At the beginning of the thirteenth century, Constantinople fell under the rule of the Latin Crusaders. The imperial Byzantine throne was transferred to Dicea. This misfortune brought to their senses the Byzantine sovereigns who followed the path of impiety. Thunder struck, and the Byzantines were startled, but at least some of the Byzantine emperors at Nicaea proved themselves to be models of morality and religiosity. Such was especially the Emperor John Vatatzes (1222-1255). [147] Instead of the insane extravagance that distinguished many of the Byzantine emperors of the twelfth century, he shows an example of purely rural life. He starts farming, breeds cows, sheep, horses, and sells natural products of his farm. An unprecedented idyllic simplicity of morals dominates the emperor's palace. All of John's relatives and his nobles follow the example of the king. Luxury was banished both from the royal palace and from the houses of the nobles. The emperor forbade the purchase of expensive foreign fabrics made by Italians, Babylonians, and Assyrians. [148] Works of charity and religiosity occupied the first place in the activities of John Vatatzes. He established hospitals and almshouses, the income from some plots of land belonging to the patrimony of the emperor was assigned to feed the elderly, the sick and the poor. Here and there the emperor built churches in honor of the Holy Cross, the Mother of God and the Baptist, provided them with estates and incomes, and did not leave the monasteries without his attention. As a weakness in the behavior of John Vatatzes, the historian Nicephorus Gregoras, who describes this reign in detail, points to the case of the emperor's infatuation with a court lady to the point of forgetting his family duties, but the same historian notes that John did not remain unrepentant of this offense either: he, as the historian remarked, felt reproaches from his conscience, as from a needle, and asked God for forgiveness of his sin. [149] Historians also portray another emperor of the Nicene period, the son of John Vatatzes, Theodore II (1255-1258). The historian Pachymerus characterizes this sovereign as follows: "There was neither day nor night, nor time of sorrows, nor hours of joy, nor sunrise, nor sunset, when it was seen or heard that the king did not lavish blessings either personally or disposing others to do so." In spite of this, according to the historian, he, nevertheless, seemed to his nobles to be a difficult sovereign, because he appointed people positions and honored them, paying attention not to the nobility of origin and family ties with the royal house, but to his own qualities. The historian, moreover, praises this sovereign for loving the sciences and doing good to all scientists. [150]

But towards the end, if I may say so, of the Nicene imprisonment of the Byzantine emperors, with the transfer of the capital to Constantinople in the second half of the thirteenth century,[151] the emperors are for the most part sad examples of moral depravity, of moral weakness. Michael Palaiologos (1261-1282), who forced the Latins to leave Constantinople and retook the throne of Constantine the Great, was far from being a lover of virtue. By transgression he attains the throne. He orders the blinding of the infant Emperor John, the son of Theodore Vatatzes, entrusted to his care, and thus gets rid of this rival child of his. This crime is all the less recommended by the moral character of Michael Palaiologos, the more inventive it was. It was decided to make John incapable of reigning, and for this purpose it was chosen to blind him by the slow destruction of his eyesight. "His eyes were ruined," writes the historian Pachymeres, "not by a red-hot iron suddenly, but by some kind of trinket that was heated and turned before his eyes, so that the child's eyesight first weakened, and then little by little completely extinguished." Then the blinded crown-bearer was imprisoned in the fortress. "And those oaths," the historian notes, "which Michael Palaiologos gave regarding the protection of John's life, were swallowed by the tsar like a cucumber." The royal youth John was not the only victim of Michael's cruel soul – John's adherents also suffered much from him. "Some of them he expelled from service, others he subjected to punishment." [152] A rhetorician named Olovol suffered a great deal: his nose and lips were cut off and he was tonsured a monk. Subsequently, Olovol had to endure many more insults from the cruelty of the tyrant. Being once angry with Tin, Michael gave orders "to hang him with sheep's entrails with all the impurities in them, he gave orders to beat him on the lips with sheep's liver without ceasing, and in this form to lead him along with some other persons through the streets of Byzantium." [153] Michael Palaiologos in general was a man who knew how to calm his sinful conscience in a purely Jesuit way. With such a sacred thing as an oath, he treated in a peculiar way. Let's tell you one case. His son Andronicus, sent with an army against the Serbs, persuaded the Serbian leader Kotanitsa to surrender, and swore an oath that he would not tolerate anything bad from the tsar. Michael Palaiologos, however, decided to blind Kotanitsa. "After all, it was not I who swore," he reasoned, "but my son without my permission." Learning of his father's intention, Andronicus came to him with an intercession on behalf of the unfortunate Kotanitsa The father, in response to his son's intercession and to the argument he had adduced that if Kotanitsa were to be blinded, he, Andronicus, would be an oathbreaker, began to prove to him that there would be no perjury, because he, Andronicus, would keep the oath, and the king, as free from the oath given without intercourse with him, could act as security required. To the credit of Andronicus, it must be said that he tried to take measures to save Kotanitsa from danger. [154] And how little Michael valued religious interests is evident from the fact that he made every effort to subordinate the Greek-Latin Church in the so-called union. Such was Michael Palaiologos. But it would be unfair to think that works of piety were alien to Michael. And this sovereign, like many of his predecessors, was able to combine the apparently incompatible—the depravity and fragility of moral principles with religiosity. The autobiography of Michael Palaiologos has survived to this day, in which he shows a rare care for the improvement of monasteries. He restored the monastery of the Holy Martyr Demetrius in Byzantium, provided it with inexhaustible revenues, carefully worked out for it something like a rule, determined the staff of the monastery, assigned it for all time to be under the protection of Byzantine sovereigns, etc. In the same way he took care of many other monasteries listed in his autobiography. [155] Michael took care of the decoration and enrichment of the famous St. Sophia Church[156] and so on.

Better in religious and moral terms was Michael's successor, his son Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282-1328). As the ruler of the empire, Andronicus is considered an incapable sovereign. But in this respect it is impossible to judge Andronicus very harshly: the intricate and difficult circumstances of the time would have made it difficult to govern the Byzantine state even for an emperor more intelligent and skillful. Meek, loving science and enlightenment, wishing to be useful to all, Andronicus would have stood at the height of his vocation if he had lived and reigned in more peaceful and tranquil times, for example, at least in the twelfth century. His personal virtues are not tarnished by any historian. His social virtues also paint the image of Andronicus from the best sides.

St. Gregory says of Michael's successor: "On the throne sat a dignified mind, which did not like hypocrisy and weighed everything according to its conscience, as before God." [157] And it must not be thought that the historian wants to flatter Andronicus. Andronicus was indeed like that. In this respect, the following example, related by another historian, Pachymer, is very remarkable. Once the emperor received an anonymous pamphlet, which contained a great many slander, including some slander and accusations against the emperor himself. What did Andronicus do? Someone else in his place would have torn up the manuscript without paying attention, or would have taken measures to find the slanderer. The king did not do so. Feeling innocent of the accusations brought against him, he decided to publicly read and expose the inventions of the pamphleteer. For this purpose, he gathers bishops, clerics, monks in the palace, and admits the people to the meeting. Here he examines paragraph by paragraph in the pamphlet. In this case, the emperor wants to act in his defense by word and reason, and not by the authority of power. [158] In our opinion, this act proves that the emperor really wanted to "weigh everything according to his conscience." The piety of Andronicus cannot be doubted either. In the sorrows and joys of life, he turns to God with prayer. He prayed especially fervently before the icon of the Mother of God, arranged solemn processions in honor of the Mother of God, and he himself set an example of the deepest reverence for the Heavenly Intercessor. [159] The restoration and decoration of temples was his favorite pastime; This he did with such generosity that the construction of new churches would not have required more expense than he had spent on the restoration and decoration of existing churches. [160] His zeal for piety explains why he showed such concern for the affairs of the Church and their well-being as few Byzantine emperors could boast of. Pachymerus says: "How close to the king's heart lay the affairs of the Church, how he cared for peace and tranquility, this is proved by many examples of the history of his reign." [161] It is true that this solicitude of the emperor seldom led to good results, but Andronicus is not to blame for this, with which Pachymerus, an impartial connoisseur of this reign, agrees. If it is true that the virtues of man are known in misfortunes, then we must recognize Andronicus as possessing high qualities of soul. At the end of his life he was dethroned by his grandson, Andronicus, and had to spend his life in oblivion and material deprivation. But the latter circumstance did not kill his inclination to generosity. Let us tell you two cases in which this inclination was expressed in a very vivid and self-sacrificing form. "Shortly before his death," says Gregora, "Andronicus needed a warm blanket because of his illness; The king had three gold coins in all the money, and it was on them that he had to make a purchase. But at this time, one of the servants tells him about his extreme poverty. Touched, the king gives him his last three coins." And here is another incident told by the same historian. One day, with his last money, he bought himself some sweet Arabian drink prescribed for him by the doctor. But before tasting the drink, one of the Emperor's servants asked him to help him in some way to alleviate his long-term illness. Having nothing, Andronicus gave him his drink. "So he was quick to help the suffering," says the historian, "and after death he had nothing left but debts." [163] It cannot be overlooked that, despite his many virtues, Andronicus had the defect that he was no less superstitious than the commoners. [164]

Without going into tiresome details about the other emperors who occupied the Byzantine throne in the fourteenth and first half of the fifteenth centuries, let us speak very briefly about the emperors of this time. The successor of Andronikos II, or the Elder, was his grandson Andronikos III, or the Younger (1328-1341), as he is called in contrast to his predecessor. Nothing good can be said about this Andronicus. In his youth, he stained himself with debauchery and showed himself disrespectful to his grandfather. His debauchery was the direct cause of the death of his brother Manuel and the indirect cause of his father, Michael. [165] He comes to such moral depravity that one day he comes to his grandfather in the palace with the intention of killing the latter, and only the tenderness of his grandfather stops his villainous intention. [166] What good can be expected from such a person? Of course, nothing. And indeed, his reign was the most miserable in all respects. He loved hunting and huntsmen more than the royal power itself. [167] Gregory points out some few good qualities in Andronicus the Younger,[168] but they pale before his moral laxity. Andronicus was a friend of Ioanncdes Cantacuzenus, that Cantacuzenus who later became Byzantine Emperor for a time (1347-1355). It is difficult to say on what basis this friendship was established, for there was nothing in common between Andronicus and Cantacuzenus. Andronicus's friend was of a completely different nature. Honesty, family virtues, piety, and remarkable diligence were the hallmarks of Kantakouzenos. [169]

Of the last Byzantine emperors – John, Manuel, again John and Constantine Palaiologos – it is hardly worth talking. They are sad images of religious and moral imperfections. [170] The only exception is Constantine Palaiologos, the last Byzantine emperor, but we shall have occasion to speak of him later.

Now let us report some information about the religious and moral state of Byzantine society as a whole in the same epoch (from the end of the eleventh to the middle of the fifteenth centuries) Byzantine historians, however stingy they may be in their remarks on the moral and religious life of the people, nevertheless give some interesting news in this respect; To this we will add the data found in other historical documents relating to the centuries we are studying. As we have seen, the religious and moral reputation of the Byzantine emperors was not enviable. From this we can safely conclude that the society itself was no better than the emperors. And this conclusion will be correct, because it is confirmed by historical facts. It is natural, therefore, that in our further narration the depiction of the ugly sides of life will occupy the most prominent place. [171]

One of the strongest pillars of morality is man's respect for his person, not that self-respect which expresses itself in pride and haughtiness, but that which compels him to avoid everything that would humiliate him in the eyes of others, and especially everything that is not in harmony with his certain social duties. It can be argued that the Byzantines, despite their inherent arrogance, cared little about preserving their sense of self-dignity. History knows many such examples. This is how, according to the description of Nicetas Choniates, some senators expressed their joy (probably feigned) at the news of the accession to the throne of Andronicus Comnenus. It took place on the street. "Throwing off the senator's head coverings and taking hold of the white and linen cloaks hanging on their backs, the senators unfurled them like balls, made a round dance of the common people and, taking command over them, began to sing to a pleasant and measured tune, jumped forward and, bringing their hands together as if for applause, slightly shook their legs, circled in the middle and, accompanying their dance with singing and shouting, beat the ground. What stupidity and madness!" the historian exclaims. [172] Even the Byzantine patriarchs did not always care about preserving their dignity. [173] Let us listen to what Gregory tells us about the return of Patriarch Isaiah (fourteenth century) from his imprisonment in the Mangan monastery, where he had been imprisoned by Andronikos the Elder, to the Byzantine patriarchal cathedra, which was followed by the will of the new king, Andronikos the Younger. "Taking Isaiah from here," says the historian, "and placing him on one of the king's chariots with purple ornaments, the king returned him to the patriarchal cathedra. In this procession, neither bishops nor presbyters walked either in front or behind; flutists and flutists (who, it should be noted, also played the role of hetaerae in Byzantium), dancers and dancers marched with merry songs. One of the flutists," the historian paints, "who stood out among all with her beautiful appearance, mounted a horse in men's clothes, rode now in front of the soldiers, now in front of the patriarch, and with shameless and vulgar jokes she easily aroused immodest laughter, both in the patriarch (sic!) and in others." [174] The Patriarch rides through the streets of Byzantium in the company of flutists-hetaerae, listens to the greasy jokes of one of them – an impossible but real picture! What kind of moral insensitivity does one need to possess in order not to understand, as it was with Patriarch Isaiah, that such a community lowers the dignity of the chief pastor of the capital? If the patriarchs thought so little about their dignity, then there is nothing surprising in the fact that the clergy thought even less about it. And indeed, some clerics, forgetting about their honor and service, often took upon themselves the pleasant task of entertaining the public with buffoonery. Balsamon, on the basis of observations of contemporary (twelfth century) society, reports the following news about the clergy of his time: "Some of the clerics on certain feasts (?) sometimes they walk in the form of monks or even in the form of four-legged animals. And some of the clergy, imitating horsemen, beat the air with their fingers, paint their cheeks and pretend to perform some actions peculiar to women, and other indecencies, in order to arouse laughter in the audience." "When I asked," says the canonist, "how this is permitted, I heard nothing else but that it is done according to an old custom." [175] In this case, the teachers of the children did not lag behind the clergy, despite the fact that they should have been as concerned as the clergy about the preservation of their dignity: "The teachers of the children," according to the same witness, "walked through the squares in stage guises and performed unseemly personal acts." [176] We do not want to include among those who retain their dignity those who, in a vain desire to appear more beautiful and younger, have devised all sorts of means to appear so If in women such an aspiration is in any way excusable, then, when found among men, it arouses contempt And in Byzantium it was men who did just that, "making every effort to keep their hair long and that, like women, they had curls that went down, if possible, to the waist." Men took care not to be like themselves! Can the forgetfulness of one's dignity extend further? Accurate information has also been preserved about how the Byzantines achieved such self-mutilation. "This is achieved with them," says another canonist of the twelfth century, Zonaras, "not only by not cutting excess hair, but by using everything that usually contributes to the growth of hair and produces its density. To make the hair seem curly, they curl it with tongs, and to make it blond or golden, they tint it for this. Others soak the hair on their heads with water and let them dry in the sun to change their black hair color. And there are those who put fake curls on themselves, cutting their own natural hair. This is how the hair on the head is mostly positioned and removed. And with regard to the beard, they do exactly the opposite, for as soon as someone has a youthful perfume, they immediately shave it off, so that it does not pass into the hair, but so that the smoothness of their face is striking, and they can be like the Danenschina and seem gentle. And those who in the course of time have hair on their beards growing constantly, in order not to wear a long beard, although they do not use razors, but instead of heating a piece of potsherd on coals, they bring it to the beard and burn out all the long hair with it, so that it seems as if the hair is barely beginning to break through, and so that men who have reached maturity, looked like young men. And this is done not only by ordinary people, but also by people of the upper class. Why did this evil, having spread, become nationwide, and, like some epidemic disease that has infected those who bear the name of Christ, devours almost everyone?" The canonist believes that such fashionistas should be deprived of Holy Communion. [177] It may seem that such a requirement is too strict, but it cannot be agreed. People who are so forgetful of their human dignity, who want to be something other than what they were created, easily take a slippery slope that diverts them from sound moral requirements. Thus, we see that the Byzantines had little self-esteem. This could have the dangerous consequence that such people could not be very vigilant about their personal behavior and their relations with other fellow citizens. The facts, unfortunately, do not refute, but confirm such an assumption.

Virtues based on the duties of the individual and the Christian to himself and serving as a support for family or domestic well-being did not flourish very well among the Christians of the Byzantine state. The requirements of a chaste life and sobriety were not fulfilled by the Byzantines to the extent that could be expected from people who had long belonged to a highly moral religion. "Despite the imprisonment of women in terems, debauchery has built a nest for itself in family life." [178] If in Byzantine society there was a passion among men to give themselves an eternally youthful appearance and to decorate their hair in every possible way, as Zonara says, this was done for a reason. "Many of the fashionistas who curled their hair with the art of Venus courted Byzantine ladies, seeking their reciprocity." [179] The Byzantine emperor, Andronicus Comnenus, laughed maliciously at those men in the capital who, through the treachery of their Yasens, had become cuckolds, a term which was used then with the same meaning as now. "Thus, he hung on the porticoes of the forum the large and somewhat remarkable antlers of the deer he caught, apparently in order to show the size of the animals caught, but in fact," according to the narrator, "in order to abuse the citizens and ridicule the debauchery of their wives."[180] In addition to the possibility of inducing a married woman to adultery, there was a full opportunity for the Byzantines to find satisfaction for their sensuality outside the family circle. "In Byzantium there were many brothels and a large influx of women of easy virtue." [181] It goes without saying that the supply of this kind was determined by demand. Not content with the natural arousal of erotic feeling, the rich Byzantines hung voluptuous pictures on the walls of their homes. "Those who were devoted to lust depicted on boards or on walls, or on other objects, love scenes or other abominations, in order to arouse their sexual desires by looking at them; In addition to paintings, there were humanoid images sculpted from plaster. All this was done with complete shamelessness." [182] The debauchery itself was sometimes accompanied by such accessories as show that some, under the influence of erotic intoxication, positively reached a kind of madness, for example, "kissed a woman's shame." The canonists of those times describe the discoveries of erotic psychopathy of their time with the accuracy of psychiatrists. [183] All this, of course, deserves strict condemnation and presents sad historical facts. But there is another side that gives the phenomenon in question an even sadder imprint. All responsibility for the shattering of morals was borne by one woman, and the man did not share this responsibility. A woman, if she was married and violated fidelity or was even suspected of adultery, but denied it without hesitation, was treated cruelly: she was forced to experience what was then called "the judgment of God." Here is a story of a similar kind, written down by a Byzantine historian. A citizen of Didymotichus had good reason to suspect his wife of infidelity, but the wife, of course, did not admit it. Then her husband declared that he would believe her only then, that she had not been unfaithful to him, when she took in her hands and held a red-hot iron. The wife was frightened by such an offer and did not want to accept it. On the other hand, she could not confess her fall to her husband, fearing the death penalty for it. Being in this situation, she went to the bishop, handed over the whole matter to him, and asked him to divert her husband from such an experiment with her, and undertake to assure him that she was not to blame. But the bishop would not consent to this, but persuaded her not to be afraid of the experience, and promised her that if she lived honestly and blamelessly, the red-hot iron would not harm her. The woman then accepted her husband's proposal. Both of them, without outside witnesses, went to the same church; Here the husband kindled as much iron as he could, threw it into his wife's hands, and ordered her to carry it a certain distance. The woman remained unharmed, as if she had not touched the iron. [184] Indeed, this is a fact or an anecdote — it doesn't matter to us this time. But from this story it is clear what responsibility a woman was subjected to in case of suspicion of infidelity. This story well characterizes the spirit of the time, which demanded purity and chastity only from a woman, without making this demand of a man. In the event of the Fall and denial of this, man was not called to the "judgment of God" by anyone. Was this not one of the conditions conducive to the moral unbridled nature of the Byzantines?

Трезвость тоже не принадлежала к числу добродетелей византийцев. Если архиереи обращались со своими пастырскими посланиями к пасомым, то в числе других пороков, пятнавших христианское общество того времени, не последнее место занимало обличение в недостатке трезвости. Так, патриарх Иоанн Калека (XIV в.), обращая внимание клира на распространение между константинопольцами различных пороков, как навлекающих на них гнев Божий, говорит и о распространении пьянства в столице.[185] Действительно, византийцы все, особенно простонародье, были очень наклонны к злоупотреблению вином. «С давних времен, — говорит Никита Хониат, — многие острили насчет пристрастия византийцев к разливанному морю». Сложилась пословица: «В Византию кто ни приедет, будет пьян, там по целым ночам пьянствуют». «Вино лучше всякого вождя возбуждало византийцев к битве»; «никакие сирены–очаровательницы» не могли отвлечь византийца от какого‑либо предприятия, предначатого под влиянием одуряющих напитков. Ради вина чернь готова была ограбить богача: Добыча грабителей шла в кабак.[186] Пьянство находит себе доступ и в сословие духовенства. В документах, относящихся к XIV в., встречается немало указаний в подобном роде.[187] Случалось, что к соблазну и вреду для своих пасомых, священники сами заводили шинки, роняя тем свой сан и достоинство.[188] Пьянство проникало иногда в среду монашества и находило себе здесь жертвы. Самое тяжкое наказание — лишение сана за невоздержанность — приме нялось иногда к лицам, облеченным иеромонашеством.[189]

Вышеуказанные недостатки нравственной жизни византийского общества в рассматриваемый период встречаем даже там, где, казалось бы, меньше всего можно было ожидать этого. Разумеем среду афонского монашества. Явление было временным, но все же, к сожалению, оно было и продолжалось не краткое время. В течение столетия от конца XI до конца XII вв. (от 1080 до 1177 гг.) на Афоне появляется и распространяется, как называют его, «скоромное зло». Это скоромное зло описано современником. Заимствуем из этого описания некоторые характеристические черты.[190] В начале VIII в. на монашеский Афон пришли и поселились там несколько валахов с женами и детьми, вместе с этим на Афоне появился скот — коровы, овцы, мулы. Временами византийские императоры — покровители афонитов — выгоняли мирских жителей с Афона; но сами афониты мало–помалу так привыкли к этим пришельцам, что не только не тяготились ими, а даже сами зазывали их к себе на св. Гору, получая большие выгоды от сожительства с мирянами. Число пришельцев постепенно увеличивалось, так что в начале царствования Алексея Комнина (конец XI в.) на Афоне находилось уже 300 семейств валашских. С этой поры и началась «скоромная драма» Афонская. Валахи доставляли в святогорские монастыри молоко, сыр и шерсть. Между ними и монахами завязывались меновая сделка и торговля. «Со временем, — по выражению древнего дееписателя, — явились пиршества и дьявольские попойки; дьявол вошел в сердца валахов, и они держали при себе жен своих, одетых в мужское платье, в виде пастухов. Эти женщины пасли овец и прислуживали в монастырях, принося туда сыр и молоко, меся хлебы, и были они весьма любы монахам, — по замечанию того же дееписателя. — А что между ними делалось, о том стыдно говорить и слушать», — заявляет этот последний.[191] Насколько изменилась жизнь афонитов в сравнении с прежним временем, об этом повествователь так говорит: «Некогда улирал один монах в ските, на Афоне, и попросил у окружающих его уксусу, чтобы понюхать его и быть в состоянии побеседовать с ними. Но во всем ските не нашли и стакана уксуса. А теперь у святогорцев большие погреба, наполненные эссенциями и старыми даливками, и от того они скачут, как жеребята диких ослов».[192] Да столе у них появилось мясо. Некоторые из монахов, пострадав от греха, потом раскаялись и донесли обо всем тогдашнему патриарху Николаю Грамматику (1084—1111). В записке говорилось о злочинстве валахов, о пагубе от жен их и дочерей, о грехе с животными и о многом другом, что изобрела злоба бесов. Узнал о скоромном зле и император Алексей Комнин. Он приказал переселить с Афона всех валахов и животных. Как же приняли монахи это распоряжение? Дееписатель говорит: «Монахи по изгнании валахов и животных со св. Горы начали плакать и горевать, и был на св. Горе великий плач египетский. Как евреи плакали о мясах египетских и котлах, так и святогорцы не могли забыть валахов». «Афонский безмолвник, — продолжает дееписатель, — щел к другим безмолвникам, и игумены переходили от одного игумена к другому и говорили: «отныне ни житья нам нет, ни покоя, потому что изгоняют валахов и животных». Появились сходки, разделения. И наконец множество монахов решилось уйти вслед за валахами. Только и слухов было: такой‑то безмолвник, страшный бесам, уходит с Афона с таким‑то валахом и такой‑то игумен удаляется с таким‑то игуменом. Из монастырей, — утверждает дееписатель, — все полным домом выходили со своими приятелями валахами. В иных монастырях оставались хромцы да слепцы».[193] Изгнали с Афона валахов, их жен, коров, овец, а скоромное зло все продолжало царить на Афоне. Через некоторое время афониты доносили императору Алексею: «У святогорцев нет овец и коров, но зато находятся дети и безбородые. По причине Детей и соблазнов от них мы не можем установить начальства в монастырях, потому что дети стали выше старцев и потеряли страх Божий». Патриарх Константинопольский осыпал афонитов за это Упреками, обзывал их орудиями бесов и седалищами дьявола и через послание заповедал им твердо помнить древнее монашеское правило: «не приближай к себе отрока, не говори с ним после стола, и даже в церкви не целуй его»[194] (лобзанием мира). При Другом случае некоторые афонские игумены поведали патриарху, монахи учатся петь песни в своих келейных монастырях, «атриарх призвал к себе виновных и так стал укорять их: «Разве петь песенки дали обет вы? Уж не хотите ли вы быть песенниками, а не монахами? Справедливо, — добавлял он, — царь Алексей говорит, что на вас можно действовать только суровыми наказаниями и порицал вас».[195] Еще при другом случае указано было, что даже афонские безмолвники бражничают по питейным домам и попадают в полицейскую часть. Дела пришли в порядок на Афоне лишь через сто лет от начала скоромного зла. Последний документ, относящийся к этому прискорбному явлению, принадлежит 1177 г.[196]

Обратимся к другим сторонам нравственного состояния византийского общества.

Добродетели, основывающиеся на обязанностях человека и христианина к ближним и создающие общественное благополучие, тоже не были высоко ценимы византийцами и нередко решительно попирались. Искренности, взаимного доверия и честности, без которых не может процветать общественное благо, не заметно у византийцев изучаемой эпохи. Византийцы ставили себя по отношению друг к другу в такое фальшивое положение, что они искали охраны против обмана не в нравственной природе ближнего, а в клятве, которой они друг друга связывали, и притом, к сожалению, большей частью напрасно. Византийцы давали клятвы друг другу, кажется, только для того, чтобы усыпить бдительность и осторожность другого и эксплуатировать его. В каком распространении была клятва как средство обезопасить себя от обмана, это видно из тех разнообразных форм, в каких давалась клятва византийцами. Давались клятвы громко произносимые и письменные, перед Евангелием, иконами или даже на теле Господнем (Евхаристии).[197] Клянущийся подробно высчитывал, чего именно он не будет делать,[198] как будто бы одного обещания во имя Божие, что будет исполняться закон совести и заповеди христианские, было недостаточно. Клятва находила место там, т. е. между такими лицами, для которых найти иной способ утвердить доверие, по–видимому, было невозложно. Патриарх дает клятву царю, царь — патриарху, ограждая себя взаимно от известного рода посягательств.[199] Еще страннее видеть применение взаимной клятвы между царем и его кровными родными. Так, в 1381 году император Иоанн Палеолог и сын его двдроник связывают себя соборной клятвой, что они будут жить в мире и не затевать ничего, что послужило бы к нарушению миpa, другими словами, дают клятву, что они не отстранят один другого от престола византийского.[200] Такое же странное впечатление Производит клятва, данная Андроником Старшим и Андроником Младшим друг другу. Первый дал второму — своему внуку — клятву, что он не сделает никого наследником, кроме его, внука, а другой клянется, что он ничего не будет замышлять против деда.[201] Клятвы, как мы заметили выше, так же часто и нарушались, как часто они давались. Да иначе и быть не могло. Сами современники нередко сомневались: «Станут ли соблюдать клятву такие люди, которые хоть и давали ее, но не боялись ни молний небесных, ни срама людского?».[202] Побоятся ли такие люди нарушить клятву, хоть бы за минуту перед тем они за нарушение своей клятвы накликали на себя «самые великие и ужасные беды», какие нередко призывали на себя клянущиеся для возбуждения доверия в другом?[203]

Уважение к чужой собственности и в особенности к общественному достоянию весьма мало развито было в среде византийцев изучаемого времени. Обогащение за счет казны — это почти никто не считал делом, заслуживающим осуждения. Историки того времени нередко указывают на такое общественное зло, как явление самое обыкновенное. «Люди, жадные до денег, обкрадывали казну», как скоро представлялся к тому случай, и делались «народными грабителями». Правители, в руках которых сосредоточивалось распоряжение государственной казной, не только не заботились об экономии, «но придумывали новые государственные расходы, чтобы через это их собственной мешок, вчера пустой и тощий, сегодня наполнить и битком набить».[204] Сборщики денег, заведовавшие взиманием податей, являлись первыми казнокрадами. Они доставляли в Царскую казну самую малую часть сбора и как бы какие остатки, а большую часть присваивали себе. По ироническому замечанию Никиты Хониата: «Добрый и верный раб у царя из муки, хотя бы и золотой, сперва замешивает хлебы себе, а потом делится с товарищем и только остаток шел в казну».[205] Сборщики податей, при раскладке их, брали взятки и через то наживали себе «огромные богатства».[206] Это было расхищение чужой собственности, расхищение, прикрытое внешними формами благоприличия. Но встречались в Византийской империи того времени проявления хищнических аппетитов и не в таких еще формах. Хищники чужого достояния никогда не думали скрывать своего бесчестного дела, они смотрели на свое дело как на некоторого рода призвание.