Monasticism, which appeared at the end of the third and beginning of the fourth centuries, concentrated in itself, as if in a focus, all those ascetic traditions which, although they constituted the essential features of the religion of Christ from its very inception, were only partially and separately represented in "historical phenomenality" until the end of the third century. Having rapidly spread to all corners of the "Christian ecumene" of that era, monasticism immediately became the main guardian and guardian of the "spiritual Tradition" of Orthodoxy[2], being on guard of it to this day. As soon as it appeared on the historical stage, monasticism gave rise to an abundant literature, rich in its spiritual and moral content and diverse in its genre features ("Epistles", "Homilies", "Chapters", "Patericons", etc.). The monuments of this literature were united by the fact that almost all of them, as a rule, were written by monks and for monks, which allows us to speak of "monastic writing" as a kind of peculiar type of Christian literature. However, since monasticism has always thought of itself as the embodiment of the ideal of life in Christ and according to Christ, it is not surprising that the works of the Fathers immediately became the most widely read works among all Orthodox Christians, as they remain to this day. Many of them were included in the treasury of Orthodox spirituality – the well-known "Philokalia". However, since this "Philokalia" did not encompass all the monuments of monastic writing, and also because the work of philologists and patrologists on the works of the ascetic fathers continues tirelessly, there was an urgent need not only to supplement it, but also to correct it according to new, more thorough from a scientific point of view, editions of the original texts of the Church Fathers. In part, we have already begun to fulfill this task by publishing "The Works of St. Maximus the Confessor" and "The Works of Abba Evagrius." The present edition should be considered as a continuation of this work. It includes those works of the ascetic fathers that reflect the most ancient layer of monastic writing in Greek.

The first place among them is occupied by the works of St. Ammon, a direct disciple and continuer of the work of St. Anthony the Great[3]. Born, most likely, at the very end of the third or the beginning of the fourth century (even the most approximate dates of St. Ammon's life are unknown to us), he lived a long life in the labors of asceticism, departing to the Lord, probably at the end of the fourth century, already in the rank of bishop (his cathedra is difficult to determine, but one source calls St. Ammon "bishop of Oxyrhynchus"). Being one of the favorite spiritual children of St. St. Ammon often replaced him, heading the monastic community of Pisper during the absences of the "father of monasticism", and then, after the death of the monk, he became its abbot. The works of St. Ammon have come down to us in two main versions, Greek and Syrian. In Greek, the following have been preserved: 1) fifteen "Narratives ("apophthegms") about Abba Ammon"[4]; 2) the seven epistles; 3) "Instructions", which include "Teachings" (4 in number), "Exhortatory chapters" (19 chapters), "Abba Ammon's Discourse on Those Who Wish to Be Silent" (11 chapters) and a work entitled "On the Joy of the Soul of Him Who Has Begun to Serve God" (73 chapters); 4) two fragments of unknown origin[5]. The Syriac version includes 25 apophthegms (partly identical to the Greek ones) and a more complete collection of epistles than the Greek (14 letters). The authenticity of the works of St. Ammon cannot always be established with certainty: for example, one of the Greek fragments attributed in the manuscript tradition to this saint is an excerpt from the work of Evagrius of Pontus "The Image of Monastic Life", and it is difficult to establish which of the two ancient ascetics this text really belongs to; The "exhortatory chapters" partially coincide with the twenty-seventh "Sermon" of St. Isaiah (the manuscript tradition of whose writings, by the way, is extremely intricate and requires even more careful study); The tenth epistle of the Syriac version is in many respects identical with the fifty-seventh "Spiritual Discourse" of St. Macarius of Egypt (see below about the discovery of new "Spiritual Discourses"). But with a greater degree of probability it can be assumed that the main part of the works preserved in the Greek language really belong to St. Ammon.

Another outstanding disciple of St. Anthony and one of the founders of ancient monasticism was St. Serapion of Thmuit. An associate of St. Athanasius the Great in his struggle against the Arian heresy, he was famous at that time as one of the most grace-filled ascetics and archpastors. Very little of his literary heritage has survived: the treatise Against the Manichaeans, which shows the author's theological skill, a liturgical work called the Euchologion, several fragments from other works in Syriac translation, and three epistles (two in the Greek original and one in the Syriac and Armenian translations). Of the latter, the Epistle to the Monastics is of the greatest interest, for in it both the essential features of the ascetic theology of St. Serapion himself and the worldview of the entire ancient monasticism are most clearly manifested. That is why the translation of this epistle is included in our collection[8].

A significant place in this collection is occupied by the works of St. Macarius of Egypt. The name of this great ascetic is associated with a large number of works, some of which have been known for a long time, and others have been discovered only in modern times. The first category includes the famous "Spiritual Conversations" (50 in number), which have been repeatedly published[9] and translated into Russian several times[10]. For modern researchers of ancient Christian writing, this collection of works by St. Macarius was called "type II". In addition to this type, there are seven more "Conversations" discovered and published by G. Marriott in 1918.[11] They have survived only in two manuscripts of a rather late time (one of the early 16th century, and the other is just a copy of it), but, nevertheless, these "Conversations", according to the publisher, came from the pen of a great ascetic; the only exception is the 54th Discourse, which is an excerpt from Palladius' Lausaicus[12]. Certain doubts about the authorship of St. Macarius is also evoked by the 57th "Discourse", which, as already mentioned, largely coincides with the tenth epistle of the Syriac version of the works of St. Ammon and, most likely, belongs to him. However, in any case, all these "Discourses" are the most precious monuments of ancient monastic writing, which is why we considered it necessary to translate them (based on the above-mentioned edition by G. Marriot).

The discovery of new works by St. Macarius, however, did not confine himself to the seven "Discourses" mentioned above. Three more manuscript collections of these works were found. The first of these, designated "Type I," consists of 64 "Homilies and Epistles." This collection is headed by the "Great Epistle", which deserves special mention. Being one of the main and most interesting works of St. Until recently, it remained unknown to both specialists and a wide range of readers. Only some excerpts from it were included in the so-called "Discourse on the Safeguarding of the Heart", which, like the other six "Homilies" of the monk, known for a long time, is a later compilation of his works[13]; in addition, some fragments of the Great Epistle are included in the extracts of Symeon Metaphrastus (the so-called "150 chapters"), published in the Greek "Philokalia"[14]. The full text of this work was first discovered and published by W. Jaeger[15], who also discovered the original text of the treatise by St. Gregory of Nyssa "On the Purpose of Life According to God and on True Asceticism" (Latin title "De instituto Christiano" – "On the Christian Order"), known until then in an extremely distorted and truncated form[16]. Working on the preparation of the edition of both works, W. Jaeger immediately noticed that they had great similarities, concluding that St. Macarius, writing the Great Epistle, had before his eyes the treatise of St. Gregory of Nyssa, and therefore depended on it. More precisely, W. Yeager believed that the author of the "Great Epistle" was not St. Macarius, but a certain ascetic who lived in the fifth century in the Near East, does not exclude the possibility that this ascetic could also be St. Simeon the Stylite, whose name this work is inscribed in some manuscripts[17]. However, W. Jaeger's point of view on the relationship between these two works did not receive support from the majority of scholars who studied this issue: many researchers came to the conclusion that St. Gregory of Nyssa reworked the Great Epistle, which is primary in relation to the treatise "On the Purpose of Life According to God"[18]. R. Staats, who published a critical edition of both works, believes that the Great Epistle was written around 381, and the treatise of St. Gregory of Nyssa around 390.[19] It is difficult to establish the reasons for such a revision, but there is no doubt that the treatise of St. Gregory of Nyssa, despite its dependence on the Great Epistle, bears the features of a completely original work. It is very possible that this one of the great Cappadocian Fathers of the Church, who fully shared the ascetic worldview of his elder brother (St. Basil the Great), "adapted" the work of St. Macarius to the peculiar conditions of Asia Minor monasticism. In view of the extreme importance of both works for the history of Orthodox ascetic theology, we considered it necessary to translate them, placing the treatise of St. Gregory immediately after the Great Epistle (the support for our translation was the above-mentioned edition of R. Staats).

The remaining 63 "Homilies" of St. Macarius, belonging to "type I" manuscript collections, were published (in two parts) by G. Berthold in 1973.[21] They were translated into Russian in full by A. G. Dunaev[22] and in part: thirteen "Homilies" were translated by Archimandrite Ambrose (Pogodin),[23] and eight "Homilies" by Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein)[24]. They were published together in the series "Library of Fathers and Teachers of the Church"[25]. A manuscript collection of St. Macarius, called "type III"; usually it includes 43 works, of which 15 coincide with the "Spiritual Discourses"; the publication of the remaining twenty-eight was carried out in 1961 by E. Klostermann and G. Berthold[26], and later they were republished, with minor textual changes, by V. Despres[27]. Of all the newly-discovered creations of St. Macarius, this collection has been translated into Russian many times: four "Homilies" from it were translated by Vladyka Vasily (Krivoshein)[28], the first eight works of this "type" were translated by us, providing our translation with comments[29], and, finally, it was translated in its entirety by V. V. Bibikhin (under the pseudonym V. Veniaminov)[30]. It can be noted that in the manuscript tradition there is also a collection designated as "type IV": it includes 28 "Homilies" that coincide in general (with the exception of variant readings) with "type I"; it was not published separately.

A special place among the works of St. Macarius occupies the so-called "Epistle to His Children" (or "To the Children of God"). Until very recently, it was known only in translation into Latin[31]; A. Wilmar, who published the critical text of this translation and devoted a special study to the work, believes that the characteristic features of the epistolary genre are absent in it, and therefore this work should be considered as a small treatise, representing "an almost complete and clearly marked program of ascetic and mystical life." The translation into Latin was most likely made in the first half of the fifth century, for Gennadius of Marseilles already refers to this epistle around 470. Its author, in the opinion of A. Wilmar, is hardly identical to the author of "Spiritual Conversations", since the specific and individual features of the worldviews of each of these writers differ significantly from each other. A Syriac translation of this epistle has also been known for a relatively long time,[33] but only recently has the Greek original of the work been published, published by W. Strotmann, who, joining A. Wilmar and L. Marriot, believes that its author is not the writer who created the Spiritual Discourses[34]. Thus, the majority of researchers are unanimous in recognizing the fact that the Epistle to His Children belongs to the most ancient layer of monastic writing, but are inclined to deny the identity of its author with the author of the Spiritual Discourses (whom they call "Pseudo-Macarius"). If we leave aside the hypothesis concerning the "Pseudo-Macarius," then, of course, it is impossible to completely exclude the assumption that the said epistle could have been written by some other ascetic named Macarius (for example, St. Macarius of Alexandria or "of the City"), since at least seven fairly well-known Macarius can be counted for the fourth century alone. However, in our opinion, there is no particular need for this, since the difference between the style and worldview themes touched upon in the epistle and the style and themes of other works of St. Macarius are of an unprincipled nature and can be explained by the natural evolution in time of the views and "author's handwriting" of one and the same writer. Therefore, the "Epistle to His Children" is included in this volume[37], although, taking into account the point of view of researchers, we did not put the author's name in the title in the 1st edition.

In general, it should be noted that in connection with the discovery of a large number of new works, St. Macarius, the old scholarly discussion regarding the authorship of the so-called "Makariev Corpus" (or "Macarians") was greatly revived[38]. Without delving into this problem, it should only be noted that this discussion has two aspects that differ in a significant way, although they are closely interrelated. The first aspect can be conditionally formulated in the form of a question: is the author of these works St. Macarius of Egypt or some other anonymous ascetic ("Pseudo-Macarius")? From the Orthodox point of view, this aspect, despite the fact that it seems quite important, is not fundamental in the true sense of the word, for pseudepigrapha is a phenomenon that is quite widespread in the writings of the early Church. In the final analysis, it is not so important who exactly created this or that work, it is important first of all that it reflects the conciliar consciousness of the Church. And the works attributed to St. Macarius, undoubtedly had great "significance in the development of the Orthodox spiritual Tradition"[39]. However, this aspect acquires a completely different meaning and sound when the author of these works is recognized as one of the leading representatives and "spiritual leaders" of the heresy of Messalianism. In this case, the entire Orthodox Tradition appears to be deeply affected by the vice of Messalianism, and this heresy itself, a phenomenon quite accidental in the general stream of Orthodox spirituality and a kind of short-lived "temptation" of it, can be designated as "the great heresy of the Christian East." For the sake of fairness, it is necessary to note, however, that the question of the Messalian character of the "Spiritual Discourses" already has a centuries-old history, for on one manuscript of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, containing the text of these "Discourses," there is a note by an anonymous scholiast, who finds traces of Messalian views in the works of St. Macarius. Later, in the eighteenth century, two Greek scholars, Neophytos Kavsokalyvitos and Dorotheus Voulismas, also believed that the Spiritual Discourses reflected the undoubted influence of Messalian teaching. In the 20th century, the sporadic suspicions of Messalianism by the author of Spiritual Discourses grew into a stable "scientific" hypothesis. Of decisive importance here was the work of G. Doerris, one of the most profound connoisseurs of the work of St. Macarius, who persistently argued that the "Spiritual Discourses" and other works attributed to the famous Egyptian ascetic actually belonged to the practically unknown Messalian Simeon of Mesopotamia, only occasionally mentioned in sources. It is noteworthy that although G. Doerries himself, in his late monograph written shortly before his death, largely rejects this hypothesis, it becomes an almost unshakable "scientific theory" in the West, against which very few scientists dare to object.

Unfortunately, it should be stated that Orthodox patrologists have not yet provided a complete and exhaustive solution to the problem of the "Makariev Corpus," although the foundations for such a solution have certainly been laid in the works of Orthodox scholars. For example, if Father George Florovsky prefers to speak about the works of St. Macarius rather evasively[46], then V. N. Lossky quite decisively rejects all accusations of Messalianism "incriminated" to him[47]. Developing these theses of V. N. Lossky, Father John Meyendorff also pronounced his competent judgment regarding the "Makariev Corps." Considering the works included in it to be pseudepigrapha (their author, in Fr. John's opinion, apparently lived in Asia Minor and belonged to the circle of friends of St. Basil the Great), he, nevertheless, speaks directly of their anti-Messalian character[48]. However, in our opinion, all these judgments of Orthodox scholars and theologians do not always sufficiently decisively and clearly place accents on the fundamental question of the relationship between the works of St. Macarius to Messalianism.

Учитывая тот факт, что лжеучение этих еретиков имело весьма расплывчатые формы[49], можно предположить следующее: развивая данное лжеучение, мессалиане использовали отдельные положения, высказанные великим подвижником, чтобы, прикрываясь его авторитетом, включать их в контекст своего, чуждого Православию, миросозерцания. Этим и объясняются некоторые моменты сходства учения преп. Макария и мессалиан. Что же касается другого аспекта вопроса относительно «Макариан», т. е. проблемы авторства их, то она представляется проблемой просто выдуманной, плодом типичного «научного суеверия» и своего рода «предвзятого традиционализма», в которые часто впадают на первый взгляд весьма критически мыслящие западные исследователи. Ибо чтобы поколебать церковное Предание относительно автора «Духовных бесед», необходимы очень весомые аргументы, которые отсутствуют у сторонников гипотезы «Псевдо–Макария». Ведь фигура некоего «Симеона», поставляемого на место преп. Макария, является типичной фикцией, то есть обычным «научным мифом», который получает статус достоверной истины только потому, что его творцом является ученый, обладающий солидной репутацией (каковым был, например, Г. Дёррис). Но errare humanum est. Упорствование же в заблуждении не имеет ничего общего с научной объективностью. А для любого непредубежденного ученого совершенно очевидно, что в случае с «Макарьевским корпусом» самое большое, что можно предположить, так это возможность определенного литературного редактирования со стороны одного или нескольких ближайших учеников преп. Макария, «но ядро этих поучений, самый дух их, восходит к подвижнику IV века»[50].

Наконец, завершают данный том «Святоотеческого наследия» два сочинения, которые условно можно отнести к жанру «учительных книг». Возникновение этого жанра относится к самому раннему этапу становления церковной письменности[51], а в монашеской литературе он также появляется почти с момента ее зарождения: некоторые «Наставления» св. Аммона почти вписываются в законы данного жанра, который обретает уже вполне законченный вид во многих сочинениях Евагрия Понтийского. «Аскетическое слово» Стефана Фиваидского и по форме («главы»), и по содержанию во многом созвучно последним. О самом Стефане не сохранилось практически никаких сведений, хотя в свое время он был, судя по всему, известным и пользующимся большим авторитетом подвижником[52]. Местом его подвигов служил Египет, а для времени жизни Стефана предполагаются весьма широкие хронологические рамки V‑VI вв., но, на наш взгляд, их следует сузить (конец IV — начало V в.), ибо миросозерцание этого автора достаточно «архаично». В греческой рукописной традиции с именем Стефана связываются три сочинения: «Завещание святого Стефана всем монахам» (Διάταξις τοΰ αγίου Στεφάνου πάσι μοναχοίς), «Заповеди Стефана Фиваидского для отрекшихся [от мира]» (Στεφάνου Θηβα/ου Ιντολαί το<ς άποτασσομίνοις) и «Аскетическое слово». Первые два произведения в начале этого века издал греческий ученый К. Дувуниотис[53], считавший, что они принадлежат палестинскому иноку Стефану Савваиту, но подобная атрибуция, как указывает Ж. Дарузе, зиждилась на ошибке переписчика. Тот же Ж. Дарузе отметил, что «Завещание» Стефана во многом совпадает с третьим «Словом» преп. Исаии Скитского[54]. Позднее было еще отмечено тесное сходство «Заповедей» Стефана с «Правилами и предписаниями» («Regulae et Praecepta»), приписываемыми преп. Антонию Великому, и «Предписаниями» — сочинением, в арабском переводе надписывающимся именем преп. Исаии[55]. Наконец, в древнеславянской рукописной традиции фиксируется наличие четвертого сочинения Стефана, называющегося «Достопочтимого отца нашего Стефана Фиваидского главные заповеди для желающих спастись», которое на самом деле является переводом третьего и четвертого «Слова» преп. Исаии[56]. Таким образом, поскольку для установления авторства Стефана в отношении трех произведений требуется еще дальнейшая исследовательская работа, постольку подлинным его сочинением можно признать пока одно только «Аскетическое слово». Оно дошло до нас в трех версиях: греческом оригинале и двух переводах — арабском и грузинском. Греческий оригинал, изданный Э. де Плясом (по рукописи XI‑XII вв.)[57], являет нам автора, обладающего богатым духовным опытом и тонко чувствующего нюансы нравственно–аскетического учения христианства. Арабская версия, представленная восемью манускриптами (самый ранний датируется 885 г. — переписчиком являлся некий монах Исаак, трудившийся в Лавре св. Саввы Освященного), в принципе близка к греческому оригиналу (за исключением глав 67, 78–85)[58]. Грузинская версия (в единственной рукописи X в.) содержит только около половины оригинального текста[59]. Перевод «Аскетического слова» осуществлен нами с издания Э. де Пляса, но и арабская версия (точнее, французский перевод ее) также принималась во внимание[60].

Вторым произведением, принадлежащим вышеупомянутому жанру, является «Увещание к подвижникам» некоего Иперехия. О личности его мы столь же мало осведомлены, как и о личности Стефана Фиваидского. П. Тиро, посвятивший этому автору и его сочинению несколько страниц[61], предполагает, что «Увещание» предназначалось для подвижников, живущих сообща в каком‑то городе и не имевших еще четкой организации. Однако ссылка П. Тиро в этой связи на главы 6, 7 и 34 произведения Иперехия недостаточно убедительна, ибо эти главы могут пониматься в контексте миссионерской деятельности и странничества древних иноков, а не в контексте специфично «городского иночества». Для гипотетичной идентификации автора «Увещания» следует обратить внимание на тот факт, что некоторые изречения Иперехия вошли в различные редакции «Древнего патерика»[62], в том числе и коптскую версию его[63]. А поскольку все эти редакции, являющиеся письменной фиксацией устного предания в основном скитских старцев, сложились в главных чертах в первой половине V в., то и хронологические рамки жизни и деятельности Иперехия вряд ли переступают порог V в. Поскольку названные редакции «Древнего патерика» оформились тогда, когда скитские иноки, вследствие набегов кочевников, вынуждены были покинуть свое место и оказались в рассеянии[64], то можно предполагать, что Иперехий был одним из представителей этой «скитской диаспоры» (возможно, подвизающимся где‑нибудь в Палестине, куда перебрались многие скитские монахи), поневоле оказавшимся странником. Но лучшие традиции скитского иночества наложили свой отпечаток на его сочинение, которое, несомненно, является одним из наиболее интересных памятников древнемонашеской письменности. Поэтому мы сочли целесообразным включить его в данный том. Перевод осуществлен по тексту «Патрологии» Миня (PG. Т. 79. Col. 1471–1490), хотя в него иногда вносились некоторые исправления и чтения, предлагаемые П. Тиро, хорошо знакомого с рукописной традицией сочинения.

В целом мы надеемся, что данный том «Святоотеческого наследия», как и предыдущие, принесет немалую духовную пользу читателям и внесет свою лепту в развитие и укрепление богословской науки в России.

Перевод и комментарии профессора, доктора церковной истории А. К Сидорова