laws laid down by the Creator for the existence of creatures, contributed to the highest degree to the preservation of health, both spiritual and physical, and to the prolongation of man's very life to the greatest limits. The strict attitude of the Holy Fathers to the body did not lead to suicide, but to purity of life and health.3

Unfortunately, nowadays it is customary in society to think quite the opposite. The voice of a pastor or even a prudent family member that it is necessary to live a simpler life, will now be shouted from all sides: "You want to enroll our daughters and sons as monks," "They are young, they need to have fun, to feed," "Not everyone should be ascetics," meaning that all monks get only anemia and consumption from lenten food, and migraines from lack of sleep. I am speaking, of course, about true monks. Not to eat meat, not to drink wine, not to smoke, and so on, for today's people is not only a feat, but, I repeat, suicide. Asceticism, the task of which is, among other things, to indicate the best ways of treating one's body, because it is the friend of the soul, and without it the latter cannot be saved and acquire virtues—asceticism, I say, is considered a science (if it is still a science!) unfounded, strange, extravagant. Or rather, unknown. Even in the theological academies, the corresponding departments were opened only before the war of 1914, and those who replaced them, of course, did not have time to do anything for this science, but it should be said – for the salvation of the souls of believers.

That is why the ascetic writer, wishing to be accepted and understood among the intellectuals, if not the unbelievers, who have been brought up on trust in the so-called scientific truths – I mean that part of them which unhypocritically wants to be saved and to go to Christ by His narrow path, but does not know where to look for this path – must involuntarily have support for his opinions in external sources. in the secular empirical sciences, so dear to cultured people. Purely patristic arguments would be unacceptable, incredible, incomprehensible, and unreliable for the latter. It is known that a goat is lured by hay, a pig by a muddy puddle, and a bee by fragrant flowers. To each his own. Condescending to the weakness of such people, as did Saints Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and others in their time,

-8-

and by showing that the best, that is, the most impartial and unblinded representatives of science, are not opposed to the basic points of view of asceticism in their views on the subject treated, the ascetic writer thereby gains the hope of attracting the interest and attention of lay people as well. They should not perish, and the Kingdom of Heaven should not consist only of monks. When they see that science, which they believe so much, approves of everything that asceticism teaches, they themselves will begin to work independently. At least those of them who want to sincerely despise the world and who have known its vanity. That is why I often use secular scientific data as positive or negative evidence in my Fundamentals, which ascetic theologians have not done so far. And for what reason, I do not need to say here. I have my own way...

In the following exposition, the duality of science will be sufficiently shown (that is, its reverse side will be revealed)5 and the teaching of the ascetic fathers about the attitude of those who are saved to their body for the purpose of mortification. Here I want to draw the reader's attention to the fact that everything set forth below has nothing to do with asceticism. There is no talk of any asceticism here, for, firstly, the ascetic rules will be spoken of later, and secondly, the doctors, whose recipes and methods of treatment and health care will be offered to the reader below, taught them not to ascetics, but to all people, and not only the healthy, but also the sick and infirm. And the latter more often than the former.

I will deliberately not cite a single quotation from the writings of the ascetics, but I will give the floor to only hygienists and representatives of the school of the so-called "natural methods of treatment" (Naturlichmethoden). And we will see a most curious thing – scientists, and doctors at that (after all, it is believed that among natural scientists the largest percentage belongs to non-believers and haters of "fasting" vows), in the role of apologists for a truly patristic way of life! This, of course, does not mean that they are advocating in the name of the same convictions, but even then it is impressive, for non-believers (or shouting: "We are not monks...") shameful that their own leaders and teachers with "scientific" diplomas trail after the monks...

-9-

The material from which I intend to draw brief data relating to the question I have raised is the three-volume work of M. Platen, which has been awarded fourteen gold medals, six medals of honour, three honorary crosses at various exhibitions, which has gone through 38 editions and has been sold abroad in hundreds of thousands of copies! A success of which the writings of a few scholars and professors can boast of, and which says something.

Platen begins his book with an explanation of the causes of diseases from which the entire civilized world suffers, and finds that "mankind is decaying and sick because it is subject to the influence of hundreds of diseases because it has almost completely recoiled from the natural way of life and lives a life completely contrary to the laws of nature." Among these causes are: fear of fresh air (compare our bedrooms, which are closed tightly at night, on all sides, so that not a single stream of cold air gets into them - many of the doctors even encourage this for fear of catching a cold in their patients), improper diet, impenetrable and irrational clothing, wrapping up in bed, improper distribution of movement and rest, wakefulness and sleep, and much more. All this requires a detailed consideration, to which Platen—and we with him—proceeds. He begins with an explanation of the question of nutrition and "what it should be and what it usually does not be."

What should we eat?* (Platen's subtitle. — Compiler's note.)

"Dear reader," teaches the sympathetic (I judge by the portrait) doctor, "if you belong to the middle class, if you are a craftsman or a worker, or if you are generally compelled, by force of circumstances, to limit your choice of food and drink and to observe a certain economy, then in most cases you will assert that you could be stronger and healthier, and work more vigorously, if, like rich people, he could eat a lot of good meat and drink a lot of beer and wine. This view is all the more deeply rooted in you because you yourself, which is quite possible, do not receive

-10-

eat meat every day for dinner, or even be able to have it for the table only on holidays. Further, you may be obliged to do without wine altogether, you drink beer quite rarely, and in most cases you have recourse to brandy, in order to preserve your strength, as you think, and in the winter time it is sufficient to warm your body.