Professional Documents
Culture Documents
John Chrysostom On Paul Praises and Problem Passages Margaret M Mitchell Full Chapter
John Chrysostom On Paul Praises and Problem Passages Margaret M Mitchell Full Chapter
John Chrysostom On Paul Praises and Problem Passages Margaret M Mitchell Full Chapter
General Editors
John T. Fitzgerald and Clare K. Rothschild
Editorial Board
Theodore de Bruyn
Andrew Cain
Margaret M. Mitchell
Teresa Morgan
David T. Runia
Karin Schlapbach
Number 48
Volume Editor
Judith L. Kovacs
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON PAUL
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by
means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permit-
ted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission
should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office, SBL Press, 825 Hous-
ton Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA.
Acknowledgments.............................................................................................ix
Abbreviations.................................................................................................. xiii
Introduction..............................................................................................................1
Pauline Problems, Pauline Praises 1
The Contents and Rationale for this Volume 3
The History of Publication of the “Occasional Homilies”
on Pauline Passages 15
Henry Savile and the “Eton Chrysostom” 17
Fronto Ducaeus and, Later, the “Morel Edition” 28
Bernard de Montfaucon and, Later, the “Paris Edition” 32
Jacques-Paul Migne and the Patrologia Graeca 39
The Greek Texts Printed in the Present Volume 43
The Eighteen “Occasional Homilies” on Pauline Passages 43
The Authenticity of the Eighteen “Occasional Homilies” 45
Manuscript Witnesses of the Occasional Homilies 59
The Seven Homilies De laudibus sancti Pauli apostoli 62
Prior Translations of These Twenty-Five Homilies 66
Research Areas and Topics for the Future 69
Editorial and Translation Decisions for This Volume 72
Translation Goals, Principles, Style, and Format 72
An Oral Idiom 72
Gendered Language 74
Replicating Cultural Assumptions Embedded in
the Texts and Their World 75
Scriptural Quotations and Allusions 76
Paragraphing 79
Titles of the Homilies 79
Notes Accompanying the Text and Translation 81
John Chrysostom on Paul 83
Text, Translation, and Notes.................................................................................85
Part 1
Hom. Rom. 5:3 (CPG 4373) 86
Hom. Rom. 8:28 (CPG 4374) 114
Hom. Rom. 12:20 (CPG 4375) 132
Hom. Rom. 16:3 A (CPG 4376) 180
Hom. Rom. 16:3 B (CPG 4376) 208
Hom. 1 Cor. 7:2–4 (CPG 4377) 246
Hom. 1 Cor. 7:39–40 (CPG 4378) 284
Hom. 1 Cor. 10:1–11 (CPG 4380) 310
Hom. 1 Cor. 11:19 (CPG 4381) 346
Hom. 2 Cor. 4:13 A (CPG 4383) 372
Hom. 2 Cor. 4:13 B (CPG 4383) 404
Hom in 2 Cor. 4:13 Γ (CPG 4383) 436
Hom. 2 Cor. 11:1 (CPG 4384) 470
Hom. Gal. 2:11–14 (CPG 4391) 498
Hom. Phil. 1:18 (CPG 4385) 554
Hom. 1 Tim. 5:9–10 (CPG 4386) 586
Hom. 2 Tim. 3:1 (CPG 4423) 636
Hom. Tit. 2:11–12 (CPG 4456) 666
Part 2
Hom. 1 De laudibus sancti Pauli apostoli (CPG 4344) 698
Hom. 2 De laudibus sancti Pauli apostoli (CPG 4344) 714
Hom. 3 De laudibus sancti Pauli apostoli (CPG 4344) 726
Hom. 4 De laudibus sancti Pauli apostoli (CPG 4344) 738
Hom. 5 De laudibus sancti Pauli apostoli (CPG 4344) 764
Hom. 6 De laudibus sancti Pauli apostoli (CPG 4344) 782
Hom. 7 De laudibus sancti Pauli apostoli (CPG 4344) 800
This book has been with me a long time. I am most grateful for the intel-
lectual, institutional, and personal assistance and encouragement that
I have received from many sources along the way. First, I would like to
thank the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation for the fellowship that
allowed me a full year’s leave in 2015–2016, that was timely in so many
ways. And I thank the University of Chicago for a leave in 2020 to polish
the apple and move this book into press, as well as to move ahead to other
planned projects. Like all humanists, I am especially grateful to librar-
ians for the indispensable resources they provide us. In this case, I thank
librarians at the University of Chicago Libraries, Loyola University of Chi-
cago, and the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, in particular, for
timely responses to inquiries and for granting gracious and accommodat-
ing access to their rare book collections. I am also the beneficiary of the
work that so many persons have tirelessly done to digitize manuscripts
and make them accessible for research, both in online formats, such as
https://gallica.bnf.fr and https://digitale-sammlungen.de, and via acts of
personal kindness such as by Father Justin at Saint Catherine’s Monastery,
who provided me with excellent digital images of folios from Sinai. gr.
491, and the staff at the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana who did the same
for Vat. gr. 559.
Translation is both a technical craft and an art form, and it is truly one
of the greatest joys of my work as a scholar of New Testament and Early
Christian Literature. I find it fascinating to try to think my way inside an
ancient text in its source language and deliberate hard about how the target
language of English would correspond, both to the points the author seeks
to make and to the diction and tone in which they are communicated. For
me it has also meant enlisting as partners in this work, both in the class-
room and in lectures and other presentations, those who would give me
candid, keen and creative feedback on how my English for John’s Greek
worked or did not as I read my provisional translations aloud. I thank the
-ix-
x Acknowledgments
their value and limitations, as well as their fallibility. That is one reason it
has been hard to let this book manuscript leave my hands, since one can
always fine-tune, correct, learn more and reconsider decisions. But now
it is time to let this book go, and it is my earnest hope that this volume of
texts and translations of these twenty-five late antique works may (despite
the shortcomings that I fear remain) make a contribution to research proj-
ects and teaching on any number of topics across the interacting set of
disciplines we who study ancient Christianity share.
Many scholarly friends, too numerous to mention, have helped me
along the way and make my life so wonderful, and this precious work so
fulfilling. No one has been as influential a conversation partner, teacher
and friend to me as Hans Dieter Betz, who has simply the most extraordi-
nary mind and formidable spirit I’ve ever encountered. This book will be
published in the year of his ninetieth birthday, and so I am especially hon-
ored to extend my profound gratitude to Dieter for all I continue to learn
and enjoy in his company. Among other friends I would especially like to
thank Professor Paula Fredriksen of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
for superb conversations in both the first and the fourth centuries, Profes-
sor David Moessner of Texas Christian University for such a great part-
nership in all aspects of New Testament studies and ancient hermeneu-
tics, and Professor Paul Duff of George Washington University for highly
prized conversations over decades now on all things Pauline.
I could never adequately express my gratitude for Rick, Nora, Katie,
and all the Mitchells and Rosengartens, who are my joy and my strength.
All my books are imbued with the spirit of my tremendous family and in
so many ways are made possible by their love and companionship. But this
one in particular is and always will be for Rick.
Margaret M. Mitchell
July 26, 2020
Chicago, Illinois
ABBREVIATIONS
-xiii-
xiv Abbreviations
Manuscripts: General
See the tables on pages 19–26, 34–36, and the initial footnote on each
translation.
xvi Abbreviations
Manuscripts: Biblical
Sigla for LXX manuscripts and recensions follow Rahlfs; those for New
Testament manuscripts follow NA28.
General Abbreviations
Primary Sources
Secondary Sources
AB Anchor Bible
AnBoll Analecta Bollandiana
Aug Augustinianum
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BDAG Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F.
Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Greek-English Lexi
con of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2000.
BDF Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W.
Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1961.
Abbreviations xxi
The letters of Paul are mines and fountains of the Spirit. They are mines,
in that they provide us with a wealth that is more precious than any gold;
fountains, in that they never run dry. No, as much as you empty out of
them, all the more flows out again.1
-1-
2 John Chrysostom on Paul: Praises and Problem Passages
3. E.g., in the genealogies of Jesus, the birth narratives, the lists of the apostles,
the wording of sayings, the date and circumstances of his death, and the tomb and
resurrection narratives. All of these problems were well recognized already by ancient
interpreters, who devised various strategies in turn (historical, text-critical, theologi-
cal, philosophical, hermeneutical, etc.) to deal with them. For an entrée into these
discussions, see Claudio Zamagni, Eusèbe de Césarée, Questions évangéliques, SC 523
(Paris: Cerf, 2008), 33–40, on the form of problems and solutions, and further bibliog-
raphy in p. 7 n. 15 below.
4. A “problem” made all the more urgent because it was pointed out by non-Chris-
tian intellectuals such as Porphyry and Julian.
Introduction 3
Part 1 of the present volume contains the Greek texts and my English trans-
lations of eighteen homilies preached by John Chrysostom on individual
passages in the corpus Paulinum.5 These eighteen homilies stand outside
of Chrysostom’s famous homily sets on the fourteen letters (including the
Letter to the Hebrews, treated by John as Pauline) that have been widely
available in English translation for more than a century and a half and
that are very well known and well read, both among scholars of ancient
Christianity and New Testament exegetes.6 In contrast, most of the eigh-
teen “occasional homilies”7 in this volume have not been translated into
English (either in part or in whole)8 and are much less well known and
cited. Complementing these exegetical homilies, in part 2 of the volume
are the SC text by Auguste Piédagnel (1982) of Chrysostom’s seven homi-
lies De laudibus sancti Pauli and my English translations of them. The
primary goal of this volume is to make these twenty-five important ora-
torical and exegetical sources from the late fourth century better known
and more readily accessible in a bilingual edition to scholars and students
with interests in the New Testament, in early Christian studies generally,
in patristic exegesis specifically, and in hermeneutics and literary criticism,
5. The Greek texts are in most cases from PG 51, but see below on the complicated
history behind this Greek text and its associated notes, and their limitations.
6. These homilies are available in the English translation from the Oxford team,
with a revised American edition of that translation (in some cases drawing upon the
superior critical text of Frederick Field) in Phillip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, Series 1, vols. 11–14 (1886–1889; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
On this project, see Elizabeth A. Clark, Founding the Fathers: Early Church History
and Protestant Professors in Nineteenth-Century America, Divinations: Rereading Late
Ancient Religion (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 47–49.
7. The term “occasional” is sometimes used to distinguish these from the “serial”
homilies on the Pauline letters, and I use it here for convenience. But note that all the
Chrysostomic homilies are in some sense occasional (i.e., prepared for and most likely
delivered at a particular liturgical synaxis or other meeting), including those in the
serial homily sets on each of the Pauline letters. But these works have come down in
the transmission history independent of the series on the Pauline letters.
8. See below (pp. 66–69) on modern-language translations of these homilies.
4 John Chrysostom on Paul: Praises and Problem Passages
ancient and modern, with an English translation that reflects their style
of live oratory, vivid imagery, rhetorical invention, detailed and complex
argumentation, and thoroughly dialogical character. At a time when the
study of ancient Christian biblical interpretation is in a heyday, it is hoped
that these sources can be all the more a part of that scholarly conversation.
Although the eighteen homilies on individual passages in the Pauline
epistolary that are collected here did not in Chrysostom’s life,9 nor in the
manuscript traditions stretching back to late antiquity that have preserved
his voluminous writings, represent a whole, unified or continuous collec-
tion, the present volume is not based on a random selection, nor does it
merely follow what has over time become a traditional clustering of these
sources, as reflected in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca volume 51.10 This collec-
tion is also based, as the opening to this introduction has indicated, upon
the analytical conclusion to which I came as I worked with these texts over
the years, that it is useful to study these eighteen homilies together because,
in addition to their focus on isolated Pauline lemmata apart from the serial
homilies on each letter, they all deal in some ways with “problem passages,”
or, if not self-evidently problematic at first glance, texts that John will make
into problems in order—inventively—to solve them. While these homi-
lies are by no means unique in this regard within Chrysostom’s oeuvre,
and while they are not the only homilies within Chrysostom’s oeuvre apart
from the homily sets on the fourteen letters that can be seen to have a
chief focus on a Pauline text,11 part of what further justifies this collection
9. With a few exceptions, most of the eighteen homilies in part 1 are very diffi-
cult to date, except in relation to some other homilies (see p. 48 n. 164 below, under
“Authenticity”). The magisterial work on the dating of Chrysostom’s homilies by
Wendy Mayer, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom—Provenance, Reshaping the Foun
dations, OrChrAn 272 (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2005), has been essential to
my study of these. In each translation the chief arguments for the place of the homily
(in Antioch, 386–398, or Constantinople, 398–403) are provided in brief in the initial
note. This is another area requiring further research.
10. See below on the publication history of these Greek texts.
11. One should note as well that Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen, in a series of
articles, have demonstrated that the original sequence of what were published as homily
sets is not necessarily secure, as the sets in some cases may include sermons from both
Antioch and Constantinople, and there are some overlaps in treatments of passages.
See Pauline Allen and Wendy Mayer, “Chrysostom and the Preaching of Homilies in
Series: A New Approach to the Twelve Homilies In epistulam ad Colossenses [CPG
4433],” OrChrAn 60 (1994): 21–39; “The Thirty-Four Homilies on Hebrews: the Last
Introduction 5
15. Among important scholarly treatments see especially Claudio Zamagni, “Une
introduction méthodologique à la littérature patristiques des questions et réponses:
Le cas d’Eusèbe de Césarée,” in Erotapokriseis: Early Christian Question-and-Answer
Literature in Context, ed. Annelie Volgers and Claudio Zamagni, CBET 37 (Leuven:
Peeters, 2004), 7–24, esp. 10, in which he distinguishes between “le genre littéraire”
and “le procédé littéraire.” See also Marie-Pierre Bussières, ed., La littérature des ques
tions et réponses dans l’antiquité profane et chrétienne: De l’enseignement à l’exegèse,
Instrumenta patristica et mediaevalia 64 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), and in particular
the essay in that volume by Claudio Zamagni, “Is the Question-and-Answer Literary
Genre in Early Christian Literature a Homogenous Group?” (241–68), which repeats
and slightly refines the earlier proposal to distinguish between “a literary genre and a
literary pattern (or literary format, procedure)” (242, emphasis original); Yannis Papa-
doyannakis, “Instruction by Question and Answer: The Case of Late Antique and Byz-
antine Erotapokriseis,” in Greek Literature in Late Antiquity: Dynamism, Didacticism,
Classicism, ed. Scott Fitzgerald Johnson (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006), 91–106; and,
most recently, Lorenzo Perrone, “Questions and Responses,” in The Oxford Handbook
of Early Christian Biblical Interpretation, ed. Paul M. Blowers and Peter W. Martens
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 198–209. Still valuable is the earlier treat-
ment of Gustave Bardy, “La littérature patristique des ‘quaestiones et responsiones’ sur
l’écriture sainte,” RB 41 (1932): 210–36.
16. The lexicon for referring to the “problems” in ancient texts includes those that
are properly “zetetic” (ζήτημα, ζήτησις, ζητεῖν) along with προβλήματα (“problems”),
ἀπορίαι (“quandaries” or “perplexing issues”), and other words. For the translation
of the zetetic terms as “problems” when dealing with exegetical discussions such as
we find in these homilies of Chrysostom, see ζητέω, PGL 591: “2: inquire, seek …
hence pass. ptcpl neut., problem of exegesis or theology.” See also ζήτησις, PGL 591: “1.
question, inquiry, in gen. … esp. ref. exegetical problems” (emphasis original for the
glosses). Chrysostom uses the participle and both the cognate nouns at key moments
in many of these homilies to articulate his argument, as the notes within the trans-
lations will show. He does not use the term πρόβλημα, though he knows well of its
connection in the Psalms with murky and enigmatic sayings that require interpreta-
tion. See, e.g., Exp. Ps. Ψ 49 §3 (PG 55:226) where, confronted by Ps 49:5 (κλινῶ εἰς
8 John Chrysostom on Paul: Praises and Problem Passages
παραβολὴν τὸ οὖς μου, ἀνοίξω ἐν ψαλτηρίῳ τὸ πρόβλημά μου [sic]), he says, πρόβλημα
δέ ἐστι λόγος συνεσκιασμένος καὶ αἰνιγματώδης; “a ‘problem’ is a statement that is shad-
owy and enigmatic in meaning.” John can also use the term ἀπορία, as in Hom. Rom.
12:20 §5 (PG 51:180), where the verse is said to contain “an apparent problem” (τὸ
δοκοῦν ζήτημα), but not in the first half; rather, it is “the part that follows that contains
a great quandary” (τὸ δὲ ἐντεῦθεν λοιπὸν πολλὴν ἔχει τὴν ἀπορίαν). He goes on to ask,
“What then is the solution?” (Τίς οὖν ἐστιν ἡ λύσις; PG 51:181). Among many other
examples, see Hom. Rom. 16:3 Β §2: “let’s proceed at last to the solution to these prob-
lems. What will the solution be?” (ἐπ’ αὐτὴν ἴωμεν λοιπὸν τῶν ζητουμένων τὴν λύσιν.
Τίς οὖν ἡ λύσις ἔσται; PG 51:197).
17. Origen was certainly not the first. Bardy, “La littérature patristique,” discusses
such second-century figures as Marcion, Apelles, and Tatian as exemplars of this form
of question-and-answer literature. On Tatian, see more recently Matthew R. Crawford,
“The Problemata of Tatian: Recovering the Fragments of a Second-Century Christian
Intellectual,” JTS 67 (2016): 542–75.
18. Of the twenty-seven documents in the New Testament, arguably twenty-one
are or were received as letters, and two other works (Acts and Revelation) contain let-
ters within them.
19. Here I am paraphrasing the well-known ch. 25 of Aristotle’s Poetica (1460b),
which begins, Περὶ δὲ προβλημάτων καὶ λύσεων, “Now concerning problems and solu-
tions” (ed. Kassel, my translation). As Perrone, “Questions and Responses,” 201, notes,
Introduction 9
Those who are all aflutter over the spectacle of horse-racing can tell you
the names, herd, ancestry, hometown, and upbringing of the horses with
complete accuracy and detail,22 as well as how old they are, their perfor-
mance on the track, and which horse, matched up in a heat with what
other horse, will snatch up the win. And they can tell you what breed
of horse, launched from a certain kind of starting gate and with what
rider, will prevail in the race and run right past its rival. Likewise, those
who devote their time to dance performances aren’t inferior to the horse-
racing enthusiasts, but they display even more madness about those who
behave indecorously in the theater—the mimes and the dancing girls, I
mean—and can recount in detail their ancestry, hometown, upbringing,
and everything else. But when we’re asked, “How many and what are the
names of the letters of Paul?” we can’t even tell their number! And even if
there might be a few people who know their number, they’re still at a loss
when asked to provide an answer to the question of what cities received
the letters. Yet a man who was a eunuch and a barbarian (cf. Acts 8:26–
40), whose mind was pulled in many directions by countless business
matters, was so devoted to the sacred books that he didn’t even rest on the
occasion of a journey but, when sitting in his chariot, was absorbed in the
task of reading the divine Scriptures with complete attention. But in our
case, although we don’t have even a fraction of his occupational burden,
we’re like foreigners when it comes to the names of the letters. And that’s
the case even though we are assembled here every Lord’s day and have
the benefit of hearing the divine Scripture. 23
22. The term ἀκρίβεια, enormously important for John, is used in this homily (as
throughout his oeuvre) with all its senses: “attention,” “detail,” “care,” “accuracy,” and
“rigor” (compare the entries in LSJ and PGL). I occasionally double-gloss it so the
reader can see the full resonances within the argument.
23. Hom. Rom. 16:3 A §1 (PG 51:188).
Introduction 11
25. See Hom. Rom. 16:3 B §1 (PG 51:197); Hom. 1 Cor. 11:19 §5 (PG 51:260);
Hom. 2 Cor. 4:13 B §4 (PG 51:284); Laud. Paul. 6.5 (AP 272), all using ἐπιστομίζειν
(“muzzle them”); or Hom. 2 Cor. 4:13 B §4 (PG 51:284), ἀπορράπτειν (“zip their lips”).
26. For references to this term and the forms of instruction in rhetorical school, see
R. Dean Anderson Jr., Glossary of Greek Rhetorical Terms, CBET 24 (Leuven: Peeters,
2000), 26–29. John would have learned this in his rhetorical education, whether under
the famous rhetor, Libanius (so Socrates, HE 6.3, followed by many scholars even
today), or another, if not Libanius. See the critical case against made by Pierre-Louis
Malosse, “Jean Chrysostome a-t-il été l’élève de Libanios?” Phoenix 62 (2008): 273–80,
who agrees nonetheless that “il est évident que Jean Chrysostome a reçu une solide
formation rhétorique” (275).
27. In one of our homilies, Hom. Gal. 2:11–14 §2 (PG 51:374), John quite explic-
itly names what he is doing: Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ παρακαλῶ προσέχειν. Καὶ γὰρ αὔξω τὴν
κατηγορίαν, και μείζονα ποιῶ, ἵνα ἐπιτείνω ὑμῶν τὴν σπουδήν (“that’s why I’m urging
you to pay close attention, for I’m going to amplify the accusation and make it worse,
so I might heighten your attention”). That John is aware of this dynamic is shown
also in the way he regards Paul himself as having used this very procedure, as, e.g., in
his skilled argumentative move from Rom 9:14–15: Καὶ πάλιν αὔξει τὴν ἀντίθεσιν διὰ
Introduction 13
that have become traditional by his time and require attention (such as
the Antioch incident in Gal 2:11–14); in others, he takes a text that might
appear to be innocuous or unproblematic (such as the epistolary greeting
to Priscilla and Aquila in Rom 16:3), and he will find a way to turn it into a
“problem” only in order—voilà!—to “solve” it.28
And yet in turn, often the solution to one “problem” engenders fur-
ther problems, in a kind of whack-a-mole dynamic that starts the whole
process over again. For example, when treating Rom 16:3, John asks why
it is that in his greeting Paul names the wife, Priscilla, before her husband,
Aquila. Refusing the explanation that Paul did this casually or without
purpose (ἁπλῶς), John concludes, “it seems to me (ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ) this was
in recognition of the fact that her piety (εὐλάβεια) was superior to her
husband’s.”29 John then defends this solution as more than a mere conjec-
ture (στοχασμός) of his own, by appealing to Acts 18:24–26, where Priscilla
provides remedial catechesis to Apollos from Alexandria. But this solu-
tion then leads to another set of problems: (1) does this mean that women
of Chrysostom’s day also can teach and hold positions superior to their
husbands? (2) And didn’t Paul himself in 1 Tim 2:12 forbid a woman to
teach? Not surprisingly, John will find a solution to these problems, too. In
both of these cases, he will constrain, rather than universalize, the author-
ity and example of the past, setting a time limit or other restriction on the
apostle’s words. To question (1) comes solution (1): no, it was just back in
the time of the apostles that women displayed such fervor for the gospel
and were allowed to play more “manly roles,” and, to question (2), solution
(2): women’s instruction, even back in the day, was only of a very particu-
lar kind—leading others to faith by good example. Even in Paul’s praise of
Priscilla in Rom 16:3, as set alongside the apparently contradictory injunc-
tions of 1 Tim 2:9–15, one should be able to see that what the apostle was
strictly forbidding was for women to teach from the pulpit, engaging in
μέσου διακόπτων αὐτὴν, καὶ λύων, καὶ ἑτέραν πάλιν ἀπορίαν ποιῶν (“and again Paul
amplifies the contradiction, cutting it off in midstream and solving it, and in turn fash-
ioning yet another quandary”). See Hom. Rom. 16.7 (PG 60:558).
28. That is, as pronounced by himself. We cannot assume the audiences, in whole
or in part, were actually convinced. And indeed, in various homilies in miniseries we
have evidence that in fact they were not, or at least some members of the congregation
challenged his answers with what he considers to be new “problems.” See, e.g., Hom.
Rom. 16:3 B §§1–2 (PG 51:195–200).
29. Hom. Rom. 16:3 A §3 (PG 51:191).
14 John Chrysostom on Paul: Praises and Problem Passages
“public speaking, and the oratory that is proper to the priesthood.”30 That
the apostle didn’t speak about pulpits at all does not bother John! The prob-
lems, both of his text and of his own context, are pronounced solved. And
yet we certainly cannot assume that his audiences always were persuaded,
even as the very form of ζητήματα καὶ λύσεις presumes an acknowledged
degree of disagreement or anxiety about the text and its possible meanings
that the preacher seeks to confront.
It is especially fascinating to watch in these homilies how John can deal
with material that is deadly serious, such as engaging some “problems”
that have been hurled by outsiders against the Christ-believers, or readings
promulgated by those John designates “heretics” (such as Marcionites and
Manichaeans), and yet accept that challenge in a way that is part apologist,
part bravado, part purposeful catechist, part public theologian, and part per-
formance artist. These homilies provide an excellent opportunity to study
the relationship in late antique oratory between problem and opportunity;
between deadly serious and entertaining; between problems imposed and
problems fashioned for the sake of argument. And looking at ancient Chris-
tian biblical interpretation according to this approach of “problems and
solutions” allows us to see many things that do not fit any traditional divide
between a “literal” or an “allegorical” interpretation of the biblical text and
that certainly contest simple declarations that the Antiochenes uniformly
practiced the former.31 Watching a skilled public orator like Chrysostom
engage with his biblical text’s “apparent problems” enables us to see that
textual meaning is not simply a given, by either “literal” or “allegorical”
reading—or the great volume of biblical interpretation that operates in the
middle—but is fashioned in each moment of interpretive contestation.32
The present volume stands within, and is fully indebted to, the long and
involved process by which Chrysostom’s homilies have been transcribed,
edited,33 collected, and then separated and recombined, from his own
lifetime forward to the present. Having been preserved in manuscripts
from late antiquity forward, the earliest print publication of these eigh-
teen homilies was embroiled in the complex and conflicted history of the
publication of Chrysostom’s works in the early modern (Reformation and
post-Reformation) period.34 A signally important moment toward the
modern publication of this collection of varied homilies by Chrysostom
on individual Pauline passages was an intervention by a young Jesuit in
the 1580s who remained “anonymous” yet was to become known to his-
tory as the famous Fronto Ducaeus.35 He designed for the Opera omnia in
Latin translation what would become the usual mode of presentation of
Chrysostom’s homilies on biblical texts: five volumes, with the first four
containing the large homily sets on biblical books in the Old Testament
33. On the combination of stenographic notes and later editing that can be detected
in some of the homilies, see the important study of Blake Goodall, The Homilies of St.
John Chrysostom on the Letters of St. Paul to Titus and Philemon (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1979). This issue deserves continual attention as we work with texts
of what were once oral performances, and yet have likely been subjected to various
forms of editing toward publication in written form. See also p. 72 n. 243 below.
34. A concise general introduction to major editions of all of Chrysostom’s works
(in Greek and in Latin) up until the end of the nineteenth century may be found in W.
R. W. Stephens, Saint John Chrysostom: His Life and Time: A Sketch of the Church and
the Empire in the Fourth Century (London: Murray, 1883), viii–xii; a fuller treatment
with bibliographic catalogue may be found in Chrysostomos Baur, Jean Chrysostome
et ses oeuvres dans l’histoire littéraire, Université de Louvain Recueil de Travaux 18
(Louvain: Bureaux du Recueil; Paris: Fontemoing, 1907).
35. So Jean-Louis Quantin, “Du Chrysostome latin au Chrysostome grec: Une
histoire européenne (1588–1613),” in Chrysostomosbilder in 1600 Jahren: Facetten
der Wirkungsgeschichte eines Kirchenvaters, ed. Martin Wallraff and Rudolf Brändle,
Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 105 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 267–346, esp. 269: “Le
responsable de cette révision était délibérément resté anonyme, mais il s’agissait d’un
jeune jésuite, alors étudiant « en Theologie dans le Collège de sa Companie à Paris »
(le Collège de Clermont), le P. Fronton du Duc. Il inaugurait ainsi son œuvre d’éditeur
des Pères grecs : le fait, capital pour comprendre la suite de son travail chrysostomien,
ne semble pas avoir été relevé jusqu’ici.”
16 John Chrysostom on Paul: Praises and Problem Passages
(Genesis and Psalms) and the New Testament (Matthew, John, and the Pau-
line Letters),36 arranged according to canonical order, and the fifth volume
consisting of a fourre-tout (“grab bag”) “pour les sermons isolés, les traités
et les lettres.”37 This reflects also the circumstances of continual discovery
of manuscripts and of print publication of further works, as the “Opera
omnia” of Chrysostom were expanded, often without a clear arrangement,
into the fifth (and subsequent) volumes, including exegetical homilies
among them, but not exclusively or as separated out. In the multiple edi-
tions to follow in the early seventeenth century, homilies on individual
Pauline passages become included in this category of “les sermons isolés,”
in the rush by both Protestant and Catholic scholars to locate, edit, translate,
publish, and disseminate the works of Chrysostom. The story of collabora-
tion and competition across national and confessional lines in the quest
to discover manuscripts, transcribe previously unpublished works, share
findings, and publish Chrysostom’s writings is a fascinating one.38 The idea
of a Chrysostomic “miscellany” was, however, not new, since many medi-
eval manuscripts of Chrysostom’s works contain assortments of various
homilies, often without any clear overriding scheme or thematic arrange-
ment, even if sometimes there appear to be clusters or groupings of like
sermons in parts. Even the Byzantine Catalogus Augustanus (preserved
36. Earlier, the editio princeps of the Greek text of Chrysostom’s homily sets, the
1529 edition published at Verona, had four volumes just for the serial homilies on the
Pauline Letters. See Bernardino Donato, ed., Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi in omnes Pauli
apostoli epistolas accuratissima, vereque aurea, et divina interpretatio (Verona: Stepha-
nus et fratres, 1529).
37. Quotation from Quantin, “Du Chrysostome latin au Chrysostome grec,” 269.
Quantin contrasts the 1530 edition of Erasmus, which was “marquée par le plus grand
désordre … les homélies sur Paul étant même dispersées entre le t. I (imprimé après
les autres) et le t. IV, à cause de l’arrivée tardive de textes nouveaux qu’il avait fallu
traduire” (“Du Chrysostome latin au Chrysostome grec,” 269 n. 5).
38. See the analysis of Quantin, “Du Chrysostome latin au Chrysosome grec,” 325:
“Même si cette collaboration interconfessionnelle n’était pas tout à fait sans précédents
… elle était unique par son ampleur et sa durée.” Quantin’s article (especially pp. 311–
25) documents this history beautifully, including in the correspondence of the key
figures on the continent and beyond who assisted Henry Savile and his assistants in
their pursuit of manuscripts and corrected readings. At the same time, this was no easy
ecumenism: “Rien, pourtant, n’en transparaît dans le Chrysostome, où les notes sont
purement philologiques, sans aucune incursion dans la théologie” (326). Fuller docu-
mentation may be found there as well as in his earlier study; see Jean-Louis Quantin,
“Les jésuites et l’érudition anglicane,” Dix-septième siècle 237 (2007): 691–711.
Introduction 17
It was the Oxonian Henry Savile who, in his splendid eight-volume edi-
tion of the works of Chrysostom in Greek (published in full at Eton in
1611–1612),40 was largely responsible for shaping a modern collection of
“isolated homilies” on Pauline passages.41 While for the homily sets on all
fourteen Pauline letters Savile depended upon the 1529 Verona edition as
the basis for his Greek text,42 he relied on fresh research in manuscripts
from all over Europe, by himself and his team, as well as other collabo-
rators, for his fifth volume (published in 1611), which, likely inspired
by Ducaeus’s precedent, was devoted to Χρυσοστόμου εἰς διαφοροὺς τῶν
ἁγίων γραφῶν περικοπὰς γνήσιοι λόγοι (“genuine homilies of Chrysostom
on various passages of the Holy Scriptures”).43 Within this volume, Savile
39. 3 Hom. 2 Cor 11:1; 14 Hom. Rom. 5:3; 16, 17 Hom. Rom. 16:3 A, B; 18, 19, 20
Hom. 2 Cor. 4:13 A, B, Γ; 27 Hom. 1 Tim. 5:9–10; 35 Hom. Gal. 2:11–14; 93 Hom. 1 Cor.
10:1–11. See discussion of this catalogue below, under Authenticity.
40. See Henry Savile, ed., Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου ἀρχιεπισκόπου
Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου τῶν εὑρισκομένων τόμοι ὀκτώ (Eton: Ioannes
Norton, 1611–1612); volume 5 bears the date 1611 and volume 8, 1612. Baur, Jean
Chrysostome et ses oeuvres dans l’histoire littéraire, 106, explains that after the publica-
tion of the whole, in 1613 Savile added “en tête une magnifique gravure, portant la date
de 1613” (so in some scholarly references the date is given as 1611–1613).
41. Savile’s dependence upon his precursors is well documented by Quantin, “Du
Chrysostome latin au Chrysostom grec,” passim.
42. One can see this in Savile’s own printer’s copy for these volumes, which con-
sisted of the Verona edition plus his corrections. See Oxford, Bodl. Auctarium E.3.5
[olim Miscell. 515] and E.3.6 [olim Miscell. 516], in CCG 1.140 and 141, pp. 118–20,
with helpful description by S. L. Greenslade, “A Printer’s Copy for the Eton Chryso-
stom,” StPatr 7 (1966): 60–64. On the textual basis of the Verona edition in a single
manuscript, see Goodall, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Letters of St. Paul
to Titus and Philemon, 2–3.
43. Savile’s decision to publish only the Greek text and not a Latin translation with
it can be seen as both a practical matter (in terms of the size and time to production
18 John Chrysostom on Paul: Praises and Problem Passages
of his edition) and a theological one vis-à-vis Protestant-Catholic polemics and con-
testations: “Mais s’en tenir à l’original permettait aussi d’échapper aux soupçons et aux
polémiques qu’auraient fatalement suscités des traductions” (Quantin, “Du Chryso-
stome latin au Chrysostome grec,” 327). See Quantin’s astute discussion of the issue,
and the degree to which for the Catholic editions it was the Latin translation that stood
as the crucial authority for theological debate: “C’est dans celles-ci [sc. les traductions
Latins], on l’a vu, beaucoup plus que dans les éditions grecques, que théologiens et éru-
dits de la Contre-Réforme avaient coutume de repérer et de dénoncer des alterations.”
44. See HS 5:292–437. In HS 8:30–59, Savile included the seven homilies De lau
dibus sancti Pauli apostoli, from transcriptions made by his assistant, Samuel Slade, in
Constantinople and Mount Athos.
45. See HS 5:729–33. Savile drew upon Fronto Ducaeus, ed., Sancti patris nostri
Ioannis Chrysostomi tractatuum decas de diversis Novi Testamenti locis, nunc primum
graece et latine in lucem edita, opera (Bordeaux: apud Franciscum Buderium, 1604),
434, as confirmed in Savile’s printer’s copy: Oxford, Bodl. Auctarium E.4.4 (olim Mis-
cell. 5120). See CCG 1.155, p. 155.
46. See CCG 1:xv–xvii, 116–58. Savile donated them to the Bodleian in 1620.
47. E.g., at R.58, p. 610, he crosses out τοῦ αὐτοῦ ☧οῦ ὁμιλία (“a sermon by the
same author, Chrysostom”).
48. For one such example, in Hom. 1 Cor. 7:39–40 Savile adopted the conjectural
reading of κοιμηθῇ in the lemma within the title to the homily, but his marginal note
says that his manuscript (Monac. gr. 352, fol. 63) reads ἀποθάνῃ (HS 5:337, line 14).
Introduction 19
49. Savile thanks David Hoeschel, the Lutheran rector of Saint Anna’s gymna-
sium and the librarian of the manuscript collection at Augsburg, among others, in
8:1. Hoeschel is the only scholar he commends in HS 8:707–8 specifically for his assis-
tance with the miscellaneous sermons in HS 5. See also Greenslade, “Printer’s Copy
for the Eton Chrysostom,” 61. For Savile’s connections with the vibrant scholarly and
ecumenical patristics scholarship led by Hoeschel at Augsburg, see Quantin, “Du
Chrysostome latin au Chrysostome grec,” 289–300, under the subtitle, “La paix patris-
tique d’Augsbourg? David Hoeschel et ses correspondants” (the latter including Greek
Orthodox as well as Roman Catholics).
50. This represents my inferences based on the information Savile gives in his
“Notae in Tomum Quintum” (HS 8:729–33, including notes from one of his assistants,
John Bois), as cross-referenced with the information provided in CCG, the Pinakes
website, and older collection catalogues, as necessary.
51. From CCG 1:125–56 (Oxford, Bodleian, Auctarium), with our homilies rep-
resented in codices K, L, O, P, Q, R, and X (CCG 1.144, 145, 148, 149, 150, 151, 155).
52. The Munich codices are in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (BSB) and are now
accessible at Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, “Münchener DigitalisierungsZentrum: Digi-
tale Bibliothek,” https://digitale-sammlungen.de.
53. As noted above, Savile used the print edition of this homily from Fronto
Ducaeus, Sancti patris nostri Ioannis Chrysostomi (1604), 259–60, as found in Auc-
tarium E.4.4 in the Bodleian collection, exemplaria Sauilii, codex X. In his proofs to
the printer, Savile included the pages of Ducaeus’s printed edition where Ducaeus says
the Greek text of this homily came from a manuscript in the Augustana bibliotheca, as
transcribed for him by the humanist and man of letters Marcus Velserus. See Fronto
20 John Chrysostom on Paul: Praises and Problem Passages
Ducaeus, Sancti patris nostri Ioannis Chrysostomi, 412. This must be Monac. gr. 6 (see
CCG 2.40, pp. 40–42), the only Munich manuscript that contains this homily, on fols.
278–86; see also the evidence of mutilation at the end of Hom. Rom. 16:3 B, as dis-
cussed below. However, this manuscript was not at that time in Augsburg (as Ducaeus
says) but in the Bavarian Library in Munich. Savile did make some corrections and
conjectural emendations to Ducaeus’s text (8:729: “quam editionem perpaucis in locis
emendatam sequuti sumus”) but does not mention having any other manuscript wit-
nesses. The Bodleian Auctarium T.1.1 is a transcription from Ducaeus that includes
this homily (CCG 1.163, p. 161, with this homily on pp. 142–45 bis).
54. Greenslade, “Printer’s Copy for the Eton Chrysostom,” 61: “L is from the Augs-
burg manuscripts. Later moved to Munich” (but note that it also contains manuscripts
that were already in Munich, such as Monac. gr. 6). This is the only manuscript in
Germany containing this homily (CCG 2.72, p. 61). Indeed, Pinakes lists only one
other manuscript known to contain it: Mon. Leimonos 42 (Lesbos), fols. 71–78* (X).
The famous Augsburg Library codices were moved to Munich in 1806 and hold
the numbers 348–574, among which is this manuscript, Monac. gr. 352. On the his-
tory, see Donald F. Jackson, “Augsburg Manuscript Acquisitions 1545–1600,” Codices
manuscripti 29 (2000): 1–10.
55. CCG 1.98: “Nostro codice Harmarius … deinde Sauilius pro editione sua usi
sunt.” In HS 8:730, Savile says he used the transcription of the New College manu-
script, which was in a few places not satisfactorily corrected (“aliquot in locis non satis
emendata, quod dolendum est”), and, lacking the help of any other codex, he could not
be sure of the readings; he then gives seven disputed readings with his conjectures.
Pinakes to date lists just three manuscripts that contain this homily: Athens, Ethnike
Bibliotheke tes Hellados 375 (XIII); Genova, Biblioteca Franzoniana, Urbani 13 (XI);
and Moscow, Gosudarstvennyj Istoričeskij Musej 128 (X).
56. Savile mentions two codices containing both homilies, “quorum unus Archi
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Pues bien: el hombre busca siempre, para su pareja, la mujer de
mejores formas, más amable y menos escrupulosa.
Lo que esto quiere decir, me excusa de lo que callo por respeto á
vosotras, que, dicho sea de paso, me arañaríais de buena gana si
me tuviérais á mano.
Pero sospecho que, por lo crudo de esta aseveración, sois capaces
de recusarme por apasionado. Lo cierto es que pocos se han
atrevido á hablar tan claro en tan revuelto asunto. Veamos si hallo
una razón que no tenga vuelta.
El baile es una sociedad como otra cualquiera, regida por leyes
especiales y con sus costumbres propias.
Tratemos de formar con ellas un cuadro exacto y compendiado, de
modo que de una sola mirada se aprecie el asunto en su verdadero
valor; y con este objeto, examinemos el salón, reparemos lo que los
concurrentes hacen, y escribamos el resumen de nuestras
impresiones.
Hele aquí:
—«El baile es una república en que no tienen autoridad ni derechos
los padres y los maridos sobre sus hijas y mujeres respectivas.
Éstas pertenecen al público, que puede necesitarlas para bailar, al
tenor de los siguientes dos preceptos:
Deberes de la mujer: Ésta, sin faltar á la buena educación, no puede
negarse al que primero la solicite.
Derechos del hombre: El hombre es dueño de elegir la mujer que
más le guste, y, ya en la arena, puede estrecharla entre sus brazos;
poner en íntimo contacto con ella, por lo menos, todo el costado
derecho, desde la coronilla á los talones; pisarle los pies, romperle
el vestido y limpiarle el sudor de la cara con las patillas, si no con el
bigote, sin faltar á las leyes de la decencia; pues contando con la
agitación y la bulla de la fiesta, no es posible establecer un límite á
los puntos de contacto, ni amojonar el cuerpo para decir al hombre:
«aquí no se toca».
Nota.—Las anteriores prescripciones se observan rigorosamente,
desde el hombre más feo y antipático, hasta la mujer más linda y
exigente».
Repárese que en la tal república, donde el hombre tiene derechos
tan peregrinos, la mujer no tiene más que deberes.
Creo que esta fidelísima fotografía que acabo de hacer del baile,
completa sobradamente mi propósito.
Una observación en honor del hombre culto.—No hay padre ni
marido que repare en enviar sus hijas y su mujer al baile; pero la
sociedad se escandaliza el día en que una soltera atraviesa sola, de
acera á acera, la calle en que vive.
Fundándome en mejor lógica, establecería yo la siguiente
«Jurisprudencia: Los padres y los maridos que proveen los bailes
con sus hijas y sus mujeres, no tendrán derecho á ampararse á las
leyes de la justicia ni del honor, en los casos de agravio... de mayor
cuantía; se les negará la sal y el fuego, y, con un cencerro al cuello,
expiarán su estupidez... de baile en baile».
Consignado así mi voto, no debo insistir en nuevas deducciones, y
doy por acabada mi corta tarea.
Porque creo que se necesita mucho menos que sentido común,
para condenar el baile bajo el aspecto puramente estético, y no hay
necesidad de que yo gaste tinta ni paciencia en ello.
Un hombre de frac y chistera, máxime si peina canas, y una mujer
bonita, muy prendida y remilgada, dando brincos como dos salvajes
de Mozambique, sudando el quilo y sacando la lengua de
cansancio, solamente los puede uno soportar delante sin echarse á
reir, cuando considera... que el fin justifica los medios.
Lector, cualquiera que tú seas, con tal que procedas de uno de ésos
que llamamos centros civilizados, me atrevo á asegurar que estás
cansado de codearte con los personajes de mi cuento.
Así y todo, pudiera suceder que no bastase el rótulo antecedente
para que desde luego sepas de qué gente se trata; pues aunque
ciertas cosas son en el fondo idénticas en todas partes, varían en el
nombre y en algunos accidentes exteriores, según las exigencias de
la localidad en que existen.
Teniendo esto en cuenta, voy á presentarte esos chicos definidos
por sí mismos.
—«Yo soy un hombre muy tolerante: dejo á todo el mundo vivir á su
gusto; respeto los de cada uno; no tengo pretensiones de ninguna
clase; me amoldo á todos los caracteres; hago al prójimo el bien que
puedo, y me consagro al desempeño de mis obligaciones».
Esta definición ya es algo; pero como quiera que la inmodestia es un
detalle bastante común en la humanidad, pudiera aquélla, por
demasiado genérica, no precisar bien el asunto á que me dirijo.
Declaro, aun á riesgo de perder la fama de buen muchacho, si es
que, por desgracia, la tengo entre algunos de los que me leen, que
soy un tanto aprensivo y malicioso en cuanto se trata de gentes que
alardean de virtuosas.
Esta suspicacia que, de escarmentado, á más de montañés, poseo,
es la causa de que los llamados por ahí «buenos muchachos»
hayan sido repetidas veces, para mí, objeto de un detenido estudio.
Por consiguiente, me encuentro en aptitud de ser, en datos y
definiciones, tan pródigo como sea necesario hasta que aparezca
con todos sus pelos y señales lo que tratamos de definir.
Pero como no ha de ser interminable esta tarea, he de reducir la
infinita procesión de ejemplares que veo desfilar ante mis ojos, á
tres grandes modelos, en cada uno de los cuales se hallan reunidas
las condiciones típicas que andan repartidas entre todos sus
congéneres.
Primer modelo.—Buen muchacho que ya cumplió los cuarenta años.
—Señas particulares, indefectibles: es gordo, colorado, nada
garboso, muy escotado de cuello y de chaleco, recio de barba y
escaso de pelo. Habla mucho y se escucha.
Segundo modelo.—Buen muchacho que no ha cumplido los treinta y
cinco.—Señas particulares: enjuto, macilento, cargado de entrecejo
y de espaldas, vestido de obscuro, muy abrochado, largo de
faldones y pasado de moda. Este ejemplar tiene, necesariamente, á
la vista y como si fuera marca de ganadería, una señal indeleble:
verbigracia, un lobanillo junto á la oreja, un lunar blanco en el pelo,
una verruga entre cejas y la nuez muy prominente, ó toda la cara
hecha una criba de marcas de viruelas. Habla bastante y con timbre
desagradable, casi siempre en estilo sentencioso, y á menudo con
humos de gracioso.
Tercer modelo.—Buen muchacho que raya en los veinticinco.—
Señas infalibles: rollizo, frescote como un flamenco, y miope.
Rompe mucha ropa, y procura llevarla muy desahogada; es hombre
de poco pelo y de no mucha barba; habla más que una cotorra, muy
recio y con los términos más escogidos del diccionario.—Detalle
peculiarísimo: antes de adquirir en público el título de «buen
muchacho», ha gozado, durante seis años, entre las diversas tribus
de su familia, la opinión de hombre precoz.
En vista de todos estos datos, podemos sentar la siguiente regla
general:
La edad de los «buenos muchachos» varía entre veinticinco y
cincuenta años.
Como detalles comunes á los tres modelos, pueden apuntarse los
siguientes:
Son mesurados en el andar; saludan muchísimo, descubriendo toda
la cabeza; en sus paseos buscan la compañía de los señores
mayores, y en tales casos, miran con aire de lástima á los jóvenes
que á su lado pasan, si van muy alegres ó muy elegantes; usan á
todas horas sombrero de copa, y se calzan con mucho desahogo;
temen de lumbre los tacones altos, y por eso los gastan anchos y
muy bajos; sacan chanclos y paraguas al menor asomo de nube en
el horizonte, y en cuanto estornudan tres veces seguidas, guardan
cama por dos días y se lo cuentan después á todo el mundo; no
fuman, ó fuman muy poco, pero chupan caramelos de limón y saben
dónde se venden un vinillo especial de pasto y garbanzos de buen
cocer; conservan con gran esmero las amistades tradicionales de
familia, y al hacer las visitas de pascuas ó cumpleaños, llaman á la
visitada «mi señora doña Fulana»; la preguntan minuciosamente por
todo el catálogo de sus achaques físicos, y siempre tienen algún
remedio casero que recomendarla; se dedican á negocios lucrativos,
mejor dicho, están asociados, y en segunda fila, á personas que
saben manejarlos bien; y, por último, se perecen por echar un
párrafo en público y familiarmente con las primeras autoridades de
la población, y se rechupan por formar parte de cualquiera
corporación oficial ú oficiosa, con tal que ella transcienda á
influyente y á respetable.
Hasta aquí, algo de lo que el menos curioso debe haber visto en
esos personajes; desde aquí, lo que todo el mundo puede ver en los
mismos si se toma la molestia de levantar los pliegues de la capa
con que la señora fama parece haberse empeñado en protegerlos
contra críticas y murmuraciones.
II
Hallábame yo, no ha mucho, cerca de un pequeño círculo de
murmuradores de mayor edad, con quienes ningún lazo de amistad
íntima, ni siquiera de simpatía personal, me ligaba; y dicho está que
yo oía, veía y callaba. Hablábase á la sazón de un suceso ocurrido
recientemente en el pueblo, con sus vislumbres de escandaloso,
cuando entró en escena un personaje muy conocido mío, y muy
amigo, al parecer, de aquellos murmuradores. Parecía el tal fundido
en uno de los tres modelos que dejo registrados; y no digo en cuál,
porque no es necesario.
—Aquí llega... Fulano, que podrá darnos algunos pormenores más
del suceso,—dijo un murmurador.
—Voy muy de prisa, señores—respondió el aludido,—y sólo me he
acercado á ustedes con el objeto de saludarlos... Pero, en fin, ¿de
qué se trata?
—Pues, hombre, de la novedad del día... de cierta joven que ha
desobedecido la paterna autoridad.
—Efectivamente: tengo entendido algo que suena á eso mismo;
pero como no me gusta meterme en la hacienda del vecino, y dejo á
cada uno vivir á su antojo, no he querido enterarme muy á fondo.
—Pero es lo cierto que usted sabe algo...
—De manera que algo, algo, por muy sordo que uno se haga...
—Vamos, que ya sabrá usted más que nosotros.
—Les aseguro á ustedes que no. Soy de lo menos dado á chismes y
murmuraciones, como es bien notorio... Pero entendámonos: ¿se
refieren ustedes á la chica mayor de don Geroncio?
—Cabales.
—¿De la cual se dice que dos horas antes de ir á la iglesia á
casarse con el chico menor de don Atanasio, se plantó y dijo: «no
me caso ya», por lo que su padre la amenazó iracundo, de lo cual
no hizo ella caso maldito, y resultó un escándalo, y se deshizo la
boda?...
—¡Justamente... eso es!... ¡Ven ustedes cómo... Fulano sabía los
pormenores del lance?
—Repito que no sé una palabra más de lo que de público se dice.
Hay asuntos, como éste, que, sin saber por qué, me repugnan...
Pero observo que ustedes me miran con recelo, como si me callara
cosas muy graves.
—¡Hombre, no!
—Pues á mí se me antoja que sí; y, señores, yo soy muy delicado
en ciertas materias: está por medio la reputación de una joven que
puede lastimarse con una sola suposición injuriosa, y esto es
bastante á mis ojos para que, en descargo de mi conciencia, me
apresure á contar la verdad del caso, es decir, lo que á mí se me ha
referido:—Saben ustedes que hace quince días tuve un golpe de
sangre á la cabeza, por lo cual, ya repuesto, me ordenó el médico
que paseara de madrugada cuando la temperatura lo permitiera.
Salía yo esta mañana á cumplir este precepto, con el cual, por
cierto, me va muy bien, cuando ¡plaf! tropiezo, al volver la esquina
de la plaza, con doña Severa, que, como no ignoran ustedes, por
parte de su difunto marido don Estanislao es prima política de la
señora (que esté en gloria) de don Geroncio, y, por consiguiente,
tiene motivos poderosos para estar al tanto de los asuntos
particulares de esta familia, aparte de que á doña Severa siempre
se la ha considerado mucho en aquella casa, por su capacidad y
don de gobierno. Pues, señor, como daba la casualidad de que no
veía yo á esta señora lo menos hacía... sí, ¡vaya! ¡yo lo creo!... lo
menos... lo menos... quince días... ¿qué digo! aguárdense ustedes y
perdonen: el día de San Lorenzo fué cuando la vi; estamos hoy á...
veintitrés días justos hace que la saludé á la puerta de su casa...
cabalmente tenía yo que preguntarla dónde había comprado una
pasta para matar ratones, que ella usaba con gran éxito, y allí
mismo me dió la receta de memoria, porque resultó que la tal pasta
era invención suya, digo, de un choricero extremeño que se la confió
en secreto por no sé qué favores que la debía... Pues á lo que iba:
encuentro esta mañana á doña Severa, y—«¿Cómo está usted,
señora mía?—la pregunto.—Bien; ¿y usted, don Fulano?—Pues
para servir á usted.—¿Y la familia?—Tan buena, gracias...
¡Caramba, cuántos días hace que no la veo á usted!—Pues no he
perdido una misa desde que no nos vemos. Precisamente es hoy el
día en que debí haberme quedado en cama, siquiera hasta las diez.
—Efectivamente: la encuentro á usted algo pálida y desmejorada.—
Le aseguro á usted que no sé cómo me tengo de pie.—¿Se
encuentra usted mal?—Mal, precisamente, no; pero ayer tuve un
disgusto con la cocinera, y estoy sufriendo hoy las consecuencias.
Figúrese usted que á mí me gusta mucho la merluza: pues, señor, la
condenada (Dios me perdone) de la chica, dale con que había de
traerme siempre abadejo. Chocándome, como era natural, tanta
obstinación, pues yo sabía muy bien que no faltaba merluza en la
plaza, indago por aquí, pregunto por allá, y averiguo ayer que la muy
pícara daba todos los días las sobras del principio á un soldado, su
novio, que se pela por el abadejo. ¡Imagínese usted cómo yo me
pondría al saberlo!... Por supuesto que lo primero que hice fué
plantarla de patitas en la calle, y tan de prisa, que la dije que
volviera más tarde por el baúl y la cuenta. ¡En mal hora á mí se me
ocurrió semejante idea! ¿Creerá usted, Fulanito, que, la muy
sinvergüenza, se me presentó á las dos horas acompañada del
soldadote para que éste repasara la suma, y que entre los dos me
pusieron como hoja de perejil sobre si faltaban ó dejaban de faltar
seis maravedís?—Nada me choca, doña Severa, de cuanto usted
me dice, que algo parecido podía añadir yo de lo ocurrido en mi
casa: el ramo de sirvientas está perdido.—¡Ay, Fulano, lo peor es
que el de amas no está mucho más ganado!—También es cierto.—
Vea usted á mi pobre primo Geroncio: ¡qué horas está pasando por
causa de esa hija á quien ha mimado tanto!—En efecto, he oído
anoche que esa chica ha roto, por un capricho, su proyectado
casamiento.—¿Capricho, eh? ¡buen capricho me dé Dios!—Así se
dice al menos.—Así se dice, porque de alguna manera decente ha
de tapar la familia el pastel descubierto.—¿Luego ha pasado algo
grave?—¡Gravísimo... Fulano!... y ya ve usted si yo lo sabré cuando
he sido y estoy siendo el paño de lágrimas del desdichado Geroncio.
—No lo dudo... Pero ahora caigo en que, siendo secretos de familia
esos sucesos, estoy pecando de indiscreto al hacer ciertas
preguntas.—De ningún modo, Fulano; usted es una persona muy
decente, y hasta debe conocer esa clase de líos para ejemplo y
escarmiento en el día de mañana, si se resolviera á casarse.—
Usted me favorece demasiado, doña Severa.—Le hago á usted
justicia, Fulano.—Gracias, señora.—Repito que no hay por qué
darlas; y sepa usted (por supuesto, con la debida reserva) que si la
boda de mi sobrina no se ha llevado á cabo, es porque el novio
descubrió á última hora que la muy taimada había tenido un año
antes relaciones íntimas, muy íntimas, entiéndalo usted bien, con un
joven andaluz que estuvo aquí veraneando.—Pero ¿tan íntimas
fueron, señora?—Tan íntimas, que faltando horas nada más para ir
á la iglesia, se plantó el novio al conocerlas, y dijo que nones.—
¿Luego no fué ella quien se opuso?—¡Qué había de ser, hombre!...
eso se ha dicho para tapar»... Y etcétera, señores—añadió el
narrador, con una sonrisita que apenas tenía malicia;—por ahí fué
hablándome doña Severa, y lo que acabo de referir es lo único que,
en substancia, hay de cierto sobre el particular.
—¡Que no es poco!—objetó un chismoso, con diabólica expresión.
—¡Cuando yo decía que usted sabía grandes cosas!
—Hombre, si bien se mira, no es tanto como parece—continuó el
suavísimo Fulano.—Y de todas maneras, señores, conste que lo he
referido aquí en el seno de la confianza y teniendo en cuenta,
además de lo que dije al empezar, que una cosa leve callada con
misterio, autoriza á suponer otra muy grave: que la mayor parte de
ustedes son padres de familia que no echarán el ejemplo en saco
roto.
—¡Bravo!—exclamaron algunos oyentes casi enternecidos con este
rasgo.
—Conque, señores, vuelvo á recomendar la reserva, y me voy á mis
quehaceres,—saltó casi ruborizado el amiguito de doña Severa.
Y se marchó.
—¡Qué discreta observación!—dijo uno de los que se quedaron.
—¡Qué juicio tan aplomado!—añadió otro.
—¡Es un gran muchacho!—exclamaron todos
—¡Valiente infame!—dije yo, y era lo menos que podía decir, con
esta franqueza que Dios me ha dado, largándome también, y sin
despedirme, por más señas.
Nada se me contestó en el acto; pero me consta que, refiriéndose á
mí, se dijeron luego en el corrillo primores como los siguientes:
—¡Qué víbora!
—¡Qué lengua de acero!
—Con veneno semejante es imposible que haya en la sociedad una
sola virtud incólume.
III
Si tratáramos ahora de llamar las cosas por su verdadero nombre,
deduciríamos de todo lo expuesto, dentro de la más inflexible lógica,
que el «buen muchacho» no es otra cosa que un quidam soberbio,
entremetido, fisgón é ignorante. Escandalízase de los hombres que,
sin remilgos ni estudiadas protestas de humildad, se muestran en lo
que valen, y él, con la previa advertencia de que no vale nada, se
atreve á meterse en todas partes para imponer su razón á los
demás. Á nadie concede competencia para nada, al paso que él,
confesándose el último de los hombres, se porta como si la tuviera
para todo; no halla en la pluma ni en los labios de su vecino una
cuestión que le parezca bastante digna de ocupar la atención
pública, y al día siguiente pretende él absorberla entera sacando á
plaza pequeñeces y vulgaridades de portería. Ofende á su
moralidad un pecado oculto, y él, para enmendarlo, le descubre, le
comenta y le propaga; no juega, no jura, no malgasta; pero, con la
mejor intención, se conduele á gritos de Juan y de Pedro, que juran,
no ahorran y, según sus noticias, juegan. En suma, sus labios jamás
se abren para elogiar; siempre para maldecir.
Por lo demás, el ser «buen muchacho» es un gran negocio, máxime
cuando el teatro representa una población lo suficientemente
pequeña para que todos nos codeemos y nos conozcamos.
El vecino de enfrente, persona que tiene el don de discurrir con
alguna claridad más que la multitud, es víctima de una adversidad
cualquiera, acarreada por una serie de sucesos inevitables.—Me
alegro—dice el rumrum:—ese hombre lo tenía bien merecido; es
una mala cabeza, un fatuo, un pretencioso.
Sucédele eso mismo á un «buen muchacho», y dice la Fama:—
¡Pícara suerte, que nunca quiere proteger á los buenos!
Acúsasele por alguien de una acción poco edificante, y dice la
misma señora:—¡Calumnia!... Fulano no puede ser reo de
semejante delito; yo abono su conducta, porque... es un excelente
muchacho.
Al primero se le enreda, al pasar, un botón en los flecos del chal de
una modista, y doña Opinión, la mala, le marca con el dedo como á
un desenfrenado corruptor de la pública moralidad.
Enrédasele al otro la honra entera entre los hechizos de la mujer de
su vecino; asoma el escándalo la oreja, y exclama doña Opinión, la
buena:—«¡Atrás! que es un buen muchacho incapaz de cometer tan
feo delito». Si el escándalo pugna, y forcejea y vence al cabo, la
mujer es la serpiente que le ha seducido: todo menos lastimar en lo
más mínimo la cándida sensibilidad de su amante.
Hay vacante un puesto que exige á quien ha de ocuparle mucho
tacto y mayor experiencia, y, sin saber cómo, empieza á sonar el
nombre de un buen muchacho; crece el ruido, fórmase la atmósfera,
provéese la plaza en un hombre nulo ó sin merecimientos, y apenas
la justicia severa se dispone á condenar la elección, grita el rumor
atronador de la Fama:—Me alegro, porque el elegido es... «un buen
muchacho».
Trátase de una heredera rica que se halla en estado de merecer, y
al punto dice aquella señora:—«¡Qué buena pareja haría esa chica
con... Fulano, que es un gran muchacho!». Y los ecos van repitiendo
la ocurrencia, y se la llevan á la aludida, y se echa ésta á cavilar, y
comienzan las embajadas oficiosas de los aficionados á la
diplomacia casamentera, y aceptan la mediación las partes
beligerantes, y...—«es cosa hecha»—exclama un día con aire de
triunfo la gente.—Y añade:—«y me alegro, no solamente por el
novio, que es un buen muchacho, sino por lo que van á
reconcomerse los otros».
...«Los otros», lector, son los desheredados de la fama de «buenos
muchachos», que tal vez no conocen á la novia, y que, de seguro,
no han cruzado una palabra con ninguno de los que forman la
opinión que tan cordialmente antipática se les presenta.
Cuando un padre sencillo reprende á su hijo por una falta propia de
la edad, vuelve los ojos con envidia á un «buen muchacho»; si éstos
no van al teatro más que dos veces por semana, no se puede ser
hombre de bien yendo tres; cuanto en costumbres es un pecado,
deja de serlo desde el momento en que le comete un «buen
muchacho»; las mamás los miran con un memorial en cada ojo; las
autoridades los saludan como á las mejores garantías del orden...
hasta los agentes de policía los acatan y reverencian, porque ven en
ellos otros tantos futuros concejales...
Júzguese ahora del riesgo que yo corro al estrellarme contra tanta
popularidad... y eso que todavía no he dicho que un «buen
muchacho» es necesariamente tonto de remache.
Y dirá aquí el lector cándido:—¿Cómo puede un tonto adquirir tal
fama de discreto?