¹ PG 50.749-774.Google Scholar

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

³ Ap. PG 50.749-50.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁵⁶ An example of paradox.Google Scholar

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

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

⁵⁹ De perf. carit loc. cit. Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁹⁸ See supra n. 66.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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