to the ordainers*, I would even prefer that it be left as is. But the ancient reading, which all copies prefer, is well-founded.

Col. 18, line 45. *Of short*. It is better, with the interpreter, to read *of long*. Both readings fit, but I prefer *of long*. For if he had said *of short*, he would have added *long* for his own sake.

Col. 24, line 4 from the bottom. I read *nor the unbelievers think, M.* Thus the passage is correctly restored, even though the manuscripts might cry out against it. Montague did well here in his Savilian Notes, although he brought forward other very slight and sometimes futile conjectures, which we have consultedly omitted.

Col. 28, line 16. *Of the same virtue* more correctly than *the virtue*. For *conduct*, which was the word in the most learned Harmar’s edition, is more Chrysostomic than *virtue*. It is in fact *of virtue*, which is better than *virtue*. Yet *virtue* is present in the majority of manuscripts, and fits perfectly well.

Col. 47, line 2. *The teacher*. Besides Flavian, Libanius, a man already advanced in age, approached Theodosius at Constantinople on behalf of the Antiochenes, and presented to him that which exists as an oration concerning this matter. Zosimus says that this favor was granted to the sophist Libanius and to a certain philosopher named Hilarius, snatched from the peril of Antioch, and says not a word about Flavian. Our own, on the contrary, attribute the whole thing to Flavian, without making even the slightest mention of Libanius. Neither party, I think, is correct. For these orations of Chrysostom are witnesses to Flavian’s departure, and are beyond every objection; and there is also that oration of Libanius which exists on this same subject, *On the Sedition*.

Col. 48, line 34. *Not fearing, but daring*. Perhaps it should be read: *fearing, but daring*. The interpreter had undoubtedly read *daring and trembling*. I am troubled by the same scruple, and I suspect it should be read: *not trembling, but daring*. ^B

Col. 102, line 32. *Finally, I wish to bid you farewell, as one who is departing, so that you may be more cautious.* For to *bid farewell* is to say goodbye. See what the learned men have noted on the *Homilies* of Nazianzen. That, certainly, I think is well noted, although it does not seem entirely certain.

Col. 119, line 25. *From the palace*, that is, *from the court*: as if the emperor were always standing in battle array. The later Greeks also use the Latin word *principia* in this sense, as the emperor Constantine does in Socrates, and others.

Col. 144, line 14. *And indeed because of the late hour*. That oration seems to have been lost.

Col. 151, line 33. *Of the king’s*. That is, of Theodosius and his wife Placilla, not of Placilla alone, as Theodoret would have it.

Col. 187, line 1, in the title. *Easter Sabbath*. That is, the Sunday next after Easter, *Dominica in Albis*. See our Preface.

Col. 197, line 1, in the title. This oration was delivered at Antioch not long after the overthrow of the statues, perhaps at the end of that Lent which followed that overthrow, and thus it happens that in many manuscripts it is entitled *In the orations on the statues*. Furthermore, we give this edition faithfully from three manuscripts: two in the library of the new college at Oxford, and a third, our friend Croshaw’s, also employing the edition of the most learned Fronto, which he himself had compiled from five manuscripts.

Col. 214, line 45. *Indeed of the dead*. The most learned Fronto Ducæus correctly observed that this was said of Placilla, who had already passed away.

Col. 220, line 12. For these words *so that it might exist, up to the word for our virtue* inclusive, the manuscript from the Bavarian library has these words: *this most illustrious man having received the letters from the king, he left the city entirely (perhaps with joy, and having given the greatest thanks).*

CERTAIN NOTES OF JOHN BOIS ON THE HOMILIES ON THE STATUES

Col. 65, line 55. *To see the bodies of so many tyrants*. Perhaps *to see the bodies of so many men obeying the tyrant*: or more fully, *although they saw*, etc. That is, *although they saw the bodies of so many men who had obeyed the tyrant lying prostrate before the idol.*

Col. 113, line 23. *A part*. I read *another seditious part, all the people*, etc.

NOTES OF FRONTO DUCÆUS ON THE HOMILIES TO THE PEOPLE OF ANTIOCH

^C Col. 15 in the title. When we had set our mind to preparing an edition of the works of blessed John Chrysostom for the press—the only one of the four Greek Doctors of the Church whose complete monuments had not yet been published in both languages—we decided that we ought to make a beginning with that volume for the printing of which more assistance of handwritten books was available to us from the Christian King's library. For since those works in which various passages of both the Old and New Testament are examined are distributed in the first four volumes, and the orations in which various topics are treated and the panegyric praises of the holy martyrs are contained are amassed in this one, it followed that the scribes contributed their labor more frequently to copying those; for which reason it was also more convenient for us, while in the meantime, until we could proceed to publish other volumes...

Various Notes

^Awe expect aid from friends elsewhere, we shall add sermons on the praises of the saints, held on different occasions and published by us separately in the past, and we shall review the Latin version of other translators so far as the speed of the current press allows. And although this type of labor—whereby various readings are gathered from a comparison of ancient codices—is so thankless and burdensome that not only do typographical proofreaders avoid it, but even a great many translators themselves, while content with the trust of a single book, spin out their interpretation based on whichever one comes to hand first; nevertheless, it is certainly known from the experience of learned men that little can be achieved by one who takes on the edition of some weighty author relying only on one source, so that he is forced to fill in mangled and truncated sentences by conjecture, or to present merely the first outlines, not the mind of that writer expressed in living colors. Certainly, anyone who compares the Brixian or Gelenian editions with ours will discover that in not a few places these earlier homilies to the Antiochian people have been augmented by us, and a truer reading, unearthed from various codices, provided than that which the interpreter had encountered. For after we had corrected the Greek text of the English edition by collation with three or four Royal codices, and had submitted the revised Latin interpretation along with it to the press, while we were reading the proofs again and once more gathering collations and discrepancies from four other manuscript codices, not a few things seemed to us worthy of observation; these we have woven into our notes here, both to render an account of our emendations and, wherever similar passages needing correction might offer themselves in Chrysostom or other Greek Fathers, to provide a cure for them by the same effort, and at the same time to add whatever might serve to illustrate the historical narrative or the intention of the author. But our main concern was to pursue whatever might contribute to the genuine reading of his work; not, indeed, that we might seek praise by the reproach of others, since we know well that even after our work a gleaning can be made by others, seeing that:

"To commit no sin is of God, but to correct all things is His."

^BBut we do not, on that account, deem that we should refrain from bringing aid to the works of the holy Fathers, lest we might seem to hinder the lights of others, since not only is the earlier day the disciple of the later, but with the passage of time the truth becomes known to men of different ages. Therefore, for the emending of these homilies to the Antiochians, we have used two Royal manuscript codices, adorned with Royal insignia and emblems, which these elements will denote: F. 1 and F. 2. Likewise, we have used two from King Henry II, which these two will indicate: H. 1 and H. 2; four others were purchased for the King of France and Navarre from the heirs of the most Christian Queen Catherine de' Medici, along with the rest of the volumes of her library, which these abbreviations will designate: HN. 1, HN. 2, HN. 3, HN. 4. The English edition is denoted by A. Furthermore, the history of the overturning of the statues of Theodosius and Flacilla is narrated by Theodoret, Book V, ch. 10, and Sozomen, Book VII, ch. 25 of the *Ecclesiastical History*.

Homilies XXI. In more recent editions, ^C there are exhibited at the beginning of Volume V eighty homilies of St. John Chrysostom, delivered primarily to the Antiochian people, with Bernardus Brixianus as translator; the name of the author is not repeated, nor is it placed before the individual homilies, except after the twenty-first, because the twenty-second is attributed to John of Constantinople, surnamed the Faster, and the twenty-third, along with the ones following, is restored to John Chrysostom. How much more certain is the trustworthiness of the written codices, in which only these first twenty-one are said to have been delivered about the statues, and the other fifty-eight never occur written in Greek anywhere! Only the twenty-second is found in one Royal manuscript of Henry IV, placed after the preceding ones. In other books, however, after the twenty-first, there was added the homily *On the Debtor of Ten Thousand Talents*, which begins, *Quasi ex longinqua peregrinatione* ("As if from a long journey"). And the twenty-third was that whose subject is *On Enmity or Anger*: the beginning of which is, *Since the time remaining for fasting now hastens toward an end for us*, which you have in column 197 of this volume. In some instances, however, this *On Enmity* preceded the *On the Debtor*, as in the catalog of books kept at Theodosia in the Tauric Chersonese, and in the Augusta public library, no. XLVI. Nor are more than twenty-two or twenty-four found in handwritten codices; wherefore we can assert that the other fifty-eight are nothing else than certain orations of his, such as those composed by Theodore the Master, as the one who wrote the catalog of the Augusta library supposes, and which our P. Balthasar Etzelius published a few years ago at Mainz. As, therefore, from Basil's writings long ago:

^DSimeon Magister collected those brief orations filled with moral maxims, so having gathered selected moral exhortations, with which Chrysostom was accustomed to close his homilies, as if stitched together from different scraps, certain Basilian monks, perhaps, wove them into a body of a single lecture, and transcribed them in the same book with those which he had delivered to the Antiochians. When Bernardus Brixianus or someone else happened upon this, he performed the same work, bestowing upon them all a Latin rendering as early as the year 1504. Indeed, we have seen an edition of that time, the most ancient of all, in a certain monastery in Lorraine, printed at Basel in the workshop of Jacob de Pforsten, which was very closely followed by another German one by Cratander in the year 1512, and shortly after by a French one by Petri Gromorsi at the illustrious Gallic city of Paris, as the discourse of that time bore it, namely in the year 1525. Then, after various editions in the same German city of Basel, a new edition came forth from the press of Froben, by Sigismund Gelenius, who wrote in this final volume that he had performed only as much as he had been aided by Greek exemplars. "Of the eighty homilies," he says, "which occupy the first place, we have collated only twenty-one; in the rest, we were destitute of the Greek volume." Certainly, from these alone, it is gathered by an indubitable argument that they were delivered at Antioch, but not so with the rest of the medley. This will appear more clearly when, in our notes later, which we have written on these same twenty-one, we point out the places of Chrysostom from which individual fragments of these centos are taken, with a few exceptions which anyone will easily judge to be of the same weave. Therefore, no one ought to be disturbed by this suppression of so many homilies, but rather let everyone know that he has made a gain and profit in this loss, lest in the future we hear Chrysostom cited for the sake of example in *Matthew*, a man who in some homily to the Antiochians would have repeated it in the very same words, when these orations were never so delivered by him as they are arranged, in which there is no preface, no exposition of the places of Scripture, but only moral exhortations diffused throughout the whole body of the homily, which is clearly uncharacteristic of Chrysostom. And so you might find some gathered from the digressions of two homilies, some from three or four; some to be nothing else, as the Greek indicates, than the final exhortatory clause of someone or other, which, having obtained so many different interpreters, who fall into the same meaning but into different words, has produced so many homilies. Thus the exhortation in the fourteenth homily *to the Romans* occurs repeated again in two places; for it is nothing other than that thirty-fifth homily to the Antiochian people, *Amabile sanctorum omne genus* ("Every kind of saint is lovable"), nor that other one in the same volume V, which is inscribed *On Mercy*, "Hear, brethren, Paul saying: 'Put on',"—it is nothing, I say, other than the moral part of that fourteen homily, *ὅτι ἁπάντων τῶν ἁγίων γένος* ("For the race of all the saints is kind"). Who, therefore, would not take it ill that gain was made here for himself, and that the same homily was sold as three different ones, or as if he were buying the Sibylline books, at double or triple the price of Chrysostom’s sermons more than was right, having been exacted from him? Who, again, would demand that the Greek text of those fifty-eight be printed by us, when he might find and note their sentences and periods already long since printed in the homilies on *Matthew*, *John*, the *Acts of the Apostles*, or *Paul's Epistles*? For this reason, we have substituted other ones in the place of these in this fifth volume, and those which were written by the same author regarding the praises of holy martyrs or confessors, and delivered to the same Antiochian or Constantinopolitan people, so that from them the first part of this fifth volume might grow into a proper size; but the latter part we have reserved for books or treatises, such as *On Providence*, *On Virginity*, and *On the Priesthood*, and likewise his own epistles sent to different people.

The three following notes—the first of which consists entirely of proving that those 21 homilies are inscribed *In Andriantas* ("On the Statues"), which is a settled matter; the second regarding the added word; the third proving that *cheirotonia* means Ordination, a thing known to everyone—these, I say, we intentionally omit, as well as the following one, which concerns the erroneous interpretation of Bernardus Brixianus, now corrected.

Col. 18, l. 38. *Cujus ossa* ("Whose bones"). He repeats the very same regarding Timothy later in homily 6 *Against the Jews*, *καὶ δαίμονας ἐλαύνων καὶ μυρία νοσήματα διορθούμενος* ("and driving away demons and healing myriad diseases"); and Hieronymus in *Against Vigilantius*: "Sacrilegious, for [the Emperor] Constantine translated the holy relics of Andrew, Luke, and Timothy to Constantinople; the demons cry out, and the inhabitants of Vigilantius feel their presence." In the book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, he writes of Constantine the twentieth year, that he was translated to Constantinople along with the relics of the Apostle Andrew from Achaia; where the note by Victorius, previously read, is that the reading of the ancient editions is more correct, as it is in the *Chronicle of Eusebius* according to Jerome the Lat

ἐλ]^Atis donatis et auctis, let this translation be conferred to the nineteenth year of Constantius, son of Constantine, and the first year of the 283rd Olympiad: Relics of the apostle Timothy brought into Constantinople: and in the twentieth year of the same Constantius: Constantius having entered Rome, the bones of the apostle Andrew and of Luke the Evangelist were received by the Constantinopolitans with wondrous favor. Theodorus Lector at the end of his book of Collectanea: *[Greek text omitted]* Sub Constantius, the relics of the holy apostles came to Constantinople, indeed Timothy on the 6th of the Kalends of July, but Andrew and Luke on the 5th of the Nones of March, of the following year: and the Acts of the martyr Artemius attest the same. It is certainly clear from the same Chronicle that Constantine the Great had already departed this life from the first year of the 280th Olympiad. Furthermore, regarding the relics of other martyrs, and their power to expel demons, you have many things below. *See the index of this second volume of our edition under the word, "Relics"; but most of all the general index at the end of the works of Chrysostom, when it shall see the light.*

Col. 19, l. 42. *Tis de ekeinou*. HN. 3. *Tis gar ekeinou philosophoteros*. *In our edition ibid. we must read this: Tis gar ekeinou philosophoteros gegone.* Col. 20, l. 49. *Hypopteros*. HN. *Hypopteros aetos Korinthou*, as if by some winged eagle. Col. 21, l. 2 from the bottom. *Valetudinem adjuvet*. The Greek sounds thus: "How much he corrects infirmity, or heals sickness." This latter interpretation is better. Col. 22, l. 19. *Contra hæreticos*. Epiphanius relates this figment of the Severians in heresy 45: *[Greek text omitted]*. The devil, cast down to the earth, when he had descended in the form of a serpent, having been incited into lust, and having been commingled with the earth as with a woman, and having poured forth where, from his own seed, the vine germinated. Augustin. heresy 21: The Severians do not drink wine, because with fabulous vanity they assert that the vine germinated from Satan and the earth, etc. Col. 24, l. 23. *Kai to hemin*. HN. 1. *Kai to me proshekei*. Col. 25, l. 37. *Quod videt in me*. So indeed the Latin Vulgate, but in the Greek text of the Apostle it is commonly read: *hyper ho blepei*, "Above that which he sees in me." In Ambrosius in his Comment. on this Epistle the text has it thus: "Above that which he sees me to be." And it is expounded: "Lest anyone think that I stretch beyond my glory, further than the limit of my merits admits." In hom. 26 of Chrysostom on this place, *Logizetai hyper ho blepei, e akouei ex emou*. Exist away above what he sees, or hears from me. ^B Where, however, the pronoun *mo* seems to need to be added, as the rest of the books of the Bible and the Greek Fathers suggest. Col. 26, l. 29. LXX *ap' autou, kai ta isa tas dikias*. Col. 29, l. 16. *eis martyrion*, To the martyrdom, by which word is indicated sometimes the monument or sepulchre of some martyr; sometimes also a holy edifice, or temple. A monument is called a martyrdom by Augustine Book I, *De civit. Dei*, c. 8: "When the same youth was praying, holding the rails of the holy place where the martyrdom was." It was also called a confession, and a memorial, whence the ancient interpreter, of that 90th canon of the Council of Gangra, translates: *Si quis conventus abominatur, qui ad confessiones martyrum constituuntur* (If anyone abominates gatherings which are held at the confessions of martyrs). But the Basilicas of the martyrs, which are called by Jerome ep. 53, or temples dedicated to martyrs, are called martyrdoms. Eusebius, the emperor having been called by the bishops to the *eis to martyrion apheterion poiesasthai*, to consecrate the house of the martyrs or the martyrdom at Jerusalem, which Theodoret himself, relating it in Book 1, c. 51, *Hist. Eccl.*, calls *Templa consecrasse* (to have consecrated the temples). And chapter 52 of the same book, *eis to martyriou*, the saving monument of Christ, he calls the temple of the Resurrection of the Lord. Just as Athanasius also, *Apol. 2*, in *eis ten enkainian tou soteriou martyriou*, that we might celebrate the dedication of the temple of the Savior. And in his *Epist. ad Solitarios*, *eis to martyrion Petrou tou apostolou*, In the temple of the apostle Peter. In the Council of Ephesus, Act 1, *tas hieras ton hagion martyron martyrias*, The churches and holy abodes of the martyrs. In the beginning of the singular actions of the Council of Chalcedon it is said that the Synod was gathered *en te hagiotate ekklesia tes hagias martyros Euphemias*. In the most holy church of S. martyr Euphemia. And Act 5, *en te martyrio tes hagias kai kallinikou martyros Euphemias*, in the church of the holy and victorious martyr Euphemia, these things were done. Zosimus Book V, *en topon kath' hon ories Euphemias met' ofryou kai doxes*, In a certain place where the shrines of Euphemia with... But that there were pilgrimages to the monuments and basilicas of martyrs, a praiseworthy custom approved by the Fathers, you will learn from the same Chrysostom, hom. 26 on 2 Corinthians; where ^C he says that even emperors set out for the martyrdoms, that they might enjoy the spectacle of the miracles which were happening there: *ou monon ai basilikes idein aulas, oudeis an pote apodemesas... pollas de apodemeousi tautes heneken tes martyrias*. Book 1 *ad Stagirium*: "You have frequently visited the places of the martyrs, where many have been healed." And hom. on Psalm cxv, *an de ideis epi ton martyron tous taphous... tes ekeinon pothou*. Contemplate also the cities running together to the sepulchres of the martyrs, and peoples inflamed with the desire for them. Hieron. ep. 15, *De laudibus Asellæ*: "She used to hasten often to the visited thresholds of the martyrs." Item Augustine, epist. 137, "That they might bind themselves by a certain pledge, that they would go on a pilgrimage to the holy place." Item Paulinus, *Natali S. Felicis*, "Who leads such great peoples hither? What hand urges the demons?" You will see many things regarding the martyrdoms, or churches of the martyrs, and almost innumerable places regarding the cult of relics in the general Index of the works of Chrysostom, in the last volume. Col. 41, l. 33. *Circa fugientia*. Alludes to that of the prophet Amos vi, 5, *et quasi stantia putaverunt, non quasi fugientia*. They thought as if standing, not as if fleeing. So Jerome, who also explains, "For the things of the world and all bodies according to Epicurus flow through the moments, and pass away, and nothing consists in its own state, whence also in secular literature we read: *Sed fugit interea, fugit irreparabile tempus* (But meanwhile it flees, the irreparable time flees)." And in another place: "Heu, heu fugaces, Postume, Postume, labuntur anni" (Alas, alas, O Postumus, Postumus, the fleeting years glide away). Tertullian against Marcion Book iv, c. 15, translates: *Tanquam perseverantia deputaverunt, et non tanquam fugientia* (They reckoned them as though they were persevering, and not as though fleeting). Wrongly in the Plantin edition in the singular number, *Sicut stantem putaverunt, et non sicut fugientem*. Col. 44, l. 4 from bottom. *synanastraphei*. F. 1. *synanastraphei*, as the Brixian also seems to have read, but A. H. 2, HN. 3 and other Royal codices defend the reading. It is certainly more customary to be *synanastraphesai*. As Baruch iii, 37, *kai en tois anthropois synanestraphe*, And he conversed with men. Ecclesiasticus xi, 5, *kai esterpmena par' oikiais asebon*, And who converse beside the houses of the ungodly. Here, therefore, it ought to be written, "He who led his life in delights, Solomon." I too would judge it thus, were it not the same thing to have been nourished in delights, and to have led a life in delights. Col. 45, l. 10. *tou hyper to chris*. HN. *tou hyper to chris*. H. 2. F. 1. *ho*, which is a reading to be preferred to the others. I also think it ought to be preferred, and thus corrected. Col. 49, l. 4. *Noou to*. Must be written from F. 1, H. *Noou to nomon*. Thus certainly better. Col. 60, l. 1. *Cheimazon*. F. H. *cheimon, cheimon psycho*, Ingruit winter, winter of souls, not of the air. Col. 64, l. 54. *In campo enim Deira*. Great was the depravation of this name, and as it were a chemical transformation; for it was published first in the most ancient Parisian edition of the year 1525, *in campo de are*, in the Basilian, *de aure*, in other more recent Parisian ones, *de auro*. In the Latin Vulgate, Daniel iii, v. 1, *in campo Dura vel Duran*, in Hebrew *Durah*. In the Greek text of the Plantin edition, and in all the Royal codices of Chrysostom, it is read *en pedio Deira*. Yet Jerome warns that for *Dura*, Theodotion translated *Deria*, Symmachus *Doraun*, LXX *Regifeler*, that is, a vivarium, or an enclosed place. In the manuscript of the illustrious man N. Fabri I read, *in campo Duram*, and Symmachus, *Duraum*, in other mss., *Durum*, but the Royal codices of the prophet Daniel, and that most ancient one of the most illustrious Cardinal Rupifucaldii, have it so plainly as the Vatican edition *Deira*, whence that emanated, which Jerome writes in Latin from Theodotion. For the ancient Church used to read Daniel from the edition of Theodotion: therefore the true reading from the Hebrew will be *Dura*, the Greek Septuagint, and from that in Latin *Deira*. Col. 74, l. 15. *The Brix.* But into the heavenly city it would lead as if it had been found written *tetha*, *tetha*, which means to be counted, to be attributed, to be numbered: as in Basil on the 40 martyrs, *eis ten echortas kai arithmous... eteltetheisan*. In cohorts and numbers they have been added and centuriated. Lucianus, *eis tous andras etelesthen*, "I began to be counted among men." Herodianus Book III, in Severus, *kai tous paidas eis helikias inegkalen*, "he led the children to the ages, already puteres (becoming full-grown)." Our mss. reclaim this reading of earlier editors, which *etelesthe* or *eteltethe*, or the Savilian edition. Certainly the reading squares with the sense: yet *tethe* might also appear to square, and perhaps better. Col. 76, l. 2. *Kai tes aineis*. H. 2. HN. 4, *tes kakias*, which the interpreter also recognizes as the truer reading, and thus spoke a little later, *hina ten kakias apalaxe tes tes de*. "All our mss. have *tes kakias*; the reading *tes anias* seems indeed more sincere, but since *tes kakias* also holds well, I have judged that nothing should be changed in the text." Col. 78, l. 12. *Pro anasterphontos*...

^A *ad mille stadia peregre proficisci poterit.*

Col. 129, l. 10. *Aeon prosekhen*. To be emended from the manuscripts: ^B *proetheken*. HN. 5, *parethenken*. HN. 1, *auten paretheke trapezan kai plousiois*. I judge this reading to be more congruent, and below, l. 49, *protes*.

Col. 137, l. 34. *Eph’ hon*. To be corrected from the manuscripts: *eph’ hous hoi stratiotai pantas*. But the interpreter seems to have read *eph’ hon*, "they were barring," "they were removing."

Col. 139, l. 13. *It was allowed to see the tables of proscription.* But rather, in the more celebrated places of the city, the tables or notices of proscription were posted. In Greek he calls them *signa*, which the Latins call *signa*, or *sigilla*, or *signacula*: for signs were impressed upon rings having carvings, in testamentary matters and other documents or archives. Thus Theodoret, Homily 5 *On Providence*, "As if to a treasure, they impress *signacula* and *sigilla*, and they always pay them to men as if they were their own royal tribute and taxes." But when houses or estates were to be added to the treasury, and to be incorporated into the body of the treasury, as the jurists say, it was the custom for titles to be imposed upon them, and signs to be solemnly impressed by the disposition of the Count of the Private Domains, as is evident from book [?] in the Code *On vacant goods*, and *On incorporation*, and book 1 of the Code, that it is permitted to no one without the judge's authority to impose signs upon the property of others. It is often written by rescript of the emperor that, before a sentence, signs ought not be impressed upon property which someone is holding. Novella 60, "We decree, if anyone shall presume to impose signacula by his own authority, without the order and legal ordinance having been observed," etc.

Col. 151, l. 7. *Pasasin teousian*. To be emended from H. 2 and HN. 3, *apasas*, as he said before: *ho laos kai edoseusyen*.

Col. 153, l. 3 in title. *Pejus jurare*, *exein, to demand an oath*. Or, *to compel to an oath*.

Col. 159, l. 8. *Furorem*. As if he had read *paranuoian*, not *paranomian*, petulance. Bernardus Brixianus certainly reads *paranoian*, for thus it is held in certain manuscripts; I would prefer *paranomian*, however, and in the interpretation *petulantiam* ("petulance"), as Fronto notes. The matter is of small moment. The same thing occurs within, col. 160, l. 52.

Col. 161, l. 1 in title. *Eis ton archonta*. HN. 5, *pros ton archonta*. A. F. 1, H. 1, HN. 2, *pros tois archousin*. By which manner it also is read in Athanasius in the *Epistle to the Africans*, "He gave the church to those who had done such things against us as prey." *To those who had done*—that is, he gave the church to be looted and plundered; but in certain codices *eis paradan* is also written there: for even among more recent jurists many such Latin words have been transcribed into Greek. It seems, however, that here it is taken for the publication (confiscation) of goods, as if it were *pheymistheises eis ton archonta praidas*—in the Vulgate, *erga principem publicatione*. But the name "prince" in Scripture indeed signifies the highest magistrates or governors of provinces, as in Daniel 3, or those who, after the kings, are the first and illustrious. In the *Apostolic Canons*, can. 54, it is applied to prelates and bishops, "Thou shalt not speak evil of the prince of thy people." And can. 84 to political magistrates, "If anyone shall have insulted the king or prince." Modestinus the jurist calls the magistrate *archonta*, sometimes also president or prince. Later Greeks, just as the Latins, transferred it to those who are of the race and family of the king, as in Coropalates, *On the Offices of Constantine*, p. 117, *kai osa ton kata genos pros-ekonton to basilei archontopoula*, "And whoever among those of the race of the emperor are princes." But in this age of Chrysostom, in which by the name of prince among the jurists the emperor was understood, the word for magistrate or judge seems more apt. Here, therefore, by the name *archonta* I understand one of those highest magistrates, who were either governors of provinces or presided over the Roman military, such as patricians, praetorian prefects, masters of soldiers, masters of offices, prefects of the city; of such a kind are those who are enumerated at the beginning of individual actions in the Council of Chalcedon, "they having gathered in the holy church of the most glorious *archonton*, that is..."

^A embraced regions extending from Cilicia and Cyprus and Arabia as far as the river Tigris, and over this presided a vicar of the Praetorian Prefect, marked by the title of count; whence also he is sometimes called by the emperors the Vicar of the East.

Col. 171, l. 1 in tit. *On magistrates*. Brix. To the magistrates sent to the Emperor Theodosius regarding Elibichus, they lead the armies, omitting the name of Caesarius the master, which we add from Greek codices, to which Theodoret agrees (lib. V, c. 19): "Since those who were bringing the threats had arrived. Elebechus, who was general of the army at that time, and Caesarius, who was master of the palace, whom the Romans call *magister aulae*—all were terrified by those threats and were in great fear." Epiphanius the Scholastic, in the *Tripartite History* (lib. IX, c. 39), interpreted it better than Christopherson: "When therefore those who brought the emperor’s threats had arrived, Allebicius, master of the soldiers, and Caesarius, master, were all struck with fear." Furthermore, Cardinal Baronius deservedly corrects Nicephorus, who thought that this Caesarius (lib. XI, c. 44) was the brother of Gregory of Nazianzus, whom he showed to have died long before this year of Christ 388, namely under Valens, in the year of Christ 568. Nicephorus calls him Elebechus, whom Epiphanius calls Allebicius; but we read in Zosimus (lib. V) of a certain man, *hēgoumenon domestikon*, or *domestiton*, that is, that Ellebichus was Count of the Domestics of the cavalry. Moreover, the interpreter would have rendered it more correctly as *magister militum*, for thus they are called everywhere in the constitutions of the emperors, and they are distinguished from the *duces* in Novel 134, etc.

Indeed, from the *Notitia Imperii* it is clear that there were two masters of the soldiers, the *praesentales*, or "in the presence"—that is, in the retinue in the Eastern empire; and likewise two masters of the soldiers *praesentales* in the West. Joined to these were others: master of the cavalry and infantry throughout the East; likewise throughout the Thracian regions, throughout Illyricum, throughout the Gauls. And perhaps this master of the soldiers was throughout the East, as noted in law 36, *De erogat. mil. annon.* And for that reason he was sent to Antioch, which was the capital of the East.

L. 2 in tit. *And Caesarius the master*. Understand that this was the Master of the Offices, who is also called absolutely *magister*. Although there were other masters of the record-offices, of letters, and of petitions—*Graecorum*—and his magistracy, the dignity of master, is treated in Cassiodorus (lib. VI, epistle 6, *Variar.*). The Greek historians call him *archōn tōn aulēs taxēōn*, the leader of the Palace Orders. Zosimus (lib. II) calls him *megiston tōn officion anti tōn dōmatōn*. To him belonged the discipline of the palace, and he presided over the offices, that is, the ministries. Eusebius [*omitted*], with Vincomalus, master of the sacred offices, who is afterwards called absolutely *magister*. Hence the *magisteriani* were called "Agents-in-the-rebus," perhaps because they were under the Master of the Offices. The Old Glossary: *Magistrianos*, an Agent-in-the-rebus: which is confirmed from the Council of Chalcedon, Act I, *Konstantinos ho entimotatos agens in rebus*. There is frequent mention of these agents, etc.

Col. 173, l. 23. *A certain one is said*. Theodoret (lib. V, c. 19) narrates that of the number of those monks, the most holy Macedonius had seized the cloak of one of the judges in the middle of the city and ordered both to descend from their horses: and when they recognized the man—previously unknown to them—leaping down from their horses, they embraced his knees, to whom Macedonius said: "Tell the emperor, most dear men, not only that he is an emperor, but also that he is a man, and although he is a man, he commands those who are participants of the same nature. But human nature is created in the image of God; wherefore do not command that the image of God be taken from the midst so cruelly and inhumanely. Let him consider furthermore that it is very easy for us to manufacture many things in place of one bronze image, but that it is impossible to make even a single hair of those who have been killed." Theodoret remembers the same Macedonius (ch. 3, *Religious History* of the SS. Fathers).

Col. 176, l. 18. *The metropolis itself*. The rights and privileges of the metropolis were transferred to the city of Laodicea, as Theodoret reports (lib. V, c. 19): "He gave the privileges and the lordship to the neighboring city, thinking that this would disturb her most. For Laodicea already envied Antioch for a long time." The *Tripartite* interpreter (lib. IX, c. 32) says: "He took away the privileges from the city and granted the primacy to the neighboring city, thinking this would be a great grief to her. For Laodicea had already long envied Antioch." And metropolises are properly called, according to Suidas, those from which colonies are drawn, *kai polis apoikias esteilan*, but also whatever is primary and as it were the mother of the province, as the emperors speak in l. unique, cod., concerning the metropolis of Berytus: thus the metropolis of the province of Syria was Antioch; Xiphilinus in *Hadrian*: *en tē mētropolei tēs Syrias, Antiocheia*. It was Hadrian, on the day he was designated emperor, who was in Antioch, which is the metropolis of Syria. And Spartianus in *Hadrian*: "He held the Antiochenes in such hatred among these things that he wanted to separate Syria from Phoenicia, so that Antioch might not be called the metropolis of so many cities."

^B Col. 197, l. 1 in tit. *Homily XXII*. (Thus Fronto, who placed it in this order and number). It happens that in one Royal codex, 21 other homilies followed, held before the Antiochenes, this one being *On discord or anger*, which was published in the Oxford edition of the year 1590 from Greek manuscripts of the New College by John Harmar. Among those Antiochene homilies, it was the nineteenth, and as if for the first time it was then given into Latin; and we conclude that it was delivered not long after those homilies, after an interval of time, from the things you read in it; we present this here, omitting others in tome V, number 58, which it is certain were stitched together from various moral digressions of the homilies on Matthew and on other books of Scripture. That Englishman had truly lain hidden in the last Paris edition of the works of Chrysostom in the year 1588, tome V, that it had been inserted by us along with two others, which in the year 1512 P. Nannius of Alkmaar had brought to light in Antwerp from a manuscript codex of the Royal Library, whose interpretation, together with the autograph manuscript of the most learned Professor Federici Morelli, we added to and amended; but now, for the purpose of revising the Greek Oxford edition, we have used three additional Royal codices, of which the first is the Medicean of Henry IV, the second Henry II's, the third of Francis I, which will be designated by the notes H. I. II. F; the fourth Morelli’s M; the Anglican A. The title from the interpreter Nannius had nothing other than these words, *Homily on Discord or Anger, and on fleeing from swearing in all things*; but A. and M. acknowledge this fuller one: *Homily on discord, that is of anger, and on repentance, and on fleeing from oaths with all diligence; delivered ten days before the holy and vivifying resurrection from the dead of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that each one might cleanse himself...* Homily on discord or anger, and on penitence, and on fleeing from all contention of mind and swearing. It was delivered on the tenth day before the holy and vivifying resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, so that each one might cleanse himself beforehand, and thus approach the holy and divine communion. In H. II, besides those things which A. F. and M. had, this was added: *oti ou monon koinōnein, all' oude euchesthai dynatai, kai oti oude oudemian de dikaian echousi apologian hoi tōn hēdikēmenōn*. And that he can not only not communicate, but not even pray, who is mindful of injuries, and they are in no way worthy of excuse who remember an injury received. The beginning of this homily is similar to that which you will find in Genesis.

Col. 212, l. 57. *A brother, indeed*. Peroptat, from his brother, indeed; for the eyes of kin were accustomed to be closed, as we have learned from the books of the Gentiles themselves, who practiced the law of nature in these funerals more studiously than many who falsely arrogate to themselves the name of Christians. Homer, *Iliad* XI: [Greek passage]... Virgil, *Aeneid* IX: "...nor did I, thy funeral relative, bring thee forth, nor press thy eyes, nor wash thy wounds." Statius, *Thebaid* II: "...alternately closed the right eyes, that is, brothers dying at the same time." Pliny, lib. XI, cap. 57: "To close the eyes of the dying, and again to open them on the pyre is a custom of the Romans—the great rite is sacred." Varro, apud Nonium in *Sigillo*: "Let not sons close the eyes of their fathers in the clear light, that is, shut them."

Col. 223 in tit. *Catechesis*. This homily in the Basel edition of Gelenius of the year 1547 followed the exposition of the creed, with this prefix as a title: *That the tradition of the sacraments ought not to be recited with the catechumens standing by: why it is called the washing of regeneration and not of the remission of sins*: we, in the Royal manuscripts, having sought it in vain, exhibit it from the codex of the most learned Fed. Morelli, king's professor, having correctly amended, however, that part of the title which lacked negation... for it is certain that it ought to be added from that place... and is acknowledged by the interpreter. Authors on divine offices treat elsewhere of catechumens dismissed before the celebration of the mysteries, etc.

HENRY SAVILE’S NOTES on the Homilies on the Devil the Tempter. Col. 241-3, in tit. We have corrected the former of these orations, which was described from the Oxford manuscript, from the Bavarian manuscript. In the latter, the edition of Duc...

Ducaeus for the most part appeared to us to be copied from an imperfect exemplar, for he was lacking many leaves, which we have restored from the Royal manuscript. ^A Col. 260, l. 30. *κατάλιν*. R. better *καταλύει*. Certainly the reading *καταλύει* does not seem better.

Col. 261, l. 1 from the bottom. R. has *πρὸ τοῦ* for *πρὸς τοῦ*, rightly. I know not if it be rightly corrected; for one might read *πρὸ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς*, which repetition we think Chrysostom avoided.

Col. 261, l. 12. Most rightly R. *τὸ πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς φιλανθρωπότατον*. Both readings are suitable.

NOTES OF FRONTO DUCÆUS

Col. 257 in tit. *To those who object*. The manuscripts of Crypta Ferrata have preserved for us this truly golden treatise, from which Father Jacobus Sirmondus, my dearest companion and colleague, sent me a copy from Rome. To his diligence, the Christian Church owes many monuments of the Greek Fathers, and will owe them in the future. Nor should two other library catalogues be overlooked: the Augustan manuscript of his treatises, in which the twenty-eighth is marked with this title: *πρὸς τοὺς ζητοῦντας διὰ τί οὐκ ἐκ μέσου ἐγένετο*, and the English edition, phrased somewhat differently, *πρὸς τοὺς κατηγοροῦντας ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ μέσου ἐγένετο*. Furthermore, there is no doubt that it was delivered at Antioch before Bishop Flavian when Chrysostom was still a presbyter, since in the introduction he calls him "father"; and I suspect that it was delivered even after the 21st [homily] to the people of Antioch, from the fact that he says he had spoken previously about renunciation to those who were being initiated into the mysteries and to the illuminandi, and because at the end of that 21st homily he adds: "You who are about to cross the threshold of the vestibule, speak first this word: I renounce thee, Satan." Thus also the old translator in Basil, distinct. 2, can. 5, renders that from the book *On the Holy Spirit*: *ἀποτάσσεσθαι τῷ Σατανᾷ, καὶ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ οἷς ἡ γραφὴ ἐκέλευσεν;* "To renounce Satan and his angels, which the Scripture commanded?" Ambrose, lib. 1 *De sacramentis*, cap. 2: "When the priest asked you, 'Do you renounce the devil and his works?' what did you answer?" Other Latin Fathers use the verb "Renounce," as Tertullian, *De corona mil.*, cap. 3; Jerome in v Matthew; and Augustine, lib. 11 *De symbolo*, cap. 1. These things we had noted years ago, at which time we published this to the light among nine other homilies at Bordeaux. Now, however, this second edition being completed, having obtained another manuscript of King Henry II added to the Royal library, which bears the title *περὶ ἀρετῆς*, we have collected not a few discrepancies and emendations from it, filled in lacunae, and illustrated things that were obscure. You have a homily of similar argument in Volume V, the first of those which Oporinus published in the year 1552, entitled *On Providence*, translated by the learned Amerbach.

NOTES OF HENRICUS SAVILIUS

Col. 278 in tit. Of the ten Homilies on Repentance, which the noble Lælius Tifernas gave us in Latin, we have not found two in Greek—that is, 6 and 7; nor perhaps will anyone else find them. For they seem to me to have been written by one of the Latin Fathers. But I would dare to affirm nothing. The most learned Fronto thinks they are patchworks collected here and there from the works of Chrysostom. The remaining eight are presented in their proper places; there are also 7 or 8 others on the same subject in this our edition, some in their place, some suspected, about which in their proper place. Now we have corrected this first one, described from the Royal library at Paris, from the manuscript in the Imperial library of Vienna, and from the Paris edition of Fronto Ducaeus: it was delivered, I think, at Constantinople.

Col. 294, l. 1 from the bottom. Savil: *δεῖπνον*.

Col. 300 in tit. We have accurately corrected this oration, described from the Imperial manuscript, in these notes from the edition of the most learned Fronto; whom, in printing our edition, I do not know how we came to neglect.

Col. 306 in tit. We corrected this oration, described from the Royal library at Paris, from a Palatine manuscript. It was delivered at Antioch, and is of a better quality. The Augustan catalogue acknowledges it at number 95.

Col. 514 in tit. This oration is described from a Royal manuscript at Paris, from which source, I think, Fronto Ducaeus also drew it.

NOTES OF FRONTO DUCÆUS

Col. 281, l. 30. *Depopulationem*. The author of the Vulgate, 1 Timothy 2:17, translates *gangrenam*, others *cancrum*. Pliny called ulcers *nomas*, which consume the flesh.

Col. 292 in tit. *περὶ ἑλεημοσύνης*. In the manuscript of King Francis I, from which we caused it to be transcribed, this homily bore this title, which hitherto has been numbered as the ninth on Repentance, and likewise in the Medicean book of Henry IV, and in that which the most learned man, Federicus Morelius, professor and royal typographer, gave us to use. From these three codices, therefore, we have collected the more notable various readings, so that the reader might understand that the printed book expresses the manuscript of Francis.

Col. 300 in tit. *On Repentance IV*. What was previously numbered in this place as the second on Repentance is now contained among the homilies on Genesis as the first; but the third, which begins *et sal 244*, since it appeared nowhere in the manuscripts of the most Christian king, was found in the Imperial library of Vienna; but it was taken from a book so badly damaged by moths and wood-lice that it could not be transcribed, yet it was taken from another more complete one, though it swarms with not a few errors, through the help of a learned man of English nationality who officiously offered his services, and sent to us from Austria by the kindness of the noble Sebastian Tegnagel, the Imperial librarian, to whose exceptional kindness we hope we shall owe many things necessary for this edition of the Greek Fathers.

Col. 302, l. 26. *τοῦτον παρασκευάζει*. Fr. Ducaeus thinks this passage suffers from an error; I think otherwise, for the sequence appears entirely clear.

Col. 311, l. 43. *ἀφανισμῷ*, to be written from H. I. *ἀφανισμῷ*? Thus at least it must be read, as Fronto hints, although almost all the manuscripts have *ἀφανισμῷ*.

Col. 321, l. 2. *τῆς σωτηρίας*. It must be emended, in my judgment, *τῆς θυσίας ταύτης ἀπολαύωμεν*, "Let us enjoy this sacrifice continually in Christ," etc. For thus he said a little before, *τῆς ἁγίας μετέχειν θυσίας*.

Col. 333, l. 13. *ἀγγελεῖν*. Fronto prefers *ἀπαγγελεῖν*, which some manuscripts have. Whichever way you read it, the oration is fine. The matter is of the lightest moment.

NOTES OF HENRICUS SAVILIUS

Col. 352 in tit. We give this oration, published some years ago at Antwerp by the most learned Petrus Pantinus Tiletanus, in a more corrected form from another manuscript in our library. The Augustan catalogue receives it, no. 92. It was delivered at Antioch. Furthermore, you should know that the names of the months which are found here are Macedonian, as appears from the letters of Philip in Demosthenes, which the East used, I think, from the times of Alexander onwards. To the Romans, however, they correspond thus: Gorpiaeus: September Hyperberetaeus: October Dius: November Apellaeus: December Audonaeus: Januarius Peritius: Februarius Dystrus: Martius Xanthus, al. Xanthius: Aprilis Artemisius: Maius Desius: Junius Panemus: Julius Loius, al. Lous: Augustus.

NOTES OF HENRICUS SAVILIUS

Col. 363 in tit. We have reviewed this oration, published by Fronto Ducaeus in the year 1595 at Ingolstadt, from a manuscript in the new Oxford College and from the later Parisian one of the same Ducaeus. The Augustan catalogue acknowledges it at number 94.

NOTES OF FRONTO DUCÆUS

Col. 363 in tit. We give this treatise transcribed from two Royal Medicean codices, which we designate with these marks, H. I. and H. II. In the former was the title which we published here and 12 years ago at Ingolstadt by David Sartorius. In the latter, however, this one: *ὁμιλία εἰς τὰ ἅγια φῶτα, καὶ ὅτι οἱ ἀτέλεστον καταλιμπάνοντες τὴν θείαν λειτουργίαν, τὸν Ἰούδαν μιμοῦνται*. "On the holy lights, and that those who leave the divine liturgy unfinished imitate Judas."* Similar is the title of the 38th oration in Gregory Nazianzen, *εἰς τὰ ἅγια φῶτα τῶν Ἐπιφανίων λόγος*, "Discourse on the holy lights of the Epiphany." Where the most learned Billius annotates that the feast of "Lights" was the baptism of Christ, which was celebrated on the 6th of January both among the Greeks and the Latins: rightly. And in the Calendar of the Greeks by Genebrard on the Psalms you will find written on January 6: "The Theophany of Christ, and the baptism of the divine Savior"; and in the Calendar of the Syrians, "Epiphany, which is also [the feast] of the Lights." Ammianus Marcellinus also mentions this, lib. 21, on the day of the feast which those celebrating in the month of January call the Epiphany. It was therefore written wrongly in the margin of H. I. *τὸ ἐπαύριον τῆς ἑορτῆς τῶν φώτων* ("the day after the feast of lights"), as if it were delivered the day after the feast of the lights, whereas it is certain that it was pronounced by Chrysostom on the day of the Epiphany itself, and the other on the day after, in which he praised S. Lucianus the martyr on January 7, which [oration], translated into Latin, we have brought to light. See below, where you have also a similar exhortation to attend the sacred mysteries of the Church on feast days, at the beginning of the homily on SS. Peter and Elias.

Col. 364, l. 3 from the bottom. *Idcirco etiam*. Note the old custom of the Christians, of which a vestige still remains.

^A

### VARIOUS NOTES

On the Syrian Calendar according to Genebrardus, January 6: On that night, he says, water is consecrated for the whole year. And that the ancients were accustomed to receive water consecrated in the baptistery into vessels to sprinkle in their houses or fields is witnessed to by the Sacramentary of Gregory, the *Ordo Romanus*, and Albinus Flaccus in his *De divinis officiis*, in the chapter on Holy Saturday.

Col. 374, in the title. We have taken care to have this oration and the following one printed in the *zapallifio*, because they are neither entirely the same nor entirely different, as will be clear from a collation; the Augsburg Catalogue recognizes this one as the seventy-ninth (numbering of its own edition) at number 96. As I have said, it has many things in common with the following one, both in words and in thoughts, so that the oration appears almost identical: however, we give this one, printed at Augsburg in the year 1587, to the reader here, corrected in almost infinite places from the manuscript.

### NOTES OF HENRY SAVILE on the Homily on the Appellation of the Cemetery and on the following ones.

Col. 394, in the title. We provide an exact copy of this oration, described from a manuscript in the Augsburg library and corrected from another manuscript in the library of Archbishop Gabriel of Philadelphia. This oration has also been published among others by Gretser. The Augsburg Catalogue recognizes this oration at number 39.

Col. 402 and 408, in the titles. We have ordered the eighty-second and eighty-third to be printed, as above, at 79 and 80, and for the same reasons. This 82nd is described from a manuscript book in the Royal Library at Paris, and corrected from a semi-mutilated manuscript in the Bavarian library. The Augsburg Catalogue recognizes it at number 97, with this title [...].

Col. 418, in the title. The Augsburg Catalogue recognizes this oration at number 46 as a true and legitimate work of John Chrysostom. The Augsburg library provided it for us.

Col. 433, in the title. This oration, published in the year 1593 by the most learned Fronto at Ingolstadt, we have corrected from a manuscript codex in the library of the new College at Oxford. The Augsburg Catalogue recognizes it with this title, [...].

Col. 441, in the title. We have transcribed this oration, accepted by the Augsburg Catalogue at number 100, from a manuscript codex at the library of the new College at Oxford, and corrected it from the Bavarian one. It was delivered at Antioch.

Col. 451 and 464, in the titles. The Augsburg Catalogue recognizes the former (on Pentecost) as of the better sort, number [...]. Some years ago at Bordeaux, we corrected it in very few places from the Royal codex in Paris, which nevertheless appears to be one of those which Ducæus also used—whom he designates, I think, as the Medicean; yet it did not fail to bring forth something different from the Ducæan edition, which is not to be despised. It was delivered at Antioch in the presence of Flavianus. We owe the latter to Fronto Ducæus, who published it from the Medicean manuscript and the Roman printed edition.

Col. 470, in the title. These seven orations (for there are no more, see [...]) were described at Constantinople by the work and diligence of Samuel Stadius, whom I have often mentioned and who is always to be remembered: they were corrected, however, and are better, from another manuscript in the monastery of St. Laura on the Holy Mountain, formerly called Athos. ^B Besides these seven, the Latin edition has an eighth on Paul, and indeed our codices also exhibited an eighth. But that was only an excerpt from the seven preceding ones, and therefore we have given it its own place among the excerpts. What is the eighth in the Latin editions does not seem to me to refer to Chrysostom. For although the Greek text does not appear anywhere, it is not difficult to deliver a judgment upon it. For those things which are Chrysostom's have certain signs which are not obscure, both in force and energy, qualities which cannot be hidden by the propriety of any other idiom. — MALESIUS.

### NOTES OF HENRY SAVILE on the Homily on St. Meletius. Col. 516, in the title. Described from the Royal codex, we have corrected it from the Bavarian. It is found in the Augsburg Catalogue at number 59.

### NOTES OF FRONTO DUCÆUS on the Homily on St. Meletius. Ibid. His memory is celebrated in the Greek Menologion on February 13, and in the Roman Martyrology in these words: "At Antioch, of St. Meletius the bishop, who for the Catholic faith suffered exile many times, and finally migrated to the Lord at Constantinople, whose virtues St. John Chrysostom and Gregory of Nyssa celebrated with the highest praises." Gregory of Nazianzus also praised him in his poem *On his own life*: *For his name and his ways were honeyed,* *Who endured many heavy things for the grace of the divine Spirit.* He was present at the Council of Constantinople, which was the second ecumenical, and shortly after that he died at Constantinople. And at first, indeed, he favored the Arians, and was appointed bishop by them, for which reason he is numbered even by Jerome in his *Chronicle* among the enemies of Christ who occupied the church of Antioch, circa the year 351 of Christ; yet he was always a Catholic, and defended the consubstantial, according to Sozomen, bk. iv, c. 27. Thus eventually the matter was settled, as Socrates recounts, bk. v, ch. 5, and Sozomen, bk. vii, c. 3; and it was agreed between Paulinus and Meletius that upon the death of one of them, the other should hold the episcopacy alone. Therefore Meletius succeeded Paulinus, and Flavianus succeeded Meletius, according to Socrates, bk. v, ch. 9. Furthermore, Surius translated this homily from the volumes of Aloysius Lipomanus *On the Lives of the Saints* into his first volume, which is cited by John of Damascus, Orat. 2 *On Images*, and by the seventh ecumenical council held at Nicaea, action 4: *In his encomium on Meletius: When I look around at this sacred assembly from all sides, and see the whole city present here.* We have transcribed it, however, from two manuscripts, one of Henry II, the other of Henry IV.

Col. 516, l. 3. *And so having been called*. We have thus corrected this in the interpreter, who derived the participle from the middle verb, rendering it, *The protection and salvation to those calling upon him*. On this occasion he vents his anger against those who gave superstitious names to their children. Chrysostom, hom. 12 on I Cor., [...]. And when the infant should be named, omitting to call him after the saints, as the ancients first did by lighting lamps and imposing names on them, they cause the child to be called by the same name which has lasted for a very long time. Again, a little later here, it should be written, *When one lamp has been lit*, not *conspicua*. For it is not the Greek [...], but [...]. L. 12. *And truly that was*. Here begins the passage cited by John of Damascus, Orat. 2 *On Images*, and by the seventh council against the Iconoclasts, act 4, in which that *And he was applied to this so much* must be corrected, and that which the interpreter says here should be substituted, *And it was so frequent that everywhere in the streets*: for these things are not to be referred to the children to whom the name Meletius was given, but to the citizens of Antioch, as the interpreter of Damascenus reported, *Which custom indeed spread so much that everywhere*. — L. 23. *And in cups and in phials*. The interpreter had written, *And in images*, when he had read, no doubt, what the codex of H. IV also presented, [...], and H. Int., whence the old interpreter of the VII Council, *In cups, in phials, on the walls of the bedchamber*. It is the same in Damascenus. That the use of images in cups and domestic vessels was already in usage among the ancients even then, and indeed was older than that age, is taught by Tertullian in *De pudicitia*, ch. 7: *Let the pictures of your cups proceed, if even in them the interpretation of that shepherd will shine forth, whether it contains for the Christian or the Gentile sinner [a message] of reconciliation.* And Jerome on IV Jonah, *And in truth in the very gourds of the vessels (which they commonly call 'Saucomaricas') the images of the apostles are accustomed to be delineated, and he took from them his own name.* Something similar about Simeon Stylites is written by Theodoret in his *Religious History*: "For they say," he says, "that at Rome, which is by far the greatest, it was so celebrated on everyone's tongue that they placed his small images in all the vestibules and porticos of the workshops, thus preparing for themselves a protection and guardianship." Therefore, this passage of Chrysostom having been recited, Peter the bishop of Nicomedia rightly said in the VII council: "If indeed the divine John Chrysostom preached about images of this kind, who is he who would dare to bark against them any further?" — L. 38. *By the urge of the emperor*. Constantius, of course, the son of the great Constantine, in the twenty-second year of whose reign, and in the year of Christ 360, these things happened, which Theodoret recounts in more detail in his *Ecclesiastical History*, bk. ii, c. 31. For when Meletius was asked to pass on a brief and compendious doctrine of the faith, he first showed three fingers, then with two compressed, and one left extended, brought forth this famous statement: *There are three things that are understood, but we speak as if regarding one.* Against this doctrine those whose minds the Arian disease had infected began to sharpen their tongues, to construct calumny, and to say that the divine Meletius was a Sabellian. Therefore they persuaded Constantius, who was easily borne hither and thither just like the Euripus, that he should relegate Meletius to his own country: so I interpret it, not as Christophorson did, *That he should expel Meletius from his ancestral seats [reside]*, which the interpreter of the Tripartite History rendered in bk. v, ch. 48: *For which reason they persuaded the prince that he should be sent into exile into his own province, that is, into Armenia*, as Chrysostom says below on page 525, from whose city, Sebastea, he had been transferred to the Antiochene see, as the Rufinus write—

lib. I, cap. 24, and Sozomen, lib. IV, cap. 27. Socrates also, lib. II, cap. 34, relates that Meletius was first detected as bishop of Sebastea, and afterwards transferred to the episcopacy of the city of Beroea in Syria: which Theodoret also seems to confirm, when he says that when he was the prelate of an Armenian city, and could not endure the difficult and stubborn ways of his flock, he moved to another place to live a life of tranquility, and was thence summoned to Antioch. Nicephorus Callistus also, lib. IX, cap. 48, when he had said that he was created bishop of Sebastea by the votes of the Arians, added that he was thence again moved to Beroea in Syria, and finally raised to the Antiochene see through the efforts of the same men.

Col. 517, 1. 5 from the bottom. *And they kissed his hands.* It was the ancient custom of Christians, certainly, to kiss the hands of bishops. Ambrose, *De dignitate sacerdotali* cap. 2: "When you see the necks of kings and princes submitted to the knees of priests, and their right hands kissed, they believe themselves to be strengthened by their prayers." And Paulinus in *The Life of Ambrose*: "When he saw the hands of the priest being kissed by a domestic sister or mother, he himself would playfully offer his right hand, saying that it must be done to him also, since he remembered that he was going to be a bishop." Jerome also writes about himself, being a presbyter, in epistle 99: "Some were kissing my hands, and with viperous mouths they were tearing [me] apart."

ON THE PANEGYRICAL TRACTATES OF THE XVII ON SAINTS, brought to light in the year 1601.

Col. 520 in the title. *John Chrysostom, whose*, as Epiphanius says in the 6th action of the II Nicene Council, *voice flows sweeter than honey, for which reason he also earned the appellation of Chrysostom: nay, who obtained a mouth more splendid and luminous than gold*; Suidas attests that he delivered many sermons on the praises of the holy martyrs, and this is confirmed both by the *Roman Martyrology* and the *Menology of the Greeks*, and by the *Epitome of the library of Gesner*, which reports that many such are found in the Emperor's library, and that John Brassicanus had diverse of his encomia on the saints in his possession. Many of his works, indeed, are gathered to have been unknown to us from Photius, whose *Bibliotheca* attests that he published 22 orations on the Ascension of the Lord alone, and 17 on Pentecost. In the *Catalogue of the books of the Patriarch of Constantinople*, formerly printed at Antwerp, mention is made of seventy panegyrical orations of Chrysostom: and in another manuscript catalogue of his sermons, of which the honorable Marcus Velserus provided us a copy from the Augustan library, the titles and first few words of many not yet published are read, and of almost all of those which we now provide. Furthermore, we unearthed almost all of these from the manuscript codices of the library of the most Christian Queen Catherine de' Medici, mother of our three kings, when, ten years ago in Paris, through the singular favor and permission of her most kind librarian, the honorable Jo. Bapt. Bencivenne, Abbot of Belloram, we used her books. And although we only obtained a single copy of each, and it is very difficult to prepare a new edition of any work relying on the aid of a single codex, we nevertheless did not hesitate to pluck “golden-haired fruit from the tree.”

And having corrected not a few manifest errors of the copyists, concerning others, which we amended as if with a suspended hand, we have warned the reader, lest any loss of a better reading occur by chance, and so that it may be understood which ones are particularly in need of the help of other books; in case by chance the rod might flourish with similar metal somewhere else. We have called them *Panegyrical Tractates*, borrowing from Rufinus in his *Preface to Church History*, because a title prefixed here to some of them was *Eulogia Panegyrika*, or *Encomia on the Martyrs*. For that this term sounds the same to the Latins as it does to the Greeks, the ancient interpreters of the Councils teach, and this from Victor of Utica, lib. 1: "Augustine had already produced two hundred and thirty-two books, except for numberless epistles and popular tractates, which the Greeks call *homilies*": from which comes Ambrose, ep. 55: "After the readings and the tractate, having dismissed the catechumens, I was handing over the creed in the baptisteries to some competentes at the Basilica." The homilies of Augustine on John and of Gaudentius of Brescia are also called tractates. But Latin orators called panegyrics the praises of emperors, and the Greek Fathers called them the festivals of the saints; and so we read these things about Leontius of Cyprus in the II Nicene Council, action 5: “And we have many encomia and panegyrical orations of his.”

Col. 520 in the title. Furthermore, this is that holy Lucian, whom Jerome in *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, and Eusebius lib. IX, cap. 5 of his *History* mention, and likewise the *Roman Martyrology* for 7 January, in these words: “The feast of the blessed Lucian, presbyter and martyr of the Church of Antioch, who, quite famous for his teaching and eloquence, suffered at Nicomedia for the confession of Christ in the persecution of Maximin, and was buried at Helenopolis in Bithynia,” whose praises Saint John Chrysostom celebrated. Then adding to his most scholarly notes, the most illustrious restorer of ecclesiastical antiquity, Caesar Baronius, observes that this splendid oration should be kept as a most precious object in the library of the most learned Cardinal Sirleto. The Greeks however, in their Calendar, tom. IV of the *Bibliotheca of the holy Fathers*, describe his name on 15 October, but that his festival was celebrated at Antioch in the age of Chrysostom on 7 January is confirmed both from a manuscript codex of the Queen, which had at the front of this tractate: *January 6th*, and from its beginning, by which it is signified that the sermon was delivered the day before concerning the baptism of Christ, which we have presented on page 275 of this volume, whence we also speak here on p. 353: “Yesterday our Lord was baptized by water, but today the servant is baptized by blood.” The martyr himself announced to his disciples that he would depart from life on the day after the Theophany, as is in the *Acts* in Surius, t. 1: in which this sermon confirms those things that are narrated concerning the 14 days of hunger and the offering of idol-meats, in the Augustan Catalogue, number seventy-one. I had annotated these things in the first edition of this homily or tractate, which appeared at Bordeaux with sixteen others in the year 1601, since which time the Reverend Father Jacob Gretser, theologian of our Society—who, having edited many works of the holy Greek Fathers, has often already deserved well of the Christian republic—had some of them compared with the very ancient codex of the most serene Duke of Bavaria, and sent us at Ingolstadt not a few various readings and emendations with an appendix. In the inscription itself, therefore, the Bavarian codex, which we designate with this letter R, as the Medicean with M, added: *Habita est postridie Luminum* [Delivered the day after the Lights].

NOTES OF HENRY SAVILE on the two Orations on St. Babylas.

Col. 528 in the title. We provide this oration from the manuscript codex of the most serene Duke of Bavaria, from which the most learned Fronto adorned his Parisian edition, [showing it to be] more emended in many places by his conjectures and our own. It was delivered at Antioch.

Col. 531 in the title. We provide this oration, transcribed at Paris from the Royal Library, from a manuscript codex in the Bavarian library, and emended from the Basel edition. For the Parisian edition of Fronto, lacking copies, I suppose, was of little or almost no use to us.

NOTES OF FRONTO DUCAEUS on the Orations on St. Babylas.

Col. 528 in the title. That Babylas was bishop of Antioch and, in the reign of Decius, left this life in chains for the confession of Christ, is witnessed by Eusebius of Caesarea, l. VI, c. 52, *Hist. Eccl.*, Epiphanius in his book *On Weights and Measures*, and Jerome in his *Catalogue of writers* under Alexander. Besides that book which he wrote against the Gentiles, it is established from homily 4 *On Lazarus* (as we have already warned in the homily *On the Holy Juventinus and Maximus*) that there is an oration on the life and praises of Babylas, delivered by Chrysostom, and perhaps he designates this very one there, which the Rev. Father Jac. Gretser, theologian of our order, sent to us, retrieved from the library of the most serene Duke of Bavaria: but since it was found in only one codex, no various readings were possible, but a few corrections from conjecture could be added, and in the first place it was to be emended not far from the beginning, *and to Flavian*. For it is certain that Bishop Flavian is meant here, just as also in the homily *On the Blessed Philogonius*, see vol. II. Therefore, it should be written here in the interpretation, to our common father, the Doctors; I leave it to [the reader].

Col. 532, 1. 21. *[Greek word]*. Thus that manuscript is emended. We say more about St. Babylas in the notes to the following book, which for certain reasons we relegate to the later part of volume V; the remaining books of St. John Chrysostom, such as *On the Priesthood*, *On Virginity*, and similar epistles of his, it will display. I do not think Fronto ever published those notes on St. Babylas.

Col. 574, 1. 45. *All the substance*. It must be written, *his goods reduced to money*. The Greek surely has it thus: *[Greek phrase]*. But if this reading stands, Fronto rightly notes it should be translated, "his goods," etc. Truly it is plain that the interpreter read *[Greek phrase]*, and so it is to be read as is read below *[Greek phrase]*. And I think this is entirely genuine, although lacking the authority of manuscripts, I would not dare to change the ancient text.

NOTES OF FRONTO DUCAEUS on the Homily on St. Ignatius.

Col. 594, 1. 1. *Or in prison*. *[Greek word]*.

(Which is more appropriate: thus among the Romans capital punishment in prison was twofold: strangulation, which was done by a noose, and precipitation, which was from the *Robur*; for the prison had a double part, the Tullianum and the Robur.)

^B NOTES OF FRONTO DUCAEUS on the Homily on St. Romanus, martyr. Col. 606 in the title. In the *Lives of the Saints* by Laurentius Surius, volume VI, at November 18th, there is a panegyric of the same martyr, as it is had in Simeon Metaphrastes in the version of Aloysius Lipomanus, who collected the *Lives of the Saints* comprised in eight volumes, at Venice in the year 1556, having used for the most part, as interpreter, Guglielmo Sirleto, then protonotary. Preceding it was also his martyrdom, transcribed from Book VIII, chapter 12 of Eusebius’s *Ecclesiastical History*, in which place he writes that he was of Palestinian origin, a deacon of the Church of Caesarea and an exorcist, or rather [Greek: *Exorcista* of the diocese of Caesarea]. But when he was at Antioch during the devastation of the churches, having observed many men hurrying with their wives and children to the idols and offering sacrifices to them, [Greek: *he vehemently rebuked them*]. That this homily was delivered in praise of this Romanus by Chrysostom, and not of that one whom Prudentius mentions in his 10th hymn, and for whom a homily on St. Romanus the martyr is attributed to Eusebius Emisenus, the most illustrious Cardinal Baronius believes, writing in the *Roman Martyrology*: that he whom Prudentius celebrated underwent martyrdom when he had attempted to turn back the prefect Asclepiades, who was bursting into the church of the Christians: I do not see, however, what stands in the way of our saying that both took place, namely that Romanus might have restrained the Christians who were terrified and failing in the face of tortures and sacrifices and profane rites, and that he might have repressed the Gentiles as they rushed into the temple of the faithful. For it often happens that when two historians relate the same battle, certain parts of it are touched upon by one, and certain parts are passed over by another. Certainly, in the second homily on St. Romanus, Chrysostom wrote that the tyrant who was rushing into the church was repressed and rebuked by him, just as Prudentius also narrates of his own [Romanus], although this is passed over in silence by Eusebius. Again, Eusebius said that when Romanus was tied to the stake, as the wood was being heaped up, he was summoned and led to the emperor, but Prudentius expressed the occasion, because: *Nimirum... nimbus undatim nigro, / Præceps aquarum flumine ignes obruit.*

Since the miracle of the speaking infant is omitted by Eusebius, just as he kept silent about that other miracle, that Romanus spoke words after his tongue was cut out, which was related by Chrysostom and Prudentius. Moreover, since the name, the place of the passion, the time, and the kind of martyrdom agree in both Romanuses, and the circumstance of the boy who was the companion of his martyrdom, which the second homily of Chrysostom—which we published a few years ago—expressed, as will be said below in the *Notes* on p. 546, we shall by no means say that the two Romanuses were confused into one, but we shall note and imitate the different actions in one. Romanus died in the 20th year of Diocletian, which is the 504th year of the Dionysian era of Christ. Many years later, the Emperor Basil restored his church, according to Cedrenus in his *Compendium of History*. Furthermore, we have used two manuscripts, one of Henry II, another of Henry IV. In the former, it was read in line 2: [Greek text].

^C NOTES OF FRONTO DUCAEUS on the Homily on St. Bernice, Prosdoce, and Domnina. Col. 650 in the title. The Augustan Catalog calls the mother of these virgins Domnina, in this way: [Greek text]. But the *Menologium of the Greeks*, edited at Venice on October 4th, has this: [Greek text]; then it subjoins a brief epitome of their history ^D excerpted from this homily of our author, in which *pru in* should be read *pii*, and instead of *tapippu, tapicka*, as is evident from the testimony of Chrysostom himself, and from a manuscript codex of the Menologium of our Agen College, in which this iambic distich concerning the same was added: [Greek text] *Tres hæ puellæ per fluenta fluminis* *Sordentis ævi proluere crimina.*

In the Menologium edited in volume VI of *Antiq. lect.*, Berina and Prodoca are erroneously, I believe, called the daughters of Domnina. Eusebius, book VIII, c. 2 of *Hist.* narrates that a certain holy woman of Antioch, noble by birth, had twin daughters outstanding in bodily form, who, when they were being held surrounded by the nets of the soldiers, requested from them a short time to depart from the way for the sake of relieving a natural necessity, and immediately upon reaching the riverbank, they threw themselves into the flowing current. St. Ambrose, in book III of *De Virginibus*, praises the virgin St. Pelagia of Antioch, who, when she saw herself surrounded by the marauders of the faith or of her modesty, in the absence of her mother and sisters, put on her bridal garment and willingly underwent death, not killing herself with a sword, as Sixtus Senensis thinks (book V of *Biblioth. sanctæ annotat. 253*), but running to the roof of the house, from where she threw herself down, as Chrysostom says in the later panegyric which he related in his third volume (Surius, June 9th). Ambrose adds that her sisters also, with joined hands, as if leading a dance, had proceeded into the middle of the river's channel, which rendered them martyrs. Therefore, it should not seem surprising what Chrysostom here narrates concerning Bernice and Prosdoce, who averted foul turpitude by a voluntary death, as Cicero tells of certain virgins in *Orat. de Provinciis consularibus*, and St. Jerome (book I *in Iovinian.*) of the Lacedaemonians who died for the sake of modesty. For although Petrus Alexandrinus says that one should not communicate with those who have attempted such things, and Bishop Mensurius, in Augustine's *Breviulo collationis*, denies that those who offer themselves to persecutors should be considered martyrs, and even Chrysostom himself (Hom. 87 on John) says that humans lay violent hands upon themselves only at the prompting of the devil; it is, however, certain from the same Augustine (book I, chapter 26, *De Civitate Dei*) that certain holy women, so that they might avoid the molesters of their modesty, threw themselves into a rushing and death-dealing river, and their martyrdoms are celebrated with very great veneration in the Catholic Church; furthermore, it is to be thought that they did this warned by a special revelation of God. "But when God commands without any ambiguity," he says, "who would call obedience a crime? Who would call duty to piety an evil?" Indeed, the fathers of old have taught that even without a special dispensation of the Holy Spirit, it is permitted to throw oneself headlong into the danger of death for the sake of preserving modesty, as Jerome in *1 Jonah*, and Ambrose in *Epistle 7*, and the cited book II of *De Virginibus*. Now, however, these things are more worthy of admiration than imitation.

NOTES OF FRONTO DUCAEUS on the Homily on the Egyptian Martyrs. Col. 691, l. 5. [Greek word]. It should be read [Greek word], or [Greek word]. Another code: [Greek text]. In others, "by the very machines devised by them," and [Greek text]. Col. 695, l. 17. [Greek word]. Another: [Greek word].

NOTE OF THE SAME on the Homily on Peter and Elias. Col. 726, l. 19. [Greek word]. It should be corrected to [Greek word], or [Greek word]. Thus I too think it should be corrected, although it may be reclaimed by the manuscripts.