Глава VI. Двор и государство

Undoubtedly, the best studied part of the field of St. Chrysostom is his bishopric in Constantinople. This great spectacle of the bishop, in the struggle against the empress, resisting with indomitable energy, finally conquered, but still powerful and awe-inspiring even in his exile, attracted the eyes of those who found here a wonderful opportunity to marvel at the inflexible independence and wonderful selflessness of the incomparable Christian. It is not our intention to reproduce here the account of these events: it is beyond our subject, and we have no benefit from such a retelling, because previous works have illuminated these events almost as much as possible, that is, if there remain dark sides in some parts of this drama (and indeed there are), the reason for this is the incompleteness of the documents, to which nothing can be added except through arbitrary conjecture. But we need from this such an important period of the life of St. Chrysostom to select the main features that provide information about the morals of the Byzantine court and about the mode of behavior that the bishop adopted in relation to this court. Expulsion of St. Chrysostom had many reasons. We have not yet had the opportunity to talk about one of them, but it is enough to point out it in a nutshell: it was a theological dispute aroused by his intervention in the rather complicated case of the Origenists and the patronage he gave to the Long Brothers 46 . However, the question of Origen’s heresy was nothing more than a pretext, behind which hid the cautious and equally ardent hatred of the Patriarch of Alexandria. In fact, this reason was mainly the personal rivalry between Bishop Theophilus and St. Chrysostom, moreover, the attack came from the first and on his side there was grave guilt. We have already mentioned two other reasons: this was, first of all, the reform undertaken by him, as soon as he ascended the episcopal throne, in relation to the very licentious and even very corrupt clergy. Finally, and from now on only this should interest us, this reason was the persistent continuation in Constantinople of the struggle against luxury that he undertook in Antioch. Only now the blows of St. John was directed higher, and he struck evil more powerfully. He did not spare the people immediately surrounding the empress, nor even the empress herself, and according to the influence and power of those whom he attacked, he strengthened not the moderation, but the boldness of his speeches. We would not present a complete picture of the morals of the 4th century and would not determine the importance of what St. Chrysostom's feat, if we had not examined a little more closely what this decisive phase of his apostleship was. St. Chrysostom obeyed the strict rule that all great Christians of the 4th century set for themselves: he did not seek episcopacy and even made every effort to avoid it. While still very young, he refused it, despite what he had given to his friend, St. Basil, a promise, and he cannot be reproached for this, because he rewarded his humility with the wonderful years of his priesthood in Antioch, representing the period in which he gave to the preachers of all times a highly completed image of perfection. When the eunuch Eutropius elected him to the first throne of the empire, he had to be taken away from Antioch by cunning. But following the example of other great contemporary bishops, he did not renounce the rank, realizing its inevitability. It is even possible to think that the deep regrets that he felt when leaving his beloved Syrians were soon mixed with a secret joy: he now had the opportunity, without any hindrance, with the fullness of the highest power in that era, to work on the reform of morals. A person possessing his energy, not without some inner satisfaction, encounters the opportunity to freely indulge in the implementation of his ideas. The initial steps of his episcopal administration (he was consecrated by Theophilus of Alexandria on February 26, 398) apparently did not foreshadow all the storms that were to follow later. Being a good psychologist, Theophilus of Alexandria, according to Bishop. Palladia, already at first glance, foresaw how far Chrysostom would be carried away by his indomitable and selfless energy. Public opinion, perhaps, did not succumb to these premonitions to such an extent, because the time from 398 to 399 seemed relatively calm. It would no doubt be an exaggeration to say, as Palladius puts it in his original language, that “St. John, leading his flock, used only the pipe of reason and rarely used the staff.” But, judging by some of the conversations remaining from that time (and they represent, however, only an insignificant part of all those that he then had to pronounce), he began, as in Antioch, as much with theology as with morals. It is true that at the same time he fought with extreme energy against frequent attendance at spectacles; but, since he denounced here the evil in which everyone was involved, and since, denouncing it, he did not point out individuals, did not take on any particular class of society, he could not give rise to too strong hatred. But if his preaching, apparently, was quite moderate at first, then the disciplinary measures he took at the same time already indicated the whole firmness of his decision, all the unbridledness of his courage. Palladium gives us a very complete list of these measures, which we willingly borrow from him. Some critics undoubtedly found that Palladius was biased in favor of St. Chrysostom, and that there is too much condescension in his biography, but it seems that this is not entirely fair. We find that in general the figure of St. Joanna, as she is reflected in this dialogue, is exactly the same as she appears to us in the stories of Socrates or Sozomen. According to Palladius, St. Chrysostom first of all wanted to correct the morals of the clergy and virgins - hence his measures against the Sinizakts 47. Then he took care to eliminate the useless expenses of the bishopric, and spent the amounts previously spent on empty needs on existing hospitals and almshouses; built many new hospitals and provided them with a full staff of doctors, cooks, servants, etc. Further, he corrected the morals of widows, offering them a choice between a strict life or a second marriage; established a common night prayer and called the flock to it, which, it seems, caused discontent among many priests and deacons, who were forced to stay awake with the faithful. He wanted to correct the morals of the laity, and with his word and example he denounced gluttony and feasting, tolerated and even encouraged by bishops like Nectarius or Theophilus. Finally, he persecuted the greed, pride and cruelty of the rich, reminding them of the instructions of St. Paul to Timothy (1:16-17): “Admonish the rich of this age, so that they do not think highly of themselves and do not put their trust in unfaithful riches.” All these various attempts could not be completely simultaneous. Palladius does not give any chronological information about the order of their succession, but we know that St. John, according to Fleury, “always exposed vices only one after another and stopped fighting them no sooner than having eradicated them, or at least noticeably weakened them.” It would seem likely that he began with the correction of the clergy and in particular with the very difficult case of the Sinizakts, and one must conclude that the campaign against luxury and the rich was only in second place. What serves to confirm this conjecture is that, for two years (398 and 399), we see the bishop on very good terms with Eudoxia. It was then, for example, that he arranged the transfer of the relics of some saints, whose names are unknown to us. We are well aware of this religious ceremony thanks to the homily that first appeared in the Montfaucon edition. The procession of the cross left the Great Church in the middle of the night and, walking with solemn slowness, only at dawn came to the limit of its path, to the Dripiya chapel of St. Thomas, almost nine miles from the city. And what was most amazing here was not the crowds of monks, not the choirs of virgins, not the rows of priests, not the countless multitude of lay people, free and slaves, great and small, citizens of Constantinople and foreigners, nor the Bosporus itself, covered with illuminated ships. Most amazing of all was the pious humility of the empress, who, dressed in purple and crowned with a diadem, walked like a slave in the middle of this mass, all the way behind the sacred relics, touching with her hand the shrine and the covers that clothed her, while she never left the palace, where not even all the court eunuchs could see her. Next to her, beaming with visible joy, walked the archbishop, and this joy was poured out in a conversation he said immediately after his arrival, from which we extracted the previous description. Eudoxia’s behavior was all the more remarkable since her husband, the tactless Arkady, showed much less affection here. Undoubtedly, St. Chrysostom rejoiced that the next day the emperor himself visited the chapel of St. Thomas. But he also had to experience disappointment - which, however, he does not tell us about - because he also preached on that day, but the arrogant sovereign did not honor him with the honor of listening to his teaching. Such was the unanimity and complete agreement that reigned between Chrysostom and the empress in September 398. From the year 399 and especially from the year 400, important events quickly followed, and the activities of St. Chrysostom manifests itself in many difficult circumstances. Such, first of all, were the measures taken by Eutropius against the right of refuge belonging to the church, to which John gave strong opposition, and then the catastrophe that deposed the eunuch and plunged him in trembling at the foot of the very altars, the right of defense of which he had not long ago rejected. St. Chrysostom takes upon himself his defense and tries in vain to support him. This is followed by unrest, excited by the Gothic leader Gaina 48. Intervention of St. John in this matter, as far as we can figure it out from incomplete documents, remains rather unclear, but in any case it must have had a religious rather than a political character. Apparently, his main intention was to prevent the Arians-Goths from giving away the church inside the city that their leader demanded. But the very authority with which the apxbishop appeared to the eyes of the people in these two processes undoubtedly aroused the envy of the court. Eudoxia was as ambitious as she was greedy and sensual. The weak Arkady, completely controlled by his wife, for his part, was very proud and touchy towards anyone who, apparently, encroached on his rights. Let us note, however, that until this time we do not find a clear trace of any open attack by St. John to Eudoxia. Nevertheless, it is certain that from the year 401 there was already complete discord between the archbishop and the empress, since when Bishop Porfiry of Gaza wanted to close the churches of his country and asked St. John of his petition, the latter no longer decided to directly recommend him to Eudoxia, but limited himself to sending him to the nobleman Amantius. So what happened? It seems difficult to imagine that St. Chrysostom was the first to allow himself any unreasonable offensive movement, we mean - a personal hint, in the full sense of the word, clear, intentional and public. Later stories, which claim that he defended the estate of a poor widow against the empress, may contain complete truth, but they are not authentic enough for cautious criticism to benefit from them. It is most likely that the beginning of the crisis was the cunning with which the rich, frightened by the way of life that St. John sanctified by his own example, as well as the tone of his first words spoken to them, managed to interest Eudoxia in his business. The greatest responsibility must fall on those widows whose conduct he had so boldly tried to improve from the very beginning. Without a doubt, it was Marza, Kastrizia and Evgrafia who conveyed some of his speeches to the empress, thoughtlessly distorting their meaning and inventing arbitrary interpretations. They, undoubtedly, also divulged imaginary hints, which from that time on St. John should have done this with caution, for fear of putting his business at risk. No less active and treacherous was the envy he aroused in the church world. Its main agents were two bishops - Severian and Antiochus, accomplices of Theophilus, and especially Severian, an excellent phrase-monger and clever intriguer, who enjoyed great confidence in Eudoxia. The field for all sorts of intrigues opened up as a result of the journey of St. Chrysostom to Asia, on the case of the Simonic bishops. His absence was quite long: it lasted several months. What a favorable opportunity presented itself for Marza and her friends, for Severian and his accomplices! Their case was made even easier thanks to the severity and tactlessness of Deacon Serapion, who replaced St. John and enjoyed his complete confidence. But, if he must be given credit for his strict morality and self-denial cannot be denied, then he did not, however, have in himself those living sources of mercy and love that softened the great severity of his bishop. Upon his return, St. John found his church divided and confused, and in a fit of anger (anger, however, noble), determined solely by his fiery and rare love for his faithful, he expelled Severian. But Eudoxia, having played a real comedy in which her son Theodosius 49 also played a role, achieved, thanks to requests, that reconciliation was achieved between the bishops. Severian returned from Chalcedon, and both bishops, in two speeches delivered one after the other, solemnly announced to the people that peace had been established. You need to read these two conversations to see the difference between the two characters: between St. Chrysostom, ardent and passionate, but a Christian to the core, and Severian, an intriguer, a cold and cunning man, whose hypocrisy is evident in his very first words. What happened next? We are quite well aware of the controversy of St. Chrysostom and Theophilus, the cause of which was dogmatic differences of opinion and, in particular, a clash of authority. The whole case of the Long Brothers, those Egyptian monks accused of Origenism, seems quite clear in its consistent course. It is easy to understand and appreciate the role of St. Epiphanius, a completely honest man, but unusually restless in character, and the role of Theophilus, who in everything had in mind only the satisfaction of his hatred and personal interests. There is no doubt that the Empress Eudoxia, about whose activities Palladius, Sozomen and Socrates speak in vague terms, actually acted very energetically, although we cannot trace the exact discoveries of this activity. No obvious fact can be established with certainty. Is it fair, as the historian Zosima says, that St. Chrysostom never stopped ridiculing Eudoxia? This statement of the pagan historian, at least, seems very exaggerated. It is plausible that the treacherous tricks of the interpreters of imaginary hints always continued. Taking advantage of the character of John's eloquence, with some dishonesty, they could look at their task as quite easy, and it should have become even easier due to the state of mind in which the archbishop had been since his return from Asia. The energy with which he acted against his old friend, Bishop Severian, allows us to see how irritated he was when he learned that he had been deceived. The homilies, which can be dated almost to the time to which our story has been brought, indeed present him to us irritated and more passionate than ever. Then something happened to him that happens to all great idealists: the hour struck when he entered into a struggle with reality, with what was most cruel in it and in which he felt an invincible obstacle. Anticipating impending persecution, he sometimes, against his will, in a harshness unusual for his words, betrayed the bitterness of his disappointment. But we repeat that it is implausible that he allowed himself to reach a real challenge. In the fire of improvisation, undoubtedly, he was not always the master of his word. But those who tried to impose a deliberate challenge on him judged him very falsely. St. Chrysostom was too attached to his church and too devoted to his flock to seek persecution, just as he was too courageous and proud to avoid him or bow before him. Clashes between ecclesiastical and civil authorities were so frequent and inevitable in that century that it is interesting to ask yourself whether St. John, before he himself was forced to begin a business of this kind, never supposedly examined what behavior should be followed in such a case. Since, owing to the gaps in our documents, his real course of action seems somewhat obscure, it is very important to examine whether he did not express his ideal in the more peaceful hours of his life. And indeed, in Antioch, even at the earliest time of his preaching, he revealed it to us in such expressions, the clarity of which leaves nothing more to be desired - and precisely in his book about St. Babylon against the pagans. Here about this Babylon, whose holy relics caused so much concern to Julian, he tells a story quite similar to the clash of St. Ambrose with Emperor Theodosius during the Thessalonian massacre and the famous repentance imposed on the emperor. This story is absolutely legendary, and one might even say fabulous. Emperor - whom St. Chrysostom does not name him by name, but by which he obviously means Philip, modified, however, by the popular imagination, betrayed to undeserved execution the young prince, who was given to him as a hostage. The holy bishop of Babyla refused the emperor entry into the church for this, and St. Chrysostom, explaining the bishop’s action, expresses the following thoughts on this matter. “Should I tell you something strange? I am surprised at this blessed bishop not so much because he resisted the rage of the ruler, but because he understood to what extent it was necessary to do this, and did not overstep the bounds either in his deeds or in his words. That the latter is more surprising than the former is easy to understand from the fact that many showed similar boldness, but were unable to stop in time.” (Above he makes a reference to pagan philosophers, and below, in particular, he recalls an anecdote about Diogenes and Alexander). “It is also common for ordinary people to show boldness, but in order to show oneself bold as needed and at the appropriate time, that is, with decent proportionality and appropriate prudence, this requires a great and noble soul. Shimei very strongly reproached the blessed King David and called him a man of blood, but I cannot call this daring - and I will call it intemperance of the tongue, daring of the mind, unbridledness, unreasonableness, everything rather than daring. For I think that anyone who wants to be an accuser must turn his soul away from insolence and pride as far as possible and show his zeal only in words and deeds. And the doctor, who needs to cut off a festered member, or stop the fire of inflammation, does not begin healing with a soul full of anger, but on the contrary, he especially tries to keep his mind calm, for fear of making a mistake in his art, due to embarrassment. If the one who wants to heal the body has a need for such calmness, then, tell me, “in what state will we put the healer of the soul, and what kind of wisdom will we demand from him?” Without a doubt, there are many contradictions in the life of every person, and there are them in the life of St. John, although his life is remarkable for its generally very correct and harmonious development. But, apparently, it can be argued that a person who had such a clear understanding of the benefits of moderation should not have easily abandoned a dignity recognized as so valuable, and it seems to us that the one who condemned Shimei for calling David a man of the blood should not have immediately called the empress Jezebel. It should be repeated that St. Chrysostom had an ardent character, but combined with a mind capable of understanding moderation. What St. John could not avoid fall and defeat, despite the enormous power that the episcopal rank of that time possessed, despite even the exceptional strength that the passionate love of the people of Constantinople gave him - this is explained by the fact that in his holy courage, he, as we said earlier, simultaneously carried out several unpleasant affairs. St. Ambrose celebrates victory where St. John is defeated because, on the contrary, he knows how to limit his attack to one point and concentrates his forces in one place. But the hatred of the clergy, combined with the malice of women, went much further. This hatred became uncontrollable and overthrew St. Chrysostom, as soon as John’s enemies managed to convince Eudoxia that she was subject to the extraordinary curse that he cast against wealth, luxury and stinginess. So, we brought our story to the first link. Until this time, St. John seems completely blameless, and his best justification is given by his enemies themselves. You need to read the list of accusations brought against him at the council “under Duba” to see that there is not a single serious accusation here, and many are clearly to his honor. Meanwhile, the people were almost ready to raise indignation in Constantinople, and the arrogant Eudoxia had to give in against her will. The reason for the honorable return of the apxbishop was an earthquake. According to the superstitious concepts of that time, the most stubborn pride could, without humiliating itself, yield to a phenomenon that had to be looked at as a revelation of Divine wrath. And here is St. Chrysostom is summoned from exile and hurries to return. The consequences showed that this haste was not entirely prudent, since it could later be said that he, although illegally overthrown, had not been correctly established in his rights. But you also need to know that by voluntarily exposing himself to this danger, the thought of which did not escape him, he proved his great selflessness, since almost his return alone could pacify the popular unrest. So, he returned, and there can be no doubt that he returned without bitterness in his heart. We have already seen how irritated he was after his return from Asia; now, upon returning from exile, it was completely different. And some tried to see proof of this even in the excessive praise they gave to Eudoxia in that homily, where he cites the very text of the letter in which the empress announced her favor to him. Didn't he still hope for a sincere reconciliation? Perhaps he wanted to partly succumb to this illusion, but he could not help but know that Eudoxia very decisively took the side hostile to him, and that most of the responsibility for his overthrow lay with her. For the first time, perhaps, his so sincere word was applied to political considerations. The peace did not last long, and we are already approaching one clear moment in the history of this discord between the archbishop and the empress - a moment which is narrated by irrefutable witnesses with appropriate details and is generally conveyed by them quite consistently. This is the famous case regarding the silver statue of Eudoxia, erected directly opposite the Great Church, on the other side of the square. The prefect of Constantinople decided to celebrate the opening of this statue with rituals and entertainment of a worldly and even pagan nature. Then, brought into indignation, St. Chrysostom delivered a conversation in which he could not resist referring to the empress. In conveying this episode, Socrates disapproves of St. archbishop, and we do not deny that such bold behavior cannot but somewhat embarrass the supporters of the moderate party. There will always be people who can repeat some of the remarks of the historian Socrates that St. Chrysostom made a useless challenge this time, that he should have behaved completely differently, achieved a meeting with the prefect, asked for an audience with the empress, acted carefully, and that in this way he would have been more likely to achieve success. Of course, St. Chrysostom did not behave like a politician; he did not even act as a bishop of the 4th century, that is, that era when necessary relationships and mutual responsibilities were established between civil and church authorities, requiring caution and tolerance. But he acted like an apostle, and neither his soul nor his Christian conscience could reproach him for anything. With his understanding of the sacred episcopal ministry, he could not retreat. He always persecuted in the bosom of families all superstitious or idolatrous customs that stubbornly sought to mix with household rituals, and could not tolerate them in a public ritual in honor of a Christian ruler. Undoubtedly, he always advised restraint in relation to one's neighbor, but only regarding offenses that remained secret, and not in the case of deafening temptation. We have already said that it seems plausible that St. John was directly referring to Eudoxia in his discussion about the statue. In any case, she considered herself offended and greatly offended by his rebuff. What opinion should we hold about that famous conversation, which, as they say, began with a vindictive comparison with Herodias? There have been attempts to suspect its authenticity, and this must be taken into account. We have one speech that begins with these words, and Saville, together with Montfaucon, classified it as spuria - that is, forged. On the other hand, some writers, such as Paul Albert and Abbot Martin, thoroughly thinking that the holy ardor of John was too softened by the school of cautious historians, apparently are inclined to recognize its authenticity. In the matter of criticism one should not yield to feeling, whatever it may be; here we need to judge, and, as for us, it seems to us that the homily subject to dispute is really not entirely worthy of St. John. We think rather that she is apocryphal, but we cannot conclude from this that the allusion to Herodias was not uttered at all. The conversation is already quoted by Socrates, who, no matter what they say, seems generally quite well informed about this whole matter, and it is hardly a solid trick to assert that the apocryphal homily was compiled even before Socrates, and misled him. We just need to remember that Socrates is almost a contemporary of St. Chrysostom and belongs to the immediate next generation. On the contrary, the following assumption is very likely: since the original conversation has not been preserved, an apocryphal homily was compiled in the tone of the first phrase of the introduction, the memory of which remained traditional. Comparison with Herodias, of course, was tantamount to comparison with Jezebel. Whether the empress deserved this comparison or not, in any case it was already an insult that St. John condemned in the mouth of Shimei. “I cannot call this daring, but I will call it intemperance of the tongue, daring of the mind, unbridledness, unreasonableness, everything rather than daring.” With every right, these words could now be directed against him. But under such circumstances, in any case, one should marvel at his courage more than condemn his imprudence. Concluding my speech about St. Vavile, St. Chrysostom said that this latter was alien to timidity, hatred, fear, flattery and anger. From all this, we conclude, St. himself was free. John, excluding anger, but it was noble and, one might say, holy anger. St. Chrysostom is sent into exile for the second time, this time final, and indignation, or at least rebellion, again floods the streets of Constantinople with blood. The whole block was destroyed by fire, but we have already said that St. Chrysostom was not responsible for this, since he did not call upon any other weapon for his help except eloquence. Unyielding in the religious field, he never left this field; He never fled from persecution, but also did not resist it. It would be interesting to know what his emotional feelings were at that moment when the imperial officials were taking him away from the episcopal city. True, we have his letters, but they date back to a somewhat later time. It seems that at these moments he had to struggle with two opposing thoughts. Undoubtedly, he regretted the power and influence that he used in the interests of religion over his faithful flock. He could now ask himself whether it would not be better, in order to preserve this power, to show himself to be somewhat more tolerant of civil authority. But there is also no doubt that he told himself that examples of majestic independence were always rare, and that if he was somewhat guilty before his flock, then they were given a wonderful lesson for the future. And this conviction, completely free from any admixture of vanity, could serve for him as the most legitimate and strongest of all consolations. St. Chrysostom appears to be entirely a monk, and not a politician, and we think that we have shown quite clearly how clearly he differs from most of the bishops of his day. Only very rarely did he speak of the civil affairs of his time, so it would be interesting to exhibit the little that he said, to see whether it confirms or not what is generally thought of the state of the state in the fourth century, and finally to inquire what his hopes or fears for the future might have been. Since St. John was deeply imbued with his ideal of the apostolic community, then, strictly speaking, he could only feel contempt for civil society. Undoubtedly, the state of his time was Christian; it had been considered so for a whole century, and there was no reason to fear the offensive return of paganism. The reaction under Julian was, in essence, as cruel as it was ephemeral. According to the harshness of the expressions of the book about St. Babyla and conversations of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, from the strength and constancy of the enmity, one can guess how great the fears of the entire bishopric must have been for some time. But, in the words of the metaphor of St. Athanasius, “the cloud passed,” and from now on the sky seemed clear. St. Chrysostom did not dare, however, to fully rejoice in the victory; he knew how many selfish conversions there were, and felt that this was partly responsible for such a sensitive relaxation of the morals of the believers. They recalled that in the era of persecution, faith was purer and courage was more courageous, however, he did not regret their cessation, knowing that it was forbidden to seek temptation, and they trembled even at the thought of the weaknesses that he would have to witness if persecution were resumed. But, generally speaking, he remained rather indifferent to the appeals of the emperors. These rulers, some of whom often took the side of heresy, while others, being Christians by name, retained at their court all the extreme luxury of the past, could not satisfy him. At most, he could only make an exception for Theodosius, who at least always retained the merit of Orthodoxy, and in his honor he delivered a panegyric in one of his Constantinople conversations. However, it should be noted that many years later, under other circumstances, when he did not need to make official praise, he, recalling the matter of overthrowing the statues, spoke sternly of its cruelty. In the works of John we would look in vain for elements of politics borrowed from Holy Scripture. Sometimes in his interpretations of the Old Testament, for example, in explaining the act of Uzziah, a tendency towards theocracy is visible. In general, he is content with rewarding Caesar's things to Caesar and God's things to God, and cares too little about Caesar. In other places, in very precise terms, he commanded obedience to authority. Sometimes he took as an example the behavior of David towards Saul, sometimes he reproduced the instructions of St. ap. Paul, and in particular verse 4 of the 13th chapter of Romans. At first he said that most sovereigns are corrupt and corrupt, but he immediately added that the advantages of royal power are so significant that the institution remains useful even when the kings are unworthy. What would have happened if they had fulfilled their duties! “Let every soul obey the powers that be,” he repeated, and, anticipating the objection: “is every authority based on Divine right?” – not without some difficulty and confusion, he answered as follows. “Is every ruler appointed by God? I do not claim this, says the Apostle, for I am not speaking about each individual, but about royal power in general. So, I maintain that the existing order is the work of Divine wisdom. Thanks to it, authorities exist, some command, and others obey, everything is not accidental and disorderly, and peoples do not waver back and forth, as if driven by waves.” A man who was so little blinded by royal greatness should have been even less lenient towards the members of the magistrates. He did not have any confidence in them, and one must, indeed, admit that if there were many very respectable high-ranking officials in the 4th century, then, on the contrary, there were, apparently, many petty rulers of a very tyrannical nature. In the opinion of St. Chrysostom, judges “bear only the name of judges, but in reality they are thieves and murderers.” People seek public office only “in order to find reasons for robbery, for I do not want to call this in the name of simple gain; they seek it only in order, on the one hand, to make useless distributions, and on the other, to oppress their subordinates.” Tax collectors for St. John are the subject of horror. “What could be worse than a toll collector?” It is they who rob widows and orphans. The state needs of that time were indeed great, and the evidence of this is as irrefutable as it is numerous. St. Chrysostom reports at least one interesting detail on this matter. “If it is impossible to force any excess collection, and the collectors do not know how this can be done, then they enter into a deal with their colleagues (undoubtedly, directly higher ones) and these latter, in front of the unfortunate payers, threaten them and strike them.” Through such comedy they soften the hearts of bad payers and extort a few pennies. Even less civil magistrates of St. John spares the army. One day, surveying various human conditions, he said: “Do you want me to start with the warrior class? What sins do they not fall into every day? They strike and insult liberally, are constantly enraged and rejoice in the misfortunes of others. Like wolves, they are never free from crime. And can there be a sea without waves? They envy their equals and are filled with vanity; They greedily deceive those who are subordinate to them, offend those who in their litigation turn to their intercession. How much theft, deception, hypocrisy, shameless bargaining and servile flattery! What characterizes them most is greed. Like the monks, they do not know what greed is, but for the opposite reason: the former are clean from this crime, the latter are intoxicated by it to such an extent that they have lost all conscience. But what were the views of St. Chrysostom on the future of the empire? Did he clearly see the dangers that threatened her? Many in the 4th century succumbed to the illusion in this regard; people usually do not want to think about great catastrophes until the moment when the latter are already approaching. Almost on the eve of the capture of Rome, after the battle of Pollentia, Western writers who glorified this victory looked at it as decisive and did not in the least foresee the misfortune that stood at the door. The Greek Empire was destined to exist longer than the Latin Empire, however, after it was subjected to imp. Valenta will raid the Gotfs, one could already very much fear for her existence. St. Chrysostom, in those contradictory judgments that he successively expressed regarding the forces and position of this empire, shows us the disorder of those unfortunate times, when hope was constantly replaced by fear. In his youth, at certain moments, he did not at all imagine the future in a gloomy light and, apparently, did not think that barbaric attacks should once seriously threaten the existence of the empire. Then he contrasted the current world with the state of constant war among the Jews and Greeks, placing this exclusively in honor of Christ and not entirely rightly forgetting Rome. “The sun of righteousness,” he exclaimed, “has risen, and cities, peoples and all nations not only no longer live among such dangers, but enjoy such peace that the art of war is no longer known. Having settled peacefully inside the cities, behind our walls, we learn from afar about military events, and the whole world enjoys freedom, freed from such painful slavery. If there are still some battles now, they take place far away on the borders of the empire, and not in cities or villages, as before. Then, as I have already said, indeed, endless turmoil and all kinds of wars were constantly renewed in the same people; now, throughout the entire sunlit space, from the Tigris to the British Isles, as well as in Libya, Egypt and Palestine, the entire Roman Empire lives in peace. Cities enjoy sweet leisure and only by rumor know that wars exist. Christ could have destroyed these last traces of the ancient order of things, but He allowed them to remain for the sake of warning the careless, in order to lead them to correction, and barbaric raids are carried out in order to keep on guard those whom a perfect world would put to sleep. But already in the first homily on the text: “I saw the Lord,” he shows us how difficult the state of things really was. Discontent and anxiety were felt everywhere, and the authorities were accused of incompetence everywhere. St. Chrysostom, as far as he could, justified them and tried to attribute the cause of the disaster higher: he saw Divine punishment here. “We are destroyed by our own vices, and if our leaders were Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon, then the same thing would happen. However, usually both in the civil system and in the religious system there are such leaders as the people deserve.” And he concluded these speeches with somewhat unexpected advice to show more zeal for the church. Despite, however, the condemnation of the leaders, everyone had very great visible respect for them. A very strong monarchical feeling then reigned throughout the entire empire. Everyone was very interested in what was happening at court, they talked a lot about political affairs, about which in most cases they were rather poorly informed, since, in that era of suspicious despotism, everything was surrounded by secret intrigues. Many of the descriptions of St. Chrysostom makes it clear to us what a strong impression the greatness in which the emperors have clothed themselves since the time of Diocletian made on the minds of everyone. “Imagine this convoy of warriors shining with gold, these chariots drawn by white mules, similarly decorated with gold. The chariots themselves are decorated with precious stones, covered with snow-white carpets, and hung with metal plaques, movable and shiny. Dragons are embroidered on silk clothes, gold bulges are fixed in the center of the shields, armor is studded with precious stones, and horse bridles are in gold. But when we see the emperor himself, we no longer pay any attention to all this: he alone attracts the eyes of everyone, and we look at his purple clothes, at the diadem, the throne, the clasps, the shoes and the majestic expression of his face.” As time moved forward, the misfortunes of the empire increased, and we find a living reflection of this in the homilies of St. Chrysostom. While delivering discourses on the Epistle to the Ephesians, he reminded his listeners of wars and misfortunes threatening on all sides, spoke of cities and provinces completely devastated, pointed to thousands of people being enslaved by barbarians, and to numerous Divine punishments, harbingers of Gehenna. From the moment the conquerors of Emperor Valens made a great breach in the border wall, barbarians little by little overran the empire. In the end, both through force and under the guise of allies, they managed to form a significant part of the population both in Constantinople itself and especially in its environs. Most of these barbarians were Goths, and most of the Goths became Arians. We have already seen how necessary St. Chrysostom reflected their claims when their leader Gaina sought the concession of one of the churches inside the city for them, while since the time of Theodosius the last Arians were forced to organize their gatherings outside the city walls. But it seemed to him insufficient to just prevent the capture of heretics: he wanted to attract these new inhabitants of the empire to Orthodoxy, or, more precisely, he decided to win over those who were still pagans to the faith, since it was almost impossible to hope for the conversion of the mass of Goths who had already accepted Arianism. Little by little, a Christian society was formed from the barbarians in Constantinople, and among the conversations first published by Montfaucon and for the most part very important, the most interesting is the one that St. John spoke before this society in the church of St. Paul, after the priest first preached in the Gothic language - Goth. He shows in this homily all his pride and joy about these new conquests. He would like the pagans to be present and witness the conversion of the barbarians themselves. While pagan philosophers could never attract even their compatriots to their teachings, the apostles of Christ, these poor fishermen, not only attracted the entire Roman world to the faith, but are now spreading their victory even further and teaching the Divine word to those peoples whose existence Plato did not even suspect. Let the Jews also be ashamed, since the new tide of pagans into the Church has preceded them for the second time. In order to completely shame the Jews and at the same time sanctify the nobility of the converts with biblical authority, he evokes the memory of Abraham, the patriarch who came out of Chaldea, that is, also a barbarian, and of the Gospel Magi. Let us not be surprised to see these brothers belonging to a different nationality in the church, but, on the contrary, let us be proud of it. From that time on, the Gothic community always remained one of the main concerns of St. Chrysostom. During his exile, in the depths of Cappadocia and even in Cucusa itself, as soon as he received relief from his misfortunes, he, as far as he could, carried out his service from afar and, at the same time caring with fiery zeal for the Phoenician missions, even bearing in mind the conversion of Persia, did not lose sight of his dear barbarians. He instructed his Constantinople friends to monitor their Orthodoxy and replace the one they had just lost with an Orthodox bishop from their nationality. The spectacle of the internal disasters of the empire, more and more threatening attacks, and finally the relaxation of Christian morals, must have instilled sad thoughts in gloomy minds. And one should not be surprised that the idea of ​​the imminent end of the world was generally quite widespread at that time. This belief, which nourished the faith of the first Christian generation, has already been rather cruelly refuted. Thus, from the time the persecution ceased, from the moment when they saw what Tertullian recognized as never feasible, i.e., Caesar the Christian, a new trend was already emerging. Many thought that the converted empire was destined for a vast future. That is why the poet Prudentius, while simultaneously glorifying the battle of Pollentia and the general appeal of the Roman Senate, was alien to any thought of despondency. It seemed obvious to him that Christian Rome was destined for a fate, of course, no less wonderful than pagan Rome. St. Chrysostom usually shared a different kind of thought. There is no doubt that he very carefully insisted that we should not attempt to solve insoluble problems, that Providence wisely leaves the end of the world unknown to us, like the day of death of each of us, and that finally the Son of Man will come like Tat - but, nevertheless, one can see which assumption he was more inclined to. In his conversations on the Gospel, St. In Matthew he once expresses himself as follows: “The end is approaching; We do not know that perhaps the end of the world will happen within the lifetime of our generation, and that a terrible day will come that will bring us before a terrible judgment seat, where there is no respect for anyone. For most of the signs have been fulfilled: the gospel has already been preached to almost the entire universe, wars, earthquakes and famines are already occurring. The remaining time cannot be very significant. And you still don’t see the signs! This is the greatest sign!” Some time later, when explaining the Gospel of John, he expressed the same unchanging thoughts. “The Lord is near, so be careful, we are not far from the light show, and the world is already coming to an end. Wars, disasters and earthquakes herald this, and the impoverishment of love speaks of this. For, just as a body that is near death is depressed by many illnesses, and just as lime falls from the roof and walls of a house that is ready to collapse, so too, misfortunes burden us on all sides, because the end of the universe is already approaching and standing at the door.” It is quite natural that people engaged in such guesswork sought to find the exact date of this event, and indeed attributed the latter to the year 400. Strictly maintaining the idea that this moment is unknown, St. John, however, sometimes did not show strong resistance to such an opinion. In the same conversation from which we have just quoted an excerpt, he discusses the meaning of the word “near” in the saying of St. Christ and says that it may well mean the 400th year, and that therefore it should in any case be ready. In his second conversation on the Epistle to the Colossians, we again find traces of the same fears - fears characteristic of the masses, but not of St. himself. Chrysostom. In his explanation of the first letter to the Thessalonians, he expresses that this moment is perhaps too close, and from here he extracts a thought that is very dear to his heart: what significance does the definition of this moment have for us? Everyone is convinced of his death, and isn’t that enough? However, even later, during the exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, recalling the words: “It is yet a little while that He who is coming will come and will not destroy him,” he noted that, according to the Gospel (Matthew 24:14), the end of the world will take place when the Gospel is known to the whole universe, and makes it clear that now this is almost an accomplished fact. But on the contrary, there were people who repeated that all these fears were nothing more than ridiculous illusions. So much time has passed since Jesus Christ, and the end of the world has not yet come! St. John was afraid of such reasoning, clearly realizing that they only served to encourage those who lead a bad life. He told those who shared these thoughts that people reasoned in a similar way on the eve of the flood itself. St. Martin, Bishop of Tours, is a man of less bright mind than St. Chrysostom, but of an equally pure and loving heart, who lived on the opposite edge of the empire, and in a province even more prone to calamitous trials than Syria or Thrace, also considered the catastrophe coming from above inevitable: he even thought that the Antichrist was already in his youth. It is very significant to note this belief, common to two Christians, more than all other people of their time, imbued with the evangelical spirit. Thanks to him, they stand incomparably closer than all their contemporaries to the apostolic age and even come into direct contact with it. And it is clear that both of them had so little concern for civil society: what significance could it have that tomorrow should end its existence? Four Nitrian monks are known under the name of the “Long” or “Long” (Longi, Magni) brothers: Ammonius, Dioscorus, Eusebius and Euthymius). These persons, famous for their virtuous, strictly ascetic life, were accused by Theophilus of Alexandria of Origenism and excommunicated by him from the church. Fleeing from the persecution brought against them, the brothers, after many wanderings, resorted to the intercession of Saint Chrysostom. The latter, realizing that they were right, accepted the fugitives into fellowship and petitioned Theophilus for their pardon, which served as a reason for the Alexandrian bishop to accuse John himself of heresy and accelerated the sad course of events. Note translation Of course, the aforementioned “Agapit” sisters. Note translation The Arian Gothic Gaina, taking advantage of his importance for the empire, presented Emperor Arcadius with a number of humiliating demands, which the latter was forced to agree to. Gaina's last demand was to provide the Arians with one of the capital's churches for public worship. St. Chrysostom persuaded Arkady not to “give away holy things to dogs” and convinced Gaina of the illegality of his demand, revealing in this matter rare dedication and courage. Note translation According to the story of the historian Socrates, Queen Eudoxia, in the Church of the Apostles, threw St. John to her son Theodosius, who was then still in infancy, and so said to the archbishop: “for the sake of this young child of mine, your spiritual son, whom I gave birth to, and you received from the baptismal font, make peace with Severian!” (Ecclesiastical History, Book VI). Note translation It would be important, with greater accuracy than the scholars Tilmont, Montfaucon and Stilling, to establish the time of delivery of those conversations from which both this and the passages we quote immediately below are taken. But we could achieve this only by going into such details as the plan of our work does not allow. Therefore, we will limit ourselves here only to pointing out certain changes in the view of St. Chrysostom, without setting out to compare them with the political changes that they should correspond to.