Глава третья. Отражение в гомилиях св. Григория Паламы современной ему социально-политической и культурной действительности

Palamas the theologian, thinker, and leading figure in hesychast debates practically monopolized the attention of scientists. This approach is natural and justified, but we should not forget that there are other aspects of Palamas’ legacy that, as a rule, remain in the shadow of his theological views or are simply ignored. This picture needs certain adjustments. It should not be forgotten that Palamas was also a keen observer and thoughtful critic of his contemporary society with its inherent vices. His homilies express a deep vision and understanding of contemporary Palamas’s socio-historical and spiritual-psychological situation in Thessalonica under his control, which has not yet received proper scientific elaboration, which the author extends to the state of the empire as a whole. The importance of addressing these topics lies both in understanding new and, at first glance, unexpected features of his perception of the world and his personality, and in the opportunity to deepen our understanding of the socio-political situation that developed in the middle of the 14th century. in the second most important polis of the Byzantine Empire. Palamas' homilies make it possible to add new touches to the history of urban culture of late Byzantium, shed light on the socio-economic situation and aspirations of different social strata, their religious and political views. As Fr. wrote. John Meyendorff, “a collection of these sermons is a still little used, but very rich source for the study of the social life of the city in 1350–1359” 1218. Let us add: all the more rich because it provides interesting data for the study of late Byzantine folk culture and hereseology, and also contains in a condensed form the socio-economic and socio-political views of Palamas, his thoughts on ways to eliminate social injustice. Let us try to analytically consider the above-mentioned topics in their inextricable internal interconnection. Palamas' homilies are valuable because they allow one to feel the general alarming situation of the 1350s, when the atmosphere in the Empire became tense to the limit. The empire, Palamas says, is beset by disasters from without and from within (no specific instructions are given in the corresponding fragment of the sermon, but their heterogeneous nature should be assumed), this fragment - from the Thirty-eighth Homily - is presented in the sublime form of a prayer to the Mother of God: “O Lady, reward abundantly to all Your people (τῷ ... λαῷ) - this inheritance ( τῷ ... κλήρῷ) - from Your mercy and bounty. Grant deliverance from current disasters (λύσιν τῶν κατεχόντων δεινῶν). You see how many and what [misfortunes] we are tormented by - both our own (ἰδίοις) and foreign ones (ἀλλοτρίοις); both those that [come] from without and [those that] come from within. By Your power, turn everything for the better, reconciling those living here with each other (τοὺς μὲν ἐντὸς), and also fellow tribesmen (ὁμοφύλους), and those who - like wild animals - attack from the outside, driving away" (473 BC). The latter, as you might guess, mean the Ottoman Turks; according to the periodization of the Turkish conquest by V. A. Smetanin, in 1352–1371. “... the Ottomans are consolidating themselves in Europe... and the transition begins... to retaining and developing the European possessions of the Empire (taxing cities as tribute, capturing key fortresses)..." 1219. Palamas was well aware of what was happening, because in 1354–1355. he was captured by the Turks in 1220. The latter - according to Agafangel - were also familiar with the teachings of Palamas 1221, which was facilitated by the debates about faith held with the participation of the saint 1222. Subsequently, both “those who envy each other and harbor mutual hatred” (485C) and, more specifically, instigators of internecine clashes are mentioned: “How,” asks the archbishop, “are those who are different from the serpent who once whispered to Eve, and from those serpents that bite in the desert 1223, those who whisper and slyly ( δόλοις) incite internecine clashes (ἐμφυλίους ... στάσεις)?” (484C). From these words it is clear that the social situation in Thessalonica, and also - if interpreted broadly - in other cities of the Empire remained unstable even after the uprising of the Zealots. It seems that the search for more detailed information about all kinds of unrest and anxiety should be continued in late Byzantine chronicles and historical writings, as well as in lives, epistolography, etc. Let us pay attention, in particular, to the general assessment of the state of affairs in the Byzantine Empire after the death of Andronikos III Palaiologos (June 15, 1341) 1224 in the Encomia of St. Cyprian of Larisa, written by Anthony of Larisa 1225, as well as to one of the letters (No. 77 in the Lehnertz edition) of Demetrius Kidonis, touching on the situation in Thessalonica 1226. Writing a detailed and balanced history of such movements in the regional centers of late Byzantium is a matter for the future. But based on the data presented (despite all their lapidary nature), one can feel the strength of the disintegration processes that engulfed Byzantine society in the second half of the 14th century. At that time, the unrest acquired such a scale that any observant contemporary, which, of course, was Palamas, could have noticed them and casually mentioned them (as if it were a matter of course). § 1. Homilies of St. Gregory Palamas as a source on the history of the Zealot uprising The first of the specific historical problems to which we will turn is related to the Zealot movement and the restoration of social peace in Thessalonica. Palama needed to calm the socio-political passions raging in the city, overcoming the mutual hostility between representatives of the aristocracy, merchants, middle strata, corporations (sailors, etc.), as well as soften the antipathy of these strata towards the new bishop. And Palamas sets about this task; we can say that he fulfilled it 1227. In connection with its resolution, he reveals the economic roots of the dissatisfaction of the masses of ordinary citizens with the power of the Dinats and speaks of the necessary transformations (very moderate and traditional, however) in order to eliminate social stratification and vices 1228. Palamas' homilies are also important for clarifying some details of the religious program of the Zealots - meaning the question of their relationship to the Church. There has been a lot of controversy in science regarding the religious and political orientation of the Zealots. Thus, a number of publications discussed the question of whether the Zealots carried out at least partial secularization of church property and whether their program included an item aimed at combating the economic and spiritual influence of the Church, which from the end of the 13th century. grew steadily 1229. If old historians 1230 were inclined to answer this question in the affirmative, then starting from the 50s, after the works of I. Shevchenko 1231, the opinion of scientists changed to the opposite. Already prot. I. Meyendorff, with reference to I. Shevchenko, wrote: “Not a single document reports that the zealots ever offended the monks, much less the hesychasts, who in their own way struggled with the spiritually disastrous consequences of the enrichment of large cenobitic monasteries in the 13th and 14th centuries.” 1232. This conclusion was confirmed in subsequent historiography in 1233. What does Gregory Palamas himself say about this? “But [just as] that Jerusalem paralytic lay at the font of Siloam healing the sick (John 5:1-9), [so] you by no means departed from the Church of Christ radiating peace” (16A). Let us not forget that this is said in the First Homily, pronounced after the Zealots had refused for three years to accept Palamas as their spiritual leader 1234. It is all the more interesting to compare the above passage with the news about robberies in the city as a whole: “Who are they who make raids on the city... and destroy houses, and plunder what is in houses, and with the fury of many, they search for the owners of these houses (ῥινελατοῦντες) 1235 and kill mercilessly and inhumanly? Are they not living in this city?” (12D). As we see, Palamas does not make a clear distinction between the poor and the nobility, the lower and the higher, the rulers and the subordinates; one thing is important for him - a description of the spontaneous and cruel process of increasing robberies and murders, which covered all segments of the urban population. The stylistics of the description is aimed precisely at this - a long series of present participles (“ἐπιτρέχοντες ... καταστρέφοντες ... διαρπάζοντες ...”) gives rise to a feeling of an all-encompassing flow of inhumanity and violence, to restrain which is beyond the power of either social or natural barriers. And only in comparison with other sources, similar in style, but clearly different in their social affiliation and the author’s view of the same event generated by it - the most important role here is played by “Monodia on the Fallen in Thessalonica” by Demetrius Kidonis - and it is possible to clarify the socio-historical meaning of what is happening. Let us turn to Kydonis, who tells about the same terrible hours of the popular uprising: “The slave no longer recognized his master and, having rightly revered him earlier, now demanded that he be punished. Having weapons and wealth, slaves and poor people became masters; For those who previously owned this, they considered the fate of slaves suitable and, having tied them up, subjected them to captivity, not allowing them to use the rays of light. They broke into houses, and the entire city was plundered and turned into a desert. The one who cried because of this was stabbed to death by the wicked. O city, instead of being united, it has fallen apart into parts, each of which is hostile to the others! 1236 This description has many similarities with the words of Palamas, including the feeling of the tragic universality of what is happening 1237. But if Palamas consciously refuses to mention certain social categories in this regard - a mention that would carry an accusatory meaning, then Kydonis still emphasizes the destructive activity of the lower classes. This is understandable, given the plunder of the parental home of Kydonis by the zealots in 1238. His position is incomparable with the position of Palamas, who arrived in the city from outside and lost nothing in this massacre. But still, Palamas, it seems, could have had reasons for dissatisfaction associated with the three-year delay of his archbishopric; but he does not blame anyone - neither the rich nor the slaves 1239, but, appealing to the idea of ​​​​the unity of all layers of the people in the bosom of the Church, he proclaims: “Truly, we are all brothers... as only begotten (ὁμογενεῖς) 1240, also due to the fact that we live in the same [city]; but especially - how all those who have wealth 1241 have a common mother - the Holy Church and piety...” (1A). “...in Him (Christ. - D.M.) there is neither ruler nor subject, but we are all - by His grace - united by faith in Him and form one body of His Church...” (188AV). So, the attention of the listener and reader is drawn not to external and unstable political realities, but to natural and organic ones. In essence, the idea is put forward of a brotherhood that unites everyone - the poor and the rich, rapists and their victims - and the Church that reconciles seemingly insoluble contradictions. And although in this case it sounds almost like a manifesto, what we know about Palamas’ life path allows us to conclude that for him these words were not an empty phrase. Ecclesiological reality left an indelible imprint on the picture of social life created by the Archbishop of Thessaloniki. It seems that the organic perception of society and the resulting emphasis on the features of unity and stability of the social community is an important feature of Palamas’ thinking. In this sense, I think, to St. The words spoken by V.N. Toporov about St. are applicable to Gregory. Sergius of Radonezh: “The true reality for Sergius was, of course, a person, or more precisely, this person, a person here and now. Nevertheless, the people were for him (as well as for Palamas - D.M.) neither an ethnic, nor a “natural”-bioorganic concept, nor even the sum of all individual human destinies and lives. The people were for Sergius an actual and concrete reality as a Christian people, the flock of Christ... (discharge of V.N. Toporov - D.M.)" 1242. This grex Domini theme explains a lot about the socio-political and pastoral position of St. Gregory. And yet, in the Twenty-fourth Homily - on Pentecost - Palamas, unable to contain his excitement, pronounces a stern philippic against those who interrupt the apostolic succession in the Church (in these words it is easy to see an allusion to the zealots, who in 1347-1350 did not allow the saint into the city): “So, each of the bishops in his time (κατὰ καιροὺς) comes to this city (τῇ πόλει) to bring to it this grace, this gift of God and enlightenment (τὸν ... φωτισμὸν) by the Spirit of God through the Gospel; those who expel any of these [expel and] this [enlightenment] that is approaching them, cut (διακόπτουσι) the grace of God, break the divine succession (τὴν Θείαν διαδοχήν) and separate themselves from God, and [then] they indulge in destructive rebellions (στάσεσιν ἀλιτηριώδεσι) 1243 and [fall into] all kinds of disasters (συμφοραῖς) 1244” (316B). Here a new note is added to the accusations against the zealots, but for the author it was the main one: ecclesiological. The archpastor's reaction is completely understandable: it is difficult to imagine a greater evil than the violation of church succession - especially in such a polis as Thessalonica. But it is characteristic that here, too, Palamas refrains from uttering accusations: he only shows to what disasters resistance to the will of the clergy led the townspeople. These reproaches go hand in hand with the reproach for disobedience to authorities in general - both secular and spiritual: “How much worse... - exclaims the archbishop, - are those people who rebel against city leaders... do not show due loyalty to the kings appointed by God... and do not submit to the Church of Christ and recklessly harbor furious irritation with the primates of the Church...” (Conversations (omilia)... Part 3. pp. 43–44). Here we do not encounter news of any radical measures against church officials. Rather, on the contrary: Palamas reproaches his fellow servants (and especially, as is clear from the text, the monks) for worldliness and indulging their own whims - and not least the passion for enrichment: “What is the use of once fleeing from the world and finding refuge in houses of prayer dedicated to God (φροντιστήρια), but daily leaving them and mingling with the world again? How, tell me 1245, while joyfully spending time in these squares, will you avoid inflaming the passions that bring about the death of the soul, which separates a person from God?” 1246 In this context, a hint of love of money is very likely. It is also important to note Palamas’s condemnation of the decline of monastic discipline (and canon law forbade monks to take part in worldly and everyday affairs, leaving their monasteries!) 1247, which allows us to cautiously agree with the above (note 3 on p. 374) assumption of G.L. Kurbatov 1248 (the deterioration of their property situation and the decline of discipline could well have led some of the monks to the camp of the zealots). In addition to this - so to speak, clerical - side of the issue, Palamas's homilies give reason to assume that he was also aware of earlier - regarding the zealots - cases of uprisings and urban discontent: “... wars and murders are committed throughout the universe, and especially in our generation (emphasis added by us. - D.M.)..." (421A). And this implies that rebellions were committed in previous generations, but their scale was incommensurate with the almost eight-year reign of the Zealots 1249. § 2. Features of the concept of the social world in the homily of St. Gregory Palamas Concluding the conversation about rebellion and unrest and contrasting the stability and tranquility of the Church with the embitterment of worldly affairs, Palamas calls on the flock: “Let us preserve ourselves in unanimity (ὁμόνοια), united by mutual peace and moving away from all malice (τῆς ... μανίας) towards each other ... so that not only in God's churches, but also in houses, and in the square (κατ’ἀγοράν) being quiet (ἀθόρυβοι)... to glorify our Father who is in heaven” (421B). So, the ultimate ideal of the public life of the city and country for Palamas is peace (εἰρήνη) and unanimity (ὁμόνοια). But it is clear that against the background of uprisings and general discontent, there can be no talk of any peace. What needs to be done for this world to come? It would be useful to begin studying Palamas’ interpretation of the problem of the social world from the level of vocabulary, namely, by counting the frequency of use of the main word εἰρήνη (in all cases) and cognates. Based on the results of the calculation (which was made on the material of the First Homilial “On Mutual Peace...”), the following table was compiled: Thus, the word εἰρήνη and its cognates (“keep peace” - 17A; “giving peace” - 17C) are used in the sermon 24 times. According to its content structure, the sermon is divided into two parts: the first describes the events in their immediate reality (what happened?); the second analyzes the reasons that caused them: “...common sin, having driven out love, made you opponents (πολεμίους) to each other” (13C). The cause of sin, in turn, is rooted in the “sin-loving will” (τῆς φιλαμαρτήμονος γνώμης – Ibid.) (see Ch. 2.3; 2.8). In the second part, the word “peace,” being central in terms of semantics, in terms of language “stitches” the verbal fabric of the sermon. Of the 24 cases, the word εἰρήνη is found 7 times in biblical quotations (Ps. 84:9; Luke 2:14; John 14:27; Mark 9:50; Heb. 12:14; etc.). They are the direct support of Palamas's thought. “Christ,” he says, “has had mercy on you, so that you may become sons of the world—or, what is the same thing—of God. For He is your peace... and the whole work of His coming is peace..." (16C). Without peace one cannot see God (17BC). From these fundamental provisions follows the recognition of the need for a harmonious and balanced functioning of society, based on peace, love and unanimity of its members ( ὁμονοίας εἰς ἕν ) (17C) 1250 . So, Palamas outlined a double, or more precisely, a two-pronged program of action: reconciliation with each other (a) is impossible without reconciliation with God (b), and vice versa: reconciliation with God requires reconciliation with neighbors and fellow citizens. “For the world is twofold: one [peace] we have with God (this is a product mainly of piety), and the other [the one we have] among ourselves (πρὸς ἀλλήλους)” (280AV). Finally, inner peace is also important (in the human heart - 296D). Palamas calls it the “spiritual world” (πνευματικήν εἰρήνην – 273B) in the sense of pacifying thoughts. The highest role model here, too, is the hesychast monk, who “...maintains (συντηρεί) the peace of soul and body...” (161B). Thus, social peace is a direct consequence of the education and development of Christian virtues, of which the first place is occupied by piety, unanimity and love. In this interpretation (typical and orthodox for church authors 1251), the spiritual, moral and psychological foundations of society acquire paramount importance, their condition determining the state of other social subsystems, economic life, etc. As in all times, these words remain relevant today. § 3. Problems of economic inequality in the interpretation of Palamas. The birth of the idea of reformism? “The love of money,” says the teacher of silence, “is the cause of all evil...” (Conversations (omilia)... Part 3. P. 225). From here - as if in a chain - flow all subsequent troubles of society: “For who does not see the flame of greed burning among us, rising to a height and seemingly penetrating everywhere - and into [collecting] taxes from the people (ἐπὶ τοὺς πανδήμους φόρους) 1252, [and] in public meetings (κοινὰς ἀγορὰς), and in agriculture, and in business agreements (συναλλαγὰς), and in trade? It has already penetrated into sacred churches (τῶν ... δόμων)..." (484ВС). The panoramic nature of the picture Palamas sketches is characteristic: he does not ignore either the city, the village, or even the Church; by the way, regarding the latter, his words could serve as a legal basis for proceedings on the part of the patriarchy, for, “according to the order of Callistus I of December 1350, priests did not have the right to engage in trade under the threat of deprivation of the dignity and honor of the priesthood...” 1253. Patriarch Callistus was not alone in this: back in 452. Emperor Valentinian III, in a special novel, prohibited the clergy from engaging in trade under penalty of deprivation of legal privileges, including immunity from the jurisdiction of secular power (it should be noted, however, that this law applied to the Western Empire in 1254). Over time, this kind of reprehensible phenomenon prevailed in the Byzantine Church. Naturally, those pastors who were concerned about the spiritual level of the clergy and parishioners tried to fight this 1255. One of the measures to combat the love of money of the clergy was the sharpening of monastic discipline. Palamas directly points out to the clergy and monks (before whom, presumably, the Fortieth Homily was pronounced; see Chapter 2.8): “... therefore we flee from the world and find refuge in these monasteries dedicated to God” (509C). Monks should not take part in worldly vanity. The enrichment of one part of society to the detriment of another brings out serious reproaches from the lips of Palamas: “Hear and groan,” he addresses the rich, “who maliciously neglect your suffering brothers... and do not give from what you have in abundance (εὐπορεῖτε) to those in need, neither food, nor shelter, nor clothing... nor do you use your excess to [cover] their lack." (57CD). The common tone once again emphasizes the scale of the problem. There is no doubt that society - the real society of the mid-14th century, as not only Palamas saw it in 1256 - is still very far from harmony. Does Palamas propose the means to achieve a state of society that he portrays as harmonious? He repeatedly suggests the need for change, which, however, is submitted to the conscience of each individual person (and not a public institution) and can hardly be called reforms in the today's sense of the word. First of all, the sermons of the teacher of silence contain an incessant call for members of the social system to provide each other with mutual alms. It is substantiated both theologically - by pointing to the example of Christ, the Beatitudes and other gospel texts, and from the point of view of the theory of social justice that was dominant in Byzantine society, according to which, in order to equalize the property level of the population, a redistribution of wealth in society in favor of the poor is required. Here is the most detailed exhortation pronounced by the Archbishop of Thessalonica to give alms: “Hear and groan, you who despise your - or rather God's - brothers who suffer disasters; not providing - on the basis of what you own in abundance - to those who need food, shelter, clothing, appropriate care and not using the surplus [of funds] to [cover] their shortage. It’s better [to say] – we will hear and groan! After all, I myself, who is telling you this, am convicted by my conscience that I am not completely free from this passion: for I am fed and clothed, while there are many who are cold and deprived [of everything necessary]. How much more worthy of mourning are those who have and hold [in their possession] much more treasures than [is required to satisfy] everyday needs - or even strive to increase them (a hint of moneylenders? - D. M.); those who have been commanded to love their neighbor as themselves, and who value these [neighbors] below the dust (μηδὲ ὡς τὸν χοῦν αὐτοὺς ἔχοντες). For what else are gold and silver, which we loved more than our brothers?” (57CD). The traditional theme of the vanity of earthly riches 1257 is intertwined here with the requirement to observe the New Testament commandment to love one's neighbor. The news of Palamas suggests the presence in Thessalonica of a fairly wide layer of nobility and moneylenders, who played a decisive role in the socio-political life of the city. This layer is identified by Palamas with the politically leading layer. We meet a sharp attack against him: “The rulers and nobility (Οἱ δὲ ἄρχοντες καὶ οἱ ἔνδοξοι) take possession, [in addition to treasures], and power, so that they commit even greater injustice ( ἀδικίας) and sins" (180D). “Therefore it is difficult for a ruler to be saved...” (Ibid.). In other words, caring for the soul and personality of a particular person is inseparable from caring for society as a whole. This is not surprising: as he noted in his book about St. Gregory of Nyssa J. Gait, “...social life seems to Gregory to be deeply connected with the original fall...”( 1258 This is a general position for the Fathers. But Palamas, like Chrysostom 1259, finds (as we have seen) grounds for criticism in the real life of society. That's why he tried to offer something more effective. Of course, one should not think that the Archbishop of Thessalonica was unique in his advice: around the same years or a little earlier, Thomas the Master developed a theory about achieving balance in the distribution of wealth in society as the ultimate goal of the efforts of the social system 1260. Byzantine literature of the late 13th and early 14th centuries is full of appeals to help the poor. “Let us be afraid of the groans of the poor and needy against us,” calls St. Gregory of Cyprus in a private letter 1261. Let us now turn to the text of Palamas. Palamas writes: “The rich man, whose land has yielded a good harvest, ... is subject to just condemnation, as are those who do not give [shares to the poor] from what they have accumulated; for those treasures [that come] from the common storehouses (ταμείων) of what God has created [are] common [to all]” (164B). And further: “How is he not greedy who appropriates what is common (τὰ κοινὰ), even if he, like that [rich man from the parable], does not appropriate someone else’s (τὰ ... ἀλλότρια) openly (φανερῶς)?” (Ibid.). To get closer to justice, a redistribution of social wealth is required (the main such wealth in his era - and Palamas clearly understood this - was land). According to St. Gregory, in order to have a moral and soteriological meaning, the redistribution of lands and income from them must be disinterested on the part of the propertied. Palamas advocates that the rich renounce all unrighteous income (ἐξ ἀδικίας ... πόρου) and partly righteous, giving of it to the needy as much as is needed (ἐφ ὅσον ἐστί) for living (140D–141A). It is assumed that the measure should be everyone's conscience. Therefore, Palamas does not give specific recommendations, and this was not part of his task 1262. So, the land is the common property of all social groups 1263, just as for Makremvolit it is the common nurse and mother 1264 (the latter view dates back to the mythopoetic era) 1265. The excessive concentration of land holdings and income in one hand is unreservedly condemned by Palamas. But this is precisely the absence of any expressed radicalism in the highest church circles of the Empire, that even such a sober-minded ideologist as Palamas does not openly call for a redistribution of wealth, but only for mercy on the part of the rich (165C). And even more so, we are not talking about any seizure of land by the poor. Palamas stopped at the line, crossing which he would put himself on a par with the popular leaders of the late Middle Ages - such as Cola di Rienzo or the same zealots. Palamas strongly condemns covetousness. “Shall we not give [to the poor] the surplus of [our] property,” he asks, “in order to acquire heavenly wealth?” (293D). An example of non-covetousness is the Lord Himself (161C; 165B; 184C) and John the Baptist (see Chapter 2.8). But non-acquisitiveness can have different degrees of implementation. In most cases, addressing a meeting of the laity, Palamas calls on them to give part of their income to the poor, especially to the unrighteous. The Lord himself leads us to “helping the poor (ἡ πρὸς τοὺς ἐνδεεῖς μετάδοσις)” (452D) as one of the images of the implementation of mercy (Ibid. B). If someone does not give to the poor from his own means, he will be condemned at the Last Judgment - precisely for the fact that he did not give to the needy (ὡς μὴ μετάδοντας τῷ δεομενῳ - 164Α). The rich are especially condemned because “... they did not make [their] property common to those who are in need, just as He (Christ. - D. M.) gave everyone from His blessings" (164D; cf.: 489C). Let us emphasize that Christocentrism and the doctrine of imitation of the Lord are here too an essential feature of Palamas’ teaching, reflected in the sermon. Subsequently, the idea of ​​​​the need to help the poor is developed by Palamas in two modifications: “neutral” and accusatory. On the one hand, he calls for sharing what we have (396A; 484D; 533BC). After all, this duty of alms flows from human nature: “For by our nature we must in every possible way [show] each other mutual compassion (τὸ ... συμπαθὲς) and mercy” (533B). “How can we not, with all our strength (ἐφ ὅσον ἔχομεν),,” asks Palamas, “deeds [our] forgiveness and mercy to [our] needy brothers, as an urgent duty?” (533BC). Further, the archbishop calls for feeding those who are involuntarily hungry (161C); to show charity to those imprisoned (61D) - in order to show acts of love (61D; 64A). After all, whatever we do to our brothers, such will be our reward [ὁμοία μὲν ἡ ἀντίδοσις – 61B). “Therefore, oppress the flesh with good works,” advises St. Theoliptus of Philadelphia to Irina-Evlogia Humnena, - and ease the lot of the poor from the [riches] of your estates...” 1266 Between the teachings of Theoliptus and Palamas there is a direct line of spiritual and genetic continuity (both in this issue and in many others). A similar call for mercy and an equalizing redistribution of property - with a characteristic eschatological motivation - has been the work of the Church from time immemorial: similar advice is found, for example, in the “Admonitory Chapters” of Deacon Agapit 1267. Agapit especially emphasizes the postulate that a pious monarchy is strengthened by the creation of mercy, like a wall 1268. And this, Palamas echoes, should be the concern of every subject - and every Christian. “If you do not want to give your [estate],” continues the teacher of silence, “then at least abstain from strangers and do not withhold from yourself what is not yours...” (161D). Emphasizing the need to renounce unjust income is the second type (or, if you like, the second aspect) of exhortation. Alas, Palamas states (presumably, with knowledge of the matter), “... there are those who not only do not give alms, [not giving to the poor] from what they have in abundance, but also appropriate for themselves the property of others (τὰ ἀλλότρια)” (60D). It is difficult to say anything definitive about these “kidnappers.” Nothing forces us to see them as zealots or representatives of any designated social groups. The bishop's protest is universal and, as such, addressed to each of the parishioners who stood before him. And yet, individual notes in his speech make it clear that we are talking primarily about the nobility: it is they who, with their acquisitiveness and desire for profit, damage the property and well-being of the poor, i.e. (one must think) the middle and lower strata of society. “There are those among us,” we read in the Thirty-ninth Homily, “who keep in their homes not only righteous incomes (τὰ δικαίως ποριζόμενα), but also [those] who [come] from the robberies (ἁρπαγὰς) of the poor, having loved greed (πλεονεξίαν) and suffering from the love of money..." (489D). Palamas focuses on what is inherent in human history at all times. But how typical and recognizable are the vices themselves depicted here! “The thief [of other people’s goods] 1269, or the one who openly robs and oppresses [the poor], should no longer plunder, appropriate [himself] or plunder other people’s property - but, on the contrary, give what is his to the poor” (320AB; cf.: 325BC). “...let him abstain from all unjust income (πόρου), and let him use that wealth (πορισμῷ) which he justly possesses wisely (properly, καλῶς), sharing it 1270, as far as [this is] permissible, with those who are in need” (140D–141A). After all, it is the poor who “...with bitter sadness inform the Lord about the inexorable cruelty of our will (τῆς ... γνώμης)” (457B). Despite the severity of what has been said, Palamas is characterized by an “internal” position in relation to the social conflicts of his time: he tries to relieve their severity by not distancing himself from what is described and not blaming any social group of the population separately. Of course, this is connected with his pastoral ministry, while even Alexey Makremvolit’s Conversation between the Rich and the Poor, which is close to Palamas in ideological content, is built on the principle of binary opposition. Although the ideas expressed by the poor in Makremvolit are not just the same as those of Palamas, but even lose to the teacher of silence in radicalism: “...give us,” say the poor, “part of your surplus (Palama calls for giving away, if possible, all surpluses, and in any case, all unjustly acquired surpluses. - D. M.), so that they do not turn into a worm that will gnaw at you in eternity..." 1271 About the thefts and robberies that began in late Byzantium - alas! – a common occurrence, as reported by other authors. So, in relation to the army, St. mentions this. Athanasius I (1289–1293, 1303–1309) in the 36th letter, known for the sharp criticism it contains of the social system and morals of the Empire at the turn of the XIII-XIV centuries 1272. That is why, says the saint, the army cannot win (... πόθεν ἔξουσι τὸ νικᾶν;) 1273. Thus, the disease that St. speaks of. Gregory is a real ailment of Byzantine society, and everyone saw it. As for medicines, there are differences in the nuances of the approach to this problem among various church authors. As we have seen, Metropolitan Theoliptus of Philadelphia, in his First Epistle to Eulogia, a recent laywoman, widow and daughter of wealthy parents, offers a rather moderate option: to distribute part of the property. Simeon the New Theologian at the beginning of the 11th century was much more radical: “Whoever gave alms to a hundred [of the poor], but, having the opportunity to give to others, to give water and feed them, refused many who begged him and called on him, he will be condemned as having not fed Christ (cf. Matt. 25:40), because in all of these He is, and in each of the “lesser” we feed Him.” 1274. How to evaluate these words? As a product of severe monastic spirituality, a complete concentration on asceticism associated with the renunciation of earthly goods? Yes. But Palamas should not be opposed to this line of spirituality, for the Archbishop of Thessaloniki, in his instructions to the Orthodox, distinguishes, as it were, two levels in fulfilling the commandment of the Lord (Matthew 19:21). One is necessary for the laity, characterized by greater “loyalty” to the worldly way of life and thoughts and less rigorism. It was described above. When Palamas primarily means monks (as one should assume), the tone of his sermon becomes different: “... whoever gives away [his] property (τὰ ὄντα) becomes the cause of poverty for himself, and this poverty (by the power of God) ... gives birth to eternal glory, inexpressible pleasure and inexhaustible wealth ( ἀδαπάνητον )....” (141CD) 1275 . One of the justifications for the need to distribute property to the poor is 1 Cor. 7:29 1276. Based on this verse, Palamas develops the corresponding argument: “And if necessary things should be despised, how much more so should [everything] else be despised?” (261C; cf.: Ibid. D). But we find the same ideas in Simeon: “For whoever sold his property or squandered it on the poor and immediately became poor, in this alone he fulfilled all the particular commandments...” 1277. How should one live? In response, Palamas expresses the same “military” ideas that characterize the spirituality of early Egyptian and Palestinian monasticism during the times of Abba Arsenius and Anthony the Great. The indicative used in the following phrase (instead of the expected Conjunctivus exhortativus) allows us to understand the message as a whole both as historically reliable (as a statement of fact) and as a call for an appropriate course of action: “Just like during an enemy raid on the outskirts (suburbs) of this city, when it becomes an ordinary [phenomenon] (Καθάπερ δὲ πολεμίων ἐπιδρομής ἐπὶ τὰ ἐκτὸς τῆς πόλεως πυκνὰ γινομένης ), [when] our fields, as it were, cease to be ours [literally – “we possess these fields as if we do not possess them” – τοὺς ἀγροὺς ἔχομεν ὡς μὴ ἔχοντες "(261D–264A). M. Ya. Syuzyumov 1278 wrote about the connection between cities and their agricultural surroundings, singling out proastia, i.e., suburbs, as a special category. Palamas' news (to the extent that such a lapidary hint can be trusted) confirms the importance of these suburbs for the economic life of cities. Much more important, however, is the spiritual meaning of the above phrase. The one who gets rid of greed, Palamas addresses to the flock, will make every day a Sabbath for himself (284D). How to understand the above? In historiography, the opinion has been expressed that Palamas “... writes for one group, Cabasilas for all” 1279. The analysis carried out allows us to come to more differentiated conclusions: Palamas’ homilies are a complex multi-level text with a huge emotional and informative charge, which has an almost inexhaustible potential for spiritual and semantic content. Its structure (and this was consciously incorporated into the text by the author), the system of ideas developed in it contains an appeal to both (mainly) the monks and the layman with his aspirations and concerns. The difference in the corresponding calls, in which the second represents the initial stage of the first (more sublime and difficult to fulfill), is based on different principles and methods of spiritual work in these two cases - with the unity of the soteriological goal of this work. This duality goes back to the gospel opposition of law and grace 1280. The originality of Palamas’s pastoral position is not in strengthening the binary nature of these paths to the point of rigid opposition, but in their harmonization and mutual agreement: everyone needs to follow the first path (if only they all want to be Christians), but those who are capable, willing and able to move on can follow the second path. In this kind of harmonization, in the ability, without deviating from dogma, to reconcile its demands with “economy,” lies the pastoral wisdom of the teacher of silence. We can say that, ultimately, he will give the living water to everyone, but everyone takes from his sermon to the extent of their own perception. The leitmotif of the sermon is determined by the saying of the Savior: “Judge not, lest ye be judged...” (Matthew 7:1). “Let us have mercy [on others], so that we may be shown mercy many times (ἐλεήσωμεν ἵνα πολλαπλασίως ἐλεηθῶμεν),” says Palamas (165B). Since the topic of giving alms is inextricably linked with the topic of wealth and, on the other hand, poverty, beggars, misery, it would be appropriate to complete the corresponding section of the study by considering the latter topic. Really, what is poverty? Who are these beggars whom Palamas constantly calls for help? St. Gregory identifies three types of poverty (393B): 1) poverty of means necessary for life (τῶν πρὸς τὸ ζῇν ἀναγκαίων), the opposite of which is wealth; 2) physical poverty, i.e. thinness resulting from poor nutrition (ὀλιγοτροφίας) and a meager (can be translated “abstinent”) lifestyle (λιτῆς ἄγαν διαίτης), 3) “There is [and] another poverty - modesty (moderation, τὸ μετριάζον) and restraint (συνεσταλμένον) of spiritual thought (τοῦ φρονήματος τῆς ψυχῆς), what is... humility, [and] the opposite of this is pride (ἡ ὑπερηφανία)” (Ibid.; cf.: 184C). Poverty of spirit is commendable (393D; cf. Matt. 5:3) 1281. The following definition is especially important in Palamas: “The poor in spirit are those who, due to modesty, neglect of glory and pleasures ἀφιλήδονον), [inherent] in their spirit or soul 1282, either voluntarily fall into poverty [that comes] from outside, or [they] endure it with dignity, even if it was against their will" (180C). The motivation here is eschatological, as can be seen from the censure of the rich in the following phrase: “Those who possess wealth and enjoy [it] (εὐπαθοῦντες), and taste the temporary (προσκαίρου) 1283 this glory, and generally turn out to be lusting ( ἐπιθυμιταὶ τυγχάνοντες) such [pleasures], will fall (περιπαρῄσονται) to more terrible torments (πάθεσι)..." (Ibid.). However, perhaps more bitter (and in any case the most despicable) in the eyes of the author is the fate of one who, although he lives poorly, does not want to be poor and, despite poverty, “... does not reduce his expenses, does not earn his living by the labor of his hands (οὐδὲ ... ταῖς χερσὶ τὸ ζῇν ποριζόμενος) and does not ask from the wealthy (τῶν εὐπορούντων) with humility, but... becoming a thief, a robber, a desecrator of graves, a plunderer [of other people's property] (κλέπτης, λωποδύτης, τυμβώρυχος, ἅρπαξ), or a parasite [of strangers], a slanderer, a liar, hypocrite (παράσιτος, συκοφάντης, ψεύστης, ὑποκριτὴς), in a low and servile manner ingratiating himself into the trust of those who have (τοὺς ἔχοντας) in the hope of receiving some kind of handout from them (πορισμὸν). Isn’t this kind of beggar the most pitiful [of all]?” (393CD). In conclusion, Palamas denounces the moneylenders 1284. From his lips come both traditional (immorality, the increase not so much of money as of sin - the same love of money), and new arguments against the practice of lending money at interest, lying in the general mainstream of the Byzantine anti-usury polemic 1285: “Do you see how the usurer takes away glory not only from his soul, but also from the entire city, bringing upon him the accusation of inhumanity and... all untruths?” (Conversations... Part 3. P. 44). The awareness of the common destinies of the city and its inhabitants, regardless of the division into classes, occupies an important place in Palamas’ thoughts. Thanks to this, the coherence of the presentation is achieved and the traditional elements of criticism of usury are emphasized, its general social resonance is emphasized. As a result, a panorama of total dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs arises: “What warrior is now content with his... salary? Which of the archons (we correct “princes” in the translation of Archimandrite Ambrose, taking into account the Greek context of this term. - D. M.) does not open his mouth to the theft of other people’s property?.. Therefore, the poor mournfully cry out against all of you: at those in power, at those behind them, at those in military service... not putting up with the merciless... character of the tax collectors... already... and the current of the untruth that has flooded everything has reached the monks” (Conversations... Part 3. P. 236). Thus, the views of St. Gregory Palamas on the problems of wealth and poverty are diverse, but quite traditional. They find confirmation in the Gospel, directly based on the Sermon on the Mount, and in church tradition. The main thing in any difficulty, according to the saint, is a person’s spiritual attitude, thanks to which he, overcoming difficulties, acquires the saving grace of God - or, overwhelmed by doubts and passions, slides down to a sad but deserved ending. Social information in the sermons of St. Gregory has to be found bit by bit. But this does not make it any less valuable. Those grains of information that we have identified here are consistent with related data from other works of homiletics, rhetoric, and epistolography. This means that through the unique, special and particular - one body of sermons of one archbishop - we can come closer to understanding the most general and fundamental patterns of the era in question. Social stratification, the weakness of the productive forces of society and the insecurity of the means of production (of which land is considered the main thing - and therefore the only one worthy of mention) causes (in the perception of Gregory Palamas and Athanasius I, who was close to him in this matter) socio-political, military and economic (both in the city and in the agricultural sphere) turmoil. The growth of the latter determined the further disappointing history of the Byzantine city - and thereby of Byzantium as a whole. But even in these conditions, despite poverty - and in some ways thanks to it - the one who loved God “with all his heart... and with all his soul...” (Deut. 6:5; cf.: 11:1; 12:1) has a chance to be saved. The best summary of what was said in this section could be the words of Fr. John Meyendorff: “Having entered into an alliance with the state, the Church ceased to be a sect accessible only to a few. She took upon herself “catholic” responsibility for society as a whole. However, in doing so, she did not abandon her eschatological calling" 1286. That's why her voice was heard. § 4. Economic views of St. Gregory Palamas Palamas's economic views were more advanced for his time. He, in fact, proposed a theory of money as a universal equivalent and a connecting link in the circulation of goods and services in society. As I.P. Medvedev showed 1287, Palamas in this matter compares favorably with Plitho, since both of them rely on Aristotle, but Palamas revealed the role of money as an intermediary in the division of labor and as a means of exchange, which Plitho did not do. “Of bodily needs,” says Palamas, “we satisfy some with our own means, while others, with the help of others [people], we obtain [permission], giving our [services] to others.” Because one and the same [person] cannot be a scientist (γραμματικὸς) and a farmer, a tailor and weaver, a builder and a shoemaker... And since everyone cannot satisfy his need [for all this] on his own, and everyone certainly needs everything like that, a means has been invented - money (τὸ νόμισμα), with the help of which it is beneficial for life and the surplus is completely spent, and the deficiency is replenished. So, the farmer gives the surplus [of his labor] to those who are not engaged in farming, and, taking the price for it, buys, for example, a house or fabric... And so, through mutual communication (τῇ πρὸς ἀλλήλους κοινωνίᾳ) of all of us, our lives are arranged ( συνίσταται), and thanks to this, settlements and cities [emerge]. And man is a social being (καὶ κοινωνικὸν ζῶον ἐστίν ὁ ἄνθρωπος) "1288. But one can also doubt the novelty of these ideas. In early patristics one can find fairly close parallels to the passage cited. Thus, explaining the reasons for the joint settlement of people, Nemesius of Emesa writes: “Thanks to crafts and sciences (τὰς τέχνας καὶ ἐπιστήμας), as well as the needs [generated] by them, we need each other. And because we need each other, we, having gathered in large numbers in the same [place], enter into communication (κοινωνοῦμεν) with each other - [concluding with each other] agreements in accordance with the needs of life (this is the meeting (σύνοδον) and we live together called a city (πόλιν)) - in order to derive diverse benefits from each other (τὰς παρ’ἀλλήλων ὠφελείας) at a close distance, and not from afar. For man appeared as a living being, by nature leading a collective way of life, and political (συναγελαστικὸν καὶ πολιτικὸν ζῶον)" 1289. As we can see, Nemesius says nothing about money. But the ideas he expressed about the mutual communication of people within society (society) precede similar thoughts of Palamas, since they are based on the same source. After all, Aristotle’s “Politics” begins with the words: “Since, as we see, every state is a kind of communication, and every communication is organized for the sake of some good...” 1290. And what is good is what is in accordance with the nature of a being – in this case, a person. So, Palamas calls for the establishment of a socio-economic and political order that follows from human nature itself. In this sense, the organic theory of society outlined by him places the nuances somewhat differently in comparison with Aristotle’s model, according to which the existence of the state (and the ancient state, with its inherent slavery) follows from human nature (ζῷον πολιτικόν). Aristotle is followed by Pletho, for whom man is first of all πολίτης (as opposed to μονώτης) 1291. Palamas emphasizes not the importance of the state as a certain institution standing above society and regulating it from the outside, from a “position of being outside”, but the value of the natural (and therefore free) self-organization of the social community. It is assumed that the existence of the state is a secondary consequence of this “spontaneous” tendency towards cooperation and (may this neologism be forgiven us) cooperation of people. Palamas’s emphasis on the role of money most likely stemmed from observations of the reality around him (remember his thoughts about the love of money), from his own thoughts about the nature of society and from canon law. It is characteristic that, having exposed gross forms of financial abuse within society, the saint reveals to us the proper attitude towards money - as a means to satisfy human needs, in accordance with the measure of each person’s personal needs and social expediency (the latter, as we saw in § 3, is an important regulator of the former). Uninterrupted monetary circulation is a conditio sine qua non of the development and functioning of the social system. Money is ultimately intended to promote mutual communication, peace and unity. This approach may be based on Palamas’s inherent sense of the mystical primacy of the Church as the Body of Christ as a clergyman. But, of course, there is no need to exaggerate the novelty (novelty in our new European sense, where the new is not just a well-forgotten old thing returning in a new guise) of the model proposed by Palamas. Just as those manifestations of social injustice and discontent that he was forced to deal with every day as a shepherd and to the solution of which he directed all the means of influence and persuasion he had, do not claim to be new in the history of mankind and civilization. But it is obvious that Palamas enjoys special recognition from the working strata. Turning to the analysis of the problems (in the language of modern science) of the social division of labor in connection with the social structure of society itself, refracted through the prism of Palamas’ perception, is quite instructive. § 5. Social structure of Thessalonian society in the 1350s. according to the homily of Palamas The problem of the division of labor in society is inextricably linked with the problem of its social stratification. The problem of the social structure of the population of Byzantium, as shown by Russian and foreign studies 1292, is largely confused and complicated by the inconsistency of the sources that have come down to us, each of which offers its own classification scheme. Palamas is no exception. First of all, it divides the population into groups based on employment. The population of the Empire, according to Palamas, is occupied in three economic spheres: agriculture, the city and the trade that connects them. Palamas does not pay due attention to agricultural labor, occasionally using agricultural images to explain spiritual concepts (76D–77A). Rural products are supplied to food markets in cities (including Thessalonica), which are largely dependent on grain imports. Palamas writes about a cargo ship (ὁλκὰς) 1293, loaded with riches and approaching “this city” (τὴν πόλιν ταύτην) (460B) – i.e. Thessalonica. But the barbarians attacked the ship and, blocking the delivery of food from the land (τῶν ἐκ τῆς γῆς πρὸς τὸ ζῆν ἀφορμῶν), forced the city to surrender. However, “a merchant ship loaded with a thousand medimns of grain” (σίτου χιλιομέδιμνος ὁλκὰς) (460B) still lands in the city harbor, which saves the city from destruction. Analyzing, we can identify in these words a hint of the connection between the village and the city (one cannot exist without the other!), achieved through trade, indications of the development of the grain trade and the system of cargo transportation by sea 1294, as well as data on the capacity of standard merchant ships of that time and on weight measures 1295. It is noteworthy that, despite the tendency towards decentralization and (sometimes in the literal sense of the word) “dispersal of sovereignty” that swept the Empire, the need to unite the city and the periphery was clearly recognized by Palamas. How did he see the city? The social structure of the city is quite multi-layered. It identifies stable groups: the nobility (οἱ ἔνδοξοι – 180D) and the common people; archons and ruled; artisans of various specialties. The first and second members of the oppositions are respectively identical to each other: archons belong to the nobility, and the governed are deprived of this nobility. The concept of nobility is denoted through the term “δόξα”: δόξοι – ἄδοξοι. On the other hand, artisans (who make up the bulk of the τῶν ἀρχομένων) are contrasted with the nobility. Palamas names tanner (ὁ σκυτοτόμος), builder, tailor (ὁ ῥάπτης) and weaver as examples of craft specialties. The general designation of this group of people - “those who, by their labors and their own work, obtain [means] for living” (180B) - contrasts them with the nobility. Elsewhere, mention is made of “market traders (οἱ ἀγοραῖοι), innkeepers (κάπηλοι) and other merchants (ἔμποροι)” (492A). The last word, unlike the first two, from ancient times denoted people engaged in wholesale, and, moreover, overseas trade 1297. The position of merchants, innkeepers and artisans, as can be understood from the fragmentary mentions of Palamas, is rather unenviable: merchants are clearly separated from the ruling layer of the nobility; subject to the love of money, says the saint, “not only those who rule us, but also market traders οἱ ἀγοραίοι)" (Ibid.). Is it possible to see in such a clear separation of archons and merchants at least a vague hint of the participation of a certain group of merchants in the Zealot movement? One thing, however, is clear: that these merchants, by their socio-economic status and socio-political orientations, belonged to the “middle class” of Thessalonica (and late Byzantine society as a whole), as the saint points out 1298. Further, “tavern keepers and other merchants” use false measures and weights - obviously hoping to make a fortune in such an unjust way (Ibid.). Such acts were condemned by the Church in 1299. All of them, says Palamas, will incur punishment (Ibid.). The situation of the artisans is literally depressing: it is on them that Palamas places the main blame for the robberies and destruction of the houses of the nobility during the Zealot uprising. Here is a famous passage from the First Homily: “[The city] is at war with itself, is defeated by itself (πολεμεῖται), trampled under its own feet, leveled to the ground with its own hands, confused by its own cries, [since] the best (τῶν ... κρειττόνων ) they are in captivity, and it is ruled – [and, moreover,] badly – by the artisan and [in general] the worst [of him] (τοῦ βαναύσον καὶ χείρονος... μέρους)” (12D–13A). The behavior of the lower classes causes moral condemnation in Palamas, but also makes him assume the socio-economic reasons for the terror. D. Zakifinos speaks about the “economic malaise” (malaise économique), caused by stagnation of productive forces and depletion of resources, in Byzantium of the 14th century, based on numerous sources. Late Byzantine trade and craft fell catastrophically behind the West, echoed by L. Maksimovich 1301. And V. A. Smetanin is hardly right when he speaks “... about the privileged position of urban artisans” 1302. It is they who, I think, were the main driving force of the Zealot uprising. Palamas could have noticed this with an unprejudiced eye. The news reported by the Archbishop of Thessaloniki, with all its scarcity, allows us to agree with the conclusion of M. Ya. Syuzyumov: “The main force in the movement of the Zealots was the working population of the city” 1303. Further progress in the study of the revolt could be achieved by compiling a table of social categories identified by all currently known Byzantine authors of the 14th century. (not only by historians) in relation to the Empire as a whole, drawing analogies with other urban movements in late Byzantium and clarifying the evolution of the relationship of various social forces at different stages of the existence of the Zealot commune. Along with merchants and traders, Palamas identifies another intermediate social group, which in its status is between the nobility and the bulk of the people (however, we do not find the generalizing term ὁ δῆμος in Palamas). “...The Church of Christ,” says Palamas, “and especially in this huge city (κατὰ τὴν μεγαλόπολιν ταύτην), has [in its composition] not only simpletons (ἰδιώτας), but also wise men ( σοφούς)" (431С), i.e. intellectuals who, by nature or due to education (τῇ μελέτῃ) are knowledgeable both in external (τῶν ἔξω) and in “internal”, i.e., in accordance with Christian doctrine, sciences ( τῶν καθ’ἡμᾶς μαθημάτων)" (Ibid.). This means that among the intellectuals there were representatives of both church and secular-humanistic circles. It is obvious that it is the latter that Palama warns: “those who are striving for the sciences (περὶ λόγους ... σπουδακόσιν) and the possession of wisdom consistent with them (τῆς καθ’αὐτοὺς σοφίας), if they want to be saved, even greater effort and diligence is needed...” (181B). This σοφία, achieved through persistent intellectual work, makes its owners σοφοί (we find them designated as σοφοί in 413C). Who could these σοφοί be? What is Palamas’ emphasis on this rather sensitive issue for him? The very fact that he speaks calmly and approvingly of intellectuals, without introducing the slightest bit of ridicule or sarcasm, makes it probable that these intellectuals may include both laymen and representatives of monastic circles. Suffice it to recall figures like Maxim Planud or Joseph Rackendit. The news of Palamas 1304 is in harmony with data from other sources and the conclusions of a number of researchers about the spiritual and intellectual upsurge that Thessalonica experienced during the 14th century. It seems that M.V. Bibikov had no serious reasons to doubt this 1305. It remains to make a couple of comments: the historical consciousness of Palamas and his inherent sense of history is evidenced by the mention of the persecuting emperors of the 1st–2nd centuries. (Nero, Domitian, Trajan) in 465A, although this does not allow us to talk about Palamas’ deep knowledge of history and special interest in it. In 544C to the same object of narration - a group of believers instructed by St. Demetrius of Thessaloniki, while the people of Maximian Herculius are trying to seize (and are seizing) the martyr, two definitions are successively applied - τὸν λαὸν (meaning “people (faithful)”, i.e. “supporters of piety”) and τὸ πλῆθος (“multitude”). The latter term is devoid of any negative connotations 1306. Thus, we can talk about the beginnings of social terminology in Palamas, however, they appeared on the pages of the sermon by accident and were never developed into a coherent system. § 6. Political views of Palamas: features of the concept of the symphony? From the problems of stratification we move on to the political concept of Palamas. And here again we will be helped by reasoning about social structure. Starting from the opposition ἄρχοντες – ἀρχόμενοι, Palamas continues to instruct the audience: “Rulers 1307, “judge righteous judgment” (Zech. 7:9) and do not use force against your subjects; show them... a fatherly attitude, remembering that you are of the same kind with them and are fellow slaves. And do not go against the subordination of the Church and its teachings... Subjects, consider it your duty in relation to the authorities to fulfill only that which does not serve as an obstacle to the promised hope for the kingdom of heaven" (Conversations (omilia)... Part 3. P. 19). These words unfold a whole socio-political program, consonant with the previous achievements of Byzantine political thought. It seems to us that Palamas here calls for harmony and interaction, or - in Byzantine style - a symphony of secular and ecclesiastical authorities. The symphony theory has long roots in Byzantine culture, starting with Eusebius of Caesarea, calling the basileus "a kind of images (icons) of Christ" (εἰκωνικούς τινας Χριστούς) 1308, and St. Justinian (Nov. 6. Praef.) 1309. The power of the emperor (which is clearly expressed by Constantine Porphyrogenitus) is from Christ, and some panegyrists even assured that he was like God and Christ (George Pisidas) 1310, which sometimes caused the opposition of the Church Fathers (John of Damascus) 1311. Finally, in the “Syntagma” of Matthew Blastar, created just at the beginning of the hesychast disputes, in 1335 1312, συμφωνία ἐν πᾶσιν 1313 is proclaimed between the emperor and the patriarch. Therefore, it is more accurate to speak specifically about a symphony, and not about theocracy, as I. F. Meyendorff and D. Nykol do 1314. Let us listen to how Palamas juxtaposes the basileos and the priests in the magnificent encomium of St. Demetrius of Thessalonica: “...the kings, more adorned with piety than with royalty, stand together with us (συμπαριστᾶσιν ἡμῖν) and applaud with us (συνεπικροτοῦσιν ), when we sing of the valor of the martyr...” (548AB). At the same time, the whole city gathers (Ibid.). According to Byzantine ceremonial books, the emperor held rank in the church hierarchy in 1315. J. Dagron, based on one of the fragments of the coronation protocol of Manuel II, comes to the conclusion that this was the dignity of δεποτᾶτος 1316; the text, however, allows for a more expansive interpretation: “And [here], having gathered together, οἱ δεποτᾶτοι bring a gold-woven mantle to the basileus, in his right [hand] they give him a rod (νάρθηκα), and he (basileus. - D. M.) leads the procession (walks in front, προοδοποιεῖ) priests...” 1317 It is further described how the emperor, having ascended the pulpit, sits on one of the two thrones, specially prepared for him, and after the ascension “Holy, holy, holy...” enters the altar and with his own hand receives the Holy Gifts from the Liar 1318. In accordance with the structure and general ideological concept of the text, it seems that there is no particular evidence in favor of seeing in the above words a hint that the emperor also has the rank of δεποτᾶτος; but the very situation of the proximity of the bearer of the highest secular power to representatives of spiritual power is akin to what we are told about in the text of Palamas. It seems (in the light of the above sources) that the lapidary and seemingly casual remark of St. Gregory is far from accidental and reflects the political and church practice of that time. For Palamas, it is important not only to note the very fact of the joint appearance of the archbishop (which he himself was) and the basileus at the altar, but also - through the introduction of this image into the rhetorical-stylistic fabric of the sermon-encomium - to emphasize something conceptually important. This is also shown by his words: “How much worse... are those people who... do not show due loyalty to the kings appointed by God... do not humble themselves under... the hand of God and do not submit to the Church of Christ...” (Conversations (omilia)... Part 3. pp. 43–44). Palamas notes the piety of the emperor in full (and, presumably, conscious) accordance with the Eusebian 1319, Justinian (clearly expressed by Agapit 1320) and historiographical (suffice to mention George Amartol 1321) traditions that dominated Byzantium. God - Church - Basileus - what could be more universal and significant in the political theory of the Byzantines? Raised by Palamas to a rhetorical and almost symbolic level of generalization, the theory of the symphony found another – no less vivid – expression in Byzantium at the end of the 14th century. We are talking about a letter from Patriarch Anthony IV to Moscow Grand Duke Vasily I Dmitrievich (1393), mentioned by I. Meyendorff and in recent years analyzed in detail by V. A. Smetanin 1322. As we see, Palamas stands on a par with other secular and spiritual thinkers of Byzantium, who were concerned about the relationship between the Church and the state. Further, in the above tirade of Palamas we encounter the idea that the emperor is the father of his subjects (it seems there is no need to prove the age of this idea), that the emperor is not a special creation of God 1323, but a person like everyone else; that church institutions and doctrine are not a direct and perfect gift of God, but the fruit of the cooperation and pious thought of those led by the Holy One. The spirit of people; finally, that in the minds of an ordinary citizen, obedience to the emperor should not drown out thoughts about the eternal Kingdom, in accordance with the commandment of Christ: “...render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). All these thoughts of Palamas, expressed as if in passing, are of certain value when considering the political consciousness of representatives of the spiritual elite of the time of the Palaiologos. With the exception of a few intellectuals (primarily among humanists), it has not developed into a coherent theory. In relation to Palamas, one can rather talk about the elements of such a theory in his mind, about greater realism and a sense of life. All this was captured in the sermon. § 7. Everyday and ritual behavior of the middle and lower strata of the city in the coverage of the homilies of Palamas You can’t deny Palama’s sense of life and keen observation. Pastoral duty forced the saint to encounter various manifestations of magic and superstition. Therefore, the homilies pay some attention to the characteristics of folk life, customs and culture of ordinary Byzantines, and also, possibly, of the nobility. We will limit ourselves to a comprehensive analysis of Palamas’s data on the existence of heresies, witchcraft and some rituals of the folklore-carnival type in the urban environment, using information from both modern St. Gregory, and earlier sources. In the Sixth Homily of St. Gregory Palamas contains two fragments to which scholars have not yet paid due attention: “Over the past two weeks, gluttony and intemperance have increasingly taken possession of the city (i.e., Thessalonica - D.M.), and [behind them] - right there - riots, screams, skirmishes and [other] noise: dissolute songs, satanic round dances and obscene laughter. But the fast that came this week turned all [this] to something higher...” (hereinafter – Fr. 1) 1324. “Where is now the slaughter of dumb animals and the smell of fat from their burning, where is the preparation of all kinds of delicacies and the troubles of the cooks? Where are those who run around the streets and pollute the air with unclean sounds? Where are those who knock on rattles and play flutes in homes and feasts, as well as those who recline in front of them, applaud them together, and get immoderately drunk to the timbrels and flutes of the performers? Where are those who spend days and nights in feasts, looking out for where the drinking is going on, and en masse driving each other into drunkenness and the indecency that stems from it? The ensuing fast brought with it everything good, and everything bad disappeared” (hereinafter – Fr. 2) 1325. Both passages occupy an important place in the structure of speech. They are marked both lexically (an abundance of rare words) and stylistically. Using the terminology developed in the Moscow-Tartu semiotic school 1326, we can say that these fragments form a kind of “accusatory text” in the homily, moreover, they represent the quintessence of this text. They reflect with the maximum degree of expressiveness, reaching the level of figurative-epic generalization, everything that caused the greatest disgust and hostility in Palamas the preacher. A whole series of images and themes, despite their traditional nature, attracts our attention in this regard. It is obvious that such elements of the text play a certain – and far from auxiliary – role in the author’s worldview, being valuable both in their function as carriers of historical information, and as indicators - exponents of a certain attitude towards it. Therefore, they require historical interpretation (a special task, often only difficult to solve with the help of modern research optics, which involves defining - and distinguishing - the features of stereotypedness and stereotypes from historical truth). An attempt at such an interpretation - that is, a certain correlation of the news of Palamas with a range of similar events and facts that we know about from other sources independent of him, and through this - an understanding of some more general features of the urban culture of Thessalonica in the 1350s. - and this section 1327 is devoted to. First of all, the question arises about the levels of information presented by Palamas - and, accordingly, about its reliability. It is obvious that some of the elements in the list just quoted are topoi. Palamas did not need to be particularly observant to notice manifestations of drunkenness and gluttony, which were noted, of course, both before him and after 1328. Palamas's interpretation of the topic of drunkenness can be compared with the approach to this subject, reflected in some ancient Russian works of the homiletics genre (however, their attribution is difficult - I mean “Teachings of the Philosopher, Bishop of Belgorod” 1329). Both authors associate drunkenness with the action of evil spirits; for Palamas, drunkenness is “... an embodied demon, corruption of thoughts, relaxation (παράλυσις) of the body; life worse than death; the beginning [ἀφορμή – possible translation “reason”] of the falling away from God” (488B). According to the Belgorod bishop, “there is no man more unhappy than a drunkard... the devil pleases you more than Christ... Satan triumphs in you... everyone lies as if dead drunk, like idols... Woe to me! Woe is me! How did the Lord God arrange this on those days in which I did not expect to see people honoring the deeds of the demon?!” 1330 Palamas names wine drinking (πολυποσία), drunkenness (μέθη) and intoxication (οἰνοφλυγία) among the grave sins, including gluttony, gluttony, etc. (see: 141B; 417D; Ch. 2 and table 3). These sins are characteristic of novices or laity 1331. They are destructive by nature: drunkenness is called St. Gregory is among those sins because of which God moved away from man and sent a flood to the earth. Being one of the most serious sins, it “honours” the sinner with eternal fire in the afterlife (the parallel between the images of the earthly - wine - and the transcendental - fire - is obvious) 1332. Reflected in Fr. 1 and 2 the perception of the city as a single organic whole (“...gluttony and intemperance... took possession of the city..."), which has New Testament origins and is characteristic of Byzantine social thought 1333, is also inherent in Gregory of Belgorod: “How can I, seeing not only the houses, but the whole city, not only the city, but also its surroundings burning, completely burned, and not like a tree from fire, but from the flame of those dying, then I will not grieve with my soul and, as far as I have the strength, not Shall I try to put out the flame?” 1334 Here there is a similarity with Palamas on two main issues: about the comprehensive, social, civilizational and (we would even say) “cultural-ecological”, in the sense of “ecology of culture”, harm of drunkenness; that this harm is only a visible reflection of mental and spiritual suffering. Close to Palamas, but even more detailed in the Belgorod bishop’s description of the wicked actions of drunkards (we will quote only a small part): “When you get drunk, then you fornicate and jump, sing and dance (in Palamas the city itself “screams” - D. M.), and blow the pipes, ...blaspheme and get angry, lie, be arrogant, curse and blaspheme, scream and quarrel, the sea is knee-deep..." 1335 Such a listing is one of the features of folk, non-elite literature. As a Byzantine parallel, one can recall the satirical dialogues “Timarion” (XII century) and “Mazaris” (XV century) 1336. In the actual church literature of Byzantium, Palamas’s reproaches against hawkmoths were, of course, not unique: St. Athanasius I sharply condemned drunkenness and the resulting indecent behavior in 1337 (not to mention Chrysostom). Thus, here Palamas thinks and feels, continuing and developing the church tradition. In his characterization of drunkenness, however, the Archbishop of Thessaloniki is specific. As can be assumed based on its text, feasts, meals and feasts, accompanied by stormy libations, were held both in the houses of the nobility and in the dwellings of common people. This kind of entertainment, perhaps since the time of Plato’s “Symposium,” was characterized by reclining poses, performances by musicians and applause, which gave the picture as a whole an element of theatricality 1338 . At such feasts, improvised stage performances were performed in which actors and mimes took part. The question of the admissibility of the participation of the clergy in such feasts worried the Byzantine clergy back in the first third of the 12th century, as evidenced by the “Various Questions and Answers...” of Thessaloniki Metropolitan Nikita of Maronea (the same one who uncritically accepted the doctrine of the Filioque). The document was compiled, according to Rallis and Potlis, under Patriarch John IX Agapit and Emperor John Komnenos (i.e., apparently, in 1118–1134) 1339. This contains an order for the priest to leave the party as soon as theatrical performances, games and entertainment begin to take place ( τὰ παίγνια); “...whoever acts in disagreement with this (contrary to this, παρὰ ταῦτα) is excommunicated [from the Church] and is subject to punishment in accordance with the canons (κανονικῶς)” 1340. One should not look for a clear social connection to these lines: such customs are characteristic of almost all segments of the population (and the priests themselves, as the text shows, were no exception). We are convinced that the discussion should not be about the Church’s criticism and condemnation of a certain layer of urban and folk culture, but about the censure of a certain mode of behavior of urban (and, apparently, to a lesser extent rural) strata, an unworthy and obscene (from the point of view of the clergy) form of organizing leisure time. The next layer of information that can be identified in the messages under consideration (especially Fr. 1) is information of a general order, which allows (and requires) historical interpretations, but only with reservations regarding their approximation (since the objects in question are a kind of “fuzzy sets” of historical existence and knowledge and are not amenable to unambiguous spatio-temporal reference: this happened everywhere where people were, and Byzantium is no exception). In this part of the text we are talking (speaking in the most general form) about folklore-carnival customs (a topic outlined as a subject for Byzantine studies by A.P. Kazhdan and J. Constable, and in recent years fruitfully studied by N.D. Barabanov) 1341, as well as about some phenomena of social psychology (which, in turn, is the subject of one of the last essays by A.P. Kazhdan 1342). We, for our part, will offer a range of possible interpretations. The very beginning of Fr. is attractive. 1: “Over the past two weeks...” Why did Palamas take this particular chronology as his starting point? Does this emphasized marking of time not contain a hint of ritualized celebrations (characteristic of the folk, lower level of religiosity 1343) having pagan origins, but assimilated by the popular consciousness and raised by it to the level of Christian-pagan syncretism 1344 - in particular, on the holiday of the return of spring? 1345 After all, both in Byzantium and in Rus', as is known 1346, Lent begins after Maslenitsa... “Riots, shouts, clashes and... noise” could also be associated with folk festivals and round dances caused by rejoicing at the spring awakening of nature. After all, back in the 12th century. In Byzantium, remnants of ancient festivals of fire worship were recorded, with jumping over fires, festivities and fun on St. John, when the girls were wondering about their fate 1347. And from the 13th century. The script for the mystery play “The Resurrection of St. Lazarus”, the emotional reactions of the audience to which could be very violent (cf. also the famous “Cave Action”) 1348. In general, one must assume that the sphere of emotional manifestations of the Byzantines was much more extensive (including violent emotional outbursts) than can be imagined based on a traditional selection of sources. Such reactions (including riots and “indecent laughter”) could be provoked by the performances of acrobats and street jugglers 1349, as well as pantomimes 1350. It is less likely (but this possibility cannot be discounted) that “debaucherous songs, satanic round dances and obscene laughter” can be correlated by Palamas with wedding rituals, when at dusk (as described by A.P. Kazhdan) “... a crowd of relatives and friends approached the bride’s house with musicians and torches” 1351, forming a cheerful and elegant festive procession (there is no need to remind that During Lent, the Church does not bless the holding of such events). But it seems that in a big city, the above factors could have been enough for Palamas’ semi-concrete hints to appear. It is precisely the thought of folk folklore-carnival culture as the main object of rejection and criticism of the preacher that is suggested by familiarization with the “Forty-nine Chapters” of Joseph Bryennius (c. 1382–1402), which contains the following lines: “Since we are not ashamed to complete the sacred rites of festivals with playing pipes and round dances, all sorts of satanic songs, cheerful processions and drinking bouts and other obscene habits... we worship oak forests. Since some of us, and Orthodox Christians at that, fumigate fig trees and cucumbers and certain parts of the house... And some reverently bow before the rejuvenating moon... Since we celebrate the Kalends, wear amulets of March (March is the time of Palamas’ sermon. - D. M.), decorate ourselves with wreaths of May, make divinations and jump over bonfires...” 1352 - To this We will return to the text later. The striking coincidence of the two texts in the accusatory intonation and the details they convey (down to the smallest details) is striking. I think this is not just a matter of rhetoric... 1353 But the most interesting thing in Palamas’ text under study is the third layer: specific information, which correlates with a narrow and well-defined range of facts and therefore can be interpreted quite reliably. We are talking about the beginning of Fr. 2. It seems that the reference here to animal sacrifices (with the word σφαγή meaning blood sacrifice, practiced since ancient times) and to the burning of victims with a sufficient degree of certainty indicates the presence of marginal groups among the population of Thessalonica. We receive certain information on this matter from Nikita Maroneisky’s “Questions and Answers”. The last question and answer are devoted to this topic. The author clearly differentiates two types of cult behavior associated with the offering of animals to the church: sacrifice and wearing their skins on oneself as some kind of “particles” of animals - which is reprehensible and unacceptable - and the offering by parishioners to the priest, on the one hand, of bulls and sheep for blessing, and on the other - carcasses of livestock or poultry for food (“for the priest must feed from his priesthood...” 1354). Both customs - both good and bad - have been practiced by the Greeks for a long time; the latter - under the name "qurbani" - is also known from a number of other sources, both documentary and hagiographic 1355. Nikita Maroneisky writes about this; “To bring animals, and [including] sheep, into churches, and for priests to slaughter them and wear them according to a long-standing [custom], as choice parts 1356, their breasts and skins, and also to sacrifice doves on the tombs of the dead - [this] is downright something Jewish (Ἰουδαϊκόν ἄντικρύς ἐστι) and Hellenic, and [as such] worthy of censure and correction (i.e., in fact, eradication. - D. M.)" 1357. As we see, sacrifices (in accordance with the long tradition of polemics) were considered in the Byzantine Church as echoes (and, in fact, a relic) of the cult practices of paganism and Judaism, that is, the main (along with heresies) opponents of Christianity, to which from the 7th century. Islam added (not to mention the schism of the Church in 1054). The circle of those whom Palamas could have in mind in the Sixth Homily (Fr. 2) thus becomes more (but not completely) defined. The performers of animal sacrifices, their direct spectators and participants could be, on the one hand, ordinary believers and parish priests (both rural and urban parishes, which arouses the wrath of Palamas); on the other hand, representatives of marginal and oppositional religious movements to the Orthodox Church. In accordance with the data of the late Byzantine hereseological tradition, it is most logical to assume that the latter could include Jews, Armenians and, possibly, Bogomils (the latter version is less likely, but cannot be excluded a priori). What data at our disposal allows us to shed additional light on the problem of identifying the persons and movements criticized by Palama? For a more complete description of religious and pseudo-religious practices opposed to the Church, we present one more fragment - from the Thirty-first Homily, pronounced by St. Gregory at the prayer service performed on the first day of August: “Because those who resort to healers (ἐπῳδὰς) and witches (γοητείας) deny the existence of God, contact demons, kill their souls... looking for something to find out or find out ( μαθεῖν, ἢ παθεῖν) 1358 from sorcerers and soothsayers (γοήτων καὶ μάντεων), deny the presence of God among us [or – “what is God with us”: εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν ἐν ἡμῖν ]” (400АВС) (hereinafter referred to as Fr. 3). These data, coupled with what is reported in Fr. 2 is sufficient for more solid leads. First of all, it should not be ruled out that the analyzed news of Palamas may contain a hint of the Bogomil heresy. The problem of the relationship between hesychasm and Bogomilism is one of the most complex; M. Loos emphasizes that Bogomilism persisted in the Balkans (including Byzantium) until the end of the 14th century. 1359. The largest surge in late Bogomil activity was the activity in 1341–1344. in a number of monasteries of the Holy Mountain, a group of heretics led by Joseph of Crete and the nun Irina (Porina) and formed in Thessalonica 1360. During his trips from Athos (in 1326 and 1338–1347), St. repeatedly entered into polemics with the Bogomils. Gregory Palamas 1361. The Bogomils were also in Thessalonica during the Zealot uprising. They openly ridiculed the Eucharist and other sacraments of the Church. Naturally, the Church could not tolerate such a state of affairs. The people also hated them - and back in 1343 he killed several of them in the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1362. After condemnation at the Synod of Kareas in 1344, some of the Bogomil monks again fled to Thessalonica in 1363. Therefore, their presence in the city during the years of the bishop’s service of St. Gregory Palamas is very likely. There is also indirect evidence that allows us to connect the analyzed news of Palamas with Bogomilism. The Life of Theodosius of Tarnovo notes that the Bogomil monk Theodosius came from Constantinople to Tarnovo and taught the local population there to worship a certain oak tree, as well as to sacrifice sheep and lambs (compare the data on bloody sacrifices performed under the oak tree - “Alexander” in the Life of Constantine the Philosopher, which, however, dates back to the 9th century and can be related as with the autochthonous tradition, and with the influence of the Khazar Kaganate!) 1364. In addition, the Bogomils, according to polemicists, “eat and drink like elephants,” indulge in false fortune-telling 1365, being associated with demons, which echoes some passages of Palamas himself 1366. In chapter 28 of “One Hundred and Fifty Chapters,” the teacher of silence explains that philosophers and astronomers (ἀστροθεάμονες) could not comprehend God, but built churches to the prince of darkness and the fallen spirits subject to him, called them gods and made sacrifices to them (καὶ θυσίας αὐτοῖς προσήνεγκαν) 1367, and also obeyed their oracles (θεσπίομασιν) 1368. The treatise was written, apparently, in 1349–1350. 1369 As you might guess, Palamas is hinting at his contemporary situation, and we are talking here not only about humanists... But every hypothesis is a hypothesis. What are the other possibilities for interpreting Fr. 2? This is partly indicated by Palamas himself. And it is precisely these instructions that make it possible to put Fr. 1 and Fr. 2 into the context of Byzantine hereseology of the 14th century, represented primarily by the letters and epistles of St. Patriarch Athanasius I (1289–1293; 1303–1309). Of these, 114 were fully published by A.-M. M. Talbot, but a whole series, unfortunately, remains in manuscripts and was published only in fragments, and precisely in the part that interests us (see subsequent links). Interpreting the conversion of the Gospel Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10), Palamas says: “... if anyone... shows obedience to the Word,... he... becomes Zacchaeus and leaves half of the teachings of the Law that previously belonged to him... To the Jews, such as: way of thinking, circumcision, subservience, immersion, bloody sacrifices and, in a word, everything inherent in the base letter” 1370. Here we again risk finding ourselves faced with rhetoricae purae, but as long as this rhetoric has at least some connection to reality (Thessalonica has been a major Jewish center since New Testament times, and in the 14th century. Jews migrated there in large waves from Germany, Spain and Hungary, fleeing the Reconquista, plague epidemics and persecution by Western European sovereigns) 1371, it cannot be denied following historical truth. Polemics with Jews and Armenians occupy an important place in the consciousness and literary heritage of Athanasius I: these images are among his frequent ones. Thus, in the 36th letter, the patriarch says: “Since the Church was desecrated and attacked (ἐβεβηλώθη καὶ κατεβλήθη) ... the common people were not only left without instruction (ἀδίδακτος), but also denigrated (which should not [be]) - due to the introduction [into] Jews and Armenians Ἀρμενίων καταμιαίνεται )" 1372. Regarding the Armenians, it should be noted 1373 that it is in the Armenian Church that the custom of liturgical animal sacrifice, which once existed both in other parts of the Christian world and in Byzantium itself, has been preserved for a long time: according to the “Narration of the construction of the church of the great church of God, called Hagia Sophia” (VIII-IX centuries, contains material from earlier sources), the ritual of consecration of the main church the Byzantine capital in 537 included the sacrifice in front of the church (in the form of slaughter) of a huge number of animals - oxen, deer, sheep, pigs - and birds (chickens and roosters) 1374. In addition, Armenians from the 7th century. were subject to a special kind of iconoclastic heresy (the so-called actist movement in Monophysitism) 1375. And this topic was very pressing for the era of hesychast disputes - hesychasts, as you know, were also accused of disrespecting icons 1376. Therefore, one can think that this is not just a cliche and that the Armenians really caused concern to the church administration at the imperial level (cf. the tradition of anti-Armenian polemics in past centuries - St. Proclus of Constantinople, Photius, Nikita Stifat, etc.). Perhaps it is precisely the Armenians that Palamas’ just quoted invective against making bloody sacrifices has in mind. Who knows if similar phenomena were observed in the second largest city of the Empire? Jews were part of the structure of Byzantine society, although remaining, however, on the periphery of this structure - for example, many of them were healers, and the censure of those who seek healing “... from the Jews and other heretics” 1377 occupies a prominent place among the invective of Patriarch Athanasius I to his contemporary society, as well as from Joseph Bryennius 1378. It naturally flows into a prohibition (and anathema to its violators) in case of everyday troubles, sadness and need, “...to resort – [to one’s own] destruction – to magicians, soothsayers and sorcerers (μὴ πρὸς μάγους καὶ μάντεις ... 1380 and falsely promise healing to those who [have fallen] into the abyss of recklessness ( καταμαντευόμενα), as well as amulets (φυλακτά)....” 1381 - the list is quite indicative. To it should be added (from another fragment of the same manuscript) “...fortune telling by the flight of birds, divination (οἰωνισμοὺς καὶ κληδονισμούς)... conspiracies (var. - spells) ( ἐξορκισμούς )....” 1382, etc. Something similar was observed in the Thessalonica Church two centuries earlier: in the already mentioned “Questions and Answers” of Nikita of Maronea, a special paragraph is devoted to the punishments of those who commit conspiracies (ἐπαοιδός), sorcerers (φαρμακός) or persons indulging in magic (which is not specified) at the fork of three roads ( τριοδεύων ). All these persons for their pagan behavior (τῆς ἐθνικῆς εἰσι συνήθειας) are subject to the most serious punishment: if the sinner is a priest, then he is deprived of his rank (καθαιρεῖται) and excommunicated from the Church (ἀποῤῥίπτεται) according to the 3rd and 6th rules of the Council of Laodicea; if a layman - “he is completely ejected from the Church (ἐκβάλλεται τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τελείως)” 1383. The picture turns out to be quite complete. If we use the generalization of Athanasius himself, then we have before us what can be called “Hellenic intricacies” (τερθρεῖαν ἑλληνικήν)” 1384. This same “false gnosis” is also condemned by Palamas. But the tragedy of the situation that he had to face was that in the socio-political, economic and spiritual life of the Empire at that time there were many reasons for such outbursts of “heterodoxity”. Let's take a closer look at these features of the social life of the Empire in order to raise our vision of the problem to a higher level. The socio-political situation in Thessalonica in the middle of the 14th century, as in the Byzantine Empire as a whole, was unstable, and the socio-psychological situation was alarming. People were unsure of their present and future; even discerning minds and hearts were overcome by apprehension and fear 1385. Fear grew into total pessimism, giving way to the darkest images and forebodings 1386 - a huge blind monster of fate threatens to sink the theater of the ikumen θέατρον) 1387, and the ship of the Empire goes to the bottom 1388. Under these conditions, it will not seem surprising that just in 1351–1352, under Patriarch Callistus I, the trial of the magician Cappadocis, brought from Thessalonica, was held in Constantinople. Among other things, he was charged with making predictions (πρό τίνος καιροῦ ἐπὶ κακῷ ἐνταῦθα ἐπιστάς) 1389, and performing magical practices (τὴν γὰρ μαγικὴν κακοτεχνίαν... ἐξησκημένος ) 1390 . The mention in connection with this process of “magic books” (μετὰ τῶν μαγικῶν αὐτοῦ βιβλίων) 1391 could have meant, in addition to “recipe collections” of an applied nature, which probably existed in a marginal environment (something similar is described for Western European area by D. E. Kharitonovich) 1392, and generalizing works of a doctrinal nature, such as the “Secret Book” of the Bogomils 1393. This was not the only case. Already in 1338, along with Kabbalistic signs, terms and phenomena known to us are mentioned - “fortune telling, healing, incantations, playing the cithara (cf. Fr. 2. - D. M.), demonic songs, questioning the spirits...” 1394 Therefore, what is narrated in Athanasius in an expanded context - in relation to the scale of the entire Empire - may be to a certain extent caution is also interpolated to the level of Thessalonica as a separate urban center. This is confirmed by the data of St. Gregory Palamas and charters of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. When we turn to Palamas's homilies - for all their laconicism - we can get a fairly definite panorama of the development of the urban subculture of the Byzantine “rebellious age” (the term of A. M. Panchenko) 1395 - or, at least, the excesses of this development. Thus, a researcher of late medieval religiosity, analyzing the problem of the relationship between Christianity, heresies and magical practices in late Byzantium, cannot help but see that these phenomena are characterized by a number of common features. Among these features is the practice of sacrifice, universal in paganism and (judging, in particular, from ancient Russian sources - the “Words” of Serapion of Vladimir (XIII century), the “Teaching” of Metropolitan Cyprian - the last quarter of the XIV century) quite widespread in the Byzantine-Slavic area in the era under consideration 1396. Therefore St. Gregory Palamas could address his reproaches (as they were addressed) to a fairly wide audience. Let's try to understand (at least in the most general terms) what kind of reality stood behind these reproaches, what general processes caused them. Understanding the instability of conclusions drawn on the basis of a narrow source base, we will nevertheless try to expand the horizon of vision of the problem. For processes that are genetically purely Hellenic (kurbania), Greco-Roman (folk theater) 1397 or Indo-European (fortune-telling) go in this case hand in hand with pan-Eurasian ones. The 14th century was marked by an economic, socio-psychological and spiritual crisis 1398 both in the European-Mediterranean space (including Byzantium) and in the Asian territories 1399. “The tragedy of the situation,” writes S.P. Karpov, “lies in the fact that around 1350, economic decline and socio-political destabilization simultaneously affected the territories of Eurasia from China, which was under the rule of the Mongols, to the Atlantic. But if the West still remained on the periphery of this crisis... The Black Sea region, Byzantium and Latin Romania were at its epicenter” 1400. One of the manifestations of this crisis was an increased belief in demonology, Kabbalah and the pursuit of magical-occult knowledge 1401, and in Western Europe - witch hunts (something similar, however, we just observed in Byzantium). A. X. Gorfunkel is inclined to associate the latter with “the crisis of humanistic culture, the collapse of humanistic ideals” 1402 and the affirmation - as a natural result - of “pessimistic anthropology (our italics - D. M.)” 1403. The fact that this was the era of Giotto and (a little earlier) Dante does not change the tragedy of the situation as a whole. In a word, this was an era of fundamental shifts in the worldview and sense of life of European people, as a result of which the modern neo-Renaissance civilization was born 1404. The problematization of Christianity taking place within it, as researchers put it, takes its origin, perhaps, precisely in those difficult decades of European history. What's in the East? And here popular movements (zealots) were in full swing and heresies appeared - the restless and heterogeneous environment of large cities and their rural areas was fertile ground for their emergence. What has been said is also true in relation to Thessalonica - “this brilliant and most prominent of cities” 1405, according to Encomius Cyprian of Larisa. "It was a border town" 1406. And it was on this borderland that the positive anthropology formed on Mount Athos (I mean the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas), which gave a constructive response to the challenges of the New Age (Arch. John Meyendorff) and became the spiritual basis for the consolidation of a significant part of Byzantine society around the Church, became stronger and established. This anthropology has met serious opponents along the way. The opposition to the Church came not only from adherents of secular humanism, but also from popular neo-magical and heretical movements. In the worldview of representatives of both groups, certain similarities are revealed - for example, the doctrine of the sympathetic connection of all elements of the universe, which is the theoretical basis for magic (cf. the news of the confiscation of “magic books” from Cappadocis), was shared not only by “old women telling fortunes on barley,” but also by the largest intellectuals of that era (Nicephorus Grigora) 1407. “The science that the Byzantines inherited from the Greeks,” J. Verpo says on this occasion, “is not only a body of mathematical knowledge, but also magic, occult knowledge, alchemy, astrology - everyday companions of mathematical disciplines” 1408. The latter symbiosis in many ways determined the path of development of Byzantine culture, at the same time determining the complexity of its study: it was the city that was the environment, the locus and the focal point where both movements - scientific and popular Hellenism - converged in their opposition to the teaching and ritual practice of the Church. Perhaps this dual character of Hellenism determined the harshness of some of the attacks of St. Gregory Palamas on supporters of secular learning. And although prof. A. Rigaud is right when he reproaches Palamas for his silence regarding the Bogomils in his main works of 1409; do we not encounter a hidden mention of heretics on the pages of the homilies? This is just one of the hypotheses proposed throughout this paragraph. His goal was to point out the complexity and heterogeneity of the phenomenon of late Byzantine urban culture 1410, with vague (and no less difficult to interpret) references to which (with a very definite attitude towards it) we encounter on the pages of the sermons of the Archbishop of Thessaloniki. The reasons for this attitude are more than serious: “ἁγιασμῷ,” says St. Gregory, quoting the Apostle (73A; see: 1 Thess. 4:7). The life of a Christian in historical space and time can and should be devoted to achieving this state. Palamas justifies history as a feat, a striving for God, a conscious ascetic effort, through which unity with God can be achieved. But history also has independent value: the harmonious coexistence of people within society contributes to the development of virtues, cooperation and mutual understanding of individuals and individuals, the ability to come to the rescue, being to a certain extent a prototype of future perfection. In conclusion of this section, I would like to cite V. N. Toporov’s holy word about St., inspired by a similar understanding of the historical mission. Sergius of Radonezh: “A man of his century, although he entered the space of the future,...Sergius of Radonezh historically and with all the vicissitudes of his life was merged...with the 14th century. He lived not only in the space of mystical contemplation and Tabor light, but also in history, depending on it in certain cases, calling it to himself, invading it, influencing its course, enriching it with new content (V.N. Toporov’s discharge. - D.M.)” 1411. “A holy person sanctifies the place and time that contain the holy act... In this way, a special environment (or matter) of holiness is created, and space, time, and people are involved in it (discharge of V.N. Toporov - D.M.)" 1412. So, Palamas’s description of the urban culture of his time is non-trivial and contains a number of interesting observations. It shows the real existence in the urban environment of various levels and layers of culture, from the intellectuality and education of the “wise men” to the noisy, not without a hint of irony and ridicule, amusements of the common people. The coexistence of the bearers of these layers within the framework of a single structure of the city - a “metropolis” (Palama’s term), which Thessalonica was, is tense and does not occur without conflicts. As an observer and analyst of 1413 contemporary social processes, Palamas, from his inherent impartial position as a bearer of the highest - spiritual - authority, strives to reveal the causes of clashes between persons (or groups of persons) belonging to different levels of the structure of Christian society (nobility, artisans, warriors, monks, the needy), and also, having denounced, pronounce a strict sentence on those who violate the laws of this society. The presented material allows us to speak about the sufficient objectivity of the picture of urban life created by Palam, allowing us to identify the features of democracy in his thinking. This allowed him to create such a characteristic of city life that, with a certain degree of accuracy, reflects the general cultural level of Byzantium, where the city was the most important structural element - and therefore we can say that “...urban culture bears the characteristics of the integrity of the entire culture of a certain cultural-historical space” 1414. Based on the cursory hints contained in the homilies about the state of the economic life of the polis, one can conclude that the bulk of the working population is in a very difficult position and that cities are agrarianized, as well as their strong dependence on foreign markets (it is no coincidence that the sermon contains the image of a ship carrying food!). The image created by Palamas of some of the negative aspects of city life, I think, can be extrapolated to other centers of the Empire - primarily to Constantinople (cf. letters from Patr. Athanasius I, “Forty-nine Chapters” of Josephus Bryennius, Encomius to Cyprian of Larisa with his news of socio-political unrest, etc.), receiving a generalized image of the difficulties that Byzantine civilization faced at the last stage of its development. And although Palamas, as a shepherd, focuses his gaze primarily on the spiritual and socio-psychological aspects of the crisis experienced by the Empire, in his homilies there are, as we have seen, some (albeit half-hearted) concrete historical recommendations. Being a staunch supporter of civil peace in the Empire of 1416, Palamas does not distort reality to suit a given model, but, on the contrary, reveals all the ulcers and miasmas, all the sores of the society around him, demonstrating keen and merciless criticism and the desire to make an accurate diagnosis among the influx of collisions. The idea of ​​universal instability and fragility, which played an important role in the philosophical and rhetorical literature of late Byzantium (usually adhering to a humanistic orientation), remains alien to the Archbishop of Thessalonica. Criticism serves for him only as a background, shading the socio-political and spiritual ideal. At the same time, many problems of the real history of society (social stratification, level of education, position of the Church, life, culture and beliefs of ordinary Byzantines) can be studied through a closer involvement of its homily to answer as yet unresolved questions. Being in many ways typical - and even typified, Palamas' thoughts show that the thought of Byzantine intellectuals, which included the Fathers of the Church, did not stop in search of a way out of the difficult situation. According to I. I. Shevchenko, “the intellectuals of late Byzantium, like their colleagues at all times, were most powerful in criticism, warning and forecasting; less successful in determining the causes of events and making constructive proposals. But they were not blind" 1417. The Archbishop of Thessalonica was also a keen observer and analyst of the social processes of his time. And it's not St.'s fault. Gregory that social development did not follow the path he outlined. Meyendorff John, Rev. About Byzantine hesychasm... // His own. History of the Church and Eastern Christian mysticism. P. 568. Smetanin V. A. Byzantine society of the XIII-XV centuries... P. 214. In 1354, the Turks took Gallipoli, which opened the way for themselves to advance to Europe (Vasiliev A. A. History of the Byzantine Empire... T. 2. P. 321). Meyendorff I. F. Life and works... P. 147–149; Polyakovskaya M. A. Captivity as an extreme situation of a collision of ideas about “us” and “strangers” // Foreigners in Byzantium. Byzantines outside their fatherland. Abstracts of conference reports. M., 1997. S. 37–38; Philippidis-Braat A. La captivité de Palamas chez les Turcs: dossier et commentaire // TM. 1979. T. 7. P. 109–222. See: Ducellier A. L’Islam et les Musulmans vus de Byzance au XIV e siècle // Actes du XIV e Congrès... T. 2. P. 84. See: Prokhorov G. M. Debate of Gregory Palamas with the “Chions and Turks” and the problem of “Jewish philosophies”...; Lurie V. M. Comments // Meyendorff I. F. Life and works... P. 397. The desert - in accordance with the New Testament saying (Eph. 6:12) - is understood in Christianity as a place of struggle with the “spirits of wickedness in high places.” About the fact that demons can also cause physical pain to monks, see, for example, chapter 8 of the “Life of Anthony the Great”: St. Athanasius the Great. Creations. T. 3. P. 187. Beyer H.-V. Eine Chronologie der Lebensgeschichte des Nikephoros Gregoras // JÖB. 1978. Bd.27. S. 136. Nr. 42. Γουλούλης Σ. (εκδ.). Αντωνίου Λαρίσης Εγκώμιο εις τον άγιο Κυπριανό Λαρίσης. Προλεγόμενα – Κείμενο – Μετάφραση. Λαρίσα, 1991. Σελ. 70. 403–404. For pointing out this source and for putting it at my disposal, I sincerely thank Hierarch. Dionysius (Shlenova) (Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius). Demétrius Cydonès. Correspondance / Publ. par R.-J. Loenertz. Cittàdel Vaticano, 1956. V. 1. P. 110. See about him: Smetanin V. A. Byzantine society of the 13th–15th centuries... P. 139–140, which emphasizes the connection of the uprising of 1372 with the zealot movement. One cannot but agree with the encomiast that Palamas arrived in Thessalonica, proclaiming peace (ἐιρήνην εὐαγγελιζόμενος ἀληθῶς), while sparks of discontent and rebellion were smoldering in the city (Encomium auct. Gregorii Palamae Nilo SR // 672D). According to M. Ya. Syuzyumov, Palama in the homilies “...accused the townspeople of madness, rebellion, murder, but he (our italics - D. M.) did not say anything about reforms...” (Syuzyumov M. Ya. On the question of the nature of the performance of the zealots in 1342–1349 // VV. 1968. T. 28. P. 17. Note 16). Indeed, we will not find a coherent reform program in his work. But he still proposes a number of specific actions to redistribute wealth, which, in his opinion, will relieve tension. Although many of them remained unimplemented in practice. In addition, other intellectuals (for example, Nicholas Kavasila) clearly understood the main reasons for the discontent and poverty of the population, seeing them, for example, in usury. See: Guilland R. Le traité inédit “Surl’usurie” de Nicolas Cabasilas // Idem. Etudes byzantines. Paris, 1959. P. 81–87; Polyakovskaya M. A. Views of Nikolai Kavasila on usury // ADSV. 1976. Issue. 13. pp. 83–96. On the spiritual (and political) side of the matter, see mainly: Prokhorov G. M. Preface by the translator // John Cantacuzene. Dialogue with a Jew... P. 8; Ostrogorsky G. Geschichte des Byzantinischen Staates. München, 1963. S. 416; Meyendorff J. Society and Culture in the Fourteenth Century... P. 51, 54; and others. About economics: Polyakovskaya M. A. City possessions of provincial monasteries in late Byzantium // VV. 1964. T. 24. P. 202–208; Her same. Monastic possessions in Thessalonica... pp. 17–19, 22, 24; Her same. On the question of the nature of urban and suburban monastic property in late Byzantium // ADSV. 1966. Vol. 4. pp. 75,77,81–82; Medvedev I. P. Mystra. pp. 65–80; Hrochova V. Zur wirtschaftlichen Rolle... S. 85, 90–91. Tafrali O. Thessalonique au quatorzième siècle. Paris, 1913. See: Ševčenko I. Nicolas Cabasilas’ “Anti-Zealot” Discourse: A Reinterpretation // DOP. 1957. Vol. 11. Meyendorff I. F. Life and works... P. 122. Compare: p. 20, 21. Syuzyumov M. Ya. On the question of the nature of the speech... P. 18–19; Kurbatov G. L., Rutenburg V. I. Zealots and Chompies // VV. 1969. T. 30. P. 27. Cf., however: “Some measures against the clergy and monasteries who stood on the side of Cantacuzene could also only be an act of political struggle against opponents of the government and the patriarch” (Ibid. P. 28). See also: Conversations (omilia)... Part 3. pp. 43–44; Dashkov S. B. Emperors of Byzantium. M., 1997. P. 299 (one of the works of the zealots is quoted): “What’s special... is that, taking from the monastery property, we feed several poor people, and even the priests [of churches that did not have land. – S.D.) will we deliver what we need and decorate the churches? There will be no harm to the monasteries from this, there will be enough left for their needs, and the will of the donors, who had in mind to please God and feed the poor, will not be violated...” Similar conclusions were accepted (it seems with polemical exaggeration) by Z. V. Udaltsova: “... the zealots spoke out especially sharply against the privileges of the church and monasticism” (Udaltsova Z. V. Byzantine culture. M., 1988. P. 219). S. Runciman also writes that the zealots “...seized the property of the monasteries” (Runciman S. Eastern Schism. Byzantine theocracy. M., 1998. P. 223). On the contrary, G.L. Kurbatov suggested that among the zealots there could be representatives of the clergy and even intellectuals (Kurbatov G.L. History of Byzantium: (from antiquity to feudalism). M., 1984. P. 183). Still, it seems that Palamas’s homilies (in the given part of them) show that these confiscations were neither systematic nor massive: yes, there were isolated cases, but on a large scale the question of secularization and confiscation of church property was not and was not raised in the social program of the Zealots. Wed. news of their commitment to the anti-Palamite bishop Jacinth: Meyendorff I. F. Life and works... P. 101–102. Litavrin G. G. Byzantium during the civil war and the zealot movement // History of Byzantium. M., 1967. T. 3. P. 151,154; Meyendorff I. F. Life and works... P. 90, 106, 118, 145; Larchet J.-C. Introduction // Saint Grégoire Palamas. Traités apodictiques... P. 13; etc. The second time this word appears is in 544C when describing the persecution of St. Demetrius of Thessalonica. Thus, we see that it gives the story a very sinister tone. Quote based on the translation by M. A. Polyakovskaya: Polyakovskaya M. A. Portraits of Byzantine intellectuals. pp. 275–276. Compare: Polyakovskaya M. A. Understanding social problems... P. 18–19. Her same. Portraits... P. 23; Hers. Social and political thought of Byzantium... P. 20. Compare: Runciman S. Eastern schism. Byzantine theocracy. P. 223; Nicole D.M. Church and society in the last centuries of Byzantium. Cambridge, 1979. P. 25.2 In a similar context, this word is found in St. Gregory of Cyprus (Rapp S. Ein bisher unbekannter Brief... S. 17. 160), but we also find the word ὁμοεθνής, which directly reflects the idea of a single nationality: one of the tasks of the basileus, according to Cypriot, is “... τῶν ὁμοεθνῶν τὴν κηδεμονίαν..." (Ibid. S. 18.208). Let us note the implicit criticism of earthly wealth contained in these words. Toporov V. N. Holiness and saints in Russian spiritual culture. T. 2. P. 535. The same expression - ὑπὸ τῆς ἀλιτηριώδους στάσεως - is also used in the First Homily (12D). This word, as well as its synonyms - φθορά, ἀπορία, etc., are replete with the works of Demetrius Kidonis of the 1340s, which was convincingly demonstrated by M. A. Polyakovskaya (see: Polyakovskaya M. A. Portraits... P. 25). This emphasized imitation of dialogicity, when a fictitious interlocutor is introduced into the conversation, follows, as S.S. Averintsev showed (Averintsev S.S. Poetics of Early Byzantine Literature. pp. 223 and 303–304, note 7), from the ancient diatribe. As is known, the young Palamas, like other noble Byzantines of his time, studied the trivium and quadrivium, which allowed him to use such an appeal in sermons as a pedagogical technique. On Palamas' education see: Meyendorff J. St Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. P. 71. Arseny, ep. St. Gregory Palamas... three creations... P. 53. See rules 3 and 4 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council; Wed and his 2nd rule. Rus. the text is included in the book: Bolotov V. V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. M., 1994. T. IV. pp. XIII–XIV (after the main text). Wed. 46 rule of the Trullo Council, the significance of which was pointed out by I.P. Medvedev (Medvedev I.P. Note 72 // Meyendorff I.F. Life and Works... P. 270). However, as the research of L.A. Gerd shows, already by the 11th century. Bribes in the episcopal environment, in particular payment for tonsure, were looked upon as a completely common and even legal phenomenon, although St. spoke out against this. Nikon Chernogorets (Gerd L.A. Issues of penitential discipline in “Taktikon” by Nikon Chernogorets // VV. 1995. T. 56 (81), pp. 179–180). This is also true for the 14th century, which patriarchal acts characterize as a stormy and sweeping away time (M. A. Polyakovskaya. Participation of Byzantine monasteries in the political life of the empire in the mid-14th century. // ADSV. 1969. Issue 6. P. 55 et seq.), a period of “financial and economic crisis” (D. A. Zakifinos) of the Byzantine Empire. Kurbatov G. L. History of Byzantium... P. 183. Thus, F. Tinnefeld showed (based on Thomas the Master) that similar unrest took place in Thessalonica in 1322 and 1332. (Tinnefeld F. Thomas Master as a source on socio-political unrest in Thessalonica // ADSV. 1992. Issue 26. Byzantium and medieval Crimea. P. 145–147). Wed. also 16A: “unanimity (= like-mindedness) with each other (ἡ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὁμόνοια).” Wed. parallel passages to the above: 392D (“...let us acquire... a heart... peaceful, peace-making (εἰρηνικὴν, εἰρηνοποιὸν)..." - here an allusion to Matthew 5:9 is played out); 296D (“let us rest in peace, maintaining peace (εἰρήνεῦοντες) in ourselves and with each other..."). Here the call to maintain peace is justified by the fact that “Jerusalem” in translation means “peace” (Ibid.). Wed. also 421A: “...let us forgive each other...”; 460A. Yes, St. Nikolai Kavasila taught: “...Christ is our peace...” (Nikolai Kavasila. Seven words about life in Christ. Sl. 6. 121. P. 151). We believe that the translation by Archimandrite. Ambrose is wrong in this place: “... and public forums” (Conversations... Part 2. P. 129). Φόρος does not mean “forum”, but rather “to file” or “tax”: Liddell R. A., Scott G., Jones A. Greek-English Dictionary. Oxford, 1996. P. 1951. Smetanin V. A. Byzantine society XIII-XV centuries. ... P. 103. Meyendorff John, Rev. The unity of the Church and the division of Christians // Him. History of the Church and Eastern Christian mysticism. P. 26. Wed. With. 48. Compare, for example, the episode with the money-loving monk from “The Life of Andrei the Fool” (The Life of Andrei the Fool. pp. 184–189 (Greek text), 62–66 (Russian translation)). Wed. First of all: Alexey Makremvolit. Conversation between the rich and the poor / Trans. M. A. Polyakovskaya // Polyakovskaya M. A. Portraits... P. 248–269. This source was repeatedly interpreted by M. Ya. Syuzyumov (see: Syuzyumov M. Ya. Byzantine etudes. Ekaterinburg, 2002. P. 260, 267–268, 324; Polyakovskaya M. A. Portraits... P. 214–227). Compare: St. John of Damascus. To follow the burial. Voice 4 / Trans. S. S. Averintseva // From the shores of the Bosphorus to the shores of the Euphrates. P. 296. Gaith J. La conception de la liberté... P. 130. See his criticism of moneylenders and merchants: PG. 58.557–558. “So, aren’t big deals (ἐμπορίαι πολλαί) unjust? - [for the sale] of fields, herds, land, livestock, pigs, basic necessities (τῆς ἐπιμελείας τῶν ὄντων)? (Col. 558). Regarding usury it is said here: “God does not desire such a sacrifice” (Col. 557). Pertusi A. Storia del pensiero politico. P. 35. Wed. about the concept of John Kinnam (XII century), which also recognizes “mutual assistance among members of society” and support by the rich for the poor as “one of the principles of the social life of the Roman state”: Malakhov S.N. John Kinnam and the social lower classes of Byzantium in the 12th century. // ADSV. Issues of social and political development. Sverdlovsk, 1988. P. 98. Rapp C. Einbisherunbekannter Brief... S. 16.144–145. M.A. Polyakovskaya notes the half-heartedness of the measures proposed by intellectuals of that time to overcome the crisis (Polyakovskaya M.A. Understanding social problems... P. 20–21). They could not ignore the problem. But no one was able to propose new measures that would bring miraculous results. All programs were, to one degree or another, utopian, while if the theories of Makremvolite, Kavasila or Palamas contained a fair amount of truth, then, for example, Plithon with his idea, in today’s terms, of reverse commutation of rent (i.e., replacing monetary fees with in-kind ones) completely falls into “feudal reaction,” in the words of K. V. Khvostova (quoted from: Medvedev I. P. Byzantine humanism XIV–XV centuries P. 172). This is the difference between Palamas and Plitho, whose views are apparently identical to those of Palamas, while Gemist advocated the nationalization of land and its redistribution in favor of middle-class service feudal lords, to which he himself belonged (Medvedev I.P. Byzantine humanism of the XIV-XV centuries, pp. 173-174). Palamas considers land to be the main and fundamental wealth of the entire society, which therefore should belong to the entire society. Polyakovskaya M. A. Portraits... P. 248.. See: Toporov V.N. Holiness and saints in Russian spiritual culture. T. 1. P. 90–102; and other research by the author. St. Theoliptus of Philadelphia. Messages to the nun Eulogia. First Epistle / Trans. A. I. Sidorova // Alpha and Omega. 2000. No. 3 (25). P. 94. Agapeti Diaconi Capita admonitoria... Cap. 16, 44, 46, 47, 51, 53, 58, 60 // PG. 86/1. 1169: ... πρὸς ἰσότητα τὴν ἀνισότητα μετενεκτέον (“... inequality should be turned into equality”); 1177, 1180, 1181. ἐλεημοσύναις τετειχισμένη – Ibid. 1181. Ὁ κλεπτῶν is a word indicating (in most cases) a kidnapping carried out secretly, as opposed to ἁρπαγή, which denotes direct robbery. Literally – “allowing as fellow members” (κοινωνοὺς ... προσλαμβανόμενος). Alexey Makremvolit. Conversation between rich and poor. P. 257. The correspondence of Athanasios I, Patriarch of Constantinople. Letters to the emperor Andronicus II, members of the imperial family, and officials. An edition, translation, and commentary by A.-M. M. Talbot. Washington, DC, 1975, pp. 76.14–16. St. Simeon the New Theologian. The chapters are theological, speculative and practical. Ch. 93 / Per. hierome Hilarion (Alfeev) // Hilarion (Alfeev), Hierom. Venerable Simeon the New Theologian... P. 575. Cf. chapters 91–100 (pp. 575–578). Wed. Ch. 98 (p. 577): “So whoever treats his neighbor as himself will not allow himself to have more than his neighbor.” And here the growth of apophatic epithets is characteristic, as soon as we are talking about eschatological realities. Apophatics and eschatologism are two sides of one phenomenon: the inexpressibility of the Inexpressible and - despite this (or rather, along with this) - the need to testify about Him to the world. This was partly shown in the report of S. S. Averintsev at the Eighteenth Congress of Byzantinists. See abstract publication: Averintsev S. S. Christian apophatics among the Greeks and Syrians: two approaches to the development of spiritual themes // XVIII International Congress of Byzantinists. Summary of messages. T. 1. For the interpretation of this verse in the early Church, and especially by the Founding Fathers of monasticism, see: Lurie V.M. Abraham's calling... Passim. St. Simeon the New Theologian. Theological chapters... Ch. 100 // Hilarion (Alfeev), priest. Venerable Simeon the New Theologian... P. 577. Syuzyumov M. Ya. Economy of the suburbs of Byzantine large cities // VV. 1956. T. II. pp. 55–81. Müller-Asshoff N. Beobachtungen... S. 26. Lurie V. M. The Calling of Abraham... pp. 106–110. According to the explanation of the treatise “The Method of Sacred Prayer and Attention,” the poor in spirit are “... those who have not acquired in themselves any thoughts about this age” (quoted from the translation by A. G. Dunaev: The Path to Sacred Silence. P. 22). Characteristic non-distinction of terms! Wed: 416V. The corresponding Russian word is calque from the Greek “connected with this age, with this world.” It is found already in Kurbsky’s First Message to Ivan the Terrible. See: Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible with Andrei Kurbsky. P. 8 (1st ed.), 10 (2nd ed.). Wed. already the ideas of Aristotle, which dominated the medieval consciousness: Arist. Polit. 1258 b: “...with good reason, usury causes hatred...” (Translated by S. A. Zhebelev // Aristotle. Works. M., 1984. T. 4. P. 395). On the criticism of moneylenders by St. Gregory of Nyssa, see: Gaïth J. La conception de la liberté... P. 128. See also: Polyakovskaya M. A. Portraits... pp. 183–185. Note 17. Which is represented by the names of Nikolai Kavasila, Demetrius Kidonis and other authors, i.e. that very “social clot” (G. Hunger) (see: Hunger H. Klassizistische Tendenzen...), to which Byzantium owes the flourishing of its intellectual culture. See: Guüland R. Le traite... P. 82; Polyakovskaya M. A. Social and political thought of Byzantium...; Her same. Portraits... On the criticism of usury in medieval Catholicism (Jacques de Vitry and others), see: Gurevich A. Ya. Culture and society of medieval Europe through the eyes of contemporaries. M., 1989. pp. 197–217. On Byzantine journalism’s formulation of the problems of relationships between the poor and the rich, see: Pertusi A. Storia del pensiero politico // La civiltà bizantina dal XII al XV secolo. Roma, 1982. P. 36–37. Wed. about the approach of church circles (expressed in the will of Patriarch Isidore, Patriarchs Athanasius, Philotheus, etc.): Meyendorff J. Spiritual trends... P. 70; Barabanov N. D. Patriarch Athanasius I of Constantinople on the ills of Byzantine society at the turn of the 13th–14th centuries. // ADSV. 1978. Vol. 15. pp. 54–55 (about the fight against hunger). Figures of moneylenders are sometimes found in compositions on the theme of the Last Judgment in Byzantine cathedrals. An example is the fresco “The Last Judgment” in the Church of Panagia Mavriotissa in Kastoria, dating from A.V. Zakharova (following O. Demus and others) in the first third of the 12th century. This composition includes figures of a moneylender with a wallet, a seller weighing a buyer, and also (which is very rare) harlots tormented by snakes. See: Zakharova A. V. Frescoes of the Church of Panagia Mavriotissa in Kastoria // VV. 2000. T. 59 (84). P. 191. Meyendorff John, Rev. The unity of the Empire and the division of Christians // Him. History of the Church and Eastern Christian mysticism. P. 27. Medvedev I. P. Byzantine humanism XIV–XV centuries. P. 170. Arseny, ep. St. Gregory Palamas... three creations... pp. 28–29. Nemesii De natura hominis // PG. 40. 520B–521A. Compare: Arist. Nie. Eth. 1097 b 11, 1169 b 18; Poiit. 1253 a 9; 1278 b 15 (Aristotle. Works. Vol. 4. P. 63, 259, 378:455). Polit. 1252 a 1. (Ibid. p. 376). Νικολάου Θ. Στ. Αἱ περὶ πολιτείας καὶ δικαίου ἰδέαι τοῦ Γ. Πλήθωνος Γεμιστοῦ. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1974. Σελ. 129. Kazhdan A. P. Byzantine culture (X–XII centuries). M., 1968. Ch. 2; Polyakovskaya M. A. Understanding social problems... P. 15–16; Pertusi A. La concezione politica e sociale dell’impero di Giustiniano // Storia delle idee politiche, economiche e sociale / Diretta da L. Firpo. Torino, 1983, pp. 543–546; etc. There is no need to remind that the ship for the Byzantines was the image of both their Empire and the image of the world as a whole, the world as a whole. Thus, Constantine Porphyrogenitus taught his son: “... knowledge is a blessing for his subjects (cf. Bacon’s “knowledge is power.” - D. M.), especially for you, who are obliged to care about the salvation of everyone and to rule and guide the world ship (τὴν κοσμικὴν ὁλκάδα πηδαλισυχεῖν τε καὶ κυβερνᾶν)" (Greek text and translation by G. G. Litavrin, quoted from: Konstantin Porphyrogenitus. On the management of the empire. pp. 36–37). The grain trade with overseas territories was also vital for Constantinople. That is why, in particular, Patr. Afanasy did everything in his power to strengthen control over her. See: Barabanov N. D. Patriarch Athanasius I of Constantinople on the ills of Byzantine society... In general, about the spirit of wandering that gripped the Byzantine nobility of that time (XIV-XV centuries), see: Matschke K.-R. Bemerkungen zu M. J. Sjuzjumovs “jungem Unternehmeradel” in spätbyzantinischer Zeit // ADSV. Vol. 26. P. 246 et seq. In this context, it is important to take into account that Thessalonica was a port and market for Macedonia, Thessaly, Serbia, Bulgaria, and its famous fairs in honor of St. Demetrius was attended by merchants from a number of European states (Nasledova R.A. Cities, craft and trade in late Byzantium (XIII-XV centuries) // History of Byzantium. T. 3. P. 118; Zavrazhin V.N. “Mesoi” in the late Byzantine city according to the “History” of John Cantacuzene // SG. 1975. Vol. 3. P. 230 – about the stratum of traders). Compare, by the way, the fact that the basis of the zealot movement was precisely the corporation of sailors (Kurbatov G.L., Rutenburg V.I. Zealots and Chompies... P. 27; Pljakov S. Über die soziale Struktur der byzantinischen Städte im 13.–14. Jahrhundert // JÖB. 1982. Bd. 32/2. S. 17). Therefore, Palamas’ words, reflecting the practice of that time, must be assumed to have been vividly perceived by his listeners. One can recall in this regard the theory of K. P. Kirris about the “dichotomy of imperial institutions,” which he associates with the political confrontation between the Westerners (the party of Anne of Savoy), who sought help in Europe, and the “Eastophiles,” in connection with which attention is drawn to Cantacuzene’s alliances with the Turks. See: Kyrris S. P. The Causes of the Dichotomy of Imperial Institution in the Byzantine Empire during the Period 1341–1354 // Βυζαντινά. 1971. T.3. Dvoretsky I. X. Ancient Greek-Russian dictionary. M., 1958. T. 1. P. 527. In Byzantium, this term traditionally meant merchants (Chentsova V.G. On the issue of the concept of μέσοι in late Byzantium // VO. M., 1991. P. 98). About the fact that the “middle” (μέσοι), who played a leading role in Thessalonica during the Zealot uprising, included merchants, see: Pljakov S. Über die soziale Struktur... S. 14–15. See in note. 68 about the frescoes of the Church of Panagia Mavriotissa in Kastoria. Zakythinos D. Crise monétaire et crise économique à Byzance du XIII e au XIV e siècle // Idem. Byzance: État – Société – Economie / Préface de Hélène Ahrweiler. L.: VR, 1973. XI. P. 46. There is also a mention of Palamas - which once again emphasizes the importance of his homilies as a historical source. Maksimovich L. Roots and paths of the emergence of the urban patriciate in Byzantium // VV. 1991. T. 52. P. 34; Wed: Karpov S. P. Rec. by: Laiou-Thomadakis A. E. The Byzantine Economy in the Mediterranean Trade System, Thirteenth – Fifteenth Centuries. – DOR 1980/1981. Vol. 34/35. P. 177–222 // BB. 1984. T. 45. P. 250; etc. Smetanin V. A. Byzantine society of the 13th–15th centuries... P. 73. Syuzyumov M. Ya. On the question of the nature of the speech... P. 25. The way they are presented in the context of a sermon allows us to emphasize the considerable “specific gravity” and importance of the layer of intellectuals. See: Vasiliev A. A. History of the Byzantine Empire... T. 2. P. 400; Syuzyumov M. Ya. On the question of the nature of the performance of the zealots... P. 30–31; Vacalopoulos A. E. A History of Thessaloniki / Transl. T. F. Carney. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1963. P. 51–52 (here also about Palamas; the expression “golden age” is used); Jevtić A. Rencontre... R. 149; in general cf.: Medvedev I.P. Renaissance trends of late Byzantine culture // Culture of Byzantium. XIII – first half of the XV century. P. 273. The opposite opinion of M. V. Bibikov, expressed in one phrase and not based on any of the listed works, obviously confuses ideas about humanism and the era of decline: “If we talk about Byzantine humanism, then the historical work of John Cantacuzene represents another emanation of this phenomenon, namely, the era of the crisis of Byzantine socio-cultural development of the “tragic” XIV c." (Bibikov M.V. Historical literature of Byzantium. St. Petersburg, 1998. P. 249). It seems that a different emphasis is needed here: the political crisis does not contradict spiritual uplift. As happened in ancient (the theory of a substantially rebellious crowd) and early Byzantine literature (and primarily in historiography). See: Krivushin I. V. The story between order and chaos... P. 17 (πλῆθος ἀπαίδεντον in Simokatta) et passim; His same. Early Byzantine church historiography. pp. 205–206 (Alexandrian crowd as πλῆθος in Evagrius Scholasticus); His same. Evagrius Scholasticus: decline of the church historiographical genre... P. 33–34; etc. In the Russian translation it is “princes,” but, given the Greek context of this term in the word usage of the archim. Ambrose, we translate as “rulers” (ἄρχοντες) - by analogy with: 180B. Harkianakis S. Die Stellung des Kaisers in der byzantinischen Geistigkeit, dogmatisch gesehen // Βυζαντινά . 1971. T. 3. Σελ. 46 (cf. whole article: pp. 46–50); Papoulidis C. La place de l’empereur à Byzance pendant les Conciles Oecuméniques // Ibid. P. 127 et n. 19; Runciman. WITH . Eastern schism. Byzantine theocracy. C. 225. Novellae Iustiniani / Ed. R. Schöll, G. Kroll. Berolini, 1959. Vol. 1. P. 35–36. See: Kurbatov G. L. Political theory in early Byzantium. Ideology of imperial power and aristocratic opposition // Culture of Byzantium. IV – first half of the 7th century. P. 114; Litavrin G. G. Political theory in Byzantium from the middle of the 7th to the 13th centuries. // Culture of Byzantium. Second half of the 7th–12th centuries. pp. 65–66; Meyendorff John, Rev. Church, society, culture in the Orthodox Church Tradition // Him. Orthodoxy in the modern world. pp. 226–227; Peritisi A. La concezione politica e sociale...; Γλικατζί–Αρβελέρ Ε. Η πολιτική ιδεολογία της Βυζαντινής αυτοκρατορίας. Αθήνα, 1977. Σελ. 148–152; Καραγιαννόπουλος Ἰ. Ἡ πολιτικὴ θεωρία τῶν Βυζαντινῶν // Βυζαντινά . 1970. T. 2. Σελ. 40–41, 55; Καραγιαννόπουλος Ἰ. Ἡ πολιτικὴ θεωρία τῶν Βυζαντινῶν. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1988. Σελ. 59, 65–66; Wed: Kozlov A. S. On the Byzantines’ understanding of their place in world history: (Based on materials from the Eastern Roman chronicles of the 4th–6th centuries) // Byzantium: Cumulation and translation of cultures. Ekaterinburg, 1997. P. 21; Failler A. Prières du patriarche pour l’empereur // Actes du XIV e Congrès... Vol. 2. P. 88. The importance of the theory of symphony was pointed out at the beginning of the 20th century. Jaroslav Bidlo: Bidlo J. Vizantijska kultura. Zagreb, 1924. S. 46,47. Wed. doctrine of the patriarch as a “living icon of Christ” (“Isagogue”, title II): Medvedev I.P. Development of legal science // Culture of Byzantium. Second half of the 7th–12th centuries. P. 231. Another example of the concept of a symphony is the letters and messages of Nicholas the Mystic. For now, see: Malakhov S.N. The problem of the “kingdom” and “priesthood” in the letters of Patriarch Nicholas the Mystic // Scientific readings dedicated to the centenary... M. Ya. Syuzyumov... P. 22–24. Modern generalizing work: Dagron G. Empereur et prêtre. Etude sur le "césaropapisme" byzantin. Paris, 1996. For the Russian translation of the corresponding passage from the Sixth Novella of Justinian, see: Meyendorff John, prot. History of the Church and Eastern Christian mysticism. P. 160; Wed also: Muravyov A. V. The doctrine of the Christian kingdom by St. Ephraim the Syrian // Traditions and heritage of the Christian East. P. 333; and the entire article (pp. 327–342). Pertusi A. Il pensiero politico e sociale bizantino della fine del secolo VI al secolo XIII // Storia delle idee politiche... P. 669, 676. Medvedev I.P. La date du Syntagma de Mathieu Blastares // Byz. 1980. Vol. 50. Fasz. 1.P.339. Medvedev I. P. Legal culture of the Byzantine Empire. pp. 250–251 (with reference to the source). Wed. data on Vlastar's hesychasm: Meyendorff I.F. Life and works... P. 125. Approx. 47 (with support from P.V. Paskhos). On Vlastar's palamism, see: Ράντοβιτς Α. Το μυστήριον ... Σελ . 25. Meyendorff I. F. Life and works... P. 123; Nicole D.M. Church and society... P. 25. In fact, D. Nicol describes precisely the symphony. Which one exactly? According to St. Simeon of Thessaloniki, however, who lived a century later, was given the rank of deacon (Uspensky B.A. The liturgical status of the king in the Russian Church: communion with the Holy Mysteries: (Historical and liturgical study) // Russian Orthodox University of the Apostle John the Theologian. Scientific notes. M., 1996. Issue 2. P. 134 and note. 6 with reference to: PG. 155. 552). Be that as it may, Palamas, in fact, shows that these prescriptions were not an empty formality and were observed in practice: the juxtaposition of the figures of the king and the high priest, genetically very ancient and dating back to the tribal leaders of the Neolithic era (cf. also a number of ancient societies, including Pharaonic Egypt), was dear to the heart of the Byzantine, finding a response in both the mass and elite consciousness. (Cf. the news that the “city” is rejoicing, in 548B.) On the evolution of the liturgical status of the king in the Russian Orthodox Church, see the encyclopedic study: B. A. Uspensky. Liturgical status..., as well as: His. Tsar and Patriarch. The Byzantine model and its Russian rethinking. M., 1998. In passing, we note that the tradition of explaining the sacredness of the king’s status through anointing also originates from Eusebius: Harkianakis S. Die Stellung des Kaisers... S. 46. Dagron G. Empereur et prêtre. P. 287. Protocole anonyme du Laurentianus VIII. 17 sur le couronnement de Manuel II // Pseudo-Kodinos. Traitédesoffices / Intr., texte et trad, par J. Verpeaux. P., 1976. P. 358.12–15. Presuming - in accordance with John 14:6 - such a symphony of powers, in which the word “way” (ὁδός) indicates the basileus, “Truth” - the teacher (meaning the religious teacher), and “life” - the clergyman. In addition, this is indicated by the right of the emperor to convene Ecumenical Councils as ἐπίσκοπος τῶν ἐκτός (the expression can be understood in two ways: “bishop of those outside [the Church]” or “guardian of external [affairs]”), as well as the opportunity granted to him to receive communion at the altar. See about this: Meyendorff John, prot. Unity of the Empire and division of Christians. Ch. 1 // His own. Church history and Eastern Christian mysticism; Harkianakis S. Die Stellung des Kaisers... S. 47–49; Papoulidis C. La place de l'empereur... P. 127; Dagron G. Empereur et prêtre. P. 288 (the emperor, accepting the anointing, undertakes to act in accordance with the Divine example, becoming an imitator of Christ - χριστομιμητής) et passim; Uspensky B. A. Tsar and Emperor. Anointing for the kingdom and the semantics of royal titles. M., 2000. pp. 12–22. The texts cited in the latter work date back to a later time, but generally fit into the tradition set by Eusebius. Thus, in the 5th chapter of his “Admonitory Chapters” we meet an appeal to the basileus: “Oh, the God-created image of piety (ὦ εὐσεβείας θεότευκτον ἄγαλμα) ...!” (PG. 86/1.165). In the famous 21st chapter of this work it is stated that the basileus “...in power, his dignity is similar to [being] above all God...” (Ibid. 1172). See also chapters XI, XIII, XV (“...the crown of piety adorns the basileus” - τῆς εὐσεβείας τὸ στέμμα τὸν βασιλέα κοσμεῖ (1169)), XLVIII, LVIII. This text, along with the writings of Eusebius, stands at the origins of the ideology of imperial power in the middle and late Byzantine period, as well as in Russia during the time of Ivan the Terrible. Afinogenov D. E. Georgy Amartol's ideas about the ideal emperor // VO. M., 1991. S. 164–165, 168, 170, 177; Wed on emphasizing the role of imperial piety by the authors of late antique panegyrics, as well as by Byzantine writers of the 7th–9th centuries: Chekalova A. A., Polyakovskaya M. A. Intellectuals and power in Byzantium // VO. M., 1996. P. 14; Litavrin. G.G. Political theory in Byzantium from the middle of the 7th to the beginning of the 13th century. pp. 68, 74; as well as the works of F. Tinnefeld and others. Meyendorff John, Rev. Church, society, culture... P. 29; Smetanin V. A. On the Byzantine argumentation of the theory of universal power (at the end of the 14th century) // ADSV. 1995. Vol. 27. pp. 46–57; see also the works of D. D. Obolensky. (Obolensky D. The Byzantine Commonvealth. Eastern Europe, 500–1453. L., 2 1988. P. 264–266. Let us note the evolution towards a “lower” image compared to the views of Eusebius. ταῖς γὰρ παρελθούσαις δυσὶν ἑβδομάσιν, ἡ άδδηφαγία καὶ ἡ ἀκρασία μάλιστα κατεκράτει τῆς πόλεως, καὶ εὐθὺς ταραχαὶ καὶ κραυγαὶ καὶ μάχαι καὶ θόρυβοι, καὶ ᾄσματα πορνικά, καὶ χορεύματα ἡ ... (84ΒC). Ποῦ νῦν αἱ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων σφαγαὶ καὶ αἱ κνίσσαι καὶ αἱ παντοδαπαὶ καρυκεῖαι, καὶ αἱ τῶν μαγείρων σπουδαί; ποῦ οἱ περιτρέχοντες τὰς ὁδοὺς, καὶ φωναῖς ἀνάγνοις τὸν ἀέρα μιαίνοντες; ???? τραπέζας, καὶ οἱ ἀνακείμενοι καὶ συνεπικροτοῦντες, καὶ μετὰ ? οἱ διημερεύοντες καὶ διανυκτερεύοντες ἐν συμποσίοις, οἱ κατασκοποῦντες ποῦ πάτος γίνεται, οἱ συμπαραλαμβάνοντες ἀλλήλονς ἐπὶ τὴν μέθην, καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῆς μέθης αἰσχρά; Πάντα οἴχεται τὰ κακὰ, πάντα ἀντεισήχθη τὰ γαθὰ, τῆς νηστείας ἐνδημησάσης (84CD). We find a similar passage in the Forty-third homily - Encomia of St. Demetrius of Thessalonica. Mentioning that “... this whole city was reconciled with God thanks to his death” (548A), Palamas continues: “For where is this abyss of unbelief (τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς ἀσεβείας), in which, quite possibly, many of our ancestors dwelt? Where is the fear for faith and the resulting cases of hiding in shelters, [so] desired? Where are those who, in their obsession against the zealots of the faith, surpassed the wild beasts in their fury? Everything hostile fell apart, everything good came (Πάντα λέλυται τὰ δεινὰ, πάντα προσεγένετο τὰ χρηστά), since Demetrius defended the faith, fighting in the front ranks (Δημητρίου τῆς εὐσεβείας προκινδυνεύσαντος)” (Ibid.). This passage (not to mention its semantic significance) shows that when describing and assessing the most important events of Sacred and early Christian history (as well as history contemporary to him), Palamas used a fairly stable set of rhetorical models (cf. the construction of the last phrase). But rhetoric was not an end in itself for him (see Chapter 4). See, for example: Toporov V.N. Petersburg and the “St. Petersburg text of Russian literature” (Introduction to the topic) // Him. Myth. Ritual. Symbol. Image. Research in the field of mythopoetic. M., 1995. S. 259–367; Nikolaeva T. M. Introduction // From the works of the Moscow semiotic circle. C. XXXIX–XLI. In general, it should be noted that modern philological studies play a significant role in improving the research optics of historians, helping to increase the “stereoscopicity” of the latter. It is becoming increasingly clear that the text of a historical source is a multidimensional reality with its own special coordinate system inherent in it, without penetration into which it can hardly be adequately understood. Let us note, in particular, from general works: Chudakov A.P. How many plots are there in Eugene Onegin? // Poetics. History of literature. Linguistics. Collection for the 70th anniversary of Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov. pp. 122–131 (cf.: Lotman Yu. M. Unity of the text // His own. In the school of the poetic word: Pushkin. Lermontov. Gogol. M., 1988. pp. 92–96; etc.); from works on Byzantine studies – Ševčenko I. Levels of Style in Byzantine Prose // JÖB. 1981. Bd. 31/1; and in Russia - a number of works by Ya. N. Lyubarsky (some summary can be found in the collection: Lyubarsky Ya. N. Byzantine historians and writers. St. Petersburg, 1999), I. V. Krivushin, M. V. Bibikov (Krivushin I. V. Early Byzantine church historiography...; Bibikov M. V. Byzantine sources on the history of Ancient Rus' and the Caucasus. St. Petersburg, 1999. pp. 62–63, etc.). Especially on preaching, see: Bernardi J. La prédication des Pères Cappadociens...; etc. These general features, in turn, can also be correlated with some universal phenomena of the cultural life of the Empire. See in particular any review of the pastoral activities of the great Cappadocians, for example: Bernardi J. La prédication... P. 75 et passim. In relation to Ancient Rus', it is enough to refer to the monumental work of G. Podskalsky: Podskalsky G. Christianity and theological literature in Kievan Rus (988–1237). P.408, 410, etc. In the sermon of Serapion of Vladimir (mid-13th century), as in a number of other works, the context itself is characteristic, representing a set of similar topoi: “Better, brothers, let us cease from evil; We will lose all evil deeds: robbery, robbery, drunkenness, adultery...” (Quoted from: Toporov V.N. Holiness and saints in Russian spiritual culture. T. 2. P. 260). However, in each specific case the motivation for their use is important. See: Kalinovskaya V.N. To the study of the most ancient Russian teachings and words against drunkenness // Old Russian literature. Source study... P. 57. However, in one of the newest editions of the Izbornik (published after the appearance of this article), this text is quite clearly entitled: Teachings of Gregory, Bishop of Belgorod / Trans. V.V. Kolesova // Izbornik. Tales of Ancient Rus'. M., 1986. pp. 105–107. This word was pronounced, according to L.A. Dmitriev and N.V. Ponyrko, in St. Sophia of Kyiv at the end of the 12th century. (Ibid. p. 412). But whatever the situation with the problem of authorship, it is important to remember that “... questions of the authorship of certain hymns (of course, what has been said also applies to homilies - remember the extensive corpus of pseudo opera-Chrysostomica. - D. M.) is indifferent for the Orthodox tradition, it is interested in the content" (Vasilyk V.V. New materials on the history of the canon and Palestinian hymnography // Traditions and heritage of the Christian East. pp. 207–208). Comparison of this source with the works of Byzantine authors, among which Palamas occupies one of the first places, shows that in this case we are dealing with an authentic expression of the views of representatives of the Orthodox tradition. See, for example: Evagrius. A Word on Spiritual Work // Works of Abba Evagrius. P. 96.6 – diagram of eight main thoughts. The word “thought”, which we encountered in Palamas, is important in this context. Wed. also the position of St. Theodosius of Pechersk: Toporov V.N. Holiness and saints in Russian spiritual culture. T. 1. pp. 788–789. Polyakovskaya M. A. Portraits... P. 81–82. See: Byzantine satirical dialogue / Ed. preparation S. V. Polyakova and. V. Felenkovskaya. L., 1986. Barabanov N. D. Byzantium and Rus' at the beginning of the 14th century. (Some aspects of relations between the patriarchate and the metropolis) // VO. M., 1991. pp. 210–211. In particular, the existence of this kind of feasts is reliably recorded for the late antique era: Chekalova A. A. Life and customs of Byzantine society // Culture of Byzantium. IV – first half of the 7th century. pp. 641–644; cf.: Hers. Life and customs // Culture of Byzantium. Second half of the 7th–12th centuries. pp. 577–581, esp. 580. Νικήτα Θεσσαλονίκης. Ἐρωτήσεις καὶ άποκρίαεις διάφοροι ... // Σύνταγματῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων / Ἐκδ. Γ. A. Ράλλη, N. Ποτλή. Ἀθῆναι, 1855. Τ. Ε'. (5). Σελ. 382–388. Αὐτόθι. Σελ. 388. It is no coincidence that A. A. Chekalova notes that starting from the 11th–12th centuries. Races at the hippodrome, so popular in the early Byzantine era, give way to stage performances and singing (Chekalova A. A. The evolution of festivals and spectacles in Byzantium in the 7th–12th centuries // Culture and social thought: Antiquity. The Middle Ages. The Renaissance. M., 1988. pp. 86–94, esp. 93). The latter - especially in the houses of the nobility - could well be combined with a feast. Kazhdan A. P., Constable G. People and Power in Byzantium. Ch. 3; Barabanov N. D. Popular religiosity and the Church in Byzantium in the 13th–14th centuries. // XVIII International Congress of Byzantinists. Summary of messages. M., 1991. T. 1; His same. “The churches built by their ancestors are falling into disrepair...” (Religious everyday life of Byzantium in the 12th century through the eyes of a Catholic) // Historical and Archaeological Almanac. M.; Armavir, 1996. pp. 211–212; His same. Trullo Council and the problem of popular religiosity in Byzantium // Byzantium: Cumulation and translation of cultures. pp. 3–5; His same. From Gilu to Vurkolak. Demonology and parish Orthodoxy in Byzantium // Medieval Orthodoxy from parish to patriarchy / Ed. N. D. Barabanova, I. O. Tyumentseva. Volgograd, 1998. Vol. 2. pp. 81–97; Barabanov N. D. La religiosité populaire byzantine comme problème de l’histoire // XX e Congrès International... Pré-actes. Vol. 3. P. 247. For a bibliography of A. Ya. Gurevich’s works touching on the problems of popular religiosity, see: Other Middle Ages. To the 75th anniversary of A. Ya. Gurevich. M.; St. Petersburg, 2000. P. 442 ff. Meyendorff directly writes that the phenomenon that outraged Palamas was the carnival (Meyendorff J. Introduction... P. 396). Kazhdan A. P. Did the Byzantines laugh? // Other Middle Ages. pp. 185–197. As the researcher insightfully writes, works similar in the nature of their functioning to the homily of St. Gregory Palamas (we are talking about the “Word” of Theoktistus Studite), should have existed “... in the so-called contact zone (emphasized by us - D. M.), which was the meeting place of high theology with popular religiosity” (Barabanov N.D. “The Word” of Theoktistus Studite and the spread of hesychasm in Constantinople in the 30s of the 14th century // VV. 1989.T.50.S. 144). To the concept of the contact zone (not to mention the well-known works of D. Obolensky, V. A. Arutyunova-Fidanyan, in relation to preaching - the same J. Bernardi, etc.) cf. general remark of M. Richter: in the Middle Ages, “...written culture, in order to be effective, probably perceived the most important features of oral culture” (Richter M. Oral and written cultures of the Middle Ages: Siamese twins? // Other Middle Ages. P. 294). Thus, we are entering a zone of phenomena that are extremely difficult to explain in any unambiguous way. Hence, in many respects, the hypothetical nature of the corresponding conclusions. We in no way pretend to even outline this complex problem in detail (let alone solve it). Let's name just two classic works that provide food for thought about the relevance of this concept for the culture of Ancient Rus': Uspensky B. A. Philological research in the field of Slavic antiquities. Relics of paganism in the East Slavic cult of Nicholas of Myra. M., 1982; Podskalski G. Christianity... P. 162, etc. See also: Toporov V.N. Holiness and saints in Russian spiritual culture. Vol. 1. In relation to Byzantium, the data cited by Palamas (and related ones) make us think about the existence in the culture and everyday life of the Empire of the Hellenic tradition in both of its variants (perhaps it is more appropriate to talk about the levels of the latter): high (philosophy, studia humanitatis) and low (which is what we are talking about). Chekalova A. A. Evolution... P. 92. Debolsky G. S., prot. The Orthodox Church in its sacraments, worship, rituals and requirements. M., 1994. P. 291. Chekalova A. A. Evolution... P. 92–93. Ibid; Polyakovskaya M. A., Chekalova A. A. Byzantium: life and customs. Sverdlovsk, 1989 Polyakovskaya M. A. The emotional world of the Byzantine // ADSV. 1992. Issue. 26. P. 134. See the indicated passage from “Questions and Answers” by Nikita Maroneisky. Parallels from early Byzantium – Chekalova A. A. Life and customs of Byzantine society // Culture of Byzantium. IV – first half of the 7th century. pp. 661–663. Kazhdan A. P., Constable G. People and Power... P. 63. Joseph Bryennius. Forty-nine chapters. Ch. 47. What are the causes of our sorrows? / Per. V. A. Smetanina, cit. by: Smetanin V. A. Perception of social problems by an orthodox thinker (Joseph Bryennius) // ADSV. 1990. Vol. 25. Byzantium and the neighboring world. pp. 147–148. See in the same place (p. 138) about dating. Wed. also: 417D–420A (“μυραλοιφίας ... τὰ βδελυρὰ ἐπιτρίμματα ...”, etc.). There is a feeling of resemblance to an ancient stadium and some kind of sports festival, but there is no way to confirm it yet. Νικήτα Θεσσαλονίκης. Ἐρωτήσεις ... Σελ. 388. See: Georgoudi S. L’égorgement sanctifié en Greece moderne: les “Kourbânia” des saints // La cuisine du sacrifice en pays grec / Ed. M. Detienne, J.-P. Vernant. P., 1979. P. 271–307. Thank you Hierarch. Grigory (Lurie) and N.D. Barabanov for pointing out this article. For the meaning of the word τὸ ἀφαίρεμα, see: Liddell H. G. and Scott R. A Greek – English Lexicon. Oxford, 1996. P. 285: “1. that which is taken away as the choice part..." Νικήτα Θεσσαλονίκης. Ἐρωτήσεις ... Σελ. 387. Wed. in Agapit (PG. 86/1. 1173. Cap. XXIX); the expression goes back to Pseudo-Areopagite: οὐ μόνον μαθεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ παθεῖν τὰ θεῖα (De divinis nominibus. II. 10). Indicated by V. M. Lurie: Meyendorff I. F. Life and works... P. 280. Approx. 25. Loos M. Certain aspects du bogomilisme byzantin des XI e et XII e siècles // BS. 1967. Vol. 28/1. P. 53. Despite the statement of F. Winckelmann: “... the study of late antique and Byzantine heresies is just beginning” (Winckelmann F. On the role of the masses in early Byzantium (by way of discussion) // VV. 1979. T. 40. P. 35. Note 52), there is already a fairly extensive historiography on this topic. See bibliography: Rigo A. Monaci... R. 12, 19–36. Particularly important is the detailed article by J. Gouillard (see Introduction). Of the works not listed in Rigaud, we note: Rochow I. Zum Fortleben des Manichäismus im byzantinischen Reich nach Justinian I. // BS. 1979. Vol. 40/l. S. 13–21; Rochow I., Matschke K.-P. Neues zu den Zigeunern im byzantinischen Reich um die Wende vom 13. zum 14. Jahrhundert // JÖB. 1991. Bd. 41. S. 241–254, bes. 249–254. Wed. also: Bibliography of hesychasm / Ed. S. S. Khoruzhego, A. G. Dunaev. M., 2002/2003 (in print). Rigo A. Monaci... Parte 2. Spec. p. 47, 50, 151, 268. Cf. more generally, about some prerequisites for the penetration of heresies into the Holy Mountain: N. D. Barabanov. From the history of relations between Constantinople and Athos at the beginning of the 14th century. // ADSV. 1982. Issue. 19. Byzantium and its provinces. P. 117; Rigo A. Niceforo l’Esicasta (XIII sec.): alcune considerazioni... P. 81–84 (about the turbulent political situation in the area of ​​Mount Athos from the middle of the 13th century). For a description of the main sources (mainly of anti-Palamite origin) and their messages, see: Rigo A. Monaci... R. 151, 155, 221. Cf. section "Le fonti" (pp. 222–231). Be that as it may, it is noteworthy (and A. Rigo draws attention to this) that the Athonite heretics were condemned by the Synod of Kareya in 1344 almost simultaneously with the condemnation of Palamas and Isidore Vukhir by Patriarch John Kalek (p. 222). The latter circumstance was also used by anti-Palamite propaganda. Palamas himself, as our meager data shows, was in principle alien to this kind of practice (examples from the “Triads” are well known and analyzed in the same book by A. Rigo, in order to focus our attention on them here). Therefore, we should talk not so much about contacts as about conscious and principled polemics both in 1326 and in 1338–1341. – Ibid. R. 236·, Meyendorff I. F. Life and works... P. 32–34, 39–42 and comm. V. M. Lurie. Werner E. Popular heresy or movement for socio-political reforms? Problems of the revolutionary movement in Thessaloniki in 1342–1349. // BB. 1960. T. 17. pp. 186–187. According to John Cantacuzenus (Hist. III. 38), the Zealots, “... tearing the cross from the holy churches, used [it] as a banner and said that under this [banner] they were fighting” (quoted from: Rigo A. Monaci... R. 162). The categorical statement of G. G. Litavrin (Byzantium during the period... P. 142) that the zealots were not influenced by heretical teachings is somewhat at odds with this. In this regard, it is characteristic that not a single Byzantine author of the mid-14th century. does not speak positively about the zealots (Rigo A. Monaci... R. 163). According to the general assessment of one little-known source of that time, which finds numerous confirmations in the contemporary literature, the Byzantine Empire after the death of Andronicus III “... is tortured in every possible way, falls under tyranny and is taken into captivity in various ways” (Γουλούλης Στ. (εκδ.). Αντωνίου - Κείμενο – Μετάφραση. 70. 403–404). Rigo A. Monaci...P. 172, 175. Angelov D. Bogomilstvo in Bulgaria. Sofia 2, 1961. P. 272. D. Angelov connects this message with the strengthening of neo-pagan beliefs, magic and exorcism in Byzantine and Bulgarian society of that time. Obviously, we are dealing with more than just a local phenomenon, because Western Europe was also turbulent at that time - the plague, the Inquisition, the Reconquista... This context should be taken into account when considering this topic. About the pagan cult of trees (not to mention the sacred groves and dryads in Ancient Greece), associated, ultimately, with the mythopoetic image-concept of arbor mundi, cf. article from which the example in brackets is taken: Toporov V.N. Along the outskirts of the Greek world (Towards the image of the world tree) // Γεννάδιος. pp. 183–213, hie p. 201–205. Rigo A. Monaci... R. 171,193 (quoted words of St. Euthymius Zigavina), 210. Cf. on the river 209 list of persons who possessed the grace-filled gift of prophecy, recognized by the Church - among them St. Gregory Palamas. The history of censures of heretics for false prophecies goes back more than one century. Still blessed. Theodoret accused the Messalians of predicting the future under the influence of direct contemplation of the Holy Trinity with physical eyes (Gouillard J. Quatre procès... P. 21). Similar accusations were made at the end of the 11th century. Theodore of Blachernae (Ibid. R. 27). The doctrine of the leadership of the “perfect”, developed by Blachernites, is also similar to the views of the Bogomils of his time (Ibid. R. 28). We also find mention of τῆς τῶν Βογομίλων θρησκείας in the act of condemnation of the monk Klim of Sasimsky and Leontius of Valvis (XI - early XII centuries) (Ibid. R. 72. 34; 74. 77). All this put the Church in a position - as in the time of St. Gregory Palamas – faced with the problem of distinguishing between true and false gnosis, i.e. that is, ultimately, true and false communication with God: “Beware (βλέπετε) lest anyone deceive (πλανήσῃ) you, for many will come in My name...” (Matthew 24:4–5; cf. Mark 13:5; Luke 21:8; Eph.5:6; 2 Thess. 2:3; 1 John 2:18–23; 4:1–3; etc.). It was the experience of communion with God that was the starting point of Palamas in his debates with Varlaam. Therefore, he recognized the role of syllogisms (with an unproven premise) in theology as useless, but he ultimately failed to convince Barlaam, whose thought was based on other (and also had precedents in Byzantine culture) - rationalistic - positions (Podskalsky G. Barlaams theologische Methode und die byzantinische Tradition // XV e Congrès International des études byzantines. Athènes, 5–11 septembre. Résumés des communications. Athènes, 1980; Medvedev I. P. Neue philosophische im späten Byzanz. E. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God in Early Writings of Barlaam the Calabrian // MS 1982. Vol. 44. P. 197–202, 209–210, 219 and conclusions of the work as a whole). 521B mentions “...those who even now do not submit to the leaders of the Church and interrupt [what is] not said according to them with hostile [shouts] (καὶ κατ’αὐτῶν ἔστιν ὅτε, τὰ τῶν πολεμίων παραφθεγγόμενοι)". Here, however, one can see a hint of the followers of Varlaam and Grigora, who retained leadership in the anti-Palamite party in the 1350s. Saint Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred And Fifty Chapters. P. 112.28.5–6. Noted by P. E. Sinkewicz: Sinkewicz R. E. Christian Theology and the Renewal... P. 345. It seems that two trends of “neo-Hellenistic revival” in Byzantium in the 14th century. - scientific and popular - closed one on the other, and Palamas had to fight on both fronts... Saint Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred And Fifty Chapters. P. 112.28.7. Sinkewicz R. E. Christian Theology and the Renewal... P. 346 - with a noteworthy clarification: “...just at the time when Gregoras was assuming the leadership of the anti-Palamite cause” (with reference to the cited work of Bayer). It is important for us to note that with both camps of their opponents, St. Gregory had to fight almost simultaneously. St. Gregory Palamas. Conversation on the 15th Sunday of the Gospel readings according to Luke... // Conversations (omilia) of St. Gregory Palamas. Part 3. P. 225. Translation by archim. Ambrose (Pogodin) is quoted with minor stylistic changes. Browning R. Byzantine Thessalonica: a unique city? pp. 25, 37; Medvedev I. P. Mystra. P. 85; Toporov V. N. Holiness and saints in Russian spiritual culture. T. 1. P. 204. Note. 32; Herring G. Die Juden von Saloniki // Südost-Forschungen. 1999. Bd. 58. S. 23–24 (the last three works briefly touch on the situation of the Empire as a whole). The heresy of the Judaizers in Thessalonica in the 1320s–30s, which denied the veneration of icons, is mentioned by A.P. Kazhdan: Kazhdan A.P. Agrarian relations in Byzantium in the 13th–14th centuries. M., 1952. P. 191. The correspondence of Athanasius I, Patriarch of Constantinople. P. 76. 3–6. See, in particular: Lobova L. Yu. The state of the Byzantine Church at the end of the 13th – beginning of the 14th century. in the perception of Patriarch Athanasius I // ADSV. 1997. Sat. 28. pp. 38–39. I would still like to note the ambiguity of the image of the Jew (and, more broadly, of the foreigner in general) in the minds of Byzantine intellectuals of the Paleologian era. Thus, John Cantacuzene (albeit in a purely literary form) is ready to enter into lengthy disputes with the Jews and explain to them the basic truths of the Christian doctrine (John Cantacuzene. Dialogue with the Jew Xenus / Translated by G. M. Prokhorov // John Cantacuzene. Conversation with the papal legate. Dialogue with the Jew and other writings. St. Petersburg, 1997. P. 59–291). On the ambiguity of the image of the Turks in the “Letter to his Church” by St. Gregory Palamas, see, in particular, in the review of R. M. Shukurov on the monograph by M. Balive: Shukurov R. M. Contact zone. Problems of intercivilizational relations in modern Byzantine studies // VV. 2000. T. 59 (84). P. 204 (presents the conclusions of M. Balivet). Thus, we can talk about some (still relatively unnoticeable) modifications in the ethnic self-awareness of the Byzantines. M.A. Polyakovskaya considers this version more convincing than Bogomil’s (in a personal conversation with the author, as well as in a review of his thesis). See: Lurie V. M. From Jerusalem to Aksum through the Temple of Solomon: Archaic legends about Zion and the Ark of the Covenant as part of the “Kebra Negest” and their transmission through Constantinople // Christian East. 2000. T. 2 (8). Section 2.1. Sophia of Constantinople: the new Temple of Solomon. – I sincerely thank the priest. Gregory (Lurie) for the opportunity to read his article in electronic form. Lurie V. M. Comments // Meyendorff I. F. Life and works... P. 392–393. Featherstone J. An Iconoclastic Episode in the Hesychast Controversy // JÖB. 1983. Bd. 33; Lurie B. M. Comments... P. 379–382. Cod. Vat. Gr. 2219. Fol. 139v. Quote by: Barabanov N. D. From the history of Byzantine ethics at the turn of the XIII-XIV centuries. // ADSV. 1987. Vol. 23. Problems of ideology and culture. P. 107 (valuable material and important conclusions). Excerpts of similar content from the same manuscript were published by Ilse Rochow and Klaus-Peter Maschke (Rochow I., Matschke K.-R. Neues zu den Zigeunern... S. 249 u. folg.). All the more urgent is the need for the speedy publication of the full text. See quotes below. “Since we use Jewish doctors, allowing us to feel them with our hands (! – The very touch of a heretic was considered unclean. – D. M.) ...” (Quoted from: Smetanin V. A. Perception ... P. 147). I. Shevchenko, referring to the same place, points out that the 11th rule of the Trullo Council prohibits priests and laity from being treated by Jews (Ševčenko I. The Decline of Byzantium... P. 181. N. 59). Amusing processions with bears themselves could be an element of folk entertainment. Wed. the famous scene with Dolokhov in War and Peace. This method of fortune telling was widespread in late Byzantium, as were the talismans mentioned in the same series. Joseph Bryennius speaks about him. In general, all of these phenomena are symptomatic of the society that gave birth to them - cf. from him: “Since we daily turn to the magicians (μάντεις?), fortune tellers, gypsies (cf. article by Rokhov and Machka. - D.M.) and spellcasters. And for any illness we resort to witchcraft... To ensure the fertility of the fields, offspring and health of herds, successful hunting and abundant harvest of vineyards, we resort to spells” (Quoted from: Smetanin V.A. Perception... P. 148). Wed. about similar phenomena based on the material of Western Europe: Gurevich A. Ya. Folk magic and church ritual // Mechanisms of culture / Responsible. ed. B. A. Uspensky. M., 1990. S. 3–27; etc. Cod. Vat. Gr. 2219. Fol. 202v. 1–10. Quote by: Rochow I., Matschke K.-P. Neues zu den Zigeunern... S. 250. Νικήτα Θεσσαλονίκης. Ἐρωτήσεις ... Σελ. 384. Quote by: Rochow I., Matschke K.-P. Neues zu den Zigeunern... S. 250. Compare: Serban C. La peur à Byzance aux XIII e et XIV e s. //JÖB. 1982. Bd. 32/2.P. 187–193 (highlights fear of two groups of phenomena – natural-astronomical and social); Λαμπάχης Σ. Μορφές υπερβατικής επικοινωνίας στην ιστοριογραφία και στην χρονογραφία των παλαιολογείων χρόνων // Η επικοινωνία στο Βυζάντιο. Σελ. 323–330 (valuable material on the belief in dreams and visions in the highest circles of the Empire). In general, see: Beck H.-G. Theodoras Metochites. Die Krise des byzantinischen Weltbildes im 14. Jahrhundert. Munich, 1952; Γλικατζί–Αρβελέρ Ε. Η πολιτική ιδεολογία της Βυζαντινής αυτοκρατορίας .. Σελ. 137–147; Meduedev I.P. Neue philosophische Ansätze... S. 529–548, bes. 539–540; Hohlweg A. Astronomie und Geschichtsbetrachtung bei Nikephoros Gregoras. S. 60. Image of Theodore Metochites. See, in addition to the literature listed above: Medvedev I.P. Byzantine humanism XIV–XV centuries. pp. 130–134 (ibid., p. 130, and about the Hellenistic origins of the image); Sevčenko I. Théodore Métochites, Chora et les courants... P. 36; cf.: p. 33, 35 (the same feeling of instability of life and the universe, so familiar to modern European people, starting with Hamlet’s “The time is out of joint...”). Kazhdan A. P. "A ship on a stormy sea." On the question of the relationship between the figurative system and the historical views of two Byzantine writers // From the history of culture of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. M., 1976. P. 3–16, esp. With. 9 et seq. (about Grigora’s “conscious anti-determinism” – p. 11). This article lays the foundation for studying the topic throughout the entire space of Byzantine literature. Wed. again from Bryennius: “Human life is like an insurmountable abyss of the sea, strewn with innumerable rocks, underwater cliffs and overflowing with pirates. In the middle of this sea arose a great ship, overwhelmed by mighty and innumerable waves - the Church of God" (quoted from: Smetanin V.A. Perception... P. 141). The image of a ship, apparently, is one of the universal ones (cf. the poet: “Whoever has a heart must hear the time // How your ship is going down”). The sea was already interpreted as an image of this world by Tertullian (On baptism, 12. See: Quintus Septimius Florence Tertullian. Selected works / Compiled and generally edited by A. A. Stolyarov. M., 1994. P. 100). Capane S. La magia a Bisanzio nel secolo XIV: azione e reazione. Dal Registro del Patriarcato costantinopolitano (1315–1402) // JÖB. 1980. Bd. 29. P. 249. Ibid. Characteristic are the semantic connotations with the words ἄσκησιας, ἀσκέσω (feat, asceticism; to strive) (in the case of Cappadokis, the same semantics is taken with a “minus” sign). bid. Wed. stencil "warlock". Kharitonovich D. E. On the problem of perception of humanistic culture in Italian society of the 16th century. (Vanoccio Biringuccio and his treatise “De la pirotechnia”) // Renaissance Culture and Society. pp. 153–161; and a number of other works - in particular, in the collection “Odyssey” for 1992–1993. An important fragment from it in the Latin original was published by V. N. Toporov: Toporov V. N. Holiness and saints in Russian spiritual culture. T. 2. P. 150. (“Tune apparebit signum Filii Hominis... Et libri aperientur vitae (discharge of V.N. Toporov. - D.M.), et manifestabunt omnesgentes impietatem suam..." - about the Day of the Last Judgment). Sirape S. La magia... P. 246: “μαντεία, φαρμακία, ἐπαοιδία, κιθαρισμοί, ᾄσματα δαιμονικά, πνευμάτων ἐρωτήσεις..." The set of features, as we see, is quite stable (cf. Athanasius I). This allows us to talk about a single branch of the late Byzantine hereseological tradition. See: Panchenko A. M. Russian culture on the eve of Peter's reforms. L., 1984; and reissues. Of course, between the Russian 17th and Byzantine 14th centuries there were both similarities and differences, since in Palaeologian Byzantium the main carrier of the threat (as opposed to a schism) was an external factor, as recalled by V.A. Smetanin (Smetanin V.A. On the specifics of permanent war in Byzantium in 1282–1453 // ADSV. 1973. Vol. 9. pp. 89–101). See examples: Podskalski G. Christianity... S. 162, 179, 182–183; 298 (in connection with the question of “Judaizers”); 309, 409 (on earlier material); Prokhorov G. M. About Metropolitan Cyprian and the Service Book with his Teachings // Him. Rus' and Byzantium in the era of the Battle of Kulikovo. Articles. St. Petersburg, 2000. P. 236: “Don’t be a drunkard... Don’t be a carpenter... don’t slaughter an animal (our italics - D.M.).” The liturgical context itself makes us think about the influence of which factors should largely explain such phenomena: whether they should be interpreted as a relic of paganism (under the influence of an insufficiently Christianized flock) or as a return (albeit partial) to the customs of early Christianity (cf. note 2 on p. 419). Thus, in Rome, the Easter sacrifice of a slain lamb was preserved until the 12th century. (see: Lurie V.M. From Jerusalem... Part 4. Excursion: Christian rituals associated with animal sacrifices). Taking into account the vastness of the territory of Rus' and its relatively weak urbanization at the time in question, and also taking into account the fact that the Teaching in question has been preserved in a number of copies since the end of the 13th century, it should be recognized that its authorship belongs to tradition, and not to one person. But be that as it may, the phenomena described in it were, apparently, among the ordinary. For the situation in Byzantium, see the main text. Wed. about its origins in the element of menippea, remarks by M. M. Bakhtin: Bakhtin M. M. The work of Francois Rabelais and the folk culture of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. M., 2 1990; His same. Epic and novel... But at the same time - for the Orthodox ikumena - and a takeoff: it was the era of the Orthodox Renaissance (Archpriest John Meyendorff, G. M. Prokhorov, etc.). In the person of Palamas, the confrontation between two trends - crisis and spiritually cleansing, “cathartic” - found its direct exhibitor. From the literature on these topics, we only point out: Karpov S.P. The crisis of the mid-14th century: an underestimated turn? // Byzantium between West and East / Rep. ed. acad. G. G. Litavrin. St. Petersburg, 1999. pp. 220–238; Gorfunkel A. Kh. “Hammer of the Witches” – Middle Ages or Renaissance? // Renaissance culture and society. pp. 162–171. The previous era is the rise of the 13th century. in Western Europe - is well known enough to talk about here. Karpov S. P. Crisis... P. 237. A valuable study is devoted to this: Yates F. A. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic tradition / Trans. G. Dashevsky. M., 2000. Gorfunkel A. X. “Hammer of the Witches” – Middle Ages or Renaissance? P. 169. See also the opinions of A.F. Losev, Yu.M. Lotman and A.Ya. Gurevich (pp. 162–163), with whom we fully agree. Right there. P. 169. Wed. already the title of the treatise of Innocent XIII “De contemptu mundi”. In the East, works with this name were also created, but they were part of the system of Orthodox asceticism, which in general does not have a life-denying character, and is largely based on the Gospel story of the Transfiguration. Wed. from V. M. Lurie: “Probably ... our era has become, as it were, a mirror image of the era of Constantine the Great: we have again just passed the border between pagan and Christian civilizations, although the direction of our current movement is now the opposite” (Lurie V. M. The Calling of Abraham... P. 5). " τῇ λαμπρᾷ καὶ περιφανεστάτῃ τῶν πόλεων..." ( Γουλούλης Στ. Αντωνίου Λαρίσης Εγκώμιο ... Σελ . 73. 17. 526–527). Compare: Encomium auct. Gregorii Palamae Nilo SR. // 672C: Thessalonica is the second most magnificent city after Constantinople (μετὰ τὴν πρώτην); 674A (λαμπρὰ καὶ περιφανὴς – “bright and noticeable”). Browning R. Byzantine Thessalonica: a unique city? P. 29. See more details: Sinkewicz R. E. Christian Theology and the Renewal... P. 342–345; Hohlweg A. Astronomie... S. 56. Verpeaux J. Nicéphore Choumnos. Homme d'état et humaniste byzantin... P. 168. Rigo A. Monaci... P. 269 (in letters sent to Athos, Palamas “...non fa alcune menzione delle vicende...”), 274. Cf. conclusion of the monograph (p. 275): “Sappiamo che Isidoro, Palamas e Filoteo erano in qualche rapporto diretto con gli eretici athoniti, ma dobbiamo limitarci a questa costatazione.” It seems to me that based on the homilies we can move a little further (at least at the level of hypotheses). However, Hellenism and Christianity were intertwined in Byzantium, entering into complex and ambiguous relationships with each other and within the framework of monastic culture. See from recent works: Ivanov S. A. Aeschylus in the Life of Saint Niphon // Γεννάδιος. pp. 100–103. Ivanov rightly believes (p. 102) that the study of this kind of interaction should lead to greater nuance when considering the issue of Byzantine humanism. Toporov V. N. Holiness and saints in Russian spiritual culture. T. 2. P. 312. Right there. T. 1. pp. 646–647. At the same time, he almost always needs analysis not in itself, but as a means of exhortation and call for improvement of the spiritual, social and material order (in that order!). Saiko E. V. Internal and external factors in the formation of urban culture: (in the circle of Byzantine influence) // Byzantium and Crimea. Problems of urban culture. Abstracts of reports of the VIII scientific Syuzyumov readings. Ekaterinburg, 1995. P. 3. Their very half-heartedness casts doubt on the thesis of Marxist historiography that Palamas was a “protégé of the feudal class.” Not to mention that the concept of “feudal lord” in relation to Byzantium is more than controversial, we note that it is precisely the representatives of the upper strata of the nobility that Palamas primarily condemns. Meyendorff I. F. Life and works... P. 82, 106, 108, 117. Sevčenko I. The Decline of Byzantium... P. 186.