Byzantine Fathers of the V-VIII centuries

II. Polemicists of the 5th and 7th centuries

1. At the very beginning of the sixth century, a certain Nephalius, a Palestinian monk, wrote against Severus; A little later, Severus was objected to by John of Caesarea or Grammaticus, who also wrote in defense of the Council of Chalcedon (he should not be confused with John Chozevitus). We also know of these objections only from Severus's books "Against Grammarus." To the same time belongs the polemical speech of John of Scythopolis — his book against Severus is referred to by the fathers of the Sixth Council (cf. in the Doctrina patrum). Heraclion of Chalcedon wrote against the Eutychians; Patras. Photius also notes his extensive refutation of Manichaeism. It is also necessary to mention the "Dogmatic Panoplia", compiled, probably, by Pamphilus of Jerusalem, a friend of Cosmas Indicopleus (a traveler on the eastern seas, the author of the remarkable "Christian Topography"). 2. The time of Justinian was a time of special polemical excitement, in connection with attempts to reach an agreement and reunite the Church. First of all, it is necessary to note the dogmatic epistles of the emperor himself. Justinian was in any case theologically educated and brought up. For all his inclination to reunite with the Monophysites, he himself was a fully Orthodox theologian. Only in his old age did he become interested in the teaching of the Aphthartodocetes, but his edict about it has not reached us. Justinian's weakness was that he hastened to decree his theological views as the norm of confession. And in his striving for unity, he was either too tolerant, or turned into Diocletian. However, in his theology he always strove to proceed from the traditions of the fathers. His theological tastes are very typical: he turned away from Antiochian theology and resented Origen, Cyril and the Cappadocians were closest to him. In general, Justinian is very close to Leontius; however, we do not encounter the doctrine of "hypostasis" in him, his language is less precise... To the time of Justinian belongs the polemical activity of Ephraim of Antioch, who was patriarch from 527 to 546. The writings of Ephraim are known to us in the paraphrase of Photius. He wrote against the Nestorians and Monophysites, in defense of Cyril and the Council of Chalcedon. He was a resolute opponent of Origenism. Especially interesting are his remarks against the Julianists (about the "immortality" of Adam)... Very interesting are the dogmatic-polemical treatises of John Maxentius, who is best known for his participation in the so-called "Theopaschite" disputes. He argued with the Nestorians, the Pelagians, and the Monophysites. He developed the formula of the Skete monks: "The One suffered from the Holy Trinity" into an integral theological teaching about the Redemption... Very interesting is the dogmatic epistle of a certain monk Eustathius "On the Two Natures", in which the dispute with Severus is brought to the question of two actions (in connection with the Monophysite criticism of the "scroll" of Leo)... Patras. Photius recounts in detail the book of a certain monk Job "On the Incarnation", which is very characteristic in its plan and terminology... All these small polemical works are very helpful to enter into the spirit of the epoch, into the spirit and meaning of the Monophysite disputes... Of particular note is the treatise of the Constantinople presbyter Timothy "On the Reception of Heretics," which is rich in factual data on the history of Monophysite interpretations and divisions... 3. To the end of the VI century belongs the activity of Abastius of Antioch. He took the cathedra in 561, but already in 570 he was exiled and imprisoned, and returned to Antioch only in 593. In prison he wrote a great deal, chiefly against the Aftartadocetes and against Philoponus. His works have been published only in Latin translation. Characteristically, Anastasius relies almost exclusively on the Scriptures and hardly mentions the ancient fathers. The main idea of Anastasius is the sufferings of the God-Man. His thoughts found an echo in the Monk Maximus and in Damascene. To the same time belongs the activity of Saint Eulogius of Alexandria. Of the Antiochian abbots, he entered the Alexandrian cathedra in the year 583 and held it until his death, in 607. He wrote a lot, but most of his works are known to us only from extracts from Photius. Of the surviving fragments, excerpts from the large dogmatic book "On the Holy Trinity and on the Incarnation" are especially characteristic. It should be emphasized that St. Eulogius very accurately develops the doctrine of the "natural" human will in Christ, speaks directly of "two actions" and "two wills," and confirms his reflections with a deep analysis of the main Gospel texts. In this respect, he is a direct predecessor of the Monk Maximus. 4. Of the writers of the VII century, it is necessary to mention, first of all, St. Sophronius of Jerusalem. He came from a monastic environment. With great reason the future patriarch can be seen in that Sophronius the sophist who was a friend of John Moschus and his companion in hagiographic travels. Born in Damascus, he was born around the year 550. In his youth he was a "sophist", i.e. a teacher of literature. But early he went to a monastery, to the Lavra of Saint Theodosius, where he met and became close to John Moschus. Together they travel around Palestinian and Syrian monasteries; the invasion of Chosroes prevented them from returning to Palestine, and they went to Alexandria, where they stayed for quite a long time, under Saint Eulogius and Saint John the Merciful. Probably, during these years they traveled around the deserts and shrines of Egypt. Then they go through Cyprus to Rome. John Moschos died here, about the year 620. Sophronius transferred his ashes to the Lavra of Saint Theodosius. He finished and published "Spiritual Meadow", the work of his late friend's life. In the year 630, Sophronius was again in Egypt. He was there in the years when the Monothelite movement began, and immediately came out against Cyrus. In the year 634 he was elected to the Jerusalem cathedra. This was the time of the Saracen invasions, and soon after the capture of Jerusalem by Omar, Sophronius died (638) — Zephanius was not a theologian by vocation. He spoke on dogmatic topics as a pastor. Most important of all is his well-known Encyclical Epistle, published on his accession to the cathedra, in which Sophronius offers a detailed confession of faith in view of the manifested Monothelite temptation. Later, at the Sixth Council, it was accepted as an accurate exposition of the faith. Sophronius' epistle is very mild. He insists only on the main thing. First he speaks of the Trinitarian mystery, then he moves on to Christology. He speaks in the usual antitheses, reminiscent of the Lion's scroll. The Bodiless One is incarnated, and the Eternal accepts birth in time, and the true God also becomes true man. In the Incarnation, the Word accepts "the whole human constitution" — "flesh of one essence with us, and a rational soul, homogeneous with our souls, and a mind completely identical with our mind." And he accepts that everything human begins to be when it begins to be the humanity of God the Word. The two natures are united in a single hypostasis, "being clearly cognizable as two," and each preserves in union all the fullness of its special qualities and determinations. From the immutability of the two natures, Sophronius deduces a distinction between two actions (he does not speak of two wills). For it is in actions that the difference of natures is revealed. "We confess both natural actions in both natures and essences, of which for our sake an unmerged union was made in Christ, and made one Christ and Son a wholly God, Who must also be recognized as a wholly man." Both actions refer to the one Christ, according to the indivisible unity of His hypostasis. And God the Word acts on humanity. However, Christ experiences everything human "humanly" and "naturally" (φυσικώς καί άνθρωπίνως), although not out of necessity or involuntarily. It is here that Sophrony's stress lies: "humanly", but without that "suffering" or passivity that is characteristic of the "simple", i.e. sinful, nature of man... Sophronius enters the history of Christian writing not so much as a theologian, but as a hagiographer and hymn-writer. It is difficult to determine the share of his participation in the compilation of "Spiritual Meadow". Undoubtedly, he is the author of the praise and legend of the miracles of Saints Cyrus and John the Healers, and the reason for his compilation was his miraculous healing from an eye disease. To assimilate Patr. Sophronius has no basis for the life of St. Mary of Egypt... The homilies of Sophronius are interesting for those historical details that allow us to imagine the life of the Church in conquered Jerusalem. From a dogmatic point of view, the homily on the Annunciation is especially important... Sophronius was also a hymn-writer. It is not always possible to attest to Sophronius the attribution of the hymns inscribed with his name. The hymns under his name in the Lenten Triodion undoubtedly do not belong to him. The authenticity of the collection of "anacreontic" poems is almost beyond dispute. These are not liturgical hymns, but rather homilies spoken in measured speech... The explanation of the liturgy known as Sophronius does not belong to him. But in general, he worked on the church charter. Symeon of Thessalonica attributed to Sophronius the introduction of the rule of the monastery of St. Sava into general use in Palestine... 5. The Monk Anastasius the Sinaite was the abbot of Mount Sinai. From here he traveled more than once in Syria, Arabia and Egypt, for polemical and missionary purposes. We know little about his life. He died about twenty years after the Sixth Council. He was first and foremost a polymath. All his books are written for controversy. The main one is the "Guide" (Oδηγός; it would be better to translate: "guidance"). It was composed of separate chapters and epistles, in which Anastasius examines the individual and particular objections of the Monophysites, on the basis of the Scriptures and on the testimony of the ancients. The book "Answers to Questions" (in the old days they used to say "Questions and Answers") has the same character. This is more of a guide to heuristics (the art of argument) than to "dialectics". True, Anastasius denounces the spirit of petty questioning; however, he himself analyzes and resolves petty difficulties and perplexing questions. For the historian, there are many unclear details here, especially in the explanation and application of the texts of Scripture. References to the ancients are very important. But the spirit of the system disappears, the connection weakens, and attention is lost in the labyrinth of aporias... It is also necessary to mention Anastasius' commentary on the Six Days, of the 12 books only the last has come down to us in the original. Only an allegorical explanation is given ("anagogical contemplations"). Anastasius explains the Psalms in the same way... It should be emphasized that Anastasius always thinks in Aristotelian categories, although he considers "Aristotle's empty words" to be the source of all heresies.

III. Collections

1. In the Christological controversy, the question of theological traditions was sharply raised. This was due to the struggle of schools or directions. There is a need to sum up historical, sometimes critical, results, and to consolidate one's confession with the testimony and authority of the ancients. Already in St. Cyril's polemical epistles we find a systematic selection of "patristic opinions." The Antiochians were also engaged in the collection of ancient testimonies, especially Theodoret (in the Eraniste). In the West, John Cassian refutes Nestorius with the testimony of former teachers, Pope Leo refutes Eutyches from the ancients. At the councils of the 5th-7th centuries, the collections of patristic sayings are carefully reread (especially at the 5th and 5th Ecumenical Councils, at the Lateran Council of 649). Especially abundant are the excerpts from ancient writers in Leontius and St. Maximus... In this way, dogmatic collections (or "flower beds", "florilegia") were gradually formed. Here the literary form typical of the Hellenistic era comes to life again. For the needs of teaching or for school polemics at that time, numerous collections of exemplary excerpts or testimonies of ancient writers were compiled, most often of edifying content; it is enough to mention Plutarch's "Apoffegmas" or the well-known collection of Stobaeus... It is almost impossible to trace the history of the Christian "florilegia" in detail. The most significant of them is known under the name: "The Words of the Holy Fathers or the Choice of Sayings" (usually called in Latin Doctrina patrum de Incаrantione Verbi). This compilation has been preserved in several copies representing different editions; the oldest of the copies of the VII or IX century. The compilation of the collection should be attributed to the time of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, but before the iconoclastic turmoil. With some reason, one can guess in the compiler the Monk Anastasius the Sinaite. In any case, the choice of texts in the "Words of the Fathers" is very reminiscent of the collection of sayings in the "Guide" of the Monk Anastasius... Of particular note is the collection of "Sacred Comparisons," known under the name of St. John of Damascus. His literary history has not yet been fully clarified... In manuscripts we also encounter collections of patristic sayings on certain issues, for example, on the dogmatic meaning of certain texts (in particular, Matt. 26:39 ff. or Luke 2:52)... These collections were subjected to further processing, supplemented with new articles, when new questions occupied theological attention. In iconoclastic times, there appeared special collections of testimonies about the veneration of holy icons (a collection of texts already in Damascene, then in the Acts of the Eighth Council)... Subsequently, a variety of collections of edifying content became widespread. Their origin is most likely connected with liturgical needs, with the custom of the so-called "statutory readings" that replaced free preaching (cf. Trull. 19). In early times, the acts of martyrdom were usually read during divine services, later they began to be replaced by more or less extensive excerpts from the works of the fathers, most often from the works of Chrysostom. However, the custom of "statutory readings" was finally established relatively late... For the historian, all these collections are of double interest. Firstly, they often preserved important fragments from lost works. Secondly, these codes make it possible to establish the average level and scope of historical and dogmatic awareness in a certain era. They testify to us about readers rather than writers. 2. Exegetical collections are of a different nature. They were composed in the process of exegetical work on the Holy Scriptures, developed from notes or remarks to the biblical text, from the so-called "scholia". (This was an ancient custom; cf. scholia to various classical authors; a different kind were the scholia to legislative and other legal acts)... The explanations of various interpreters are layered on top of each other. In the process of correspondence or revision, the so-called "lemmas", i.e. exact references, are very often omitted. Interpretations sometimes merge into a coherent text. Usually, the names of interpreters are indicated by short signs, often conventional, sometimes unclear. Christian exegetical collections (or "chains", catenae) are characterized by the impartiality of the compilers, one might say, their peculiar unscrupulousness. The compilers of exegetical collections usually strive for completeness and variety, of course, within the limits of the material known or accessible to them. And therefore it is not at all difficult to place authors of opposite trends side by side, Origen next to Diodorus, Severus, or even Apollinaris next to Theodore of Mopsuestia. After all, even heretics have sound and valuable thoughts... This "impartiality" gives special importance to exegetical codes. They preserved many fragments from lost and rejected books, from the interpretations of Origen, Didymus, and Diodorus. This often makes it possible to restore forgotten motifs in the history of interpretation in general and the interpretation of individual characteristic texts. Sometimes in the catenae we find exegetical passages from very early authors, for example, Hippolytus and even Papias of Hierapolis, and archaic theological motifs come to life before us. However, the use of catens is not easy. The authors' indications are often unclear, unreliable, and sometimes clearly incorrect. We have to rely not even on the compilers of the collection, but on the later copyists, in fact, on the scribe of the list known to us. Nevertheless, the material extracted from the catena is very important. Until now, it has not yet been exhausted and fully investigated... For the first time, the compilation of the exegetical code was carried out by Procopius of Gaza (ca. 465-528), who for many years in a row stood at the head of the school in Gaza. A number of interpretations have survived from it, first of all, an extensive commentary on the Octobook; it has not yet been published in full. In the preface, Procopius describes the method of his work, first he collects and writes out the opinions of selected interpreters ("selections", "eclogues"). Then, since very often the explanations coincide, he shortens his code, leaving only divergent opinions. Its interpretation is such an "abbreviation". Procopius made the most use of the interpretations of Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and St. Cyril. In addition to the Octobook, Procopius explained the book of Isaiah; his scholia to the books of Kings and Chronicles have been preserved, mainly according to Theodoret. The attribution of Procopius to the commentaries on Proverbs and the Song of Songs, known by his name, is not indisputable... Of the same character are the interpretations of Olympiodorus, the deacon of Alexandria, on the teaching books of the Old Testament, on the prophets Jeremiah, Baruch and the book of Lamentations, on the Gospel of Luke (first half. II century). Later interpreters are more independent: Gregory of Agrigentum in his commentary on Ecclesiastes (c. 600), Icumenius in his commentary on the Apocalypse (c. 600), Anastasius of Nicaea in his explanation of the Psalms (con. III century). Of particular note is the well-known commentary of St. Andrew of Caesarea on the Apocalypse (no later than the year 637); it was later revised by Arethas of Caesarea, a contemporary of Photius. The interpretation of St. Andrew is full of references to the ancients, he often quotes the opinions of even pre-Nicene writers. He understands revelation allegorically; in other copies his book is even directly inscribed with the name of Origen.

IV. The Hymn-Writers

1. Christian worship from the beginning has a dogmatic rather than a lyrical character. This is due to his mysterious realism. From the human side, worship is, first of all, a confession, a testimony of faith, not only an outpouring of feelings. That is why dogmatic and theological disputes have left such a noticeable mark in the history of liturgical poetry... Already in the dogmatic disputes of the end of the second century, the reference to the ancient hymns to the glory of Christ God acquires the force of a theological argument, as a testimony from liturgical tradition. Basil the Great, in his disputes with the Arians about the divinity of the Spirit, again relies on the testimony of liturgical tradition. Subsequently, Pope Celestine put forward the general principle that the law of faith is determined by the law of prayer — ut legem credendi stаtuit lex supplicаndi (Cаpitula Celestini, 8, alias 11 — the wording of these chapters known to us seems to belong to Prosper of Aquitaine). In this way, the liturgical rite is recognized as a dogmatic monument or source... In the early days, creative improvisation occupies a very significant place in the divine services (cf. 1 Cor. 14:26). This was also the case in the second and third centuries (the testimony of Justin the Philosopher and Tertullian). These were primarily hymns and psalms, songs of praise and thanksgiving. Suffice it to mention the great prayer in the Epistle of Clement of Rome. Some of these ancient hymns remained in liturgical use forever (e.g., "O Gentle Light"; cf. also the doxologies and thanksgivings in the Alexandrian copy of the Bible, in the VII book of the "Apostolic Constitutions"). In the 4th century, we observe a liturgical turn. It was partly connected with the dogmatic struggle, partly with the development and spread of monasticism. Very indicative is the well-known 59th canon of the Council of Laodicea, which forbids "reading in church ordinary psalms and books not prescribed by the canon" — διωτικоύς ψαλμоύς, оύδέ άκανόνιστα βιβλία... later Byzantine canonists assumed that this refers to the so-called "Psalms of Solomon" and other similar ones. It would be more correct to think that the Laodicean rule had a broader and more direct meaning. By analogy with Canon 60, which determines the composition of the biblical canon (namely, in connection with the liturgical reading of biblical books), in canon 59 one can see an attempt to fix a certain "canon" in the divine services, with the exclusion of all "non-sacred" hymns from liturgical use. This prohibition applies to all "false" songs, into which dogmatic ambiguity and even outright errors easily crept in. Phrygia has always been a kind of den for heretics. And chants were a very convenient and effective means of spreading and instilling false views. We know very well that this remedy was constantly used by ancient sectarians and false teachers. Suffice it to recall the hymns or "psalms" of the Gnostics and Montanists, and the songs of Arius (his Phalia) in later times (cf. "New Psalter" by Apollinarius). In the conditions of dogmatic struggle, the desire to bring liturgical singing to precise and strict limits is quite understandable. The easiest way was to return to the biblical psalmody, to the "telling" of the canonical Psalms of David. From the beginning they passed into Christian use from the order of synagogue worship. In the 4th century, biblical motifs became even more prominent in worship. And this was a conscious establishment, not only an involuntary recollection. The liturgical order established by Basil the Great in his monasteries had a special influence. His dispute with the Neocaesareans is characteristic. He was accused of innovations – he introduced antiphonal singing of psalms and singing with refrains. St. Basil did not deny that this was a new order, which, however, was already accepted everywhere (cf. the Jerusalem service in the "Pilgrimage" of Etheria). However, the Neocaesareans also have innovations – some "prayers" ("litanies", religious procession) of penitential content. But this is not what Basil stresses: "And we do nothing else but pray for our sins, with this difference, that we propitiate our God, not with human utterances, as you do, but with the words of the Spirit" (Letter 207). St. Basil emphasizes that among the Neocaesareans many things turn out to be insufficient "because of the antiquity of the institution", because of their obsolescence (cf. On the Holy Spirit, ch. 29)... The custom of psalmody with refrains became common at this time in city or "cathedral" churches, both in Alexandria under Athanasius, and in Autiochius under Diodorus and Chrysostom. "In our congregations, David is the first, and the middle, and the last," says Chrysostom. This was a revival of the Old Testament custom (cf. the refrain in the text of Psalm 135 itself). From the refrains, new hymns gradually develop, in close connection with the biblical text, as its revelation or explanation... Psalmody ("the sequence of psalms") receives a special development in monasteries. Here the daily cycle of prayers and divine services is formed and consolidated. It is based on the "verse" of the Psalter. In Egyptian monasteries, long prayers were avoided. Prayer should be frequent, but abrupt, so that the enemy does not have time to scatter our hearts," Abba Isaac explained to John Cassian... The solemn singing "was considered inappropriate. " The monks did not go out into the desert to sing melodic songs, said Abba Pamba to his disciple, who had been in Alexandria. "What tenderness is possible for monks, if in church or in cell they raise their voices like oxen!" ... Very characteristic here is this striving to pray "with the words of the Spirit", this abstention from new hymns and hymns, composed "according to the custom of the Hellenes"... Sometimes verses from the works of the fathers were added to the Psalms and biblical songs. Abba Dorotheus speaks, for example, of the "singing of the sayings" of St. Gregory the Theologian... Both the Kelliot and the Kinovite services were most likely of a penitential nature, in contrast to the more ancient and "conciliar" services, which were solemn and praised... Comparatively late and very gradually, a new liturgical poetry began to develop on a new basis. New hymns are composed. The story of the Monk Auxentius (from the time of the Council of Chalcedon) is interesting. People flocked to his cave. The ascetic proclaimed individual verses, and the people answered him with short refrains, either from the Psalms or from ancient hymns. Auxentius' friend was Anthimus, the first "creator of troparia"... The liturgical rite develops independently in different places. Especially important centers were the Great Church in Constantinople, i.e. the Church of Sophia, the Sinai Monastery and the Lavra of St. Sava the Sanctified. In the history of liturgical poetry, the decisive influence was at first precisely the influence of the monasteries of Syria and Palestine, from which all the significant hymn-writers of the 5th, 5th and even 7th centuries, up to Damascene, originated. The traditions of Greek and Syrian poetry are crossed here. These new hymns reflect the epoch with its Christological disturbances and disputes. Very early the idea of consolidating the already established rite arises. This is how the "rule" is composed, the "Typikon". The Greek name expresses not only the motif of norm or order, but above all the motif of the pattern. The Typikon is not so much a book of rules as a book of examples or models... The history of the hymns has to be reconstructed from recordings that are relatively late. And it is not always possible to distinguish with complete certainty the oldest layer from under the later strata. The inscriptions of names even in the oldest manuscripts are not very reliable. Generally speaking, the most ancient hymns were supplanted by the works of later hymn-writers, especially in the period of the final consolidation or writing down of the rules... At the same time, divine services are becoming more and more nameless and supra-personal... Early Byzantine liturgical poetry reaches its highest conclusion in the dogmatic hymns of St. John of Damascus. 2. Among the early Byzantine hymn-writers, first of all, St. Romanos the Sweet Singer should be mentioned. Strangely, none of the historians mentions it. We learn about his life only from the Menaion (under October 1). He was born in Syria, from Emesa on the Orontes. He was a deacon first in Verita, then in Constantinople, at the Blachernae Church. This was during the reign of Imp. Anastasia. Apparently, during the reign of Anastasius I (491-518). The Monk Roman lived until the middle of the VI century... He was the "creator of kontakions" (or kondakars), hymns of praise for feast days, usually with an acrostic of his name. It is not easy to determine with accuracy the volume of his creative heritage. Up to 1,000 hymns were attributed to him. Among the best are the kontakions on great feasts, such as the Nativity of Christ, the Presentation of the Lord, the Annunciation, and the day of Pascha ("If thou hast descended into the grave, O Immortal One"...). The works of the Monk Roman stand out for their rare richness and elegance of poetic form. In terms of content, they are very simple, without any allegorism. But the author's dogmatic pathos reaches a high tension. He is always occupied with the Christological theme, sings of the invariable union of the two natures, and constantly goes on the offensive against heretics; His songs are full of polemical allusions. He sharply denounces philosophers and especially doctors. This fully corresponds to the mood of Justinian's time... With the appearance of the canon as part of Matins, most of the works of the Monk Roman were ousted from use. 3. About the life of another great Byzantine hymn-writer, St. Andrew of Crete, we also know little, and also only from the Menaion. Theophanes the chronicler names Andrew of Crete among the members of the Council of 712, which rejected the acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, under the pressure of Emperor Theophanes. Philippic. This was an act of unworthy acquiescence (or "oikonomia"), but not apostasy... The Monk Andrew was a native of Damascus, asceticized at the monastery of Saint Sava, and later was a deacon of the Great Church. It is difficult to determine exactly when he was made bishop of Crete. Apparently, he lived to see the beginning of the iconoclastic disputes (a word in defense of holy icons has been preserved)... The Monk Andrew was a preacher and hymn-writer. Apparently, he was the first compiler of canons (the triodes with the name of Sophronius probably belong to the Monk Joseph the Hymn-Maker, already in the ninth century). Most of the canons of St. Andrew fell out of use very early. The most remarkable work of St. Andrew is, of course, the Great Canon — it is known to us in the later adaptation of the Studites, the irmoses and troparia of St. Mary of Egypt do not belong to Andrew. Most likely, it is a kind of penitential autobiography. Hence the upsurge and intensity of personal feeling, which permeates this poem of a contrite soul... The Monk Andrew is characterized by his biblicism. Sometimes he almost literally repeats biblical texts. The Great Canon is overflowing with biblical memories. A long line of vivid penitential images from the Bible stretches, from Adam to the wise thief. The biblical text is very often perceived allegorically, but this is moral, not speculative allegorism... Dogmatic motifs are little expressed in St. Andrew. Penitential lyrics predominate... It is also necessary to note his three canons in the first days of Passion Week (now sung at Compline), on Cheesefare Wednesday, at Compline of the Sunday of Vai, the complete canons for the Resurrection of Lazarus, on the Sunday of the Myrrh-bearing Women, on Mid-Pentecost, on the day of the Nativity of the Mother of God, and a number of "self-voices"... As a liturgical form, the canon was further developed and completed in the works of Damascene and Cosmas, Bishop of Mayum (he must be distinguished from another Cosmas the hymn-writer, who was his mentor and that of Damascene; but it is almost impossible to distinguish the works of the two authors of the same name). In the VII century, the canons were compiled by Stephen Savvait. The iconoclastic turmoil also had a painful effect on the history of liturgical singing. 4. Of the monuments of Constantinople hymn-making, it is necessary to note the famous Akathist or Non-Sedentary Hymn, which in later rules is timed to coincide with the feast on Saturday of the Fifth Week of the Forty Days. The author of the Akathist is unknown. It was neither George Pisis, a learned poet of the time of Heraclius, nor Pat. Sergius. Apparently, the Akathist has been preserved in a later revision, which changed both the original plan and the very theme of the hymn. Initially, it was more of a Christological hymn than a hymn of the Mother of God. And this initial redaction can be attributed to the time of Heraclius (the beginning of the VII century).

Ascetic Fathers

I. The Beginning of Monasticism

1. The monastic movement has been developing since the beginning of the IV century. Some hermits left the cities even earlier, even in the time of Decius, hiding from persecution, and turning their forced flight into a voluntary feat, wandering in deserts, and caves, and abysses of the earth. Many in the cities themselves lead a secluded and detached life—such is the ideal of the "Gnostic" of Clement of Alexandria. Communities of virgins arose at any rate quite early (cf. "Banquet" by Methodius of Olympus). But all these were only isolated and isolated cases. "The monk did not yet know the great wilderness," says Saint Athanasius. The craving, almost the migration to the wilderness, began already under Constantine. The empire becomes Christian. The world is being churched. But it is precisely from this already churched world, from this already Christian Empire, that the flight begins. One should not think that they went into the desert because it was becoming difficult to live in the world. It was hardly easier to live in the desert. And the best left the world not so much from worldly misfortunes, but rather from worldly well-being. Suffice it to recall how sharply Chrysostom spoke about this danger of well-being, worse than any persecution... Monasticism is not only in strict vows. And spiritual perfection is no less obligatory in the world, for every believer, in terms of the power and meaning of baptismal denials and promises... Monasticism is, first of all, a social movement and an experience in solving a social problem... Ascetic renunciation is not only "abstinence" or the renunciation of worldly advantages or excesses, it is not some kind of super-due podvig. This is the renunciation of the world in general and of everything that is in the world. And first of all, from the worldly system, from social ties. Not so much from the Cosmos, but from the Empire... Origen once remarked that Christians live "contrary to the laws of the worldly City," άντιπоλιτευόμεθα. This is especially true of monks. Monasticism is "another dwelling," outside the "abiding city," and as it were, a new and special "city" (πоλιτεία). The worldly city has become Christian, but the antithesis is not removed. And in the Christian world, monasticism is "another, a kind of 'anti-city', an anti-polis. Counter-city, for another city... Monasticism is always an exodus from the world, a departure from the natural social order, a renunciation and renunciation of all civil ties, family and kinship, and fatherland. A monk must be completely "homeless" in the world (άοικоς, according to the expression of Basil the Great). And yet, this is not a way out into the anarchic space. Ancient monasticism is very social. Even hermits usually live together, in special colonies or villages. But the adequate embodiment of the monastic plan was precisely the communal life, the "coenobia". And the coenobia is first of all a social organism, a brotherhood, a conciliarity. People go into the desert to build a new society there — a new and autonomous society arises on the outskirts of the Empire. When reading the ancient descriptions of monastic life, one gets the impression that you are crossing the border and entering some new and special land... In this social otherness lies all the uniqueness of monasticism and its historical meaning. Monasticism is the Church, manifested precisely in its social otherness, as a "new abode," "not of this world"... Christendom is polarizing... Christian history unfolds in the antinomic tension between the Empire and the Desert... 2. The monastic movement begins in Egypt. And immediately there is a bifurcation of the monastic path... The Monk Anthony was the first to go out into the "great wilderness". For many years he asceticized in strict solitude and solitude. Admirers come to him to learn from him. At last he yields to their insistence, and they have even broken down the door of his hiding place. The great hermit allowed to settle in the neighborhood, to build "monasteries", i.e. solitary cells, "like the tents of nomadic tribes". This is how the first colony of hermits appears. They live separately, not communicating with each other without special need, not allowing their solitude and seclusion in vain. And yet they form a single kind of "brotherhood", united by the spiritual guidance of a single teacher and father... Similar settlements arose in other places as well, on Mount Nitria (around Abba Amun), not far from it, the so-called "Cells", and even deeper into the desert "Skete" (Coptic "shiit", which means: a large plain). Here the organization of common life becomes more definite. But the podvig remains separate. Kelliot is the same as a hermit. He lives alone, asceticizes in a closed cell, avoids people, dwells in a cell, and weeps over his sins. "A man who has known the sweetness of the cell avoids his neighbor" (Abba Theodore of Fermea). "If a man does not say in his heart, 'In the world I am alone and God,' he will not find rest" (the saying of Abba Alonius)... This path of solitary podvig was difficult, and for many it turned out to be dangerous. And very early another type of monastic settlements appeared. Dormitories appeared. This is not only a common life, but a common life, in complete reciprocity and openness to each other. The first "coenobia" was arranged by the Monk Pachomius, who began his podvig with hermitage. He became convinced that a solitary way of life was unbearable and useless for beginners. The creative freedom of hermitage must be cultivated gradually. Around the Monk Pachomius in Tavennisi a community of disciples gradually gathered. He organizes them on the basis of strict obedience. The basic rule of communal life is precisely strict fidelity to the established rules, even in the trifles of everyday life. In other words, it is the complete cutting off of will or self-will. Instead of the creative improvisation of hermitage, the ideal of a measured life is realized here, and is protected by the strict discipline of supervision and punishment. The hermits were gentler and more lenient towards the weak and sinful. The monastery of the Monk Pachomius was a kind of orphanage. Even catechumens were received here. They accepted those who were completely ignorant and unstable in the faith, who did not even know the Lord's Prayer. They were taken after a strict temptation, checking the purity and firmness of intention. And each newcomer came under the special guidance of one of the elder brothers. The monks lived in separate houses. 40 people each, under the control of a special chief. For prayer, all the brethren gathered together. In needlework, a general and strictly defined task was performed, which could not be arbitrarily changed or even increased. It was a true life and podvig together, in strict community, in mutual attention and care, where nothing should remain hidden... According to tradition, an Angel of God gave a rule to the Monk Pachomius and explained: "I have given a rule for those whose minds have not yet matured, so that they, fulfilling the general rule of life out of fear of the Lord, even as disobedient slaves, may attain freedom of spirit"... The ideal remains the same as that of hermits. Freedom of the spirit... But the path changes. And with the passage of time, through experience, the positive and highest value of common life, communication in life and podvig is discovered and cognized... Pachomius himself founded only nine separate coenobia, and all of them were subordinate to a single abbot, who lived first in Tavennisi, then in Pevou. Already during the lifetime of Pachomius, dormitories arose throughout Egypt. Sister Pachomius organizes women's coenobia... Of particular note is the "White Monastery" near Atripa, founded by the hermit Bgul, where the formidable and stern Abba Shenudi was abbot for many years. The order was especially strict here, even corporal punishment was used. Characteristically, experienced monks were allowed to go into solitude — they had to gather together in their monastery only four times a year... By the end of the 4th century, the whole of Egypt seemed to be built up with monasteries. The monastic population is already in the thousands. And pilgrims and zealots from different countries, from Asia and from the West, gather here... Already at the beginning of the IV century, the monastic movement spread to Palestine. The first monastery of the hermit type was formed in the twenties around the cell of the Monk Hilarion, one of the disciples of the Monk Anthony, near Gaza. Not far away was the monastery of the famous Epiphanius, later Bishop of Cyprus. Later, "laurels" appear (λαύρα originally means, apparently, "narrow passage" or street). First of all, the Pharan Lavra, built by the Monk Chariton, near Jerusalem. Then a number of other laurels on the way from Jerusalem to Jericho and in the vicinity of Bethlehem. In the V century the Monk Euthymius built his monastery, in the VI the Monk Sava the Sanctified and the Monk Theodosius. A non-strict communal life is established here — the coenobia is considered as the primary stage for the transition to life in cells... The coenobitic ideal received a fundamental justification as early as the fourth century from Basil the Great. He regards the coenobia as a small Church, as a social organism, as a kind of special "polity." Basil's rule exerted a decisive influence on the entire subsequent history of monastic life in Byzantium and in the West. Basil himself established monasteries in Pontus. Here he continued the work begun by Eustathius of Sebaste... In Syria, monasticism developed independently of the Egyptian example (cf. Aphraates, "sons of the covenant"). There were many monasteries around the big cities. But especially characteristic of Syria is hermitage, combined with exceptional means of ascetic self-mortification (already in the 4th century "grazing", βоσκоί; later the feat of the stylites)... As early as the end of the fourth century, monasteries arose in the cities (for example, the monastery of the Akimites, "vigilant," in Constantinople). The desert is approaching the world... Justinian made an attempt to include monasteries in the general system of church-political relations, persistently legislating on monastic affairs. But in the inner life, monasticism remains original and independent. Monasteries remain an alien inclusion in the worldly fabric... The iconoclastic turmoil had the sharpest effect on monastic life. This was a turning point in the history of Byzantine monasticism. And in a sense, this very turmoil was a sharp clash between the Empire and the Desert... 3. In the temptation and experience of a detached life, an ascetic ideal is formed and developed. This is, first of all, the ideal of spiritual formation and perfection, the ideal of "spiritual life", life in the Spirit. And not so much a moral, but a religious ideal. In Eastern asceticism, in general, there is more mysticism and metaphysics than morality. The ideal of salvation is the ideal of "deification" ("theosis"), and the path to it is the "acquisition of the Spirit," the spirit of spiritual podvig and spiritual acquisitions or gifts, the charismatic path... The monastic movement began from a non-Greek environment. In Egypt, the first ascetics were the Copts, who were almost completely untouched by Hellenic culture. The Monk Anthony hardly knew Greek. Both among the anchorites and in the coenobia, the Greeks appear later. At the same time, even in the coenobia, the Greeks and the Copts live separately (as they later did in Syria). However, it was the Greeks who first synthesized the ascetic experience and formulated the ascetic ideal. And they formulate it in the usual categories of Hellenistic psychology and mysticism. The ascetic worldview is organically connected with the traditions of Alexandrian theology, with the teaching of Clement and Origen. It is no accident that in the Egyptian monasteries Origen was read a lot, especially by the Kelliots, in Nitria and in the Skete. Abba Ammonius studied Origen, Pierius, Didymus, and a certain Stephen (see in "Lausaica", ch. 11). The image of Evagrius is even more characteristic. It should be remembered that the Cappadocians in their Pontic solitude also studied Origen. Subsequently, in the Palestinian monasteries, Origenism developed into a whole movement. It is not surprising that it was in the monastic milieu that the first disputes about Origen flared up. According to tradition, the Monk Pachomius already persuaded those who came to him not to read Origen (consequently, the question was raised), and he directly forbade his brethren to do so. A sharp dispute broke out at the very end of the fourth century in the Skete, between the "anthropomorphites" and the "Origenists"; and Theophilus of Alexandria interferes in it so unsuccessfully and rudely. It was a clash of two religious or mystical types. One can guess that the "anthropomorphites" were visionaries—their religious experience unfolded in visual and sensual visions. On the contrary, the "Origenists" strove to overcome sensual contemplation, strove for ugly intellectual vision. Cassian's story is very characteristic. The denial of "anthropomorphism" seemed to many to be a heresy of the worst kind, as the denial that man was created in the image of God." The explanation that this should be understood "not according to the letter of the scriptures, but spiritually" did not calm down, but upset the "anthropomorphites". They could no longer pray "when the human-like image of God was cast out of their hearts." "They have taken my Lord from me, and there is no one in whom I can trust," one of them wept; "and I do not know Whom I shall pray to, and to whom I shall cry"... In the later monuments of monastic literature, we often encounter polemics against visions. "If an angel really appears to you, do not receive him; but humble yourself and say: I am not worthy to see an angel, who live in sins." Seeing one's own sins is the best of visions, it is even better to see the virtues of others... The devil appeared to a certain old man in the form of Christ. And the elder answered him: "Here I do not want to see Christ, but in the next life"... Origen attracted not only as a mystic or theologian, but also as an interpreter of the Scriptures. In monasteries, the Holy Scriptures were read constantly, day after day, in cells and during divine services, and even entire Bible books were memorized. The rule and custom attached such importance to the study of the Scriptures that in the coenobia of the Monk Pachomius, literacy was obligatory precisely for this reason — the illiterate were taught to read immediately after being admitted to the community, and in the meantime they had to memorize the Psalter and the Gospel by voice. At general meetings and in private interviews, what was read was discussed. Hence the special interest in explanatory literature. And in the interpretation or application of biblical texts by Egyptian ascetics, the allegorical tendency, the "Alexandrian" style of perception, is very clearly expressed. Here we can see the influence of Origen, directly or through the intermediary of Didymus, who was generally close to monastic circles... The influence of Clement can be seen already in the fact that the ideal of ascetic podvig is often defined as impassibility άπαθεία (in the "Spiritual Discourses", in Evagrius, in the preface to the "Lausaicus")... Among the Cappadocians and later in the Areopagitics, one can note a deliberate borrowing of Neoplatonic and mystery terminology. It was in the spirit of Clement... The influence of Alexandrian theology is clearly felt already in the first experience of ascetic synthesis, in the famous Life of St. Anthony, compiled by Athanasius the Great. This is not so much a biography as a religious characteristic, an ideal portrait, a sacred image, a verbal icon of the great hermit and spirit-bearer... The ascetic worldview was not developed without a struggle. And it should not be stylized in a simplifying synthesis. In the monuments of ascetic writing, we encounter not only various aspects or shades of a single thought, but also very deep disagreements and even contradictions. This applies not only to practical issues. And the tension between the ideal of perfect solitude ("I cannot be with God and with people at the same time," said Abba Arsenius) and the ideal of active mercy remained unresolved. In this disagreement some ultimate religious antinomy is revealed, not only antithesis... More than once theological and dogmatic questions were raised with great acuteness. One should not forget the immanent difficulties or temptations of ascetic experience and thought. The question of sin and freedom arose first of all. And this is related to another question – about the sacraments and prayer. In a different formulation, it is the same question about grace and freedom (or podvig, i.e. the creative formation of man). It is not surprising that Pelagianism and Origenism, and even more so the heresy of the Euchites (from εύχή prayer), seriously agitated monastic circles. And all these separate questions were reduced to one general one – about the fate and path of man. In ascetic monuments we find not only psychological and ethical reflections, but also the metaphysics of human life... Only in a precise dogmatic synthesis could the problem of asceticism find its solution. This is already clear in the writings of St. Athanasius and the Cappadocians. Christological disputes are resolved not only by dogmatic, but also by ascetic synthesis. We find it in St. Maximus the Confessor. Dogmatics and asceticism are organically and inseparably intertwined in his system.

II. Spiritual Conversations

Part 1

1. The collection of "Spiritual Conversations" (50 in number) is known in manuscripts under the name of Macarius. From the time of the first edition, it is customary to see in the author the Monk Macarius of Egypt, the famous ascetic of the skete of the fourth century, a disciple of the Monk Anthony. He is described in detail by Palladius (Lausaicus, ch. XVII), Rufinus, Socrates and Sozomen. A separate life of him is known in the Coptic and Syriac editions. However, none of these ancient authors mentions the works of the monk... The great elder lived in seclusion, with two disciples, who received visitors. As Palladius puts it, he lived like a wanderer on this earth, dead to the world and earthly cares, all in contemplation and in conversation with God... Only Gennadius of Massilia speaks of his works, but at the same time he calls "only one epistle" — imam tantum ad juniores professionis suae soripsit epistolam... Probably, this is the "spiritual" epistle "to the children" known to us, ad filios (preserved in the Latin translation)... This complete absence of mention of the collection of "conversations" is puzzling. Especially strange is the silence of Palladius. He was close to Evagrius, a disciple of Macarius, and could not have been unaware of the works of the monk... A doubt involuntarily arises as to whether these discourses or "homilies" really belong to the great Macarius... It is difficult to rely on the inscription of manuscripts. And besides, individual discourses are also found under other names, those of St. Ephraim the Syrian, more often of Blessed Mark the Hermit. In the Arabic translation, the entire collection (21 conversations) is inscribed with the name of Simeon the Stylite... In any case, the published text of the "Conversations" is hardly correct. It has a sense of later processing. Probably, the very division into "discourses" should be attributed to the later metaphrastus; Seven more conversations have recently been published (continuation of the collection). Some conversations are too different in volume, others are more like letters, and verbatim repetitions are not uncommon in the text. It should be added that the editorial work on the "Conversations" continued later. In manuscripts, the "seven words" of Macarius are known under different titles ("On the Preservation of the Heart", etc.) "in the arrangement" of Simeon the Logothete (or Metaphrastus). It can be thought that the main text of the conversations known to us is already the result of processing... It is much more important to observe the content of conversations. In many places, the author's views are very reminiscent of the errors of the so-called Messalians or Euchites, which were already refuted by Blessed Diadochos in his "Ascetic Discourse." The Constantinople presbyter Timothy in his well-known treatise "On the Reception of Heretics" (beginning of the VII century) and St. John of Damascus in his review "On Heresies in Brief" cite very characteristic excerpts from the Messalian books, and they are very close to other arguments of the author of the "Spiritual Discourses"... It would be too hasty to identify the collection of "Discourses" with the "Ascetic Book" of the Messalians, which has not survived to us, which was presented and condemned at the Council of Ephesus. In the "Discourses" it is possible to note only certain "Messalian" motifs, and the author not only does not share many of the views of the Messalians, but directly refutes them. With great reason the "Asceticon" of the Euchites could be seen in the very recently published and very interesting Syrian monument "The Book of Degrees". It is indeed an integral ascetic system, built on principles very close to the Messalian ones. And the monument is very early; it is possible that at the very beginning of the IV and even the end of the III century. However, even here archaisms should not be taken for heresy. In the Discourses we find only isolated views, similar to those of the Messalians. There is no need to see later insertions here. Closeness to the euchites is also possible in the Orthodox author. The history of the Messalian heresy is still little known to us. However, the ascetic views of the Messalians were apparently only an extreme development of certain motifs of Orthodox asceticism (cf. Epiphanius of Cyprus). And the inaccuracy of the author of the "Conversations" can often be explained as archaism... In any case, it is more cautious to leave the question of "Spiritual Discourses" open. 2. "Spiritual Discourses" is not theological reasoning. Rather, they are intimate confessions of a contemplative, teaching and edifying from personal experience. And he describes this experience in a certain philosophical language – the influence of Stoicism is felt most strongly. However, the author mentions external philosophers only in order to oppose the Hellenic wisdom with a true and grace-filled philosophy. "Hellenic philosophers learn to master the word. But there are other philosophers, ignorant of the word, who rejoice and rejoice in God's grace." True philosophy is ascetic work, the acquisition of the Spirit, the Spirit of Wisdom and Reason. A spirit-bearing contemplative or mystic is a true sage or wise man (this is a fairly common thought in ascetic monuments) — the "Discourses" are written in vivid and expressive language. In them one senses a deep knowledge of the Scriptures, always understood in a "spiritual" sense, as a kind of message from God to people, written to them in order to call them to spiritual ascent. "But if a man does not come, does not ask, does not receive, then it will profit him nothing by reading the Scriptures." And especially the Old Testament is a symbolic or mysterious story about the soul. Two discourses are entirely devoted to allegories: in the 47th "that which was under the law" is explained; in the 1st mysterious visions of the prophet Ezekiel at the river Chebar, "the prophet beheld the mystery of the soul, which has to receive its Lord and become the throne of His glory"... And the topic of the soul is the main theme of all conversations. 3. Man is "the highest of creatures." He is higher not only than the visible creature, but also above the angelic powers, above the ministering spirits. And this was testified to by God Himself, who came to earth precisely for the sake of man and deigned to be crucified for the sake of his salvation. "Consider, beloved, the intellectual essence of the soul, and do not delve slightly. The immortal soul is a kind of precious vessel. See how great are the heavens and the earth, and God did not favor them, but only about you"... For only man is created in the image of God. "It was not of the Archangels Michael and Gabriel that God said, Let us do in our image and likeness; but he said so about the intelligent human essence, about the immortal soul"... The image of God in man means, first of all, a deep closeness and a kind of kinship with God, a "reciprocity" with Him. "Whoever is able to know the dignity of his soul will be able to know the power and mystery of the Godhead." The Lord created the whole world, but the Lord does not rest in any creature except man; "every creature is in His power, yet He has not established a throne in them, He has not established communion with them." Therefore, the soul can find rest only in God... In the first-created Adam, the "image of God" was expressed first of all in a kind of winging of the spirit, in the wings of the Holy Spirit, which could lift man up to God. "God created the soul in the image of the virtue of the Spirit, put into it the laws of virtues." The author distinguishes between two images of God in man: a kind of natural image, expressed in the powers and abilities of the soul, and a "heavenly image". The first feature of the natural image is the freedom of man. "The visible creature is bound by such and such an immovable nature," the visible creatures cannot come out of the state in which they were created, and have no will. "And you are created in the image and likeness of God, because just as God is free and creates what He wills, so are you free. And if you want to perish, then your nature is changeable. If you want to spew blasphemy, make poison, or kill someone, no one opposes you or forbids you. Whoever wills to submit to God, and walks the path of righteousness, and possesses desires"... This formal freedom of election and will, "autocracy" (αύτεξоυσία), is an immutable feature of human nature; and grace only impels but does not compel the will, just as sin does not quench freedom. And at the same time, freedom of choice or arbitrariness. Even fallen man is able to fight and resist sin, although he cannot win without God's help. and once sin is not stronger than a man, then the guilt would be removed from him. On the contrary, the mind is a fighter and an equal fighter, and has an equal power to argue with sin and resist thoughts. And vice versa: grace and success do not irrevocably protect a person from temptation and temptation. "For just as the perfect is not attached to good by any necessity, so is he who is steeped in sin and makes himself a vessel of the devil... On the contrary, he also has the freedom to become a vessel of election and life"... Grace does not bind a person, he remains free, and he can fall again, if he wishes, and again enter into peace and communion with Satan... There are known cases when people who were "enlightened and tasted", even those who were perfected in good, fell away: a person gave away his possessions and released his slaves, but fell into conceit and arrogance; the confessor, who had endured torture, fell into fornication in his very prison with a nun who served him; The ascetic, who already possessed the power of healing, fell into pride... "For nature is changeable, and man, because of his remaining arbitrariness, if he wills, becomes a son of God, or likewise a son of perdition"... Freedom is a God-like trait, but it is only a formal precondition of God-likeness, which determines its possibility. Outside of freedom there is no likeness to God, but it is realized only in living communion with God. It is in him that the essential image of God in man consists, that "heavenly image" which was given to the first-created, but was lost by him in the Fall. Man was created from the beginning in such a way that he must draw strength for life from what is outside of him: the body needs nourishment, and the soul needs spiritual nourishment; but if he confines himself to that which is in his nature, without borrowing anything from without, he is destroyed and perishes. "Woe to the soul," exclaims the spirit-seer, "if it dwells on its own nature and trusts only in its own works, without having communion with the Divine spirit." The soul, created in the image of God, receives strength and nourishment not from its own nature, but from God, from His Spirit. And so the primordial one was clothed with word and spirit — this was his "heavenly image," his "heavenly soul"... The Messalians also spoke of the second, "heavenly soul" of man. But the similarity here is imaginary. The author of the "Discourses" understands the "heavenly soul" to mean the gifts of the Spirit and the Word. The Word dwelt in the primordial things, and the Word was his inheritance, and clothing, and glory. Ego means: "In the beginning was the Word"... And the Spirit dwelt in Adam, taught him and inspired him, for the Word was to him all things, and Adam was the friend of God. He was the ruler of everything, from heaven to below, he was able to discern passions, he was a stranger to demons, he was a stranger from sin and vices — he was in the likeness of God... This teaching about the two "images" and about the primordial anointing of man is partly reminiscent of the distinction between the creation and the "birth" of man in St. Athanasius. 4. Adam loses these first gifts, this heavenly image in the Fall, transgressing the commandment and listening to the evil one by the power of his evil will, "becomes wounded and dead"... Man is seduced into evil, seduced through his own fault, "by self-will"... Evil embraces and permeates man, but man himself does not turn into something evil. Evil remains something external, alien to his nature. Man is obsessed with evil... In the Fall, man loses both his natural and heavenly image. "He lost, first, the property of his nature, pure, beautiful, created in the image of God. Secondly, and the very image in which, according to the promise, all his heavenly inheritance consisted." It was death... And the resurrection is the restoration of the "heavenly image," i.e. communion with God, that spirit-bearing fullness from which Adam fell — a new acquisition and reception of the Spirit. If the communion of the soul with God is a kind of mysterious marriage with the heavenly Bridegroom, then sinful separation from God is a kind of widowhood of the soul, for the transgression of the commandment left by the heavenly Man. And since the Fall, man has not seen the heavenly Father, has not seen the merciful and kind Mother, the grace of the Spirit, has not seen the Lord, the sweetest and most desirable brother (cf. Aphraate). The face of God ceased to be reflected in the soul, although God did not cease to look upon it; and deprived of the royal seal, it lost its honor and value, — as a coin without a royal image is not in circulation, even if it be made of precious metal... The quickening or resurrection of the soul is the return to it of this image and seal. It does not belong to human nature, but is imposed on it, as it were, from without. And in this way man rises above himself, above his closed nature. However, this is possible only in freedom: "if there is no will, God does nothing, although He can"... The Fall is a great catastrophe. Everyone is upset. Closed in his nature, a person becomes weak and powerless. Man can live a true life only in God, and therefore, falling away from God, he lives an imaginary life, a "life of death." In his disobedience, man "died a terrible spiritual death." His mind turned from the highest to the lower, and his eyes, when heavenly blessings became inaccessible to them, "saw for vices and passions"... Here again the motifs of St. Athanasius sound... Nature is darkened by evil and evil admixture: the fallen soul is permeated with sinful forces. Sin is mixed with the soul like a kind of leaven. The serpent becomes "like a second soul" in the soul. The evil prince cloths the soul with his malice and sin, as with a kind of "purple of darkness," and defiles it all, "captives it all into his power, leaving nothing free, neither thoughts, nor mind, nor body." And from the sinfulness of the soul and the body becomes suffering and perishable. The evil word penetrates through the heart into the entire human body, and sin flows into the heart like water in a chimney. This is what happened to Adam. "And we are all sons of this darkened generation"... The whole race of Adam is leavened with this "leaven of harmful passions," which Adam shared in the transgression of the commandment. Inner self-observation reveals in the soul this obsession and its ulceration: this fallen state becomes the starting point of the ascetic struggle, through which the soul must be purified and liberated, die to a worse life, namely, die: the "second soul," the "evil word" that has fallen upon it, must fly away from it... There is a certain depth in the heart, and at the bottom lies the slime. There is life there, and there is death... Sin has taken root in the soul. Satan shakes and shakes souls, throws them into confusion and anxiety, "and like wheat whirled in a sieve, it agitates people's thoughts in various ways"... The whole family of Adam secretly took upon themselves a certain image of Cain, "the likeness of Cain's deceit"... The whole visible world is in turmoil, in disorder, in struggle. But few know that this is from an evil power: "the world suffers from the disease of vice, and does not know it"... Sin is "a certain intellectual and mental power of Satan." And Satan seeks peace and space in his soul. Sin is the sting of death... "Sin" (άμαρτία) is a kind of dark opposition to grace (χάρις). Their clash and struggle unfolds in freedom: thus, the heart of the ascetics reveals sight — there the evil spirits struggle with the soul, and God and the angels look upon the podvig"... Satan pours into the soul a certain dark and hidden power of darkness, envelops it in the purple of darkness — this is again the direct opposite of the divine light and the garment of glory. This symbolism of light and darkness is not only a metaphor; Satanic darkness is a kind of material covering, darkness, fog... But first of all, sin is the realm of mystical communion with Satan. Temptation begins with the distraction of the spirit, which becomes attached to earthly cares and impressions. And because of this, vigilance is blunted, a person ceases to notice his ulcers and the secret passions of the soul — "he does not know that within him there is another struggle, and battle, and strife." And then the soul becomes defenseless and imprudent. Satan most often makes his suggestions to the soul under the guise of good thoughts, and draws it into subtle and plausible undertakings, "and he who is drawn does not know how to discern, and thereby falls into the snares of the devil's destruction"... Satan never rests in his attacks, so it is so dangerous to imagine that the battle is over and stopped. The most dangerous thing is such a lack of feeling. It often happens that lust suddenly flares up in people who have long hoped that lust has withered in them. And if the soul does not struggle and is not strengthened in love for God, it is darkened and falls into the power of Satan. Such is the "natural man" (cf. the Alexandrian distinction between the "natural man" and the "spiritual"). The "carnal," these imaginary Christians, who have not yet acquired Christ's riches, have everything that is not theirs, and they themselves are naked. And just like worldly people, they are in division, in confusion and disorder. The main struggle is within. And if the soul does not wage this inner struggle, Satan takes possession of it more and more, and devastates it, and puts his seal on it. And finally he sits in his mind, in his heart and in his body, as on his own throne. "When you hear about graves, imagine in your mind not only the visible graves: for the grave and the grave are for you your heart. When the prince of wickedness and his angels nest there, when they make paths and paths there, along which the forces of Satan would pass into your mind and into your thoughts, then are you not hell, not a grave, not a grave, not a dead man before God?" committed bodily, is the fornication of the soul that enters into communion with Satan. One and the same soul is an accomplice and sister either of demons, or of God and angels, and by committing adultery with the devil, it becomes useless for the heavenly Bridegroom"... This is the crowned queen who left the King to become a harlot, and for this fall there is sorrow, and weeping, and sorrow in heaven. Satan penetrates into the soul and persuades it, "and if it agrees, then the bodiless soul enters into communion with the bodiless malice of the spirit, and he commits adultery in the heart who accepts the thoughts of the evil one and agrees to them"... It must be emphasized: this communion is not a fusion, but a kind of "dissolution" (κράσις). "Satan becomes one with the soul, both spirits in fornication or murder are one." However, the soul always remains itself. And this is the opportunity for her to repent and weep. This is a kind of dynamic combination of two heterogeneous and independent principles: sinfulness is possession by an evil force, but the soul is not transformed into something evil and does not lose its freedom, although the freedom of nature is insufficient for real liberation from slavery and captivity... There is much peculiar in these arguments. And they really remind us of the teaching of the Messalians about the "communion" of Satan with the human soul, as about a kind of fornicatory cohabitation, about the possession of demons, about the strange "cohabitation" of Satan and the Holy Spirit in human souls, where a certain struggle takes place between them. Most mysterious of all is the tacit assumption of the author of the "Discourses" that baptism does not free a person from defilement, that even in the baptized there is a certain corruption, which can be healed only by spiritual podvig and prayer. It turns out that it is not the grace of baptism, but the power of one's own prayerful podvig that frees a person from sinful defilement, from "original sin" – to be more precise, the power of grace, but grace found in prayerful podvig, and not in baptismal regeneration. Such was the basic idea of the Euchites ("praying"). However, it is unlikely that only the Euchites thought so. Christian self-observation in general reveals in the human soul a sinful weakness, a passability for sin and for the devil's attachments. Baptismal liberation is strengthened in any case only by podvig. Monastic experience predisposes to psychological pessimism. From ascetic monuments we know that in the East ascetics often inclined to exaggerate the power of the sinful nature, to a certain belittlement of baptismal renewal. And it must be remembered that the author of the "Conversations" argues as a psychologist, and not as a dogmatist. We must not forget about the ancient experience of possession, which is often described in monuments in almost fairy-tale, but psychologically truthful images (cf. not only in the Life of Anthony, but also in Evagrius).