The accusations made against Chrysostom can be divided into several groups. The first group embraces accusations concerning his personal character and behavior. The accusers asserted: "He eats immoderately, like the Cyclops, always eats alone, and shuns hospitality." This strange accusation arose, it seems, from the fact that he really liked to dine alone, and did not like to invite him to dinners and go to other people's feasts. We have accurate historical information that the accusation of Chrysostom of immoderate consumption of food is the purest slander. Chrysostom's health was always very weak, and, nevertheless, he sometimes completely forgot about food; it happened that he remained completely without food until the evening. Busy studying the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures and the works of the Church, he forgot about material food. He ate a small amount of light meat, since his painfully weak stomach could not tolerate heavy dishes*. He did not drink wine at the table. Only on hot days did he take a little wine as a refreshing drink and to quench his thirst. Such was the immoderation in the table that the accusers attributed to him!

______________________

* Of course, here we are talking about a meat-eater, and not about fast days. At the same time, it should be remembered that Chrysostom did not take monastic vows.

______________________

Another accusation, that Chrysostom shunned hospitality, arose from a desire to present in a bad light Chrysostom's habit of dining alone and not going to visit, which did not contain anything criminal. He liked to dine alone, firstly, because his table was poor and often very late: it would be inconvenient to invite guests to such a table; secondly, he did not tolerate long and useless conversations, those indispensable companions of so-called dinner parties. Not receiving guests, Chrysostom did not go to visit others for dinner. He had many reasons for this. He was afraid to allow himself to be excessive, and this, with his weak stomach, could be accompanied by harmful consequences for his health. Further, Constantinople was the capital, so there were a lot of people who wanted to see the archbishop as his guest, and if he were to visit all those who invited him, then he would waste a lot of time in vain. And if he had accepted some invitations and rejected others, then in this case those who have not been honored with his visit would have considered themselves offended. Finally, Chrysostom did not attend the feasts of others because of the conviction that no one, and especially an archpastor, had the right to indulge in a sweet morsel at a time when there were beggars and hungry people in the city, to whom the surplus of the rich table could be allocated. That is why Chrysostom ate food alone, without guests, and did not like to visit guests. Will anyone reproach Chrysostom for acting in this way and not otherwise? And yet there were people in Constantinople who dared to think that he was aloof from society because he was proud and despised everyone. This, in the main, was the accusation that he dined alone and did not go to dinner parties.

In one of the accusations, it was said about Chrysostom: "He receives women in private, in which case the doors are closed to other persons." The essence of the accusation is clear. The accuser cast a shadow of suspicion on his chaste life. Chrysostom himself later replied to this accusation in one of his letters (to Bishop Kyriakos): "They say that I reclined with a woman; but uncover my body, and you will find that the body I drag is no more than a corpse."

______________________

* It should be noted that Chrysostom did not appear at the council "at the Oak" and therefore could not give explanations about the accusations, as we will say below.

______________________

Chrysostom was accused of something that at first glance seems completely incomprehensible. The accuser declared: "The bath is heated not for one (Chrysostom), but when he is washed, Serapion (a presbyter close to Chrysostom) locks the door, so that no one else can wash in the bath." Such is the amazing accusation brought at the council! What could it mean? From the point of view of modern concepts and customs, there can be nothing criminal in whether one washes in his own bath alone or in a public bath, but also alone. In order for the matter to be quite clear to us, it is necessary to enter into some details that are little known and concerning the everyday aspect of the ancient Greek Church. In antiquity, from the fourth century to the later centuries of the Greek Church, it was customary to arrange public baths at Christian churches, which were sometimes called "episcopal" and sometimes "church." For that time, there was nothing unnatural and strange in this. Since people must enter the church, especially to receive the sacrament of Communion, in the possible bodily purity, Christians from very ancient times have formed a view of the baths as something that complements the church, as something additional to it. And for this reason, it became customary to build baths at the churches themselves, in the church fences; It even happened that baths were located not only at churches, but even under the churches themselves, in the lower floors. Emperor Constantine the Great built baths at the famous Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople (which served as the burial vault of the Byzantine emperors, beginning with Constantine himself (See: Eusebius, Life of Constantine, IV, 59)). Emperor Theodosius the Great, in one of his decrees, ranks the baths located at churches in their enclosures among such church buildings to which the "right of asylum" extends*. It is about one of these church baths in Constantinople that the accuser speaks at the council "at the Oak". These baths, as buildings related to temples, were decorated somewhat like churches: they contained icons and crosses. These baths were public. Access to them was free, but we do not know whether it was free or paid. That the entrance to them was open to all Christians is beyond doubt. Subsequently, the only question that arose was whether the "unbelieving Hagarians," i.e., the followers of the Mohammedan law, could wash in church baths on an equal footing with Christians. - When we learned what church baths were like in ancient times, the accusation against Chrysostom under consideration becomes clear to us. Chrysostom's poor health required as many visits to the bath as possible as a strengthening agent (Tilmon). Without a doubt, he went to the church bath no other. When he washed or took a bath in the bathhouse, he closed access to it to the outside public. This means that, in the sense of the accusation leveled against Chrysostom, he turned the public property, the public church bath, into personal property, disposed of at his own will what did not belong to him alone. Is there any fault on the part of Chrysostom or not? He would certainly be guilty if there really were any definite rules restricting the bishop's rights to the church bath; but there is no news of such rules. However, the essence of the accusation, it seems, was not that Chrysostom abused his rights to a church bath, but that he was so proud, so disdainful of others, that he did not want to take a bath or wash in the bath together with others. In all likelihood, in this case a significant difference was found between Chrysostom's predecessor - Nectarios and Chrysostom himself. The former archbishop, as a man of secular morals (he was one of the senators), probably liked to be in society, liked to live, as they say, in public, and was not in the habit of denying himself society even when he was in the bathhouse. In ancient times, the bathhouse, it must be said, was the same as a club today - a place for conversation and entertainment. It was not so under Chrysostom. He wanted to be alone in the bathhouse, as well as at the table, because he did not tolerate idle conversations, did not want to make amusements out of physical necessity. All this is so natural in Chrysostom; but, nevertheless, Byzantine society judged the saint for his most innocent actions and reproached him with that which deserved praise.

______________________

* Such church baths were found in Ancient Russia. Cm. "History of the Russian Church" by Prof. E.E. Golubinsky. The first half of the first volume. P. 566 (here are also the sources from which you can get acquainted with the question of church baths in the times of church antiquity).  ** Patriarch Arsenius of Constantinople (13th century) was accused of allowing the Sultan of Iconium to wash in the church bath along with Christians. In response to this accusation, Arsenius gives some information about the church bath. See: Pachymer. Church. history. Pp. 235-236. Russian. Translated.

______________________

In one indictment it was said that Chrysostom, "going out of the house to church, did not pray." How can it be admitted with regard to such a person as Chrysostom that he, who understood the meaning of prayer so perfectly, did not pray on such occasions where the soul itself involuntarily asks to do this deed (Neander)? Of course, such a phenomenon seems completely incomprehensible. But it can be assumed that Chrysostom, on these occasions, did not reveal a prayerful disposition of spirit in any external, conspicuous forms – he did not fall to the ground, did not raise his hands to heaven, but was content with a living, but mental prayer: this is so natural in a humble ascetic! But Chrysostom had a misfortune in general: he was not understood in the capital, or they pretended not to understand him.