Глава III. Семья

Virginity and marriage. – Marriage age. - Marriage for money. – Wedding ceremonies Before studying the situation of the family in the era of St. Chrysostom, you need to find out how he looked at marriage itself and what place he intended for it in Christian society, what, on the contrary, role he assigned to virginity, and how highly he valued it. This dispute about the mutual merits of virginity and marriage was traditional in the Church; it already occupied St. ap. Pavel. The debate became especially heated in the 4th century, from the time monastic life was established, which was greeted by some with such enthusiasm, others with such distrust and hostility. There is almost no St. father of this time, who would not have taken part in the controversy by writing a treatise on virginity. Treatise of St. Chrysostom belongs to the first period of his activity; it precedes his ordination to the priesthood. Like all his works dating from this era, it is full of freshness and brilliance, and some pages in this creation are truly exquisite. But this treatise is not devoid of passion, and even contradictory thoughts can be found in it. Here St. Chrysostom is simultaneously dealing with two opposite sides, with two different opponents. He fights the heretics: the Marcionites, Valentinians and Manichaeans, who are very powerful throughout the East, and in particular in Antioch. These heretics wanted to make virginity a duty, and, recognizing flesh and matter as radically bad, they treated marriage with merciless severity. At the same time, St. Chrysostom also refutes those Orthodox Christians who tried to place marriage and virginity at the same price, and sometimes even went so far as to more or less openly despise the latter. Hence there is some compulsion and indecisiveness in the essay. As always, and in this case, St. Chrysostom resorts to the protection of St. Scriptures; he apparently wants to confine himself to explaining the sacred texts, but in reality he often gets sidetracked. The authority for him is some words from the Gospel of St. Matthew and especially from the first letter to the Corinthians, where St. ap. Pavel resolved the problem into rules for the first time. Armed against heretics, St. John does not want to recognize any virtue outside the Orthodox Church and claims that “the worst voluptuousness is not as criminal as the abstinence of heretics.” These harsh and unsubstantiated pages are all the more worthy of note because the likes of them are rarely found in his works. Moreover, his main argument is not in favor of marriage: if marriage is evil, as you claim, he tells the Marcionites, then abstinence is not at all a proof of virtue. To abstain only means to avoid crime. Marriage must exist in order to elevate the glory of virginity, and it is clear that for this it is enough for it to be something indifferent, and not at all necessary to be a good. The true thought of St. Chrysostom shows himself better when he then turns to his other opponents, who despised virginity. First of all, he substantiates the benefits of marriage in ancient law. This benefit was twofold: firstly, marriage alone could contribute to the settlement of the earth; that is why the divine words were spoken: “grow and multiply”; and secondly, he alone could curb debauchery. But now that the earth is populated, his first advantage has disappeared and only the second remains, affecting only weak and base souls. The beauty and dignity of virginity are absolute and eternal; on the contrary, the merits of marriage were always only relative. We should not forget that marriage is a direct son of the first sin, and if it were not for the last, God would have established a less carnal and less rude means for the spread of the human race. In the last, weakest part of the treatise, St. John goes into an overview of all kinds of worries, troubles and sorrows that their life together presents to the spouses, from the dissimilarity of characters to jealousy, from household chores to fatherly concerns and birth illnesses. It is strange to hear the son of the pious Secundus and Anthusa declare that he saw only unhappy families; It’s strange to see how he sometimes thickens his colors in order to have the right to conclude, along with the Gospel: “if such is the position of the spouses, then it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:10) and to say without hesitation in the end that a family - suppose even a perfect one, where both spouses and children will compete in virtue - and such a family will not have much value before the Supreme Judge and will not deserve that kindness from Him a look that is reserved for heroes of virginity. These fluctuations are regrettable, but they are not very difficult to explain. Everywhere one feels that among the Orthodox themselves, St. Chrysostom had to deal with very brave and skillful objectors. That is why he sometimes explains texts from St. Scriptures, in particular from the letters of St. ap. Paul, who, no doubt, gave high priority to virginity before marriage, but spoke far less ironically about marriage, devoting his share of praise to it. But St. was encouraged to interpret the texts in a unique way. John those with whom he fought. For the artificial dialectic and somewhat declamatory exaggeration with which St. Chrysostom repelled the attacks; many were partly responsible. Such were those who argued that the apostolic words: “God gives to everyone different gifts” (1 Cor. 7:7) supposedly do not allow one to look at virginity as a personal merit, and show that it is not the fruit of effort and will, but a rare and exceptional Divine grace. In addition, those who referred to the high price that the right of the father had in the old law, and those who, contradicting the words of the Gospel of St. Matthew (8:2), endeavored to prove the superiority of Abraham over John the Baptist and St. Evangelist John. There were also those who, when pointed out about all the worries that are inevitable in married life, responded with an inappropriate joke: “let’s get married for the sake of repentance.” Finally, we must include here those who have always had the words on their tongues: “it’s better to get married than to get thin.” (1 Cor. 7:8). What, however, in this treatise serves to his honor, despite all its weaknesses, is that St. John does not hesitate to express many times (as he did very often and subsequently in even more energetic expressions) that one should not still look at virginity as a virtue that gets rid of all others: it is nothing without mercy and alms. But what remains undeniable is that in his constant comparison of virginity and marriage, he assigns marriage a much lower place. St. Chrysostom, while exalting virginity, could not humiliate marriage, since the official practice of the Church acted in a similar way, recognizing the superiority of virginity, but destining it only for the chosen ones. And St. John very often approached this very wise position, which even those who cared most about the interests of the state and civil society could not reproach. But in this case, in the treatise “On Virginity,” he does not defend this thesis. Here he offers all Christians, without exception, abstinence as an ideal of behavior; he even wants spouses to agree to maintain virginity from an early age. He constantly repeats that he does not condemn marriage. This is quite fair, but he treats him unsympathetically. This treatise was compiled before the administration of priestly ministry and the daily management of the flock was given to St. John has deep experience. When he wrote his work, having recently returned from solitude, he was still entirely influenced by the memories he had of six harsh years devoted to asceticism. But didn’t he change his opinion later, or, what is no less important, didn’t he stop expressing it with such intolerant harshness? In theory, he apparently did not abandon his original principles, and we will find confirmation of them in many of his conversations dating back to the time of the priesthood. But when he had to preach to a crowd of the faithful, which consisted almost entirely of married people, he no longer dared to describe marriage in such a gloomy light. Now he usually recalled the words that he had already uttered in the treatise “On Virginity,” i.e., that “marriage is good because it keeps a person in his duty and eliminates fornication.” Now, therefore, he accepted marriage as it existed, and, with a view to ensuring marital happiness, gave excellent advice and rules, full of common sense and nobility, and best covering his previous prejudices. As if forgetting the famous chapter of his work “On Virginity” 11, he pointed out examples of virtuous spouses, cited in his favor the very example of the forefather Abraham, which was used by his opponents; he repeated that the mother of the Maccabees did a great job when she got married, since she gave birth to glorious heroes; constantly invited people to marvel at the house of Aquilla and Priscilla; reminded that the Apostle Peter was married; he assured “by his own salvation” that the marital state does not in the least harm the Christian life; Finally, I saw in the union of the spouses a symbol of the unity of the soul with Christ. And in all these cases, he remained the same person who, in his treatise “On Virginity,” wrote: “I would like to purify my soul and ascend to heaven on the wings of prayer; but my wife does not agree to this, and I must bow to her whim.” When he presented to his listeners that beautiful picture of the Christian family with which his 38th conversation on the book of “Genesis” ends, was he not embarrassed that suddenly one of those cunning people, of whom there were so many among his people and who often loved to put him in contradiction with himself, would remind him of the words he himself wrote: “if marital cohabitation deprives us of the right to freely dispose of ourselves, then who would not be indignant against such tyrannical law? Here we see how calming and happy the influence of experience was for him. We will see more than once that it often acts on his thoughts with the same force and with the same success. Let us note here one of the original features of his personality, a feature due to which it is never superfluous to repeat that the twelve years of his priesthood in Antioch were a great and wonderful period of his life. At that time, there were many things that led to the separation of the clergy from his flock and to the elevation of the former over the latter. And theology, which developed more and more, posited a distinction between clergy and laity; and the policy, which placed part of civil duties in the hands of the shepherd of souls, made the latter’s authority, although more faithful, but less paternal. Finally, charity itself, having become an institution, absorbed both the time and thoughts of the bishop, who suddenly turned into an economist. How amazing at this time St. Chrysostom knew how to constantly approach a crowd of small and humble people, always maintain contact with them and live one common life! What a great example he set when, having stocked up in the desert with enormous moral energy, he returned to the environment of society in order to satisfy the first fervor of his feelings and ideas with practical activity! Since in the eyes of St. Chrysostom, the only reason to be a supporter of marriage is the curbing of lust, then the first rule for those who do not have the power to observe virginity should be the rule: to marry, if possible, as soon as possible. In youth, sensual desires are strongest, and that is why the choice of a wife must be made in youth. “Youth must pass” is one of those axioms of frivolous morality that were in use in ancient times. St. Chrysostom never ceases to show parents how responsible they are if they give their children the opportunity to become addicted to the company of harlots and actresses. It will be in vain to object - (and from this it is already clear that the most stubborn resistance, as naturally, came especially from wealthy families) - that it is necessary to give the sons the opportunity first to strengthen their position, establish their reputation in the class of lawyers and achieve some important position. Everyone has a duty to watch over their purity, and it is possible to ensure this only through a quick marriage. With that charming sincerity that is the usual tone of his conversations, having once shown that visiting libertines in the days of youth insensitively entails adultery after marriage, and concluding that the only cure is to make the choice of a legal wife from the age of twenty, St. John suddenly interrupts himself and seems to be ironizing himself: “Look,” he says, “to what role you have led me: now I have become a groomsman, bringing the bride to the groom!” He then continues: “yes, marriage should be concluded in a timely manner; if not, then the young man, who first experienced vice, will love his wife for only two days, and already on the morning of his wedding day he will again need the caresses of libertines.” Finally, apologizing for the rather free expressions that he just used and which are softened in our country, he hides behind the authoritative example of St. Ezekiel and other prophets, whose language did not know false shame. Such is his wise advice, which is useful for all societies and in all eras to listen to. St. Chrysostom repeats these advice incessantly and, with all that, this is not just a method of repetition, so common among preachers. It is much easier to condemn voluptuousness and licentiousness in general terms, in beautiful outbursts of eloquence, than to indicate a means of preventing them, and the best and, without a doubt, the only means for this is, of course, the one that praises St. Chrysostom Unfortunately, this remedy is almost always neglected, due to selfishness and poorly understood prudence. So, let a man and a woman enter into marriage in their youth. But the choice is difficult and must be made with great care. This is where a huge responsibility lies with the parents, since when the right moment comes, they must not only find the bride themselves and be able to convey the love of their son to this or that girl, but also, through the entire system of education that they have adopted towards him since childhood, they will give the fatal direction of this love. And the education of that time, as it was understood, as well as all the examples young people received, tended exclusively to instill in the hearts of young men a desire and respect for wealth and to arouse in them a desire to marry for money. Marriage according to St. Chrysostom condemned this already in his treatise “On Virginity.” There he alternately shows us, on the one hand, “a poor man of dark origin and low status” taking on a “noble, rich and powerful woman”, and on the other, a poor woman marrying a rich man. He constantly returned to this subject in his conversations and, in particular, devoted a conversation to it about choosing a wife, where he described all the skillful negotiations that were conducted in this matter. Here he denounces the bawds who have made a trade out of marriage negotiations, lists all the precautions that were taken before consolidating the contract, points to incessant meetings with legal advisers in which all the details of marriage laws were revealed, and they entered into a review of all sorts of cases that could help study the issue of dowry: “what, for example, will happen if the wife dies childless? etc. etc.” The very name that was usually given to marriage shows what a crude and pitiful idea was associated with it: it was called a contract, an agreement. And where do all these intrigues lead, what is their result? “A husband who married without wealth! you become the slave of a wife gifted with a dowry. You live in contempt and shame, and your son will remain in the same shame if you die first, since, no doubt, the widow will remarry and pass on her wealth to another. Poor wives! You will be treated the same as if your husband had bought you in a public place, and indeed, haven’t you been bought? You will have no power over your servants and no power against the rival who will certainly appear with your master. Do not make the kind of inquiries that you usually make when drawing up a wedding plan about the state of your mutual property - rather inquire about morals and character, and instead of consulting with legal advisers, follow the advice of St. ap. Pavel. Holy Scripture offers you the great example of Abraham looking for a bride for his son.” This is a model that should be before the eyes of all parents, and St. Chrysostom constantly reproduces with the most touching explanations a beautiful biblical story, which he especially happily uses in his forty-eighth conversation on the book of Genesis. But, thus condemning marriage for money, St. Chrysostom was persecuted by eternal abuse, emanating from reasons too deep and too immutable, so that even Christianity could not completely eradicate it. These tips are wonderful and never lose their meaning. Even before St. Chrysostom The Church energetically rebelled against selfish marriages, and this, by the way, is clear from the curious chapter of the “apostolic decrees” (4:10). But, unfortunately, the advice of St. John contributed only to confirming the opinions of those who already had a sound view of marriage, and did not make much of an impression on others. It is only necessary to note that the ardent persistence with which St. John repeated them, proves that the evil was very intense, and this is completely confirmed by everything that we previously said about wealth in the East, and in particular in Syria. On the contrary, he undertook a very practical matter when he entered into the fight against too free amusements, which at that time dishonored wedding ceremonies. Here, therefore, he noted an evil, no doubt rooted, but still local and temporary, which could be corrected, and which, probably, was partly restrained by his sermons, and was finally exterminated by Christianity. “I want,” he said, “to cleanse the marriage, to return it to its nobility, to stop the mouth of heresy. Here an institution is dishonored, which is a Divine gift and even serves as the very source of the human race; Mud and dirt are thrown into this source. Let’s clear it by calling reason to our aid... I want to show you that it is not marriage that should make you blush, but the abuses that you introduce here.” In the absence of written documents, it is enough to turn to the monuments to verify the stability of Roman and Greek customs when performing a Christian marriage. The brides, as they are presented to us in some poetic inscriptions or bas-reliefs on some sarcophagi, are dressed in traditional clothes and clothed in flammeum. Without a doubt, the Church extended her high hand to marriage and from the very beginning advised it to be concluded before the bishop. But, having completed her work, after bestowing the blessing, she could not force the newly united faithful to abandon the ancient pagan rites. The next day after the newlyweds appeared before the bishop 12 was celebrated according to ordinary rites. The most essential part of these rituals was the cheerful and at the same time solemn train, which, taking the bride from her father’s house, took her to her husband’s house; it was a “pump,” as the Greeks called it, or a “deductio sponsae,” as the Latins called it. The pomp took place at nightfall, at the hour when, in the poetic expression of Sappho and Catullus, “the evening star shows its long-awaited light.” But let us also not forget the feast, which was accompanied by singing, dancing, various dramatic interludes and sanctioned the greatest liberties taken by guests and even family slaves. St. John, always fired by an ardent passion for serving the ideas of moderation, did not at all think of calling for extreme abstinence and found it natural that the wedding day, which was looked upon as the happiest of all, was therefore joyfully celebrated. “On this day,” he says, “they have a sumptuous dinner and dress richly. I do not attack this so as not to sound like a savage, however, Rebekah wore everyday clothes that day. However, I allow you this liberty: wear your festive clothes and indulge in fun in good community.” But the animated and detailed descriptions in which he introduces us to ordinary amusements, where these latter seem to exactly coincide with the amusements described by pagan writers, quite sufficiently explain his reproaches and even denunciations. With the flickering of torches and lanterns, with the sounds of wedding songs, always very free, filled with hints of crude mythological temptations, the cortege crossed the most crowded streets, passed through the square, among the crowds of curious people who looked at it from their doorsteps or followed it in cheerful groups. The sleeping people, awakened by all this noise, rushed to the windows and went out onto the balconies. And from this crowd, which consisted mostly of the scum of society and vagabonds, burst out thousands of jokes, mocking remarks, stupid tales and indecent wishes. “This is how they distort the nature of a celebration that should be completely family.” The concept of the freedom that wedding songs still retained can be gleaned from Claudian’s four small fescennic poems in honor of the marriage of Emperor Honorius and Mary and from his large essay on this occasion, written in hexameter. In one short passage, with much less grace and feeling than in the beautiful epithalamus of Catullus, he tells us some features that offend in their obscenity. And yet, Honorius was a Christian sovereign, the son of the most pious Theodosius. The wedding centon of Ausonia dates back to an earlier time. This is undoubtedly the best of the centons left to us by the 4th century. But it is a pity to see that these sacred hemistiches of the most chaste of poets are so spoiled by indecent allusions, no matter how witty they may be. Auzonius was again a Christian, however, more than indifferent to the truth. In this way he rightly resembled those educated Antiochian rich people against whom St. Chrysostom sent his evidence. The majority did not feel the indecency of the few decent allusions, but how harsh they seem to us, after we were able to read some of the exquisite works of great Christian contemporaries, for example, the letter of St. Gregory of Nazianzus to the newlyweds, or the epithalamium of Julian and Ida, written by St. Peacock Nolansky! What St. Chrysostom considered the most seductive thing to be the participation that the entire ordinary theater staff took in the ceremony: mimics and comedians, jesters and dancers, and the whole host of libertines and libertines. They accompanied the train; they were brought into the house, amused by their voluptuous songs, enjoyed by their indecent dances; and the guests themselves, and even the slaves, in turn, competed with them in obscenity and outrage. “You don’t take your wives to the theater,” says St. Chrysostom, you think that prudent custom and their very nature forbid them to be present at these always indecent spectacles, and yet on your wedding day you make a theater out of your own house. The saddest thing is that you also corrupt those young daughters and those young men who accompany the newlywed.” She, indeed, has around her a choir of maidens and a choir of married wives, one of whom hands her over to the other. St. Chrysostom does not want to say anything against both of these choirs, which are a symbol of those two positions from which she leaves one and enters the other; but he would like to force them, as well as the bride, to remain in the house; he would not like them to be forced to perform publicly on the train of this “pomp.” Is it possible, without blushing with shame, to take these girls and boys to spectacles that are a school of sensuality and adultery? In response, St. A very sharp argument was put forward to John in response to his reproaches, which shows both how rich families adhered to ancient customs, and how much they were aware of the inconsistency of these customs with Christian purity and severity. From here it is also clear how difficult it was then to introduce a sense of the natural equality of people into ancient society, which was unusually harsh towards the poor. They referred to the fact that the bride's wedding cortege did not consist of noble maidens of the same status as the bride, but was composed of the poor, and sometimes was recruited from slaves. In our time, we find the reasons given by St. quite natural and very simple. Chrysostom in two beautiful conversations 13. But his persistence and the power of his touching and at the same time irresistibly convincing eloquence prove that here he touched upon one of the most stubborn prejudices of his time. However, he adds that this is not all the evil; It is not only these girls or maids who run the risk of being corrupted by such customs. He makes it clear that this is a strange lesson even for the newlyweds themselves, especially for the newlywed; she, having been raised to solitude in the inner chambers, in the gyneceum, from there suddenly rudely rushes into the depths of such shame. He proves the possibility that from this very first evening the germ of adultery will enter the heart of one of the spouses. Who knows if among the actresses mentioned there won’t be one who will be distinguished by her husband? Who knows that any of these actors will not be noticed by his wife? He claims that such adventures happen often, and this can already be seen as an exaggeration. But since he repeats this assurance several times, it seems that here he at least made an allusion to some secular scandal that once occurred, known to everyone, about which there was no need to speak more clearly in order to be understood. Let us finally note the message of St. Chrysostom that these expensive ceremonies were not performed exclusively by wealthy families; On this occasion, everyone sought to compete in vanity and costs. The poor at least wanted the feast to be as luxurious as possible. They ran from house to house to borrow dishes, mirrors and clothes from friends or relatives. The next day, the newlywed cried when she had to return all these luxurious things. They were always afraid that some silver item might be stolen or lost during the holiday. St. especially addresses parents. Chrysostom, in order to stop these temptations, places his hope on them. Let them preserve certain amusements, but destroy the “pomp”, along with singing and dancing, and refuse to call up employees in the theater. Let them call only their friends, neighbors, good people, well acquaintances; Finally, let them not spend more than they can. In particular, if they want to set a wonderful example and behave in a truly Christian manner, then it is better to call some poor people instead of jesters and dancers. Whatever the point of departure of St. Chrysostom, everywhere he reduces speech to alms. He wants the poor to take part in this solemn feast, but he also knows how offensive this innovation he introduces will seem. Beggars are at the wedding! In the opinion of that superstitious society this was the most inevitable omen. To call on the poor was to condemn the newlyweds to poverty. St. John discusses and ridicules this absurd prejudice, and in order to achieve his goal more closely, he, like an excellent moralist, makes an appeal not only to reason, but also to pride. Before him, no one had ever thought of justifying mercy with this. “What glory to the one who takes the initiative! What an honor for those who will be the first to imitate him and thus establish a tradition!” However, he does not dare to fully hope that he will be able to convince his listeners, and from some hesitation in his words one can feel that he only had very little faith in success. If it is always difficult to abolish or reform holidays, whatever they may be, the undertaking becomes especially delicate when it comes to holidays that are especially close to the human heart and mark the most important moments of existence, such as birth, marriage, or death. Contemporaries of St. Chrysostom loved these wedding entertainments not only because they were joyful and noisy, and, apparently, temporarily sanctioned theatrical pleasures, pantomimes, singing and dancing, so constantly condemned by religion, but also because they had long been accustomed to them and could no longer imagine weddings without them. Even completely Christian spouses almost did not consider themselves married after a church blessing, if a “pomp” was not celebrated over them. After all, this is a custom, the saints objected. Chrysostom, is something traditional, necessary and legal; to cancel this would be not only indecency and inability to live (although this already means a lot) - but also a real oblivion of duty. St. Chrysostom had to repeat to them that it is not these rituals that make marriage, and that its essence is in marital cohabitation. It is almost impossible to believe that in this campaign he bravely undertook, St. John achieved immediate and decisive results. Perhaps the most important of the homilies devoted to this subject, that is, the twelfth conversation on the Epistle to the Colossians, belongs to the last years of his life. It is marked Constantinople and probably dates from the time of his bishopric, around the year 399. In it, as in previous conversations, he never ceases to repeat that he knows very well how annoyed they are with him for these admonitions. Some, he says, hate him, others laugh at him and consider him crazy. But, if he was not given the opportunity to eradicate the abuses, then at least his eloquent words were not wasted. He began the work that the patient and powerful Church brought to a good end after him. Divorce and secondary marriages. - Adultery. – Equality between husband and wife. – Consent between spouses; their mutual influence on each other Together with all the bishops of his time, St. Chrysostom fought ardently for the indissolubility of marriage. Throughout the existence of the empire, great licentiousness reigned in Greek and Roman morals in this regard. Divorces were made more and more often, for often insignificant reasons and, to tell the truth, in most cases even by simple mutual agreement. They entered into new relationships without any twinge of conscience, even after several previous widowhoods. The main position of St. Chrysostom is strictly ecclesiastical: he absolutely forbids a husband to divorce his wife, except in the case of adultery, “unless speech is fornicated.” He agrees that the law is strict, but it had to be so so that the disciples of Jesus Christ, right before the Teacher, would so expressively note their feeling when they exclaimed: “if this is the position of husband and wife, then it is good not to marry.” (Matthew 19:10). The reason that caused the apostles to doubt must have seemed unusually harsh to Christians of the 4th century. They constantly objected, citing examples and commands of the Old Testament and using polemical techniques, very common at that time, especially in Antioch, where St. In every case, John heard cunning and not always sincere evidence from the lips of his flock. “Yes,” he answered when reference was made to the law of Moses, “yes, divorce was permitted in the Old Testament, but it was necessary to avoid even greater evils. The old law is the law for the Jews, a stiff-necked, rebellious people subject to cruel passions. If these cruel and carnal people were forced to keep their wives with them against their own will, then the husband would kill the wife who no longer pleased him.” Such was the atrocity of that people who did not spare even the prophets and shed blood like water. But the new elect, the believers of the Christian Church, are entrusted with a more perfect law, and St. Chrysostom repeats this with all the more energy because civil law, even during the reign of Christian emperors, was still distinguished by greater leniency than religious law, although, it is true, Christian influence affected the laws regarding marriage. As for secondary marriages, then, as usual, St. Chrysostom almost confines himself only to reproducing the instructions of the holy apostle. Pavel. Secondary marriages are permissible, since human weakness is so great that one cannot reasonably think about their absolute prohibition. However, it would be better to avoid them. But, of course, knowing quite well how small will be the number of those who will have enough nobility of feelings and firmness of will to refuse the secondary connection, St. Chrysostom is trying to indirectly lead his listeners to the desired consequences. He indicates all the difficulties that arise during a second marriage. Under the pressure of inevitable memories and involuntary comparisons, an inexhaustible source of quarrels is always ready to open up. “Imagine that a second wife happens at the table, for one reason or another, to make a mention of his first wife - and now the second wife becomes furious.” But especially children, who should serve to strengthen marital love, will create discord and hatred between spouses. If the second wife does not have them, then she will hate the children from her first marriage, who are always like a living reproach for her. If she has them, jealousy will make her hatred even more cruel. But this is not what we especially note, since here we see only the pure and simple expression of church discipline and, perhaps, even the voice of common sense. Of greater interest, apparently, is not what St. Chrysostom speaks, but what he is silent about. Indeed, we notice that he makes almost no mention of a third or fourth marriage. Does this mean that in this respect the morals of Antioch were somewhat higher than the morals of Rome? Indeed, it seems that the tempting number of successive marriages, whether due to divorce or due to widowhood, is a particularly Roman evil, although, however, the entire empire suffered from it. In any case, St. John does not indicate a single couple similar to those legendary spouses whom the bl. knew. Jerome, and of whom one was a widower from twenty wives, and the other a widow from twenty-two husbands. (It should be noted, however, that, despite his remarkably deep faith, St. Jerome also had an imagination very prone to extremes. Twenty divorces would be more plausible than twenty widowhoods, but he is talking specifically about widowhoods). With the constant care of St. Chrysostom, when he presented his listeners with an ideal picture of Christian marriage, or showed them how far reality is from this ideal, was to substantiate the perfect equality of both spouses, to eradicate the prejudice so widespread throughout the Greek East that a wife has less rights than a husband. When he explains the advice offered by St. ap. Paul to widows, he does not omit the opportunity to immediately add that, although St. Paul does not say clearly, but here he also means widowers and, just like widows, advises them to avoid second marriages. The most difficult thing was to convince him that the infidelity of a husband is just as criminal as the infidelity of a wife, and that the word adultery has exactly the same meaning, both in relation to one and in relation to the other. At this point, a contradiction was noticed between civil and religious law, and husbands considered themselves quite free, thanks to the wide tolerance of the first legislation. The majority allowed only one case of adultery for a husband: this was when he entered into a relationship with a married woman. Everything else was considered only simple lust, and not adultery. They treated relationships with libertines and intrigues with domestic servants, which left a stain on many families, with complete condescension and without any prejudice. One very interesting letter from Bl. Jerome, it is his letter to Oceania, where he praises Fabiola, that fully supports the complaints of St. Chrysostom. “The laws of the Caesars are a different matter,” wrote Bl. Jerome, - different laws of Christ; the commandments of the legislator Papinian are not the same as the commandments of Paul. Lawyers remove all restraint from the shamelessness of men and condemn only fornication and adultery 14; they allow frivolous love for maids and harlots, as if it is not the will, but the position in the world that determines guilt. With us, what is forbidden to women is equally prohibited to men, and the same slavery, the same conditions are imposed on both spouses.” Fabiola, indeed, was divorced and then entered into a second marriage, which she later atoned for with glorious repentance. However, she was not only reproached for this second marriage, but also condemned for her divorce. Nothing seemed simpler than for a husband to divorce his adulterous wife, but for a deceived wife to demand the same right against a husband, even one contaminated with the lowest vices (as the husband of Fabiola is represented by Blessed Jerome), it seemed an insult to all flighty husbands, to all corrupters of servants and secret adulterers. In practice, the Church itself often admitted that it was better for a wife to continue living with an unfaithful spouse, and acted this way not so much out of concession to prejudice, but in view of the valuable consideration that a wife, little by little, can lead her husband to goodness. St. Basil the Great does not approve of this indulgence, but does not dare condemn it too strongly. St. Chrysostom was bolder. The defense of the position of absolute, unconditional equality in marriage between husband and wife, a position that so sharply offended the opinion of his contemporaries, was extremely close to his heart: he proclaimed this position very loudly and reproduced it on any occasion, at the slightest pretext. Thus it turns out that when he preaches against adultery, he especially addresses the man. The preacher presses him into his last refuges and mercilessly exposes all those sophistries with which he tries to seduce himself and calm his conscience. St. Chrysostom describes all the dangers to which an adulterer exposes himself: he points out the incessant fears and eternal suspicions that every minute confuse the forbidden pleasure and expel the guilty person from the church. The sin of fornication has always been one of those which the Church condemned most severely; to eradicate it, she imposed a very long and most severe repentance. The stronger St. Chrysostom tries to instill horror in him that he has to speak, as he himself knows, to the most sensual people. In Syria at all times, the climate, traditions, and cults themselves favored all kinds of debauchery; From Antioch always came those crowds of flute players who, from the banks of the Orontes, spread throughout all the large cities and were especially numerous in Rome, where they were very well known in the notorious quarter of the Circus Maximus. Here, as in the great metropolis of Constantinople, which very soon became equal to Rome in licentiousness and freedom, there were constantly stubborn sinners who objected to St. John that love passions here are fatal and irresistible. “Why argue? I would like to fight these movements of my heart, but at the same time I feel that I cannot.” “No,” answers St. Chrysostom, love is not inevitable. Surprise at beauty is inevitable, however, one can be surprised at beauty without any carnal desire mixing with surprise. And with a rather sophistical subtlety, he makes one feel that if it were otherwise, then everyone would love a beautiful woman without exception, and it would be impossible to refrain from loving one’s own mother if the opportunity presented itself. How can one maintain marital fidelity, the intractable objectors told him, especially in the case when one has the misfortune of taking an ugly wife? Ugly women themselves realize that they have little right to complain. At best, they try to keep their husbands by replacing beauty with skillful attire. With this desire to please their husbands, women often hypocritically justified their passion to please. When St. Chrysostom preached against this passion for clothes; they objected to him: “But then what should the ugly do?” - and to this he responded with a beautiful panegyric to ugly women. “An ugly woman is less susceptible to slander. First of all, the husband of a beautiful wife is the intended victim of envy. Next, beautiful women are lazy; they don’t want to do their own housework; they are always afraid of getting their beautiful hands dirty or damaged. An ugly woman is more active and useful. Besides all this, what a disgrace for a wife to think that in order to keep her husband she must resort to the same charms that harlots use! Keep it with you, on the contrary, with devotion, love and all the qualities of the soul. Let him not find in his home a woman of pleasure, like those whom he seeks outside the home, but a loving Christian, chaste and sedate.” In one of his first works, St. Chrysostom described to us one of these houses, where the wife, despite all her virtues, could not achieve to keep her husband. This is the family of the unfortunate Stagirius, restless, sick, perhaps a victim of heredity, judging by what we know about his father. Exhausted by harsh feats of asceticism. Stagirius experienced severe seizures, attributed to demonic possession. Father Stagiria, a man of high birth and very rich, rejected his lawful wife, entered into an open cohabitation with one young woman and had many children from her. St. John speaks of him only with extreme contempt, presenting him as a cruel, reckless man who has no power over himself. In his conversations he does not present such precise descriptions: as is his custom, he refrains from any identification of personality and even from too clear hints. But no matter how general his testimony was, it still clearly follows from them that the evil was great, and that public opinion did not condemn those who publicly led a seductive life, like Father Stagiria. But if St. Chrysostom is so concerned about affirming the rights of a woman that if, in her name, he demands perfect equality of duties and reciprocity of obligations of both spouses, then he does not at all think of coming to the identification of their duties and roles. On the contrary, no one more wisely defined their mutual purpose, no one better outlined the boundaries of their possession and indicated the meaning of their activities. “Look, what is the wife's duty - she looks after the house, takes care of home life, watches over the maids and encourages them to work. She is working on preparing the clothes. She gives you the name of your father, frees you from concubines, helps you maintain abstinence, curbs the dirty trick of the flesh.” “God did not allow everything indifferently to the husband and wife, but he divided their task. For the wife - a house, for the husband - a square, an agora. The husband’s duty is to feed his household with the labors of the land, the wife’s destiny is to clothe them with fabrics.” Let them each spend their days doing their own thing. This will not prevent them from living a common life. This, on the contrary, will serve as the best means for each of them to exert mutual influence; and no one better than St. Chrysostom did not describe the holy and beneficial influence that both spouses can have on each other if they love each other and fully understand their responsibilities. His style is charming as he analyzes the benevolent vigilance which a husband has the right to exercise over his wife, and the insensible power which the wife, thanks to her ingratiating love, will be able to exercise little by little over him. You need to correct your wife with the most patient tenderness. The bad thing is that spouses observe each other too clearly and directly express their suspicions. A husband who wants to correct his wife’s shortcomings must first of all be wary of giving rise to reproaches himself, and how can he avoid them if he is constantly away from home and if he barely devotes a few hours to her company? However, let him not be too burdened by his wife’s suspicions: they are proof of her love. Let him then be afraid lest he show himself too busy with some slave. When, in this way, the husband’s conscience is impeccable, then it will be possible for him little by little to begin to admonish him on his part and moderate that unbridled desire for luxury, to which almost all women indulge. It is true that they are the first to arouse and kindle greed and love of gain in the husband’s heart. Obsessed with a passion to constantly compare their fate with the fate of others, they never cease to shame their husbands. “Look at the luxury of so-and-so, look at the outfits of our neighbor. How pitiful I would seem before her! And this is because her husband managed to get rich.” But, if by his virtues and his fidelity the husband managed to earn the love of his wife, then it will be possible for him to tame this jealousy and this ambition. If he knows his own worth well, it will not be difficult for him to teach her moderation. Let the husband be able to prepare the way for his influence from the wedding day, says St. Chrysostom then goes into detailed worldly advice, in which he is so excellent. If the wedding was simple and modest, then the bride will not run the risk of forming a false impression of her actual position. Then in the morning that funny and depressing scene that we have already described will not play out, and her annoyance will not break out with the cynical naivety of so many wives, when she will have to give back the carpets and gold dishes borrowed for this occasion. If, further, the wedding was simple, then the young woman will understand from the very beginning that the one with whom she has united is not inclined to tolerate extremes of luxury. “You laugh, and I seem funny to you with my advice; but try to follow them and you will find your own benefit here.” With great skill, he outlines the conversation that you should have with your wife during the first days of marriage, and shows with what insinuating caution and friendly gentleness you should let her understand the meaning of the proposal. Let them tell her that she was preferred for her moral qualities and virtues. “I would have been able to find a wife from a richer family, from a higher family (note that he, like a subtle psychologist, does not say “from the more beautiful”), but I found you so tender, simple and chaste.” Let them strengthen her natural qualities in her in this way, or at least arouse them in her, if they are not yet so visible and developed that it is possible to talk to her about it. But even more, a wife can influence her husband, correct him and transform him at her own request. Oh, that she would always have the desire to use her tender, irresistible influence in the interests of virtue and piety! Here St. John returns again to his favorite theme. Let her not imagine, as she is foolish to think, that she will be able to attract her husband with her beauty and decoration. If this is all she offers him, then he will find something much greater and better among the harlots. But if she had shown him holy and pure love, then how he would have listened to her slightest advice! Let her speak with her gentle woman's voice; The voice of a friend does not have such persuasiveness; the voice of a father and mother, a lord and a nobleman, is not so convincing! Advice is usually painful and unpleasant. “A woman’s advice alone has an fascination inaccessible to anyone, since it is inspired by love.” If these instructions are followed, then that perfect harmony will be established and reign between the spouses, without which marriage will be only an empty phrase and which, however, is so rare in home life. We are not talking about those houses where a husband beats his wife. Even when she has the misfortune of suffering beatings, she must patiently bear her cross. But what a shame for a husband to mistreat his wife when he should not even beat a slave! Whoever beats his wife, let him know that he is guilty of a sin equal to parricide and even an even worse crime, because God commanded to leave his father and mother for the sake of his wife! Let them avoid even minor clashes, cavils and random discord. Let them not enter into discord even for seemingly valid reasons, such as when a wife wants to observe abstinence, without mutual consent. In the 4th century, in Christian families, this phenomenon, indeed, often served as the cause of disagreement and even ruptures. An equally common reason for divorce was the wife’s infertility, which the husband could not excuse, remaining faithful to ancient views and morals. For those who were carried away by the ambitious pursuit of illegitimate purity, St. Chrysostom repeats the commands and admonitions of St. ap. Paul: abstinence can only be observed by mutual consent. It is necessary to make all kinds of sacrifices, not excluding this one, just to ensure such a desired good as marital harmony, since nothing can be more terrible and regrettable than discord and litigation between those who are united by such sacred ties. “It is a war between members of the same body, the most terrible of wars.” But it will never flare up if the husband knows how to love and the wife knows how to make concessions. Indeed, the husband commands and the wife obeys, but whatever may be said, do not think that these are two different roles and that less love is required to fulfill the first. Quite the contrary, here it is needed even more. If, unfortunately, no matter what devotion one of the spouses shows, no matter what sacrifices he decides to make, the other, despite this, remains in his incorrigible errors, then still the first one should patiently endure them and know that those words are beautiful, which the famous Socrates so boasted of before his wife Xanthippe, who taught him patience. Children. – Raising sons and daughters. – The role of the mother in education. – Stay in the monastery. – Widowhood So, the husband’s lot is an active life and space, the wife’s lot is farming and home. But, although in this way their mutual possession is completely delimited, however, the wife, who knows how not to go beyond her limits, is here equal to her husband. We have already seen what a happy influence she can have on her husband in an intimate family circle. Now let's look at the most important of her responsibilities, which she undoubtedly shares with her husband, but in such a way that she always bears great responsibility - raising children. St. Chrysostom was raised by his mother; he did not know his father Secundus, who died very soon after his marriage. But Anfusa, the same Anfusa whom, they say, Livanius envied, although he himself had the most ardent and tender motherly cares, treated him with the most vigilant love. Judging by what her son's touching gratitude tells us about her, she was not only a woman of heart, but at the same time a woman of a strong and broad mind. And it is natural, therefore, that St. John demands a lot from mothers. It might even seem that he, perhaps, somewhat neglects his fathers, if there were not two obvious reasons for this. First of all, it happened that the fathers, busy with everyday needs, as well as with the rights and responsibilities of members of civil society, often considered some obstacle to Christian education, as the bishops understood it. On the other hand, these same fathers often neglected their children, leaving their education to teachers. As a result, one could only be glad that Christianity wanted to counter the dubious influence of these leaders with the influence of mothers. They prefer St. Chrysostom is trying to instill the importance of education. He places it so highly that, in his opinion, family ties are much less cemented by community of blood than by the precise fulfillment of mutual duties. “It is the work of Divine Providence that It did not leave children deprived of the natural feeling of love for their parents, and, on the other hand, did not establish the family solely on this feeling.” Let us also remember the words of St. ap. Paul (1 Tim. 5:10), where he praises the mother for raising her children, not for giving them life. We will find at St. Chrysostom has too little information about education in the proper sense, because he did not have a suitable opportunity to talk about it. He himself probably received a regular classical education in one of the best schools and benefited greatly from it. No matter how different his eloquence was from the eloquence of panegyrists and sophists, no matter how opposite in its foundations and method the rhetoric he created was in comparison with the rhetoric of Libanius, however, the lessons of this rhetorician did not turn out to be useless for him. One must, however, be careful not to exaggerate this influence. The historian Socrates, in his church history, says that he studied philosophy with a certain Andragathius. This little-known teacher almost failed to develop in his student taste, or even respect for what he taught him, and St. John, in any case, spoke about philosophy with the deepest disdain. We can say that among all St. fathers of the 4th century Chrysostom was one of those who were most hostile to ancient pagan civilization. A clear consciousness of this just situation was hindered by the fact that St. John was a student of Libanius and, according to a more or less authentic account of the church historian, this rhetorician even wanted to have him as his successor. It is also true that the brilliance and purity of his style could dazzle - however, in fact, not only was he not more a philosopher than a Christian, like Synesius, but in relation to classical learning he was not even nearly as tolerant as St. Basil the Great or Gregory of Nazianzus, bl. Jerome or Bl. Augustine. Ardent and passionate, he did not have such a firm, even and at the same time infallible mind as St. Vasily. Never, like bl. Augustine, he did not understand the depth of Plato's doctrine. Finally, it is also a mistake to think that to such a degree, as they try to attribute to him, he possessed the temperament of a scientist and poet, that is, that temperament that shines so strongly even in the most special theological works of Blessed. Jerome or St. Gregory of Nazianzus. He very soon stopped loving literature and poetry for their own sake. In one of his words spoken in Constantinople, we find an admission that sometimes he felt a “thorn in the flesh,” although he always managed to drown it out, but it is indisputable that he was never embarrassed by the lust of the spirit. We should not forget, however, that St. John did not live in Athens, in that city, sacred according to great memories, where the saints lived. Gregory or St. Vasily, and did not follow the lessons of the most enlightened sophists. A city of trade and pleasure, Antioch was never, strictly speaking, one of the great mental capitals of the empire; such a capital was rather Berit, which was the most active center in Syria not only of legal, but also of literary studies. Antioch was far from being comparable to Athens or Alexandria. The Seleucids did not even leave in it those legends that the Attalids left in Pergamum and the Lagids in Egypt. Livanius, however, gave public education there a very bright, albeit short-lived, shine. In essence, Christianity alone had wonderful and strong beginnings there. Gibbon made about St. Chrysostom made one remark, expressing a judgment characteristic of some, as if in St. Joanna “is noticed to have a talent for disguising the benefit that he derived from rhetoric and philosophy.” But in reality there is nothing more inaccurate and unfair, and Gibbon can be reproached - even if he himself did not admit it - for what he says about St. Chrysostom from someone else's voice, since he was not at all a person capable of getting carried away by reading twelve volumes of conversations of St. Chrysostom. Without a doubt, in morals and doctrine, in the form in which St. expounds them. Chrysostom, there are thoughts coming from the philosophical Greek schools. Even he himself, against his own desire, reveals this in that beautiful word “philosophy - philosophy”, which he constantly uses to designate the Christian life and which, in any case, seems strange in the mouth of one who was extremely dismissive and contemptuous of Plato and Aristotle. But it is enough to see with what ease he uses this word to be completely convinced that it is not at all in his original meaning. Imbued with the evangelical and biblical spirit, St. Chrysostom, in essence, owes philosophy only to ideas that had already penetrated Christianity much earlier than him, and the actual origin of which almost no one knew. From philosophy itself he does not borrow anything else for himself, and does not introduce any new and alien element into the teaching as it passed to him from his predecessors. That is why he gives us so little information about the education children receive in the school of grammarians and rhetoricians, and this paucity of details, this silence about what other Christian writers, on the contrary, talk about quite readily, clearly proves what little value worldly pursuits had in his eyes, although he did not directly express this. St. John almost never says anything about grammar schools. Only once does he tell us that the discipline here was severe, and from many other testimonies we know that this was indeed an ancient tradition. From the inhuman Horatius Orbilius to the teacher of the Martial school, the grammarian was equally hated by both boys and girls, and was known as an arrogant and cruel person. In one of those many everyday comparisons that St. loved so much. Chrysostom, he describes the class to us at the terrible moment of asking. The children here seem completely intimidated. While the teacher asks one of the comrades, the students review their lesson; the teacher is petty and demanding; most have already been beaten; those who wait their turn are frozen with fear; and if one of them, the most carefree and playful, manages to hit his neighbor, then the latter does not dare to answer him and gets angry. Everyone is in a tense state of mind, and everyone has one thought, how to get out unpunished. But when the class is over, and they, beaten or unbeaten, get up from their seats, their joy is so great that they don’t remember anything else. Quite in agreement with this and almost at the same era, the Spanish poet Prudentius, who lived on the other side of the empire, recalling in his memory at the end of his earthly career all the memories of his life, did not forget that in childhood he was intimidated by grammarians, and regretted the time when he cried, punished by the teacher’s ringing ruler. As for the rhetoricians whom St. John abhors, as the constant opponents of the gospel preaching, he sees in them only teachers of pompous eloquence. In his opinion, they do not care about any real benefit and are not looking for anything except applause and the vain surprise of the people, who are less picky than they think. Throughout the long period of his preaching, he never ceased to complain that classical education, in the form in which it was perceived by young people, was directly hostile to what the Church was trying to give. This St. father, the most eloquent of all fathers, one cannot find a single word in favor of the sciences, not a single phrase where he would thank them for their educational influence. It seemed to him that the sciences served only to develop pride, empty vanity, that kenodoxia, which he constantly curses and sacrifices to humility. Before the triumph of Christianity, Tertullian admitted that the study of the classics was a necessary preparation for all fields: “literature is a tool for every way of life.” After the triumph of Christianity, times changed a lot, so St. Chrysostom, by nature much more moderate and prudent than Tertullian, apparently forgot this truth. Recommending the study of Scripture, which, as we will see, was extremely insufficiently known to the majority of the faithful, he uses this to show the futility of worldly knowledge. “The writings of the Greeks, with their arrogant knowledge, serve only to increase ignorance, which is dangerous for youth, and to plunge it into even denser darkness. They only make the youths wonder at the imaginary heroes, and these latter have always been only slaves of all passions and vices, trembling before death, such as, for example, Achilles and all the others in Homer! Yes, let's force them to read the Bible and the Gospel instead of Homer. You think I’m really crazy when I offer you such advice, but I know what I’m doing and I won’t make a mistake in my work.” He is no more favorable towards the law, seeing in it nothing but empty cavils, untruths and inhumanity. It is permissible to note in all this a regrettable straightforwardness, which was especially dangerous in the era when St. Chrysostom Since the sciences and legal studies alone prepared for the civil field, since then the state more than ever had a need for energetic figures, incorruptible and educated, since, finally, the generation of skillful administrators, prudent and firm rulers was disappearing more and more, the grave guilt before the state lay with those who tried to turn the flower of youth away from a classical education, even though they could not be reproached for those sublime motives by which they were guided. Of course, this education was not perfect and, judging by some of Livanius’ complaints, it seems that in the 4th century it became even more superficial than before. According to the latter, young people cared about only two things: firstly, to know enough Latin to possess the formulas of the administrative style of the time, and, secondly, to become good “notaries” (or, as the Greeks said, “tachygraphs”). Anyone who fully knew this shorthand, these “notes” necessary for Roman officials, could, he says, with this baggage, eventually apply for one of the highest positions. However, it is impossible to forget that this education produced useful generations of great civil officials. Surprisingly practical in his preaching and in the field of morality, St. Chrysostom was a bad practitioner in everything else: therefore, is it necessary to attribute great importance to those reservations that we are forced to make here? It must still be clearly stated that in the 4th century the trends just noted were downright destructive. Empire since St. Constantine the Great still retained a shadow of life only thanks to a certain number of Christians who, in perfect agreement with the commandments of the Gospel, established a compromise between the demands of religion and civil society. Christianity thus gave the state its contingent of exemplary statesmen. Such, for example, was, among many others, the poet Prudentius we just mentioned, who, before indulging in asceticism in his old age, managed to conscientiously and talentedly fulfill important positions. What exclusively occupied St. John, is moral education, and here he completely rewarded himself, although somewhat one-sidedly. He thinks that it is impossible to provide a better service to youth than through a profound reform of family life, cleansing and improving the health of the home. He is confident that Christianity would have succeeded in this task, which philosophy tried to take on, but almost never achieved anything serious. Throughout the existence of the Roman Empire, the family was in such a position that children were little protected from being carried away by rather ambiguous examples and were exposed to great dangers. What Quintilian said regarding this remained true even after him, since society until the time of the triumph of Christianity did not experience a very deep revolution. Quintilian was not only the most refined of rhetoricians, not only the teacher of all of them in accuracy, sharpness of mind and experience, but, moreover, in almost all his works he revealed a lot of sublimity of feeling. He wanted to make rhetoric not only a teacher of the mind, but also a teacher of character, and described in excellent terms the dangers arising from the carelessness of parents. And in the beautiful words of Juvenal about the respect that should be had for children, it seems to us that what attracts attention is not so much the tenderness of the advice (which was so rare among the Romans) as its imperative form: persistence shows how necessary this advice was and allows us to guess the prevalence of evil. The main source of evil was, of course, inevitable slavery, and it is everywhere that precedes and is the decisive cause of most of the vices that plagued ancient society. St. Chrysostom was well aware of this and, as was his custom, he began by describing, without any false shame, those temptations that he wanted to eliminate. “Often,” he says, beginning with one of those comparisons in which he is so excellent, “we advise a maid who has a lamp in her hands not to bring it into a room where there is oil or any other flammable material, for fear that, when we leave, a spark may fall there and, uniting with this material, should set the house on fire. Let us have the same foreknowledge when it comes to our children, and let us not allow their gaze to penetrate to where the depraved maids, harlots and shameless slaves are. On the contrary, we will give them strict orders and be afraid that we might have some servant or neighbor of this kind; if in any way this danger is near us, then we will take care that they are not exposed to danger either through her glances or through conversation, fearing that this would not be a spark that embraces the entire soul and makes the fall inevitable. Let us also remove free and indecent speech from them, fearing that it will not entice them as if through a magical spell. We will not take them to the theater or to feasts, where they are taught to drink, but we will keep young sons with even greater worries than young daughters who do not leave the gyneceum. For there is no better decoration for this age than the crown of moderation and the glory of appearing for marriage clean from all disorder.” But what, on the contrary, do fathers do? They take less care in the education of their sons than in the education of slaves. These latter are supervised due to selfishness; correct their slightest mistakes so as not to suffer damage. But here they don’t even think about the children’s own benefit; do not care about correcting them even in view of their own improvement! Inside the house, their fathers give them only bad examples; outside the house they take them everywhere: to the baths, to the theater - everywhere except the church. To these carefree or weak fathers of St. Chrysostom depicts the high priest Elijah 15, punished for his inability to correct his sons. But he especially considers mothers; He offers Anna to them as a model; he repeats to them the wonderful words of the Apostle, which he would like to make their motto: “she will be saved for the sake of the birth of her children, if they are established in faith, love and sanctification.” Their gentleness of heart has a more effective effect than the extreme severity into which almost all fathers fall, far from being reproached for extreme condescension. But, affirming so positively the power of parents and demanding perfect obedience from children, St. Chrysostom does not want the former to always enjoy all their rights, or to demonstrate them with the brutality allowed by the tradition of ancient morals. “Do not,” he says, “provoke your children to anger, as I see many do, who disinherit them, beat them and treat them like slaves and not like children.” We will talk more briefly about raising daughters. At that time, it was still entirely entrusted to mothers. The young daughter did not appear outside the house: she was very strictly kept in the inner chambers - in the gyneceum. That's why St. Chrysostom tells us almost nothing about the education of girls and speaks in detail only about a special class of virgins dedicated to God, which we will talk about in another chapter. We have tried to clearly show what a great and happy influence Christianity had on education. However, one should not take the point of view according to which honest pagans did not make any efforts in this very sense. If we talk about the highest Roman society, which we know better than Byzantine or Syrian, then we will see sublime examples here, we will see pure families where children, under the watchful supervision of the father and with his strong assistance, received not only an excellent education, but also excellent moral skills. Such was the Symmachus family for almost a century. The speaker, famous for his famous report on the matter of the Altar of Victory, was brought up by his father, and we see from his letters that this latter himself was engaged in the education of his son. The son gratefully tells how he did his homework with him and was, apparently, filled with the most touching and vigilant solicitude. The only reproach that can be made to education, when understood, is that it ran the risk of being a little effeminate and enervating, due to the extremes of an all-consuming and too restless love; but Symmachus cannot be accused of even the slightest negligence, or even of any bad example. Let us also note that almost all the grammarians or rhetoricians of Rome whose memory has come down to us - in most cases pagans - were the most honest people in the world. Moral teaching was not distorted even after Quintilian. However, we are not talking about Rome - as for Antioch, then, of course, Livanius was a very respectable teacher, even more remarkable in character than in intelligence. He was, no doubt, entirely blameless in his private life, if we judge him by the strict rules of Christian morality; similar to bl. Augustine in his youth, he was involved in an illicit affair, and it seems that this was a fairly common sin of rhetoricians. His partner gave him a son, much loved by him, whom he carefully raised. And from the authorities, who valued him so highly, Livanius asked almost nothing more than to transfer to his son most of his inheritance, despite the illegal birth of the first. So, Livanius not only gave excellent advice to the students who followed his lessons, and never ceased, despite the little success of his admonitions, to reproach them for their youthful follies, with which they marked themselves as much in Antioch as in Athens; but he instilled in his parents the same truths that Quintilian expressed to them. And his speech in places very closely resembles the speech of St. Chrysostom, when, for example, he speaks against schoolchildren who mocked their teachers. Pagan rhetoricians, however, had much less authority than bishops, and Livanius is not pretending when he says that he was listened to little. To complete the truly Christian work of education, St. Chrysostom, in one of his first works, gives parents advice of great importance. He thinks that it is not enough to educate children by good examples in the family itself and to teach them, near the hearth, unsullied by any vice, the fundamental truths of virtue and piety. He would like everyone to go to monasteries for a certain period of time and, it seems, even specified a rather long period for this. From his reports it is clear to us that although the majority of parents met this custom with decisive resistance, however, a certain number of the latter accepted it. St. John establishes this rule in the third book of his “apology for monastic life,” and we should not forget that this apology is one of the first works he wrote. It dates, like the treatise “On Virginity,” from the time of his asceticism and still fully breathes with that fiery ardor that animated him in all the years he spent in communal and hermitic solitude. We must also remember that it is addressed to the inhabitants of Antioch, i.e. to the inhabitants of that city, the surroundings of which were everywhere inhabited by monks, who lived either in societies or alone on the ledges of the Syrian mountains. All this shows quite well that St. Chrysostom considered it possible to give advice with the hope of being listened to, and that some, even before he gave advice, had already voluntarily set an example of this. But how should we look at this innovation and what results would it produce if it became common? Of course, this was not an unrealizable phantom of the imagination, and the preacher was allowed to think that he would introduce such a reform into the morals of at least the chosen ones, if not into the morals of the entire society. St. Chrysostom showed us by his own example how fruitful these solitudes in the desert could be, from where a person returned purified, healed, ready without timidity to endure the harsh warfare of Christian life even in the midst of the world. But what was wonderful for people who, like St. John should have completely doomed himself to serve the church and enter its hierarchy - on the contrary, it could have been dangerous for many of those who were supposed to remain laymen. First of all, the time of these solitudes had to relate to the age when, according to the accepted custom, a young man, leaving his family, went to some learned city, to Athens, Beritus, Constantinople, or some other, to take lessons from philosophers and rhetoricians. Hence it became necessary to curtail this study of eloquence and the classics, which was the entirety of ancient education. For St. This did not pose a great difficulty for Chrysostom, especially during this period of his life, since the “Apology of Monastic Life”, of all his works, is especially the one where he speaks with the strongest contempt about eloquence and the sciences. But this aroused bewilderment in many parents, and one must agree that in general these were the “most prudent” in the eyes of the world. Suppose, however, that the parents would agree to sacrifice the literary knowledge of their children, that is, what we now call the humane sciences, and let us follow the young man during his stay among the pious monks who lived in communities among the Syrian mountains. If his soul is deeply religious and filled with enthusiastic surprise at the sublime examples of venerable teachers, then he will undoubtedly remain in the monastery, or in any case, if he returns to the city, then only to become a member of the clergy and, be that as it may, he will be lost to civil society. If, on the contrary, this is a weak and restless soul, then the unfortunate Stagirius will come out of him, having exhausted his sick body with feats suitable only for people who are strong and healthy. His unsteady mind and unreliable heart will be shaken by thoughts and feelings that are too exalted for an ordinary person, and he will perish, useless to others. But it is very remarkable that in no other creation of St. Chrysostom is not found again expressing those thoughts that he praised in the third book of his Apology of Monastic Life. Indeed, we do not see him repeating them in any of his Antioch or Constantinople conversations. Undoubtedly, one must see in this the same influence of experience that we have already noted regarding the treatise “On Virginity”, speaking about the change in his thoughts regarding marriage. Ever since, as a priest, he entered into direct and constant relations with Christian families, he felt that his former desire was difficult to fulfill. Even in Constantinople, he had many cases of seeing monks who respected their rank much less than the Syrian monks. He had to suppress vices, condemn the indolence of those shameless beggars, who, under the pretext of asceticism, were then exploiting the great city, accessible to every pretense and rich in virtues, and undoubtedly he thought that it was better to instill piety in the bosom of families than to run the risk of unwisely increasing the wandering crowd of unworthy monks. If these were the thoughts which explained his silence, he should not have repented of them during his journey into exile, when a crowd of fanatical monks pursued him on the Cappadocian roads and drove him out of Caesarea. In itself, such a difficult task of education becomes especially complicated when the father dies and transfers this matter exclusively to the widow. We have already seen that St. John advises widows, although he does not impose an absolute obligation on them, not to enter into a new relationship, and we will have another opportunity to see the position of those widows who formed a special class in the clergy. Here we want to note only the role of the widow in the bosom of the family when the husband is no longer alive. St. Chrysostom often repeated what worries and even dangers a widow is exposed to. And he usually expressed this in such energetic and precise terms that one can see here something more than a simple commonplace, always and everywhere fair. We can conclude that in his time the situation of widows was special - painful and dangerous. “The terrible misfortunes of widowhood,” he once exclaims in the book “On the Priesthood,” “can only be known by those who have endured their cruel test!” “Don’t we see every day,” he says in another place (in the 48th conversation on the book of “Genesis”), “that widows’ property is plundered and orphans are robbed?” In the third place he showed these poor widows, victims of their own inexperience, reduced to poverty, and taking advantage of the emperor's passage through their city to resort to his intervention and implore his almighty protection. Here there is almost no need to go into a more detailed study of the situation of widows, namely: the peculiarities of their legal status, thanks to which their robbery was easier and more frequent; It is enough for us to know, according to St. Chrysostom said that it was very easy to plunder their property. However, if among them there were many who did not care about preserving the inheritance for their children, if others very quickly remarried, if, finally, there was no shortage of those who, observing hypocritical prudence in the eyes of the world, secretly entered into some impermissible relationship - then, on the other hand, there were those who found the necessary protector in a devoted relative, or, thanks to their own intelligence and willpower, they themselves knew how to manage their home and dispose of your property. So, for example, the widow of young Therasius, whom St. Chrysostom sent wonderful consolation and received advice and patronage from one of his uncles. Likewise, the mother of St. John, Anthusa, in the 20th year, struck by the premature death of Secunda, became a perfect example of a widow, both in the purity of her life and, at the same time, in her management of affairs. And no one would have depicted her in brighter colors than her own son, who described her in the first book of the treatise “On the Priesthood.” Here all his grateful tenderness was poured out, here he imagined how she had watched him with tireless self-denial in his childhood and youth, engaged in all kinds of affairs and did not leave any material care to his lot, leaving him to devote himself entirely to the sciences and her inspiration. The words of John's teacher, quoted by St., were often repeated. Chrysostom in “Consolation to the Widow of Therasius.” “Oh, what amazing women Christians have!” - he exclaimed, having learned from his student about Anfusa’s amazing behavior. That this teacher was Livanius, there is no doubt about it, and if St. John does not call him by name, but he outlines him quite clearly. And the praise on his lips had a special value, since Livanius himself had a loving and vigilant mother. Indeed, one must look with due surprise at the glorious virtues of Christian widows, whom even the pagans of that era recognized as very worthy. Blazh. Jerome, in a well-known letter in which he places the maiden Leia immeasurably higher than Praetextatus, laughs a lot at the grief of Aconia Paulina, the widow of the famous pagan ruler. But we only need to read that epitaph, in somewhat pompous but touching verses, which she ordered to be carved on the tomb of her husband, in order to feel the grief of sincere love. The very words of Libanius - (this is not noticed, but it should be said) - are as honorable for the one who expressed them as for the one in whose honor they were spoken. St. Chrysostom, apparently, saw here mainly the surprise of a pagan, for whom such virtues seemed superhuman, but we want to see something else here: it seems that here we hear the voice of an honest man, in the best sense of the word (in which it can be applied to Lebanon), - the voice of an honest man who, like his compatriot, Ammianus Marcellinus, knows how to be surprised at the good even in his opponents and gives his young student a polite lesson, not fully understood by him: an example of breadth of mind and wonderful moral impartiality. We have seen that if St. Chrysostom was afraid of the negligence brought by the fathers in the performance of their duties, but he was no less afraid of their cruelty, he was afraid of those abuses of his power, to which, despite the progressive softening of morals, their law and custom apparently called for them. Regarding widows, he knows well that one should not be afraid of anything except indulgences and weakness. He tries to warn them against themselves and to confirm in the necessary severity a tender mother’s heart, always ready to soften. He reminds them of the words of Ecclesiastes: “break the necks of the children while they are young,” and shows that God unquestioningly established their authority on His words: “whoever opposes his father and mother shall be struck with death” (Ex. 21:17). And if they form virtuous children who fear the Lord, he promises them as a reward glory equal even to the glory of the Incomparable of the Virgins. “Do not mourn for the dead,” said St. Apostle. But these words of the Apostle, often repeated by teachers of the Church in subsequent times, were not strictly fulfilled. Just as wedding ceremonies gave way to seductive amusements, so funerals were accompanied by ceremonies that the Church could not approve. Just as with marriage rites, a twofold reason operated in the same sense: on the one hand, an urgent, irrepressible instinct came into conflict with Christianity, which not only wanted to transform nature, but also to suppress it in some cases, and on the other hand, pagan generations bequeathed to Christian generations a legacy of traditions, and Christians could not decisively reject it. But the reform of the funeral rites of St. Chrysostom attributed much greater importance than to the reform of marriage ceremonies, since extremes in sadness and despair seemed to be a refutation of the faith itself and, in some way, like a renunciation. At this solemn moment, in the face of death, the believer had to prove that “Christianity is not childish and not nonsense.” Of course, St. John did not think to challenge the legality of grief. If his extremely tender and loving heart did not speak loudly enough to him about this legality, he could not forget that Jesus Christ Himself gave an example of tears, for, says the Gospel, He mourned Lazarus because He loved him. “I do not attack sadness, but only the excess of sadness,” he said. It would be desirable if he told us at least something about the shocks he himself experienced after the loss of his mother, his dear Anfusa. He did not share his grief with us, but, undoubtedly, he did not then become a victim of cruel shocks: without a doubt, he held back his tears, although he endured silent inner grief; like Augustine at Monica's funeral, "he asked God to console his grief, and God did not." What a pity that he did not leave us a page like the amazing page of Augustine's Confessions. But whatever his tenderness, the crude outward manifestation of grief seemed to him completely criminal. To understand his indignation, one must especially remember that at that time the whole world was not yet converted. Society has always been divided into two hostile sides - pagans and believers. Both of them constantly watched each other and tried to find among their opponents a contradiction between custom and teaching. The situation was always almost exactly the same as it was at the time when St. the apostle uttered the words we already cited at the beginning. “We cry, but the pagans say: what is the significance of their teaching about the resurrection, which is always on their lips? They brag and deceive us, claiming to believe in this meaningless dream.” “We grieve, but the pagans say: how will they react to their own death if they are so shocked by the death of their neighbors? It is boastful speech on their part when they claim that their faith gives them peace and courage.” And especially for the sake of the pagans, we must make efforts and restrain ourselves. It is necessary to avoid, first of all, the temptation, and this is the worst of temptations, to cast a shadow of mistrust on religion itself, to support disbelief and to cause blasphemy. To these so convincing arguments of St. Chrysostom, the Antioch and Constantinople Christians could not fundamentally object to anything. However, they were too cunning and too rebellious for even such persuasive and meaningful speeches to stop their mouths. First of all, they had at their disposal the usual trick: they resorted to an inexhaustible arsenal of apparently contradictory texts contained in St. Scripture. Some of these texts seemed to justify their weakness, others were easily interpreted in different meanings, especially by too deep minds. Finally, if necessary, they did not hesitate to openly criticize texts that undoubtedly favored St. John. Thus, when he argued that burial has little significance, and that it is all the more indifferent in what place the burial is to take place, if they certainly want to observe it, then he was objected by citing the story of the forefather Jacob (66th conversation on the book of Genesis) by all those who wanted to be buried in their homeland and took all possible measures to fulfill their desire. This same story was also presented in order to justify crying and grief at funerals (67th conversation on the book of Genesis), and St. John had to remind them each time of the constantly forgotten difference between the Old and New Testaments. On the contrary, the words of Jesus Christ: “leave the dead to bury their dead” seemed cruel and inhuman to the majority and therefore they did not worry about their implementation. St. John was forced to enter into lengthy interpretations and, first of all, to make a rather difficult concession. Yes, he said, these words would seem cruel if Jesus Christ thought only about funerals, but His Divine gaze was not as limited as ours. He knew that after the burial it would be necessary to deal with the inheritance, he knew that therefore countless worries and troubles would arise; Thus, wave would run upon wave, and the questioning young man would end up being distracted too far from the truth. “For a similar reason, when they foresee that grief will deal too much of a blow to the one whom it befalls, they hide it from him, and, if you think like you, then this is just as inhumane and cruel.” What were those discoveries in which extreme despair was manifested? St. John allowed the customary use of new and rich fabrics in which to dress the dead. In the East, as throughout the rest of the empire, it was a white robe, in most cases heavily impregnated with incense. The poet Prudentius speaks of this in a hymn he composed to be sung at funerals. This was seen as an image of resurrection, an earthly symbol of immortal clothing, which should once clothe purified flesh. St. John also allows luxury in lamps, torches and wax candles, which, according to the testimony of the bl. Jerome, were also carried by the priests at the funeral of Paul. And here again they found a mystical meaning. “Tell me what do the burning lamps mean? Is it not because they are here that they see off the dead as crowned victors?” The singing of psalms “to glorify God and give Him thanks for the crowning of the deceased” was highly respected. This custom has long been common among Christians, and the hymn of Prudentius just mentioned represents, as it were, a new psalm composed with precisely this intention. St. Chrysostom tells us that Psalms one hundred and fifteen, twenty-second and thirty-third were considered chosen for the occasion of burial. These were Christian customs. St. Chrysostom, just like St. before him. Cyprian reluctantly allowed black robes as a sign of mourning. He especially condemned unbridled expressions of grief among women. The funeral procession crosses the square, gathering, as during the wedding, the curious, among whom are many pagans, and meanwhile the women are tearing out their hair and tearing their cheeks. (There were even women who saw this as an opportunity to show off their beautiful hands.) And it’s not just the relatives of the deceased who complain. Moreover, they do not want to give up even the most ridiculous pagan habits and force hired mourners to come, even whole “choirs of mourners.” It seems that in Constantinople especially St. John was forced to fight against this position. Since few people listened to him, he came up with the idea of ​​​​energetic measures. In his fourth discourse on the Epistle to the Hebrews, he utters the threat of excommunication against such people. Because, he says, hiring mourners means committing a formal act of idolatry. It is not surprising that St. John, the most ardent opponent of wealth and luxury that had ever been encountered, strongly attacked the excessive pomp, the reckless expense and utter vanity with which funerals were too often marked. He would even like, as far as possible, to limit the use of incense, although he did not dare to completely prohibit this custom and did not condemn it in itself. But he saw that the custom was becoming an abuse, which, apparently, was favored by a somewhat broad explanation of the Gospel story about the harlot's Alabaster. It even seemed to him that the permission given regarding new clothes was abused. These clothes were so magnificent and precious that they even attracted very scary thieves, some of whom were specifically engaged in robbing tombs. In order to ward them off, they sometimes resorted to a strange practice - cutting up valuable materials and soaking them in odorous liquids to render them useless. This can be seen from the 85th conversation on the Gospel of St. John and from the conversation on Psalm 48, where St. Chrysostom ridicules the empty splendor of the coffins and the false inscriptions. When burying nobles, the cortege assumed enormous dimensions, so that Julian, during his stay in Antioch, in the year 363, issued a law limiting these extremes. Slaves, men and women, followed behind, dressed in sad clothes. The horses, similarly dressed in mourning blankets, accompanied their master to his last home. St. John was perplexed as to whether this vain pomp was more worthy of indignation or regret. Another custom that St. Chrysostom condemned this custom of ablutions upon returning from a funeral procession as a testament to paganism. It is not difficult to prove that the belief in the need for purification after touching the dead is a completely pagan and superstitious idea, however, it was very widespread among believers. Isn't Bl. telling us? Augustine in his “confession” that he himself gave in to this prejudice when returning from the funeral of his mother Monica, and that he tried in vain to calm the excitement into which his efforts to restrain himself from tears plunged him? These words of bl. Augustine involuntarily recalls those agapes, or funeral commemorations, which represented something like annual services in memory of the dead and gave place to seductive scenes in Africa. The same happened in the East, but it seems that there were no such extremes here, since St. Chrysostom alludes to them only indirectly and in no way with the purpose of condemning them. On the contrary, he tells us that it was the custom to invite beggars to the funeral, and that it was considered a great shame not to observe this charitable custom. We can say, in conclusion, that St. Chrysostom among all St. The fathers are one of those who established the strictest rules regarding burials. No one considered it more necessary to take severe precautions, both against despair and even against luxury. And to the vain hypocrisy of ceremonies, and to the all-too-human weakness of grief - he was equally implacable. Let believers learn to restrain themselves from all vanity and despair before this great spectacle of death, which “touches and depresses the whole world and even penetrates into the hearts of the most obdurate rich.” This is a harsh ideal, and one must strive to achieve it with all one's strength. A truly Christian funeral should be seen in a monastery. “They also die in monasteries, for monks are mortal, like everyone else, but for them death is no longer death. They see off their dead by singing hymns and do not even use the name that we apply to burial; they do not call it “departure from the body,” but look upon death as a triumph. If they are told about the death of one of them, they are filled with joy and happiness; and what am I saying? None of them would dare to say: “So-and-so has died,” but they all say: “So-and-so has reached perfection.” This is the image of Christian death. Speaking about the rich, we saw what the number of their slaves was. Here it is necessary to show what was the position of these slaves in the family; what qualities and faults were most common to them, and how they were treated by their masters. Finally, it is important to know what St. thought. Chrysostom about the very institution of slavery, and whether he gave it a place in Christian society. Wherever slavery exists, philosophical and religious protestations aside, its necessity is almost unanimously recognized, and bitter complaints are expressed about its evil consequences. In the 4th century, both in Antioch and Constantinople, just as always throughout the Roman Empire, complaints against slaves were universal and incessant. And at the same time, however, there was, apparently, not a single person who would have thought that it was possible to do without them. Judging by the opinion expressed in some places by St. Chrysostom, these incessant complaints are found especially among the pagans. “They constantly say: slaves are rebellious, disobedient, stupid to all teaching and disobedient to any correction.” But from other confessions it is clear that the Christian gentlemen were not always happy. Almost every family had slaves who were unaccustomed to obedience, immodest and daring. In fact, a necessary law of slavery, and at the same time one of the best proofs of its injustice and unnaturalness, is that even progress and softening of morals, weakening the severity of the master and gradually establishing a kind of intimacy between him and his slaves, much more often resulted in extreme licentiousness and impudent shamelessness than easy and voluntary obedience. These slaves watch their master and eavesdrop on his words. You need to be afraid of their condemnations and slander. If a house is ruled by a widow, the evil becomes even worse. The young woman is not only often deceived and exploited, but she is also subject to hypocritical surveillance at all times. The simplest pretext becomes a pretext for quickly spreading slander; the worries arising from here are so frequent and severe that in his treatise “On Virginity” St. Chrysostom extracted from here one of his favorite proofs against marriage. Sometimes, however, maids have a kind heart and support, as far as possible, the courage of their mistresses, but even this is not entirely safe. In most cases they are unreasonable, and when St. John turns his consolation to the widow of Therasius, then, according to him, he does this partly in order to contrast the serious and wise words with the proposals of those maids who surround her. On the contrary, some of the slaves had many good qualities and even great virtues. According to St. Chrysostom, these are exclusively slaves who believe in Christ. Naturally, there is some exaggeration here: there were honest and noble slaves among the pagans. The eunuch Mardonius, who raised Emperor Julian, was one of these, and his charge always retained deep gratitude to him. However, it can be said that, despite the noble efforts of philosophy, paganism has not made any serious attempt to enlighten the slave and improve his morals. On the contrary, Christianity, since the time of St. ap. Paul, addressed him in exactly the same way as a free man, and made them both equal in Christ. It is very plausible that in the 4th century, in Christian families truly worthy of the name, the majority of slaves should have shared the faith of the master. But besides this, Christian slaves were also numerous in pagan houses. In a way, it was even a tactic of the Church to have as many of these useful people as possible, whose assistance was precious. They were instruments of conversion, and St. Chrysostom had great hopes for them. “Many families,” he says, “received the greatest benefit from the virtue of slaves. Good examples, although coming from below, had an effect on the master himself. But this happened especially when this treasure - a virtuous slave - found itself near a pagan hearth. If a pagan sees his slave more honest and devoted, more loving and pure than those much-vaunted philosophers, and if he learns that this slave is a Christian, nothing will be able to touch him more; nothing will surprise more or have a better effect on these people, who never cease to cry over the disobedience of their slaves.” The father of the family, says St. Chrysostom, to use a comparison so often used in antiquity, is a king in his house: and such is not only the rich man, with his huge crowds of slaves, over whom so many overseers are burdened, but even the poor man at his humble hearth, with his two or three servants, whom he rules at his own will, like a master. Both must skillfully use this vast power, with moderation and prudence. The model they should try to imitate as best they can is Abraham, the biblical ideal of patriarchal goodness that never fails to glorify. But what was the reality, and how was a slave usually treated? St. Chrysostom does not say clearly enough that, thanks to significantly softened morals, the position of the slave was often made quite bearable: his role was not to praise society; the preacher hardly notices the good and saves his strength for exposing evil. But it happens, however, that he slips in some details that confirm what we know from other sources. Thus, reproaching the faithful for not caring enough about their own souls, he tells them that they are more concerned with the fate of their slaves. If the latter are exposed to illnesses, they are no longer treated with the cruelty of Cato the Elder, but a doctor is immediately called upon to deal with them. Elsewhere he tells at some length one interesting incident. One slave was given in marriage to a vicious, rebellious scoundrel who had finally become intolerable to his mistress. The latter decided to sell him, and his wife naturally had to follow his fate. But she decided to intercede through her mistress’s friend, begged her petition to be left and thus freed from her cohabitant, who was making her suffer incessantly. The friend at first forgot about this promise, but, notified a second time and frightened by the dream, she actually intervened in this matter, and her request was a complete success. Here we encounter humane actions, which, of course, were frequent, but it cannot be denied that there were also atrocities. Despite all the progress in morals, the position of slaves always remained very precarious, and - to say the least - downright terrible, since it almost exclusively depended on the whim and mood of the master. We are not only talking about well-deserved punishments, which could sometimes be very cruel, but the masters also allowed unjust violence, and the slave risked being beaten in a fit of impatience for the most insignificant pretext. How harshly did St. condemn Chrysostom this rudeness, we can judge by an interesting fact, the memory of which has been preserved to us in the indictment drawn up against him at the council “at Oak”. During his episcopate, he deposed one of his deacons who had beaten a slave, and this was one of the charges admitted by the council in that strange indictment, which for the impartial modern reader is entirely to the honor of the accused. But what was especially depressing to the Christian bishops was that the very soul of the slave was no less in danger than his body, and that his free will and moral personality were never looked upon as anything other than the property of his masters. It seemed very bad to St. Chrysostom that they were married against their own desire. He was all the more indignant when the despotic power to which the slave was subject was used for evil; when they imposed some shameful duty on him, and, for example, the miser made him an instrument of his thefts, and the libertine made him a procurer or an accomplice of his pleasures. As for the wives of slaves, we have already seen with what contemptuous unceremoniousness they were often treated and with what shamelessness they were corrupted. In general, this latest abuse of power frightens St. the most. Chrysostom in relation to gentlemen. The modesty and chastity of a slave, of both sexes, is what he wants to protect from their vices. On the contrary, he is especially afraid of cruelty from housewives. Women do not have the slightest patience with their maids. How many times does it happen that when a house faces a street or a crossroads, those passing by hear the cries of fury of the embittered and brutal mistress and the cries of pain of her slave! Could there be anything more shameful? Everyone stops, asks and finds out what this means? “This is so-and-so,” the residents of the block answer him, “beats his maid.” Let women not think that such blows do not cause great pain! The unfortunate girls are covered with pinches, the traces of which do not go away throughout the day. However, the mistresses are not content with beating themselves; they feel too weak to satisfy all their rage. St. Chrysostom paints us the image of a fury calling her husband to her aid. She forces the unfortunate slave to undress, tie her naked to the foot of the bed and orders him to beat her, and she herself further aggravates the misfortune by calling her a Thessalian (witch), a runaway and corrupt woman. Others are knocked to the ground, trampled underfoot, and dragged by the hair. Is it not terrible to give oneself over to one's rage, when even civil laws, so cruel to a man and prescribing the most inhuman tortures, are relaxed for a woman and rarely subject her to these terrible punishments! For what reasons are maidservants punished with such cruelty? These reasons can be very insignificant. Often this is the slightest negligence committed while serving a noble lady, for example, absent-mindedness during her dressing or slight and forgivable awkwardness. Here, as very often, Christian preaching directly coincides with secular satire, and - although this was not a matter of imitation - we will find in the holy fathers well-known features, communicated to us, for their part, by the classical poets. The unfortunate Dog of Juvenal was not left without offspring, and the narrow belt always lashes just as hastily across her bare shoulders, every time the maid committed a crime, that is, she braided her braid unevenly. (Taurea punit continue flexi crimen facinusque capilli). Sometimes slaves also make their mistresses jealous—a feminine vice par excellence; they have the pretension to compete with them in beauty, they embellish themselves and blush in every possible way. “Okay, forbid them, for this is a vice in them as well as in you, but,” believe my words, “in them no more than in you. And if you demand so much prudence from them, then be the first to set an example for them.” Sometimes, however, the offenses are more serious: for example, maids indulge in drunkenness; in this case, it is better to watch them and turn them away from a bad habit through this, than to resort to fruitless cruelties. There are also slaves who indulge in debauchery with their companions, and the Christian mistress considers it her duty to punish them. There is a simpler remedy: marry off the guilty person, perhaps she will reform. However, St. John does not condemn corporal punishment at all; quite the contrary: he very openly recognizes their necessity, and this very well shows that since we are dealing with antiquity, then, although we are talking about St. himself. Chrysostom and about the empire, purified and softened by faith, - however, antiquity still affects us in many ways. He does not ignore the fact that without punishments slavery could hardly exist, and in fact even in themselves they offend him so little that he does not at all think of seeing this necessity as an argument against slavery; he insists only that they be moderate and fair. “But why, you say, am I not allowed to beat a slave? I don’t say this, because it is necessary, but you shouldn’t beat constantly and go to extremes.” Here he also adds a completely Christian remark: it is necessary to beat not out of selfishness, for the misdeeds committed by the slave while serving, but in a higher form, in the interests of the slave himself and for the sake of healing his vices. “I constantly repeat that slaves should not be beaten for poorly executed orders, but for what harms their souls. If you beat them for this last impulse, then there will be no one who would reproach you, everyone will praise you; if it’s out of selfishness, everyone will judge you.” So, like many bishops of his time, St. Chrysostom finds a means to ennoble and purify deviations or vices that seemed to him too deeply rooted in the human heart or in society to be completely eradicated. If he sometimes gives the strictest advice to masters about the moderation that they should maintain in relation to their slaves, then he preaches no less categorically about their own rights to the services of these latter. There is complete reciprocity here: the master has the right to enjoy good services, but the slave also deserves to be treated well. St. Chrysostom actually allows the establishment of slavery. He doesn't approve of it, but he tolerates it. He was born in a society where it was established from the very beginning, where they never seriously discussed the possibility of its abolition, and it may have been difficult for him himself to come to the idea of ​​​​the possibility of this abolition. It is doubtful that he reached a very clear idea of ​​what the world would be like without slavery; it is certain that he had little hope that this attempt would ever be tried. It is interesting to see this in someone who did not find enough denunciations against luxury and had a rather unrealizable illusion - to offer his contemporaries the ideal of a city composed exclusively of poor people as a feasible ideal. Such are even the best people, and the best par excellence! It happens that they denounce more leniently and consider it much easier to reform that which comes from the very nature of things than those abuses that in reality turn out to be only temporary and local. It is so difficult to understand these latter with proper clarity before they disappear! Who could decide how right we are now in classifying existing wealth in the first category, while we do not hesitate to classify already abolished slavery in the second - in the realm of eradicable evils. However, it must be admitted that in principle (but only in principle) St. Chrysostom was an opponent of slavery. Although, indeed, in ancient times they never thought that it was possible to do without this institution, however, they fully felt its injustice; and this must be said not only about bishops or chosen believers, since the same desire was noticed in almost every environment. What could be the origin of slavery? This is a question that is readily posed, says St. Chrysostom, putting him in turn. Some were found in St. Scripture and the theoretical and historical solution to this issue. The source of all evil is naturally sin; here in particular is the sin of the disrespectful son, Ham. “Cursed be the son of Canaan. let him be a slave to his brothers” (Gen. 25). These are the words that explain the mystery. The explanation is obviously completely insufficient, since in addition to the fact that it assumed the heredity of punishments - which, it is true, did not offend the majority of Christians of the 4th century - it became extremely widespread among the descendants of Canaan. Thus, defenders of obvious, albeit time-honored, injustice have always arrived at obvious absurdities of this kind. The proof of the Christian speaker and his explanation were no more valuable, although they were no worse than Aristotle’s sophism about the natural superiority of masters and the natural inferiority of slaves. And St. John soon calls to his aid other reasons less favorable to prejudice and abuse. He often goes so far as to admit that, in fact, the establishment and maintenance of slavery is explained only by greed and stinginess, that is, by those two vices that he most often condemned. Even after original sin, he notes, the first people lived for a long time without knowing slavery. It was unknown to Abel, Noah and Seth. Once Chrysostom even uttered great words: slavery is not natural! It was born for a random reason. Logically, this would lead quite directly to its destruction. However, in practice St. Chrysostom never dared to reach this conclusion: he never expressed that he despised slavery absolutely and unconditionally. While allowing insight into the depths of his thought, he did not reveal it completely. He knew that the cited examples of Seth, Noah and Abel are usually contrasted with the example of Abraham, and it was necessary to admit that the great patriarch, in whose bosom the righteous are called to taste eternal bliss, really had slaves. To get out of this difficulty, St. John could only indicate the gentleness and benevolence of Abraham: “yes, he had slaves, but he did not treat them as badly as such and such of you.” Further, was there no other means of eliminating the difficulty? He tirelessly repeats, in expressions filled for the most part with majestic eloquence, that in Christ no one is a slave, and that the Lord has no partiality towards anyone. “Yes,” he exclaims in the interpretation of the first letter to the Corinthians (19th conversation), “such is the greatness of Christianity - in slavery itself it gives birth to freedom.” That's why St. The Apostle Paul - and he always adheres to Paul's teaching - commands the slave to remain a slave. But the soul of St. Joanna was so filled with love, so disposed to compassion, so passionately desired freedom and thirsted for truth, that this mystical solution to the problem could not completely satisfy her. And then one day he came to the closest solution to the problem and pushed himself to the extreme limit of the reigning prejudice. After the usual ridicule and censure of the excessive number of slaves among the rich, he unexpectedly asks his listeners: how many slaves would be enough for a free man if he knew how to be content with what is necessary. One slave, maybe two and, at most, three; often even one slave could satisfy two or three masters. Once he had established this position, his courage could already go far. What are all the other slaves doing now? What use would they be good for, other than serving our vices? This is how you should dispose of them: “You must teach them the craft that would make them capable of earning their own bread, and after that let them go. Now we are touching on practical reform: the means are indicated, and the means are easily achievable. But at these words St. Chrysostom undoubtedly hears some incomprehensible whisper, he peers into the poses, reads mockery in the eyes and smiles of some, poorly restrained indignation in others. Then he stops, but wants to do it in such a way that the listeners know that he understands them, and listen to what he thinks about this dull resistance. “I feel well that you are dissatisfied,” he exclaims and declares that no one will silence his voice. Nevertheless, he stops, and this scene, also visible to us through his conversation, is, of course, touching and beautiful: we ourselves seem to be present at the moment when in his mouth remain bold words that have already been thought out and almost spoken by him, which would finally, without hindrance, utter a condemnation of the greatest social injustice and would restore the universal right to freedom. We would not be blameless if we had completed our study of the ideas of St. Chrysostom about slavery, without saying a word about his interpretation of the letter to Philemon. This is where we need to look for a better expression of the entire essence of his ideas, especially in the “introduction” and the second conversation. Some doubted the identity of St. ap. Paul of this epistle, or rather letter, as Renan rightly calls it. But we do not see sufficiently serious reasons to suspect its authenticity. This letter is full of such tender feelings, has such a sincere and captivating expression, there is so much deep touching in it and at the same time such a moderate thought is conveyed! Renan gave an excellent commentary on this message. Interpretation of St. John would deserve, for his part, not to be forgotten: this is one of those analyses, almost word by word, in which he excellently and even amazingly guessed the slightest intentions of the writer being explained, sometimes even attributing them to him, but these guesses are always natural and quite appropriate. He also knows how to develop the apostolic texts with perfect skill, which is partly similar to the art of an excellent teacher of rhetoric: one always has to follow with interest his remarks, which reveal subtle moral and literary observation, so that, speaking without exaggeration, we do not know among the compilers of commentaries we have on classical authors such a scholiast who, even from afar, approached the talent of interpretation that St. Chrysostom brought the Holy Scriptures to the service. In this letter to Philemon, St. John, from whom Bossuet would like to learn the art of explaining St. Scripture, at the same time shows all the kindness and all the prudence of St. Pavel. St. ap. Paul does not keep Onesimus with him, he sends him to his master. “For he wanted,” says St. Chrysostom, so that everyone clearly knows that Christianity is not a revolutionary teaching of the civil order, and that it strives only to transform the moral structure of society.” But at the same time, the apostle stands up for Onesimus, calling him his spiritual son, since he baptized him. And in the person of this runaway slave, whom he met in prison, St. the apostle, without offending anyone's interests and without frightening the owners, restores the most humble of the humble, the most unfortunate of the unfortunate. In the next chapter we will see that the efforts of St. Chrysostom was aimed at making the influence of religion on society real and strong, in order to prevent faith from becoming routine and turning into a habit. With amazing clarity he comprehended the essential evil from which the church suffered in the 4th century; that evil which all the holy fathers felt, but which no one else defined with such clarity, and the origin of which no one showed better than John. He understood that at a time when Christianity already had four centuries of its existence behind it, when a good half of Christians inherited Christianity from their parents, and the other half, with which the Church had been enriched since the time of its triumph, contained many cold and indifferent people who came to it for more or less selfish motives - he understood that at that time licentiousness was inevitable, and that it was he who was destined to fight it. And in order to bring faith to its ancient purity, and morals to their original severity, at first only one remedy was visible, so great was the evil: it was necessary to flee the world, which stubbornly remained corrupt even after he had heard the Divine words; All that remained was to show again in the desert those miracles of feats that the Gospel preaching performed in the same century. Then in the desert of Syria, as in the desert of Egypt, a crowd of those who were carried away by the example of St. Anthony the Great. The first movement of the soul of St. Chrysostom was also attracted to the monastic life, and he spent it in the most severe exercises, with the most complete self-denial. But when he returned to the ranks of the clergy to perform active duties, either because he yielded to necessity, or because (as we are disposed to think and as it is permissible to assume) that reflection and maturity of mind inclined him to this decision, he was carried away by a new desire, even more difficult. He wanted from now on to reform society itself, to incline it to the fulfillment of all Christian virtues, without pretending to destroy the necessary conditions without which society could not exist. Hence, the first reform that should have been undertaken was the reform of the family. St. John neglected nothing to make his hearers understand the true ideal of the Christian family. He set about eradicating all pagan customs that stubbornly persisted and left their mark on education, marriage and burial, and often to such an extent that the latter acquired an idolatrous character; recalled in all their severity the gospel commands about the indissolubility of marriage and very loudly proclaimed the equality of spouses. He always preached Divine commandments in all their purity, without distorting them with any timid compliance. However, almost always, when explaining them, John observed the most prudent moderation. He knew how to take the most fatherly tone; in his speech there was a shade of deep touching, and at the same time his words were sharp and fiery. He truly was what he wanted to be - a disciple of St. Apostle Paul. He wanted everyone to do the same as he himself did: that is, after some time devoted to monastic life (let us remember his instructions on raising young people), everyone would return to the family and spend the same life here, because, in his opinion, monastic life is the true Christian life. And we, indeed, know the words he often repeated that between monks and people leading a worldly life; There should be essentially only one difference: marriage. “Marriage does not hinder virtue; those who live in the world, with the exception of marriage and in spite of marriage, should in all other respects be like monks.” These words raised eyebrows among many, but he never took them back. On this point he always vigorously stood for the truth, since in his eyes every home should be a church. Not only should, as we will soon see, the whole family go to church, not only should fathers take their sons, wives and slaves there, but he wants everyone at home to read St. Scripture, so that the father of the family, upon returning home from a conversation, discusses the words of the bishop and conveys their essence to the household. Every house should be like the house of Philemon, which he so glorified in his exposition of Paul's epistle. Blessed is Philemon, whose holy dwelling the Apostle introduces us to, and which he calls “the church in its own house.” Philemon should be imitated. Thus, all the advice given by St. Chrysostom to Christian families can be boiled down to one thing: create a church from your home.” However, he did not completely forget it and he happened to repeat it many times to his readers and listeners even in the last years of his life. “Why are there priests on eve and harlots in the morning?” - says St. Chrysostom in a conversation on the words “fornication for the sake of...” Already St. Cyprian vigorously condemns the presence of girls at the wedding, but does not mean low-class girls in particular. – Wedding ceremonies, it seems, were even more seductive in Africa than in Antioch, judging by some of the details reported by Bl. Augustine in his essay “On the City of God” (IV, II, etc.). Here, of course, is the crime of a husband with someone else’s wife. Livanius confirms Chrysostom, saying that the fathers bring their condescension to the point of weakness. “Fathers took the place of sons, and sons took the place of fathers. Fathers tremble, sons show anger. Sometimes fathers are even proud of their sons’ school antics and say with self-satisfaction that they will turn out to be nice funny guys.”