"I praise you, brethren, that you remember all my things, and keep the traditions as I have handed down to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2).

1. Having finished the discourse on the sacrifices of idols as it should have been, and having made it perfect in all respects, (the apostle) passes on to another subject, in which (the Corinthians) also sinned, though not so grievously. As a rule, I repeat again what I said before, he does not place all the strong rebukes in a row, but, arranging them in the proper order, inserts the less strong ones between them, and thus eases the burden that would arise for the hearers from constant reproaches. Therefore, he speaks of the most important subject, namely the resurrection, after all. Now he comes to another, less important thing, and says: "I praise you, brethren, that you remember all my things." When sin is certain, then it strongly rebukes and reproaches; and when a sin is doubtful, then he proves beforehand, and then he convicts: when he speaks of an indubitable sin, he shows the importance of it, and when he speaks of a doubtful sin, he proves the reality (of its sinfulness). Thus, fornication is undoubtedly a sin, and therefore it did not need to prove that it was a sin, but showed the gravity of sin by comparison. To be judged by the unbelievers was a sin, but not so grievous, – therefore he places this sin among others and proves (its sinfulness). The eating of sacrifices to idols, although (in regard to its sinfulness) was subject to doubt, was the greatest evil, and therefore it proves that it is a sin, and explains its importance. By doing so, he not only diverts from sins, but also convinces to the opposite. Thus he says that not only should one not commit fornication, but also carefully observe holiness: "Therefore glorify," he adds, "God in your body and in your spirit" (1 Corinthians 6:20). Also having said that one should not be wise by outward wisdom, he is not satisfied with this, but also commands to be foolish. Exhorting not to sue outsiders and not to cause offenses, then he forbids to sue in general and advises not only not to offend, but also to endure offenses. Speaking of sacrifices to idols, he says that one should abstain not only from what is forbidden, but also from what is lawful, when temptation arises from it, and one should not seduce not only the brethren, but also the pagans and Jews. "Give not offense," he says, "neither to Jews, nor to Greeks, nor to the church of God." In this way, having completely finished talking about all this, he then passes on to another sin. What sin was this? The women with their heads uncovered and naked both prayed and prophesied, for then the wives also prophesied, and the men grew their hair, like those who studied philosophy, and covered their heads when they prayed and prophesied, adhering to the pagan law in both. The Apostle, being (among the Corinthians), had already given them instruction on this subject; but since, perhaps, some obeyed him, and others turned out to be disobedient, he again through the epistle, like a wise physician, corrects sin with abundant words. And that he personally instructed them on this subject is evident from the beginning of his speech. Why, in fact, having not previously said anything about this in the epistle, but discussing other sins, he suddenly says: "I praise you, brethren, that you remember all my things and keep the traditions as I have handed them down to you." It is evident that some have obeyed him, and whom he praises, and others have been disobedient, and he corrects them with these words, "And if any man should dispute, we have no such custom," v. 16. If he had reproached everyone, both obedient and disobedient, he would have aroused indignation in the former, and increased negligence in the latter; but now, having praised and approved some, and rebuked others, he encourages the former, and puts the latter to shame. Reproach, although in itself can touch, has even greater power when it is combined with praise for those who are in good faith. Wherefore he begins, not with reproaches, but with praise, and with great praise, and says, "I praise you, that ye remember all my things." This is what Paul usually does: for small (merits) he gives great praise, not out of flattery – let it not be! Could he (use flattery) who sought neither money, nor fame, nor anything of the kind? – but in all things having in mind their salvation. That is why he strengthens the praise: "I praise you, brethren," he says, "that you remember all my things." What's all? He spoke only of the non-growth of the hair and the uncovering of the head, but, as I have said, he increases the praise in order to make them more diligent: "that ye are all mine," he says, "remember and keep the traditions as I have handed down to you." Consequently, he had previously taught them many things not in writing, as he expresses in many other places; but before he only left them a tradition, and now he adds a reason. In this way he strengthens the obedient and destroys the pride of the disobedient. He does not say, "You have obeyed, and others have not listened," but, without expressing it directly, he hints at this in the further exposition of his exhortation: "I will also," he says, "that you may know that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ" (v. 3). This is the reason. And he gives it in order to make the weak more attentive. For the believer, as he ought to be, and firm in the faith, needs neither proof nor reason for what is commanded to him, but is satisfied with tradition alone; but the weak, having learned the reason, observes what is said with greater diligence and obeys with greater devotion.

2. For this reason (the Apostle) did not give reasons until he saw the violation of the commandment. What is the reason? "Christ is the head of every man." Therefore also to the Gentile? No. If we are "the body of Christ, and members individually" (1 Corinthians 12:27), and He is our head, then He cannot be the head of those who do not constitute the body and have not become members of Him. Consequently, when we say to everyone, we must mean, to him who believes.

Do you see how everywhere he shames the listener, pointing to the highest? Speaking of love, humility, and mercy, he borrowed proofs from here. And the husband is the head of the woman: and God is the head of Christ. The heretics point us to these words, deducing from them the idea of the humiliation of the Son (before the Father); but they refute themselves. If the head of the woman is the husband, and the head is of one essence with the body, and the head of Christ is God, then the Son is of one essence with the Father. But, it will be said, we do not want to prove from this the difference in essence, but the subjection (of the Son to the Father). What can I say to this? That when something despised is said of Him in His union with the flesh, then it does not demean the Godhead, but refers to His economy. However, tell me, how do you prove your idea from this? As the wife, you say, is subject to her husband, so Christ is subject to the Father. Therefore, just as Christ is the head of man, so is the Father the head of the Son? To every man, says (the Apostle), Christ is the head. But who can ever admit this? If we admit that as much as the Son has precedence over us, so is the Father over the Son, then consider to what extent you humiliate him. Therefore, we should not accept in the same sense everything that is said about us and about God, although it is said in the same way; but one must ascribe to God some special advantage, such as is proper to God; Otherwise, a lot of ridiculous things will happen. See: God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the man, the husband is the head of the woman: if in all this speech we take the word head in one and the same sense, then the Son will be lower than the Father as much as we are lower than Him; and the wife will be inferior to us as much as we are inferior to God the Word, so that in what relation the Son is to the Father, so are we to the Son, and the wife to the husband. But who can allow this? You accept the word head in relation to the wife in one sense, and in relation to the husband in another: why do you not receive it in another sense in relation to Christ? It should be received in a different sense in relation to the Son and the Father. How, you will say, is it to be understood otherwise? In the sense of the beginning. If Paul had wanted to express the authority of the one and the subjection of the other, as you say, he would have given the example of the slave and the master, rather than the wife, because the wife, although subject to us, is free and equal. In the same way, the Son, although he obeys the Father, is as the Son of God, as God; and as the obedience of the Son to the Father is greater than that of men is the obedience of children to parents, so is His disobedience greater. If the relationship of the Son to the Father is greater and more perfect than that of men, then the relationship of the Father to the Son is no less; if we marvel at the Son that He was "obedient even unto death, even the death of the cross" (Phil. 2:8), and impute this to Him as a great merit, then we must also marvel at the Father that He begat such a (Son) who is not subject to Him as a slave, but obeys as a free man and as a counselor; but the counsellor is not a slave. Again, when you hear the word counselor, do not take it as if the Father has need of anything, but that the Son is equal to the Father. In the same way, do not apply the example of husband and wife in everything. With them the wife is justly subject to the husband, because equality could produce enmity, and also because in the beginning there was seduction from the wife; she is not subject immediately after creation: when (God) brought her to her husband, she heard nothing of the kind from God, and the husband did not express anything of the kind to her, but said that she was bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, but spoke nothing to her about authority and subjection; but when she abused her power, turning from a helper into a seductress, and ruined everything, then she justly heard the words: "Thy desire is for thy husband" (Gen. 3:16). if she did not spare her own member, would have irritated her husband even more – then God, seeing the wickedness of the devil, protected them with this word, as if with a wall, destroyed by such a definition the enmity that was to occur after the deception, setting up as it were a bulwark against the natural passion – the rancor arising from sin. But in God, this incorruptible being, nothing of the kind can be assumed. Therefore, do not apply examples to Him in all respects; otherwise you will fall into many and important errors in other places. So also at the beginning of the Epistle (the Apostle) said: "All that is yours; but ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's" (1 Corinthians 3:22-23).

3. What is it? Is everything ours in one sense, and we are Christ's, and Christ is God's? No; on the contrary, even for the most foolish the difference is obvious, although the same expression is used about God, about Christ, and about us. And in another place, having called the husband the head of the wife, he adds: "As Christ is the head and Saviour and intercessor of the Church, so the husband must be in relation to his wife" (Ephesians 5:23-27). Can we also accept in the same sense all the expressions, both here and said later in the Epistle to the Ephesians on this subject? No; It's impossible. The same expressions are used about God and man: but the one must be understood differently, the other differently; however, not everything is different, because they would be used without cause and in vain, if we did not make any application of them. Just as not everything should be understood in one sense, so not everything should be considered inapplicable. For a better understanding, I will try to explain this by an example. Christ is called the head of the Church; If I do not make any application of this expression, borrowed from man, why is it said to me? And on the other hand, if I apply the whole literal meaning of it, then absurdity will occur, because the head is obsequious to the body and is subject to the same (defects). What is to be rejected and what is to be accepted? It is necessary to reject what I have said, and to accept the perfect union (of Christ with the Church) and that He is the Author and supreme Ruler of it; moreover, it is necessary to understand this not simply, but in the highest degree and in a manner befitting God; His unity is the firmest, and His government is the most perfect. Again: Christ is called the Son; and here again do not accept everything, but do not reject everything, but having accepted that which is befitting God, i.e. that He is of one essence with the Father and is born of Him, do not add what is unseemly and inherent in human weakness. God is also called light; Is it possible to apply to Him all that is proper to the visible light? No; the visible light is limited by darkness and place, is set in motion by another force and is darkened, and in the essence of God it is impossible to imagine anything of the sort. Therefore, let us not reject everything, but derive some benefit from this likeness, meaning the enlightenment given to us by God, and deliverance from darkness. This is against heretics; And now it is necessary to say about the whole passage to be explained. Perhaps someone will be perplexed and ask himself: What is the fault if wives were to be opened, and men were covered? What the guilt consists of here can be seen from the following. Husband and wife are given many different signs, one of authority, and the other of submission, among other things, that the wife should be covered and the husband should be bareheaded. If such are the signs, then both of them sin when they violate the decency and commandment of God, when they transgress their own limits, the husband descending to the humiliation of his wife, and the wife exalting herself with her appearance before her husband. If it is not permissible for them to change their clothes, i.e. for a wife to dress in a man's dress, and for a husband to put on a woman's clothes and a veil – "a woman shall not wear," says (Scripture), "men's clothes, and a man should not dress in a woman's clothes" (Deuteronomy 22:5), then it is all the more impermissible to change clothes. This is legitimized by men, although it was later confirmed by God; and this comes from nature itself, i.e. that the one should be covered and the other not covered. By the name of nature I mean God, because He is the Creator of nature. Therefore, if you transgress these limits, then see how much harm will happen. Do not tell me that this crime is of little importance; it is great in itself, because it is disobedience: and if it were of little importance in itself, it is great because it concerns the sign of great things. And that (this sign) is great is evident from the fact that it brings about the improvement of the (human) race, presenting in the proper form the ruler and the subordinate; but he who acts against this confuses everything, deprives himself of the gifts of God, humiliates the honor bestowed upon him from above, and not only the husband, but also the wife. After all, it is a great honor for her to keep her place, but on the contrary, it is shameful to go beyond the limits. For this reason (the Apostle) says of both of them: "Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered shames his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head" (1 Corinthians 11:4-5). At that time, as I have said, there were both men who prophesied and women who had this gift, for example, the daughters of Philip and others before and after them. Of them also the prophet of old said: "Your sons shall prophesy, and your daughters shall see visions" (Joel 2:28). The Apostle commands the husband not to be open at all times, but only during prayer: "Every man," he says, "who prays or prophesies with his head covered, shames his head." And he commands the woman to be covered at all times; Wherefore, having said, "Every woman that prayeth or prophesies with her head uncovered shall shame her head," he does not stop there, but continues, "For it is as if she had been shaved." If it is always shameful to be shaved, then it is obvious that it is always shameful to be uncovered.

4. (The Apostle) does not stop there, but adds: "A woman shall have on her head a sign of authority over her, for the angels" (v. 10); shows that not only during prayer, but always it must be covered. And he commands the husband not to cover himself, but to his hair: he forbids him to cover himself only during prayer, but he always forbids him to grow his hair. As of the wife he said, "If he will not cover himself, let him cut his hair," so he said of the husband, "If he grows his hair, it is a disgrace to him" (v. 14). He did not say, "If it is covered," but, "If it grows hair." Wherefore also in the beginning He said, "Every man who prayeth or prophesies with his head covered," he did not say, "Covered," but, "With his head covered," signifying that he who prays, though with his head bare, but with his hair grown, is equal to him who is covered, "Since," he says, "the hair is given for a veil," v. 15. "For if a woman will not cover herself, let her cut her hair; but if a woman is ashamed to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered" (v. 6). First he demands that the wife should not uncover her head, and then he explains that she must always be covered: "For this is the same as if she were shaved," and moreover (covered) with all care and circumspection, since he did not simply say: let it be covered (καλύπτεσθαι), but: covered (κατακαλύπτεσθαι), i.e. it must be carefully closed on all sides. He also shows the indecency of the contrary course of action, and strongly reproaches when he says: "If he will not be covered, let him also cut his hair": if, he says, you cast off the veil established by the law of God, then cast off also the veil given by nature. But, someone will say, how can a wife be dishonored, if she ascends to the honor of her husband? Through this, we say, it not only does not ascend, but is deprived of its own honor. After all, not to keep one's own limits and laws established by God, to transgress them, is not exaltation, but humiliation. As he who covets what is not his own, and steals what does not belong to him, does not gain, but is humiliated and loses what he had, as it was in paradise, so the wife in this case does not acquire for herself the nobility of her husband, but also loses the decency of her wife; moreover, it is not only this that is shameful for her, but covetousness itself. Thus, having pointed out what is undoubtedly recognized as shameful, in the words: "And if a woman is ashamed to be shorn or shaved," (the Apostle) finally says on his own behalf: "Let her be covered." He did not say, "Let him grow his hair," but, "Let him be covered," suggesting that both are the same, and proving this from two sides, from the side of the law and from the side of the opposite (by nature). A veil and a grown hair, he says, are one and the same, just as a shaved and naked head are one and the same: "for this," he says, "is the same as if it were shaved." But someone will ask: How is it the same thing when she has a natural veil, and the shaved one does not have even this? She, we shall say, having a naked head, by her own will rejected the natural veil; but if she is not without hair, it is the work of nature, and not hers; therefore, just as the shaved woman has a naked head, so does she. For this reason (God) commanded nature to cover the head with hair, so that the woman, having learned from nature, would cover herself herself. Further, (the Apostle) gives the reason, reasoning with his hearers as with free ones, which I have often observed. What is the reason? "Therefore a man shall not cover his head, for he is the image and glory of God" (v. 7). Again, the second reason: the husband, he says, should not be covered not only because he has Christ as his head, but also because he has authority over his wife. When he who has authority approaches the king, he must bear the sign of his authority. Therefore, just as no one in authority would dare to appear before a diadem without a belt and garments, so do not pray to God without the signs of your authority, i.e. without a bare head, so that you do not bring dishonor to yourself and to him who honors you. The same may be said of the wife: it is dishonourable for her not to have the marks of her subordination. And the wife is the glory of her husband. Therefore, the power of the husband (over the wife) is natural. Having explained this, he further presents other reasons and causes, leads you to the beginning of creation, and says, "For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man" (v. 8). If the descent of the one from the other is the glory of the latter, how much more so is their resemblance. "And the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the husband" (v. 9). This is the second advantage, or, better, the third and fourth. The first is that our head is Christ, and we (the head) are women; the second is that we are the glory of God, and our glory is the wife; the third is that we are not from the woman, but the woman from us; The fourth is that we are not for her, but she is for us. "Therefore a woman should have on her head the sign of authority" (v. 10). Why exactly? For all the reasons that have been said, and also for the Angels. If you, he says, do not pay attention to your husband, then be ashamed of the angels.

5. Covering, then, is a sign of submission and submission; it encourages us to look down, to humble ourselves, and to observe virtue; but the virtue and honor of a subordinate consists precisely in remaining in obedience. The husband is not prescribed to do this, since he is the image of the Lord himself; but it is just for the wife (it is prescribed). Consider, therefore, how great is the crime when you, who have been vouchsafed such power, dishonor yourself by assuming the form of a wife; You do the same as if, having received a diadem, you threw it off your head, and instead of a diadem you put on a slave's garment. "Yet neither is man without woman, nor woman without man, in the Lord" (v. 11). Since (the Apostle) has ascribed great precedence to the husband, saying that the wife is from him, for him, and under his authority, in order not to exalt husbands more than befitting and not to degrade wives, see what correction he makes, saying: "Nevertheless, neither is the husband without the wife, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord." Do not point out to me, he says, only the original advantages and the creation, but pay attention to the following, and you will see that each of them depends on the other. or, better, not one from the other, but all from God. That is why he says: "Neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is from the man, so is the man through the woman" (v. 12). He did not say, "From the woman"; and through her again: from the husband – this inseparably remains with the husband. However, the author of these advantages is not the husband, but God; therefore he adds: but all is from God. Therefore, if everything is from God, if He commands it, then obey and do not contradict it. "Judge for yourselves, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" (v. 13). Again he leaves it to them to judge for themselves what has been said, just as he did (in discourse) about things sacrificed to idols; There he said, "Judge for yourselves what I say" (10:15), and here (he says): "Judge for yourselves," and by this he inspires something terrible: here, he says, the offense concerns God: however, he does not say this directly, but expresses himself more leniently and covertly: "Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if the husband grows his hair, it is a disgrace to him, but if the wife grows her hair, it is an honor to her, since the hair is given to her instead of a veil?" (11:13-15). As in other places he always uses well-known proofs, so here he turns to a well-known custom, and greatly shames his hearers, who expect instruction from him in what they could know from the common custom; and this is not unknown to barbarians. And note how strong the expressions he uses everywhere: "Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered shames his head"; and again: "And if a woman is ashamed to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered"; And here: "If the husband grows his hair, it is a disgrace to him, but if the wife grows her hair, it is an honor to her, since the hair is given to her instead of a veil." But, you will say, if instead of a garment it is given, then why should another be added to one garment? In order to show subordination not only by nature. but also of their own free will. Nature has ordained in advance that you should be covered; and thou shalt add something of thyself, that thou mayest not seem to be transgressing the laws of nature; To resist not only us, but also nature, is a sign of great shamelessness. Therefore God, rebuking the Jews, said: "Thy sons and thy daughters thou hast sacrificed": this is greater than all thy abominations (Ezekiel 16:20). Likewise, Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, denouncing those who indulge in voluptuousness, similarly intensifies the rebuke, noting that their transgression is contrary not only to the law of God, but also to nature: "they have replaced natural use with unnatural use" (Romans 1:26). And here he inspires the same thing, and also that he does not prescribe anything new, and that all pagan innovations are contrary to nature. Christ expresses the same thing when He says: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them" (Matt. 7:12), suggesting that He does not introduce anything new. "And if any man should want to dispute, we have no such custom, nor the church of God" (1 Corinthians 11:16). Therefore resistance is a sign of obstinacy, not of prudence. However, even here he moderately denounces, and at the same time strongly shames them, which made his words very impressive. We, he says, do not have such a custom as to argue, contend and contradict. Without stopping there, he adds: "nor the churches of God," suggesting that by disobeying they are at enmity and oppose the whole universe. But if then the Corinthians contradicted this law, now the whole universe has accepted and preserves it. Such is the power of the Crucified One!

6. But I am afraid that some women, having assumed a proper outward appearance, will not be shameless in their deeds and will not remain open in other respects. For this reason Paul in his Epistle to Timothy, not content with the instructions he had said, added something else and said: "In decent attire, with modesty and chastity, they adorned themselves, not with plaiting of hair, nor with gold" (1 Timothy 2:9). If one should not bare one's heads, but wear everywhere a sign of submission, then all the more should it show this in actions. Former wives called their husbands masters and yielded primacy to them. Because, you say, they also loved their wives? And I know this and do not forget; but when we speak of your duties, do not point out (the duties of) others. When we instill in children obedience to parents and pronounce the words of the Scriptures: "Honor your father and your mother" (Exodus 20:12), they say to us: "Prove also the following: "And you fathers do not provoke the children to anger" (Ephesians 6:4). When we impress upon the servants the words of the Scriptures: "Obey your masters, not only with apparent servility" (Ephesians 6:5-6), they remind us of what follows and demand that the masters also be admonished: "Paul," they say, "commanded them also to moderate their severity" (Ephesians 6:9). But we will not do this, we will not point out the duties of others, when we are rebuked for transgressing ours; even if reproof falls on you along with others, you will not be delivered from the accusation; therefore, see only that you are freed from your sins. Adam also laid the blame on his wife, and she on the serpent; Do not tell me this, but try to fulfill your duties towards your husband with all prudence. And to your husband, when I exhort him to love and respect you, I do not allow him to point out the commandment given to his wife, but demand of him to fulfill what is prescribed for him. Therefore, you also strive to fulfill your duties and show obedience to your husband. If you want to obey your husband for God's sake, do not present to me his duties, but carefully fulfill those that the Lawgiver has laid upon you. This is especially what obedience to God consists in, so as not to break the law, even if you yourself tolerate the opposite. Whoever loves him who loves him does nothing important; but whoever loves him who hates him is primarily worthy of crowns. Thus think thou also: if thou endure a cruel man, thou shalt receive a bright crown; but if you are quiet and meek, then for what will God reward you? I say this not in order to give husbands a reason for cruelty, but in order to persuade a wife to endure cruel husbands as well. When everyone tries to fulfill his duties, then his neighbor will not hesitate to do the same. Thus, when the wife is ready to bear the wrathful husband, then the husband will not insult the wrathful wife, then in all things they will have peace and a haven, not disturbed by the waves. So it was with the ancients: everyone did his own thing, without pointing out the duties of his neighbor. See, Abraham took his nephew with him, and his wife did not reproach him for it. He commanded her to go on a long journey, and she did not oppose it, but obeyed.

She did not say or think anything of the sort, but was pleased with all that he had done. And still more: when he (Lot)

She didn't say anything like that, she didn't think, but she endured everything in silence. Then, remaining barren, she does not grieve or weep, like other such wives, but sheds tears, not before his wife, but before God. And notice how everyone observes what is due: he does not despise Sarah for her barrenness, nor reproach her for it, and she, on her part, tries to find some consolation for him in childlessness through a slave girl. At that time it was not forbidden, as it is forbidden now; but now it is not lawful for wives to please their husbands in such a way, nor for husbands, with or without the knowledge of their wives, to enter into such relations, even if they feel a thousand times more childless; otherwise it will be said to them: "Their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:44); now it is not allowed, but then it was not forbidden. Therefore, his wife suggested this, and he obeyed, and did not do so for pleasure. And look, you will tell me how later, at her own request, he expelled (the servant). But by this I want to prove that just as he obeyed her in everything, so she obeyed him.

7. Moreover, do not limit yourself to this, but when you say this, pay attention to the previous one, to the fact that the maidservant has insulted her, has become proud before her mistress; And what can be more sorrowful than this for a free and honest wife? Therefore, you, wife, do not expect kindness from your husband, in order to show your own kindness after that – there will be nothing important in this; and you, husband, do not expect good manners from your wife, so that after that you yourself will be wise – this will no longer be a podvig; but each, as I have said, let him be the first to do his duty. If even strangers who strike on the right cheek should be turned to the other, then how much more should the cruelty of the husband be endured. I do not say this so that the husband beats his wife, no; this is extreme humiliation, not for the one who is beaten, but for the one who beats; but if for some reason you, a wife, have been married to such a husband, then do not give yourself over to sorrow, imagining the reward and praise that awaits you for this in this life. And to you, husbands, I say: no offense should compel you to beat your wife. What do I say – a wife? It is not permissible for a noble man to beat even a servant girl and lay hands on her. If it is very dishonorable for a husband to beat a slave girl, then it is all the more dishonorable to lay his hand on a free woman. This is also suggested by external (pagan) legislators, who do not force a wife to live with her husband who beats her, as with an unworthy cohabitation. Truly, it is extremely lawless to shame the accomplice of life, who has long shared your needs, as a slave. Such a husband, if he can be called a husband and not a beast, is, in my opinion, equal to a parricide and a matricide. If we are commanded to leave our father and mother for our wives, not to offend them, but to fulfill the law of God, and for the parents themselves this is so desirable that they, being forsaken, rejoice and perform the marriage union of their children with great zeal, then is it not utter folly to offend her for whom God has commanded to leave her parents? And is it only madness? And dishonor, tell me, who can endure? What word can depict this (dishonor) when shouts and cries reverberate through the streets, when neighbors and passers-by flock to the house of one who does such an abominable deed, crushing like a beast everything that is inside? It would be better if the earth swallowed up such a madman than after that he would again appear in the marketplace. A wife, you say, is acting impudently? But remember that she is a wife, a weak vessel, and you are a husband. For this reason you have been placed over her as a boss and head, in order to endure the weakness of a subordinate. Try to make your rule glorious; and it will be glorious when you do not dishonor your subordinate. As a king himself is the more worthy of reverence, the more he exalts the honor of his ruler, and when he humiliates and dishonors his dignity, then he diminishes his own glory no little, so you, by dishonoring your ruler, do not a little degrade the honor of your own power. Therefore, when you think of all this, be prudent, and at the same time remember that evening on which the father, having summoned you, gave you his daughter, as it were a kind of pledge, and, having separated her from everything, from her mother, from himself, and from the house, he entrusted all the care of her to your right hand. Think that after God you received children from her, you became a father, and therefore be meek in your attitude towards her.

8. Do you not see how farmers fertilize in every way the land that has received seeds, even though it has a thousand defects, even though it is not fruitful, grows bad herbs, is subject to floods because of the nature of the location? Do the same; then you will be the first to enjoy both fruits and tranquility. A woman is a haven and the most important medicine for (seekers) of complacency. If you keep this harbor free from winds and waves, you will find great peace in it when you return from the marketplace: and if you disturb and agitate it, you will prepare for yourself a most dangerous shipwreck. So, let it not be this, but let it be what I am talking about. If anything deplorable happens in the house through her fault, then console her, and do not increase her sorrows, even if you lose all your possessions, it will not be more grievous than enmity with your concubine; Whatever guilt you may present, nothing will be more intolerable than a quarrel with your wife. Therefore, let love for her be most precious to you. If one must bear one another's burdens, how much more should one another's wives. If she is poor, do not reproach; if she is unreasonable, do not condemn her, but rather try to teach her; for she is thy member; You are one flesh. But, you say, she is talkative, prone to drunkenness, angry? In such a case, one should not be angry, but grieve, pray to God, exhort her, admonish her, and do everything to destroy her passion. But if you beat and torment her, you will not heal her illnesses; rudeness is corrected by meekness, and not by mutual rudeness. At the same time, do not forget about the reward from God. If you, having the opportunity to reject her, do not do it out of fear of God, but begin to endure her faults out of respect for the law, which forbids rejecting a wife, no matter how great her illness may be, you will receive an unspeakable reward, and even before the reward – a great benefit, by making her more submissive, accustoming yourself also to greater meekness in relation to her.

It is said that one of the external philosophers (Socrates), having a wife who was wicked, talkative, and prone to drunkenness, when asked why he tolerated her, replied that she served him as a home school and an exercise in wisdom: "I," he said, "by practicing daily with her, become more meek with others. Were you delighted? And I am very sorry that the Gentiles surpass us in wisdom, who are commanded to imitate the angels, or, better, are commanded to imitate God Himself in meekness. For this reason the said philosopher did not cast out his wicked wife; and some say that it was for this reason that he married her. But since many people are not so prudent, I advise you to try in advance in every possible way to choose a wife who is well-behaved and full of every virtue; but if it happens to make a mistake and bring into your house a bride who is unkind and even worthless, then to imitate this philosopher, to correct her by all means, and to consider this matter as the most important thing. A merchant does not put a ship to sea, nor does he undertake to trade before he has made terms with his companion which will secure their mutual tranquillity. In the same way, we will take all measures to preserve all peace within our ship with the accomplice of the field of life; then everything else will be at peace with us, and we will safely cross the sea of real life.

Amen.