Epiphanius was a native of Palestine, born about the year 315. We do not know where he studied. But it is clear from his works that he was a well-read man – he knew five languages: Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, and a little Latin. From an early age, his ascetic vocation was determined. He was close to St. Hilarion. Then he visited the Egyptian deserts and monasteries. Upon his return, he founded a monastery near his native city, Eleutheropolis, which he ruled for many years. He became known far beyond the borders of Palestine, and in 367 he was elected bishop of Constantia (ancient Salamis), in Cyprus. Here he became famous as an ascetic and wonderworker, and also as a zealot of righteousness. In the seventies, he fought against Apollinarianism. Then he approached Blzh. Jerome, on the basis of common ascetic hobbies. Through Jerome he became involved in the Palestinian Origenistic controversies. In 394, he went to Jerusalem to worship and there he encountered John of Jerusalem, because of Origen. The heated disputes dragged on. Epiphanius behaved defiantly and haughtily. Soon he left Palestine. But the dispute about Origen flared up again in Egypt. Theophilus of Alexandria again attracted Epiphanius to him and convinced him that his struggle with Chrysostom was in essence a struggle against Origen. Epiphanius went to Constantinople. He met Chrysostom with suspicion and avoided communicating with him. But it seems that here they were able to explain to Epiphanius the true state of affairs. Epiphanius decided to return home, his last words are reported as leaving: "I leave you the capital, the court and hypocrisy"... On the way on the ship, he died. This was in the year 403. Epiphanius had a tough and domineering temperament, not softened by sensitivity and benevolence, and for all his piety he did not know how to serve the affairs of the world. He was not a theologian, but he loved to judge by faith. He enters the history of theology precisely as a suspicious critic and denunciator. And in this capacity it deserves attention, most of all for its participation in Origenistic disputes.

St. Epiphanius had a special taste and zeal for the persecution and denunciation of heresies. He set the disclosure of false teachings as his main task, he considered it his calling. The main works of St. Epiphanius are devoted to hereseology. First of all, this is the "Panarius", the "Book of Antidotes" (literally "box of antidotes"), compiled in 375-377. This is a review of all heresies, accompanied not so much by analysis as by denunciation. In his work, Epiphanius collected everything about heresies from previous accusatory literature (in Justin, Hippolytus, especially in Irenaeus), and to this he added much from personal experience. Unfortunately, St. Epiphanius used his rich material without verification and analysis, and too often succumbed to suspicion and passion. He was poorly versed in Greek philosophy, and mixed, for example, the Pythagoreans and the Peripatetics, Zeno of Eleus and Zeno Stoic... He was too trusting of bad rumors. His dogmatic narrow-mindedness made him wary of any disagreement, even on minor questions. He was suspicious of the great theologians of the fourth century, and he was especially hostile to the Alexandrians. Epiphanius treated Origen with horror and disgust, and in his teaching he saw an error "worse than all heresies"... He writes a lot from memory and from rumors. Hence the constant inaccuracies, especially in chronology. The accusatory part of the works of St. Epiphanius is weakest of all. He is completely devoid of historical flair. In the most ancient times there were no heresies, no paganism, no Judaism, from which he concludes that "the faith of the first people had the image of Christianity, was the same as it was later revealed." To Adam and all the righteous before Abraham he ascribes the knowledge of the Holy Trinity. And therefore, even before the flood, Epiphanius begins to count the Christian false teachings, turning all the impious into heretics. There must be exactly eighty heresies, for it is said in the Song of Songs: "I have sixty queens and eighty concubines and virgins without number" (see 6:8). The first heresy is barbarism, the coarsening of morals before the flood. The second is Scythianism, before the Tower of Babel. Then came Hellenism (with its philosophical sects) and Judaism... The theoretical views of the heretics are not clearly set forth in Epiphanius, the main attention is paid to the moral side, and usually the way of life of the heretics is presented gloomy and hardly without partiality. The Panarius is very important as a collection of heresies; but the reports of St. Epiphanius must be used with great caution. Even before Panarius, Epiphanius had compiled the book Anchoratus, Άνκυρωτός (374), the title of which he wanted to express the idea of the true faith as a reliable anchor when navigating the sea of life in the midst of demonic and heretical temptations. The exposition of the rule of faith is directed here against modern false teachings, but often the views of ancient heretics are also touched upon. Epiphanius speaks in detail about the Trinitarian dogma, especially about the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Spirit. In conclusion, two statements or creeds are given, one of which, designated as "the faith taught in the church in the holy city" (i.e., in Jerusalem), coincides almost literally with the Constantinopolitan Creed. The history of this last symbol is still unclear.

The last years of Epiphanius' life include his biblical works. First of all, the book "on weights and measures" (of the ancient Hebrews). In reality, this is an experience of a biblical introduction—Epiphanius speaks here of the Old Testament canon and translations, of the geography of Palestine, of "weights and measures" he speaks, among other things. In Greek, only part of the book has been preserved, the rest is known only in the Syriac translation. Secondly, the allegorical discourse "on the twelve stones" (in the chest of the Old Testament high priest), dedicated to Diodorus of Tyre (not of Tarsus). The Greek text is shorter than the surviving Latin translation, and Epiphanius may have written on Biblical themes, but these works have not come down to us. These works of Epiphanius are of some interest to the archaeologist and biblical scholar. As a biblical scholar, Epiphanius was not a supporter of a literal interpretation; He was more inclined to symbolism, if not allegorism, in his explanation of the Old Testament texts.

Special mention is made of the works attributed to Epiphanius against the veneration of icons. They were referred to by the iconoclasts, in particular at the Council of 754, and the defenders of the veneration of icons considered them forgery. Thus judged the Seventh Ecumenical Council. "We reject the Scriptures, but we consider the Holy Father to be a teacher of the universal Church," said the fathers of the council. Patriarch Nicephorus wrote specifically against these books of Epiphanius. We can judge about these books on the basis of a few fragments, preserved mainly by Nicephorus. It can be said with almost complete certainty that they do not belong to Epiphanius, that this is an iconoclastic forgery. Apparently, a later insertion is also represented by a well-known episode, allegedly told by Epiphanius himself in his letter to John of Jerusalem (long known in Jerome's translation, Nicephorus has a Greek text). In Palestine, in the city of Anablat, Epiphanius, it is said here, saw in the temple a human image on a veil — either Christ, or some saint — in irritation he tore off the veil and gave it to the burial covers for the poor, and in return gave a clean cloth to the temple... However, it is no accident that forged books against the veneration of icons were attributed to Epiphanius. He was not a supporter of the veneration of icons and even the use of icons. And in his "Testament" he commands "not to bring" icons either in churches or in tombs, the Memory must be kept in the heart, and not fixed in sensual images. In this Epiphanius was not alone. He agreed, for example, with Eusebius of Caesarea, who also denied both the possibility and the admissibility of depicting Christ. This was a negation of historical and pictorial iconography. In Epiphanius' reasoning about idols, which we encounter in his original works, there is a hidden rejection of all images. Images are always anthropomorphic, act on feeling, divert thought from God to creation. Epiphanius rebukes the Gnostics for having images in their possession, all the more so because they depicted Christ, since by this they represented Him as a simple man. Epiphanius was not a realist, he rather gravitated towards symbolism. And the rejection of sensory images was quite consistent with his psychological attitude. Of course, this was bad theology. Such a "theological opinion" in no way discredits the ecclesiastical authority of St. Epiphanius. It is to a certain extent understandable from the historical conditions of the fourth century, in the epoch of the struggle against paganism, in the epoch of the struggle for the "consubstantial" Words. The transition from symbolism to realism in iconography could easily seem seductive.

8. John Chrysostom.

I. Life and creations.

Chrysostom's life was difficult and stormy. This is the life of an ascetic and martyr. But Chrysostom asceticized not in seclusion or in the wilderness, but in the vanity of life, in the midst of the world, on the episcopal throne, on the pulpit of a preacher. And he was a bloodless martyr. He was persecuted not from outsiders, but from false brethren, and ended his life in chains, in exile, under excommunication, persecuted by Christians for Christ and for the Gospel, which he preached as Revelation and as the law of life. Chrysostom was first of all an evangelist, a preacher of the Gospel. And at the same time, he was always a very modern and even topical teacher. The latter meaning of his teaching is clear only from a living historical context. It was the Gospel judgment on modernity, on that imaginary churching of life, in which, according to Chrysostom, too many found premature comfort in the Christian society of the fourth century. This is the explanation of the harshness and severity with which this universal preacher of love taught. It seemed to him that he was preaching and witnessing before the dead. The untruth and dislike of the Christian world was revealed to him in catastrophic, almost apocalyptic features... "We extinguished jealousy, and the body of Christ became dead." And the light yoke of love turned out to be an unbearable burden for the unloving world. This also explains the sorrowful fate of Chrysostom, who was exiled for the sake of truth... "For this reason the world hates you."

St. John was a native of Antioch, and in his spiritual makeup, in his religious worldview, he was a typical Antiochian. The year of his birth is not known exactly, approximately in the forties of the 4th century, between 344 and 354. Saint John came from a rich and noble Christian family, and by birth and upbringing he belonged to the Hellenistic cultural circles of Asia Minor society. This explains his high personal culture, the aristocratic nobility of his appearance, and the certain worldliness of his treatment. Chrysostom did not renounce culture even when he renounced the world and everything that is in the world. Chrysostom can be spoken of as a true Greek. He received a brilliant and broad education. He studied under the famous Livania. Chrysostom was not a thinker or philosopher. In the categories of the ancient world, he can be defined as an orator or rhetorician. An ancient rhetorician is a teacher, a moralist, a preacher. Chrysostom was such a teacher. Chrysostom's Hellenism is manifested primarily in his language and style. As an orator and stylist, he can be compared with Demosthenes and even with Xenophon and Plato, in the style of Chrysostom the power and brilliance of classical Athens come to life again. His contemporaries also saw him as an Atticist. It cannot be said that Chrysostom's Hellenism was only formal and external – it is not only a form, but a style... It is true that Chrysostom was never apparently agitated by the inner and philosophical problems of Hellenism, and he never had to reconcile the Hellenic and the Christian in himself. But this is characteristic of the entire Antiochian cultural type, of the "historical" culture of Asia Minor, it was more of a "philological" than a "philosophical" culture... In any case, Chrysostom always remained a Hellenic... This is already felt in his moralism. Moralism was, as it were, the natural truth of the ancient world. This explains and justifies the transforming reception of Stoicism by Christian ethics, the sublimation of natural truth to grace-filled heights. And in Chrysostom the features of such a transfigured Stoicism are very vivid. He always taught about moral wisdom, about moral nobility. He always thought in terms of moral evaluation. But he saw the fulfillment of natural truth only in the frank Gospel ideal. It is wrong to think that Chrysostom was not a mystic. "Moralism" does not exclude "mysticism." And Chrysostom's mysticism itself had primarily a moral meaning. This is the mysticism of conscience, the mysticism of good, the mysticism of good deeds and virtue... Chrysostom's aesthetic motifs are much less expressed. And beauty was more of an ethical than an aesthetic category for him. He saw beauty first of all in active goodness. For him, the Gospel was a book about the beauty of good, manifested in the image of the God-Man. This determined the theme of his life... Chrysostom's moral character was formed very early, already in his youth. The example and lessons of his mother were strengthened and strengthened by the lessons of his sacred teachers – Meletius of Antioch, Diodorus, the ascetic Carterius... The secular vocation did not satisfy Chrysostom. And before he can leave the world, he indulges in ascetic feats in his parents' very home. Only after the death of his mother, in the year 374 or 375, did St. John receive the opportunity to retire to a monastery near Antioch and spend four years there, and then two more years in the wilderness... This was a temporary temptation for Chrysostom. He returns to the world to struggle in the midst of the world. Asceticism for Chrysostom meant a spiritual attitude rather than certain external and everyday forms. Asceticism for Chrysostom meant, first of all, renunciation, i.e. inner freedom and independence from the world, from the external environment and conditions of life. In this sense, he remained an ascetic for the rest of his life. He returned to the world as a preacher of asceticism. Not in order to call for external withdrawal from the world, from the cities, he saw in this departure only a temporary measure... "I often prayed," says Chrysostom in these years, "that the need for monasteries would pass, and that such good order would come to the cities that no one would ever have to flee into the wilderness." Chrysostom also strove to transform the life of the cities on the principles of the Gospel, in the spirit of "higher philosophy", for this he became a pastor and preacher.

St. John received the deacon's ordination in the year 381 from Meletius of Antioch, and the presbyter from his successor Flavian in the year 386. Chrysostom spoke about his new vocation in the famous books "On the Priesthood" (in fact, about the episcopal ministry). It is difficult to say when he wrote them, but not later than his presbyter ordination. He proceeded from the ideas of St. Gregory the Theologian. Chrysostom emphasized two main motifs. First of all, he spoke about the height of the sacred calling, as a call to the secret action. "Sacred service takes place on this earth, but it occupies a place among the heavenly authorities." For the priesthood is established by the Comforter Himself. And do we remain on earth when we see the Lord again being offered and dead, and as if we are crimson with His blood? And the priest stands at the sacrificial meal... The priest's throne is set in heaven. He was given the heavenly power of the keys, which is not given even to the angels... Secondly, Chrysostom sees in the priest, first of all, a teacher, a mentor, a preacher, a shepherd of souls. And he speaks most of all about the teaching ministry of the priesthood. In this respect, he places the priest above the monk – there is more love in pastoral service than in monastic solitude, and pastoral care is a service of active love, service to neighbors... "It is precisely this that has perverted the whole universe, that we think that only monastics need greater austerity of life, while others can live carelessly," Chrysostom remarked... It is difficult to enumerate the topics that he touched upon. Of the Antiochian sermons, special mention should be made of the famous discourses "on statues" and then a long series of exegetical discourses on Matthew and John, on the Epistle to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to Titus, perhaps to the Ephesians and to the Romans, and probably also on Genesis. To the same time belong the words against the Jews, against the Anomies... Chrysostom never spoke on abstract topics. His conversations are always vital and lively, he always speaks to living people. From his conversations one can observe his listeners and the preacher himself. His speech always leads to volitional conclusions, to practical appeals, and above all teaches love. At the same time, he always demands integrity, calls for responsibility. Chrysostom spoke with authority, but it was the power of faith and conviction. And he himself emphasized that this is a transforming power, a strength of spirit. But most of all, it was the power of love. And love connected Chrysostom with his flock.

In 398, Chrysostom was summoned to the Constantinople cathedra. And he was called precisely as a recognized pastor and teacher. Such was the will of the clergy, the church people, and the court. In Constantinople, Chrysostom continued to preach. Sozomen notes that Chrysostom used to sit among the people on the reader's ambo, and the listeners crowded around him. These were conversations rather than speeches... Chrysostom's commentaries on the Acts, on the Psalms, on many Epistles of the Apostle Paul belong to this time. Many of his conversations were stenographically recorded after him, which preserved all the vividness of the spoken word. The task of the moral re-education of society and the people arose before Chrysostom at this time with special force. He had the impression that he was preaching to people for whom Christianity had become only fashionable clothes. "Out of so many thousands," he said, "it is impossible to find more than a hundred saved, and I doubt it." The very multitude of Christians confused him, "the more food for the fire." And with bitterness he spoke of the well-being that had come: "Security is the greatest of the persecutions against godliness, worse than any persecution. No one understands, no one feels danger – security breeds carelessness, weakens and puts souls to sleep, and the devil kills those who sleep. And the preacher's voice became harsh and accusatory — all around him he saw hay fit only for fire... Chrysostom was embarrassed by moral decay – not only depravity, but most of all the silent lowering of requirements and ideals not only among the laity, but also among the clergy... Chrysostom fought not only with the word of denunciation, but also with deeds, with deeds of love... "No one would remain a pagan if we were real Christians," he said... He took care of charity, established hospitals and shelters. He tried to attract all forces to creative work, demanded a feat from everyone. This caused opposition and discontent not only in Constantinople, but also in other dioceses. Enmity towards St. John broke out more than once. And the clash with the Empress Eudoxia was only the last reason for the explosion. Chrysostom had enemies everywhere. First of all, among the clergy, especially among wandering monks. Then at court and among the rich. It is too difficult to tell the whole gloomy story of the deposition and condemnation of Chrysostom at the shameful council "under the Oak". Traitors were found among the episcopate, headed by Theophilus of Alexandria. Among others, Acacius of Berea, Severian of Gabala, and Antiochus of Ptolemais, who were insulted by Chrysostom, were actively at war. There were many accusations against Chrysostom, among them the suspicion of Origenism. Chrysostom was deposed, and the emperor confirmed the sentence. Chrysostom's exile was short-lived. Very soon he was returned and greeted by the people with rejoicing. However, the enmity did not subside. And the very fact of his return without the annulment of the conciliar sentence was turned against Chrysostom. For this, according to the fourth canon of the Council of Antioch, there follows the deprivation of rights, even if the sentence were unjust. Chrysostom did not recognize the council that judged him as legitimate, nor did he recognize (nor was he the only one) the Antiochian canon, but demanded a council for justification. The bishops condemned Chrysostom for the second time. He continued his ministry. The excitement grew. And in June 404, Chrysostom was expelled for the second time and sent first to Kukuz in Lesser Armenia, then to Pitsiunt. He could not bear the burden of the journey and on the road he reposed on September 14, 407. Very soon all the untruth of Chrysostom's condemnation was revealed. In 417, the Bishop of Constantinople Atticus restored his name in the diptychs, referring to the voice of the people. Cyril of Alexandria protested sharply: "If John is in the episcopacy, why is Judas not with the apostles? And if there's a place for Judas, where is Matthew." In 419, they also lost in Alexandria. And in the year 438 the remains of Chrysostom were transferred to Constantinople and placed in the church of the Holy Apostles. The verdict of the council "under the Oak" was canceled by the general testimony of the church.

Chrysostom's literary heritage is enormous. It is not easy to determine its exact volume. Over time, the name of Chrysostom became so glorious that other people's conversations and words were inscribed with it. It is possible to single out the indisputable works of Chrysostom, others obviously do not belong to him, but many remain in question, especially when it is not possible to establish exactly another author. Most of Chrysostom's works are discourses or words, homilies. Among them, exegetical ones are especially important. The rest of the conversations have a wide variety of content. Special mention should be made of the words for feast days and in memory of saints. All these are spoken words. Another category of Chrysostom's works is instructions intended for reading. Of particular note are the writings on ascetic themes and books on the priesthood relating to the early years. In addition, about 240 letters have been preserved, all from the second exile. They are very important as material for characterizing the holy personality of Chrysostom. The question of the Liturgy of Chrysostom is very complicated. In the oldest list, in the Barberine Euchologia (VIII century), his name is not mentioned, although there is already a mention of the Liturgy of Chrysostom in the VI century. And it is not easy to single out what exactly can be assimilated by Chrysostom in the later rite associated with his name. In this respect, it is very instructive to compare the liturgical data from his discourses, especially the early ones. But this does not give a solution to the problem either. However, the very fact of his concern for the ordering of the divine services, in particular the Eucharistic one, cannot be disputed. Chrysostom's influence was enormous. He very soon became a "universal teacher and saint," in fact earlier than in name. From the VI century he is called Chrysostom, in the VIII this name becomes generally accepted. Especially in exegesis, Chrysostom became forever a model and authority. He was followed by almost all the later Byzantine interpreters, especially Theophylact of Bulgaria. The history of Chrysostom's literary influence is one of the most striking chapters in the history of Christian writing and patristic tradition.

II. Chrysostom as a teacher.

Chrysostom was given the gift of speech, the gift of a living and authoritative word. He had the temperament of an orator, and this is the key to his conquering power. He loved to preach: "I have persuaded my soul to fulfill the ministry of a preacher and to fulfill the commandments, as long as I breathe, and it will please God to prolong this life of mine, whether anyone will listen to me or not." Chrysostom understood pastoral service primarily as a teaching service, as a ministry of the word. Pastoral care is power, but the power of words and persuasion, and this is the fundamental difference between spiritual and worldly power. "The Tsar coerces, the priest convinces. One acts by command, the other by advice." A pastor must turn to freedom and to the will of man, "we are commanded to work out the salvation of people by word, meekness and persuasion," said Chrysostom. For the whole meaning of the Christian life for Chrysostom was that it was a life in freedom, and therefore in podvigs and deeds. He spoke and constantly reminded of freedom and self-activity of man. It was in freedom that he saw the "nobility" of man, the image of God given to him. For Chrysostom, the moral realm is primarily the realm of will and volition. In this respect, Chrysostom was a consistent voluntarist. In the movements of the will he saw both the beginning and support of sin, as well as the beginning and path of virtue. And, in his opinion, Christ "did not come to destroy nature, but to correct volition." Every action of God's grace in man is performed in such a way "so as not to injure our autocracy." In other words, God Himself acts by persuasion, not by compulsion, "He exhorts, advises, warns against evil beginnings, but does not coerce." And the pastor must imitate this Divine example... Chrysostom was a maximalist in temperament, he was harsh and strict. But he was always against any coercion and coercion, even in the struggle against heretics. Chrysostom was always an opponent of external and temporal measures of struggle in matters of faith and morals. "Christians are especially forbidden to correct those who fall into sin by violence," he said, "our war does not make the living dead, but the dead alive, for it is full of meekness and humility... I persecute not by deed, but by word, and I persecute not heretics, but heresy... I am accustomed to endure persecution rather than persecute, to be persecuted rather than persecute. In the same way, Christ conquered the crucified, and not crucifying, not striking, but taking the blows." And, moreover, Chrysostom also restrained the hasty condemnation of dissidents, in this respect his famous sermon "On Damnation and Anathema" is characteristic. He saw the power of Christianity in meekness and patience, not in power, and everyone should be harsh to himself, not to others...

Chrysostom was first and foremost a moral preacher. But it would be wrong to emphasize this too much and say that he was a teacher of morality, and not of faith. And not only because he often, especially in the early Antiochian years, touched upon direct dogmatic topics, but above all because he derived his moral ideal from dogmatic premises. This is especially evident in his exegetical discourses, in particular in his commentaries on Paul's Epistles. Chrysostom had his own favorite dogmatic themes, to which he constantly returned. First, the teaching about the Church, which for him is inseparably linked with the teaching about redemption, as the High Priestly sacrifice of Christ, who ascended to heaven through the Cross. From this the teaching about the Church as a new being, not only a new life, is revealed. And, secondly, the teaching about the Eucharist as a sacrament and sacrifice – Chrysostom is rightly called a "Eucharistic teacher". Chrysostom did not have a theological system. It would be in vain to look for dogmatic and theological formulas in him, in particular, in Christology and in Mariology, he is not always free from the inaccuracy and one-sidedness of the usual Antiochian theological language... Chrysostom was a witness to the faith, which explains why his judgments were given so much importance in antiquity, especially in the West. The voice of Church Tradition was heard in him... Chrysostom faced special tasks: he was zealous not for the refutation of wrong opinions, but first of all for the fact that the Christians who were named to understand that the truths of faith are the truths of life, the commandments of life, which must be revealed in personal life. Too many people forgot about this then. Chrysostom demanded a life of faith and assumed that the truths of faith were known to his listeners. It would be premature to go further, until the heart is careless and even the beginnings of faith are not quickened in the souls. Of course, it remains true that Chrysostom himself did not have a vocation for speculative theology. But he was least of all an adogmatic moralist. In his theological confession he proceeded first of all from the Apostle Paul, and it was a sermon about Christ and salvation, not a sermon of morality. And the very "evangelism" of Chrysostom has a dogmatic meaning, for him his whole life is connected with the image of Christ not only as a prophet, but primarily as the High Priest and Lamb. The whole sacramental mysticism of Chrysostom is connected with this. To this must be added that for Chrysostom only the purity of life testifies to the purity of faith. Moreover, it is only through purity of life that purity of faith is attained for the first time, and an impure life usually gives rise to wrong teachings. For faith is realized and fulfilled only in love, without love right faith is simply impossible – neither faith, nor contemplation, nor knowledge of mysteries... And without love, intellectual theology turns out to be a hopeless labyrinth... Chrysostom saw before him restless and sleeping human hearts. He wanted to awaken them to spiritual life and love. This is connected with the well-known individualism of Chrysostom. He has little sense of the reality of worldly society and communication, there are always individual people in front of him. They are united for him only in the Church. In this individualism is the root of Chrysostom's sensitivity. He never strays into common places. It is always concrete and visual, teaches in examples, and applies to particular cases. He has the least conventional rhetorical schemes, in this he surpasses even Gregory the Theologian. He never forgot that he was a shepherd of souls, not an orator, and that his task was not to reveal or develop to the end this or that objective theme, but to touch the living heart, to incline the will and reason. The logical and formal harmony of his speeches was disrupted by this. But they acquired an internal range. This is a kind of dialogue with a silent interlocutor, about whom the preacher sometimes says something. But it's never a monologue without an audience.