The development of the boy along the paths not quite clearly predicted by the dream vision proceeded rapidly, although in some cases unevenly and even painfully. With all this, his advantages over others were obvious, and everyone was surprised by this. The ZhK also notes two features due to which "book learning" was so successful: "memory" and "shitness": "When you come to book learning, the student in books is more likely than anyone else to remember and learn good, as if he were amazed at all." Memory, apparently, in this case presupposes the receptivity of the content of what has been read, which testifies to a serious impression received from what has been read and included in the circle of one's "personal" interests, experienced as "one's own" and actually determining the thoughts, feelings and behavior of the subject of memory, who has the ability to correlate "someone else's and the external with "one's own" internal. Hytrost, as in the well-known passage from "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", defines a certain intellectual "dexterity", the ability to find non-standard solutions up to intellectual sophistication, "premeditation", as Dostoevsky liked to say. This trick in this context, as well as a little later, when it is said about Constantine's weak mind, is quite free from negative connotations, from a certain if not dishonesty, then "incorrectness" in relation to the other (except in relation to oneself, "simple", passive, before the beginning of intellectual involvement in the solution of the problem). As a rule, such a cane (and especially its fruits) is attractive to its bearer, like any ingenuity that allows you to expand the circle of the known at the expense of the previously unknown, and contributes to even greater involvement in solving intellectual problems. In this case, "cane", like "memory", is something more than just good natural abilities: in Constantine, from childhood, they come to the disposal of the mind, intellect, culture, are recognized by their subject as their strengths, are cultivated and progressively develop until the laws of nature set a limit to this development.

This intellectual success and the successes connected with it could be rejoiced if the "external" impressions of life did not sometimes influence the state of mind and state of mind and did not show a tendency to transform them into internal content. This happened to Konstantin more than once in his childhood, and in some cases it could not but bring a certain spiritual split into the previously cloudless perception of life. This is where despondency arises, which turns the weak into pessimists or cynics, and the strong, if successful, pushes them into the space of expanded spiritual experience. Constantine encountered such situations early, and it was not immediately that he felt the presence of some providential path-guiding principle in them. Thus, one day, according to the custom that existed at that time in the circle to which he belonged, he went out with his companions, apparently about his age, into the field to amuse himself with hunting. When the prey was planned and the boy released the hawk, "the wind was found by God's providence" and carried the hawk away: the hunt did not take place for the boy. The disorder was so great, and, moreover, disproportionate to the failure, that "the lad fell into despondency and sorrow, and did not eat bread for two days."

At that time he could not understand the deep meaning of what had happened and appreciate the providential nature of this experience. He was not yet able to understand that "by his love of man, the merciful God, not commanding him to get used to the things of life, catch it conveniently" and, as Placidus was once caught during a hunt, when he saw a deer carrying a cross on its antlers, and did not shoot at it. But it is impossible to say that the boy did not learn any lessons from what happened. Despondency and sadness were the first warning signs of the seriousness of what had happened and how it was perceived by him. Further conclusions depended entirely on the boy himself, and this was for him the first significant test of a moral character: it was more important than those tests as a result of which it turned out that he was "the best student." Even then, on the way to meaning, he was able to omit everything secondary and see behind the empiricism (unsuccessful hunt) a certain trans-empirical basis, its moral aspect. And this first time, a way out was found quickly: the answer to the question posed to himself was given in the form of a solution concerning a change in the entire lifestyle. "Thinking within myself of this joy of life, I said, 'Is this this life, yes, a place of joy, sorrow to dwell? From this day on, the path is better, and in the midst of this life I do not depend on my days."

It is difficult to say with certainty how Constantine imagined this new path, "which is the best" at that time, but it is known that he again turned to studies, to learning ("And after learning them, sitting in his house, learning books" [...]), apparently purposeful and persistent. It is difficult to say whether he made this choice because it was precisely in these occupations that there was a "better path," or whether it was a respite that allowed him to enter deeper into thinking about the "better way" and then make a responsible choice, it is difficult to say, but in any case it is obvious that the occupations of this kind were pleasant to Constantine, that he needed them and saw in them a certain special meaning. And here again, in connection with the JK, the theme of Gregory the Theologian arises, posed, as it seems, precisely in the form that most closely corresponded to the main interest of Constantine, who in those days was looking for a new and better way of life. His teaching at this time consisted in turning to the books of Gregory the Theologian, which Constantine memorized by heart ("learning the books of St. Gregory Theologus"). Of course, the very choice of Gregory the Theologian was a choice of a life guide. Turning to him, Constantine sought here an answer to the question that apparently continued to torment him. The problem was to understand the combination in Gregory of two qualities so different and seemingly mutually exclusive: the human body and the angelic soul, the gross nature of this world and the subtle phenomenon of the other world. Between these infinitely distant poles, between the real given and the hoped-for ideal state, according to Constantine's plan, his life was to be built. Therefore, "Praise to St. Gregory" ("O Gregory, a man in body, and an aggel in soul, for thou art a man in body and an aggel..." etc.) — not only about Gregory and for his glory, but also about the question that was painfully resolved by Constantine himself, and not only about anything in general, but also simply a request for protection and an appeal for help — "In the same way, I also, falling to you in love and faith, receive and be my enlightener and teacher." [The significance of this fragment of the ZhK is very great: we have before us an example of the poetic work of Constantine the Philosopher, the transmission of a poetic text dedicated to Gregory of Nazianzus. For its reconstruction, see the articles: Trubetzkoj N. Ein altkirchenslavisches Gedicht. — ZfslavPhil. Bd. 11, 1934; Jacobson P. O. Poetic Quotations in Moravian Hagiography. — "Slavistična revija" X, 1957 (cf. also in "Selected Writings")].

What the boy Constantine understood in the works of Gregory the Theologian answered his requests and was to his liking. But the trouble was that he did not understand all the complexity and depth of the thoughts of the great Cappadocian theologian and poet, and this plunged him into despondency. This state is briefly and accurately recorded in the Housing Code: "Having entered into many conversations and the mind of greatness, they could not understand the depths, in despondency the great land." And, apparently, not trusting his own capabilities, Constantine was looking for a teacher who could reveal to him the full depth of Grigory's thoughts. And such a teacher could be a certain foreigner, experienced in grammar ("Strange be some tu, umea grammaticiku"). And Constantine begged him, coming to him, "and fell on his foot: Good deed, teach me literacy." But the teacher who "buried his talent" turned out to have vowed never to teach again. The boy was not satisfied with refusal. His sense of sobriety and self-control betrayed him for a moment, and he asked for the same thing again, bowed with tears to his teacher, and promised him a reward ("And the lad, bowing down to him with tears, said, 'Take all my part in my father's house, if I am worthy, and teach me.'" But the teacher did not even want to listen to the despairing boy and went home, and Constantine, who was left with nothing, "remained in prayer, so that he might find the desire of his midst." Except for prayer he had nothing else to hope for, and God heard his prayer — "Quickly do the will of those who fear him," and, as often happens, this will from above met with needs coming from below and as if preparing the acceptance of this will: "For his [Constantine's] beauty, and wisdom and diligent learning, which is dissolved in him, Hearing the king's builder, who is called logothete, and an ambassador to him, so that he would teach him with the king."

This proposal was accepted with joy [It should be noted that Constantine the lad was especially emotional, too much impressionability, characteristic of delicate and artistically gifted natures, easy excitability, accompanied by a transition from tears to joy and back. as if symmetrical to the childish appearance of Sophia the Wisdom and forming the second part of a single frame (see above), and he began to sing: "O those who said to me: Let us enter into the house of the Lord, my spirit is glad, and my heart rejoices, and he put on his honorable garments, and remained so all that day, joyful, and the next day "clothed in the holy image of the Lord." And when the hour of his transfer to eternal life approached, he lifted up his hands to God and made a prayer with tears. But even in his youth he was open to joy: when he, at the age of 24, was sent by the Caesar to the Hagarites, where death could await him, he answered him: "I am glad to go for the Christian faith. For I am happy in this world, (but) for the Holy Trinity to die and live?"; During the Khazar mission, when it was necessary to address the listeners for the last time, "the speech... the philosopher to everyone with tears"], and the boy set off on his journey; on the way he knelt down, made a prayer, asking God, Who "created every word and wisdom [...] having created a man: Give me wisdom that is in the depths of thy throne, that I may be saved, understanding what is pleasing to thee," and in conclusion he pronounced a prayer to Solomon.

From now on, Constantine, who found himself in Constantinople-Tsar-city, had experienced teachers in various sciences, and the results of the teaching were quickly revealed and were amazing. Constantine, as some have suggested, studied at that higher school, restored in the middle of the ninth century, often called the University of Constantinople, which was under the patronage of the state and where future state officials were trained, who were obliged to take a course in the "seven liberal arts" (see Dvornik 1933, 36–41; Lipchitz 1961, 344–345; Lemerle 1971, ch. IX; Speck 1974; Florya 1981, 108–109, etc.); it cannot be ruled out, however, that he may have studied in the scholarly circles that arose in Constantinople at that time (one under the patronage of Theoctistus, the other of Bardas) and competed with each other (Speck 1974, 17–19); in this case, classes in these circles were possible for Constantine only at different times. Among his teachers, the ZhK names two outstanding figures of the Byzantine enlightenment of the ninth century: Leo the Mathematician, whose name is associated with the resumption of studies in the exact sciences and the study of ancient texts, and Photius, known primarily as the patriarch (from 858, before that in the 40s-50s he was a major statesman), but also, undoubtedly, a major theologian, philologist, and connoisseur of ancient texts. a fatal figure in the incipient schism of the Christian Church, completed by Michael Cerullarius [much has been written about Photius in this regard, beginning with the fundamental three-volume work of Hergenröter, ending with the words that "human understanding and power are no longer able to overcome this schism" and "nur grosse weltgeschichtliche Erreignisse und ein Eingreifen der göttlichen Vorsehung ihre Folgen anzuheben in Stande sind", See Hergenröther J. Photius, Patriarch von Konstantinopol. 3. Bd. Regensburg, 1869, 867; cf. also Rosseikin 1915; Dvornik F. The Photian schism. Cambridge, 1948; Idem. The Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm. — «Dumbarton Oaks Papers» 7, 1953; The consequences of this schism for the entire Christian Church, especially for Byzantium – historically, and for Russia – actually, were already prophetically indicated by Pope Gregory IX in a letter to Patriarch Germanus II: "When the Greek Church separated from the Roman Church, it immediately lost the advantage of ecclesiastical freedom; she, who was free, became the handmaiden of the secular power, so that by the just judgment of God she who did not want to recognize the divine primacy in Peter must bear the yoke of the secular power against her will" (J. Hergenröther, op. cit. 3. Bd. 843, cf. ibid.: "Das war die bittere Frucht des durch Photius in das Leben gerufenen Schisma", 843; cp. See also Bulgakov S. N. At the walls of Chersonesos. St. Petersburg, 1993, 79, 153). This context is especially important in connection with Constantine, who, as far as can be judged from the facts, from his general views, and from the very spirit of his activity, was free from "schismatic" aspirations."]

The program of Konstantin's classes was extensive and, according to the testimony of the Housing Code, he completed successfully. Although the range of sciences that he studied is quite traditional and, moreover, is known from a number of lives of other saints of that time (for example, from the Life of Patriarch Nicephorus; however, not all the lives show an approving attitude towards secular education, cf. the Life of John the Psychaite), the corresponding fragment of the ZhK deserves to be reproduced, in particular because it contains not only the sciences studied by Constantine, but also about him in connection with the sciences:

"When I came to Tsarigrad, I was also a teacher, and I taught him, and at the age of 3 months I learned all the literacy, and after I learned it. Thou shalt learn Omirus, and geomitry, and from Leo, and from Fota, and in all the philosophic teachings, and in rhetoric, and arithmetics, and astronomy, and music, and all the rest of the Hellenic teachings. In the same way I am accustomed, as not a single one of them is accustomed. Speed is taken with diligence, and each other is ready to learn, and art and craftsmanship. More than that, he showed a quiet image on himself, conversing with them, with whom it was more useful, bowing down from those who bowed down in the ranks, and thinking how on earth you would fly out of this body and with God" [it is worth adding that the "Legend of St. Ludmila" ("Czech Legend") says that Constantine studied Greek and Latin literature, translated the Old and New Testaments and many other writings from Greek or Latin into the Slavonic dialect, cf. "sanctus Cyrillus, graecis et latinis apicibus sufficientissime instructus [...] vetus et novum testamentum, pluraque alia de graeco sive latino sermone in Sclavonicum transtulit idioma…»].

This fragment of the GC produces a somewhat ambiguous impression: is it about success in the sciences, about superiority in learning over others, or about something else, still emerging, but more important and having to push aside the fruits of learning, or at least assign them a slightly different role? It seems that the compiler of the ZhK has lost control over the text for a while and does not notice that the glory of Constantine the scientist, erudite, intellectual in the first part of the fragment, if not fading, then becomes somewhat aimless against the background of what is said in the second half of the fragment. In fact, is "academic" knowledge really necessary for a gentle disposition and for soul-saving conversations? Especially if it is immediately announced that something more important has arisen than the teaching – "More than the teaching is quiet, manifesting a quiet image on itself." And even more: having mastered the sciences, Constantine was already thinking about (only that? or, at least, first of all) as if, having exchanged the earthly (and the sciences, of course, are "earthly" things) for the heavenly ("as if the earthly heavens were less..."), he would fly out of this body and live with God.

It is obvious that here Konstantin reaches a certain important milestone, having early felt that the direction of the path of life must change, since the entire system of values is also changing. The problems of cognition, learning, and science begin to recede, disappearing from the foreground, the intellectual "greed" and a kind of "predatoriness" of the gaze, which examines everything around it, from the point of view of the possibilities of cognition of this as well, are softened, because there seems to be a presentiment that in the pursuit of "intellectual" knowledge something more important and useful can be missed (cf. "with them it is more useful"; as can be seen from the context, it is not just a question of utility, but of spiritual utility, and the emergence of this concept as a reflection of a special category diagnostically accurately fixes the change in the system of values for Constantine). Entry into this new circle of thoughts, feelings, and moods was also rapid and organic, and this circle can only be called new in the sense in which one speaks of the flower as something new in relation to the stem, root, or seed: "novelty" in this case describes only phenomena of the phenomenal level, but noumenally, just as the flower is already present in the seed, so Constantine's new aspirations were already hidden in his childish openness to the impressions of existence and in his intellectual thirst for knowledge. He did not renounce anything previously achieved in various fields of knowledge or in the sphere of artistic imagination, he apparently did not subject anything to revision, but the very changes that took place in the structure of the whole contributed to the fact that the specific weight of previous acquisitions was determined in a new way, they were arranged in this whole in a new way and they were used in a new way in connection with problems. arising as part of the whole. In other words, Constantine the Philosopher remained a philosopher, but he saw in philosophy a deeper aspect that he had not previously known, although this does not mean that he did not deserve some more "intensely precise" epithet: Constantine's position was broad and free enough not to argue about particulars, but to focus on the whole.

A typical example related to the topic of philosophy, reports JK. On one occasion Constantine's benefactor in Constantinople gave him "power" over his house ("give him power over his house", an obvious mistake of the compiler of the ZhK who failed to translate the Greek διδόναι έζουσίαν, literally, "gave permission" (to enter his house), see A. Vaillant, Textes vieux–slaves. Paris, vol. II, 27) and permission "to enter the king's palace with the dwelling," i.e., boldly, without fear, he asked Constantine what philosophy was. Constantine, with a humble mind, answered: "God and the prophetic mind, if a man can draw near to God, as a child to teach a man in the image and likeness of Him who created him." Constantine can hardly be reproached for not knowing what else philosophy does when he reduced its task to determining how far man can "draw nearer to God," but for him at this new stage in the development of his thought, philosophy was needed first of all, and precisely for him personally and right now, precisely for what he indicated in the definition of philosophy. that, according to one opinion (Grivec), this definition of philosophy was borrowed from Gregory of Nazianzus, which, however, needs a more correct textual proof, cf. Vavrinek 1963, 107–108. Others (Ševčenko 1956) believe that it goes back to the eclectic definitions of philosophy (the Stoic "knowledge of things divine and human" and Plato's idea of approaching God with the help of philosophical knowledge), more or less common in the works of the sixth and seventh centuries in Byzantium; cf., however, "in the image and likeness", which refers to the book of Genesis; it is believed that such a Christianized definition of philosophy could have been worked out in the circle of Leo the Mathematician and Photius; It is also noted that this definition differs from the definitions of philosophy that arose in the monastic milieu at the same time or close to it].