JOHN CHRYSOSTOM AND HIS TIME VOLUME ONE PART ONE ANTIOCH: The Early Years BY REV. CHRYSOSTOMUS BAUR, O. S. B. Translated by Sr. M. Gonzaga, R. S. 1k This text has been scanned to file without having been checked for scanning errors. To go to the beginning of the text use word search BEGIN TEXT or go to Page 151 in this reader program (press the key 151 times) B0CHERVERTRIEBSANSTALT Posttach 461, FL - 9490 Vaduz, Europa [Exclusive Sales Agent: Notabie & Academic Books P. O. Box 470, Belmont, MA {USA) 021781 JOHN CHRYSOSTOM AND HIS TIME ISBN 3-905238-11-X VOLUME ONE: PART ONE ANTIOCH: THE EARLY YEARS Volume 1: Part One Antioch: The Early Years Volume 1: Part Two Antioch: The Later Years Volume 11: Part One Constantinople: The Early Years Volume 11: Part Two Constantinople: The Later Years 62) Copyright 1988 by Buchervertriebsanstalt All Rights Reserved No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a n y retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. TO THE MOST REVEREND LORD ABBOT OF ETTAL WILLIBALD WOLFSTEINER O.S.B. IN COMMEMORATION OF THE FIFTIETH YEAR OF HIS PRESTHOOD WHO ONCE, AS PRIOR OF SECKAU, GAVE ME THE NAME OF CHRYSOSTOM D.D.D. Nihil osostat: ANDREAS MOORE, L.C.L., CENSOR DEPUTATUS Imprimatut: E. MORROGH BERNARD, Vlc. GEN. Vltestmonasterii, die 26 Julii, 1958 FOREWO1tD I O TIIE SECOND EDITION THE first edition has been out of print for years. The reason that the second has had to wait so long for its appearance is due, first, to the well-known circumstances of the time, and second, to the fact that the author has mean-while been occupied by other tasks for fully ten years. But at last, in the year 1932, shortly before the political closing of the Curtain, it was finally permitted me to visit the places in the East where Chrysostom had lived and labored; even the place where he died. That was for me the most glorious recompense for all the weary labors which had preceded it. Meanwhile, surprisingly, much more has been written about St. Chrysostom; not so much about his personal life and its events, as about his position on certain dogmatic, pedagogical, social-ethical and similar questions. In spite of difficult post-war conditions, I was able to find important literature in Graz, Innsbruck and Rome, and to utilize it as far as was necessary and advantageous. A few notes of general application would not be out of place here. One can certainly hold individual opinions as to what be-longs in a " biography " and what does not. At any rate as was remarked by one who at that time was still a very young investigator long researches on the numerous genuine and spurious homilies and writings of Chrysostom have no place there. If it is objected that many questions from the first edition remain unsolved, this also holds good in the second edition. My revered teacher, Professor Cauchie (Lowen) admonished me, with good reason, that one should not assume, through easy hypotheses, the appearance of certainty and security, which is not actually present. The well-known Bollandist, P. Hippolyte Delehaye (Les legendes hagio-graphiques 206), praised his predecessors because " ils se sont abstenus, generalement, d'essayer de resoudre les ques-tions insolubles." After all, several hundred years of peace will yet have to pass before the last word can be said on the vii viii Foreword to the Second Ed ition life of Chrysostom, his writings, real and spurious, and his teachings. Another critic says that I have made Chrysostom too white, and his opponents, for instance Theophilus, too black. The "fault " in the Chrysostom tragedy was " to be sought more in the various coincidences of human fate, than in individual conduct." Finally, that I had sought to unite " scientific and devotional ends," which apparently is not permitted. As con-cerns the last, I think that at least in the second volume, more unedifying than edifying occurrences are reported. That the political, economic and social relations into which a man has been born, can be of great infiuence on his destiny, is impor-tant, and I myself have emphasized that clearly enough (vol. I, 398). However, the way in which the individual deals with these fateful opportunities is a matter of his own free determination. To justify the actions of a Theophilus, a Severian, and other historical personalities on the ground of " the entanglements of fate " seems to me to be compelling the historian to become a writer of fiction. As to what the final distribution of the shades of black and white may be, I may perhaps refer to the foreword of the first edition; but you may be assured that it has been my earnest effort to present history in accordance with the facts, as demonstrable from the sources. But if an author, especially a contemporary such as Palladius, shows himself indignant at a manifest injustice, that is not a proof of " partisanship." A historian or biographer also has the right to call good good and bad bad. Today one might well consider the ethical standards of Chrysostom as historically sound values and truths, which have their ancient privileges in the domain of history and knowledge. At any- rate, for all the personalities concerned in the tragedy of Chrysostom, they were lawful and binding, and formed, in their judgment, the only permissible ethical standards. So, obviously, thought the author of the Dialog, to whom Ed. Schwartz (Palladiana 188) attributed more authority and reliability than to a Socrates or even a Sozomen. Likewise P. Ubaldi (Appunti . . . 224 f.) called this author " esatto e fedele storico " (loc. cit. 284) and declared his characterization of Theophilus to be no exaggera-tion. See also H. Moore, The Dialog. A still more severe Foreword to the Second Edition ix judge of Theophilus was G. Grtitzmacher, Hieronymus II so: " A conscienceless, born intriguer, imbued with but one thought, the advancement of his power in the hierarchy, Theo-philus pursued his aim coldly and energetically." At any rate, Theophilus, in later times, would have been able to offer effective competition to a Richelieu or a Talleyrand. Nor-man H. Baynes, " Alexandria and Constantinople, A Study in Ecclesiastical Diplomacy," in the Journal of Egyptian Arch-aeology 72 (1996) 148, speaks of "the relentless brutality of Theophilus " and calls him (p. 150) " a man of violence who knew no scruples, but who was also a consummate diplomat, and knew how to bide his time." A third theological critic indeed granted me " an unusually methodical training," but then stated that I had investigated Chrysostom "without a sufficiently critical eye. In reading the second volume one becomes ever more strongly impressed by the feeling that Chrysostom was not qualified for the post of Archbishop of Constantinople, because he did not feel at home in the atmosphere of the court, was imprudent in his speech and in his dealings, and strove for impossible ends." Indeed, " he brought about, unknowingly, an alliance among his enemies, because he did not possess the art(! ) of playing off one against another because he was no diplomat." Now, if Chrysostom had been a Byzantine diplomat, he would have practised the " art " of playing off one against another, and so Chrysostom would not have been Chrysostom neither would the contemporary world nor the aftertime have been able to look with admiring awe at the towering moral grandeur of this man, who seemed so great for the very reason that he was so different from the others, from the " diplomats" and the intriguers of his time. Chrysostom outwardly was vanquished, but he remains a moral conqueror in the judgment of the whole world, above all of the Greek-Byzantine world. It will not do, to make purely external results a yardstick for the judgment of a personality. On this question, Palladius (Dial. 1 8) and St. Nilus (Letter I, 3og = SIG 79, 1 93) have called attention to what the critic has unfortunately passed over. Fortunately, Chrysostom was not a " diplomat " in the sense in which the critics used the word; he was a character of unusual stature. St. Augustine, who was almost his contem- x Foreword to the Second Edition porary, and certainly the greatest of the Latin Fathers of the Church, calls him " excellentis gloriae sacerdotem.''l In the twentieth century, the Protestant professor H. Lietzmann writes: "Chrysostom, according to modern opinion, is the most charming personality among ail the Greek Christian Fathers."2 Palladius might have repeated here the exhortation which he gave the critics of Chrysostom in his time: M~ 7 47roofxov TOVS HST f 7tSK~ 0f US TnV T@V aysuv oLa~ aMovTas 7rappr1atav. 8 1. Contra Julianum VI, 7 (Pl. ~ 5, 1512-13). 2. Realencyclopadie IX. 2 18 Halbbd. 1825. 3. Dial. 18 (47, 66; ed. Norton 118, 16-17). FOREWORD TO THE FIRST EDITION I HAVE read more than a thousand of his sermons, from which pours an inexpressible sweetness. I have been enraptured with him from my youth, and I listened to his voice as though it were the voice of God. And I thank him for what I know and am." (Nicephorus Callistus, Hist. Eccl. 13-2 MG 146, 933 C.) The author has ventured to use these words of the Byzantine historian to a certain degree in reference to himself. When years before, I gave up Greek in the gymnasium, feeling a real dislike for it, I could not have known that one day I should write the biography of the most outstanding Doctor of the Greek Church. How that came about nevertheless, I beg the reader to allow me to relate in a few words. A day came when thoughts of the cloister began to over-shadow the path of my life. Over the cloister gateway hung many challenges. One of these was GREEK ! Four years later, the then Prior of Seckau and present Abbot of Ettal, Willibald Wolfsteiner, gave me on my admission to the noviti-ate, according to an old custom, the Greek name of Chrysos-tomus, to my great and not immediately joyful surprise. That was a stroke of destiny. So I took the bull by the horns a second time and began to read my patron's Treatise against the Enemies of Monasticism, in Greek. Gradually it began to have the same effect on me as it had had on Nicephorus Callistus in former times. The result of all this, somewhat delayed by various events in nature and in the world, is this book. Strictly speaking, I am not responsible for it. In any case, the courteous reader and critic of the short outline of the genesis of this book can observe that I have at least brought to my work the first requisite of modern scholarship: an entire absence of prejudice in regard to the hero of the work. I learned very soon to appreciate his towering personality, which embodied a program for humanity too great and signifi- xi xii Foreword to the First Edition cant for his contemporaries to withhold the proper niche from him and his advocates. St. John Chrysostom, by his life and still more by his tragic death, stirred to the depths the spirit of his times. This is best shown by the deep and wide echoes which his life and works have left behind, not merely among his partisans, but above all among historians in general. With the possible exception of Origen, to whom Eusebius dedicated almost the entire sixth book of his Church History, no Greek author and doctor of the Church has found nearly so many biographers and panegyrists as he. The fortunate result of this is that we are better acquainted with his life story than we are with any other from Greek Christian antiquity. " Since his tragic catastrophe happened during the reign of the Emperor Arcadius, which abounded in political entangle-ments, and since, besides the historical traditions, contempo-rary documents exist in abundance, we have here the material for a striking picture of the times. Whether it may present a biography of John, the attempt will show: but he will cer-tainly stand in focus as a man of the Word, who still wished to do constructive work in the world, like Demosthenes" (Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, Die griechische Literatur des Altertums 295). The attempt is here made, in which of course the person of Chrysostom, rather than a picture of the time, is the principal consideration. The last German biography of Chrysostom came from the pen of the distinguished A. Neander. The third edition of this appeared in 1848. Since then, research on this subject has made significant progress. A new scholarly biography therefore meets an actual need, especially since Chrysostom has meanwhile been honored by the Church with the official title of " Patron of Christian Preachers." The nature of the work makes it necessary that the first volume should treat of the priest, and his religious, literary and theological life work in Sntioch; the second volume, of the politically and ecclesiastically turbulent times, rich in vicissitudes, of his episcopate in Constantinople. As has been mentioned, Chrysostom should not be presented in solitary grandeur, without a background, but should-be represented in the midst of his time and surroundings. There-fore this biography is intended as a picture of the culture of Foreword to the First Edition xiii the time, and, as far as possible, a picture drawn by himself, with the vivacity of the people of those times, and with the linguistic art of a Chrysostom. Actually, such a distinguished orator as he can usually not be understood and estimated in his special genius, if one does not to a certain extent know the time for which and in which he preached. To this end, Chrysostom speaks abundantly in the first volume. Only so can the reader acquire a direct impression both of his character and of his thought. There arises, how-ever, the danger that this first part will result in an unwished-for resemblance to an anthology. However, the book is not written strictly for specialists, but for a broader circle especially for the clergy and learned members of the laity, for whom the works of St. Chrysostom would not be otherwise available. Unfortunately, it was not granted to me personally to visit the regions in which St. Chrysostom lived and worked, the better to be able to make them vivid to the reader. In order not to allow the book to become too heavy and its price too high, much individual research in literature and chronology, which served only as ballast, has been omitted. The specific German scrupulousness about writing foreign names only in the scholarly historical form, has not been adhered to. In this I have held to the manner of writing Greek names which was adopted in Germany centuries ago, and in this form, justified by usage, I have written accordingly, not Chrysostomos, Proklos, Melitios, etc., but instead, Chrysos-tomus, Proclus, Melitius, etc. T he quotation of notes has been carefully re-checked. Abbreviations are used only in capitals: for example, MG for Migne, Cursus Patrologiae Graecae, and ML for Cursus Patrologiae Latinae. When numbers alone are found in parentheses, for example 37, 310, these refer always to the volume and column of Migne, MG. The literature on the subject of Chrysostom appearing up to 1907 is almost fully represented in my book " S. Jean Chrysostome et ses oeuvres dans l'histoire literaire," Louvain, 1907. As for the literature appearing since then, all that can lay claim to any scholarly value has been utilized. I owe a word of special thanks to the Archabbot Raphael xiv Foreword to the First Edition Walzer of Beuron, and Abbot Benedict Reetz of Seckau, who have made available to me the time and the opportunity to make the necessary studies in the Staatsbibliothek in Munich. I have benefited by the generous financial support afforded by the Notgemeinschaft der deutschen Wissenschaft as well as the Gorresgesellschaf t, and another patron who wishes to remain anonymous. I am also under obligation to the Director of Classification of Manuscripts of the Staatsbibliothek of Munich, H. Geheimrat Leidinger, and his successor Krumba-cher: H. Geheimrat A. Heisenberg, for their much appreci- ated methods of pointing the way to progress. Munich, on the Feast of St. John Chrysostom, Jan. 27, 1929. THE AUTHOR TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword to the Second Edition vii Foreword to the First Edition xi Translator's Foreword xvii Introduction: A. Sources xix B. Literature/Bibliography xlv 1 Early Youth 1 2 Schools and Pupils in the Fourth Century 8 3 Libanius, the City Rhetorician of Antioch 16 4 Chrysostom in the Schools of Antioch 22 5 Antioch, the City and People 29 6 Religious and Ecclesiastical Relations in Antioch 45 7 Emperor Julian and the Dying Paganism 55 8 Emperor Valens (364-379) and the Last Flare-up of Arianism 74 9 Catechumenate and Baptism 79 10 In the School of Diodorus 89 11 Chrysostom as a Monk 104 12 First Literary Activity 115 13 Theodosius the Great and the Victory of Catholicism 126 14 John the Hermit 134 15 ChrysostomBecomes aDeacon 138 16 The Council of Constantinople 144 17 Ecclesiastical and Literary Activities 152 18 Chrysostom is OrWned Priest (386) 180 19 Chrysostom as a Liturgist 190-205 Index of Persons, Places and Things at the End of Volume Two, Part Two TRANSLATOR'S FOREWORD TH E author of this book on the life and times of St. John Chrysostom is a Benedictine monk, Dom Chrysostomus Baur, O.S.B., at present living at the Benedictine abbey of Seckau, in Austria; he is the author of several other scholarly works on his distinguished patron. Father Baur was born in Wurttemberg in Swabia, and grezv up in Friedrichshafen am Bodensee, where he attended Latin school. He also studied Greek there, and disliked it very much. At the age of fifteen, having an inclination to the religious life, he entered the candidates' school at the Abbey of Seckau, and the novitiate received him in 1895. He was ordained priest at the Abbey of Beuron in lgol. To his great consternation, he was giyen the name of Chrysostom he still felt his old dislike of Greek. That has long been forgotten. however, and he is now a Greek scholar. After three years in Louvain, at Mont Cesar, he received the degree Docteur en Sciences morales et historiques. After-ward he went to Rome, to S. Anselmo, where he taught patro-logy, church history and historical method. At Graz, after returning from Rome, he received a degree in philology; in 1932 he visited the Orient. After his return, he became rector of the Oriental College in Munich. During the second world war, many Benedictine founda-tions were completely or partly destroyed, and the lot of Benedictine scholars has been very difficult since then. Dom Baur has now returned to the Abbey of Seckau, and is endeavouring to complete the work which was interrupted by the war. He divides his time between Seckau and Rome (the Bibliotheca Vaticana). He is the author of many scllolarly works, besides those dealing with his patron, St. John Chrysostom. My thanks are due to Father Edgar R. Smothers, S.J., for his patient assistance with this translation. SISTFR 01. GONZAGA, R.S.M.. Ann Arbor, Mich. xvii INTRODUCTION SOIJRCES AND LITERATURE A. SOURCES 1. Chrysostomus Chrysostom unfortunately spoke very seldom of himself in his writings. The most direct information we receive from him is during the time of his banishment, through his collected Letters: the authenticity of each individual compo-sition, and the chronological order, can often be only approxi-mately fixed. The longest and best known letters are the seven-teen which he wrote to Olympias.' In his remaining works he spoke only four times of the events of his life, as follows: In the De Sacerdotio 1, 5 (48, 624-5), he tells how his mother, whom he calls his " ego " mother, and whose name he does not mention, wished him to refrain from entering the monastic life as long as she was alive, and how he had been ordained priest while still young, together with his friend Basilius. Then he discloses in De Compunctione 1, 6 (47, 403) how much the thought of becoming a monk troubled him. In the little book Ad viduam juniorem 2 (48, 601), he states how once his teacher (Libanius) expressed his admiration for the long and voluntary widowhood of his mother Anthusa; and finally, after he became a bishop, he relates in the 38th Homily on the Acts of the Apostles, to his listeners in Con-stantinople, how once in his youth his life had been endan-gered by a book on magic which he had found. (Hom. 38, 5 in Act Ap.=60, 274-5.) [Books on magic were strictly banned at that time under pain of death for even carrying one on the person. Trans.] To what extent these quotations are actually historical, is in each case doubtful. Otherwise, Chrysostom, in his numer-ous writings and sermons, makes only occasional references to his state of health at the moment, or other small items. However, his collected works are a very valuable, because direct, source of information concerning his theological xix sx I ntrod uction knowledge and thought, his moral and ascetic views and principles, his oratorical gifts; they are a living and true image of his whole interior and spiritual life and struggles. Still more, they present at the same time a universal and living insight into valuable material for the explanation of the religious, ecclesiastical, political and social circumstances, and the world of thought, of his time. If the rhetorical character of many of his expressions necessitates partial excision, still the whole of Chrysostom's literary output brings before us a source of first-class historical value. Therefore it is just if these direct fruits of the spirit of Chrysostom find far-reaching con-sideration in the presentation of his life and work, especially for the time of his more interior church activity in Antioch. 2. The Synod of the Oak, in the Year 403 This is related by Photius, Bibliotheca 59 (103, 105-113). A well- founded objection against the authenticity of this is not forthcoming. The contents and arrangement of this narrative speak well for its authenticity. It is also in accordance with what is known of Chrysostom from other sources. 3. The pamphlet of the Patriarch Theophilus (ca. 404-5) The oldest literary production concerned with the person of Chrysostom is an outspoken libel, the author of which was no less a person than his chief opponent, the Patriarch Theo-philus of Alexandria. The latter was obliged to vindicate his assertions against Chrysostom before Rome and the world, and no doubt felt the most urgent compulsion to blame and slander him as much as possible. Unfortunately the composi-tion has been lost. Naturally it was not a personal biography, but still it might have contained valuable contributions to a life story, above all in relation to the final catastrophe, even when coming from the hand of an enemy. The document might have been occasioned by the breaking off of ecclesiasti-cal relations between Rome and Alexandria, and by the threat of calling a new synod to deal with Chrysostom's affairs; which latter threat was of course forcibly defeated. Facundus of Hermiane, in his work " Pro Defensione Trium Capitulorum " 6, 5 (ML 67, 676- 8), is the only one who has given us the infor-mation concerning the libel of Theophilus, collected in a short anthology of the strongest invectives of its author. Not for nothing did he name the pamphlet " Liber innormis." Unfor- Introduction xxi tunately St. Jerome allowed himself to be misled; besides other productions of the Patriarch's, he translated this libel into Latin, so that according to the wish of Theophilus " qualis loannes fuerit, Latini cognoscerent" (Facundus loc. cit. 67, 678). Cf. Chrys. Baur, S. Jerome et S. Chrysostome=Revue Benedictine 23 (1906) 430-6. F. Cavallera, S. Jerome l,286. The Biography List of "Snonymous" Chrysostom stands alone in the whole of ancient ecclesias-tical literature in the number and variety of his biographies. An entire list of the authors who wrote chiefly of him has been given by the Anonymous (tenth century) in his " Vita " (Savile 8, 293). Of these authors whose works have survived until now, he names the following: 1. Socrates 2. Palladius, Dialogus 3. Theodoret 4. George Alexandrinus 5. Martyrius Antiochenus 6. Leo Imperator. Then come the panegyrists: 7. Proclus of Constantinople 8. St. Nilus 9. Isidor of Pelusium 10. Johannes Damascenus 11. Cosmas Vestitor 12. Nicetas Paphlago 13. Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, Imperator. He also names the following authors, unknown or lost: . Cosmas Diaconus of Constantinople (contemporary of Chrysostom) . Evagrius Asceta 6. Nicetas Skeuophylax 17. Eustathius Primicerius. Finally the doubtful authors: 8. Basilius Protothronus (perhaps Basilius Mg., because identified with the Basilius of the Dialog De Sacerdotio) 19. St. Cyril of Alexandria 20. St. Sophronius Patr. Hieros. (7th century.) (Cf. Pratum spirituale.) xxii I ntrod uction Lacking in the list of Anonymous: 1. Sozomenus 2. Theodore of Trimithus. 4. The Apologetic Document Dialog of Palladius Fp. (ca. 408)2 Theophilus did not injure Chrysostom by his writings, but did him a favor. The excess of his invective challenged the friends of the exile in his place of isolation, and so the " Liber innormis" became an incentive for Bishop Palladius to write a refutation, the famous Dialog on the Life and Works of the holy Chrysostom. The Antiochene period is of course very briefly treated in this work. But he gives a very detailed relation of the events which took place in Constantinople which were connected with the removal and banishment of Chrysostom. All these events are treated from the almost exclusive point of view of the relations between Chrysostom and his episcopal opponents. His relations with the court, especially the opposition of Eudoxia, are generally not men-tioned, not even the fall of Eutropius. Political considera-tions might be responsible for this. At any rate, it follows that the Dialog must be evaluated chiefly from the point of view of an apology (defense) against the work of Theophilus, so that the contents of the letter may be inferred in essentials from the Dialog of Palladius.3 The historical reliability of the Dialog is very evident from the open opposition of its author against Theophilus and the other enemies of Chrysostom, ankl the deserved judg-ments he passes on individuals. In general, the Dialog deserves the greatest consideration of all the documentary sources concerning Chrysostom.4 The author is not merely a contemporary of Chrysostom, but a fellow-suflerer, and had at least in the years 402-404 played an active part in the latter's tragedy. So we may credit him with being very well informed concerning the last events dealing with the removal of the Saint from office. However, political events influenced at least the extent of his participation. That he kept almost complete silence concerning the Empress Eudoxia's share in the injustice done to Chrysostom, and found only words of excuse for the Emperor Arcadius, may be due to the reason that the author did not wish to burden himself for the future I ntrod uction xxiii with a crime of lese-majeste'. Another consideration might have played a part, namely, that by maintaining a certain regard for the court, the hoped-for rehabilitation synod might have some hindrances removed from its path. And so the author emphasized the guilt of the bishops, probably with the secondary object of offering more support to Rome in its stand against these bishops, and to hinder it from any resumption of relations until the crime of their injustice should become known. (Cf. Dialog 20; c. 78.) As to the time of production of the Dialog, ca. the year 408 is generally assumed, because Theophilus (d. 412) was then still living, while the death of Chrysostom (407) had already become known, at least according to report. Furthermore, Heraclidus of Ephesus had already been in custody for four years at the time of the Dialog (Ch. 20; col. 71). The persecu-tion of the Johnites began in June or July 404.5 The Author. Political considerations involving his own person might well have been the reason why the author of the Dialog was obviously concerned with throwing a veil over himself. He never mentions his own name. Later testimony affirms that the Dialog was composed by a Palladius who was bishop of Helenopolis and who was later transferred to Aspona; the same who had written the Historia Lausiaca. The first who ascribed our Dialog to a Palladius Episcopus is the otherwise extremely unreliable Theodore of Trimithus (ca. 680). He wrote in his short biography of St. Chrysostom (n. 2: MG 47, LV), that Palladius had first been long a monk, then a bishop in Bithynia, and that he had written " The Virtues of many Fathers," which evidently means that he was identical with the author of the Historia Lausiaca. Whence Theodore had his information is not certain; probably from a manu-script of the Dialog. For himself alone he merits no belief. Almost contemporaneously with Theodore follows the other probability depending on him, " George Alexandrinus," who must have written about the year 700. George not only knew the Dialog of Palladius, but had woven it almost entirely into his Bios, in practically literal quotations, so that George is also of outstanding significance to the textual critic of the Dialog 6 He may have borrowed from Theodore the ascription to Palladius. xxiv Introduction Finally, a hiatus of almost 300 years stretches between the Dialog and the first mention of Palladius as its author. Socrates, Sozomenus, Theodoret, Zosimus and all the other historians reveal no knowledge of the Dialog or its author. As the third piece of evidence comes, in the tenth century, the biography of Chrysostom by the so-called " Anonymous " (ed. Savile 8, 293). Here, in the list of authors given in the Vita, for the second time Palladius is called Bishop of Heleno-polis. In this, Anonymous does not go beyond Theodore, whom he did not know, but he does go beyond George Alex-andrinus, on whom he depended. Anonymous offers a cor-roboration and confirmation of Theodore in so far as that Helenopolis actually was in Bithynia. The next piece of evidence is the Codex Vaticanus 2210, written toward the end of the tenth century. It contains (fol. 1 87l) the note: " John Chrysostom died at the age of 53 years, so Palladius, Bishop of Aspona, says." Finally comes a manuscript in Florence, originating in the eleventh century: Laurentiana Plut. IX Cod. XIV. Unfor-tunately this manuscript is the only one which contains the Dialog of Palladius in full. The title reads:uzaAoyostazoptKds IlaAAaotov e'7rtaKo7rov 'EAevov7roAezs yevoyevos 7rpbs /Reooupov otaKovov PE œ, VfpF ~ FOV Kas roA~ esas Izavvov ertaKoroV KXvaTavTLvovroAeXs ~ v ' TOV ApraoatollOs. (" Historical Dialog of Palladius, Bishop of Helenopolis, produced in reply to Theodorus, the Roman deacon, concern-ing the life and affairs of John Chrysostom. Bishop of Con-stantinople.") This title cannot have stood thus from the beginning until then. At least the zOv XpsaoaTo,aov is a later addition. Also the name in the manuscript, " Pallad ius, Bishop of Helen-opolis," has surely come into the manuscript later, since the original author of the Dialog not only never mentioned his own name, but even went out of his way to exclude Bishop Palladius of Helenopolis as the author. As follows: 1. Palladius of Helenopolis is always spoken of in the Dialog in the third, not in the first person. 2. Palladius lived (Ch. 20, col. 71) at the time of the Dialog, as an exile or captive, probably not in Rome, but "in the Introduction xxv country of the Blemmyes (Bleptae) or in Ethiopia," i.e., in the extreme south of Egypt. 3. The author of the Dialog says of himself (Ch. 1, col. 7) that he first went to Rome about 408. However, Palladius of Helenopolis had already been to Rome in 40,. 4. The Dialog writer represents himself as an old man, bald and white- haired (Ch. l and 4: col. 7 and 17), who had only a short time to live. Palladius of Helenopolis, on the con-trary, was only 40 or 41 years old in 408. (Cf. Stilting n. 7 ff.) 5. A soldier must have given the author his information concerning Palladius of Helenopolis. (Ch. 20, col. 72. Cf. Ch. 19: col. 70.) It follows from this that the name of Palladius of Heleno-polis could not have been in the Dialog originally as the author's name; and indeed the Dialog itself gives good evi-dence against the authorship of Palladius. Still more: the apparently anonymous Dialog seeks to link the suspicion of authorship pretty surely with Theodorus, the alleged Roman deacon and interviewer of the " Episcopus." The Dialog places these words in his mouth (Ch. 20, col. 70): " Perhaps I too will put down what I have heard, with ink on a beautiful parchment, for the remembrance and benefit of mankind, and to the advantage of those who strive after the episcopal dignity, that they may take St. John for their example. . . ." The oldest manuscripts which derive from the Dialog men-tion no author's name. In the first place here is the life of the holy Olympias, from the second half of the fifth centurv (cf. P. XXV of the Introduction). This Vita contains, in Ch. 2-5, 13 and 14, long literal passages from the Dialog (Ch. 17; c. 60 f.), generally without naming the source. So far, this Vita cannot prove anything against the authorship of Palladius. On the other hand, thete is a long quotation from Ch. 15 of the Dialog in the Actio VIII of the 7th Ecu-menical Council of the year 787, in which the Bios of St. Chrysostom is mentioned as a source, but the author's name is not given. (Mansi 13, 467.) It is the same with Tarasius Patr. Const. (784-806) in the third Epistle to Hadrianum Pp. (MG 98, 1448-g); finally with Photius (d. 891) in his Syntagma Canonum Tit. I, Ch. 24 (104, 5g6-7). In all three the same xxvi I ntrod uction passage IS quoted. In the Bibliotheca 96 (103, 341 A) Photius names " Bishop Palladius" as author of the Dialog, but knows him only through George Alexandrinus. Only Anastasius Sinaita (fi40-700) quotes in his " Quaestiones et Responsiones" a passage from the Dialog (47, 75-6), under the name of Palladius (89, 444). The textual edition of this work is not altogether reliable (Butler, Authorship, 37, N. 3). Moreover also the vocabulary and style of the Dialog, com-pared with that of the Historia Lausiaca, are such that the authors do not appear to be identical, as Butler himself con-cedes (loc. cit. 39). Also, as Tillemont has noted, the style can be considered on reasonable grounds to differentiate one Palladius from the other (Memoires 1 l, 643, and Butler loc. cit. 39). It is therefore comprehensible that older as well as newer authors have spoken against the authorship of Palladius on the ground of the facts quoted. So Bigot,7 Doucin,3 Tille-mont,9 Stilting,' Ceillier,'l Nirschl,l2 and Fessler-Jung-mann,l3 and Aengenvoort,l4 consider the question at least doubtful. The following circumstance, which no one has noticed until now, also seems to speak against Palladius: the latter received the Bishopric of Aspona in Galatia about 417. This could scarcely have happened without the approval of the court and of the Patriarch Atticus of Constantinople, since he had lost his bishopric of Helenopolis thirteen years before as an adherent and defender of St. Chrysostom. But the author of the Dialog wrote that the Patriarch Atticus was, as a priest, the chief intriguer and intellectual leader of the plot against Chrysostom (7rav1s yrlXavr/s reXv*Tr/s KaTa Srov lsUawov) = Ch. 11: 47, 37). Atticus died in 4as. It is therefore not very probable that he would have allowed a new bishopric to be taken over, without further ado, by a man who had thus compromised him before all the world. Nothing is known of a recantation by Palladius, and that Atticus could not have known the author of the Dialog is not lightly to be assumed, for no one had a greater interest in knowing the author of such an accusation than he. A number of other details also contradict Palladius. On the other hand, newer researches, supported by an exact word and language comparison, have brought to light so many I ntrod uction xxvii resemblances and varieties of relationship between the Dialog and the Historia Lausiaca, that the assumption of the same authorship for both may be well grounded. In this regard, the chief credit belongs to the researches of Abbot C. Butler, O.S.B., who first occupied himself with the question in the Chrysostomica (1908) and besides in the Palladiana No. III. Butler's evidence was supplemented by H. Moorels in his English translation of the Dialog, and by R. Reitzenstein.'6 The latter now concedes, contrary to his earlier opinion, that the identity of authorship for both writings, the Dialog and the Historia Lausiaca, is " highly probable," but he believes it can be assumed that the author of both compositions was in any case not Palladius of Helenopolis. Perhaps, thinks Reitzenstein, if one has concluded, from Socrates 4, 23, that Palladius is the author of the Historia Lausiaca; thereupon one will further conclude, from language similarities in both documents, that Palladius is also the author of the Dialog. Thus the double conjecture added up to a fact in the manuscripts.l7 On the other hand, Butler (Palladiana 144 ff.) has pointed out, quite correctly, that the accounts which the Dialog, Socrates, Sozomen, and Photius give of Palladius agree exactly with that which the Historia Lausiaca says of its author, and that the majority of manuscripts of the Historia Lausiaca give Palladius as the author; only a few give Heraclidus. To sum up: An absolutely sure proof of Palladius' author-ship of the Historia Lausiaca and the Dialog is not forthcom-ing; but a high degree of probability speaks for it. The proof presented by Butler has also been conceded by Bardenhewer (GAL 4, 154) and Christ-Stahlin (GGL II, 2, 1394). New critical edition: Palladii Dialogus De Vita S. Jo. Chrysostomi ed. with revised text, introduction, notes, indices and appen-dices by P. R. Coleman-Norton. Cambridge, 1928. Since Norton has fortunately kept to the pagination of the MG in his edition, all Palladius quotations in my notes can be left unchanged. 5. Marcus Diaconus, Vita Porphyr11 ep. Gazensis (d. 420) A very important, because contemporary, contribution to the life of St. John Chrysostom was supplied by the travel journal of the deacon Marcus of Gaza, circa 4ao. In March xxviii Introduction 398 his bishop sent him to Constantinople for the first time, where he had some dealings with the new patriarch John (Chrysostom). He went there again as companion to his bishop, early in 401. He has written faithfully of his experi-ences there, in the life of his bishop, whom he highly esteemed. However, between the second visit and the composition of the Life stretches a hiatus of eighteen or nineteen years, quite time enough for a little inexactitude to creep in (for example, 38, 24: the birth of Theodosius the Younger and his designation as Augustus). To what extent the conversations which he and his bishop had with Chrysostom and the Empress Eudoxia rest on memory alone, or on notes made soon after, it is very diffi-cult to decide. Judging from the contents, one may certainly consider them reliable. The first critical edition was issued by the Philological Seminar of Bonn (Leipzig, 1895). Histori-cal and grammatical questions pertaining to this are treated by A. Nuth (Bonn, 1897). 6. Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica (ca. 440) Socrates, the not exactly contemporary historian of Catholic and ecclesiastical affairs, found the person and history of Chrysostom important enough to fill almost an entire book of his Church History. Chapters 6, 2-23 and 7, 25 and 4S, contain an entire biography of the great bishop. Besides a number of personalities, reported only by himself (about 26), Socrates shows a large number of errors (about 20), due to insufficient information. Actually he is reliable only when he is confirmed by other sources. He did not know the Dialog of Palladius. Edition: MG 67, 661 ff.=editio Valesius: Reading of the Year 1720. I iterature: 1. Geppert, die Quellen des . . . Socrates 79-80. 2. Sp. Lambros, Eine neue Fassung= Byz. Zeitschrift 4(1895), 481-6. ~ . Jeep, Quellenuntersuchung. 4. Christ-Stahlin, GGI. II, 2, 1434-5. 5. 0. Bardenhewer, GAI, 4, 137. 6. P. Maas, Libanios und Chrysostomos loc. cit. 1912, II, 1126. 7. Blondel, De la Primaute, 1247-8. Introduction xxix 7. Sozomenus, Historia E;cclesiastica (ca. 439-450) This imitator of Socrates dedicated Chapters 8, 2-24, -26 and 28 to Chrysostom. His narrative ended with the latter's death. Of the registration in the Diptychs and the translation of the relics he says nothing. His obvious chief source is Socrates. But he also had private sources of information at his disposal, and on the whole he shows himself better informed than Socrates on matters concerning Chrysostom. Furthermore he presents about fifty-seven special reports and only a few mistakes (about seven). He knew the Historia Lausiaca (Cf. Schoo, 41-58), but not the Dialog of Palladius. He mentioned the " Ad Theodorum lapsum " of Chrysostom. The two letters from Pope Innocent I to Chrysostom and his clergy (8, 26) he may have received from a "Johnite." On three occasions he made use of verbal reports. The reliability of Sozomen is greater than that of Socrates, since he is better informed. However, he was not nearly so well known, nor his works so well spread abroad, as Socrates. George Alexandrinus, for example, copied almost the whole of Socrates, but he did not know Sozomen. Edition: MG 67, 1513 ff.=ed. Valesius: Reading 17Xo. Literature: 1. Sarrazin, De Theodori Lect. hist. Ioc. cit. 165 ff. 2. Bidez, La tradition manuscrite. 3. Schoo. Die Quellen des . . . Sozomenus 18. 4. Jeep, Quellenuntersuchung n. VIII, 137 to 154. 5. Cf. Blondel 1247-8. 6. Stilting, n. 14. 7. Christ-Stahlin II, 2, 1435-6. 8. Bardenhewer, GAL 4, 141 ff. 8. Theodoret: (a) Historia Ecclesiastica (ca. 448-9I). What Theodoret reported about his countryman is extremely paltry (5, 27-36). He evidently did not make time-consuming investigations. Concerning Chrysostom's youth in Antioch, or indeed concerning Antioch itself, he says nothing. The names of the chief people responsible for Chrysostom's tragedy, namely Eudoxia, Theophilus, Acacius, Antiochus, Severian, he does not once mention. The Emperor Arcadius he mentions only once, in order to give him an undeserved xxx Introd uction compliment (5, 27). Of new items of information he presents only three (5, 30-32 and 36). Any literal dependence on earlier sources cannot be proved. Perhaps he knew Sozomen (in 5, 32 and 3s=Sozom., 8, 4 and 9, 1 and 3). Theodoret's brevity was intentional; he did not wish to expose the other-wise meritorious bishops (5, 34) nor to arouse disfavor in the court at a time when he needed its favor very much. Editions: 1. MG 82, 1256-6g=ed. J. L. Schulze in 1769. 2. L. Parmentier: Theodoret Kirchenge-schichte= Die griech.-christl. Schriftsteller vol. 19 (19ll) 328-339 Literature: 1. Guldenpenning, Die Kirchengeschichte des Theodoret. 2. Jeep, Quellenuntersuchungen 154-6. 3. Christ-Stahlin 1479. 4. Bardenhewer 4, 219. (b) Five Panegyrics of Chrysostom These in the original are lost. Photius, Bibl. 273 (104, 229-235) has made some outlines which offer nothing new bio-graphically. NB. The panegyric of Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople (434-446), who had the relics of the saint transferred to Con-stantinople, survives only in Latin (65, 827-834). He pro-duced no biographical material, and furthermore his authenticity is not certain. 9. Philostorgius, Historia Ecclesiastica (ca. 425-433) He was an Arian, and lived in Constantinople from 388 on; he was also very probably an eyewitness of the events in which Chrysostom figured. Since Chrysostom came into conflict with the Arians in Constantinople, one may safely assume that Philostorgius would have dedicated some chapters to him. Unfortunately only a few fragments of his Church History survive, in which Chrysostom is not mentioned. However, he does mention Arcadius, Eudoxia, Eutropius, Tribigild and Gainas. He does not rank as specially reliable. Edition: Fragments by J. Bidez, Philostorgios Kirchenge-schichte = Griech.-christl. Schriftsteller, vol. 21 (1913) 134- 139. Cf . Jeep, Quellenunter-suchungen I. o. Zosimus, Nova Historia (ca. 45o-5oo) Introduction xxxi Contents: Bk. 5, Ch. 23 and 24 (fragment) begins with the enmity of Eudoxia for Chrysostom, and ends with the burning of the church. The author is probably identical with the heathen sophist Zosimus of Gaza, who was killed under the Emperor Zeno (473-491). As to his sources, he was served until the year 404 by Eunapius, "with whom he shared a furious hatred against all Christians" (Rauschen, Jahrbucher 9), and Olympiodorus. Zosimus reflects the temper of his contemporaries. His reliability is unfortunately very slight; for he is outspokenly partisan, uncritical and in this matter, very poorly informed. Editions: 1. I. Bekker in the Scriptores histor. Byzant. of Bonn, 1837 (P. 278-280). 2. L. Mendelsohn, Leipzig 1887., with Prologo-mena and critical apparatus (P. 243 ff.). Occasional remarks and opinions concerning Chrysostom are found in the letters of 1 l. St. Nilus (d. ca. 430) Epist. 1, 30g: II, 183, 265, 293; III, 13, 199, 279 (MG 79, 193 ff.). Concerning the personal relations between St. Nilus and Chrysostom nothing is known. The Chronicon of George Hamartolus (IV. CCII = MG l lo, 733 B) from the ninth century, names Nilus, Isidore of Pelusium, and other " pupils " of Chrysostom. Also, supported by George, Nicephorus Callis-tus HE 14, 53 (146, 1252 A). This can be understood only in the sense that every diligent reader of Chrysostom can be called his " pupil," even in our own day. Chrysostom was never a private teacher in any school either in Antioch or in Constantinople. 12 St. lsidore of Pelusium (d. ca. 44o) Epist. I, 152, 156, 310; (II, 42); IV, 224 (MG. 78, 288 ff.). Of his supposed learning from St. Chrysostom, the same can be said as of St. Nilus. It is interesting and important that Nilus (III, 199) and Isidore (I, 152) ascribe the individual blame for Chrysostom's tragedy not to Eudoxia, but to the bishops Cf. Bouvy, S. Jean Chrysostome et S. Isidore, loc. cit. 196-201. Important later sources are: . Collectio Conciliorum, ed. Mansi 2 and 3. . Codex Theodosianus, ed. Th. Mommsen et P. Meyer, Berlin I905. xxxii Introduction . Diodorus Tarsenis (2)=T.u.U. 2I (I9OI). 6. Julian Imp. Opera ed. Hertlein. Leipzig 1875-76. 7. Libanii, Opera rec. R. Forster. Leipzig 1903 ff. 8. Basilius Mg., Opera (varia) (MG 29-32). . S. Gregory Nazianzus, Carmina (MG 37, 1022 ff., 1542 ff.). ao. Justiniani Imp., Novellae ed. Zachariae a Lingenthal. I. Leipzig 1881. 21. Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, ed. H. Delehaye, S.J., Brussels 1902 ( = Propylaeum ad. Acta Sanctorum Novembris). 22. Itinerarilzm Antonini Piacentini (VI-IX cent.), ed. Gil demeister, Berlin 1889. 23. Monumenta Germaniae, Auctores antiquissimi, Vol. 9, 1 l and 13 (Chronica minora). B. THE RYZANTINE BIOGRAPHERS. (From the seventh to the eleventh century) 1. Martyrius (Patriarcha A ntiochenus>) The oldest true biography of Chrysostom is that of Mar-tyrius.l8 Only the beginning and the conclusion have so far been available.l9 The author avows himself a contemporary of Chrysostom and an eyewitness of the events of that time.20 He even doubts whether Chrysostom were actually dead.21 This gives the date of Martyrius as approximately the same as that of the Dialog of Palladius. The reading and examination of the entire text is disillusioning. Martyrius knew Palladius and copied him, and he also made use of Sozomen; he prob- ably also utilized the Oratio in S. Jo. Chrysostom ascribed to St. Proclus, n. 3 (65, 832 B) or Theodoret, Oratio 5 (~ o4, 233 A). It is therefore impossible to set the date of the Vita of Martyrius earlier than somewhere near the middle of the fifth century. The apparent indications of contemporaneity with Chrysostom rest entirely on a literary fiction. The ques-tion here is apparently one of a mere stylistic reworking of the material, which is known from Palladius and other sources. The reworking itself is handled in such a way that the language form is completely new and independent, and only very seldom and in a slight degrec can word for word plagiar-ism be confirmed. Chronologically, nothing would prevent Introduction xxxiii the assumption of its dedication to the Patriarch Martyrius of Antioch (d. 47 1 ). Only it would be remarkable that no one in Antioch had known of or called attention to anything better on the subject. I was unable to find a terminal date which would be even halfway certain chrono-logically. Martyrius relates no tales of prodigies. The only thing he mentions is the alleged history of the wine bath as a love charm (Cod. Paris 1519, p. 499v 500r). With this unfortunately vanishes the historical value of the source, which might have been ascribed to Martyrius on the basis of previously printed fragments.22 2. Theodorus of Trimithus (ca. 680) The short Vita written by Theodorus of Trimithus on the island of Cyprus takes an entirely unique place in the list of Byzantine biographies of Chrysostom. Theodorus knew, or at least mentioned, the Dialog of Palladius (in n. 2), of whom he expressly said, that he was also the author of the Historia Lausiaca. A comparison of Theodorus n. 3 ('Iuavvr)s ouv ff.) with Palladius 5 (col. 18: avvr/s OVTOS) proves also, that he actually used the Dialog. Cf. also Theodorus 4 with the Dialog 5 (col. 19). However, Theodorus on the whole scarcely made use of Palladius, but on the contrary admitted so many arbit-rary statements and direct inventions23 under the guise of his-torical and well-investigated records, that one can only agree with the judgment of Stilting (n. 31) "Tot tamque apertis figmentis Vitam illam foedavit, ut eum sine taedio non potuerim perlegere." The biographical sketch is actually historically worthless. The list of biographers of Anonymous (Savile 8,293) does not mention Theodorus. The eleven letters which supposedly came from the Emperor Arcadius and from Eudoxia, as well as from the Emperor Honorius, Pope Innocent and the Patriarch Theophilus, were either fabricated by Theodorus, or taken from an earlier source which goes back to further fabrications. Five of them turn up again in the Vita of George Alexandrinus (in an expanded form of the text) and in that of Anonymous, who depended on George. A comparison of the related portions in Theodorus and George speaks clearly for the priority of Theodorus, so that George must be assigned to about 700. xxxiv Introduction The manner in which St. Epiphanius, in opposition to the reality, in Theodorus 24, appeared suddenly as an intrepid advocate of Chrysostom against Eudoxia, fits Cyprus very well as the point of origin. Editions: 1. Card. A. Mai, Bibliotheca Nova, PP. VI, 262. MG 47, LI LXXXVIII. 2. A vulgar Greek translation published by Emman. Diodopulos, Athens 1895 (P. 5-44). Various readings from Paris. Bibl. Nat. 1169 (tenth century) were published by K. J. Dyobouniotis 'E7rsez~ ovsq 'EreTnpFs TnS EeAoyFKx1s ZXoA77s TOV A~ vnCi gav(TtheT~ HFoU s (1926) 345-375) 3. George Alexandrinus (ca. 700) With George, who until now has been identifled with the Patriarch George of Alexandria (d. about 630) begins the cycle of biographies which stand in a dependent relation to one another. They are: George, Leo Imperator, Anonymous and Metaphrastes. The sources of George's Vita were: The writings of Chrysostom, Palladius-Dialogus, Socrates, Theo-doret and probably also Theodorus of Trimithus.24 These sources are transcribed word for word almost entirely, and blended together into a more or less harmonious whole. Mean-while George inserts a number of chapters which tell of the virtues and miracles of Chrysostom, and which bespeak the Byzantine type of saint of a later time. These stories were probably freely invented by George. The time of composition is indicated externally by two facts. George had in all probability utilized Theodorus of Trimithus, who flourished about 680. The earliest possible date is thereby set. The latest possible date must be the year 725, since John Damascene in his " Oratio de imaginibus," first composed about 726 (MG 94, 1277), gives a literal quota-tion from George, Ch. 27 (192-4). Therefore the date of authorship lies between 680 and 725. The author therefore cannot have been that Patriarch of Alexandria who died about 650.25 However, he was certainly an educated priest and monk, an outspoken adherent of Rome (cf. Ch. 7, 26, 45, 49, 65, 68-70; cf. Theodorus of Trimithus), also an advocate of the veneration of images (Ch. 27, Savile, 192-4). Introduction xxxv The place of its authorship was certainly not Antioch, neither was it Alexandria or Constantinople. Ed itions: Savile, Chrysostomi Opera omnia, Vol. 8 (Eton 1612) 157- 265. Literature: Chr. Baur, Georg Alexandrinus = Byzant. Zeitschrift 27 (1927) s-16. 4. Emperor Leo VI the Wise (886-9II) His Aoyos i'yKC aCtK~ S is a free and abridged version of George Alexandrinus. He has not utilized other sources apart from this. At any rate his work shows no individual, essential or literary worth. The Bios ends, like that of Meta-phrastes, with the death and burial of Chrysostom in Cumanae Edition: Savile loc. cit. 267-2go=MG 107, 228-292. 5. Anonymous (ca. 950) The Vita of Anonymous relies principally on George Alex-andrinus, whom he lists among the biographers and pane-gyrists at the beginning of the Bios. About seven chapters of George are not represented in Anonymous. On the other hand he has often enlarged on George. Above all he writes better Greek and is less diffuse. Time of Authorship: Anonymous wrote a long time after the death of the Patriarch Methodius I (843-847), who is mentioned in Ch. 23 as the " then ruling Patriarch," and at least after the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Con-stantine Porphyrogenitus (912-959), whose encomium on Chrysostom is mentioned as the last number in his list of biographers (Savile 293); but also before Metaphrastes, who does not appear in the list cited above. One may therefore, with Stilting (n. 3o) assign the work of Anonymous to about the middle of the tenth century. Anonymous certainly wrote in Constantinople, concerning the topography and history of which he shows himself very well acquainted (cf. Ch. 53, 73, 96). Also Constantinople is for him the "new Rome" (Ch. 129; p. 365, 29). The author was, we conclude from Ch. 8, 9, 53 and 74, a monastery chaplain, or perhaps the superior of a monastery, in Constantinople . Edition: Savile 8, ag3-371. 6. Symeon Metaphrastes (end of the tenth century) According to Erhard's researches, the Vita of Symeon xxxvi Introduction certainly belongs to the genuine Texts of Metaphrastes. The Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca (2nd edition, p. 122, n. 6) omits the name of Metaphrastes. Cf. ibid. the Synopsis Meta-phrastica 282. Sources: 1. Between Anonymous and Metaphrastes there is a close textual relation, which a comparison of individual chapters will show. 2. The chapters 123-150 of Anonymous correspond for the most part with Ch. 65-72 of George Alexandrinus; however, they are missing in Metaphrastes, whose work ended with the death and burial of Chrysostom. So Anonymous has utilized George independently. 3. Chapters 25, 26, 47, 54 and 55 of George are missing both from Anonymous and Metaphrastes. 4. Chapters 30, 31 and 45 of Metaphrastes are found in George (37- 39, 63), but are missing in Anonymous. So Meta-phrastes has utilized George directly. 5. Chapters 8-9 (27-29?), 35-38, 45-54, 56, 57, (59-61 ?)~ 62-64, 66, 67, 69-71, 74, 77-79, 84, 86, 87, (88, 89?), (91, 92?), 95, (97- 98?), 107, (1 l l, 114, 115?), of Anonymous are missing from both Metaphrastes and George. So Anonymous has amplified independently. 6. Chapters (19?), 26, 30, (55, 58?), 72, 73, of Anonymous are missing in George and present in Metaphrastes. From the mere choice of material a sure conclusion in regard to the dependent relations between Anonymous and Metaphrastes cannot be drawn. But the utilization of the material, in particular, gives a clear indication. For example, Ch. 31 of Anonymous and Ch. 15 of Metaphrastes present the closest language parallels. But while Anonymous actually copied Ch. 26 from George, and thereby took over a letter of the Emperor Arcadius from George, the latter is missing from Metaphrastes. Therefore if one wishes to deny the priority of Anonymous, one must make the highly improbable assump- tion that Anonymous actually depended on George and at the same time leaned heavily on him linguistically.26 The clear resemblance in language between Anonymous and Metaphrastes proves that Anonymous produced a lingu-istically independent, mostly abbreviated but sometimes expanded reworking of George, while Metaphrastes again I ntrod uction xxxvii improved on Anonymous linguistically and stylistically, and abbreviated considerably, especially at the end, where he omits what follows in Anonymous (and George) concerning the death and burial of Chrysostom. It can therefore scarcely be doubted that Metaphrastes must be assigned to a later time than Anonymous. That agrees with the earliest date for Metaphrastes discovered elsewhere. According to M. Jugie,2' Metaphrastes died about the year I ooo. Editions: 1. Savile 8, 373-428. 2. MG 114, 1045-1209. 7. Nicephorus Callistus (fourteenth century) Nicephorus compiled that part of his Church History which treated of Chrysostom (Bk. 13, Ch. 2-34, 36, 37; Bk. 14, Ch. 25-28; 43), from Socrates, Sozomen, the life of Olympias, George Alexandrinus, Metaphrastes, and Cosmas Vestitor. Nice-phorus does not possess any historical value.28 His principal errors are demonstrated by Blondel 1248 and 1252-53. Editions: MG 146, 928 ff. Cf. Jeep. Quellenuntersuchun-gen 100-105, Baur, S. Jean Chrysostome 48. NB. The Greek "Menologium" Basilii Imp. reports the death of Chrysostom on January 27 (MG 117, Z81 -4) with almost the same words and narrative as Palladius. C. THE GREEIC CHRONICLERS 1. The Chronicon Paschale (MG 92, 781; ad annum 404), composed by an ecclesiastic under Patriarch Sergius (61o-638), presents nothing new except the statement that the Church fire in Constantinople broke out on a Monday, at about the sixth hour; that Arsacius was consecrated on Monday, June 25, 404; that a great hailstorm occurred on a Friday in the month of Hyperberetaios, about the eighth hour; and that Eudoxia died on Thursday, the sixth of October, and was buried on Wednesday, the twelfth. The dates may have been correct, and may have been taken from the " Public Records," which served as the principal source for the Chronicon Paschale up until the time of the Emperor Leo. Cf. Krum-bacher, BL 337 ff. H. Gelzer, Sextus Junilius Africanus 2, 8 ff. 2. The Chronography of Theophanes (MG lo8, 205, 212 ff. xxxviii I ntrod uction and ed. Boor, Theophanis Chron. 1, 72, 75 ff.) from the begin-ning of the ninth century, derived its information concerning Chrysostom chiefly from Sozomen, but also from Socrates and Theodoret. Especially interesting historically is the observa-tion of Theophanes: the fact that Chrysostom had "given light" not only to Constantinople, but also to Thrace, Asia and Pontus. This proves " that the Bishop of Constantinople also ruled over these churches before the Council of Chalce-don" (451) (ed- Boor ~ , 77)- Cf. Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Historia Ecclesiastica ex Iheophane in MG 108, 122X-3. Literature: Krumbacher 342 ff. Sarrazin, De Theodore Lectore . . . 172-79. NB. Nicephorus Constantinopol. Patriarcha (805-815) men-tions Chrysostom in his Ecloge Chronographiae in the List of Bishops of Constantinople No. 33 (MG loo, 1045). 3. The Chronicon of George Hamartolus (ca. 866-867) (MG llo, 713, 728 ff- and 744) This derives its information on Chrysostom chiefly from Sozomen, Palladius, Theophanes, Malalas and George Alex-drinus 71 (or more probably from John Moschus MG 87, 2992-3). Besides some actual and chronological errors, he first makes the statement that the Bishops Palladius, Proclus, Brisson and Theodoret, as well as the monk Marcus (=Dia-conus Gazensis?) Nilus and Isidore of Pelusium had been " pupils " of Chrysostom. This impossible statement has never since disappeared from the literature. NB. The Chronography of Malalas (lib. 13=MG 97, 520) does not mention Chrysostom himself. It says only of the Emperor Arcadius that he was a man of " keen understanding and skilled in affairs"t Gelzer, Sextus Junilius 2, 129 calls this Chronography a "wretched production," which is correct. The fragment of Johannes Antiochenus (C. Muller, Frag-menta Hist. Gr. 4, 610) mentions the name of Chrysostom only once. In the following Chronicles every trace of original source tradition has been lost. At the same time the historical reli-ability of the individual accounts is diminished. 4. Eutychius Alexandrinus, 24nnales (composed about 397) I ntrod uction xxxix in its account of Chrysostom (1 l l, 1027-1030) despite its brevity, contains many and great errors. 5. George Cedrenus, Compendium Historiarum (ca. Iloo = 121, 624- 636) derives chiefly from George Hamartolus, but utilized also the Chronographia of Theophanes (and Palladius?). 6. Joannes Zonaras, 24nnales 13, 20 and 22 (ca. 1118-1150= 134, 1180-81 and 1188) utilized George Cedrenus and Theophanes. 7. Michael Glyhas, Annales IV (end of the twelfth century = 158, 484) copied George Cedrenus and Zonaras, and also utilized (directly or indirectly) Theodorus of Trimithus (Nos. 3o and 32) or George Alexandria (60 and 70). Cf. Blondell -52. 8. The Chronographia synoptica of Joel (ca. 1200-1260= 139, 261) contains only two short notes which in any case originated with George Harnartolus. 9. Suidas, Lexicon (eleventh century = 117, 1282-83) origi-nated with Jerome, De viris illustribus 129, and George Hamartolus (CCII n. 9- 13 = l lo, 729-732) and out of his own knowledge (or ignorance) of the writings of Chrysostom. Io. The short Epitome Vitae (Inc. To guev yevoS flv=47, LXXXVII) is not positive as to author or time of composition. (Cf. BHG 874. Dobschutz=Byzant. Zeitschr. 12 (1903) 542.) At any rate it appeared in the eleventh century at the latest, since it was already recorded in Cod. Vat. gr. 808 (eleventh century) 183- 184. NB. The Epitome Vitae contained in several manuscripts (Inc.'0 HfVTOF OS XpUeoe7oyos) is borrowed from Ch. 19 of Metaphrastes (Savile 391, 39-392, 20). 1 l. The lost Church History of Theodorus the Lector, written after 518, was, in its first four books, from the year 323 until about 430, only a compilation from Socrates, Sozo-men and Theodoret. Cassiodorus translated it entirely for the first part of his Historia tripartita. Cf. Bidez, La tradition manuscrite . . . 35-81; Jeep, Quellenuntersuchungen n. X, P 157-59. 12. The Fragmentum historicum by an unknown author (published by Card. A. Mai, Spicilegium Roman. II.P.II.p. l l, ff., printed in MG 85, 1812-13) treats of Chrysostom from the xl I ntrod uction time of the exile and here it is inexact. The name of Seleucus, the father of Olympias, he can only have obtained from the Vita Olympiadis 2; so it is later than this. The farewell scene between Chrysostom and Olympias and her companions origin-ates from Palladius 10 (eventually from George Alexandrinus 56). He thinks the burning of the Church started at the altar. 13. The Fragment of Joannes 24ntiochenus mentions in N. 189 (ed. Muller, Fragmenta Histor. Gr. IV, 610) the name of Chrysostom only once, in connection with Eutropius, and mentions in N. Igo (p. 610- 611) the insurrection of Gainas. 14. The Asyv7rztot Aoyot ~ 7 1rep; 7rpovotas of Synesius (written between 399 and 413; ed. Krabinger, Sulzbach 1835) is explained by E. Gaiser in the History of the Gothic Leader Gainas. However, this explanation is not clear. As a biographer of Chrysostom, Synesius deserves no consideration. Literature: 1. E. Gaiser, Des Synesius von Cyrene agypt. Erzahlungen. Wolfenbuttel 1886. 2. W. v. Christ, Gr. L. 6th edition, II. 2, 1399. NB. 1. The Fita Olympiadis, by an unknown author in the second half of the fifth century (according to Bousquet; accord-ing to Delehaye between 408 and about 630). The author living in Constantinople, certainly knew well the history of the " Cloister of the holy Olympias," but had not seen her or her contemporaries. All he tells concerning the person of Olympias and concerning her relations with Chrysostom, is from Palladius, Dialogus and Historia Lausiaca. The Vita possesses no special source value for Chrysostom, and its composition date can scarcely be set before 450 (Ch. XI of the Vita is a later addition). As the name " Chrysostom " does not appear there, one cannot easily extend the date to later than about sso. Editions: Delehaye Analecta Bolland. 15 (1896) 400- 423. A French translation by Bousquet is found in the Revue de L'Orient chretien 1 l (1906) 225-250. Cf. Baur, S. Jean Chry- sostome 59. NB. 2. The Narratio Sergiae de translatione S. Olympiadis (Analecta Boll. 16 (1897) 44-51) is by Sergia, Abbess of the cloister of Olympias in Chalcedon, who lived in the time of the Patriarch Sergius (61 o-638). Her source was the Vita Introduction sli Olympiadis, of which the eleventh chapter is enlarged by tales of miracles. She does not give any information concerning Chrysostom. Cf. Bousquet. Le recit . . . 257. NB. 3. St. Gregory of Nazianzas dedicated to Olympias on her wedding day a "Carmen paraineticum" (37, 1)42-50), which is a practical Christian mirror for women. Cf. his letter 193 to Procopius (37, 316-17) from the year 385. NB. 4. Ioannes Moschus, Pratum spirituale Ch. 128 (87, 2992-93; cf. Blondel 1248) from the seventh century, says that he had heard from an Abbot Athanasius, that the Abbess Johanna had related that Chrysostom had stayed in Arabissus with her brother, the Bishop Adelphius, and that Adelphius had seen in a vision that Chrysostom stood higher in heaven than all the doctors of the Church, directly beside the throne of God. This part mav have been borrowed from George Alexandrinus 71 (Savile 8, 2 >4). Cf. Anonymous 1 ll (Savile 358) and 126 (ibid. 364, 15), and Metaphrastes 42 (Savile 423, 1l). Actually a statement from Chrysostom himself contra-dicts this; he himself wrote in his letter 13 to Olympias (52, 611) that he had dwelt in Cucusus in the house of Dioscurus, while the Bishop of Arabissus was not named Adelphius but Troilus. An Adelphius was bishop of Arabissus from 451 to 458. This whole narrative may have found its way into the Pratum Spirituale later. Cf. Tillemont, Memoires 1l, 623, Note 103. D. BYZANTINE PANEGYRISTS Beside the contemporary panegyrics of Chrysostom by Theodoret and Proclus(?) there are also in existence a number of edited (and unedited) panegyrics from all the following centuries, which obviously possess no historical value. Those which are edited will at least be named here. 1. Cosmas Festitor (ninth to tenth century) wrote several sermons on Chrysostom, relative to the Feast of the Transla-tion of his Relics to Constantinoplc. K. J. Dyobouniotis has published five of these in the 'E7rfrnpFs f'TatpLas BvCarT>vuv sTTOUO@V 2 (1929) 55-83. The headings read: (a) ufV^7f aKovweaTf (b) IlTaAtv o XpveoaroMwos (C) z fpOV D TOV OVftOtC0fVTOS xlii Introduction (d) wHKovaraF 7ravTOos V~ tV (this exists in more than 36 manu- scripts of which Dybouniotis has utilized one) (e) Tls rov azeTpov Excerpts from (d) have already been published by Combefis, Novum Auctar. 1, 494-96 and Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum 9, 679 and MG 65, 829- 31. Cf. Krumbacher-Ehrhard, Byzant. Lit. 169 and Ehrhard, Hagiograph. Forschungen 173. 2. The Emperor Constantine VII, Porphyrogenitus. In translation. Inc. Tl T(p1rVOTf pOV. Ed. by Dyobouniotis 'E1rFatX 0V$K17 ES7rerr/pts x1s feoAoyFKrls S7xoArls TOU AEvx1aYv ~ 7avf7rFarx ov. X (1926) 303-319. Out of at least six manuscripts, only the Cod. Paris. Bibl. Nat. 137 (XVI cent.) is utilized. 3. Michael Psellus, Oratio in laudem S. Jo. Chrysostomi et. Gregorii Theol. Inc.: Tv xpUadv Kas rrRv ~ UX7p. Ed. P. Levy, Michaelis Pselli de Gregorii Theol. charactere Judicium. Accedit eiusdem de Jo. Chrysostomi charactere judicium ineditum. Strassburger Dissert. (Leipzig 1912) 92-98. 4. Neophytos Encleistos Presb. (1134 to about 1200), Encomium, Inc. xpUaopspffF@pov awpa. Ed. K. J. Dyobouniotis= 7rorlyovFKr} fn7pls (Athens) 1 (1926) 329-45. The only known manuscript is the Cod. Paris Bibl. Nat. 1189 (eleventh-twelfth century) 153V-l64. Cf. Anal. Boll. 26 (1907) 291 and L. Petit, Les ouvrages de Neophyte Le Reclus = Echos d'Orient 2 (18g8-gg) 257. Neophytus utilized George Alexandrinus directly. 5. An anonymous author wrote concerning the " types " of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil and others= MG 29, p. CCCXCI. 6. Ioannes Mauropus Euchaitensis (eleventh century). Encomium in tres Hierarchas, Inc.: r AFv 'Ionavv^qs. Ed. P. Levy, Michaelis Pselli et Gregorii Theol. charactere Judicium. Accedit eiusdem Euchaitensis quae supersunt= Gottinger Abhandlungen 28 (1881) lg6-119. In manuscript form there still exist a large number of festival sermons on Chrysostom and the translation of his relics, as well as poems. For an incomplete list see Baur, S. Jean Chrysostome 51-55. E. LATIN SOURCES 1. The oldest historical information concerning Chrysos- I ntrod uction xliii tom was given in the year 392 by St. Jerome, De Viris illustri-bus 129 (ML 23, 754 and ed. Richardson in Texte u. Unters. 14, 1 (1896) 54. For a later summing up of this chapter, expanded before the ninth century, see A. Feder, Studien zum Schriftstellerkatalog des heiligen Hieronymus. Freiburg 1927, p. 158-X60. NB. Also the oldest quotation from Chrysostom comes from a Latin writer, namely Pelagius, in the year 415. Cf. S. Augustinus, De natura et gratia Ch. 64 (ML 44, 285). Baur, S. Jean Chrysostome, 67-68. 2. Gennadius (d. 495) De Viris illustribus 30 (=material from the sixth or seventh century?) supplemented Jerome (Ed. Richardson=Texte u. Unters. ibid. 72-73). Likewise 3. Isidore of Seville (d. 636), De Viris illustribus (Ml. 83 3-94- NB. Anonymus Mellicensis shows a knowledge of Chrysos-tom full of mistakes and hiatuses (ca. 1150), De Scriptoribus ecclesiasticis 12 (ed. Ettlinger, p. 51; ML 213, 965-6). 4. Marcellinus Comes, Secretary of the Emperor Justinian I (ca. 534) offers in his Chronicon exact and reliable informa-tion concerning Chrysostom. Perhaps he knew Palladius. Editions: ML 51, 921-22; and Mommsen Monumenta Germ. Auct. Ant. XI. Chron. min. II (1894) 67. NB. Prosper Tiro, Epitoma Chronicon, of perhaps 463 (ed. Mommsen in the MGH. Auct. Ant. IX, 464), offers very little, and nothing new. The same is true of Isidore the Younger, Chronica (Mommsen loc. cit. XI, 471) and of Hidatius (d. 470), Chronicon Olymp. 296 (ML 51, 876), who even makes Eudoxia an Arian. The Chronicle of Ado of Vienne (ML 123. 97 and loo) merits no consideration as a source. 5. Ca.ssiodorus, Historia tripartita lo, 3-22 and 26 (ML 69, 1165- 1183) offers only a literal translation and compilation from Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Cf. Bidez, La tradi-tion manuscrite . . . in Texte u. Unters. 34 (1908) II, B. p. 51-76. 6. The Biography of Leo Clericus (ca. the tenth to the eleventh century) utilizes principally George Alexandrinus, through whom it probably has passages from Palladius. A few legendary quotations may be of some merit. xliv Introduction Editions: A. Amelli, in the Bibliotheca Cassiensis 3 (1877) 380-87; and an expanded composition, in the Catalogus Codicum hagiographicorum latinorum of the National Library in Paris 3 (1893) 17-45 (published by the Bolland-ists). Cf. Baur, S. Jean Chrysostome 76-77. F. SYRIAN CHRONICLE A fragment of a Nestorian church history, perhaps from the eleventh century, is presented by Goller in the Oriens Christi-anus 1 (lgol) 82g6. Chrysostom is mentioned there only once. The principal sources are Socrates or Theodoret. The Syrian manuscript originated in the year 1703. FOOTNOTES TO INTRODUCTION 1. MG 52, 549-623- 2. Cf. Bardenhewer, GAL 4, 155-57. 3. The credit of having discovered this connection belongs to Dr. F. Aengenvoort, Der Dialog des Palladius, Munster 1913. 4. Bardenhewer, GAL 4, 156; Hermant (Menard), Le vie de S. Jean Chrysostome 60. Butler, Authorship 46. 5. It is correct, as Butler (Authorship 36) has noted, that the time of composition of the Dialog does not necessarily coincide with the time with which it is concerned. In regard to this, no proof for a separation of the two points has been produced. Also the whole trend of the Dialog, to place its composition at a time when it would have meaning, requires that it warn against fellow-ship with Theophilus and his co-conspirators, and to await a rehabilitation synod, although Chrysostom was already dead. That could only have been a time when the death of Chrysostom was very recent; in any case, before the death of Theophilus (412), and surely very soon after the Pamphlet of Theophilus, which the Dialog purposed to answer. 6. Cf. Norton, Palladii Dialogus 222-24. 7. Praefatio in Palladii Dialogum (MG 47, XCVI f.). 8. L'Histoire des mouvements 218. 9. Memoires 1 l, Art. 12. so. Vita Chrysostomi n. 6 ff. . Histoire gen. des auteurs sacres lo, 77 ff. Paris 1742. . Lehrbuch der Patrologie 2 (1883) 337 (utilized by Ceillier). I ntrod uction xlv . Institutiones Patr. 2, 1, P. 54 and 209 f. Innshruck 1896. . Dialog 8. . The Dialog of Palladius. London 1921. 6. Historia monachorum and Hist. Laus. in the Notes. 7. Historia monachorum etc. 6. 18. Until now, known only from two manuscripts: X . Paris Bibl. Nat. 1519 (llth cent.) 453r-536 (under the name of Meta-phrastes). 2. Venice Marc. gr. C1. VII. Cod. XXXIV. (ol. Nani-anus 145) (12th cent.). This manuscript is incomplete. The Life will soon appear. 19. The beginning of this Life is given by Mingarelli, Graeco Codices 337-8, the conclusion MG 47, XLII-LII. 20. Cod. Paris 490r, 495v, 500r, 502r, 520r. 21. Ibid. 530rs 533r (=MG 47, XLVI n. 4). 22. Baur, S. Jean Chrysostome 39. 23. For instance he states (n.l) that Chrysostom was baptized by a Bishop Baitanus in Amida, and received his lectorship from Bishop Poimenius of Antioch. Then (he states that) Chrysostom, as Bishop, turned the Empress Eudoxia away from the church door (n. 15) and appeared later at the Synod of the Oak, to defend himself in person (n. 21) and so forth. 24. The Anonymous (Savile 293) states that George Alexand-rinus utilized notes of St. Cyril of Alexandria and other writers. That is certainly untrue as regards Cyril. 25. In the list of Patriarchs of Alexandria in the Chronography of Nicephorus of Constantinople, a Patriarch George is men-tioned as the 4gth patriarch and as a follower of Johannes Elee-mosynarius. He ruled for eleven years. Ed. Neibuhr, 1,781. 26. Cf. Baur, S. Jean Chrysostome 47. 27. Sur la vie et les procedes litteraires de Symeon Met. = Echos d'Orient 22 (1923) ~ -l - 28. He shows in his HE 13, 2 (146, 933 CD) a moving love and gratitude to Chrysostom. LITERATURE Achelis, H., Virgines subintroductae. Leipzig 1902. Ackerman, Leopold, Die Beredsamkeit des heiligen Johannes Chrysostomus. Wurzburg 1889. Adler, Mich., The Emperor Julian and the Jews=The Jewish Quarterly Review 5 (1893) 591-651. Aengenvoort, Friedr., Der Dialog des Palladius uber das Leben xlvi Introduction des heiligen Joh. Chrysostomus (= Bericht uber das Schuljahr 1912-13 des Collegium Augustinianum zu Gaesdonk 3-16). Munster 1913. Ainsworth, W. F., Travels and researches in Asia Minor, Mesopo- tamia, Chaldea and Armenia. 2 vol. London 1842. Allard, P., Julien l'Apostat. 3 vol., Paris 1900-1903. Histoire des Persecutions. 5 vol., Paris 1890. Ameringer, Thom. E., O.F.M., The stylistic influence of the Second Sophistic on the panegyrical sermons of St. John Chrysostom. A study in Greek rhetoric. A Dissertation Washington 1921. Anderson, J. G. C., A Journey of exploration in Pontus (=Studia Pontica I.). Brussels 1903. (Anonymous) Le idee pedagogiche di S. Giovanni Crisostomo= Didaskaleion 2 (1913) 463-491 and 3 (1914) 49-63. Antoniades, E. M. wEK+paess rris ~ AyzaS z as 3 vol. in fol. Athens 1907-lDog- Armstrong, C. B., The Synod of Alexandria and the Schism at Antioch in A.D. 362=The Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1921), 206-X21 and 347-355. Auer, J. E., Kaiser Julian der Abtrunnige in Kampf mit den Kir- chenvatern seiner Zeit. Vienna 1855. Babut, E. Ch., Recherches sur la garde imperiale et sur le corps d'officiers de l'armee romaine aux IV et V siecle = Revue historique 114 (1913) 225-260. Barbagallo, Corr., Lo Stato e l'Istruzione publica nell' impero romano (=Bibliotheca di Filologia Classica 3) Catania 19ll. Bardenhewer, 0., Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur. 4 vol. Freiburg 1913-24 (=GAL). Bardy, G., Paul de Samosate. lttude historique (=Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 4). Louvain-Paris 1923. Le Symbole de Lucien d'Antioche et les formules du Synode in Encaeniis=Recherches de Science Rel. 3 (1912) 139-155; 230- 244. Batiffol, P., Fragmente der Kirchengeschichte des Philostorgius= Romische Quartalschrift 3 (1889) 252-289. l:tudes d'Histoire et Theologie positive. 2. Serie. L'Eucharistie. 7. ed. Paris 1920. III 5. L'Eucharistie. sth edition. Paris 1913. Le Siege Apostolique (359-401). Paris 1924. Chap. 5. Bauer, Fr. X., Proklos von Constantinopel. Ein Beitrag zur Kir-chen und Dogmengeschichte des 5. Jahrhunderts (= Pub-lished by the Kirchenhistor. Seminar of Munich, 4th series, num. 8). Munich 19l9. Introduction xlvii Bauer, W., Der Apostolos der Syrer in der Zeit von der Mitte des vierten Jahhunderts bis zur Spaltung der syrischen Kirche. Giessen 1903. Baumstark, A., Das Kirchenjahr in Antiochien=Romische Quar-talsch. 1l (1897) 31-66 and 13 (1899) 305-323. Die Chrysostomusliturgie und die syrische Liturgie des Nes-torios Chrysostomica (Rome 1908) 771-857. Die konstantinopolitanische Messliturgie vor dem 9. Jahrhun-dert (Kleine Texte 35 sgog) 1-16. Die Zeit der Einfuhrung des Weihnachtsfestes in Konstantl- nopel=Oriens christianus 2 (1902) 441-46. Zur Urgeschichte der Chrysostomusliturgie = Theologie und Glaube 5 (1913) 299-313 and 392-395. Baur, P. Chrysostome, O.S.B., S. Jean Chrysostome et ses oeuvres dans l'Histoire Litteraire (=Recueil des travaux publies par les membres des Conferences d'Histoire et de Philologie. 18. Fasc.). Louvain-Paris 1907. S. Jerome et S. Jean Chrysostome=Revue Benedictine 23 (1906) 43 - 436- L'entree litteraire de S. Jean Chrysostome dans le monde latin =Revue d'Histoire ecclesiastique 8 (1907) 249-264. Zur Ambrosius-Theodosiusfrage=Theologische Quartalschr. go (1908) 401-409. Der Ursprungliche Umfang des Kommentars des heiligen Joh. Chrysostomus zu den Psalmen=Chrysostomica (Roma 1908) 235-242. Das Ideal der christlichen Vollkommenheit nach dem heiligen Joh. Chrysostomus=Theologie und Glaube 6 (1914) 564-574. Der Kanon des Joh. Chrysostomus=Theologische Quartalschr. 105 (1924) 258-271- Chrysostomus De Sacerdotio=Theologie und Glaube 18 (1926) 569- 576. Chrysostomus in Genesim=Theologische Quartalschr. 108 (1927) 221-232. Georg Alexandrinus=Byzantinische Zeitschrift 27 (1927) 1-16. Der Weg der Vollkommenheit nach dem heiligen Joh. Chrysos- tomus=Theologie und Glaube 20 (1928) 26-41. Wann ist Chrysostomus geboren?=Zeitschrift fur kath. Theo-logie 52 (1928) 401-406. Beloch, Jul., Die Bevolkerung der griechisch-romischen Welt (=Histor. Beitrage zur Bevolkerungslehre 1). Leipzig 1886. Bezdeki, Steph., Ioannes Chrysostomus et Plato = Ephemeris Daco- romana X (1923) 291-337. xlviii l ntrod uction Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca (BHG). Ediderunt Socii Boll andiani, ed. altera. Brussels sgog. Bidez, Jos., La tradition manuscrite de Sozomene et la Tripartite de Theodore le Lecteur (=Texte und Untersuchungen 32 (1908) 2, b)- Leipzig 1908. Blankenhorn, M., Syrien, Arabien et Mesopotamlen (= Hand buch der regionalen Geologie 17). Heidelberg 1914. Blondel, David, De la primaute en l'Eglise. Geneva 1641. Bockenhoff, K., and Stapper, R., Gedanken des heiligen Joh Chrysostomus uber Fragen der Sexualpadagogik = Viertel jahrschrift f. wissenschaftlich Padagogik 2 (1926) 174-188. Boringer, Fr., Johannes Chrysostomus und Olympias. 2nd edition, Stuttgart 1876. Bonsdorff, Max von, Zur Predigtatigkeit des Johannes Chrysos- tomus. Biographisch-Chronologische Studien uber seine Homilienserien zu neutestamentlichen Buchern. Helsinki 1922. Bousquet, Jos., Vie d'Olympias la Diaconesse= Revue de l'Orient chretien 1l (1906) 225-250. Recit de Sergia sur Olympias, ibid. 12 (1907) 255-268. Bouvy, E., S. Jean Chrysostome et S. Isidore de Peluse=Echos d'Orient X (1897-98) 190-201. Brinkmann. Aus dem antiken Schulunterricht = Rheinisches Museum N.F. 65 (sglo) 149-155. Brightman, F. E., Liturgies Eastern and Western 1, 527 ff. Oxford 1896. Buttner-Wobst, Der Tod des Kaisers Julian=Philologus (1892), 561-580. Buhl, K., Der Kirchengesang in der griechischen Kirche bis zur Zeit des Chrysostomus=Zeitschrift fur historische Theologie 18 (1848) 179-211. Bury, J. B., A History of the Later Roman Empire from the death of Theodosius I to the death of Justinian. 2 vol. London 1923. Butler, Cuthbert, O.S.B., Authorship of the Dialog de Vita Chrysostomi=Chrysostomica (Rome 1908) 35-46. Palladiana. N. II. The Dialog de Vita Chrysostomi and the Historia Lausiaca: Authorship=The Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1920- 1921) 138-155. Cantarelli, I1 primo magistrato di Constantinopoli=Rendiconti . . . dei Lincei. C1. mor, Ser. V. 26 (1917) 59 ff. Caspari, W., Perikopen=Realenzyklopaedie fur prot. Theologie und Kirche. 3rd edition, 15 (1904) 131-159. Cavallera, F., Le schisme d'Antioche. Paris 1905. Introduction xlix S. Jerome, sa vie et ses ocuvres. 2 vol. (=Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 1-2). Louvain 192a. Ceillier, R., O.S.B., Histoire Generale des auteurs sacres et ecclesiastiques. Vol. g and lo. Paris 174z 742. Chapman, John, O.S.B., St. Chrysostom on St. Peter. Chapot, V., La province romaine proconsulaire d'Asie, depuis ses origines jusqu'a la fin du Haut-Empire ( = Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes. IV ser. t. 150.) Paris 1904. Christ, W. von, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur. 6th edition, by 0. Stahlin and W. Schmid. II, 2. Munich 1924. Chrysostomica. Studi e recerche intorno a S. Giovanni Crisos-tomo a cura del Comitato per il XV. centenario della sua morte: 407 - Z go X . Rome 1908. Cobham, Cl. Del., lhe patriarchs of Constantinople. With an introduction by Adrian Fortescue and H. T. Duckworth. Cambridge 19 l l . Colombo, S., II Prologo del 17ept 'Ispoew71s di S. Giovanni Crisos-tomo=Didascaleion z ( 1912) 39-47. Sull' origine del concetto di a7raTr/ in un passo di S. Giovanni Crisostomo=Didascaleion 1 (1912) 437-454. Croiset, Alfr. and Maur., Litterature grecque. Vol. V, 951 ff. Paris 1899. Cumont, Fr. and Eugene, Voyage d'exploration archeologique dans le Pont et la Petite Armenie (= Studia Pontica II.). Brussels 1906. Cumont, Fr., Etudes Syriennes. La marche de l'Empereur Julien. Paris 1917. Deconinck, Jos., Essai sur la Chaine de l'Octateuque avec une edition des commentaires de Diodore de Tarse (= Biblio-theque de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes 195) Paris 1912. Degen, P. Heinr., O.S.B., Die Tropen der Vergleichung bei Johannes Chrysostomus. Beitrag zur Geschichte von Meta-phor, Allegorie und Gleichnis in der griechischen Prosa-literatur. Dissertation. Olten 1921. Delehaye, H., S. J., Les menologes grecs=Anal. Bolland. 16 (1897) 311 -329. Le menologe de Metaphraste=ibid. 17 (1898) 448-452. Les deux saints Babylas=Anal. Bolland. 19 (lgoo) 5-8. Les legendes hagiographiques. Brussels 1905. Les origines du culte des martyrs. Brussels 1912. Synopsis Metaphrastica = Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca. 2nd edition. 269 ff. Dennefeld, L., Der alttestamentliche Kanon der antiochenischen Schule (=Biblische Studien 14, 4). Freiburg lgog. l I ntrod uction Dethier, P. A., and Mordtmann, A. D., Epigraphik von Byzantion und Constantinopolis von den altesten Zeiten bis zur Jahre Christi l453=Denkschriften der kaiserl. Akademie der Wis-senschaften, Phil.- hist. K1. 13. vol. (Vienna 1864). Dieckmann, H., S.J., Antiochien, ein Mittelpunkt urchristlicher Missionstatigkeit (=Abhandlungen aus Missionskunde . . . H. 17). Aachen 1921. Dieu, L., Le Commentaire de Saint Jean Chrysostome sur Job= Revue d'Histoire Ecdesiastique 13 (1912) 640-658. Le Commentaire sur Jeremie du Pseudo-Chrysostome serait-il l'oeuvre de Polydhronius d'Apamee?=ibid. 14 (1913) 685-701. Le Commentaire armenien de S. Jean Chrysostome sur Isaie est-il authentique?=ibid. 17 (1921) 7-30. Dolger, Fr. J., Konstantin der Grosse und seine Zeit. Gesammelte Studien. N. XIX. Freiburg 1913 (=Rom. Quartalschr, XIX. Suppl.) Doucin, L., S.J., Histoire des mouvements arrives dans l'Eglise au sujet d'Origene et de sa doctrine. Paris 1700. Du Cange (Du Fresne), C. Historia Byzantina. II: Constanti-nopolis Christiana. Venice 1729. Duchesne, L., Histoire ancienne de l'Eglise. III 3. Paris 1910. Duck, Joh., Die Erdbeben von Konstantinopel. Laibach 1904 (=Die Erdbebenwarte 3 [1903-4] 121-139 and 177-196). Durks, W., De Severiano Gabalitano. Dissertation. Kiel 1918. Dyobouniotis, K. J., Die Beteiligung des Epiphanius an der Verur- teilung des Johannes Chrysostomus (neugriedh.)=Epeteris 3 (1926) 67-84. Eberhard, B., Die Beteiligung des Epiphanius am Streite uber Origenes. Beitrag zur Geschichte des Origenismus. Trier 1859. Ebersolt, J., Le Grand Palais de Constantinople et le livre des ceremonies. Paris lglo. Egger, Die Begrabnisstatte des Kaisers Konstantin=Jahreshefte des osterreichischen archaolog. Instituts 16 (1913) 212-230. Eggersdorfer, Fr. X., Die grossen Kirchenvater des 4. Jahrhun-derts auf den heidnischen Hochschulen ihrer Zeit=Theol. Prakt. Monatschrift 13 (1903) 335-345; 426-432. Ehrhard, A., Die Legendensammlung des Symeon Metaphrastes und ihr ursprunglicher Bestand=Festschrift zum elfhundert jahrigen Jubilaum des deutschen Campo-Santo in Rom. Freiburg 1897. P. 46- 82. See: Krumbacher, Geschichte d. byz. Literatur. Introduction li Engdahl, R., Beitrage zur Kenntnis der byzantinischen Liturgie. Texte und Studien (= Neue Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und Kirche 5). Berlin 1908. p. 1-42; 87-149. Erdmann, G. A., Die Dardanellen. Konstantinopel und die Meerengen einst und jetzt. Bielefeld and Leipzig 1915. Ermoni, V., Diodore de Tarse et son r61e doctrinal= Le Museon N.S. 2 (sgol) 422-444- Saint Jean Chrysostome (Le Pensee et l'oeuvre sociale du Christianisme. Etudes et Documents). Paris 19ll. Forster, R., Antiochia am Orontes=Jahrbuch des kaiserl. deut-schen archaologischen Instituts 12 (1897) 103-149. Cf. ibid. 13 (1898) 177- lgl; 16 (Igol) 39-55. Forchheimer, Ph., Die byzantinischen Wasserbehalter von Con- stantinopel. Vienna 1893. Funk, F. X., Johannes Chrysostomus und der Hof von Constanti- nopel= Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuch-ungen II, 23-24. Paderborn 1899. Pseudo-Justin und Diodor von Tarsus ibid. 3 (1907) 323-350. Entwicklung des Osterfastens= Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen 1, 24l- 277- Galtier, P., Saint Jean Chrysostome et la confession=Recherches de science religieuse 1 (sglo) 209-240; 313-350. Gerhardt, H., Die Bedeutung Innozenz I. fur die Entwicklung der papstlichen Gewalt. Dissertation, Leipzig lgol. Gedeon, M., Byzantion Heortologion. Constantinople 1899. Geffcken, Joh., Kaiser Julianus und die Streitschriften seiner Gegner= Neue Jahrbucher fur das Klass. Altertum 21 (1908) 161-195- Kynika und Verwandtes. Heidelberg sgog. Gelzer, H., Sextus Junilius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie. 2nd part. Leipzig 1885. Ungedruckte und wenig bekannte Bistumerverzeichnisse der orientalische Kirche=Byzant. Zeitschrift l (1892) 245-282 and 2 (1893) 22-72- Geppert, Fr., Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Sokrates Schol- asticus (=Studien z. Geschichte der Theologie und Kirche 3, 4). Leipzig, 1898. Gibbon, Ed., The history of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, edited with introduction, notes and appendices by J. B. Bury. London 1914. 7 vol. Gifford, Seth K., Pauli epistolas qua forma legerit Ioannes Chrys- ostomus (=Dissertationes Halenses 16, 1). Halle 1902. Gobel, Ren., De Ioannes Chrysostomi et Libanii orationibus quae sunt de seditione Antiochensium. Dissertation. Gottingen lii Introduction lglo. Cf. Rauschen=Berliner Philolog. Wochenschrift (19ll) 923-927. Gottwald, J., La statue de l'imperatrice Eudoxie a Constantinople = Echos d'Orient lo (1907) 274-276. Grosse, R., Romische Militargeschichte von Gallienus bis zum Beginn der byzantinischen Themenverfassung. Berlin 1920. Grosvenor, E. A., Constantinople. 2 vol. London 1895. Grutzmacher, G., Hieronymus. Eine biograph. Studie z. alten Kirchengeschichte. Leipzig 1901-06. Synesios von Cyrene. Ein Charakterbild aus dem Untergang des Hellenentums. Leipzig 1913. Guldenpenning, A., Die Kirchengeschichte des Theodoret von Kyrrhos. Eine Untersuchung ihrer Quellen. Halle 1889. Geschichte des ostromischen Reiches unter den Kaisern Arka-dius und Theodosius II. Halle 1885. Guidi, J., Una descrizione araba di Antiochia=Rendiconti della R. Accademia dei Lincei. C1. mor . . . Ser. V. 6 (1897) 137-161. Hadzsega, J., De discrimine inter sententiam theologorum ortho- doxorum et S. Jo. Chrysostomi de Primatu S. Petri = Operum Academiae Velehradensis vol. IV. (1912) l-lo. Haidacher, S., Die Lehre des heiligen Johannes Chrysostomus uber die Schriftinspiration. Salzburg 1897. Des heiligen Johannes Chrysostomus Buchlein uber Hoffart und Kindererziehung samt einer Blumenlese uber Jugend-erziehung, aus seinen Schriften ubersetzt und herausgegeben. Freiburg 1907. Chrysostomus-Fragmente = Chrysostomica 217-234. For his other works on Chrysostom, see: Baur, S. Jean Chrysos-tome 258-261. Harnack, Ad., Die Zeit des Ignatius. Leipzig 1878. Diodor von Tarsus. Vier pseudojustinische Schriften als Eigentum Diodors nachgewiesen=Texte und Unters. 21, 4 Leipzig lgol. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. 4th edition. Tubingen 1909. Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. 4th edition, 2 vol. Berlin 1924. Harrent, A., Les ecoles d'Antioche. Essai sur le savoir et l'en- seignement en Orient au IV. siecle apres J. C. Paris 1898. Hasselbach, K. F. W., Des heiligen Johannes Chrysostomus sechs Bucher von Priestertum. Stralsund 1920. Preface. Introduction liii liautsch, E., Der Lukiantext des Oktateuch (Nachrichten der Gottinger Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften, Phil-hist. K1. Igog). P. 518-543. Hefele, C. J. von, Konziliengeschichte. 2nd edition, vols. s and 2. Freiburg 1873 and 1875. Heisenberg, Aug., Grabeskirche und Apostelkirche. Zwei Basili-ken Konstantins. 2nd part: Die Apostelkirche in Konstanti-nopel. Leipzig 1908. Hengstenberg, W., Das griechische Januar-Menologium. Freising 1910. Hergenrother, Ph., Die antiochenische Schule und ihre Bedeu-tung auf exegetischem Gebiete. Wurzburg 1866. Hermant (Menart), La vie de Saint Jean Chrysostome . . . Paris 1664. Hirschfeld, O., Die Rangtitel der rom. Kaiserzeit= Kleine Schrif-ten (Berlin 1913) 646-681. llubbel, H. M., Chrysostom and Rhetoric=Classical Philology 19 (1924) 261-276. Hug, A., Antiochia und der Aufstand des Jahres 387 n. Chr. (=A. Hug Studien aus dem klassischen Altertum, H. 1). Freiburg-Tubingen 1881. Hulster, Al., Die padagogischen Grundsatze des heiligen Johannes Chrysostomus Theologie und Glaube 3 (19ll) 203-227. Jacoby, H., Die praktische Theologie in der alten Kirche. I: Gregor von Nyssa, Gregor von Nazianz, Chrysostomus= Theolog. Studien 6.3 (1890) 295-323. Janin, R., Formation du patriarcat oecumenique de Constanti-nople = Echos d'Orient 13 ( z g l o) 213-218. La banlieue asiatique de Constantinople. IV: Rufinianes= ibid. 22 (1923) 182-lgo. Jeep, L., Quellenuntersuchungen zu den griechischen Kirchen- historikern=Jahrbucher f. klassische Philologie. Suppl. Vol. 14, p. 53- 178. Leipzig 1884. Jugie, M., Saint Jean Chrysostome et la Primaute de St. Pierre= Echos d'Orient 1 l (1908) 5-15. Saint Jean Chrysostome et la Primaute du Pape=ibid. 193-202. La premiere fete mariale en Orient et en Occident=ibid. 22 (1923) 129-l52. uzek, J. H., Die Christologie des heiligen Johannes Chrysosto-mus. Dissertation. Breslau 1912. Die Lehre des heiligen Johannes Chrysostomus uber den Heili-gen Geist=Der Katholik 93, 1 (1913) 309-320. Kalsbach, Ad., Die altkirchliche Einrichtung der Diakonissen bis liv Introduction zu ihren Erl6schen (=Rom. Quartalschr. 22 Suppl.). Frei-burg 1926. Kammel, H. J., Der Untergang des Heidentums in Palastina und Phonizien=Zeitschrift f. hist. Theologie 13 (1843) 1, 3~33- Keane, H., S. J., The sacrament of penance in St. John Chrysos- tom=Irish Theological Quarterly 14 (19l9) 305-317. Kihn, H., Die altesten christlichen Schulen uberhaupt und die Schulen zu Antiochia, Edessa und Nisibis insbesondere. 1st part. Weissenburg 1865. 2nd part: Die Bedeutung der Antiochenischen Schule auf den Exegetischen Gebiete. Ibid. 1866. Ueber Theoria und Allegoria nach den verlorenen hermeneu-tischen Schriften der Antiochener = Theolog. Quartalschr. 62 (1880) 531- 582. Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus als Exegeten. Freiburg i. Br. 1880. Koch, H., Synesius von Cyrene=Historisches Jahrbuch 23 (1902) 751-774- Kraus, S., Antioche=Revue des Etudes juives 45 (Xg02) 27-50. Krumbacher, K., Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur. 2nd edition. (=Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 9, 1). Munich 1897. Kruger, G., Lucifer, Bischof von Calaris und das Schisma der Luciferianer. Leipzig 1886. Kulemann, A., Das christliche Lebensideal des Chrysostomus auf Grund seiner Schrift 1rfpl tepe 7S. Berlin 1924. Ladeuze, P., Etude sur le Cenobitisme Pakhomien pendant le IV siecle et la premiere moitie du V. Louvain-Paris 1898. Lambros, Sp., Eine neue Fassung des elften Kapitels des sechsten Buches von Socrates' Kirchengeschichte= Byzant. Zeitschrift 4 (1895) 481-486. Leclerq, H., and Gastoue, Antioche, in: Dictionnaire d'Archeo-logie chretienne et de Liturgie, vol. I. 2, p. 2359 ff.; and Chant Romain et Gregorien ibid. 3, 1 (1914) 257 ff. Leder, P. A., Die Diakonen der Bischofe und Presbyter und ihre ursprunglichen Vorlaufer (=Kirchengeschichtliche Abhand-lungen, published by U. Stutz, 23 and 24), Stuttgart 1905. Lietzmann, Johannes Chrysostomus, in: Pauly-Wissowa, Realen- cyklopadie der klass. Altertumswissenschaft 9 (1916) 1811-1828. Loofs, Fr., Leontius von Byzanz und die gleichnamigen Schrift-steller der griechischen Kirche=T.u.U. 3, 1. Leipzig 1888. Ludwig, A., Weibliche Kleriker in der altchristlichen und fruh- Introduction Iv mittelalterlichen Kirche=Theolog. praktische Monatsschriit 20 (lglo) 548-557; 609-617 and 21 (19ll) 141-149. Ludwig, Fr. Der heilige Johannes Ghrysostomus in seinem Ver-haltnis zum byzantinischen Hof. Braunsberg 1883. Lubeck, K., Reichseinteilung und kirchliche Hierarchie des Orients bis zum Ausgang des vierten Jahrhunderts (= Kirch-engeschichtl. Studien 5, 4). Munster i. W. Igol. Die Weihe des Cynikers Maximus zum Bischof von Konstanti-nopel in ihrer Veranlassung dargestellt (Programm). Fulda 1907. Die Einfuhrung des Weihnachtsfestes in Konstantinopel= Historisches Jahrbuch 28 (1907) 109-118. Maas, M., Die Maccabaer als christliche Heilige=Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 44 (zgoo) 145-156. Maas, P., Libanios und Johannes Chrysostomus (Anhang: Zu den Beziehungen zwischen Kirchenvatern und Sophisten) = Sit- zungsberichte d. preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften 1912, II, 1123- 26. Mahler, E., Zur Chronologie des Chrysostomus wegen der Weih- nachtsfeier = Orientalische Literaturzeitung 24 (1921) 59-63. Mansion, J., Les origines du christianisme chez les Gots = Analec[a Boll. 33 (1914) 1-30- Maries, L., Aurions-nous le Commentaire sur le Psaumes de Dio-dore de Tarse?=Revue de Philologie 35 (1911) 56-70. Extraits du Commentaire de Diodore de Tarse sur les Psaumes =Recherches de Science Religieuses 9 (1919) 7g-1ol. Marin, E., Les moines de Constantinople depuis la fondation de la ville jusqu'a la mort de Photius (330-898). Paris 1897. Marini, N., Le macchie apparenti nel grande Luminare della chiesa greca S. Giovanni Crisostomo=Bessarione 13 (sgog) 30-40; 159-184; 14 (Iglo) 367-385 and separate: Rome Iglo. I1 Primato di San Pietro e dei suoi successori in S. Giovanni Crisostomo. 2nd edition. Rome 1922. Martain, Ph., St. Jean Chrysostome et la confession = Revue Augustinienne 6 (1907) 460-462. Maspero, J., Organisation militaire de l'Egypte byzantine=Bib- liotheque de l'ecole des Hautes Etudes. Sc. hist. et phil. vol. 201. Paris 1912. Meliopulos, J. P., nos sKeCVTo at tpov+LvCavaf =Syllogos 29 (1907) 274-283 Bowds fiAugev~ *ou, 'Pou