At the head of those who were hostile to Chrysostom stood the Empress Eudoxia, the wife of the weak and inactive Emperor Arcadius. Eudoxia was not distinguished by moral virtues. This alone was enough for the Empress to feel dislike for John Chrysostom, a zealous and fearless preacher of Christian morality. Among the shortcomings of Eudoxia, a prominent place was occupied by the fact that she was extremely greedy and, moreover, helped her retainers and favorites to enrich themselves at the expense of the people, especially at the expense of wealthy persons who had fallen into disgrace. Chrysostom did not remain silent about these abuses in his sermons, however, avoiding all personalities. Of course, the flatterers of Eudoxia tried to interpret any such sermon of the famous preacher as a direct attack on the empress. This gave rise to a dull enmity of the Empress towards Chrysostom. But the matter did not stop there. Soon the enmity becomes apparent. Eudoxia allowed herself an act that deeply struck the philanthropic soul of the archpastor. She brought to death a certain famous man in Constantinople - Theognost - and deprived his widow of the last possessions, taking away from her the last vineyard located in the vicinity of the capital. Chrysostom, having learned of this, wrote a powerful letter to the Empress, in which he revealed the idea of the vanity of acquisitiveness. The saint directly demanded that the queen return the vineyard she had taken away, if she wished to gain God's favor on the day of Judgment. This letter infuriated Eudoxia, and she complained about the archpastor to her husband. From that time on (and this was in the year 401, 4 years after Chrysostom's accession to the Constantinople cathedra), the empress sought an opportunity to take revenge on Chrysostom. Any sermon of Chrysostom of a denunciatory nature, especially if it concerned the vanity of a woman, was accepted at court as a more or less clear and indecent allusion to Eudoxia. Enmity flared up more and more in the heart of the indignant empress.

Another person who also became hostile to Chrysostom was Archbishop Theophilos of Alexandria. Theophilus belonged to the number of power-hungry and extremely self-loving people, who did not tolerate anyone standing in their way. Chrysostom tried in every possible way not to affect the vanity of Theophilus, but his efforts were unsuccessful. Circumstances forced him to encounter this difficult man, and this clash became a source of great trouble for the Archpastor of Constantinople. From the time when Constantinople became the capital of the Empire in the East, the Archbishop of Constantinople naturally became one of the influential hierarchs of the Eastern Church. This circumstance aroused envy in some of the archbishops of Alexandria, who considered their Church to be the first and main Church in the East. As a result, they looked with an unfriendly eye at the hierarchical elevation of Constantinople and its primate. In the simplest actions and orders of the Archpastor of Constantinople, the Archbishops of Alexandria were ready to see an encroachment on the rights that belonged to them. From similar suspicious relations of Theophilus to Chrysostom arose the enmity of the former to the latter. It was like this. Theophilus allowed himself an extremely outrageous act. He dispersed the monks of one monastery of Nitria, subject to his authority, on the pretext that they adhered to the errors of Origen; we say: under the pretext, since in reality Theophilus had other, purely personal motives to act so cruelly with the Nitrian monks.

Some of the exiles sought refuge in Palestine, while others went to Constantinople in the hope of finding protection in the capital. Among the persons who directed their feet to Constantinople were three famous Nitrian ascetics, known under the name of the "Long Brothers"*, very educated, highly moral people, who served as an adornment of Nitrian monasticism. They asked for protection from Chrysostom. The latter, being a friend of justice, decided to help the unfortunate. He looked after them, beginning to intercede with Theophilus for the unfortunates. But this only inflamed the hatred of the Archbishop of Alexandria. He saw in the actions of Chrysostom interference in the affairs of another diocese, was angry with him, and sent accusers on his behalf to Constantinople, who were supposed to depict the behavior and life of the Nitrian monks in the darkest light. It must be said that Chrysostom did not give the slightest reason to reproach him for interfering and appropriating someone else's power: out of caution, he did not enter into ecclesiastical communion with the "Long Brothers", not allowing them to receive Communion until their case was clarified and they were acquitted. The state of affairs was confused. The unfortunate exiles saw no means of salvation for themselves, and in a sense of despair they turned to the emperor Arcadius himself with a complaint against Theophilus. The emperor, having considered their request, took their side, ordering that the archbishop of Alexandria should come to Constantinople and give an account of his actions at the council presided over by Chrysostom. One can imagine how this news must have affected Theophilus! Theophilus did not go to Constantinople for a long time (the case of the "Long Brothers" began in the capital in 401), but when he arrived in the capital, he managed to make the relationship change quite unexpectedly: Chrysostom turned from a judge into a defendant, and Theophilus got away with it - a council was formed not against Theophilus, but against Chrysostom: the council "at the Oak". How such an extraordinary transformation happened, we will talk about it a little later.

______________________

* They were indeed brothers and were distinguished by their unusually tall stature.

______________________

The two above-mentioned personalities - the Empress Eudoxia and Archbishop Theophilus - became the centers around which all the people who were dissatisfied with Chrysostom for some reason united. Around Eudoxia formed a circle of persons dissatisfied with Chrysostom and belonging to the aristocracy. In this circle, the largest place was occupied by women, who were extremely displeased with the sermons of the Archpastor of Constantinople against the predilection of women for dress, especially in old age, when it is more decent to think about death than about refinement in dress. The Constantinople matrons took Chrysostom's speeches personally and did not want to forgive the speaker's boldness. Around Theophilus grouped persons of the clergy, who harbored hostile feelings towards St. John. First of all, we have in mind some bishops: Severian of Gabala, Antiochus of Ptolemais, Acacius of Verrae. Each of them had reason to be dissatisfied with Chrysostom, but not one of them had a good reason to be hostile to the virtuous archpastor. In addition to these bishops, Theophilus' hostility to Chrysostom was shared by some Constantinople clerics: presbyters and deacons. Chrysostom occupied the Constantinople cathedra after Nektarios, a worthy man, who to a large extent dismissed the capital's clergy. Chrysostom, as a zealous archpastor, concerned about the introduction of stricter morals in the Constantinople clergy, was forced to remove some clergy from their posts; All this aroused discontent among the members of the capital's clergy. Some clergymen were also angry with Chrysostom because he directed the generous charity of the Christians of Constantinople not to the enrichment of the clergy, but to the benefit of the poor and unfortunate.

______________________

* All these bishops will be discussed below.

______________________

We have said above that Theophilus of Alexandria, summoned by the emperor to Constantinople for trial in the case of the "Long Brothers," hesitated for a long time to carry out the order of the sovereign. This slowdown was not accidental and was not the sluggishness of a man who was stunned with fear. Theophilus hesitated to calculate. He hesitated because, before arriving in Constantinople, he wanted to enter into relations with persons hostile to Chrysostom. He succeeded in this. Those dissatisfied with Chrysostom in Constantinople willingly extended their hand to Theophilus, this resolute enemy of the capital's archbishop. When Theophilus finally arrived in Constantinople in 403, he immediately felt here, as they say, in his own sphere. The court and several of the most necessary clergymen were on his side. Arriving in Constantinople, Theophilus did not want to know Chrysostom. The latter, not knowing his true dispositions, invited him to stay in the bishop's house, wishing to enter into ordinary church communion with him. But the Archbishop of Alexandria did not come to the house of Chrysostom, did not wish to have communion with him, behaved as if he had come not to a foreign episcopal city, but to his own bishop's residence. Chrysostom wondered what such behavior of Theophilus meant. But soon all misunderstanding was dispelled. Something happened that could not have been foreseen and expected, something that contradicted all customs and church rules.

It turned out that Theophilus had decided to convene a council against Chrysostom himself. Of course, such a council could take place only with the permission of the government. But it cost nothing to persuade the spineless Arcadius to do this, as soon as the Empress Eudoxia was on Theophilus' side, burning with anger and vengeance against the Constantinople archpastor.

The only question was: where, in what place to assemble the cathedral? Where are the members to be found for a criminal council, or rather a gathering? The place for the council was indicated by the wary Byzantine government, and the recruitment of bishops as members of the assembly was undertaken by the prudent Theophilus. Of course, at first glance it seems that there could not have been a question about the location of the cathedral. What is better than Constantinople? Eudoxia lived here, there were many enemies of Chrysostom here, there were police here, and beautiful palaces were located here. But, nevertheless, it was impossible to choose Constantinople for the meeting of the lawless council. Great was the malice of the government and the aristocracy against Chrysostom, but even greater was the love of the people for the great saint. No matter how reckless malice can be, this time the leaders of malice showed themselves to be prudent. It was feared that the mass of the people, devoted in their souls to the Chrysostom orator, in the heat of anger and rage against this council, would destroy the house where the lawless judges would gather, and deal with the judges themselves as a crowd usually deals with its enemies. We must remember that we are talking about the Byzantine people, who did not allow themselves to be trifled with. Therefore, it was decided not to choose the capital as the place for the meetings of the council. For this purpose, a country place was chosen on the Asian coast, not far from Constantinople, near Chalcedon, a place called "at the Oak" (έπί δρΰν). It was something like a luxurious dacha, built by the sovereign minister of Theodosius the Great, Rufinus, who was executed under Arcadius, and whose property went to the treasury. There was a luxurious palace, a miracle of building art and splendor; There was also a church in honor of App. Peter and Paul; There was also a monastery here. All this was built with the money collected by Rufinus' avarice. The place was very good for the work that had to be done; it was secluded, separated from the capital by the water element, but could have convenient relations with the capital.

As we have said, Theophilus undertook to recruit members for the council. Here the malicious foresight of the Archbishop of Alexandria was expressed in all its splendor. He understood that it was not so easy to recruit bishops who were disposed to act in his spirit in Constantinople and its environs; therefore he brought with him from Egypt a ready staff of bishops to sit at the council. Counting him, Theophilus, a total of 29 bishops came from Egypt. These may be completely unknown, not at all famous bishops, but they were the most obedient tools of the Archbishop of Alexandria. His word is law for them. With such bishops, it cost nothing to organize a council against Chrysostom. Of the bishops who did not belong to the Egyptian Church, few, even very few, were included in the council. Since there were 36 bishops at the opening of the council, excluding the number of Egyptian bishops (29), it turns out that only 7 bishops joined the Egyptians, who were not at the hands of Theophilus. Such were the above-mentioned Acacius, Severian, Antiochus, and Paul of Heraclius, formerly a friend of Chrysostom, but now suddenly became his enemy, Cyrinus of Chalcedon, an Egyptian by birth, a certain Marutha from Mesopotamia, and, finally, Isaac, apparently made bishop at the council itself. Prosecutors were needed. There was no shortage of them. All the clergy of Constantinople were summoned to the council one by one. What they said at the Council is unknown. But it is very likely that for various reasons some of them said what was pleasing to the council and the powers that be. There were 13 sessions of the council. Of these, 12 sessions (i.e. 12 days) were devoted to the presentation of accusations or, more precisely, slander against Chrysostom. In other words: 12 days were spent on sorting out the dirt and rubbish that had been brought from the capital to Chalcedon. At the present time we know very little about the accusations that were heaped on the head of Chrysostom at the council. But even what we know is too sufficient to see how infinitely great is the malice of men, which rises up against true holiness. Two abridged notes have survived to this day, which were presented by two persons at the council as indictments against Chrysostom. What has not been said here! Crimes against all the commandments of the Decalogue are almost indicated! One of the above-mentioned notes was submitted to the Council by the Constantinople Archimandrite John, a man of bad morals and malice, who was temporarily suspended from serving by the archbishop, removed from office, but who, at the same time, by condescension, was again returned to the clergy. This accuser spewed 29 accusations against his archpastor. Another accuser of Chrysostom was Isaac, one of those unworthy monks who love worldly squabbles more than feats of piety. This Isaac the Syrian, honored by the council with the rank of bishop, exudes the poison of his slander against the saint, pointing out the 17 crimes of Chrysostom. All these accusations, presented by Archdeacon John and Isaac, did not contain anything true - at the very least, the truth in them is mixed with falsehood and presented in a distorted form; But these accusations are in many respects characteristic, which is why we will consider them in some detail.