On the question of what serves as a criterion of the value of Christian almsgiving, the blessed father replies by pointing out that in this matter the highest value is the dedication of oneself to the cause of mercy and personal participation in the sorrow of the poor. "You do good," Blessed Jerome writes to Julian, "you donate... But these are only the first experiments of your militancy. You despise gold, and the philosophers of the world despised it... Do you think that you have already become at the height of virtue if you have sacrificed a part of the whole? The Lord wants you as a living sacrifice, acceptable to God. You, I say, not yours... The poor widow threw two mites into the treasury, and since she sacrificed all that she had, it is said of her that she surpassed all the rich by her sacrifice to God, which is valued not by its quality, but by the disposition of those who bring it." "If you have any thing in your hands," writes the blessed father in a letter to Paulinus, "sell it; if you do not have, do not worry about gaining. To the one who takes away the robe, you must also give the. If you, constantly postponing until tomorrow, dragging day after day, carefully and little by little sell your possessions, then Christ will have nothing with which to feed His poor. Everything was given to God by the one who sacrificed himself. The apostles leave the ship and the dead. A widow puts two mites into the treasury and is considered higher than the rich"[999]. And here are the words in which the blessed

Jerome speaks of the high value of personal participation in the ministry of the poor and sick. "Whatever property she (Fabiola) had, she divided into parts, and sold, and, turning it into money, used it for the needs of the poor... How many times she herself carried stinking patients on her shoulders... How many times she washed the purulent blood from a wound that no one else could even look at. She gave food with her own hands and supported the living corpse with medicinal drinks. I know that many rich and pious people, due to the weakness of their bodies, show this kind of mercy with the help of others and are merciful with money, and not with their hands. Though I do not reproach them, nor do I attribute their faint-heartedness to a lack of faith, yet as much as I excuse the weakness of their organism, so much do I extol to the skies the zeal of a perfect soul. Great faith despises all this... The one we despise, whom we cannot see... is like unto us, made of the same dust as us, composed of the same elements. What he endured, we can endure. Let us consider his ulcers to be our own, and all severity towards others will be softened by modest reflection on ourselves." And with such a personal experience of someone else's misfortune, neither vanity in the distribution of alms, nor rudeness towards those who ask will undoubtedly become inconceivable. One can also note the view of Blessed Jerome on the question of whether one should be choosy when giving alms. The blessed father emphasizes the idea of necessary justice in this case; More particularly, it is to give alms to the really poor and to help, first of all, those who are Christians who are in the faith. "Take heed," advises Blessed Jerome, "that you do not squander the property of Christ unwisely, that is, lest the wealth of the poor be distributed to the poor with unstrict scrupulousness, and, in the words of the most prudent man (Cicero), charity will not lose from generosity." "If you want to be perfect, you want to be like the prophets, the apostles, like Christ – sell, and not a part of your possessions, so that the fear of poverty does not serve as a reason for infidelity, but all that you have. And having sold, give to the poor, and not to the rich, not to the haughty. Give to maintain need, and not to increase wealth... To give to the poor what belongs to the poor in some way is sacrilege." And first of all, we must help those who are present in faith. "We must," argues Blessed Jerome, "prefer faithful Christians and believers to infidels, and there is a great difference between Christians themselves: whether a sinner is poor or a saint. For this reason the Apostle, approving alms to all in general, adds: "More than those who are ever in the faith." He who is ever in faith is one who is united to you by the unity of faith, and who is not separated by sins from brotherly communion with you. And if in relation to our enemies we are commanded to nourish them if they hunger, and to give them water if they thirst... how much more so with regard to those who are not enemies, but Christians and saints?" [1004]. As we can see, Blessed Jerome does not adhere to the absolute Gospel point of view on the question of whom one should do good in view of the clear possibility of acting practically imprudently in the case of fulfilling the commandment: "Give to everyone who asks." But it should be noted that the blessed father nevertheless speaks out on the subject that interests us now, and in the sense that prudence does not turn into miserliness and captiousness, even when distributing entrusted church property. "To accept something to distribute to the poor, and when many are in starvation, to distribute cautiously or sparingly... means to surpass all robbers in cruelty. I'm hungry, and you calculate how much my stomach needs? Either immediately distribute what you have received, or, if you are indecisive in giving, leave it to the benefactor to distribute his property himself"[1005].

It does not seem difficult now, after the exposition of the patristic teaching on almsgiving, to briefly formulate the Church's Christian view of it. Almsgiving is one of the manifestations of that love which is the all-embracing principle of the life of the Kingdom of God, that is, love for God and for one's neighbor in its organic, indissoluble connection. This connection is so undoubtedly manifested in almsgiving that the latter can be placed along with the forms of direct service to God, and service to people in their need should be considered as reverence for God, an expression of piety. This is because alms are the way to restore on earth the principle of true truth in human relations, which is commanded to people by God Himself; the path in which the believer simultaneously manifests both compassionate brotherly love for his fellow human beings and the reverent devotion of his loving heart to the Father of all, God. The highest motive for a Christian in the fulfillment of his duty to do alms is the response of grateful love to the love of Christ the Savior, Who not only deigned to suffer for our sake, but also "impoverished" for our sake, Who took upon Himself all the burdens of human poverty and human humiliation, in order to give us a perfect example of truly brotherly love. And as inseparable as service to Christ the Savior Himself is from service to His lesser brothers, so inseparably linked in the Christian consciousness is the heartfelt participation in the need of these lesser brothers of the Lord here on earth and participation in His blessedness and glory in the eternal Kingdom

Father. Almsgiving, therefore, is at the same time the fulfillment of the will of God as the Supreme Lawgiver; and the way to the restoration of truth in human relations, violated as a result of human egoism, and the expression of brotherly love for people, and the sacrifice of a loving heart to the Lord Jesus Christ, who has become impoverished for our sake, and the pledge, finally, of future participation in the Kingdom of Christ, when He comes in the glory of His Father to judge the world. Such a view of alms makes understandable those enthusiastic praises to it and those fervent appeals to it, which, according to the distant centuries, are carried to us from the distance of centuries in the teachings of the Holy Fathers. As for the question of the relative value of alms from the Christian ethical point of view, it is clear that it is determined by the extent to which it is imbued with the principles of true Christian love, of which alms should be a manifestation. The quantitative criterion of the value of almsgiving, from the point of view of such a principle, is not the amount of sacrifice, but the measure of self-restraint and self-denial that the donor voluntarily imposes on himself. The highest value, therefore, is that almsgiving which is created "out of poverty," and the outward expression of the fullness of love is the distribution of all one's wealth to the poor. But, of course, such self-denial has true value only if there is a sincere loving attitude. Without the latter, even the complete distribution of property has no value. This loving disposition constitutes the soul of almsgiving, and it is this disposition that determines the real value of charity. If the fullness of love is quantitatively expressed in perfect generosity, then on the part of the inner mood of the donor, this love will be expressed in complete freedom and personal experience of someone else's need. Therefore, only that giving is valuable that is given freely, joyfully, with a living awareness that the giver receives more from his giving than the one who receives it; therefore, that alms are more valuable in which not only bread is shared with the needy, but also the life of the heart itself, where there is a personal service to the grief of the brother. And it is natural that with such an inner mood of the benefactor, all kinds of rudeness, vanity and arrogance, as well as inappropriate scrupulousness, will become impossible in relation to those who ask. We have not only noted, but also emphasized that there is no complete agreement in patristic writings on the question of who should give alms, namely the duty to give alms with or without scrutiny. The great majority of the great teachers of the Church defend the absoluteness of the duty to give alms and demand complete indiscriminateness. Some respectable fathers abandon this absolute point of view and, in the face of crying need, on the one hand, and on the other, in view of the limited means of each, recommend that those who ask for care for a more expedient distribution of alms, without stinginess and resentment, take care of the more expedient distribution of alms. It seems that after all that has been said about the nature of Christian almsgiving, it is clear that the views of the majority of the great teachers of the Church on the duty of a Christian to give to everyone who asks are more in line with the purity of the understanding of the Gospel teaching. If we pay attention to the way in which Christian alms essentially differ from any other, we can definitely note this difference: the Christian teaching on alms has its starting point in the heart of mercy, and not in one or another consequence of it. Christian almsgiving is undoubtedly a duty in view of the existence of poverty and want. The fervent sermons of the Holy Fathers were undoubtedly so fervent and persistent precisely in the face of life's untruths, the groans of the offended and destitute. In encouraging almsgiving, the Holy Fathers always, of course, had in mind helping the poor. But the ethical evaluation of alms has always concerned not this aspect, not the result, but the process of almsgiving itself, the inner moods and experiences of the benefactor. This is what gives the Christian teaching the character of an incomparable height, the character of absoluteness: the will of God must be fulfilled without any thought or concern about what will follow its fulfillment. And on the question of whom alms should be given, this God's will is expressed with all certainty: to everyone who asks, give. Like the mercy of the Heavenly Father, Christian love knows no bounds in principle: it gives to everyone who asks, gives a shirt to the one who takes away his outer garment, turns the other cheek to the one who strikes one, blesses those who curse. Only the good of the beggar can be the boundary for almsgiving: brotherly love does not take upon itself the right to judge his need, but cannot give up concern for his salvation and give him that which must inevitably bring not benefit, but harm; To put it simply, the Christian mind is given the duty to choose this or that type of almsgiving, but not the right to refuse the beggar.

In brief excerpts from the works of the Holy Fathers, we tried, as if in a focus, to collect the rays of patristic thought, illuminating the Christian teaching on property and almsgiving. These rays are pure and warming. The ancient Orthodox Church, in which they shone, appears before our eyes as the herald of that love and truth which were brought to earth by Christ the Savior and are the light of Christian life, called to shine to the world. In this light, we see a picture of the true life that the members of the Church of Christ should live. God is the Father of all men, giving them all things abundantly to enjoy; the whole world is a reflection of Divine love, which brings its gifts to people; All people are brothers, called to live in their father's house, to use in common all the gifts of fatherly love without offending each other, but sharing among themselves both sorrows and joys on the path of their pilgrimage to the heavenly Fatherland. This is what the great ministers of the Church taught. In life, of course, it was not the same. Not only could the whole non-Christian world not even comprehend the beginning of a new life in Christ, but the Christian life itself was far from its ideal, especially when the "first love" began to grow cold. And among the Christian community there were no truly fraternal relations, vivid pictures of earthly untruth were visible, the unceasing groans of the offended and destitute in the world were heard, in this house of the common Father. And all the hearts that suffered from a lack of brotherly love, all the victims of human malice and unrighteousness, all the souls suffocating in the atmosphere of the beginnings of worldly pagan life, all those who hungered and thirsted for righteousness — all of them, like flowers to the sun, reached out to the Church, sought from her help, and protection, and consolation in their sorrow, they asked her for the bread of life and living water, flowing into eternal life. And the Church helped them, comforted them, fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and warmed the chilled; She did all this, but she did even more than that: she nourished and watered people spiritually, she shone the world with true light, warmed it with the warmth of eternal truth and love. And the Church could not have enough earthly bread to satiate everyone, but it always had enough spiritual bread, the word of Christ's truth, by which man truly lives. The pastor of the Church went out to all those who thirsted for the truth to teach them, and with joyful blows the sorrowful heart responded to these words. This pastor said that our true life is in heaven, that the earthly states of people are only theatrical masks that everyone will need to throw off when the last hour of his life strikes. This pastor said that everything in this world is not our own, but belongs to our heavenly Father, in Whose presence we are all children and heirs, and therefore it is most fitting for us to divide everything equally, as brothers. And when the pastoral gaze turned towards the rich, the word of the herald of Christ's truth sounded with fervent denunciation. This word spoke of the desecration of God's truth on earth and called, ardently and tirelessly to mercy and love. And when this pastoral gaze turned towards the poor and offended in this world, a word of fatherly affection and consolation sounded. This word spoke of the coming days when the light of Christ's righteousness would shine in the world, and that there would be a righteous reward for all. The menacing denunciations of the rich mingled with the encouraging consolation of the poor; fervent appeals to mercy and truth turned into a warning voice of fatherly love, zealous for the salvation of spiritual children. The Church was a true mother for the faithful: a mother, a being who for children is the bearer of love, a self-sacrificing protector, the source of all that is pure, warming, caressing, to whom children stretch out their hands, by whose caress and care they live. Such was the ancient Universal Orthodox Church in the teaching of its pastors and teachers. And when the latter said that "to whom the Church is not a mother, God is not a father," they knew what they were saying. The Church was the conductor of Christ's love and the light of His truth into the life of the world, and whoever rejected this love and turned away from this light rejected the work of Christ and did not want to look upon His pure heavenly countenance...

Fifteen centuries have passed since the last of those Fathers taught in the Church, whose teaching on the question of the Christian attitude to property we have expounded. The world lived its own life for these centuries; and now, just as in the days of the patristic teaching, there is no truth on earth in relations between Christians, and the words of the Gospel of Christ about the brotherhood of man as children of one Father seem wondrous to us. And now, just as in the early days of Christianity, millions of the world's destitute go to the Church and through it offer their broken hearts as a sacrifice to God, waiting here for consolation and enlightenment. Our Russian Orthodox Church is part of the great universal whole and must be the bearer of the ideas by which the ancient Church lived. To it, the Russian Orthodox Church, not only the hands of those who ask are stretched out, but the hearts that love the truth and yearn for it are directed. And our Church must be the messenger of Christ's truth, must confess His truth, must convict the world that there is no truth in its life, and show the world the only way of life in Christ and His word of eternal truth. And if our theology and preaching in church are to be servants of the Church and contribute to her growth in the world, then they must confess and preach the truth of Christ in all its purity and radiant beauty, and not pervert it to please the principles that dominate in our present life. We have briefly pointed out the falsity of the path that modern theology and preaching generally follow in clarifying the Christian view of questions about the relationship of a Christian to property and help to the needy. This fundamental lie lies in the fact that the norm of Christian relations is not those ideal principles of life that were proclaimed to the world by the Lord Jesus Christ, but the principles that actually dominate in our life, pagan in spirit. For this reason it turned out to be possible to reach such a blindness as to advise, in the name of the Church of Christ, to preserve and increase one's wealth while the brethren were dying of hunger, and to live in luxury when a great multitude of people had no shelter. To teach thus means verily, to give to those who hunger for righteousness a stone instead of bread; and is it any wonder that when such teachers say: "The Church is our mother," then, although they speak the truth, it sounds sadly in their mouths, and in their speech one does not feel all the warmth of this image – the motherhood of the Church. And there is only one reliable way for our Russian theological thought to remain faithful to Christ, and that is to listen more to the voice of the tradition of the Universal Church than to the voice of the tradition of human customs; to assimilate the meaning of eternal truth to the word of the Gospel, and not to changing human institutions and opinions. Russian theological thought, if it wishes to be faithful to the precepts of the ancient Church, must, on the path of its confession and propagation of Christ's truth, go into the world with a banner on which would be inscribed the great words of the Psalmist, addressed by him to God: "Thy righteousness is everlasting righteousness, and Thy law is truth."

APPLICATION. Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein). ST. SYMEON THE NEW THEOLOGIAN AND HIS ATTITUDE TO THE SOCIO-POLITICAL REALITY OF HIS TIME

In this article I would like to consider several characteristic passages from the "Catechetical Homilies" of St. Symeon the New Theologian[1006], which reflect the attitude of this spiritual writer and mystic to the political and social reality of his time and his assessment of it. Symeon the New Theologian was not a political writer, his interests were entirely focused on questions of spiritual life, so it is quite natural that he does not make direct political statements. Nevertheless, even when speaking of spiritual life or of the relationship between man and God, St. Symeon the New Theologian likes to use images and examples borrowed from social life, and in these images one can often see his attitude to its manifestations. Thus, for example, repeating after the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 1:27-28) that "having forsaken the wise and the mighty and the rich of the world, God chose in His ineffable goodness the weak, and the foolish, and the poor of the world"[1007], Symeon the New Theologian makes the following contrast between the Divine and the earthly kingdom: "Men abhor them (i.e., the weak, the foolish, the poor), the earthly king cannot endure their sight, the rulers turn away from them, the rich despise them, and when they meet them, they pass by as if they did not exist, and no one thinks it desirable to associate with them, but God, who is served by innumerable multitudes of angels, who contains all things by the word of his power, whose splendor is intolerable to all, did not refuse to become the father and friend and brother of these outcasts, but wanted to become incarnate, to become like us in all things, except sin, and to make us partakers of His glory and kingdom"[1008]. In this passage from the Second Catechetical Discourse, it is interesting not only for the vivid description of how the "rich" treat the "weak and poor" with disgust and contempt, and how the "king" even "cannot stand the sight of them", but also the very opposition of the "earthly king" to the heavenly King, God, Who, unlike the earthly one, did not refuse to become impoverished and become a man like us, our brother. As can be seen from this, St. Symeon the New Theologian was alien to the idea that the "earthly king" is the image of God on earth, and that the earthly kingdom is a reflection of the Kingdom of Heaven. On the contrary, the earthly kingdom with all its orders appears to him as the opposite of the Kingdom of God.

The attitude of St. Symeon the New Theologian to the kings and powers that be is even more clearly expressed in a long passage from the Fifth Catechetical Discourse, describing the Last Judgment. Christ there addresses "kings and rulers and military commanders" with the following words (after He had given them David and other righteous men of old as an example): "Why were you not imitators of him (David) and the like? Or perhaps you thought yourselves more glorious and richer than he, and therefore did not want to humble yourselves? Wretched and miserable, you, being corruptible and mortal, wanted to become autocrats and rulers of the world (^ovoKpaxope^ ksh koszokratore^). And if there was any one in another country who would not submit to you, you exalted yourself over him as your insignificant slave, and did not endure his disobedience, although he was a servant of God like you, and you had no advantage over him. And to Me, your Creator and Master, you did not want to obey... Have you not heard me say, "He who wants to be first in you, let him be the last, the servant and servant of all"? How were you not afraid... to fall into pride from this empty glory and to become transgressors of this commandment of mine... But you have despised My commandments, as if they were the commandments of one of the outcast and weak." Basically, these lines are purely religious in nature. "Kings" are accused of violating the commandments of the Lord, of pride and lust for power, of rebelling against God, of unwillingness to humble themselves before Him. "Mortal and corruptible," they strive to become the sole rulers of the universe and oppress other people, God's creatures like them. Moreover, the entire structure of the earthly kingdom, based on pride and violence, is contrasted with the Kingdom of God, based on humility and service. But in these general Christian judgments one can see a criticism (also Christian) of the concrete phenomena of the historical reality of Simeon's time. Thus, the expressions ^ovoKpaxope^ and koszokratore^ (autocrats and rulers) characterize the two main socio-political tendencies of the kings of the Macedonian dynasty, Emperor Basil II the Bulgar-Slayer, a contemporary of St. Symeon the New Theologian, in particular. The first of them was expressed in the desire of the Macedonian emperors to break down within the empire any social force capable of resisting them and limiting their power. Such a social force was the Byzantine landed aristocracy, the large landowners of Asia Minor, first of all. Such an aspiration of the Byzantine kings is characterized by St. Simeon as their desire to become "autocrats" (^ovoKpaTope^). Another tendency of the same kings, their desire to expand the boundaries of the empire and achieve world domination, is characterized by him as the desire to be "rulers of the world" (Koo^oKpaTope^)[1011]. Both of these tendencies, as we have seen, are regarded by Symeon the New Theologian as contradicting the commandments of Christ and are condemned by him on behalf of Christ at the Last Judgment. The acuteness of this condemnation is evident from the fact that the expression koorokratsor applied to kings in ecclesiastical language usually refers to the "prince of this world," Satan, and to evil spirits in general (cf. Eph. 6:16), in contrast to the word Pautokrsgar (Almighty) applied to God. It should be emphasized, however, that St. Simeon does not reject royal power as such and does not oppose it to any other form of government, but condemns from the Christian point of view the sinful tendencies of royal power and opposes to the bad and sinful kings (his contemporaries, one might think) the ancient righteous and God-pleasing kings, although he does not call them by name, as he does. when he speaks of the holy patriarchs and bishops[1012].

The attitude of St. Symeon the New Theologian to private property and social inequality is very interesting. Here is what he says about this in his Ninth Catechetical Discourse: "The money and possessions that exist in the world are common to all, like the light and this air that we breathe, like the pastures of irrational animals in the fields, in the mountains, and throughout the whole earth. In the same way, everything is common to all, and is intended only for the enjoyment of its fruits, but by dominion belongs to no one. However, the passion for acquisitiveness, which had penetrated into life like a kind of usurper, divided in various ways among its slaves and servants what had been given by the Lord to all for the common use. She surrounded everything with fences and secured it with towers, bolts and gates, thereby depriving all other people of the benefits of the Lord. At the same time, this shameless woman claims that she is the owner of all this, and argues that she has not committed an injustice towards anyone. On the other hand, the servants and slaves of this tyrannical passion become not the owners of the things and money they have inherited, but their evil slaves and guardians. And if they, having taken some or even all of this money, out of fear of threatened punishments, or in the hope of receiving a hundredfold, or being persuaded by the misfortunes of men, give to those who are in deprivation and poverty, can they be considered merciful, or having nourished Christ, or having done a work worthy of reward? By no means, but as I say, they must repent unto death for having kept (these material goods) for so long and deprived their brethren of the use of them." As we can see, St. Symeon the New Theologian believes that "money and possessions" should be "common" to all, "like the light and the air we breathe." "All this is intended only for the use of its fruits, but by dominion belongs to no one." The passion for acquisitiveness, in Simeon's opinion, is the cause of the emergence of private property. This passion enslaves a person, and he becomes their slave and guardian from a master of material goods. Alms to the poor do not correct this sinful order of things and do not justify man before God, for it has a partial character and is devoid of unselfishness.

An even harsher condemnation of social injustice is found elsewhere in the same place. In the ninth Sermon: "The devil inspires us to make private property (i5ionoi^cac0ai) and to turn into our saving (anoBnoaupicai) that which was intended for the common use, in order to impose on us two crimes by means of this passion for acquisitiveness, and to make us guilty of eternal punishment and condemnation. One of these crimes is lack of mercy, the other is hope for saved money, and not for God. For he who has set aside money cannot trust in God. This is clear from what Christ and our God said: "Where," He says, "your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Therefore he who distributes to all of the money collected for himself should not receive a reward for it, but rather remains guilty of having unjustly deprived others of it up to this time. Moreover, he is guilty of losing the lives of those who died of hunger and thirst during this time. For he was able to feed them, but he did not feed them, but buried in the ground what belonged to the poor, leaving them to die of cold and hunger. In fact, he is the murderer of all those whom he could feed." Thus, St. Symeon the New Theologian teaches here about the emergence of private property as a consequence of the devil's suggestion. The sinfulness engendered by it consists in lack of mercy to the poor and in reliance on riches, and not on God. Alms are not able to justify the rich. They do not cease to be the "killers" of the poor who are dying of hunger.

As a general conclusion from the above excerpts from the "Catechetical Homilies" of St. Symeon the New Theologian, it can be said that in them he vividly responds to the socio-political phenomena of his time: the imperial system with its aspirations for autocracy and external expansion, with the alienation of its bearers and the entire ruling stratum from the masses of the people, to the social inequality of Byzantine society, based on private property and on the accumulation of material resources by the propertied strata. poverty and hunger among the people. His approach, however, to all these phenomena is not political or social, but purely religious, spiritual, Christian.

He does not propose any political or social programs. Moreover, it can even be said that material poverty as such was not considered by St. Simeon as an evil, it can even be a way of imitating Christ. "God has become a poor man for you," he writes, "and you, who believe in Him, must also become poor like Him. He has become poor in humanity, and you are poor in Divinity... He became poor in order to make you rich, in order to give you the riches of His grace. Therefore He took on flesh, so that you might partake of His Divinity"[1016]. In other words, for Simeon, true poverty consisted in alienation from God, and true wealth in union with Him. But he saw in the social inequality of Byzantine society the sin of lack of mercy and unbrotherly love, in private property a manifestation of a passion for acquisitiveness, in the personal accumulation of wealth a sign of lack of faith, in the policy of the kings a manifestation of pride, contempt for people and rebellion against God, in their earthly kingdom the opposite of the Kingdom of God. It would therefore be historically incorrect to see in these spiritual evaluations of St. Symeon the New Theologian a reflection or manifestation of some political or class interests or tendencies of his epoch, although its socio-political features are reflected in him, as we have seen, very clearly. The statements of St. Symeon the New Theologian belong not so much to the history of political and social thought in Byzantium as to the history of the spiritual life and teaching of the Orthodox Church. First of all, it is a vivid expression of the Christian conscience, uncompromisingly irreconcilable to any sin and apostasy from God.

(Vestnik Russkogo Zapadno-Evropeyskogo Patriarshego Exarchata, 1961. No 38-39, pp. 121-126)