Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:51:24.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Saint John Chrysostom, ‘De fato et providentia’: A Study of its Authenticity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2017

Thomas P. Halton
Thomas P. Halton*
Affiliation:
The Catholic University of America
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Montfaucon's edition of St. John Chrysostom and Migne's Patrologia after him put among the dubia six sermons De fato et providentia (Πεϱὶ εἱμαϱμένης τε ϰαὶ πϱονοίας). In the Admonitio we read: ‘Et vero cum de fato Chrysostomus disserit, alio orationis utitur modo: unde forte nascatur quaedam νοθείας suspicio.’ Henry Savile, in his edition (1612), rejected the view of Fronton du Duc, who had written of these orations: ‘Videntur concionum a Chrysostomo habitarum ἀπανθίσματα potius et florilegia, seu morales digressiones, quam integrae homiliae: necdum tamen areolae et loca unde sunt decerptae, nobis occurrerunt.’ Savile's rejection reads: ‘Non assentior Frontoni Ducaeo has πεϱί πϱονοίας orationes ἀπανθίσματα esse: neque enim memini ea quae hic afferuntur alibi apud hunc nostrum legisse eodem modo dicta.’

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 20 , 1964 , pp. 1 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 PG 50.749-774.Google Scholar

2 As quoted by Montfaucon ap. PG 50. 749-50. — Among the passages in which Chrysostom deals with the subject in one way or another must be reckoned these: Adv. oppug. vit. mon. 3.10 (PG 47.365), De sac. 4.4 (PG 48.666), Contra Iud. et gent. (PG 48.828), De prophet. obscur. 2.6 (PG 56.184), In Matt., Hom. 6.1 (PG 57.61-2), Hom. 26.5 (PG 57.340), Hom 62.3 (PG 58.600), In Ioan., Hom. 45.4 (PG 59.256), In Act. Ap., Hom. 47.4 (PG 60.331) In Ep. I ad Cor., Hom. 22.4 (PG 61.186), In cap. 1 Ep. ad Gal. 7 (PG 61.623), In Ep. ad Eph. 4, Hom. 12.3 (PG 62.92), In Ep. ad Col. Hom. 2.6 (PG 62.318), In Ep. I ad Tim., Hom. 1.3 (PG 62.507), Hom. hab. post presb. Goth. 6 (PG 63.509), Hom. in illud: Messis (PG 63.518).Google Scholar

3 Ap. PG 50.749-50.Google Scholar

4 Amand, David, Fatalisme et liberté dans l'antiquité grecque (Louvain 1945) 505. Dubiety over the authenticity of the six sermons continues: Lampe, G. W. H., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford 1961) xx, marks them as spurious.Google Scholar

5 Cf. Quod nemo laed. 1 (PG 52.459ff.); Ad Stag. 1.1 (PG 47.425).Google Scholar

6 For other listings cf. Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt iniquitate 4.16 (= ‘Sur la providence de dieu’) (S[ources] C[hrétiennes] 79.90), Ad Olymp. 2.8 (PG 52.564), Ad Stag. 1.6 (PG 47.440), In Genes., Serm. 1 (PG 54.581), De stat. 1.9 (PG 49.28), De res. mort. 1 (PG 50.419), Quod daem. non gub. 6 (PG 49.252), Quod nemo laed. 2 (PG 52.462). Plat. Rep. 5 (465C) speaks of the embarrassments and pains of πaιδoτϱoϕία; cf. Diod. Tars. De fato (PG 103.825A). Greg. Nys. Contra fatum (PG 45.161D) lists ἀπαιδίας, νόσους, ἀτιψίας, βϱαχύτητα βίου, τὰ ἐϰ πενίaς ϰαϰά. Google Scholar

7 Cf. In Ioan. 84.1 (PG 59.455).Google Scholar

8 Cf. Ad eos qui scand. 18.1 (SC 79.182).Google Scholar

9 Cf. De res. mort. 3 (PG 50.422), Ad eos qui scand. 12.2 (SC 79.182), Quod nemo laed. 8 (PG 52.469), Quod daem. non gub. (PG 49.246).Google Scholar

10 Cf. Quod nemo laed. 8 (PG 52.469.) Google Scholar

11 Cf. Plat. Rep. 10 (617E) ‘the fault lies with our choice and God is blameless,’ quoted. in Nemesius De nat. hom. 38 (PG 40).Google Scholar

12 Cf. Ad Stag. 1.2. (PG 47.427), Cont. Iud. et gent. (PG 48.828), In Ep. ad Eph. 4.12 (PG 62.91), In Act. Ap., Hom. 47.4 (PG 60.331-32), Quod daem. non gub. 6.8 (PG 49.253, 254, 257). For ἐπιτειχίζειν in similar context cf. In Matt., Hom. 75.4 (PG 58.691), In Ep. I ad Cor., Hom. 22.4 (PG 61.186). In Cap. 1 Ep. ad Gal. 7 (PG 61.623) also speaks of Τνϱαννίδα εἱµαϱµένης. On ἑιµαϱµένη in Chrysostom, see Amand, , op. cit. 499–532. On the Stoic belief in εἱµαϱµένη see Festugière, A. M. J., L'idéal religieux des Grecs (Paris 1932); von Arnim, H. F. A., Stoicorum veterum fragmenta 2 (Leipzig 1903) 264-298; Greene, W. C., Moira: Fate, Good and Evil in Greek Philosophy (Cambridge, Mass. 1944); Cioffari, V., Fortune and Fate from Democritus to St. Thomas Aquinas (New York 1935). Chrysostom's interest in fate may derive from his teacher, Diodorus of Tarsus, who wrote a De fato (PG 103.829-877).Google Scholar

13 Cf. Nemes. De nat. hom. op. cit.: ‘It is blasphemous to say that God is subject to necessity’ (PG 40.757).Google Scholar

14 Cf. Cont. Iud. et gent. (PG 48.828).Google Scholar

15 Quod daem. non gub. 6 (PG 49.254) contrasts the ἐνταξία in the sun, moon, stars, and seasons with the alleged σύγχυσις and ἀταξία in human affairs.Google Scholar

16 Cf. Expos. in Ps. 134.4 (PG 55.392). For the distinction between ‘universal’ and ‘particular’ providence, cf. Nemes. De nat. hom. (PG 40).Google Scholar

17 For εὔϱιπον cf. In S. Eustath. 1 (PG 50.597). Ad eos qui scand. 4.10 (SC 79.86), Expos. in Ps. 44.12 (PG 55.202).Google Scholar

18 For similar adulation of St. Paul cf. De laud. S. Pauli Hom. 1 (PG 50.478), Ad eos qui scand. 2.2-3 (SC 79.60).Google Scholar

19 Cf. De Laz. 5 (PG 48.1002), Expos. in Ps. 143.5 (PG 55.463).Google Scholar

20 Christians condemned to the mines are mentioned by Chrys. In mart. Aegypt. 2 (PG 50.697), in Ep. I ad Tim., Hom 2.3 (PG 62. 513).Google Scholar

21 Cf. Bapt. Inst. 12.29 (A[ncient] C[hristian] W[riters] 31 [Westminster, Md. - London 1963] 181f.): ‘Even if a man be lame, or his eyes have been torn out, or he be disabled in body, or has fallen into the most extreme weakness’ (tr. P. Harkins).Google Scholar

22 Cf. Contra Anom. 12 (PG 48.809D), Quod daem. non gub. 2 (PG 49.247); Greg. Nyss. Contra fat. 157D.Google Scholar

23 Cf. Expos. in Ps. 143.5 (PG 55.464).Google Scholar

24 For the listing of diseases cf. De Anna 5.4 (PG 54.674), Quod nemo laed. 1 (PG 52.462), De stat. 6.6 (PG 49.89).Google Scholar

25 For a famous description of virtue see In Matt. Hom. 47 4 (PG 58.485-86).Google Scholar

26 Cf. Expos. in Ps. 4.9 (PG 55.54).Google Scholar

27 Cf. Ad Theod. lapsum 2.5 (PG 47.314), Hom. hab. post presb. Goth. 6 (PG 63.510): σύγχνσις ϰαὶ ταϱαχὴ ϰαὶ πϱαγμάτων διαστϱοϕή. Google Scholar

28 Cf. De Stat. 18.2 (PG 49.184), Ad Olymp. 1.1 (PG 52.549); Quod nemo laed. 2 (PG 52. 462); Ad eos qui scand. 16.3 (SC 79.220). Quod daem. non gub. 5 (PG 49.251) points out that the word ϰαϰία is equivocal, and instances as real evils, fornication, adultery, and avarice, but says λιμός, λοιμός, θάνατος and νόσος are only imaginary evils.Google Scholar

29 Cf. De res. mort. 1 (PG 50.419).Google Scholar

30 The aretê of a horse is discussed by Chrysostom in Quod nemo laed. 3 (PG 52.462).Google Scholar

31 On man alone ὄϱθιος cf. Eccles. 7.30, Xen. Mem. 1.4.11, Aristot. Part. animal. 2.10 (656a), Clem. Strom. 4.26, Basil. Hom. in illud: Attende (PG 31.216CD), Greg. Nyss. De hom. opif. (PG 44.143), Minuc. Fel. Oct. 17.Google Scholar

32 Cf. In Matt., Hom 49.5 (PG 58.502); In cap. 4 Ep. ad Eph., Hom. 10.1 (PG 62.75). On the ἀϰϱόπολις of the head cf. Cic. De nat. deor. 2.56, Macrob. De somn. Scip. 1.6 (ed. Stahl 116), Lact. De opif. Dei (CSEL 27.28.3).Google Scholar

33 The verse continues: ‘he is compared to the senseless cattle, and is like them.’ Google Scholar

34 θεάτϱου πνευματιϰοῦ cf. Hom. in illud: Messis 2 (PG 63.518).Google Scholar

35 An example, perhaps, of quaedam peregrinitas. But cf. De incomp. Dei nat. 3 (PG 48.719).Google Scholar

36 Exod. 21.17. Quoted in In cap. 9 Gen., Hom. 29 (PG 53.267) In Gen. Serm. 4 (PG 54.598).Google Scholar

37 For the same metaphors cf. In cap. 1 Gen., Hom. 1 (PG 53.25); Ad eos qui scand. 13.1 (SC 79.188).Google Scholar

38 For the contrast cf. Ad eos qui scand. 9.6 (SC 79.148).Google Scholar

39 Cf. De Laz. 1 (PG 48.977). For ἐπτειχίζειν see supra n. 12.Google Scholar

40 Cf. Bapt. Inst. 4.15 (ACW 31.72).Google Scholar

41 De sac. 4.4 distinguishes between Christian and Manichean believers in fate. Cf. Adv. oppug. vit. mon. 3.10 (PG 47.365).Google Scholar

42 In Matt., Hom. 26.5 (PG 57.340) sees the devil operative in the Manichean belief that ϰαϰία is ἀϰίνητος. See also In Matt., Hom. 62.3 (PG 58.600), where the devil authors the law of fate in opposition to the law of God; likewise In Act. Apost., Hom. 47.4 (PG 60.332), In Ep. ad Col., Hom. 2.6 (PG 62.318). εἰϰῆ ϰαὶ µάτην — a recurring phrase in Chrysostom — occurs ten times in De statuis; cf. Albania Burns, M. Sister, St. John Chrysostom's Homilies on the Statues (The Catholic University of America Patristic Studies 22 [Washington 1930] 8).Google Scholar

43 On the devil's oblique attack cf. In Ep. ad Col. Hom. 2.5 (µεθοδεία οὐϰ ἐξ εὐθείας: PG 62.315); cf. Euseb. Praep. evang. 6 (PG 21.413), where the devil (λαοπλάνον ϰαὶ ἀπατηλόν) ascribes everything to fate to mislead men by destroying the notion of free will.Google Scholar

44 On Adam cf. In Ioan., Hom. 54.3 (PG 59.299).Google Scholar

45 For the same comparison cf. Quod daem. non gub. 3 (PG 49.249).Google Scholar

46 Cf. In illud: Non est in homine (PG 56.156, 160); De perf. carit. 3 (PG 56.282). For Chrysostom and free will see Amand, , op. cit. 497–99.Google Scholar

47 In Quod daem. non gub. 6 (PG 49.253) he calls it a πόλεµος ἄσπονδος ϰαὶ ἀϰήϱνϰτος µάχη; De perf. carit. 3 (PG 56.282) and In Matt., Hom. 26. 5 (PG 57.340) also make the point that laws of fate and of God are diametrically opposed.Google Scholar

48 For µέλη τοῦ Xϱιστοῦ. Cf. In inscrip. Act. 2 (PG 51.77), Bapt. Inst. 8.2 (ACW 31.119): ‘our brothers and truly members of the body of the Church’ (tr. Harkins, P.).Google Scholar

49 In Matt. hom. 62.3 (PG 58.600) also likens the devil to a sorcerer concocting the evil δηλητήϱια of fate and necessity.Google Scholar

50 1 Cor. 15.33, frequently quoted by Chrysostom.Google Scholar

51 For the image cf. Ad Olymp. 17 (PG 51.622), Expos. in Ps. 45.1 (PG 55.204).Google Scholar

52 On warnings against curiosity see n.66. infra. Google Scholar

53 , a phrase much favored by Chrysostom; cf. Ad eos qui scand. (SC 79.66 n.2).Google Scholar

54 γνµνάσαι: cf. De res. mort. 1 (PG 50.417). For similar opening gambits cf. De stat. 7 and 9 (PG 49.91, 103). On ἀγάπη cf. Harkins's note, ACW 31.266 n. 31, on Bapt. Inst. 6.14.Google Scholar

55 is frequently censured: Quod daem. non gub. 2 (PG 49.254); Ad Stag. 4 (PG 47.434), De diab. tent. 2.2 (PG 49.259), De poen. 1.2 (PG 49.279), Quod daem. non gub. 2; (PG 49. 246).Google Scholar

56 An example of paradox.Google Scholar

57 Cf. Adv. Iud. 1. 4 (PG 48.849) ‘Persian’ and ‘barbarian’ are synonymous: Adv. oppug. (PG 47.321), In Matt., Hom. 6.1 (PG 57.63). Nyss, Greg., De fato (PG 45.169A) instances such deplorable Persian customs as ἡ θυγατϱοµιξα ϰαὶ ἀδελϕογαµία. ϰαἱ εἰς µητέϱας παϱονοµία. Google Scholar

58 De perf. carit. 3.3 (PG 56.282) insists on the primacy of free will over the alleged necessity of fate.Google Scholar

59 De perf. carit loc. cit. Google Scholar

60 Cf. In Ep. ad Col., Hom. 2.6 (PG 62.318).Google Scholar

61 Cf. De laud. S. Pauli 4 (PG 50.494).Google Scholar

62 Cf. Expos. in Ps. 134.7 (PG 55.398): ποϱνείας, µοιχείας µνϱίας ϰαϰίας αἱ στῆλαι τῶν εἰδώλων εἰσίν οἱ τύποι. Google Scholar

63 Cf. In Matt., Hom. 32.7 (PG 57.386).Google Scholar

64 For the laudatory remarks on St. Paul — ‘like an angel from Heaven,’ ‘like Christ Himself’ — cf. De laud. S. Pauli 1 (PG 50.478); Ad eos qui scand. 2.2-3 (SC 79.60).Google Scholar

65 For the phrase cf. Ad Stag. 1 (PG 47.426).Google Scholar

66 ὁ δεῖνα πλουτεῖ παϱ' ἀξίαν, the basis of accusations against providence, in Quod nemo laed. 1 (PG 52.461). In Matt., Hom. 75.4 (PG 58.691) answers this question with a disarming oὐϰ, oὶδα and a plea to avoid curiosity.Google Scholar

67 For Lazarus, a Stoic figure in Chrysostom's treatment of the problem of evil, cf. De Laz. 1 (PG 48.963-1054), Quod nemo laed. 10 (PG 52.471).Google Scholar

68 For the vocabulary cf. De Laz. 1.7 (PG 48.971-72).Google Scholar

69 De Laz. 1.9 (PG 48.975).Google Scholar

70 τῶν παλαισµάτων ἔξω, cf. Ad Stag. 1 (PG 47.426). παλαίσµατα a favorite Chrysostomic metaphor: cf. Sawhill, J. A., The Use of Athletic metaphors in the Biblical Homilies of St. John Chrysostom (Princeton 1928) 115.Google Scholar

71 ‘Await the end,’ ἀνάµεινον τὸ τέλος a frequent injunction — De Anna 5 (PG 54 672), Ad eos qui scand 9.5 (SC 79.146), De res. mort. 1 (PG 50.419).Google Scholar

72 Cf. Quod daem. non gub. 2.7 (PG 49.255-56).Google Scholar

73 Παϱασίτονς ϰαὶ ϰόλαϰας, a common pleonasm; Quod nemo laed. 10 (PG 52.471); De Laz. 6 (PG 48.1033); Adv. oppug. vit. mon. 2.9 (PG 47.345).Google Scholar

74 For the metaphor πϱοσηλωµένοι cf. In cap. 1 Gen., Hom. 1.4 (PG 53.25); Quod nemo laed. 1 (PG 52.459), Expos. in Ps. 4. 10 (PG 55.54); Bapt. Inst. 8.13 (ACW 31.125).Google Scholar

75 Cf. Quod daem. non gub. 8 (PG 49.257).Google Scholar

76 Cf. Expos. in Ps. 4.9 (PG 55.54), Contra Iud. et gent. 11 (PG 48.828).Google Scholar

77 Cf. In Ep. ad Coloss., Hom. 2.6 (PG 62.316); De Laz. 4.3 (PG 48. 1011).Google Scholar

78 For the same argument cf. Quod daem. non gub. 8 (PG 49.258); De Laz. 4,4 (PG 48. 1011); In Ep. ad Col., Hom. 2.5 (PG 62. 315).Google Scholar

79 Chrysostom argues to God's existence from the beauty and order of His creation in many places, e.g. Ad eos qui scand. 5.1-2 (SC 79.92); De stat. 7.3 (PG 49.95), 10.2 (PG 49.112).Google Scholar

80 The Scriptural quotations — Mich. 6.2,3; Isa. 1.2; Jerem. 2.5, and Jon. 4.10-11 — are all texts favored by Chrysostom; cf. ed. Montfaucon, vol. 13.2 (Paris 1839) 2, 49, 57, 65, 66.Google Scholar

81 Cf. In Ioan. Hom. 45.4 (PG 59.256): εἱµαϱµένη[ς] τῆς σηπεδόνος τοῦ νοσήµατος. Google Scholar

82 Cf. In Matt., Hom. 26.5 (PG 57.340).Google Scholar

83 Cf. Hom. hab. post. presb. Goth. 6 (PG 63. 509-510).Google Scholar

84 Cf. Quod nemo laed. 7 (PG 52.468).Google Scholar

85 Cf. Hom. hab. post presb. Goth. 6 (PG 63.509).Google Scholar

86 For the same agricultural vocabulary cf. Bapt. Inst. 8.3 (ACW 31.120); Ad eos qui scand. 9.3, (SC 79.146), De res. mort. 5 (PG 50.425); In cap. 1 Gen., Hom. 6.5 (PG 53.60) De gloria in trib. 1 (PG 51.155); Quod nemo laed. 13 (PG 52.474).Google Scholar

87 Cf. Euseb. Praep. evang. 6: Мοιϱῶν άτϱάϰτοις (PG 21.409), Greg. Nyss. Contra fatum (PG 45.164B).Google Scholar

88 The same reductio ad absurdum will be found in In Ep. I ad Tim., Hom. 1.3 (PG 62.507). The providential assignment of arts and crafts to the poor is described in De Anna. 5.3 (PG 54.673).Google Scholar

89 For the same verbs juxtaposed cf. Comp. regis et monachi 4 (PG 47.392).Google Scholar

90 Cf. In Matt., Hom 75.4: µέχϱι τίνοϱ παίζετε, πεϱιϕοϱϱν ϰαὶ γένεσιν λέγοντες; (PG 58.691); Quod nemo laed. 6 (PG 52.466).Google Scholar

91 Cf. Hom. hab. post presb. Goth. 6 (PG 63.510); Euseb. Praep. evang. 6 (PG 21.415).Google Scholar

92 Cf. Euseb. Praep. evang. 6 (PG 21.413).Google Scholar

93 In De stat. 9.2 (PG 49.105) Chrysostom makes the point that created nature took the place of Scripture as a way of revealing God to man in the time of Adam, Noah, and Abraham. Cf. Expos. in Ps. 148.2 (PG 55.487).Google Scholar

94 Cf. In Act. A post. Hom. 47.4 (PG 60.331).Google Scholar

95 Cf. In Ep. ad Col. Hom. 2.6 (PG 62.318).Google Scholar

96 Cf. In Matt. Hom 26.5 (PG 57.340).Google Scholar

97 Cf. Nemes. De nat. hom. (PG 40.741B): ‘For laws are absurd, courts (in that those they punish are guiltless) are an extravagance, and blame and praise are alike irrational’ (tr. W. Telfer, The Library of Christian Classics 4 [Philadelphia 1955] 397).Google Scholar

98 See supra n. 66.Google Scholar

99 Cf. De res. mort. 1 (PG 50.419).Google Scholar

100 Cf. De Laz. 1.9 (PG 48.975).Google Scholar

101 Cf. De Laz. 3.8 (PG 48.1002-04).Google Scholar

102 Cf. In Ep. II ad Cor. Hom. 13.4 (PG 61.495-96).Google Scholar

103 Cf. In Ep. ad Heb. Hom. 20.4 (PG 63.148).Google Scholar

104 The introductory verse from Isaiah (as found in 1 Cor. 15.32) is quoted in a similar context In Ep. ad Eph., Hom. 12.1 (PG 62.89). Ob ‘more perfect’ cf. Ad eos qui scand. 8.1-2 (SC 79.132).Google Scholar

105 Cf. Expos. in Ps. 48.6 (PG 55.231).Google Scholar

106 Cf. Quod nemo laed. 10 (PG 52.470).Google Scholar

107 For the pleonasm cf. supra n. 73.Google Scholar

108 For the same image cf. Bapt. Inst. 5.13 (ACW 31.86); In cap. 1 Gen., Hom. 1.4 (PG 53.25); Quod nemo laed. 7 (PG 52.468).Google Scholar

109 Cf. De Anna 5.4 (PG 54.674).Google Scholar

110 ἰατϱῶν παίδες: this is also the incipit of Ad eos qui scand., on which see Malingrey in SC 79.53 n.1.Google Scholar

111 Sybarite tables are condemned in De res. mort. 1 (PG 50.419); Expos. in Ps. 109.9 (PG 55.278). Wealth is a ‘wild beast’ in Quod nemo laed. 9 (PG 52.470).Google Scholar

112 Cf. In Ep. ad Rom., Hom. 13.9 (PG 60.521): ‘But this man [the drunkard], if we were to see a person trample on him, we should not only be disinclined to pity, but should even give judgment against him, now that he has fallen.’ Google Scholar

113 βάϱαθϱον: cf. In Matt., Hom. 26.5 (PG 57.340).Google Scholar

114 Cf. Bapt. Inst. 5.3 (ACW 31.81; cf. Harkins, p. 254 n. 8), In Matt., Hom. 49.4 (PG 58.501): ‘Delicate cookery and making sauces are greatly unprofitable and hurtful, doing harm both to body and soul, by bringing upon us the parent of all diseases and sufferings, luxury.’ In Matt., Hom. 11.2 (PG 57.193-4) refers to the belief that the serpent consumes the vitals of its own mother in the act of birth.Google Scholar

115 Cf. Expos. in Ps. 6.3 (PG 55.75), Ad Stag. 1.1 (PG 47.425).Google Scholar

116 Quoted in Quod nemo laed. 8 (PG 52.469), In illud: Saulus 2 (PG 51.116).Google Scholar

117 Cf. In cap. 1 Gen., Hom. 1.4 (PG 53.25): ϰαθάπεϱ παιδία γαλαϰτοτϱοϕούµενα. Google Scholar

118 Quoted in De Laz. 1 (PG 48.972), In Matt., Hom. 48.5 (PG 58.493).Google Scholar

119 On imported delicacies cf. Expos. in Ps. 109.9 (PG 55.278).Google Scholar

120 Ibid. Thasian wine is specified, along with this quotation from Amos, , In Matt. Hom. 48.5-6 (PG 58.493). See also De Anna 5.3 (PG 54.673) and Fabricius, C., Zu den Jugendschriften des Johannes Chrysostomos (Lund 1962) 120.Google Scholar

121 Chrysostom constantly wars on domestic luxuries: In Psalm. 48.8 (PG 55.510); De Laz. 1,2 (PG 48.972, 985), 2 (PG 48.985). In Hom. in Col. 7.4 he castigates ‘those who make silver jars, pitchers, and scent bottles those women who make chamber pots of silver’ (PG 62.349).Google Scholar

122 Cf. Hom. in Matt. 48.6 (PG 58.494).Google Scholar

123 Volumes 22 and 71 respectively of the Catholic University of America Patristic Studies (Washington 1930, 1944).Google Scholar

124 The rhetorical figures reported from the six sermons are indicated by citation of the column and line of PG 50 (the line count begins normally from the top of the column, but, when a sermon begins mid-column, with the first line of the text of that sermon). In connection with figures of repetition a number in parenthesis indicates the number of occurrences of a given word or phrase.Google Scholar