Maria Konstantinidou: The double tradition of John Chrysostom’s exegetical works: revisions revisited.

The paper proposed here addresses the issue of a double manuscript tradition, evidence for which is found in most of St John Chrysostom’s exegetical works. One of these recensions has been traditionally viewed as a deliberate revision of the other—more ancient—one. It is suggested that it is an undertaking by a single person or scriptorium that affects all these works.The lack of modern critical editions of most of Chrysostom’s exegetical works, hinders the task of identifying the homilies involved and complicates any further investigation of the two recensions. However, it is still possible to draw valuable conclusions both regarding the works involved and—somewhat less accurately—regarding the nature of the revisions.This paper is primarily concerned with studying the interventions of the reviser(s) and determining whether they follow a pattern across John’s exegetical works (and, therefore, they are possible to attribute to the same source). Ultimately, the aim is to investigate the purpose and aims of such a project.

Blake Leyerle: John Chrysostom’s Strategic Use of Fear

John Chrysostom spoke often about fear, not only in the wake of actual situations of terror, such as the Riot of the Statues, when the populace as a whole quaked in fear, but also in the course of his regular preaching, when he deliberately evoked dread in his listeners by conjuring imaginative scenarios of punishment. So useful was fear in his estimation that the preacher openly wished that he could “always and continually speak about Hell” (De Laz. 2.3, PG 48. 985). Such unalloyed enthusiasm suggests a strongly disciplinary agenda, and we know that Chrysostom was indeed focused on the moral reformation of his listeners.  Fear was a useful ally not only in restraining his listeners from immoral tendencies but also in spurring them to ethical actions. But fear, as Aristotle noted, is a complex emotion and Chrysostom was, among other things, a very astute observer of human nature.  This paper argues, accordingly, that Chrysostom’s appreciation of fear springs not only from its disciplinary utility but also from its capacity to enhance group solidarity and, perhaps most signally, to promote a deliberate state in which values are reassessed and temporal frames clarified.

Susan Griffith: Apostolic authority and the ‘incident at Antioch’: Chrysostom on Galatians 2:11-14

Paul’s confrontation of Peter in Antioch, as related in Galatians 2:11-14, caused much consternation for the exegetes of the early church. Controversy over how these two foundational apostles could clash produced multiple divergent theories, and even provided fodder for pagan critics. Chrysostom’s interpretation of the passage is often incorrectly lumped with that of other fathers. This paper looks closely at Chrysostom’s elaborate explanation in his occasional homily on the pericope (In illud: In faciem ei restiti), and compares this to the exegesis found in his better-known sermon series on Galatians (In epistulam ad Galatas commentarius). Chrysostom’s interpretations are placed in the context of other patristic and pagan understandings and deployments of the Pauline text, as well as the history of the development of concepts of authority in the early church.

Vasiliki Chatzirazoglou: The pastoral act of John Chrysostom through his epistles

In this project we are going to look at the question of John Chrysostom’s pastoral work through his epistles from the time he was in exile.
His three years’ staying in exile, was not only a suffering time but also a really productive period in his writing work. Even though we are examining a short time of his pastoral action, however there is a rich reading matter, from which we can pump an embossed picture of his personality and of his care for his flock. The adversities and the difficulties that he faced were not enough to prevent the great prelate to exert the act of God’s love.
The Holy Father proved indisputably that no hardship was enough to stop him being an exceptional good shepherd who loves, preaches, admonishes and prays for his spiritual children. We come up with the great issue of missionary and the spread of the Christian truth, a matter that occupied a lot John Chrysostom. Additionally, he was highly concerned of the matter of peace among Churches and this is something we encounter in his epistles. But not only these, we can see through them his concern and his care for all the people who confront sickness, death and a large number of problems dealing with daily christian’s life.

Conclusively, in this project we want to point out the great variety of matters that concerned John Chrysostom through his difficulties in exile.

John Bekos: St John Chrysostom and theological ethics: κατάπαυσις and inoperativity in the Epistle to the Hebrews

The assumption is that John Chrysostom’s interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews may serve as a text with diachronic political and ethical implications. The text constitutes a composite or even a unified vision of the St Paul’s epistle as Chrysostom was a charismatic preacher and at the same time a Church leader in the political centre of the Byzantine Empire.  In addition, it is free from historical specificity and meaningful for the Christian preaching in the 21^st century because of the Epistle’s few claims on historical facts and of the numerous warning passages and theological claims.

In contrast to the historical-critical method that has dominated recent studies in Hebrews and the common practice of applying methods of Exegesis on patristic texts along with the tendency for Christological claims based on alleged separations and divisions in Christ, this paper assumes that Chrystostom’s sermon on the Epistle to the Hebrews represents a unified vision of OT and NT, Logos and Christ, the Church and the God’s Kingdom, the now and the eschaton.  In particular, Chrystostom’s interpretation on ‘κατάπαυσις’ as the ultimate aim of the faithful Christians is placed within theological ethics and discussed in the light of modern political philosophy with emphasis on the Agamben’s idea on inoperativity.  Implications for a composite approach of patristic texts are presented.

Maria Verhoeff: John Chrysostom's David: Exemplar of Spiritual Friendship

The current resurgence of interest in friendship studies has not failed to affect research on John Chrysostom. Rather well-known is Chrysostom's integration and transformation of classical friendship conventions in his own thought on spiritual friendship (e.g. Zincone, 1984; White, 1992; Willien, 2005). Less attention has been given to his frequent adoption of the language of friendship to give expression to the human-divine relation (Poon, 1984; Sherwin, 2004).
This paper seeks to further elucidate Chrysostom's use of friendship imagery by focusing on his various portrayals of David. Of particular interest is his portrayal of the friendship between David and Jonathan, related in what is itself a complex biblical narrative. Chrysostom gives a central place to the commandment of Christ to love one's enemies, and thus the narrative motif of friendship appears as a dominant motif in Chrysostom portrait of David in contrast to Saul.
Since Chrysostom's theology is presented in graphical or narrative-typological ways, rather than in abstract conceptual ways, a close analysis of Chrysostom's portrayal of David as the archetypal friend will provide deeper insights into his theological and ethical concerns.

Paschalis Gkortsilas: The Lives of Others: Pagan and Christian role models in John Chrysostom's thought

This paper's intention is to present the prominent role of pagan and Christian figures as archetypes of vices and virtues in the writings of John Chrysostom. In the broader context of Chrysostom’s reception of Hellenism, the martyrs and the saints play a prominent role, serving both as role models and as living proofs of an emergent and victorious Christianity. In his rhetoric, martyrdom becomes a very significant point of divergence from Hellenism, precisely because, according to John, the Hellenes cannot claim any martyrs for their religion. During his time there were many points of contention between pagans and Christians. What we will try to attempt is a preliminary effort to collect and analyse this material, while at the same time trying to contextualise it within the larger context of John's reception of Hellenism. While the lives of the apostles and martyrs are sometimes the object of comparison with the lives of philosophers, these bioi are primarily used as exemplifications of contrasts that John sees as characteristics of Christianity and paganism. These include the antithesis between syllogisms and pistis, the effectiveness of each religion's persuasion, and the attitude of believers under persecution. Finally, the theme of usefulness also appears often in John's comparisons, and one of his major arguments against the most eminent philosophers of Hellenism is that their lives (in some cases) and theories (in other cases) were ultimately worthless, because they either served no purpose at all or plainly failed.

Mark Huggins: Comparing the Ethical Concerns of Plato and John Chrysostom

In Ancient Greek thought, a concern for ethical perfection was often expressed. Two prominent voices in present day discourses on ethics are Plato and John Chrysostom. In his Republic, Plato conceptualizes the ideal city where justice, or ethical perfection, prevails. Likewise, Chrysostom in his Against the Opponents of the Monastic Life describes the life of the monastic community, wherein ethical perfection also seems to be the goal. Nevertheless, despite these striking parallels, David Rylaarsdam’s John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy laments the tendency in modern scholarship to categorize Chrysostom as a moralist, differing from Plato perhaps only in his Christian faith. Both figures are clearly concerned with ethical dogmata and their subsequent effects upon all aspects of the human person and life. However, the concern for ethics alone does not necessarily justify the characterization of moralist. Therefore, as it has been questioned whether both can rightly be identified as moralists, the present paper investigates the ethical concerns of each, through a comparison of Plato's Republic with Chrysostom's Against the Opponents of the Monastic Life, in order to discern the sources from which these concerns originate, and the purposes to which they are directed.

Constantine Bozinis: Natural Law in John Chrysostom

Already in the early 60’s Stephan Verosta noted the presence of the concept of natural law in John Chrysostom’s homiletics (primäres und sekundäres Naturrecht), while only a few years later Arnold Stötzel would connect it to Chrysostom’s vision of the restoration of justice and equality in humanity within the Church (Kirche als neue Gesellschaft). The assessments of these scholars are supported by a plethora of passages drawn from the corpus Chrysostomicum, as well as from the work of earlier fathers of the Church, such as the Cappadocians and Origen, who undoubtedly exercised an influence upon Chrysostom. In my presentation at this year’s Oxford Patristics Conference I would like to touch upon this particular aspect of Chrysostom’s political thought, in relation to natural law. Within the framework of my presentation Chrysostom’s interpretation of Romans 2:14-15 and the “three types of slavery” that are found scattered here and there throughout his works (see esp. On Gen. IV.2-3), are taken into account. Furthermore, especial emphasis is laid to the natural example – whether taken from the animal kingdom or from the universe in its entirety – that the Church father uses in his ethical appeals to the faithful. I simultaneously attempt to shed some light on the philosophical background of his views on natural law and its close relation to currents of thought originating in Ancient Greece and reaching a climax, mainly, in the Stoic teaching concerning lex naturalis.

Pierre Augustin: Some Parisian Manuscripts used for the Sir Henry Savile's Chrysostom (Quelques sources parisiennes du Chrysostome de Sir Henry Savile)

To collect materials for the achievement of his great Chrysostom edition (Eton, 1610-1612), Sir Henry Savile twice commissioned his amanuensis James Dalrymple to the French Royal Library (Bibliotheca Regia) in Paris: in 1603 and again with Samuel Slade in 1606. The two scribes made use of various ancient Greek manuscripts from the collections of Fontainebleau and of Queen Catherine de' Medici. Later, in 1610, Slade transcribed as well several manuscripts at the Monastery of the Holy Trinity of Halki near Constantinople, some of which came in the 1730's to the Bibliotheca Regia, together with the manuscripts acquired by François Sevin in the Levant. Finally, Savile enjoyed the cooperation of the French Jesuit Fronto Ducaeus (1558-1624), which called upon his network of learned friends services for the edition and furnished collations of manuscripts. Can we identify the sources these researchers drew on and determine their importance in the Savile's preparatory work now kept at the Bodleian Library ?

Pierluigi Lanfranchi: The Use of Emotions in John Chrysostom’s Sermons against the Jews

The aim of my paper is to explore the emotional dimension of the interaction between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity. More precisely, I am interested in the way Christian authors used emotions in their anti-Jewish polemics. This approach allows us to grasp the mechanisms – rhetorical and psychological – which the polemicists exploited in order to convey their message. It also makes it possible to consider in a different way the relationship between rhetoric and reality, between the texts and their historical and social context.
As all religious groups, Christian communities were also “emotional communities”, that is groups that share the same rules of emotional expression and attach (or do not attach) importance to the same feelings. I will analyse as a case study the discourses against the Jews delivered by John Chrysostom in Antioch in 386-387.
By studying these sermons I try to answer the following questions: what kind of emotions did Chrysostom mobilize against the Jews? What did he mean while speaking of zēlos, orgē, thumos, misos? How did Chrysostom’s public react to his discourses? My hypothesis  is that his sermons witness an emotional divide between John and his public, as well as a certain resistance by the audience to accept Chrysostom’s instructions. The emotional regime he wants his public to abide to, does not coincide with the emotions the public actually feels. In other words, the emotional community imagined by Chrysostom diverges from the emotional community he addresses.

Public and Domestic Violence in Chrysostom's Community

Peter Brown describes late antiquity as “a world characterized by a chilling absence of legal restraints on violence in the exercise of power.”  Many studies on structural and institutional violence in the ancient world have been published. In this paper, however, I will focus only on one-on-one violence in public and private space in Chrysostom’s community. Chrysostom advises his congregation, for example, that should they hear “any one in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God, they should go up to him, rebuke him, and should it be necessary to inflict blows, they should not spare not to do so” (De stat 1.32). He also tells about instances of spousal violence. In one specific case the neighbours were running to the house because of the cries and wailing of a wife who was beaten by her husband (Hom. 1 Cor 26.7). Pauline Allen, Wendy Mayer and others have shown that Chrysostom’s writings can serve as a window to provide us a glimpse into fourth- and fifth-century social life. One has to be aware, of course, of the fact that Chrysostom also made some very radical comments merely for rhetorical effect. Nevertheless, Chrysostom’s writings can shed light upon the role of violence in his community.

James Cook: Therapeutic Preaching: The use of medical imagery in the sermons of John Chrysostom

The language of the 'cure of souls' was widespread in antiquity, and philosophers in particular often considered themselves to be physicians of the soul. John Chrysostom himself used this language, but, for all the similarities, his own conception of himself as a physician of the soul was in reality very different. This paper will argue that, for Chrysostom, spiritual sickness had less to do with being subject to irrational passions, as was the case with many of the classical philosophers; rather for him, what lay beneath this was a disobedience of God which ran the risk of suffering eternal damnation. A key part of his therapy, therefore, in stark contrast to his philosophical predecessors, was in fact to arouse in his congregation the emotions of fear at the prospect of hell and of love for God.  A further difference can be seen in the role of the sacraments and of God himself in the salvation of the Christian, compared to the emphasis placed on self-help 'spiritual exercises' in the classical tradition.

Demetrios Bathrellos: Sola gratia? Sola fides? Law, grace, faith, and works in John Chrysostom’s commentary on Romans

Although Chrystostom’s commentary on Romans is arguably his best biblical commentary, very little attention has been so far paid to it. In analyzing Paul’s teaching, Chrysostom argues that although the Old Testament law is good, it is not salvific. Justification comes by grace, not by keeping the law. But although Chrysostom emphasizes the role of grace, he also highlights man’s contribution to his own salvation. Man contributes his faith – which is superior to works. But after he has been justified by grace, man has to respond to divine grace also by works. Without works of love man will not enjoy salvation. Chrysostom’s interpretation provides safeguards against what Bonhoeffer has called Lutheranism’s ‘cheap grace’ by emphasizing the need to respond to grace by works. Moreover, it has similarities with the so-called New Perspective in pointing out that whereas justification comes initially by grace, works have to follow as a prerequisite for salvation.

J.H. Kreijkes: The Impact of Theology on Chrysostomic Exegesis: The Importance of an Interdisciplinary Approach

Until the 1950s, patristics scholars used the Antioch-Alexandria model to distinguish between literal and allegorical patristic exegesis (Cf. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Fuller). Recently, this model has appeared to be inadequate, because this distinction is now considered to be based on theological differences rather than on a preference for literal or allegorical interpretation (Greer; Young; O'Keefe). However, as Fairbairn argues, there is a "severe inconsistency between what contemporary patristics scholars say about that exegesis and what contemporary church historians (...) write about the same subject".
The way in which church historians have dealt with John Calvin (1509-1564) is illustrative of this phenomenon. Because of his estimation of John Chrysostom as his favourite exegete, Calvin is considered to represent "the Antiochene tradition of exegesis, which is largely adopted by the Reformation" (Hazlett). Although Calvin never seemed to have been aware of the Antioch-Alexandria distinction, the Nachleben of his reception of Chrysostom's exegesis has played an important role in the development of the twenty-first century historical-grammatical exegesis.
Conversely, this paper addresses the importance of an alternative, interdisciplinary approach in light of the early modern reception of the patristic exegesis. It attempts to bridge the gap between Patristics and Reformation Studies by examining both Chrysostom as an exegete who read the Bible in the context of his own theology - rather than as a historical authority of later protestant exegesis -, and Calvin as a recipient of Chrysostom's interpretations that fit well with his theology.

Samantha Miller: John Chrysostom's Demonological Discourse as Homiletic Tool

John Chrysostom is known for inciting fear in his congregation as a motivational tool, but about the devil and his demons Chrysostom tells his congregation to fear not.  Instead, the congregants should think of demons and be emboldened to choose virtue.  Demonological discourse thus becomes a homiletic tool.  Though one tradition of scholarship has dismissed Chrysostom as “just” a moralist, I hope to show that there is a sophisticated line of reasoning behind Chrysostom’s choice for method of persuasion.  Through an analysis of his De diabolo tentatore and supplemental passages from his Catechetical Homilies, I argue that Chrysostom’s choice to speak about demons is practical and in service of an overarching goal: to encourage his congregation to pursue virtue.

I make my argument in three parts.  First, I demonstrate the practicality of Chrysostom’s rhetoric about demons by showing that Chrysostom’s immediate goal in speaking about the devil is often to eradicate fear of the devil from his audience.  Second, I evaluate Chrysostom’s use of the term προαίρεσις in his rhetoric about demons in order to show the proportional relationship between his emphasis on προαίρεσις and his admonishments against fear.  Finally, by exploring the nuances of this relationship, I demonstrate that Chrysostom’s demonological discourse is aimed at exhorting his congregation to virtue.  In doing so, this study offers one approach for thinking about the various methods patristic preachers used to encourage their congregations to the pursuit of virtue and the possibility of seeing preachers as more than “mere moralists.”

Marie-Eve Geiger: Les homélies de Jean Chrysostome In principium Actorum (CPG 4371) : l'étude d'un titre prise comme principe exégétique

Les quatre homélies In principium Actorum (CPG 4371) prononcées à Antioche témoignent d'une tentative singulière de Jean Chrysostome pour faire découvrir le livre des Actes à ses auditeurs : en prenant comme point de départ le seul titre du livre, le prédicateur adopte un principe exégétique surprenant, qui lui donne une position de surplomb par rapport au livre des Actes tout entier. À la lumière d'autres textes chrysostomiens et patristiques nous tenterons de rendre compte des effets de ce principe sur la pratique exégétique : en quoi la méthode d'interprétation d'un titre diffère-t-elle de celle d'un verset ? Quels sont alors la place et le rôle des exempla bibliques présentés par Chrysostome, notamment lorsqu'ils sont issus du livre des Actes ? L'étude du titre est-elle, comme dans le traité de Grégoire de Nysse Sur les titres des psaumes, un principe-prétexte, employé à des fins qui ne sont pas tant exégétiques que dogmatiques, polémiques et morales?

Jessica Wright: Wine, Vapours, and the Brain: John Chrysostom and the Care of the (Embodied) Soul

Chrysostom connected the brain with reason—that is, the part of humanity which was related particularly to the divine (e.g., Hom. in Stat. 11.11). Treatment of the brain, therefore, afforded access to one’s immortal soul: Yet, how was the brain to be “treated”? Famously insensitive to touch (Aristotle, PA 2.7), and furthermore concealed behind a wall of bone, the brain is perhaps the part of the body least susceptible to self-manipulation.* Chrysostom’s solution was to invoke medical paradigms which focused not on how the brain might be manipulated from the outside, but on interactions between the brain and other internal organs. The mode of this interaction was the evaporation of digestive substances into the brain. Such vapours either escaped through orifices in the skull or congested the brain, threatening to flood the blood vessels with phlegm. This model lies behind Chrysostom’s warnings against consuming excess wine (in Comm. in ep. I ad Tim. 13 and the possible spurious De precatione) or excess food (Comm. in Matt. 44.7). Through the control of substances liable to produce such vapours, Chrysostom sought to foster the health of reason, and so to take care of the soul. The brain provided a conceptual resource for understanding the body-soul relationship as it pertained to dietary practice. In this way, the medical explanation for drunkenness offered a physiological model and justification for asceticism as care of the soul.

*Drew Leder, The Absent Body (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1990). 108–115.

Andrew Mellas: SC: Tears of Compunction in John Chrysostom’s On Eutropius

Revisiting John Chrysostom’s On Eutropius, this paper reviews the textualisation of compunction in the bishop’s writings through the lens of the history of emotions. It will explore the affective stylistics and ecclesiastical setting of this work against the backdrop of compunction’s significance in the broader Chrysostomic corpus. Although texts like John’s letter To Demetrius, On Compunction vividly described the ‘fire of compunction’ and ‘streams of tears’ that continually raged in his recipient’s soul, it was homilies like those he delivered on the occasion of Eutropius’ fall from grace where emotions embedded in a text emerged. Thus we will approach compunction by reconstructing the performative function of a text that embodied, mobilised and enacted it within the affective field of its relationships—preacher, audience and liturgy.

Scholarship has previously examined the importance of compunction in late antique society, especially its links with tears and repentance. However, proposing that compunction was a predominantly Christian emotion inevitably raises questions about the archaeology of this emotion and the different layers of affective experience crystallizing in the tropes used to talk about it. Therefore we will be exploring the interpersonal dimension of emotions in Byzantium by looking at how their textual meaning and theological significance are unveiled within liturgical action. After all, it was through the delivery of his homilies, amidst the drama of human apotheosis and fall without redemption, that Chrysostom enshrined compunction in the emotional lexicon of Christianity and shaped the Byzantine experience of tears.

Johan Leemans, Review: Codices chrysostomici graeci. VII

Codices chrysostomicigraeci. VII: Codicum Parisinorum pars prior,tem priorem, descripsit Pierre Augustin, adiuvante Jacques-Hubert Sautel, Paris, CNRS Editions, 2011, LXXI+305 pp.

The pinakes database of the IRHT in Paris (available at http://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/) is an unrivalled tool for anybody interested in the textual transmission of the writings of the Greek Christian writers. Pinakes is the result of decades of painstaking detailed work of description, identification and classification of manuscripts and text. Moreover, in its present electronic format this wealth of information is really at one’s fingertips. Just introducing the CPG-number 4109 suffices to get an extensive if not yet exhaustive documentation of the transmission of Chrysostom’s “long series” of sermons on Genesis. The list comprises 482 manuscript witnesses, varying from very beautiful complete codices to fragmentary, mutilated ones. Crucial witnesses to the text’s transmission stand alongside ones that are much less important with regard to the reconstruction of the text. This one example suffices to explain why of so many important works of Chrysostom no modern critical edition exists and why a more than moderate portion of hubris is necessary even to begin to start one. Almost heroic individual scholars have provided an edition of a few texts (e.g. Francesca Barone’s edition of the Homilies on David and Saul in the CChr.SG-series). The sheer number of textual witnesses and the complexity of the transmission (including a huge number of Pseudo-chrysostomica) seem to defy larger scale-enterprises which are, from a scholarly point of view, urgently necessary though. The good news, however, is that already many decades here and there scholars are laying the groundwork for these larger enterprises.

The Codices Chrysostomici Graeci is one of these foundational, longterm-enterprises. Coordinated by the IRHT it endeavours to provide repertories of the writings attributed to John Chrysostom in Greek manuscripts worldwide. The material is presented in geographical order. To date volumes on Britain and Ireland (I), Germany (II), America and western Europe (III), Austria (IV), Italy and Rome (V), Vatican City (VI) have been published. The volume under review is number VII in the series. It is the first of three volumes that will cover the manuscripts from France. The core of the volume is the section “notice des manuscrits”. This section contains 193 detailed descriptions of manuscripts, all from the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (BNF). With a few exceptions, all these manuscrips are containing for the lion’s share or exclusively Chrysostomian writings. Each manuscript description (in Latin!) rests on a solid and almost palpably intimate knowledge of these manuscripts. Besides an exhaustive survey of all the writings that the manuscript contains, each entry offers a wealth of other data.  Item nr. 60, devoted to the Parisinus graecus 606 is a good example. Besides date, size and detailed observations regarding the handwriting and the lay out of the page (margins and interlinear distance) are included. Moreover, we learn that folio 9 with part of Gregory of Nazianze’s oratio 43 is a Fremdkörper in this codex that had been inserted much later. Even purchase details are communicated: this specific manuscript was bought in Ankara; on 12 May 1730 it was introduced by F. Sevin into the Royal Library (one of the basic collections of the Bibliothèque Nationale). Furthermore the entry tells us that the manuscript has never been collated (“nondum collatus”)  and that a first closer inspection reveals that overall it’s readings come close to those in the manuscripts on which Savile’s edition was based. References to the catalogue of the BNF and to two of Omont’s catalogues conclude the introductory description. This is followed by a detailed description of the content of the manuscript: each writing of Chrysostom is mentioned, with folio-numbers between brackets. The reader is informed  that Paris. Gr. 606 contains hom. 12-32 in Genesim but along the way he also gets precious information about deviations in incipit or desinit, lacunae and other relevant data. Several detailed indices complete the work.

This is first and foremost a work for specialists on John Chrysostom in general and those interested in the study of the transmuission of his writings in particular. Moreover, this tool only reaches its full scholarly potential when taken together with the 6 previous volumes of the serie. Of course, this aggregate value will markedly increase with every new volume that is being published in the series. This doesn’t mean, though, that this book wouldn’t have value as a stand alone volume. Besides getting acquainted on paper with these Paris manuscripts (and preparing a possible visit to the BNF?), especially the general introduction is worth reading for anybody interested in intellectual history. In 40 dense pages this introduction traces the origin and development of what is today the “fonds grec” of the BNF in the years 1500 to 1800. This introduction gives an excellent survey of the French contribution to scholarship on Chrysostom’s writings and their transmission in this period. This has enduring relevance as about a third of these parisini graeci have been used between 1728 et 1748 by Dom Bernard de Montfaucon and between 1834 à 1839 by the brothers Gaume for their revised edition of de Monfaucon’s edition. Editions on which, in the 19^th century, the text reprinted by Migne was heavily dependent. As the text printed in the Patrologia Graeca is for many writings still widely used, it’s history with it’s many twists and turns should be recommended reading.

With this seventh volume in the series the CCG have reached a new culmination point: fascinating subject matter for the general introduction and an unparallelled exhaustive description of almost 200 key Chrysostom-manuscripts make this both a tool for the specialist and an interesting read for the more generally interested audience. Especially the latter audience would have benefitted from pictures of the manuscripts.

Johan Leemans

Johan.Leemans@theo.kuleuven.be