The image of Origen and the four main virtues in the “Gratitude to Origen”

Abstract: The article examines the image of Origen and his pedagogical methodology based on the early Christian monument “Gratitude Speech to Origen”, compiled by his student St. Gregory of Neocaesarea. Particular attention is paid to the ethical component. The doctrine of the four main virtues, self-knowledge and likeness to God is considered, as well as the connection between Origen’s ethical teachings and the philosophical tradition of Platonism and Stoicism. The four main virtues that Plato introduced into philosophy became an integral part of ancient paideia; Philo of Alexandria actively used them in his religious and philosophical synthesis. In the Alexandrian Christian tradition they received their further development, becoming an integral part of the Christian moral system and Christian wisdom. “A speech of gratitude to Origen” (In Origenem oratio panegyrica, CPG 1763) 1 is an excellent example of early Christian literature from the genre of a farewell speech delivered by a student to a teacher (λόγος συντακτικός) with elements of panegyric and philosophical protrepticism. Moreover, this is the only example of such a rhetorical work remaining in early Christian literature. The tradition of protrepticism - exhortation, or calling/persuasion - has a long history in the ancient art of eloquence. Exhortations are already found in the Greek sophists and Socrates - in the dialogues of Plato 2. Actually, the first “Protreptic” was written by Aristotle. In the Christian tradition, this genre was started by the ap. Paul (speech in the Areopagus: Acts 17:22–28), “Kerygma Petri” 3 and “Epistle to Diognetus” can also be attributed to him. Clement of Alexandria, Origen's predecessor in the school tradition in Alexandria, published the first Christian protreptic with the characteristic title “Admonition to the Hellenes,” according to all the rules of ancient and Hellenistic sophistry 4 . O.V. drew attention to the important connection of the “Gratitude Speech” with the Christian protreptic, as well as the influence of the philosophical tradition and especially the Platonic tradition on it. Aliyeva, who dedicated a special article to this connection 5. Traditionally, the author of the “Speech” is considered to be St. Gregory, bishop Neo-Caesarean, who formerly bore the name Theodore 6, and subsequently the nickname Wonderworker, who, even before his bishopric, studied with Origen in Caesarea Palestine 7. It is customary to adhere to this attribution even now, despite the fact that P. Noten, in his famous book about Origen, proposed a new scheme, significantly different from the traditional one. According to Noten, relying on the words of Eusebius that a huge multitude (μυρίοι) of people flocked to Origen in Caesarea 8, the “Speech” belongs to a certain Theodore, a disciple of Origen, and not St. Gregory the Wonderworker, who was not at all a student of Origen, and not even the addressee of Origen’s letter to Gregory, another student of Origen. The identification of Theodore, the author of the "Speech" and Gregory, the addressee of the letter, with the famous Neocaesarea saint was the work of Eusebius 9. The conclusion of P. Noten has forced researchers to be wary of the traditional attribution of the “Speech” of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea, but did not lead to a complete rejection of the traditional opinion 10. Publishers of Rech, A. Kruzel (1969), P. Guyot and R. Klein (1996), M. Slusser (1998), M. Rizzi (2002, with a question mark) leave the traditional authorship to St. Gregory the Wonderworker 11. Within the framework of this article, we will, first of all, try to study the question of the use or mention by the author of the “Speech” of the four main virtues. This question has a long and rich history in ancient ethics 12. Greek philosophical ethics turned out to be not alien to Hellenistic Judaism 13 and was adopted by Greek 14 and then Latin patristics 15 at an early stage. An appeal to the four main virtues can already be found among Christian apologists, but so far only for apologetic purposes, either to show the moral perfection of Christians accused of immorality, recklessness 16, or to ward off the accusation of godlessness and justify why Christians do not support the state cult, while remaining law-abiding citizens. St. Justin the Philosopher writes that in relation to social life, Christians strive to live a pure life, following God (καθαροῦ βίου ἐπιθυμοῦντες τῆς μετὰ θεοῦ), the Father and creator of the whole world 17 . Therefore, they do not make sacrifices and do not follow the state cult, since they are trained, convinced and confident that God pleases those who imitate His perfection in chastity, justice, love of mankind and everything that is worthy of God (σωφροσύνην καὶ δικαιοσύνην καὶ φιλανθρωπίαν καὶ ὅσα οἰκεῖα θεῷ ἐστι) 18 . Of the four classical virtues, St. Justin mentions only justice and chastity; love for mankind is also mentioned 19. Elsewhere, St. Justin writes: “We are called those who do not recognize gods (ἄθεοι). And we confess that we are atheists in relation to imaginary gods, but not in relation to the truest God and Father of justice and chastity and other virtues. καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν) 20 . Justice and chastity are also mentioned here and reference is made to other virtues along with these two, which may be an allusion to the quaternity of virtues. It is worth noting that St. Justin traces the virtues of justice and chastity to God the Father, thus asserting that they flow from Him as from the source. Separately, the virtue of chastity is mentioned by St. Justin twice more, the apologist writes that thanks to faith in the Father's Word, Christians got rid of demonic delusion and through the Son follow the One God, loving only chastity 21. Then Justin, mentioning many Christians of both sexes who live in virginity for the sake of Christ, using Gospel examples (Matt. 5:28–32; Matt. 19:2) shows how Jesus Christ taught chastity. His teaching was not sophistic, but His words were filled with divine power λόγος αὐτοῦ ἦν). Finally, St. Justin writes about the multitude of those who, under the influence of the Divine Teacher, turned from debauchery to chastity, since Christ calls the wicked, intemperate and unrighteous to repentance 22. Along with chastity, Justin mentions other virtues that true Christians should be noted for. This is love for all people (στέργειν ἅπαντας ταῦτα - philanthropy) 23, helping those in need and serving others, forbearance and non-anger, respectful attitude towards state authority and civil laws, and so on. All these virtues of St. Justin backs it up with gospel quotations. In a completely different context, the complete quartet of cardinal virtues is found in the apologist Athenagoras in the essay “On the Resurrection” attributed to him 24 . In this work, the author uses the categories of Greek philosophy 25, wanting to prove the possibility of the physical resurrection of the body 26. Athenagoras is the first author who conducts his polemics from a purely rational position. Beginning in chapter 15, he turns to an ethical-anthropological argument to argue for the resurrection of the human body. Inspired by the words of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 15:16–18), Athenagoras declares: since the nature of man is not only the soul, but the closest union of soul and body, then mind and understanding (νοῦν καὶ λόγον) are man, and not the soul in itself 27. If we attribute this to one soul, then the very nature of man as a person is destroyed. Then the mind exists in vain, understanding and observance of justice and, in general, exercise in any virtue (μάταιος δὲ ὁ νοῦς, ματαία δὲ φρόνησις καὶ) are in vain δικαιοσύνης παρατήρησις ἢ καὶ πάσης ἀρετῆς ἄσκησις) 28 . Virtues and vices should not be attributed to the soul alone, apart from the body, but they should be attributed to the person as a whole. After all, how can one imagine “courage and firmness (ἀνδρείαν ἢ καρτερίαν)” in the soul alone, or “temperance and chastity (ἐγκράτειαν καὶ σωφροσύνην)", or "reasonableness (φρόνησιν)", as well as "justice (δικαιοσύνη)", in the soul, separate from the material body? 29 The incorporeal nature of the soul does not need courage, since, having nothing material or defective in itself, it is not afraid of death, the removal of members, blows and the resulting suffering. The soul does not need chastity, since, not being excited by anything from the outside, it does not experience passionate movements. She has no need for understanding/prudence, since she has no desire for any external rational activity: to choose the best, to avoid the worst. Finally, she does not need justice, since there is no self-interest in it, and she does not need to give everyone what they deserve. Here Athenagoras presents all four cardinal virtues and even defines each of them. So courage (ἀνδρεία), paired with firmness/perseverance (καρτερία) is defined as perseverance among life’s misfortunes, overcoming the fear of death, and masculinity in all external circumstances and the suffering that results from them 30 . Chastity (σωφροσύνη) paired with continence (ἐγκράτεια) is defined as reasonable abstinence and chaste restraint in relation to food, sexual desires, restraint of pleasures and pleasures excited from within or without 31 . Prudence/rationality (φρόνησις) is defined as prudence in relation to action or inaction, choosing the best and avoiding the worst in relation to practical activities 32 . Justice (δικαιοσύνη) is a fair relationship between people, rewarding everyone according to their dignity in an even and proportionate manner ἀναλογίαν ἴσον) 33, abstinence from others, renunciation of self-interest (ἰδιοπραγία) 34. The fact that the two above-mentioned authors went through a serious philosophical school is beyond doubt, as well as the fact that in their teaching they were the first to attempt to combine Christian evangelism with philosophical teachings (primarily with the Middle Platonic) and express it in the categories of philosophy. It is assumed that St. Justin opened a philosophical school and taught philosophy in it, which was, of course, Christianity: “words of truth,” but involving a serious rethinking of Platonism in the spirit of Christian Revelation 35. There is a fragmentary mention of Athenagoras by Philip of Syda (5th century), the author of the unsurvived voluminous “Christian History,” where Athenagoras is described as the first head of the Alexandrian School, the teacher of Clement, whose student, in turn, was the Peripatetic philosopher Panten 36 . In view of the fragmentary nature of this fragment, its transmission through second hands, some confusion (Panten is a student of Clement, and not vice versa), this message causes debate and does not seem entirely reliable. Starting with P. Mironositsky, the opinion about the private nature of Athenagoras’s teaching activity has taken root in Russian patrolology. Like St. Justin the Philosopher, Athenagoras could open his own “philosophical and theological school,” travel a lot (Asia Minor, Alexandria, Athens), and conduct private teaching activities 37 . An original, but too hypothetical interpretation of the testimony of Philip of Sidsky was proposed by A.I. Sagarda 38. The researcher believed that Philip's testimony was correct and Athenagoras was indeed one of Clement's teachers, but not in Alexandria, but in Greece. This is the same “Ionian” whom Clement mentions at the beginning of the Stromatus; Clement left Hellas and Athenagoras before the latter wrote his apology. Thus, according to A.I. Sagarda, Athenagoras has nothing to do with Alexandria and the school. Panten and Clement of Alexandria The first head of the theological school in Alexandria, about which there is scanty historical information, some legendary, some completely reliable and handed down from his younger contemporaries, is Panten 39. Eusebius preserved some valuable information in his Ecclesiastical History. The most important of these is a fragment from a letter of Origen 40 in which the latter responds to reproaches that he devotes a lot of time and zeal to the consideration of heretical and philosophical teachings about truth. Origen says that in this he imitates (μιμησάμενοι) Panten, who, with his knowledge of these issues, brought benefit to many even before Origen himself took up teaching. Origen also cites the example of Herakles, who even before Origen was diligently engaged in philosophical sciences and continues to study them, despite the fact that he is a member of the presbytery of the Alexandrian Church (τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ καθεζόμενον Ἀλεξανδρέων) 41 . From this it is clear that a comprehensive review of the theological opinions of heretics and pagan philosophers was already expected in Panten’s lessons. A rather impressive body of writings has been preserved from Panten's student Clement of Alexandria (CPG 1375–1399). From the main authentic texts it is clear that Clement, like Origen later, studied and cited many opinions of philosophers and heretics, critically examining them and relating them to the teachings of the Church. In his main texts, Protrepticus, Pedagogue and Stromata, there are repeated references to the four cardinal virtues, both in combination and separately. At the same time, in Clement they are joined by others, for example, philanthropy, repentance, faith, hope, love and others. He also actively uses the Platonic concept of likeness to God from the dialogue “Theaetetus” 42. In the Protrepticus, which chronologically should have preceded the Pedagogue and the Stromata, there is a set of four virtues: “Let us repent and move from ignorance to knowledge, from foolishness to understanding, from intemperance to abstinence, from injustice to justice, from godlessness to God! A brave act is wonderful - to become a defector to God’s camp” 43. Here are three virtues: φρόνησις, ἐγκράτεια, which can be synonymous with σωφροσύνη, and δικαιοσύνη. There is no ἀνδρεία, but it may be implied in the word κίνδυνος. Also worth noting is the virtue ἐπιστήμη, placed at the head and, therefore, important in Clement’s system. In the “Pedagogue” there are already more places in which Clement talks about the virtues of justice 44, prudence 45, chastity 46, etc., a list of the four main virtues is given several times. So in the 12th chapter of Book II, Clement condemns those who strive for the shine of precious stones and gold jewelry, seeing in this goodness and beauty. He writes: “Human virtue is justice, chastity, courage and piety. And, therefore, a wonderful person is just and blameless, in a word, blessed, and not rich” 47. Continuing this theme below, Clement symbolically describes the four virtues as true ornaments, using a connotation of biblical expressions. Mentioned here are courage (with a reference to Proverbs 10:4), justice, chastity paired with αἰδώς (bashfulness), and understanding paired with σοφία (wisdom) with a reference to Proverbs 3:13. Here we can already see a classic set of cardinal virtues 48 . Finally, in Book III of the Pedagogue, continuing to give moral and practical advice and decrying the excessive use of cosmetics, Clement speaks of the true beauty of a person, of “prudent cosmetic art (κομμωτικὴν σώφρονα)”, since the best beauty is, first of all, the beauty of the soul, illuminated by the adornment of the Holy Spirit: justice, understanding, courage, chastity, charity and modesty 49. In his most voluminous work, “Stromata,” Clement devotes a lot of space to the ethical aspects of the life of a Christian Gnostic, a true contemplator who resembles God. He also mentions the four cardinal virtues. For Clement it is quite obvious that the teaching of virtues, commanded in the books of Moses, became the starting point for the moral philosophy of the Greeks 50. Everything that the Greek philosophers say about “courage, chastity, understanding, justice, endurance (καρτερίαν) and patience (ὑπομονήν), modesty (σεμνότητα) and abstinence (ἐγκράτειαν) and about piety (εὐσέβειαν) that surpasses all these virtues,” - the Law of Moses teaches all this, teaching justice, understanding and piety 51. Clement gives some quotations from the Holy Scriptures pointing to these virtues (for example, Proverbs 10:31, 11:1, 15:8, 6:5; Isaiah 58:6), saying that all Scripture glorifies these virtues 52. The Alexandrian didascal, following the Platonic and Stoic tradition, teaches about the unity of virtue (μία κατὰ δύναμίν ἐστιν ἡ ἀρετή), which, depending on the type of activity in which it manifests itself, is called understanding, chastity, courage and justice 53. All virtues accompany each other and a true Gnostic, possessing one of the virtues, also participates in the others due to their interconnection 54 . Once again (and far from the last) Clement speaks about the quaternity of virtues (ἡ τετρὰς τῶν ἀρετῶν), relying on the sacred text of the Book of Leviticus (Lev.19:23–24) 55 and following the allegorical method of interpretation of the Holy Scriptures by Philo 56. Farmers, says Clement, can take advantage of the provisions of the Law: it commands that planted young trees must be carefully looked after during the first three years. Unnecessary shoots should be cut off. You also need to dig up and loosen the soil so that weeds and parasites do not interfere with the growth of young plants. The law does not allow picking fruits from young trees, but only after three years, in the fourth year, the fruits must be removed and the first harvest must be dedicated to God. Clement explains all this allegorically, in line with moral philosophy. Shoots are sinful actions, weeds are sinful thoughts that must be eradicated until the fruit of faith grows. In the fourth year (after three years of announcement (κατηχουμένῳ) in Christian teaching), four virtues (ἡ τετρὰς τῶν ἀρετῶν) must be sacrificed to God καθιεροῦται τῷ θεῷ) so that already this third (stage, or year of the spiritual path of the catechumen) in the fourth and final stage reaches union with the Lord as its final stop (τῆς τρίτης ἤδη μονῆς συναπτούσης ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου τετάρτην ὑπόστασιν) 57 . Then, perfected in faith and enriched by the gift of God, blessed and sanctified (by the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism), a Christian can demonstrate his power in discovering gnosis and thus enrich his neighbors, serving them in grace-filled service; so that the temperate becomes completely chaste, the noble becomes courageous, the prudent becomes reasonable, the just becomes truly just 58. Clement's Gnostic is master of himself, competent in the comprehension of divine knowledge (ἐπιστήμης). In human affairs, knowledge concerns virtues and vices, good and evil and the mean (μέσων): the Gnostic knows what courage, understanding, chastity and the virtue of justice, which embraces them all, are. In many places in the Stromatus, Clement of Alexandria defines the four main kinds of virtue, 60 indicating their interconnection 61, as well as those virtues that flow from these first 62. Along with the main virtues of Greek philosophy, Clement identifies and puts at the forefront three Christian virtues: faith, hope and love 63. He is one of the first to attempt to connect the four philosophical virtues with the three Christian ones 64 , introduces into the Christian tradition the doctrine of virtue as the middle (μεσότης) 65 , the tripartite division of the soul according to Plato 66 , connects the doctrine of the image and likeness of God with the Platonic concept of likening to God 67 - all this will be organically adopted by the subsequent patristic tradition 68 . It is likely that the Alexandrian School under Clement had already reached a certain flourishing, but only under Origen and thanks to this “much learned,” “hardworking” 69 and tireless great Alexandrian, the school, which he headed first in Alexandria and then in Caesarea Palestine, acquired fame far beyond the borders of Alexandria and Caesarea. According to Eusebius 70, already in Alexandria Origen became widely known and his studies attracted not only the catechumens, but also many educated people and famous philosophers who wanted to get acquainted with Christian theology, as well as worldly philosophy. Origen also gained fame as a major philosopher. Eusebius also says that secular philosophers mentioned Origen in their writings 71, some of them dedicated their λόγους 72 to him, others brought him their works so that Origen could express his judgment on them (ἐπίκρισιν). The Neoplatonist Porphyry, who in his youth attended Origen's lectures 73, left an interesting and valuable memory of him, preserved in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 74. Eusebius says that in this testimony of Porphyry the truth is mixed with fiction and slander, but regarding Origen’s knowledge of Hellenic philosophy and sciences, his testimony is truthful. Here is what Porfiry writes: “Some, instead of rejecting the wretched Jewish writings, desiring to find a solution to them, have turned to awkward and inconsistent interpretations, which do not so much serve to justify these writings as to bring approval and praise to their own [interpretations]. They declared what was clearly said by Moses to be mysterious, representing allegories, and surrounded them with reverence, like the sayings of oracles, filled with hidden secrets. The founder 75 of this absurd trend (δὲ τρόπος τῆς ἀτοπία) was a very famous man, whom I often met in my youth, who was famous and now, thanks to the works he compiled, I mean Origen, who is in great honor among the teachers of this trend. He was a listener of Ammonius, 76 who has most succeeded in philosophy in our time. From this teacher he received great benefit in the first beginnings of scientific training. Origen, having received a Hellenic education, fell into barbaric insolence. Having given this teaching all of yourself and exchanging your academic skills for trifles. He led a Christian lifestyle, violating [paternal] laws (παρανόμως) 77, but in his views regarding the world order and in theology he remained Hellenistic, adapting Hellenic philosophy to myths alien to it. He never parted with Plato 78, knew the works of Numenius and Cronius 79, Apollophanes 80, Longinus 81, Moderates, Nicomachus 82 and writers famous in Pythagorean circles, and also used the books of the Stoics Chaeremon and Cornutus 83. Having learned from them the metalyptic (μεταληπτικόν) 84 way of explaining the Hellenic mysteries, he applied it to the Jewish scriptures" 85 . Willy-nilly, Porphyry here testifies to Origen’s high education, his deep knowledge of Plato’s philosophy and familiarity with the works of interpreters of Plato’s legacy. Prof. V. Yeager notes about the authors listed by Porfiry: “The authors whom Origen usually quoted in his lectures belonged for the most part to the school of middle Platonism. From Porphyry's account in the Vita Plotini we must conclude that Plotinus discussed the same authors in his classes. This was the most recent literature about the great philosophers of the past, to which both Plotinus and Origen could refer in their interpretations of the classics” 86. Origen was well acquainted with the books of Numenius, as evidenced by the mentions of this philosopher in Origen and references to his works 87. Origen gives a very positive description of Numenia as the best interpreter of Plato's works and a deep expert in Pythagorean teachings. In his books, Numenius turned to the Old Testament Scriptures and gave them an allegorical (τροπολογοῦντα) explanation 88 . Origen also mentions the Stoic Chaeremon and his book “On Comets” 89. The appearance of Origen in the "Speech" (more on this below) also indicates that he was a deep expert in the field of secular philosophy and lived the life of a Christian philosopher. Origen often mentions the four main virtues in his works, as dogmatic (“On Principles”), polemical (“Against Celsus”) and exegetical in nature. Let's look briefly at the key texts. In Book IV “On Principles,” Origen, polemicizing with those who attributed the bodily principle to the image and likeness of God in man, argues that the image and likeness in man is seen not in the corruptible bodily form (non per effigiem corporis, quae corrumpitur), but in the prudence of the soul, in justice, in moderation, in courage, in wisdom, in education (per animi prudentiam, per iustitiam, per moderationem, per virtutem, per sapientiam, per disciplinam) 90, finally, in all other chorus of virtues, which exist essentially in God (quae cum in Deo insint per substantiam), and in man, thanks to his zeal and likeness to God (per industriam et per imitationem Dei), like the Lord indicates in the Gospel: Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful (Luke 6:36) and: be perfect, just as your Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48) 91. A thought close to this is found in Book VIII of the treatise “Against Celsus: “Then Celsus continues and says that we avoid erecting altars, statues (ἀγάλματα) and churches and this, in his opinion, is a sure sign and conventional sign (σύνθημα) of our secret and forbidden community (ἀφανοῦς καὶ ἀπορρήτου κοινωνίας) 92 . He does not understand that we see altars in the heart of every righteous person, from which comes a true and spiritual fragrance, namely prayers coming from a clear conscience. Therefore, John in the Apocalypse says: Incense, which is the prayers of the saints (Rev. 5:8), and the Psalmist: Let my prayer rise before You like incense (Ps. 140:2). And the statues and gifts suitable for offering to God are not the work of ordinary craftsmen, but are created and formed in us by the Word of God, that is, by the virtues in which we imitate (μιμήματα) the First-born before all creation ( Col. 1:15 b) 93 , who gives us examples (παραδείγματα) of justice, chastity, courage, wisdom, piety and other virtues. So, among all those who have erected in their souls, according to the Divine Word, chastity, justice, courage, wisdom, piety and other virtues, these are their statues (ἀγάλματα) that they erected. Through them, as we are convinced, it is fitting for us to honor the type (πρωτότυπον) of all statues: the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15 a), the Only Begotten Son 94 (John 1:18)” 95. The entire set of four main virtues is presented here, although instead of understanding (φρόνησις) Origen has wisdom (σοφία), but this does not change anything, since in Plato one can find examples when these virtues were used synonymously. It is also important to note that Origen elevates the main virtues to the Divine Logos, the true image of God the Father, in Whom the models (παραδείγματα) of all virtues are seen in essence, and man becomes a participant in them by imitating and becoming like the Logos 96 . Elsewhere in the same treatise one can find other examples where all four cardinal virtues are given. For example: “We strive for the intemperate to become chaste (σώφρονες), or at least successful in chastity (σωφροσύνην), so that the wicked (ἀδίκων) turn to righteousness (δίκαιοι) or, at least, walked along the path to justice (δικαιοσύνην), so that the insane (ἀφρόνων) became reasonable (φρόνιμοι) or, at least, walked along the path to understanding (φρόνησιν), so that the cowardly, weak, lacking courage (ἀνάνδρων) became courageous (ἀνδρεῖοι) and strong in spirit (καρτερικοί)” 97 . In his Exhortation to Martyrdom, Origen also mentions four cardinal virtues: “[One can see] that this life largely consists of a struggle for many virtues. Even those who do not have a part in God, it turns out, strived for chastity, others died courageously, remaining faithful to their king, and those who studied the sciences also tried to become understanding (οἱ περὶ τοὺς ἐξεταζομένους λόγους), finally, they themselves wanted to become fair, those who studied law (ἐπιδεδωκέναι οἱ δικαίως)” 98. If we turn to the exegetical works of Origen, we can see many examples of the great Alexandrian’s reasoning about the four main virtues. Thus, in the 12th homily on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Origen lists three of the four main virtues (the virtue of understanding is missing): “Give glory to the Lord our God (Jer. 13:16). How do we give glory to the Lord our God? It is not with sounds and words that I strive to give glory to the Lord our God; but when we give glory to the Lord God, we give Him glory by works. Glorify God in chastity (σωφροσύνῃ), in justice (δικαιοσύνῃ), in good deeds (εὐποιίᾳ), glorify God with courage and steadfastness (ἀνδρείᾳ καὶ ὑπομονῇ), glorify God in piety and holiness (εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ ὁσιότητι) and other virtues” 99. In one Greek fragment from the catena on the Gospel of Luke, Origen cites all four cardinal virtues, in the context of an interpretation of Luke 12:58: “Try to acquire the good deeds of chastity, justice, courage, understanding, wisdom ἀνδρείαν, φρόνησιν, σοφίαν) so that what was said would be fulfilled: This is a man and his works are before him (Is. 62:11)” 100. Also in the catenas on the Book of Job one can find a fragment from Origen’s interpretation listing the four main virtues: “He has filled their houses with good things (Job 22:18). The houses of the righteous are filled with good things, I am not talking about outer houses, but about the inner house. He filled their houses with goods as far as the ruling principle of the soul (τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν) could contain. What benefits? Chastity, justice, courage, understanding, good deeds. This is what it means to fill a house with blessings” 101. In one fragment on the Book of Proverbs, again in catenas, Origen lists a whole chorus of Christian virtues along with four main ones: “Wisdom nests in the Church and dwells in the heavenly tabernacles: Wisdom is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. There is also an understanding that surpasses silver (Prov. 16:16), and all practical virtues: justice, knowledge, wisdom, chastity, courage, long-suffering (cf. Proverbs 16:32), humility and gentleness, mercy, faith, coupled with hope and love” 102. In the collection “Philokalia”, compiled by St. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian, there are several extracts where the main virtues are mentioned. In one extract, which is a fragment of Origen’s interpretation of Ps. 4, the Alexandrian didascal refers to the Platonic-Stoic doctrine of virtues: “And as for virtues and vices, doesn’t moral science teach us that we should choose justice, chastity, understanding and courage, and regulate our behavior in accordance with these virtues, and avoid what is opposite to them?” 103 Commenting on the words of the Lord: I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18 b), Origen sees in the gates of hell an image of various types of sin and errors of heretics that gave rise to false knowledge (1 Tim. 6:20). Every sinner or heretic builds for himself the gates of hell: some gates were built by Marcion, others by Basilides, still others by Valentinus, but true believers are faithful only to the One who said: I am the door (John 10:9). Origen contrasts the gates of hell with the gates of Zion, about which the Psalmist speaks: “In the Psalms the prophet gives thanks, saying You lift me up from the gates of death, so that I may proclaim Your praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion (Ps. 9:13-14). From this we learn that no one can give all the praises of God without rising from the gates of death and finding himself in the gates of Zion. The Gates of Zion can be thought of as the opposite of the gates of death; one gate of death is licentiousness (ἀκολασίαν), and the gate of Zion is chastity (σωφροσύνην), and also the gate of death is injustice (ἀδικίαν), and of Zion is justice (δικαιοσύνην), on which the prophet points out, saying: Behold the gates of the Lord, the righteous (δίκαιοι) will enter them (Ps. 118:20). And also the gate of death is cowardice (δειλίαν), and courage (ἀνδρείαν) is the gate of Zion, and foolishness (ἀφροσύνην) is the gate of death, and understanding (φρόνησιν) is of Zion. And all the gates of false knowledge (ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως) are opposed by one gate of knowledge free from lies (ἀψευδοῦς γνώσεως)” 104. And finally, one more extract from Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John: “Righteously pursue righteousness (δικαίως τὸ δίκαιον διώξῃ) (Deut. 16:20, LXX), unless the word “righteously” is simply added to the expression “pursue righteousness.” For it is possible, I believe, to strive for righteousness, but not in a righteous manner; after all, those who, for the sake of human glory, do something proper in itself, for example, in relation to the poor, do something righteous, however, not for the sake of justice itself (δικαιοσύνης), but out of vanity (cf. Matt. 6:1-2). And I think that, similar to the words “righteously strive for righteousness,” the following will be said: “chastely strive for chastity” (σωφρόνως τὸ σῶφρον διώξῃ), or “courageously strive for courage” (ἀνδρείως τὸ ἀνδρεῖον διώξῃ), or “strive wisely for wisdom” (σοφῶς τὸ σοφὸν διώξῃ), and in the same way in relation to the other virtues” 105. Even from these few texts one can see how much importance Origen attached to the classical four virtues of antiquity for Christian life 106. Essentially following Clement, but more explicitly and persistently, Origen introduces the four cardinal virtues of Greek paideia into Christian ethics. We can say that they are even necessary for a Christian at all stages of his path to God. The Lord Jesus Christ, the true image of the Father, is the source of all virtues 107. Origen says that nothing corporeal or corruptible will enter the Kingdom of God, but the virtues (which must be practiced in this age), “peace, righteousness and everything else of the same kind that is acquired by the Holy Spirit (pax ergo et iustitia et si qua huiusmodi sunt, quae per Spiritum Sanctum conquiruntur)” will also pass into the Kingdom of Heaven (in futuro permaneant in regno Dei) 108 . Christ himself is “wisdom, righteousness, holiness, truth and all other virtues (sapientiam esse et iustitiam et sanctificationem et veritatem et omnes simul virtutes)” and everyone who acquires them can be called “having put on Christ (Christum dicitur induisse)” 109. Since man’s path to God has its own specific stages, there are also “steps of virtue (virtutibus gradus)” along which the believer, a slave of Christ, the King of Truth (iustitia), moves towards God. When his virtues acquire the fullness of perfection (perfectionis expleta), then the Lord will hand over the kingdom to God the Father (1 Cor. 15:24), so that God may become all in all (1 Cor. 15:28) 110. And just as the highest knowledge (γνώσεως) in this age appears as a mirror (δι΄ ἐσόπτρου) and mysteriously (ἐν αἰνίγματι), and in the next age it will be face to face (cf. 1 Cor. 13:12), in the same way virtues, acquired in this life, will achieve their actual perfection in the future life 111. The image of Origen in "Oratio panegyrica" "Speech" of St. Gregory the Wonderworker is traditionally divided into Introduction (§ 1–30), Part One and Part Two (respectively: § 31–92 and 93–183), and Conclusion (§ 184–207) 112 . Already in the Introduction, the author makes the excuse that he does not have the skill to deliver public speeches, since he has not delivered or composed them for eight years, just as he has not heard laudable (πανηγυρικούς) or defensive (ἀγωνιστικούς) speeches of other public rhetoricians, except those who were written and pronounced in the school of Origen. Another reason was that the author did little about Greek rhetoric, since he devoted himself to the study of Roman legislation and the Latin language. Finally, there is a third reason and it is much more important than the first two. This is the subject of the speech, or rather the culprit of it, since it is dedicated to a husband who, in appearance and by all accounts, is an ordinary mortal man, but for those who are able to contemplate the greatness of his mind, he has already surpassed the ordinary human condition in his ascent to the Divine (μεταναστάσεως τῆς πρὸς τὸ θεῖον) 113 . Then the author says that he does not intend to praise the external qualities of Origen, and wants to talk about what is god-like and akin to God in him, that is, about the soul or mind, which, although contained in this mortal body, most diligently strives to become like God (ἐξομοιοῦσθαι βιαζόμενον τῷ θεῳ). Since St. Gregory intends to touch on such sublime subjects, then he wants to present his speech as thanksgiving to God (τὸ θεῖον εὐχαριστίας) for the fact that His Providence granted him to meet such a person 114. Further, in the first, autobiographical part, the author moves on to Thanksgiving itself. First, to God, the Lord and Ruler of the universe, the Origin of all good things. No one can properly thank Him, since every person is unclean before Him and is defiled with an admixture of evil. Therefore St. Gregory conveys his praises and songs to the King and Guardian of the universe, the inexhaustible Source of all blessings, the Representative of our souls and the Savior, the first-born Word of the Father, Creator and Ruler of the universe (τῷ πάντων δημιουργῷ καὶ κυβερνήτῃ), Who alone can send unceasing thanksgiving to the Father, both for Himself and for all people. Since the Son is one with the Father, therefore people should bring thanksgiving to the Author of all things (the Father) through His Word 115. After this, the author gives thanks to his Angel, who, according to divine Providence, arranged for St. Gregory had a saving meeting, introducing him to Origen 116. Then, describing his life path in more detail, the author concludes: “And the divine angel, after he had gone so far with me and handed over my leadership to this husband and here, so to speak, calmed down, but not from labor or any kind of exhaustion (for the race of these divine servants does not know fatigue), entrusting me into the hands of this husband, who was supposed to fulfill everything, as far as possible, providence and care for me” 117. Then the author of the Oration honestly admits that at first he was not interested in studying philosophy and theology from Origen. Using the image of animals, birds or fish caught in the snares or nets of hunters, but trying to escape, St. Gregory says that he also wanted to “sneak away and run away (ἐξολισθαίνειν δὲ καὶ ἀποδιδράσκειν)” to Berit or his native fatherland 118. Origen used all kinds of arguments and exhortations to bind the student to himself: “He used all possible arguments, pulled, as the proverb says, all the ropes (πάντα κάλων (τοῦτο δὴ τὸ τοῦ λόγου) κινῶν) 119, exerted all his strength. He praised philosophy and the lovers of philosophy with extensive, numerous and befitting praises, saying that they alone live a life truly worthy of rational beings, since they strive to live a right life (ὀρθῶς βιοῦν) and strive to achieve knowledge of themselves (ἑαυτούς τε γινώσκοντας), what they are, and then about the real good (ὄντως ἀγαθά), which a person should strive for, and about the true evil (ἀληθῶς κακά), which should be avoided. He condemned ignorance (ἀμαθίαν) and all ignorant people; and there are many who, like cattle, are blind in mind, and do not even understand what they are, they wander as if completely devoid of reason, they themselves do not know what the real essence of good and evil is, and do not want to learn it from others 120. They consider wealth, fame, honor from others and physical strength to be a blessing, and they value this more than anything else; they value those arts (τεχνῶν) that help them achieve this, and in life they choose those directions that give them the opportunity to obtain this, for example, military service, jurisprudence (δικανικήν), or the study of laws. And he told us with persistence and skill that this attracts us if we neglect our reason (λόγος), which, first of all, should be master in us” 121. St. Gregory says that with such speeches Origen struck him like arrows, encouraging him to take up philosophy. More and more they attracted him to the teacher, as if “by the force of some higher compulsion.” Origen argued, and, according to St. Gregory, it is correct that worship of God itself (εὐσεβεῖν) is impossible for one who does not engage in philosophy 122. Origen’s speeches and exhortations were filled with a certain “divine power”, which “firmly planted” Gregory next to Origen. And not only the arguments and exhortations attracted the young student, he was also struck by the “thorn of friendship,” “good disposition,” and individual approach of Origen to his student, who wanted to make him not only “a participant in the benefits that flow from philosophy,” but also to kindle love for God and His Logos, the True Teacher of piety: “The Word of salvation, which comes to many and subdues everyone whom it visits; and there is nothing that could oppose Him, since It is and will be the King of all: It is hidden and is not known by many not only with ease, but also with difficulty, so that if you ask them, they will give a clear answer about it. And as if a spark was kindled in the depths of my soul, love flared up and ignited in me, love (ἔρως) for this Holy Word, the most beautiful of all, Which attracts everyone to Himself with His ineffable beauty, and for this man, His friend (αὐτοῦ φίλον; cf. John 15:14–15 a) and the herald (προήγορον)" 123 . St. Gregory also says that Origen was highly endowed with the gift of knowledge of God's Logos, “above many, and perhaps all, present-day people,” therefore, unlike other people, he could be a προήγορος of God’s Word. The love for philosophy was so kindled in the soul of St. Gregory, that he left everything else that was dear to him previously, for the sake of this philosophy and its leader (καθηγεμὼν) Origen, whom the author of the speech calls “the divine man (ὁ θεῖος ἄνθρωπος).” The author describes his strong union of friendship and love for the teacher using a saying from the Holy Scripture: and the soul of Jonathan was united with David (1 Sam. 18:1), comparing himself with Jonathan, and Origen with David. It was thus a spiritual union, a sacred bond of love and friendship, where the weaker and spiritually fragile student was firmly bound by the teacher 124. In the "Speech" of St. Gregory “consciously brings the image of his teacher closer to the image of Socrates” 125. In the second part, where St. Gregory describes in detail the process of his apprenticeship; he directly says that his teacher used the Socratic method (σωκρατικῶς) in proof, or persuasion 126. Also, self-knowledge, as the main goal of philosophy, as well as the ultimate goal - assimilation to God, brings Origen and Socrates closer 127. St. Gregory testifies that Origen, when he presented a course of Greek philosophy to his students, did not retell to them “memorized sayings” and did not strive to give only theoretical knowledge, and did not even consider it worthy to talk about it if this did not encourage the students with a sincere intention to strive to implement what was said, as he did himself, anticipating with deeds what he exhorted in words. In himself, he tried to show an example of a wise man. Origen tried to implement the moral canon of a true sage himself, and to encourage his students to do this, revealing to them the essence of each virtue, the love and desire for which he himself had the most ardent (ἐρῶντας ἔρωτα) 128. Gregory calls Origen a friend and defender of virtues (φίλος τῶν ἀρετῶν καὶ προήγορος), that is, he characterizes him with the same words when he speaks of him as φίλον καὶ προήγορον of God's Word 129. Origen's training had several successive stages 130. At the preliminary stage, which can be characterized as protreptic (exhortation to study philosophy), followed by propaedeutic, the student was consistently introduced to the scientific method of dialectical thinking (logic), which developed the critical ability of the soul, its skill of comprehensive consideration of the subject under discussion. Dialectics, or logic, was followed by physics, which helped not only to understand some laws of nature accessible to perception, but, through the “sacred” sciences, geometry and astronomy, “as if through a ladder rising to heaven,” to make the sky accessible to contemplation 131. Physics was followed by ethics, this science, according to St. Gregory, for Origen (as, indeed, for Socrates and the Platonic tradition as a whole) was superior to others: “But,” says St. Gregory, - what is most important and for which all philosophers work most of all, collecting, as if from the heterogeneous planting of all other sciences and long-term study of philosophy, good fruits, namely the divine virtues of a moral character (θείας ἀρετὰς τὰς περὶ ἦθος), through which spiritual powers reach unperturbed and balanced state γίνεται)" 132. The task at this stage of training was to make students free from sadness (ἀλύπους), immune to all vices (ἀπαθεῖς ἁπάντων κακῶν), to internally order the soul (εὐτάκτους), to become balanced (εὐσταθεῖς), truly godlike (θεοειδεῖς ὄντως) and blessed (μακαρίους) 133 . The ultimate goal (τέλος) of this practice was to, through exercise in the most important virtues, “becoming like God with a pure mind, approach Him and abide in Him (ἢ καθαρῷ τῷ νῷ ἐξομοιωθέντα προσελθεῖν τῷ θεῷ καὶ μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ)" 134 . After ethics came instruction in theology (θεολογίας διδασκαλίαν). At this stage, Origen introduced his students to the theological teachings of all ancient philosophers and poets, excluding only those who denied God and divine Providence. The teacher himself, walking in front, led his students, as if children, by the hand. The task on this path was for Origen to make his students knowledgeable in all philosophical systems, to show “the struggle of teachings and the contradictions of philosophers to each other ἀλλήλοις φιλοσόφων), on the one hand, and “what each of the philosophers had that was useful and true,” on the other. In other words, here Origen was faced with an apologetic task; he did not want his students to be ignorant of the philosophical currents of the Greco-Roman tradition, the foundations of their culture, but he also did not want them to blindly follow the tradition of any one of the philosophical schools 135. Therefore, he introduced them to all movements, especially the most progressive ones (here one can recall Porfiry’s list), while his lessons included a critical review of both the philosophical teachings themselves and familiarization with texts relating to the doctrine of piety. He chose and offered them what this or that philosopher had that was useful and true in relation to Christian teaching, that would be consistent with Christian truth and showed what was false in relation to true worship of God (εὐσέβειαν), a simple invention of people 136 . The main purpose of this journey into the labyrinths of philosophical opinions for Origen was to give his disciples advice: “not to become attached to anyone [of philosophers], even if someone is attested as the wisest among all people, but to listen to one only God and his prophets” 137. Finally, after such a long preparatory course, 138 Origen introduced the disciples into the Holy of Holies, interpreting and explaining to them the secret and mysterious meaning of the Holy Scriptures. And here, according to the author of the “Speech,” the teacher was superior to others, since he was “an extremely insightful listener of God,” not only could he himself understand and penetrate the mysterious meaning of the Divine Scripture, but also “teach others.” The Lord Himself, who is the First Cause of everything (ὁ πάντων ἀρχηγός), Who spoke through the prophets dear to God, instilling in them all the prophecies, mysterious and divine words, honored him as a friend and made him an interpreter of these same prophecies. According to St. Gregory, Origen, interpreted the prophetic words, not otherwise, “as being in communion with God’s Spirit (ἢ κοινωνίᾳ τοῦ θείου πνεύματος), because the same power is necessary for those who prophesy and who hear the prophet, and no one can it is true to hear a prophet, if the same Spirit acting in the prophets did not Himself grant the understanding of His words” 139. And this great gift had, according to Gregory, “from God this man, who received from heaven the most excellent lot (μοῖραν) to be an interpreter of divine words to people, to perceive (συνιέναι) the divine as if from the mouth of God, and to explain (διηγεῖσθαι) to people how it is accessible to human hearing" 140 . St. Gregory speaks about this stage of training in few and rather general words, only emphasizing that the teacher was awarded the highest gift for understanding Holy Scripture and insight into its secret meaning. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the author pronounced his encomium to 141 teachers in a circle of people, some of whom had not yet been initiated into the Sacrament of Christian life. It cannot be ruled out that among those present there could also be Hellenic philosophers who were attracted only by the external side of Origen’s learning. In any case, St. Gregory, who completed a long course of study at Origen's school, skillfully combines encomium and protrepticus, in the hope of attracting young students to study with the teacher he praises. St. Gregory shares his impressions, describing the intellectual journey that the students went through in Origen's lessons: “There were no taboo topics for us, nothing was hidden from us. We had the opportunity to learn every teaching, both barbarian and Hellenic, from the mystical realm, or from the realm of social life, divine or human μυστικώτερον καὶ πολιτικώτερον, καὶ θεῖον καὶ ἀνθρώπινον), passing from one to another, completely freely, exploring everything, being satisfied with all this (ἐμφορουμένοις), and enjoying (ἀπολαύουσι) all the blessings of the soul. Whether it be some ancient doctrine of truth, or anything that can be called differently, we could immerse ourselves in it, extracting an abundance of wonderful contemplations, being equipped with excellent preparation and opportunity [to extract useful things] (ἐν αὐτῷ ᾖμεν ἔχοντες τὴν θαυμαστὴν καὶ πλήρη τῶν καλλίστων θεαμάτων παρασκευὴν καὶ ἐξουσίαν). In a word, it was truly a paradise for us, a similarity (μιμητὴς) to that great paradise of God. It was a paradise of true pleasure, it was true joy and pleasure (ἀληθὴς εὐφροσύνη καὶ τρυφη)” 142. Thus, his studies at the school of Origen, St. Gregory likens himself to an intellectual paradise and, leaving school in Caesarea, likens himself to Adam, expelled from paradise. It is difficult to say how objectively the “Speech” depicts the appearance of the famous didaskal, as well as the process of teaching at Origen’s Caesarea School. Different scientists have put forward different opinions. P. Noten believed that “the speech of gratitude speaks only about Origen’s personal teaching style in relation to Theodore, for whom he was something like a tutor throughout the entire period under review” 143. Another researcher, W. Voelker, believed that St. In the process of studying with the Alexandrian, Gregory was more attracted to pagan philosophy, and hermeneutics and the mystical interpretation of the Holy Scriptures came in second place. Therefore, he could not reveal the potential of Origen as a shepherd and preacher and an outstanding exegete 144. The authors of the review work “History of the Literature of Early Christianity”, C. Moreschini and E. The Norellis find it difficult to believe that Origen's "normal" teaching at Caesarea "reached the Scriptures only at the final stage" 145 . However, from Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” it is known that in Alexandria the educational process consisted of at least two stages. Eusebius writes that “initial teaching (στοιχειουμένων εἰσαγωγὴν)” was entrusted by Origen to Herakles, who received a professional philosophical education, while Origen himself studied with more advanced students 146. Thus, already in the Alexandria School, a certain order of initiation of students was outlined, which was transferred by Origen to the Caesarea School. And, naturally, in the process of this initiation, the student ascended from his previous pagan worldview and way of life, from secular sciences and philosophy, to the Christian worldview and way of life, to the sacred sciences and, in the end, to plunge with a purified mind into the depths of the mysterious sea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe Scriptures. Finally, it should be noted that in Origen’s school “theory” was not separated from “practice”, the discipline of the mind from the education of the soul. The school was not only a home for academic studies, but also a church, where, according to St. Gregory, “day and night sacred laws, praises and songs are proclaimed (ἀπαγγέλλονται) and speeches full of deep secrets (καὶ λόγοι μυστικοί)”, where in everything there was “divine inspiration (ἡ ἔνθεος διὰ παντός)” 147. The four cardinal virtues in the Oratio panegyrica As has already been said, “practice” played an important role in Origen’s Caesarea school. It was aimed at harmonizing the soul, where the four classical virtues of ancient paideia played an important role. It was the practical science of “self-care,” “knowing yourself.” Its goal was that the purified soul, like a mirror, could see the Mind of God 148. The author of "Rech" describes this process in some detail 149. St. Gregory of Neocaesarea describes this practical stage of education or ordering of the soul (εὔτακτον) as follows, to which the teacher called his students with particular persistence (ἀναγκαιοτάτοις). First of all, Origen himself observed the movements of the souls of the disciples and helped the latter figure it out for themselves 150. He encouraged them to self-knowledge, research and control over the lower passions that stem from the unreasonable (τὸ ἄλογον) part of the soul; or, as the author of the “Speech” puts it, so that the soul “contemplates itself as in a mirror, to see the beginnings and roots of evil ἀρχὰς καὶ ῥίζας τῶν κακῶν)", i.e. all obscene passions rising from the lower part of it and, on the contrary, contemplating in itself its best part, that is, reason (λογικόν), under the power of which it can remain unharmed and impassive in itself. Through strict observation (κατανοήσασα ἀκριβῶς), the soul must overcome, eliminate and eradicate all lower passions (sensual pleasures, debauchery, despondency, lust, sadness, fear and other types of evil) in their very germ, not allowing them to grow, taking root in the soul. In this case, the soul must turn to what constitutes real good (ἀγαθὰ ὄντα) for it, which stems from its best part. These goods, the soul, turned in itself to its highest, rational nature, must be nurtured, carefully guarded and preserved until the habit of virtue reaches its full perfection (ἄχρι τελειότητος) 151. At the end of this lengthy passage, the author says that thanks to this, divine virtues mature in the soul (παραγενέσθαι ψυχῇ τὰς θείας ἀρετάς): “It is [the virtue of] understanding (φρόνησιν), which, first of all, can judge those very movements of the soul, both from these movements themselves, and from external knowledge (ἐπιστήμης) of what is good or evil; and chastity (σωφροσύνην), which is able to make the right choice in this regard at the very beginning; and justice (δικαιοσύνην), which rewards everyone according to their deserts; and she who preserves them all (σωτηρίαν), [i.e. virtue] of courage (ἀνδρείαν)" 152. Then, continuing the theme of the four virtues, the author of the “Speech” reproaches pagan philosophers, especially the newest ones (νεωτέρων), who are strong and decisive only in words when they broadcast the teaching of virtues. And although they claim that there is one virtue among God and among people, and that a wise man on earth is equal (ἴσον) to the highest God (τῷ πρώτῳ θεῷ), they do not teach understanding in order to do what understanding requires. Likewise, they cannot convey the teachings of chastity, justice and courage. Origen, according to St. Gregory, taught about virtues in a completely different way, since he taught not just in words that “understanding is the knowledge of good and evil, or what one should or should not do (ἐπιστήμη ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν ἢ ποιητέων καὶ οὐ ποιητέων ἡ φρόνησις)". Origen was not content with the simple conviction that chastity (σωφροσύνη) is the knowledge of what should be chosen and what should not be chosen (ἐπιστήμη αἱρετῶν καὶ οὐχ αἱρετῶν). Likewise, in relation to the other virtues, the teacher instilled in his students not theoretical knowledge about them, but “called them to action, and called them more with their actions than with their words” 153. When Origen revealed to his students the theoretical teaching about each individual virtue, he encouraged them to act accordingly with the teaching about virtue 154. As mentioned above, self-knowledge played an important role for Origen in the process of purification and ascent of the soul to God, since a thorough study of “oneself” is “truly its own business” for the soul 155. Justice (δικαιοσύνη) Of particular interest are § 139–144 of the Speeches, because here St. Gregory of Neocaesarea gives a definition of each of the four virtues in close connection with the theme of self-care, self-knowledge and knowledge of God. The author begins by defining the virtue of justice: “But what does it mean to act justly (δικαιοπραγεῖν), and what is true justice, some ancient philosophers also spoke about this, it seems to me, both about doing their own affairs (ἰδιοπραγίαν), considering this an effective means to achieve bliss for themselves and for those close to them, at least if this virtue It is indeed common to give according to dignity and to assign to each his own (τὸ κατ΄ ἀξίαν ἀπονέμειν καὶ τὰ ἴδια ἑκάστοις). And what else can be so useful for the soul, or what can be so worthy of it, as caring for itself, when it is not directed outward, is not busy with extraneous affairs and, in short, does not cause itself the slightest injustice, but is turned inward, pays (ἀποδιδοῦσαν) to itself its due and, thus, acts justly? 156. From this definition of St. Gregory shows that Origen revealed this virtue in accordance with the teachings of ancient philosophers, namely, in line with the Platonic tradition. So Plato, in Book IV of the Republic, on behalf of Socrates, argues in a similar way, arguing that in an ideal state “every individual person should do one of the things that is needed in the state, and, moreover, exactly what he is most capable of by his natural inclinations.” From this it is concluded that “mind your own business and not interfere with others’ – this is justice πολυπραγμονεῖν δικαιοσύνη ἐστί)" 157 . St. Gregory, speaking of the fact that justice is “the execution of one’s own affairs” by a soul focused on itself, cognizing itself, and not directed outward, uses the word ἰδιοπραγία. Plato, in a similar context, uses the word οἰκειοπραγία, as “devotion to one’s work among all classes,” this is justice 158. And further, in Book VIII, Plato confirms this, projecting onto the soul itself: “Consequently, if the whole soul as a whole follows its philosophical beginning (τῷ φιλοσόφῳ) and is not torn apart by contradictions, then for each part of it it is possible not only to mind its own business and to be fair (τὰ ἑαυτοῦ πράττειν καὶ δικαίῳ εἶναι)" 159 . There is definitely a connection here 160. Understanding/prudence (φρόνησις) The close connection between self-knowledge of the soul and knowledge of God is revealed further in the “Speech”, when the author defines the virtue of understanding / prudence: “He (Origen. - E. H.) no less taught to be prudent (φρονεῖν), so that our soul should be turned to itself, so that our desire and desire would be to know ourselves. This is indeed the most beautiful task of philosophy, which is attributed to the most famous of the prophetic spirits (δαιμόνων τῷ μαντικωτάτῳ), as the wisest injunction: “Know thyself (Γνῶθι σαυτόν).” And that this is the real task of prudence and that this is divine prudence (θείαν φρόνησιν), this was beautifully said by the ancients. After all, it is indeed one and the same virtue, common to God and man (οὖσαν θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπου ἀρετήν), and the soul, when it practices seeing itself as if in a mirror, reflects in itself the divine mind (ἐν if it turns out to be worthy of this communication (κοινωνίας), then in itself it can to discern some ineffable path to this deification ἀποθεώσεως ἐξιχνευομένης)" 161 . Several points in this passage are of interest: 1) an appeal to the famous Delphic maxim “know thyself”; 2) appeal to the image of a mirror; 3) finally, an appeal to the Stoic teaching that the same virtue is in God and in man. The inscription “Γνῶθι σαυτόν” inscribed on the pediment of the Church of Apollo at Delphi 162 has been interpreted in many ways due to its brevity, and thanks to Plato, who repeatedly refers to it in his dialogues, 163 it will become an important philosophical component and firmly established in the Christian tradition. Already Clement of Alexandria will establish a connection with the ancient “γνῶθι σαυτόν” and the biblical “πρόσεχε σεαυτῷ” (Deut. 15:9; LXX). He will argue that the Delphic oracle “know thyself” was borrowed by the Greek philosophers from Moses, “who often speaks more clearly - listen to yourself (πρόσεχε σεαυτῷ)” 164. Origen believed that the Delphic “γνῶθι σαυτόν” goes back to Solomon, since in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, in the book of Song of Songs there is the closest expression: “γνῷς σεαυτήν” (Song.1:8; LXX) 165. It should also be said that these sayings have undergone a certain transformation. If the Delphic maxim, according to some researchers, “initially, apparently, simply reminded man of his powerlessness in the face of the gods,” 166 and the biblical commandment, in its original and literal sense, meant: “beware lest a lawless thought arise in your heart,” 167 then over time they will acquire a richer understanding. And if, as already mentioned, Clement only outlines their connection, and St. Gregory indirectly points to this, then St. Basil the Great, through “semantic inversion,” will ensure that “the Old Testament quotation from its obvious warning meaning will take on the meaning of the famous ancient imperative “know thyself”” 168. However, this adaptation of two sayings was only the most successful contamination of biblical and philosophical worldviews. A more literal biblical basis for this Delphic saying was needed. And these searches “were crowned with success,” as stated in the abbot’s article. Dionysius (Shlenova), and it was Origen who played a special role here, finding the closest analogue in Song 1:8 169. In a recent short article, Rev. Andrei Vashchenko, dedicated to the problem of self-knowledge in the ancient and Christian tradition, proposed a variant of a close analogue to the ancient γνῶθι σαυτόν, in the words of St. Paul to Timothy. “The call to self-knowledge,” writes the author of the article, “is expressed by the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to Timothy: Pay attention to yourself and to the teaching; do this constantly: for by doing this you will save yourself and those who listen to you (1 Tim. 4:16)” 170. But it seems that the admonition of St. ap. Paul, look into yourself (ἔπεχε σεαυτῷ) has nothing to do with self-knowledge; rather, it is a call to self-control, attention to oneself, just like the biblical πρόσεχε σεαυτῷ, in its original sense. This is exactly how this verse was viewed in patristic exegesis 171. There is a definite connection between this passage of St. Gregory and the dialogue "Alcibiades I". So Socrates says to Alcibiades: “having known ourselves, we at the same time know the care we need (τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἡμῶν αὐτῶν), and without such knowledge we will never understand this” 172. But “man is a soul” 173, therefore, the knowledge of oneself, prescribed by the Delphic oracle, means that “he who commands us to know ourselves, commands us to know his soul” 174. In the same dialogue one can also find an appeal to the image of a mirror. The thought that Socrates conveys to Alcibiades is close to the thoughts of the author of the “Speech”: “Socrates: Let us imagine that thing, looking at which we will simultaneously see both it and ourselves. Alcibiades: It is clear, Socrates, that this is a mirror (κάτοπτρα) or something similar. Socrates: So, my dear Alcibiades, the soul, if it wants to know itself, must look into the soul, especially into that part of it in which the dignity of the soul is contained - wisdom (ἡ ψυχῆς ἀρετή, σοφία), or into any other object to which the soul is similar. Alcibiades: I agree with you, Socrates. Socrates: Can we name a more divine part of the soul than that to which knowledge and understanding belong (εἰδέναι τε καὶ φρονεῖν)? Alcibiades: No, we can’t. Socrates: This means that this part of it is like a deity, and the one who peers into it and cognizes everything divine - God and reason (τὸ θεῖον γνούς, θεόν τε καὶ φρόνησιν), thus best knows himself. Socrates: And just as mirrors are clearer, purer and sparkling than the mirror of the eye, so the deity reveals itself more brilliant and pure than the best part of our soul. Alcibiades: This is plausible, Socrates. Socrates: Therefore, peering into the deity, we use this most beautiful mirror (καλλίστῳ ἐνόπτρῳ) and determine human qualities in accordance with the virtue of the soul: it is in this way that we see and know ourselves. The only difference between this reasoning of Plato and the position of Origen and St. Gregory is that Plato proceeds from the opposite sequence than Origen and the author of the “Speech”. According to Plato, a person, considering the deity, achieves self-knowledge, and not, on the contrary, through self-knowledge he cognizes the Divine mind 176. Parallel in St. Gregory, or rather Origen, with the dialogue “Alcibiades I”, definitely has 177. Origen himself, when using the image of a mirror, relies on the texts of St. Paul (1 Cor.13:12; 2 Cor.3:18) and the Book of Wisdom of Solomon (Wisdom 7:25) 178. At ap. Paul's image of a mirror could have been inspired either by the Book of Wisdom, or perhaps by another philosophical source. In any case, since the Book of Wisdom itself is a product of Hellenistic Judaism, close to Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy 179, the image of the mirror returns us to the classical philosophical environment. Already Clement of Alexandria interprets 1 Cor. 13:12 in a spirit close to the author of the “Speech”: “And the inspired apostle writes to us: now we see as in a mirror, recognizing ourselves by the reflection of God in us, seeing the creative cause of the divine in us” 180. Origen himself repeatedly refers to the image of a mirror, 181 but one passage from the treatise “On Prayer” is interesting. And although this fragment does not talk about self-knowledge, or does not mention virtues, it does talk about a certain path of the soul to the spirit and reflection in the mind of the Divine: “For when the mental eyes (οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ τοῦ διανοητικοῦ) are directed to such a height that they no longer stop at anything earthly, but soar to such a degree that created things are completely neglected, but only on the contemplation of God (πρὸς μόνῳ τῷ ἐννοεῖν τὸν θεὸν) stop and are engaged in reverent conversation with Him, Who bestows His favor on them: how can one not say that the eyes themselves then bring benefit to those praying, since those praying then with an open face, as if in reflecting the mirror, they see the glory of the Lord and are transformed into the same image, ascending from glory to glory (2 Cor. 3:18). And then, as it were, some kind of Divine intelligible outpouring descends on them μεταλαμβάνουσι τότε), which is revealed in the saying: You have shown us (ἐσημειώθη) the light of Your countenance, O Lord (Ps. 4:7). And thus ascending, the soul then follows the spirit and is separated from the body, and even not only follows the spirit, but is closely united with it (καὶ οὐ μόνον ἑπομένη τῷ πνεύματι), as is revealed from the saying: To Thee, O Lord, I ascend I am my soul (Ps. 24:1), then how can one not say that it then renounces its nature and becomes a spiritual soul (τὸ εἶναι ψυχὴ πνευματικὴ γίνεται)” 182. When St. Gregory says that the ancient philosophers “said beautifully (καλῶς τοῖς παλαιοῖς λέγεται)” that the same virtue is in God and in man, then here he turns to the teaching of the Stoics. This Stoic statement was criticized both by the Peripatetics and Platonists 183 and by Christian theologians, 184 but Origen seems to have stuck to it, giving it a somewhat original form based on a new and Christian understanding of this statement 185 . Chastity / moderation and courage (σωφροσύνη, ἀνδρεία). Finally, St. Gregory of Neocaesarea also defines the last two of the four virtues, defining chastity as follows: “In the same way [he taught] to be moderate and courageous (σωφρονεῖν καὶ ἀνδρίζεσθαι), - to be moderate, maintaining prudence and precisely the prudence of the soul that knows itself (σωφρονεῖν μέν, διασωζομένους τὴν φρόνησιν τήνδε τῆς ψυχῆς ἑαυτὴν γινωσκούσης), since she succeeded in this, for the essence of moderation is that it is, in a sense, prudence preserved intact οὖσαν)" 186. It should be noted that here, too, the definition of this virtue was given by the author of the “Speech” from the perspective of the Platonic tradition. The very etymology of σωφροσύνη as a call to preserve φρόνησις is found in Plato’s dialogue “Cratylus”: “Chastity” means that “the understanding (φρόνησις) is preserved sound (σωτηρία φρονήσεως)" 187. Translated by V. Karpov: “And prudence is the preservation of rationality” 188. In Plato, as in St. Gregory the Wonderworker, and therefore in Origen himself, σωφροσύνη is associated with self-knowledge. Socrates even defines this virtue as a synonym for the Delphic maxim “know thyself,” declaring that: “prudence consists in knowing oneself (σωφροσύνη ἐστὶ τὸ ἑαυτὸν γιγνώσκειν)” 189 . In the dialogue Charmides, Socrates directly relates σωφροσύνη to the inscription at Delphi: “My statement is approximately that prudence is self-knowledge (σωφροσύνην, τὸ γιγνώσκειν ἑαυτόν), and I fully agree with the man who made a similar inscription at Delphi. It seems to me that it was made for the purpose of serving as a greeting from God addressed to those entering, instead of the word “hello! (τοῦ Χαῖρε).” The one who made it, apparently, considered the address “hello!” to be incorrect and advised instead to wish each other prudence (σωφρονεῖν)” 190. The last in the line of virtues from St. Gregory stands for courage and he defines this virtue as follows: “... and to be courageous [means] remaining firm in all the named skills and not deviating from them either voluntarily or under the pressure of any necessity, but observing them and keeping the named [acquisitions] in one’s possession. The essence of this virtue is that it protects and preserves established views ἀρετὴν ταύτην)" 191 . Here, again, a similar definition of courage, as the ability to preserve established views, can be found in one Platonic source. In the so-called "Textbook of Platonic Philosophy", the author of which, it seems, should be considered the Platonist philosopher Ser. II century Alcinous, one can find a fairly close definition of courage: “ἀνδρία ἐστι δόγματος ἐννόμου σωτηρία περὶ τοῦ δεινοῦ τε καὶ μὴ δεινοῦ͵ τουτέστι διασωστικὴ δύναμις δόγματος ἐννόμου." Translated by Yu.A. Shichalin: “courage is the preservation of the idea of ​​duty (δόγματος ἐννόμου) in the face of danger and without it, that is, a certain ability to maintain the idea of ​​duty” 192. Concluding his hymn to the virtues, the author of the “Speech” admits that he is still far from perfect in possessing any one of these four divine virtues. He praises his teacher, who, like no other of his contemporaries, himself loved virtues and instilled a love for them in his students. “By his own virtue,” Origen inspired love: “Towards the beauty of justice (κάλλους τῆς δικαιοσύνης) and to understanding (φρονήσεως), which should be an object of aspiration for everyone, and the ardent love of true wisdom (ἐρασμιωτάτης σοφίας τῆς ἀληθοῦς), eminently worthy of love, to godlike chastity (σωφροσύνης τῆς θεοειδοῦς), which is the balance of the soul (ψυχῆς εὐστάθεια), and peace for all who have acquired it, and to the most amazing courage (ἀνδρείας τῆς θαυμασιωτάτης), to our patience (ὑπομονῆς ἡμῶν) and, above all, to piety (εὐσεβείας), which is rightly called the mother of all virtues, for it is the beginning and end of all virtues. If we started from him, then all other virtues would appear to us extremely easily: so that we would approach God not in a state of unworthiness and impurity, but with all virtue and wisdom. The goal of everything, I think, is no other than that, having become like God with a pure mind, approaching Him and remaining in Him” 193. Here, along with the four main virtues, patience and piety are also mentioned. St. Gregory says “our” patience, that is, emphasizing the specifically Christian meaning of this virtue 194. During the time of Origen and St. Gregory, it could be connected both with persecution and with the ascetic lifestyle that Origen himself practiced 195. Over time, patience will become one of the main virtues in asceticism 196. Plato also mentions piety along with the four cardinal virtues 197 . The sequence in the list of virtues that the author of the “Speech” adheres to is interesting. For Plato, the sequence of virtues depends on his doctrine of the three parts, or powers of the soul 198. In the first place he has the virtue of understanding, knowledge or wisdom, followed by courage and chastity, justice, in Plato's scheme, refers to the whole soul as a whole, it brings balance and harmony between the three parts of the soul 199. Thus, Plato has the clearest sequence: understanding, courage, chastity, justice. At St. Gregory's most consistent list is: justice, understanding, chastity and courage. It is difficult to say what this is connected with and whether such a sequence was fundamental for the author himself. Interestingly, such a sequence is not observed in Origen himself 200 . Finally, one should summarize all the definitions of the main virtues that are found in the text of the “Speech”, presenting them in the sequential order in which they appear in the author: 1) Justice (δικαιοσύνην): a virtue that rewards everyone according to their deserts 201; it tends to reward according to dignity and assign to everyone their due (ἴδια ἑκάστοις); the soul should give (ἀποδιδοῦσαν) its due to itself in order to act justly 202. 2) Understanding (φρόνησις): must judge the movements of the soul, observe them, using knowledge (ἐπιστήμης) of what is good and what is evil 203, understanding is knowledge (ἐπιστήμη) of good and evil and what should be done and what should not be done 204; the matter of understanding is the turning of the soul to itself and the desire to know itself in order to see itself and reflect in itself the divine mind (θεῖον νοῦν), which opens the way to deification (ἀποθεώσεως) 205. 3) Chastity (σωφροσύνην): knowledge (ἐπιστήμη) of what should be chosen and what should not be chosen 206, it is able to make the right choice in this regard 207; chastity preserves intact the prudence of the soul that knows itself ψυχῆς ἑαυτὴν γινωσκούσης), thus, chastity, as a virtue of the soul, is sanity φρόνησιν) 208 and the peace of a balanced soul (εὐστάθεια), we can say that this is its health 209. 4) Courage (ἀνδρεία): preserves (σωτηρίαν) all virtues 210, since it protects and preserves established views (δογμάτων) 211; in other words, the work of courage is firmness and steadfastness in observing any teaching, so as not to deviate from it either voluntarily or under pressure, as well as determination in following it. All four virtues in the “Speech” are closely connected with each other and for St. Gregory, they are valuable not as ordinary civil virtues or moral values, but as virtues of the soul, which, recognizing itself and purifying itself, strives to become like God. These are divine virtues (τὰς θείας ἀρετὰς) 212, they are “extremely great and sublime, and neither one nor the other can be acquired, and no one can achieve them unless God inspires strength for this (ὅτῳ μὴ θεός γε ἐμπνέοι δύναμιν)" 213 . Thus, the author of the “Speech” examines them from a theological point of view, placing them in the religious context of true Christian wisdom. Implicit in the characterization of the four virtues in the “Speech” one senses the Stoic doctrine of the true sage and the Platonic concept of self-knowledge and likeness to God, which is characteristic of the Alexandrian Christian tradition as a whole, starting with Clement of Alexandria. Thanks to the activities of Panten, Clement of Alexandria, and then Origen, a famous and unparalleled Christian school will be created in Alexandria, teaching in which will be conducted at a very high level, competing with pagan philosophical schools. The Alexandrian didaskals will take all the best from the ancient philosophical heritage and introduce logic and the scientific method into the field of Christian education. Origen will transfer this teaching system to Caesarea Palestine. Origen's student at Caesarea, the author of the Oration, will leave for subsequent generations a most valuable testimony about his teacher's teaching method. “Speech” is a rhetorical work, designed in accordance with the ancient rules of encomium, a description of which can be found in the “Progymnasmatics” of the rhetorician Aelius Theon (1st century). In the section devoted to encomium and psagos, the Alexandrian sophist and rhetorician writes that the subject of praise should be endowed with all positive qualities, that mention should be made of his understanding (φρόνιμος), prudence (σώφρων), courage (ἀνδρεῖος), justice (δίκαιος), piety, generosity and magnanimity and other similar things 214. Therefore, the author of the “Speech,” adopting this rule, speaks in detail about the four main virtues of ancient ethics, projecting them onto the image of a Christian teacher and philosopher, a friend of God, as Origen appears in the “Speech” 215. Revealing the essence of each of these four virtues, St. Gregory testifies that this is how his teacher Origen taught and revealed their essence. Origen, as can be seen from the “Speech,” insisted that his disciples practice these virtues, since through their acquisition the soul will be able to know itself and, with a purified mind, strive towards its ultimate goal - becoming like God. Thus, the four main virtues, which play an important role in Plato’s teaching, were also adopted by the Alexandrian didaskals. They became an important part in the Christian education system. Already in Clement one can see that during three years of preparation the catechumen had to practice and adorn himself with the four virtues, which were sacrificed to God in the baptistery 216. The author of the “Speech” testifies to the great importance Origen attached to them. From this we can draw the following conclusion: it was in the Alexandrian Christian environment that the four main virtues of ancient ethics became part of the Christian moral system. The predominantly Alexandrian didaskals, which absorbed the spirit of Plato's philosophy 217, created a synthesis of the ancient philosophical tradition and ethics with the new Christian kerygma, which was increasingly winning the minds and hearts of people. They chose the best of what Hellenic philosophy gave, which relates to universal human values ​​and is conducive to the education of a reasonable, strong and noble person. Subsequent Christian authors will also write about the four main virtues, affirming their moral value and importance for Christians. In the written heritage of St. Basil the Great, his brother St. Gregory of Nyssa, who were under a certain influence of the great Alexandrian, they will often be found in their exegesis and moral instructions. Evagrius of Pontus will bring them into the monastic tradition. St. Basil the Great, and after him St. John Chrysostom, they will say that the four main virtues are a sign of the health and beauty of the soul 218. Many other Church Fathers would write about their importance until the very end of the Byzantine period. From Byzantium the idea of ​​them will pass to Rus'. In the West, thanks to St. Ambrose of Milan, they will also take root firmly. Later, Thomas Aquinas would raise them to the principle of his entire philosophical and theological teaching on the virtues 219. Having appeared at the dawn of ancient philosophy, the doctrine of the four virtues, as the main and basic qualities of man and the universals of human culture, will have its own rather interesting and rich history. From ancient philosophy, having been transformed, it will pass into Christianity, where it will not cease to be relevant until the present day, 220 having already left and forgotten its ancient past and context, it will begin to be perceived as a teaching about the main, properly Christian virtues of the soul, along with the three gospel ones: faith, hope and love, which surpasses them all. Aelius Theon. Progymnasmata // Rhetores graeci. Vol. 2/ed. L. Spengel. Lipsiae: B. G. Teubner, 1854. Athanasius Alexandrinus. Epistola IV ad Serapionem: De Spiritu sancto // PG. T. 26. Col. 637–676. Athanasius Alexandrinus. De decretis Nicaenae synodi // PG. T. 25. Col. 416–476. Athenagore. Supplique au sujet des chrétiennes et Sur la resurrection des morts / intr., texte et trad. B. Pouderon. Paris: Cerf, 1992. (SC; vol. 379). Basile Césarée. Homélies sur l'Hexaéméron / texte grec, intr. et trad. S. Giet. Paris: Cerf, 1968. (SC; vol. 26bis). Clément d'Alexandrie. Le Protreptique / intr., trad. et notes C. Mondésert. Paris: Cerf, 1949. (SC; vol. 2). Clément d'Alexandrie. Les Stromates I / intr. C. Mondesert; trad. et notes M. Cester. Paris: Cerf, 1951. (SC; vol. 30). Clément d'Alexandrie. Les Stromates II / intr. et not. P. Th. Camelot; texte grec et trad. C. Mondesert. Paris: Cerf, 1954. (SC; vol. 38). Clément d'Alexandrie. Les Stromates VII / intr., texte critique, trad. et notes A. Le Boulluec. Paris. Cerf, 1997. (SC; vol. 428). Eusèbe de Césarée. Histoire ecclesiastique. Livres V–VII / texte grec, trad. et notes G. Bardy. Paris: Cerf, 1955. (SC; vol. 41). Evagre le Pontique. Traité Pratique ou Le moine / ed., trad., comm. A. Guillaumont and C. Guillaumont. Paris: Cerf, 1971. (SC; vol. 171). Grégoire le Thaumaturge. Remerciement à Origène. Suivi de la Lettre d'Origène à Grégoire / texte grec, intr., trad. et notes H. Crouzel. Paris: Cerf, 1969. (SC; vol. 148). Joannes Chrysostomus. Homiliae in Epistolam ad Ephesios // PG. T. 62. Col. 9–176. Justin Apologie pour les chrétiens / intr., texte grec, trad. et notes Ch. Munier. Paris: Cerf, 2006. (SC; vol. 507). Origène. Homélies sur Jérémie. T. 2: Homélies XII–XX / ed., trad. et notes P. Nautin. Paris: Cerf, 1977. (SC; vol. 238). Origène. Homélies sur S. Luc / texte latin et fragm. grecs, intr., trad. et notes H. Crouzel, F. Fournier, P. Périchon. Paris: Cerf, 1962. (SC; vol. 87). Origène. Philocalie 21–27. Sur le libre arbiter / intr., texte, trad. et notes E. Junod. Paris: Cerf, 1976. (SC; vol. 226). Origin. Commentaire sur Saint Jean. T. 1: Livres I–V / texte grec, trad. et notes C. Blanc. Paris: Cerf, 1966. (SC; vol. 120). Origène. Commentaire sur Saint Jean. T. 5: Livres XXVIII–XXXII / texte grec, intr., trad. et notes C. Blanc. Paris: Cerf, 1992. (SC; vol. 385). Origen. On First Principles: in 2 vols. /ed. and trans. by J. Behr. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. (Oxford Early Christian Texts). Origenes. Aufforderung zum Martyrium / eing. und uber. M.-B. von Stritzky. Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter; Herder, 2010. (Origenes Werke mit deutscher Übersetzung; Bd. 22). Origenes. Contra Celsum: libri VIII/ed. M. Marcovich. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 2001. (Supplements to Vigiliae christianae; vol. 54). Origenes. Enarrationes in Job (fragmenta in catenis) // PG. T. 17. Col. 57–106. Origenes. Expositiones in Proverbia Solomonis (fragmanta in catenis) // PG. T. 17. Col. 161–252. Origenes. Römerbriefkommentar. Bd. 2: Buch V–VI / hrsg. von Th. Heither. Freiburg; Basel; Wien; Barcelona; Roma; New York: Herder, 1993. (Frontes christiani; Bd. 2/3). Origenes. Römerbriefkommentar. Bd. 3: Buch IX–X / hrsg. von Th. Heither. Freiburg; Basel; Wien; Barcelona; Roma; New York: Herder, 1996. (Frontes christiani; Bd. 2/5). Origenes Werke. Bd. 2. Buch V–VIII gegen Celsus. Die Schrift vom Gebet / ed. P. Koetschau. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899. (GCS; Bd. 3). Origenes Werke. Bd. 9. Die Homilien zu Lukas in der Übersetzung des Hieronymus und die grechischen Reste der Homilien und des Lukas-Kommentars / ed. M. Rauer. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1930. (GCS; Bd. 35). Origenes Werke. Bd. 10. Matthäuserklärung. Bd. 1/ed. E. Klostermann; E. Benz. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1935. (GCS; Bd. 40). Porphyrios. Contra christianos. Neue Sammlung der Fragmente, Testimonien und Dubia / Einleitung, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen von M. Becker. Berlin; Boston: W. de Gruyter, 2016. (Texte und Kommentare; Bd. 52). Socrates Scholasticus. Historia ecclesiastica // PG. T. 67. Col. 30–842. Albin. Textbook of Platonic philosophy / trans. Yu.A. Shichalina // Plato. Dialogues / trans. from ancient Greek, comp., ed. and then articles by A.F. Loseva; note A.A. Tahoe-Godi. M.: Mysl, 1986. (Philosophical Heritage; vol. 98). pp. 437–475. Anastasius Sinait, St. Guide // Adrian (Pashin), abbot. The main Christological work of St. Anastasius Sinaite “Guide”: Monograph. SPb.: SPbPDA, 2018. pp. 147–359. Athenagoras of Athens. About the resurrection of the dead / v. article by A.I. Sidorova. M.: Sibirskaya blagozvonnitsa, 2013. "Theological chapters" by St. Maximus the Confessor, or “The Bee” / intro. article, trans., afterwords. and note PC. Dobrotsvetova. M.: Nikeya, 2013. Basil the Great, St. Creations: in 2 vols. T. 1. M.: Siberian Blagozvonnitsa, 2008. (Complete collection of the works of the holy fathers of the Church and church writers in Russian translation; vol. 3). Diogenes Laertius. About the life, teachings and sayings of famous philosophers / trans. M. L. Gasparova; total ed., intro. article by A.F. Loseva. M.: Mysl, 1979. (Philosophical Heritage; vol. 99). John Chrysostom, St. Conversations on the First Epistle to Timothy / John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 11. Book. 2. St. Petersburg: SPbDA, 1905. pp. 618–755. Hieronymus of Stridon. About famous men / trans. from lat., comm. M.F. Vysokogo // Church historians of the 4th–5th centuries. M.: ROSSPEN, 2007. pp. 9–57. Clement of Alexandria. Stromata / trans. and approx. N. Korsunsky. Yaroslavl: Type. Provincial Zemstvo Council, 1892. Clement of Alexandria. Stromata. T. 1: Book. 1–3 / ed. Greek text, preface, trans. and comment. E.V. Afonasina. SPb.: Publishing house. O. Abyshko, 2003. (Library of Christian Thought. Sources). Methodius, Patr. Constantinople. Praise to St. Nicholas / intro., trans. from Greek, comm. D. E. Afinogenova // Scripta antiqua. Questions of ancient history, philology, art and material culture. 2017, vol. 6, pp. 599–617. Origen. On prayer and Exhortation to martyrdom / trans. and approx. N. Korsunsky. 2nd ed. SPb.: Publishing house. I.L. Tuzova, 1897. Origen. About the beginnings. Against Celsus. [Book I–IV] / trans. L. I. Pisareva. St. Petersburg: Bibliopolis, 2008. Origen. Against Celsus. Book 5 / per. A.R. Fokina // Theological collection of PSTBI. 1999. No. 4. P. 99–123; 2001. No. 7. pp. 115–142. Origen. Interpretation of the Gospel of John / trans., comm. and preface O.I. Kulieva. SPb.: RKhGA, 2018. Peter (Ekaterinovsky), bishop. Showing the way to salvation. Ascetic experience. M.: Sibirskaya blagozvonnitsa, 2004. Plato. Essays. Part 5: Philebus, Cratylus, Theaetetus, Sophist / trans. from Greek and comm. V. N. Karpova. M.: Synod. Type., 1879. Early martyrdoms. Translations, comments, research / translation, commentary, intro. article, appendix and general ed. A. D. Panteleeva. St. Petersburg: Humanitarian Academy, 2017. (Via sacra; vol. 3). Creations of St. Gregory the Wonderworker and St. Methodius, bishop and martyr. M.: Pilgrim, 1996. (Library of Fathers and Teachers of the Church; vol. 4). Fragments of early Greek philosophers. Part 1: From epic theocosmogonies to the emergence of atomism / ed. A.V. Lebedeva. M.: Nauka, 1989. Fragments of the Early Stoics. T. 3. Part 1: Chrysippus. Ethical fragments / trans. comm. A.A. Stolyarov. M.: GLK, 2007. Adamov I.I. Saint Ambrose of Milan. Sergiev Posad: STSL, 2006. Ado I. Liberal arts and philosophy in ancient thought. M.: GLK, 2002. Alieva O.V. Conversation III St. Basil the Great “On the words: listen to yourself” as a philosophical protreptic // Bulletin of PSTGU. Series I: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies. 2012. Issue. 1 (39). pp. 21–29. Alieva O.V. “Socratic Protreptic” and the image of Origen in the “Gratitude Speech” // Bulletin of the Russian Chemical Academy. 2013. T. 14. Issue 2. pp. 237–245. Benevich G.I. The royal path and the middle (μεσότης) in John Cassian the Roman and Maximus the Confessor // Verbum 19: “Nicomachean Ethics” in the history of European thought. St. Petersburg; Pskov: Pskov State University, 2017. pp. 102–118. Vashchenko A.V. Self-knowledge in ancient philosophical thought and Christian tradition // Bulletin of the Russian Chemical Academy. 2020. T. 21. Issue. 2. pp. 24–31. Dvoretskaya M.Ya. Integrative anthropology. St. Petersburg: Institute of Practical Psychology, 2003. Dillon J. Middle Platonists: 80 BC. e. – 220 n. e. / lane from English E.V. Afonasina. SPb.: Publishing house. O. Abyshko; Aletheia, 2002. (World Heritage). Dionysius (Shlenov), abbot. Ideas about the “Royal Path” in Byzantine theology and asceticism. Using the example of the teaching about the procession of the soul to God, St. Nikita Stifat // BV. 2017. no. 26–26 (3–4). pp. 355–391. Dionysius (Shlenov), abbot. The principle of “know yourself” from the Monk Nikita Stifat in the context of the Byzantine tradition // BV. 2018. No. 28 (1). pp. 96–126. Dionysius (Shlenov), abbot. The teaching of St. Nikita Stifata about the four main virtues in the context of ancient and Byzantine literature. Part 1 // BV. 2019. No. 32 (1). pp. 192–209. Dionysius (Shlenov), abbot. The teaching of St. Nikita Stifata about the four main virtues in the context of ancient and Byzantine literature. Part 2 // BV. 2019. No. 33 (2). pp. 178–203. Dionysius (Shlenov), abbot. The doctrine of the four generic virtues in the treatise “De virtutibus et passionibus”, attributed to St. Ephraim the Syrian, in the context of the Greek patristic tradition // St. Ephraim the Syrian and his spiritual heritage. M.: Poznanie, 2019. pp. 352–364. Dodds E.R. Pagan and Christian in troubled times: Some aspects of religious practices in the period from Macrus Aurelius to Constantine / trans. from English A.A. Penteleyeva, A.V. Petrova; total ed. Yu. S. Dovzhenko. St. Petersburg: Humanitarian Academy, 2003. (Studia classica). Zaitseva I.V. On the issue of education in the Alexandrian school under Panten // Problems of history, philology, culture. 2018. Vol. 1. pp. 161–168. Zarin S. Asceticism according to Orthodox Christian teaching. Ethical and theological study. T. 1. Book. 2. M.: Pilgrim, 1996r. Yeager V. Early Christianity and Greek paideia. M.: GLK, 2018. Kechekyan S.F. Aristotle's doctrine of state and law. M.; L.: USSR Academy of Sciences, 1947. Kirill (Zinkovsky), priest. Great Fathers of the Church on matter and the human body (Alexandrian and Cappadocian schools). SPb.: Publishing house. O. Abyshko, 2014. (Library of Christian Thought. Research). Kon I.S. In search of oneself: Personality and its self-awareness. M.: Politizdat, 1984. Larcher J.-C. Healing spiritual diseases. Introduction to the ascetic tradition of the Orthodox Church. Sergiev Posad: MDA, 2018. Losev A.F. History of ancient aesthetics. Results of a thousand years of development. Book 2. M.: AST FOLIO, 2000. (Peaks of human thought). Myronositsky P. Athenagoras, Christian apologist of the 2nd century. Kazan: Tipo-lit. Imp. unta, 1894. Mirtov D. Moral teaching of Clement of Alexandria. SPb.: Type. M. Akinfieva and I. Leontyev, 1900. Mikhailov P.B. Categories of theological thought. M.: PSTGU, 2013. Moreschini K. History of patristic philosophy. M.: GLK, 2011. Moreschini C., Norelli E. History of the literature of early Christianity in Greek and Latin. T.1: From ap. Paul to the era of Constantine. 2nd ed., rev. and additional M.: GLK, 2021. Pospehov D.V. The Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, its origin and relation to Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy. Historical-critical study. Kyiv: Type. Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, 1873. Ranovich A.B. Primary sources on the history of early Christianity. Ancient critics of Christianity. M.: Politizdat, 1990. Sagarda A.I. Presbyters of Clement of Alexandria // Christian reading. 1917. No. 1–2. pp. 101–108. Seryogin A.V. On the question of the two Origens // Theological works. M.: Publishing house. Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2009. Vol. 42. pp. 44–86. Seryogin A.V. “Interpretations of the Gospel of John” by Origen in Russian: review of the translation by O. Kuliev // Philosophy. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. 2019. Vol. 3. No. 1. pp. 286–293. Sidorov A.I. The life path of Origen // Patristics. New translations, articles. Nizhny Novgorod: Publishing house. Brotherhood in the name of the Holy Prince Alexander Nevsky, 2001. pp. 290–332. Sidorov A.I. Patristic heritage and church antiquities. T. 2: Ante-Nicene Church Fathers and Church Writers. M.: Sibirskaya bevozvonnitsa, 2011. Sidorov A.I. Introductory article // Athenagoras of Athens. About the resurrection of the dead. M.: Siberian Blagozvonnitsa, 2013. pp. 3–23. Smirnov D.V., Biryukov D.S. Clement of Alexandria // PE. M.: Central Scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia", 2014. T. 35. pp. 562–663. Strakhov P. Resurrection. The idea of ​​resurrection in pre-Christian religious and philosophical consciousness. Kiev: Metanoia, 2002r. Torshilov D. O. Composition of Cornut’s treatise and the relationship of allegory with etymology // Proceedings of the Russian Anthropological School (MSU). 2008. Vol. 5. pp. 522–535. Explanatory Bible, or Commentary on all the books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Vol. 3: New Testament. Stockholm: Bible Translation Institute, 1987r. Kholodov E.V. The concept of the four main virtues in middle Platonism // Music in the cultural system: Scientific Bulletin of the Ural Conservatory. Ekaterinburg. 2019. Vol. 16. pp. 62–83. Schenk K. Philo of Alexandria. Introduction to life and creativity. M.: BBI, 2007. Shpidlik F. Spiritual tradition of Eastern Christianity. Systematic presentation / trans. from French D. Sizonenko. M.: Paoline, 2000. Bejczy I. P. The Cardinal Virtues in the Middle Ages. A Study in Moral Thought from the Fourth to the Fourteenth Century. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011. Carriker A. The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea. Lieden; Boston: Brill, 2003. (Supplements to Vigiliae christianae; vol. 67). ClassenC. J. Der platonisch-stoische Kanon der Kardinaltugenden bei Philon, Clemens Alexandrinus und Origenes // Aretai und Virtutes: Untersuchungen zu den Wertvorstellungen der Griechen und Römer / hsgb. von C. J. Classen. Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter, 2010. (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde; Bd. 283). S. 104–138. Crouzel H. Faut-il voir trois personnages en Grégoire le Thaumaturge? A propos du “Remerciement à Origène” et de la “Lettre à Grégoire” // Gregorianum. 1979. Vol. 60. P. 287–320. Crouzel H. Théologie de l’image de Dieu chez Origène. Paris: Aubier, 1956. Nautin P. Origène: sa vie et son œuvre. Paris: Beauchesne, 1977. Prestige D. L. God in Patristic Thought. 2 ed. London: S.P.C.K., 1952. Volker W. Das Vollkommenheitsideal des Origenes. Eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte der Frömmigkeit und zu den Anfängen christlicher Mystik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1931. The Wisdom of Solomon / a new trans., intr., comm. by D. Winston. New York: Doubleday, 1979. (The Anchor Bible; vol. 43). See, for example, Plato's dialogue Euthydemus and Alcibiades I. According to E. Norelli, “the state of the surviving text does not allow it to be classified as a specific genre, but the protreptic element is clearly visible here” (Moreschini C., Norelli E. History of the literature of early Christianity in Greek and Latin. Vol. 1: From the Apostle Paul to the era of Constantine. 2nd ed., revised and supplemented. M., 2021. P. 382. Moreschini C., Norelli E. History of the literature of early Christianity. T. 1. pp. 502–504. Alieva O.V. “Socratic Protreptic” and the image of Origen in the “Gratitude Speech” // Bulletin of the Russian Chemical Academy. 2013. T. 14. Issue 2. pp. 237–238. A. Kruzel associates the change of name with baptism. He changed the typical pagan name Theodore (gift of God), or like his brother Athenodorus (gift of Athena), to Gregory (Awakened), not found in the Hellenistic environment and, thus, specific to Christianity. See: Crouzel H. Introduction // Grégoire le Thaumaturge. Remerciement à Origène. Suivi de la Lettre d'Origène à Grégoire / texte grec, intr., trad. et notes H. Crouzel. Paris, 1969. (SC; vol. 148). P.14, n.3. This identification was first made by Eusebius of Caesarea (see: Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia ecclesiastica, VI, 30 // SC. 41. R. 132–133). Eusebius does not mention the “Speech,” but, according to P. Noten, Eusebius could know it under the name of Theodora. Eusebius could have access to it, since it was kept in the Caesarea Library, the custodian and collector of which, after Origen, was the martyr. Pamphil. See: Nautin P. Origène: sa vie et son œuvre. Paris, 1977. P. 86; Carrier A. The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea. Lieden; Boston, 2003. (Supplements to Vigiliae christianae; vol. 67). P.241–242. We find the first mention of her in Blzh. Jerome: “Theodore, who was later named Gregory and became the bishop of the Pontic city of Neocaesarea <...>. Before leaving for his fatherland, Theodore wrote a penegyric of thanksgiving to Origen (πανεγηρυκòν εὐχαριστίας) and, convening a very crowded meeting, in the presence of Origen himself read aloud this word, which still exists (Hieronymus Stridonensis. De viris illustribus 65; Russian translation: Jerome Stridonsky. Translation from Latin, commentary by M.F. Vysokogo // Church historians, M., 2007. P. 43). Socrates Scholasticus reports that in the “Apology of Origen” Martyr. The Pamphilus was appended with the “Speech” (συστατικὸς λόγος) of St. Gregory the Wonderworker (Socrates Scholasticus. Historia ecclesiastica IV, 27 // PG. 67. Col. 536C; rus. Transl.: Socrates Scholastic. Church history. M., 1996. P. 195). Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia ecclesiastica VI, 30 // SC. 41. P. 132. Nautin P. Origène: sa vie et son œuvre. P. 184, see also: P. 81–86, 155–161. A. Crouzel defended the traditional point of view: Crouzel H. Faut-il voir trois personnages en Grégoire le Thaumaturge? A propos du “Remerciement à Origène” et de la “Lettre à Grégoire” // Gregorianum. 1979. Vol. 60. P. 287–320. See: Moreschini C., Norelli E. History of the literature of early Christianity. T. 1. pp. 576–578. They were discussed even before Plato, who addressed them not so much as ethical values, but rather elevated them into a metaphysical religious and philosophical context. He turned them to the soul striving for the divine, endowing each of the powers of the soul with a corresponding virtue, assigning understanding (φρόνησις) to the rational part (τὸ λογιστικόν), and courage to the fierce (τὸ θυμοειδές) (ἀνδρεία), to passionate (τὸ ἐπιθυμητικόν) – chastity (σωφροσύνη). Justice (δικαιοσύνη) Plato did not assign any part of the soul, but made it a virtue ruling the whole soul as a whole, which harmonizes all three mental powers and distributes them in the correct order, where reason rules, and feeling and passion are subordinate (see: Plato. Res publica, 441d-442d). Wanting to find the very beginnings, Plato outlines a certain ontological scale of virtues (Plotinus will identify it, and Porphyry will polish it): from everyday civil ones, external to the soul and mind, to truly valuable and immortal ones, which purify the soul, enlighten the mind (Plato. Phaedo 69a-c) and liken to God (Plato. Theaetetus 176a-b). This sublime religious and moral teaching will find its expression among the average Platonists, in Neoplatonism and in many Christian authors. A list of four basic virtues (prudence, or reasonableness, understanding - φρόνησις; moderation, or chastity - σωφροσύνη; courage - ἀνδρεία; justice - δικαιοσύνη) can be found in Wis.8:6 and 4Macc.1:18. Philo of Alexandria often addresses them. See index in: Schenk K. Philo of Alexandria. Introduction to life and creativity. M., 2007. P. 200, 206, 211 (also: P. 117–118). See: Dionysius (Shlenov), abbot. The teaching of St. Nikita Stifata about the four main virtues in the context of ancient and Byzantine literature. Part 1 // BV. 2019. No. 32 (1). pp. 192–209; It's him. The teaching of St. Nikita Stifata about the four main virtues in the context of ancient and Byzantine literature. Part 2 // BV. 2019. No. 33 (2). pp. 178–203; It's him. The doctrine of the four generic virtues in the treatise “De virtutibus et passionibus”, attributed to St. Ephraim the Syrian, in the context of the Greek patristic tradition // St. Ephraim the Syrian and his spiritual heritage. M., 2019. pp. 352–364. Starting from St. Ambrose of Milan. See: Adamov I.I. Saint Ambrose of Milan. Sergiev Posad, 2006. pp. 513–526. Especially on the topic of the four main virtues of St. The abbot's article, which is being prepared for publication, is dedicated to Ambrose. Dionysius (Shlenova). The only reference to the four virtues before St. Ambrose is found only in Lactantius in the “Epitome of Divine Institutions” (Lactantius. Epitome Divinarum institutionum 24 [29.6–8), but it is only a transfer of a quote from Chrysippus. It is St. Ambrose coined the term virtutes cardinales, and he was the first Latin author to teach the four virtues as virtutes principales. Bejczy I. P. The Cardinal Virtues in the Middle Ages. Leiden, 2011, pp. 11–12. Thus, Galen, who was sympathetic to Christians, believed that Christians who, in the midst of unfair treatment towards them, themselves remain fair, have courage and live chastely, do not want to base all virtues on understanding, rationality itself, relying on faith (see: Dodds E.R. Pagan and Christian in Troubled Times: Some Aspects of Religious Practices in the Period from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine / trans. p. English: A.A. Penteleyeva, general editor: Y.S. Dovzhenko, 2003. (Studia classica). Celsus, ironizing about this, wrote that some Christians are guided only by the position: “Do not test, but believe (Μὴ ἐξέταζε ἀλλὰ πίστευσον)” and “Your faith will save you (Ἡ πίστις σου σώσει σε)" (Origenes. Contra Celsum I, 9 // Op. cit. P. 12–13). Justinus Martyr. Apologia I, 8, 2 // SC. 507. P. 144. Ibid. I, 10, 1 // SC. 507. P. 150. In Philo of Alexandria, in his treatise “On the Virtues,” φιλανθρωπία takes second place in the hierarchy of virtues, after piety (εὐσεβεία) [So in ed. instead of εὐσέβεια. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. ] (Philo Alexandrinus. De virtutibus 51). However, Philo does not have a clearly fixed hierarchy and various virtues, sometimes justice or understanding can take precedence (cf. Philo Alexandrinus. De migratione Abrahami 27). In general, for Philo, each of the four virtues has a royal dignity (see: Dionysius (Shlenov), abbot. Teachings of St. Nikita Stifata. Part 2. P. 185). Justinus Martyr. Apologia I, 6, 1 // SC. 507. P. 140. Ibid. I, 14, 1–2 // SC. 507. P. 140. Ibid. I, 14, 5 – 15, 7 // SC. 507. P. 164–168. Ibid. I, 15, 9 // SC. 507. P. 168. The attribution of this work to Athenagoras still raises questions (see: Moreschini K., Norelli E. History of the literature of early Christianity. T. 1. pp. 400–401; Kirill (Zinkovsky), hierome. Great Fathers of the Church on Matter and the Human Body (Alexandrian and Cappadocian Schools). St. Petersburg, 2014. pp. 84–85. In particular, Aristotle's arguments about the close essential connection of the immortal, or rational part of the soul (mind) with the body (material form). For the possibility of reproducing Aristotle’s philosophical argument about the resurrection, see: P. Strakhov. Resurrection. The idea of ​​resurrection in pre-Christian religious and philosophical consciousness. Kyiv, 2002r. pp. 27–32; Wed: Dvoretskaya M.Ya. Integrative anthropology. St. Petersburg, 2003, pp. 557–558. L. Barnard believes that “the philosophical background of Athenagoras is focused on middle Platonism, which was an eclectic amalgam of various theological schools, with the prevailing influence of Platonism” (Quoted in: Cyril (Zinkovsky), Hierom. Great Fathers of the Church on Matter and the Human Body. P. 86). B. Poudron, publisher of Athenagoras' works in the "Sources chrétiennes" series, believes that this could have been a public lecture before an educated public, partly Christian, doubting the bodily resurrection, partly pagan (Pouderon B. Introduction // Athénagore. Supplique au sujet des chrétiennes et Sur la resurrection des morts / intr., texte et trad. B. Pouderon. Paris, 1992. (SC; vol. 379, n. 3). A.I. Sidorov believes that the Christian part of the audience most likely represented various Gnostic movements that deny the resurrection of the flesh. It was these various Gnostic sects, which with their preaching “carried along some members of the Body of Christ who were not firm in the faith,” largely determined the writing of the treatise “On the Resurrection of the Dead” (Sidorov A.I. Introductory article // Athenagoras of Athens. On the Resurrection of the Dead. M., 2013. pp. 12–13). Athenagoras. De resurrectione mortuorum 15, 6 // SC. 379. P. 276. Ibid. 15, 7 // SC. 379. P. 276. Athenagoras. De resurrectione mortuorum 22, 2–5 // SC. 379. P. 304–306. Ibid. 22, 2 // SC. 379. P. 304. Rus. trans.: Athenagoras of Athens. About the resurrection of the dead. P. 86. Ibid. 22, 3 // SC. 379. P. 304. Rus. Transl.: Decree. Op. pp. 86–87. Ibid. 22, 4 // SC. 379. P. 304. Rus. Transl.: Decree. Op. P. 87. An Echo of Aristotle's Teachings: Aristoteles. Politica 1301a.26–27; Wed 1301b.31. On justice in Aristotle’s ethical and legal system, see: Kechekyan S.F. Aristotle's doctrine of state and law. M.; L., 1947. pp. 132–138. Athenagoras. De resurrectione mortuorum 22, 5. Rus. Transl.: Decree. Op. pp. 87–88. Moreschini C., Norelli E. History of the literature of early Christianity. T. 1. P. 387. See “The Martyrdom of Justin and His Companions” (edition A): Martyrium Justini et sociorum 3, 3; rus. Transl.: Early martyrdoms. Translations, comments, research / translation, commentary, sup. article, appendix and general ed. HELL. Panteleeva. St. Petersburg, 2017. (Via sacra; vol. 3). P.114–115 and comm. on S. 127. For an analysis of this fragment, see: Mironositsky P. Athenagoras, Christian apologist of the 2nd century. Kazan, 1894. P.9–35 (with a review of the opinions of Western scientists of the 19th century); Pouderon B. Introduction // SC. 379. P. 11–17; Sidorov A.I. Patristic heritage and church antiquities. T. 2: Ante-Nicene Church Fathers and Church Writers. M., 2011. pp. 264–267. Sidorov A.I. Patristic heritage and church antiquities. T. 2. P. 266–267; Moreschini C., Norelli E. History of the literature of early Christianity. T. 1. P. 497: “According to the note of Philip of Sidsky, the first chapter of this [Alexandrian. - E.H.] school there was an apologist, Athenagoras, but this confusing statement does not seem reliable.” Among Western researchers, Philippe B. Poudron and L. Barnard are sympathetic to the message. See: Zaitseva I.V. On the issue of education in the Alexandrian school under Panten // Problems of history, philology, culture. 2018. Vol. 1. pp. 161–168. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia ecclesiastica VI, 19, 12–14 // SC. 41. P. 116–117. Wed. with what St. writes. Dionysius of Alexandria, a former student of Origen, making excuses in a similar situation: Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia ecclesiastica VII, 7, 1–4 // SC. 41. P. 171–172. In “Homilies on the Gospel of Luke,” Origen speaks in a similar way about reading the apocryphal gospels: “We also read many others [gospels, among them the “Gospel of the Egyptians”, “The Gospel of the 12 Apostles”, “The Gospel of Basilides”, “The Gospel of Thomas” and others are mentioned - E. H.], in order not to appear ignorant to those people who consider themselves know something if they have examined these [other] gospels. But in all this we do not approve of anything other than what the Church approves, namely, only the four accepted Gospels” (Origenes. Homiliae in Evangelium S. Lucae 1, 1-2 // SC. 87. P. 100). Plato. Theaetetus 176a–b. In general, Clement's philosophical sources are quite extensive and varied. In general, about Clement, see the extensive and detailed article: Smirnov D.V., Biryukov D.S. Clement of Alexandria // PE. M., 2014. T. 35. pp. 562–663. "Μετανοήσωμεν οὖν καὶ μεταστῶμεν ἐξ ἀμαθίας εἰς ἐπιστήμην, ἐξ ἀφροσύνης εἰς φρόνησιν, ἐξ ἀκρασίας εἰς ἐγκράτειαν, ἐξ ἀδικίας εἰς δικαιοσύνην, ἐξ ἀθεότητος εἰς θεόν. "(Clemens Alexandrinus. Protrepticus 10, 93, 1–2 // SC. 2. P. 161). In the last sentence there is an allusion to Plato's Phaedo (114d); see note. K. Mondesera (SC. 2. P. 161, n.4). See: Clemens Alexandrinus. Paedagogus I, 63, 3 – 64, 2 (justice is a virtue and good, since it rewards everyone according to their deserts; it is chosen for its own sake); Ibid. I, 71, 1–3; I, 88, 1-2 (God is good and just, One and the same is good in the Father and just in the Son, the Father's Logos, who abides in the Father. Through Jesus and in Him God has revealed justice, He is the Face of the good scales of justice (ἀγαθοῦ ζυγοῦ πρόσωπον ἡμῖν δικαιοσύνης; see also: Ibid. 92, 2)); Ibid. I, 85, 1 (Jesus is a Teacher, justly good, He feeds the believers with His food - justice (see also: Ibid. I, 84, 2)). Clemens Alexandrinus. Paedagogus I, 6, 2–6 (the good Teacher, Wisdom, the Father’s Word created the greatest creation - man, his reasonable / understanding and chaste soul (ψυχὴν μὲν αὐτοῦ φρονήσει καὶ σωφροσύνῃ κατηύθυνεν)). Clemens Alexandrinus. Paedagogus II, 99, 6 (night is sanctified by chaste meditation); Ibid. II, 100.2–3 (the righteous will never allow himself to be stripped of his chastity, but, restraining passions and hating perishable things, strives for eternal chastity, in accordance with the measure of the angels); Ibid. III, 1, 1 (the greatest science is to know oneself (γνῶναι αὑτόν), it leads to the knowledge of God and likeness to Him, this is the decoration of the mind (τῆς διανοίας κόσμῳ) and the clothing of chastity (σωφροσύνην)); Ibid. III, 34, 3 (a good and chaste man lays up treasures in heaven); Ibid. III, 55, 2 (chastity - life in purity and simplicity, not indulging in a depraved lifestyle and eliminating everything unnecessary, life in harmony with the Logos). In fact, individual mentions of virtues are so frequent in Clement that it would require an entire study that cannot fit into the scope of the article. For a good attempt to systematically present Clement’s ethical teaching with an analysis of his philosophical sources, see: D. Mirtov. The moral teaching of Clement of Alexandria. St. Petersburg, 1900. "καὶ εὐσέβεια. Καλὸς ἄρα ἄνθρωπος ὁ δίκαιος καὶ σώφρων συλλήβδην ὁ ἀγαθός, οὐχ ὁ πλούσιος" (Clemens Alexandrinus. Paedagogus II, 121, 4–5). In this aspect of the theory of "borrowing" Clement follows Philo. See: Camelot P. Th. Introduction // SC. 38. P. 10. Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata II, 78, 1–3 // SC. 38. P. 96. Ibid. II, 78, 4–79, 5 // SC 38. P. 96–97. Ibid. I, 97, 3 // SC 30. P. 122. Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata II, 80, 3–4 // SC 38. P. 97. Lev.19:23–24: When you come into the land [that the Lord God will give you], and plant any fruit tree, consider its fruit unpruned; you must not eat it; and in the fourth year all the fruit should be dedicated to the feasts of the Lord. See Philo's commentary on this passage: Philo Alexandrinus. De virtutibus 155–160; allegorical commentary: De plantatione 93–138. Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata II, 95, 1–96, 2 // SC. 38. P. 106–107. See the interpretation of this fragment in the monograph by J. L. Prestige (Prestige D. L. God in Patristic Thought. London, 1952. P. 165). Both Russian translations are incorrect and contain an error. N. Korsunsky translates as follows: “For in the fourth year the convert is dedicated to God with the quadruple virtues, since the Trinity then joins the fourth hypostasis of the Lord” (Clement of Alexandria. Stromata / trans. and note by N. Korsunsky. Yaroslavl, 1892. P. 258). And N. Korsunsky’s commentary: “Of course, the human nature of Christ, which with the three Persons of the Divine in some way constitutes a quaternity” (sic!). E.V. Afonasin, who apparently followed Korsunsky, translates this passage as follows: “Only by the fourth year does the convert present four virtues to God. The location of the three joins the fourth hypostasis of the Lord" (Clement of Alexandria. Stromata. T. 1: Books 1–3 / ed. Greek text, preface, translation and commentary. E.V. Afonasin. St. Petersburg, 2003. P. 311). The modern translator could have checked, but did not, with the French. lane K. Mondeser (SC. 38. R. 107, where in note 1 the arguments of J. L. Prestige are given). J.L. Prestige convincingly proved that the word “hypostasis” in Clement’s text does not indicate the Person of Jesus Christ, but is here a synonym for μονῆς and its equivalent in Lat. mansio. Thus, this is not a Hypostasis of the Lord, but some “place”, “stage”, “stop”, “camp”. Prestige quite rightly pointed out that it is a mistake to believe that Clement, long before the Council of Nicaea, could have used the term “hypostasis”, characteristic of post-Nicene theological terminology (see: Prestige D. L. God in Patristic Thought. P. 164–165). See the devastating review by Yu.A. Shichalin to translate “Stromat” by E.V. Afonasina: Shichalin Yu.A. [Rec. on:] Clement of Alexandria. Stromata. Books 1–3 // BV. 2004. T. 4. No. 4. pp. 478–496. See also review by A.G. Dunaev: http://www.danuvius.orthodoxsy.ru/afnasin.html (published in 2003), as well as a note in: Smirnov D.V., Biryukov D.S. Clement of Alexandria. P. 579. Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata II, 96, 4 // SC. 38. P. 108: ἵνα ὡς ὅτι μάλιστα ὁ μὲν σώφρων τοὺς ἐγκρατεῖς͵ ὁ δὲ ἀνδρεῖος τοὺς γενναίους συνετούς τε ὁ φρόνιμος καὶ δίκαιος τοὺς δικαίους ἐκτελῇ. Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata VII, 17, 1–3 // SC 428. P. 78–81. See especially: Ibid. II, 79, 5 – 81, 1. For more details, see: Mirtov D. Moral teaching of Clement of Alexandria. P.1 07–144. Ibid. II, 80, 2–3; VI, 125, 4–6; VII, 17, 4 – 18, 3. Ibid. VII, 18, 1 (courage as a generic virtue for patience, nobility, etc.). About this connection, see: D. Mirtov. The moral teaching of Clement of Alexandria. pp. 101–107. Mirtov identified the following sequence: 1) in relation to God: piety > faith, hope, love - from the fear of God to gnosis. In relation to God: gnosis - wisdom (contemplation); in relation to human affairs: gnosis - understanding (practice); 2) in the doctrine of passions (anthropology): courage and chastity; 3) in relation to neighbors: love and justice (Ibid. p. 107). Clemens Alexandrinus. Paedagogus II, 16, 4. See also: Ibid. II, 128, 2; III, 51, 2–3. About μεσότης in the patristic tradition, see: Benevich G.I. The Royal Path and the Middle (μεσότης) in John Cassian the Roman and Maximus the Confessor // Verbum 19: “Nicomachean Ethics” in the history of European thought. St. Petersburg; Pskov. 2017. pp. 102–118; Dionysius (Shlenov), abbot. Ideas about the “Royal Path” in Byzantine theology and asceticism. Using the example of the teaching about the procession of the soul to God, St. Nikita Stifat // BV. 2017. no. 26–26 (3–4). pp. 355–391. Clemens Alexandrinus. Paedagogus III, 1, 2. Plato. Theaetetus 176a–b. Moreschini K. History of patristic philosophy. M., 2011. pp. 151–154. See: Athanasius Alexandrinus. De decretis Nicaenae synodi 27 // PG. 25. Col. 465b: φιλοπόνου Ὠριγένους; Athanasius Alexandrinus. Epistola IV ad Serapionem: De Spiritu sancto 9 // PG. 26. Col. 649b: Ὠριγένης ὁ πολυμαθὴς καὶ φιλόπονος. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia ecclesiastica VI, 18, 2 – 19, 1 // SC. 41. P. 112–113. Eusebius directly cites excerpts from the work of Porphyry, where he wrote that in his youth he often met with Origen (Ibid. VI, 19, 5 // SC. 41. P. 114–115). It is quite possible that one of these λόγους could have been the “Speech”, which Eusebius could have known, but not as the work of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea (see above: note 7). M. Becker believes that this could be at stake. 240s, Porfiry was then no more than 20 years old. These “meetings” were supposed to take place in Caesarea or Tire, where Origen lived the last period of his life. Becker M. Anmerkungen // Porphyrios. Contra christianos. Neue Sammlung der Fragmente, Testimonien und Dubia / Einleitung, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen von M. Becker. Berlin; Boston, 2016. (Texte und Kommentare; Bd. 52). S. 4–5, 151–152. According to V. Yeager, Porfiry could have been attracted to philosophy courses, where he could have become acquainted with the allegorical method of exegesis of the Holy Spirit. Scripture, which disappointed him. Yeager V. Early Christianity and Greek paideia. M, 2018. P. 85. See: Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia ecclesiastica VI, 19, 1–10 // SC. 41. P. 113–116. Greek text, German translation, extensive and magnificent commentary of fragments of Porphyry, see: Porphyrios. Contra christianos. Neue Sammlung der Fragmente, Testimonien und Dubia / Einleitung, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen von M. Becker. Berlin; Boston, 2016. (Texte und Kommentare; Bd. 52). See, in particular: S. 132–167 (fragm. 6). It is more correct to consider Aristobulus and Philo of Alexandria as the founders of the allegorical method in interpreting the Old Testament (see: Origenes. Contra Celsum IV, 51 // Op. cit. P. 268), but considering that they were not Christians, but only set an example for the Alexandrians Clement and Origen, then we can consider the words of Porphyry true, since Origen interpreted Scriptures are predominantly in an allegorical or anagogical sense. It is impossible to say for sure whether it was Ammonius Saccas, the teacher of Plotinus, or another Ammonius. Discussions on this matter are ongoing. See: Seregin A.V. On the question of the two Origens // Theological works. M., 2009. Issue. 42. pp. 47–48 and approx. 14. That is, social laws concerning the official cult of the Roman Empire. C. Moreschini, based on an analysis of his predecessors, believes that Origen could have been familiar directly with the works of Plato: “In general, it can be argued that Origen was well acquainted with various philosophical movements. He read from Plato's Phaedo, Phaedrus, Republic, and Timaeus; he knows the Laws and the Letters.” From Aristotle, he could know “On the Soul” and be familiar with the “Nicomachean Ethics” and generally be quite competent in philosophy (Moreschini C. History of Patristic Philosophy. pp. 261–162). V. Yeager believed that both the teaching and life of Origen corresponded to the ideal of the classical philosophers of antiquity. (Yaeger W. Early Christianity and Greek paideia. pp. 188–192). For Numenius of Apamea (2nd century) and his companion Cronius (2nd century), see: Dillon J. Middle Platonists: 80 BC. e. – 220 n. e. / lane from English E.V. Afonasina. St. Petersburg, 2002. pp. 245–365. Both were studied in Plotinus’s circle: (Porphyrios. Vita Plotini 14; Russian translation: Diogenes Laertius. On the life, teachings and sayings of famous philosophers / trans. M.L. Gasparov; general ed., introductory article by A.F. Losev. M., 1979. P. 468). Cronius interpreted Homer using the allegorical method. A. B. Ranovich in his commentary identifies him with Apollophanes, a sophist of the 1st century (?) (Ranovich A.B. Primary sources on the history of early Christianity. Ancient critics of Christianity. M., 1990. P. 355), M. Becker - with the Stoic Apollophanes of Antioch (III century BC) (Becker M. Anmerkungen. S. 162). This is probably not Cassius Longinus (212–272), as indicated by Ranovich (Ranovich A.B. Primary sources on the history of early Christianity. P. 355), but Longinus Philarchaeus (1st century), a major philologist and literary critic (see: Porphyrios. Vita Plotini 14; Russian translation: Op. cit. P. 468). See also the detailed note by M. Becker: Becker M. Anmerkungen. S. 162–163. On Moderatus of Hades and Nicomachus of Gerase, see: Dillon J. Middle Platonists. pp. 329–344. The Stoic Chaeremon was Nero's teacher and wrote essays on grammar and history. Cornut (1st century) in his work “Compendium of Greek Theology” allegorically interpreted the Greek teaching about the gods. See: Torshilov D.O. The composition of Cornut's treatise and the relationship between allegory and etymology // Proceedings of the Russian Anthropological School (MSU). 2008. Vol. 5. pp. 522–535. Metalipsis is a rhetorical and grammatical way of speech in which one word is replaced by another (synonym or homonym). Here it can also be considered as a synonym for the allegorical interpretation of Greek myths. See Becker's commentary: Becker M. Anmerkungen. S. 165–166. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia ecclesiastica VI, 19, 4–8 // SC. 41. P. 114–116. Yeager V. Early Christianity and Greek paideia. pp. 192–193. Origen mentions the books of Numenius: “Hoopoe” (Ἔποπι), “On Numbers” (Περὶ ἀριθμῶν), “On Place” (Περὶ τόπου), “On the Good” (Περὶ τἀγαθοῦ), “On the incorruptibility of the soul” (Περὶ ἀφθαρσίας ψυχῆς) and a book whose title Origen does not give (see: Origenes. Contra Celsum IV, 51, 20–21; V, 38, 10–15; V, 57, 23–24 // Origenes. Contra Celsum: libri VIII / ed. M. Marcovich. Leiden; Boston; Köln, 2001. (Supplements to Vigiliae christianae; vol. 54). P. 268, 354, 368. Рус. пер. соответствующих фрагментов см.: Ориген. О началах. Против Цельса [Кн. I–IV] / translated by L.I. St. Petersburg, 2008. Against Celsus. Book by A.R. Fokina, 1999, no. 121, no. 7. See: Origenes. Contra Celsum IV, 51, 20 // Op. cit. P. 268. Rus. Transl.: Origen. About the beginnings. Against Celsus [Book. I–IV]. P. 735. Ibid. I, 59, 7–8 // Op. cit. P. 268. Rus. Transl.: Origen. About the beginnings. Against Celsus [Book. I–IV]. P. 479. This fragment of text is preserved only in Lat. translation of Rufinus, but it can be assumed that the lat. given here. words: prudentia, iustitia, moderatus, virtutes, sapientia, disciplina, corresponded to the Greek: φρόνησις, δικαιοσύνη, σωφροσύνη or ἐγκράτεια, ἀνδρεία, σοφία and ἐπιστήμη. Origenes. De principiis IV, 4, 10 // Origen. On First Principles: in 2 vols. /ed. and trans. by J. Behr. Oxford, 2017. Vol. 2. P. 582. The words of Celsus quoted by Origen are highlighted in bold type in M. Markovich's edition. Compare: “It is clear that in general the beginning of life, pure and not mixed with anything, is found in the First-Born before all creation (Col. 1:15). Those who participate in Christ are truly alive, as having received life from Him, while those who live without Him possess neither true light nor true life” (Origenes. Commentarii in Evangelium Joanni I, 188, 28 // SC. 120. P. 154. In Origen: τὸν μονογενῆ θεόν. Origenes. Contra Celsum VIII, 17, 12–25 // Op. cit. P. 534–535. See also approx. 3 in the French edition: SC 150. P. 210, n. 3. Origenes. Contra Celsum II, 79, 24–29 // Op. cit. P. 150. Elsewhere, reducing the reasoning of Celsus to absurdity, Origen writes: “Thus, if religion (εὐσέβεια), piety (ὁσιότης) and justice (δικαιοσύνη) are relative things, so that piety and impiety are the same thing in different situations and according to various laws, then think whether, in this case, it would not be consistent [to call] relative both chastity (σωφροσύνη), and courage (ἀνδρεία), and understanding (φρόνησις), and knowledge (ἐπιστήμη) and all the rest virtues? (Ibid. V, 28, 10–15 // Op. cit. P. 342; Russian translation: Origen. Against Celsus. Book 5 / trans. A.R. Fokin // Theological collection of PSTBI. 1999. No. 4. P. 103). Origenes. Exhoratio ad martyrium V, 23–28 // Origenes. Aufforderung zum Martyrium / eing. und uber. M.-B. von Stritzky. Berlin; New York, 2010. (Origenes Werke mit deutscher Übersetzung; Bd. 22). S. 34. Origenes. Homiliae in Jeremiam 12, 11, 1–7 // SC. 238. P. 38–40. Origenes. Homiliae in Lucam 35, 12–17 // GCS. 35. S. 211. Lat. Jerome's version: “Da ergo operam, ut libereris ab adversario tuo sive a principe, ad quem te trahit adversarius.” Da operam, ut habeas sapientiam, justitiam, fortitudinem, temperantiam, et tune complebitur: ecce homo et opera ejus ante faciem suam" [Therefore, try to free yourself from your rival and from the ruler to whom he is leading you. Try to gain wisdom, justice, courage, self-control, and then what has been said will be fulfilled: Here is a man and his deeds are before him] (Origenes. Homiliae in Lucam 35, 9 // SC. 87. P. 422). “Τῶν δικαίων ἐνέπλησε τοὺς οἴκους ἀγαθῶν. Ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀκούω τοὺς οἴκους τούτους· ῃ ἀλλὰ τοὺς οἴκους αὐτῶν, ῃ τοὺς κατὰ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ἐνέπλησεν ἀγαθῶν. Ποίων ἀγαθῶν; ? ἔργων. "Origenes. Enarrationes in Job (fragmenta in catenis) // PG. 17. Col. 85B). "Νοσσιαὶ σοφίας εἰσὶν αἱ Ἐκκλησίαι, ἢ αἱ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ σκηναί σοφία δὲ Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Υἱός ἐστιν. Νοσσιαὶ δὲ φρονήσεως αἱρετώτεραι ὑπὲρ ἀργύριον, αἱ πρακτικαὶ ἀρεταί· δικαιοσύνη, γνῶσις, σοφία, σωφροσύνη, ἀνδρεία, μακροθυμία, "" (Origenis. Exposition in Proverbia Solomonis (fragmenta in catenis) // PG. 17. Col. 196A). “καὶ περὶ μὲν ἀρετῶν καὶ κακιῶν τί δεῖ καὶ λέγειν; ?? δικαιοσύνην καὶ σωφροσύνην καὶ φρόνησιν καὶ ἀνδρείαν καὶ τὰς "(Origenes. Philocalia XXVI, 2, 7–11 // SC. 226. P. 238–240). Origenes. Commentarii in Evangelium Matthaei XII, 13 // GCS. 40. S. 92–93. Origenes. Commentarii in Evangelium Joanni XXVIII, 13, 102–104 // SC. 385. P. 114. Rus. Transl.: Origen. Interpretation of the Gospel of John / trans., comm. and preface O.I. Kulieva. St. Petersburg, 2018. P. 464 (as amended). About the translation by O. Kuliev, see review: Seregin A.V. “Interpretations of the Gospel of John” by Origen in Russian: review of the translation by O. Kuliev // Philosophy. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. 2019. Vol. 3. No. 1. pp. 286–293. For even more examples of Origen referring to the four cardinal virtues and other virtues, see: Classen C.J. Der platonisch-stoische Kanon der Kardinaltugenden bei Philon, Clemens Alexandrinus und Origenes // Aretai und Virtutes: Untersuchungen zu den Wertvorstellungen der Griechen und Römer / hsgb. von C. J. Classen. Berlin; New York, 2010. (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde; Bd. 283). S. 124–133. Compare: “Virtue and Righteousness, which, in our opinion, the Son of God is (as His true disciple said about Him: Who became for us Wisdom from God, Righteousness and Sanctification and Redemption (1 Cor. 1:30))” (Origenes. Contra Celsum V, 39 // Op. cit. P. 354; Russian translation: Origen. Against Celsus. Book 5 / translated by A.R. Fokina // Theological collection of PSTBI. 1999. No. 4. pp. 121–122. Origenes. Commentarii in Epistulam ad Romanos X, 1, 23 // Frontes christiani. 2/5. S. 162. Ibid. IX, 34, 15–17 // Frontes christiani. 2/5. S. 114. Ibid. VI. 5, 22–27 // Frontes christiani. 2/3. S. 220. Wed. also with what was said in the treatise “On Principles”: “Our Lord Christ Himself will instruct in His holy virtues those who are able to perceive Him as Wisdom Himself (since He is Wisdom) and after preliminary exercise in the holy virtues He will prevail in them until He subordinates them to the Father, Who has subjected everything to Himself, that is, when they become capable of perceiving God, He will become they are all in all (1 Cor. 15:28)" (Origenes. De principiis III, 6, 9 // Op. cit. P. 452–454. Origenes. De oratione XI, 2, 9–13 // GCS. 3. S. 322. Rus. Transl.: Origen. On prayer and Exhortation to martyrdom / trans. and approx. N. Korsunsky. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1897. P. 40. For more details, see the introduction by A. Crouzel: Crouzel H. Introduction // SC. 148. P. 40–47. Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 1–10 // SC. 148. P. 94–100. Ibid. 13 // SC. 148. P. 100–102. Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 35–39 // SC. 148. P. 110–112. It is interesting to compare with what Origen himself says in his treatise “On Prayer,” where he states that prayers and thanksgivings should be addressed exclusively to the Father, Whom: “our Savior, as He Himself prayed, so taught us to pray.” Thus, one should pray “only to God, the Father of the universe,” but through the mediation of the High Priest. Therefore, “if the saints give thanks to God in their prayers, then they express gratitude to Him through Jesus Christ ἑαυτῶν τῷ θεῷ διὰ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ χάριτας ὁμολογοῦσιν αὐτῷ)" (Origenes. De oratione XV, 1, 1–13 – 2, 1 // GCS. 3. S. 333–334; Russian translation: Op. cit. pp. 56–58). Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 43–46 // SC. 148. P. 112–114. Ibid. 72 // SC. 148. P. 124; rus. trans.: Works of St. Gregory the Wonderworker and St. Methodius, bishop and martyr. M., 1996. P. 29. In this image, according to O. Aliyeva, one can see a deliberate dramatization of the “conversion” of St. Gregory, which could have been inspired by Plato. A similar image of the relationship between Socrates and Alcibiades can be found in Plato’s “Symposium”: Alieva O.V. “Socratic Protreptic” and the image of Origen in the “Gratitude Speech”. pp. 238–239. To pull all the ropes, that is, to raise all the sails. The meaning of the proverb is: to use all means (cf.: Plato. Protagoras 338a). In Russian translation by N.I. Sagarda: “touched, as the proverb says, every rope.” O. Aliyeva sees here a parallel with the reasoning of Socrates in the ΙΧ book of the Republic: “we find here (585a ff.) the division of imaginary and true pleasure. “Whoever has no experience in prudence and virtue,” says Socrates, “who always spends time in feasts and other similar amusements, is naturally carried down, and then again to the middle, and this is how they wander all their lives (πλανῶνται διὰ βίου). They cannot go beyond these limits: after all, they have never looked at the truly sublime and did not ascend to it, were not filled with reality, did not taste reliable and pure pleasure; like cattle (βοσκημάτων δίκην) they always look down, bowing their heads to the ground...” (Alieva O.V. “Socratic Protreptic” and the image of Origen in the “Gratitude Speech”. P. 242). Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 74–77 // SC. 148. P. 124–126. Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 79 // SC. 148. P. 126. Rus. Transl.: Decree. Op. P. 31. On this occasion, O. Alieva rightly notes: “If philosophy is the knowledge of God through self-knowledge, then practicing philosophy is a necessary condition for worshiping God” (Alieva O.V. “Socratic Protreptic” and the image of Origen in the “Gratitude Speech.” P. 243). Ibid. 82–83 // SC. 148. P. 128. Ibid. 85–92 // SC. 148. P. 130–132. Rus. Transl.: Decree. Op. pp. 32–33. For more information about this, see: Alieva O.V. “Socratic Protreptic” and the image of Origen in the “Gratitude Speech”. pp. 238–244. Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 97 // SC. 148. P. 136. Moreschini K. History of patristic philosophy. P. 207. For more details, see: Alieva O.V. “Socratic Protreptic” and the image of Origen in the “Gratitude Speech”. pp. 241–243; Alieva O.V. Conversation III St. Basil the Great “On the words: listen to yourself” as a philosophical protreptic // Bulletin of PSTGU. Series I: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies. 2012. Issue. 1 (39). pp. 25–26. Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 145–147 // SC. 148. P. 154–156. Ibid. 147 // SC. 148. P. 156; cf.: Ibid. 83 // SC. 148. P. 128. For more details, see the introduction by the publisher of “Rech” A. Crouzel: Crouzel H. Introduction // SC. 148. P. 57–73; also: Sidorov A.I. Origen’s life path // Patristics: new translations, articles. Nizhny Novgorod, 2001. pp. 319–322. Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 93–114 // SC. 148. P. 134–142. Rus. Transl.: Decree. Op. pp. 33–37. Ibid. 115 // SC. 148. P. 142. Rus. Transl.: Decree. Op. P. 37. Ibid. 116 // SC. 148. P. 144. Ibid. 148–149 // SC. 148. P. 156–158. This theme is touched upon by Origen: Origenes. Contra Celsum I, 10 // Op. cit. P. 13–14. Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 150–173 // SC. 148. P. 158–168. This is confirmed by the testimony of Eusebius of Caesarea, who writes that Origen “introduced” his more gifted students “into philosophical disciplines, taught them geometry and arithmetic <...>, introduced them to the theories of various philosophical schools, explained the works of their creators, made his comments and examined each theory in detail” (Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia ecclesiastica VI, 18, 3). Blzh. Jerome in his “Letter to Magnus” wrote that Origen compiled ten books “Stromat”, where he compared “the opinions of Christians and philosophers and all the dogmas of our faith” and confirmed them with “evidence from Plato and Aristotle, Numenius and Cornutus (omnia nostrae religionis dogmata de Platone et Aristotele, Numenio Cornutoque confirmans)” (quoted from: Porphyrios. Contra christianos fragm. 6 // Op. cit. S. 160–161. On Origen’s Stromata, from which only minor fragments have survived, see: Nautin P. Origène: sa vie et son œuvre. Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 173 // SC. 148. P. 168. According to the fair judgment of I. Hadot: “Origen, in his Letter to Gregory, sees in Greek philosophy “encyclical studies” that prepare for Christian teaching: “... I would like you to take from Greek philosophy everything that can serve as encyclical studies or preparatory education (ἐγκύκλια μαθήματα ἢ προπαιδεύματα) for an introduction to Christianity, as well as from geometry and astronomy, everything that is suitable for the interpretation of Holy Scripture. And thus, what philosophers say about geometry and about music, about grammar, about rhetoric and about astronomy, calling them assistants to philosophy, we will apply to philosophy itself in relation to Christianity” ( Origenes. Epistola ad Gregorium Thaumaturgum 1 // SC 148. P. 186). Since Christian philosophy is the only true one, Greek philosophy turns out to be nothing more than propaedeutics, both as such and due to the fact that it presupposes ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία” (Ado I. Free arts and philosophy in ancient thought. M., 2002. pp. 352–353). Compare: “Origen, apparently, proceeded from the principle that all “external sciences” serve as propaedeutics (necessary for apologetic and missionary purposes), that is, preparation for “sacred science” - theology, contained entirely in the Holy Scriptures” (Sidorov A.I. The Life Path of Origen. P. 322, note 2). Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 179 // SC. 148. P. 170. Ibid. 181 // SC. 148. P. 170. Rus. Transl.: Decree. Op. P. 48. Compare: “Even when, as a youth (μειράκιον), I learned from a rhetorician the art of making public speeches (δημώδη ῥητορικὴν), I voluntarily did not allow myself to glorify anyone and make laudatory speeches about anyone (ἐγκώμιον), if this was in some way inconsistent with the truth. Therefore, even now, when I proposed [to give] a speech of praise, I do not think that one should elevate him (Origen. - E. H.) simply by blaming others (ἑτέρων ψόγοις)” (Ibid. 130–131 // SC. 148. P. 148). Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 182–184 // SC. 148. P. 170–172. Moreschini C., Norelli E. History of the literature of early Christianity. T. 1. P. 580. Volker W. Das Vollkommenheitsideal des Origenes. Tübingen, 1931. S. 229–235. Wed. assessment of this opinion from A.I. Sidorov: “Such an assessment of the Speech of St. Gregory seems to us overly critical. Of course, from a young pagan like Gregory who came to Origen, it is difficult to demand a comprehensive description of the personality and worldview of this outstanding Christian theologian, but his Thanksgiving speech is a living and vivid description of Origen’s appearance, and also depicts in sufficient detail the set of courses he taught in Caesarea” (Sidorov A.I. The Life Path of Origen. P. 323). Moreschini C., Norelli E. History of the literature of early Christianity. T. 1. pp. 580–581. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia ecclesiastica VI, 15 // SC. 41. P. 109. Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 196 // SC. 148. P. 178. About this aspect of the knowledge of God and the metaphor of the mirror in ancient philosophical thought and patristics, see: Mikhailov P.B. Mirror or dull glass? About one feature of Christian epistemology // Alpha and Omega. 2009. No. 3 (56). pp. 34–51. Reprinted as a separate chapter in Mikhailov P.B. Categories of theological thought. M., 2013. P.98–117. Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 115–149 // SC. 148. P. 142–158. Origen, according to St. Gregory, strove to ensure that his students mastered the knowledge and comprehension of “not just the science of mental movements, but these movements themselves.” Grégoire le Thaumaturge, Remerciement à Origène, 137 // SC. 148. P. 150–152. See: Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 115–121 // SC. 148. P. 142–146. Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 122 // SC. 148. P. 146. Ibid. 123–126 // SC. 148. P. 146–148. Ibid. 137–138 // SC. 148. P. 150–152. See in context: “δικαιοπραγεῖν μὲν καὶ ἀναγκάζων, εἰ δεῖ λέγειν, διὰ τὴν ἰδιοπραγίαν τῆς ψυχῆς, ᾗ προσθέσθαι ἡμᾶς ἔπεισεν· ἀπάγων μὲν τῆς κατὰ τὸν βίον πολυπραγμοσύνης καὶ τοῦ τῆς ἀγορᾶς ὀχληροῦ, ἑαυτοὺς δὲ περισκοπεῖν ἐπάρας καὶ τὰ αὑτῶν ὄντως πράττειν" (Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica // SC 148. P. 152; op. 40). Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 137 // SC. 148. P. 152. Plato. Res publica 433a–b. Plato. Res publica. 586e (text quoted from translation by O. Aliyeva). See: Alieva O.V. “Socratic Protreptic” and the image of Origen in the “Gratitude Speech”. P. 242. Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 137 // SC. 148. P. 152–154. Ancient tradition attributes this phrase to the seven wise men, most often its author is called Chilon from Sparta, less often Thales from Miletus. Diogenes Laertius considered Thales as the author, while he refers to the peripatetic Antisthenes, who, following Aristotle, attributed the phrase to the Pythia Themonoe, and that Chilon then appropriated it for himself (Diogenes Laertius. Vitae philosophorum 1, 40). It was also attributed either to Solon from Athens, or to some unknown Delphos and Labius, etc. See: Dionysius (Shlenov), abbot. The principle of “know yourself” from the Monk Nikita Stifat in the context of the Byzantine tradition // BV. 2018. No. 28 (1). pp. 112–113. For example, “Alcibiades I”, “Laws”, “Protagoras”, “Charmides”, “Phaedrus”, “Philebus”. Quote by: Mikhailov P.B. Categories of theological thought. P. 92. Clement is also credited with the saying: “If you want to know God, then first of all know yourself” (Clemens Alexandrinus. Fragmenta 5; quoted from: Theological Chapters of St. Maximus the Confessor, or “The Bee” / introductory article, trans., afterwords and notes by P.K. Dobrotsvetov. M., 2013. P. 340. In the Septuagint Song 1:8 reads as follows: ἐν πτέρναις τῶν ποιμνίων σου, καὶ ποίμαινε τὰς ἐρίφους σου ἐπὶ σκηνώμασι τῶν ποιμένων. [We have corrected the omission in the last word. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. ] Wed. ts-glory: If you do not hang yourself, you who are good among women, go out at the heels of your flocks and feed your goats at the shepherd’s tabernacles (Song. 1:7). Masoretic text and, accordingly, Sin. the translation gives a different reading: If you do not know this, most beautiful of women, then follow in the footsteps of the sheep and feed your kids near the shepherds’ tents ( Song 1:7 ). For an analysis of this problem, see: Dionysius (Shlenov), abbot. The principle of “know thyself.” P. 115, approx. 95. Kon I.S. In search of oneself: Personality and its self-awareness. M., 1984. P. 69. Mikhailov P.B. Categories of theological thought. P. 92. For more detailed information about the reception of the Delphic saying in the Christian tradition, we refer to the article mentioned above: Dionysius (Shlenov), abbot. The principle of “know thyself.” pp. 114–119. See: Vashchenko A.V. Self-knowledge in ancient philosophical thought and Christian tradition // Bulletin of the Russian Chemical Academy. 2020. T. 21. Issue. 2. P. 29. So with St. John Chrysostom: “Pay attention to yourself, he says, and to the teaching, abide in them (v. 16). That is, be attentive to yourself and teach others" (Joannes Chrysostomus. Homiliae in Epistulam I ad Timotheum 13, 1; Russian translation: John Chrysostom, St. Conversations on the first Epistle to Timothy / John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 11. Book 2. St. Petersburg, 1905. P. 707). In Lopukhin’s “Explanatory Bible”: “Dig into yourself, that is, observe yourself, so as not to fall into any mistake, not to deviate from the spirit of the Gospel” (Explanatory Bible, or Commentary on all the books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Vol. 3: New Testament. Stockholm, 1987, p. 399). Plato. Alcibiades I, 129a. Plato. Alcibiades I, 132e–133s. See: Mikhailov P.B. Categories of theological thought. pp. 113–114, approx. 1. The parallel with “Alcibiades I” is also pointed out by the publisher A. Crouzel (Crouzel H. Introduction // SC. 148. P. 154, n. 1). O. Alieva notes in this regard: “The participle κατοπτριζομένης, found in the Apostle Paul (see: 2 Cor 3, 18), in combination with the mention of the Delphic oracle, indicates that the motif of “Alcibiades I” already received a Christian interpretation from Origen” (Alieva O.V. “Socratic protreptic" and the image of Origen in the "Gratitude Speech" p. 243). See: Mikhailov P.B. Categories of theological thought. pp. 114–115. There is an old but good study in Russian: Pospehov D.V. The Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, its origin and relation to Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy. Historical-critical study. Kyiv, 1873 (see, in particular: P. 434 et seq.). See also: The Wisdom of Solomon / a new trans., intr., comm. by D. Winston. New York, 1979. (The Anchor Bible; vol. 43). P. 20–25 [dating], 25–58 [religious and philosophical ideas in the context of Greek philosophy]. «ὁ μὲν οὖν θεσπέσιος ἀπόστολος ἐφ΄ ἡμῶν γράφει· βλέπομεν γὰρ νῦν ὡς δι΄ ἐσόπτρου, κατ΄ ἀνάκλασιν ἐπ΄ αὐτοῦ ἑαυτοὺς γινώσκοντες κἀκ τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν θείου τὸ ποιητικὸν αἴτιον ὡς οἷόν τε συνθεωροῦντες" (Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata I, 94, 4–5 // SC. 30. P. 119–120). See: Origenes. Contra Celsum V, 60; Id. Commentarii in Evangelium Joanni XIII, 25; Id. De oratione 11. Origenes. De oratione 9, 2, 1 // GCS. 3. S. 318–319. Rus. Transl.: Decree. Op. pp. 34–35 (with minor corrections). Alexander of Aphrodisias wrote: “It is impossible to say that people and gods have the same virtue. It is simply not true when they say that beings so distant from each other by nature have the same perfections and virtues.” The Neoplatonist Proclus also reproached the Stoics: “And the Stoics, who claim that gods and people have the same virtue, really lack Platonic piety and Socratic moderation” (quoted from: Fragments of the Early Stoics. Vol. 3. Part 1: Chrysippus. Ethical fragments / trans. comm. A. A. Stolyarov. M., 2007. P. 93:94). Clement of Alexandria denied this teaching (see: Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata II, 135, 3; VII, 88, 5). Blzh. Theodoret of Cyrrhus wrote: “The Stoics <...> defined the ultimate goal as a life in accordance with nature and argued that the body does not help or harm the soul: no health can force the soul to virtue against its desire, and no illness can draw it to vice against its conviction. They called all such things indifferent. But that man and God have the same virtue, this, of course, they asserted completely unreasonably” (quoted from: Fragments of the Early Stoics. Vol. 3. Part 1. P. 56). Origen develops this idea in his treatise “Against Celsus” (Origenes. Contra Celsum IV, 28–29 // Op. cit. P. 240–242): all creatures of God, good angels, people created, both in His image and in the likeness, have one and the same virtue. In another place of this treatise, he substantiates this thesis based on Christology and ecclesiology: “When the philosophers of Portico assert that man and God have one virtue, Celsus does not ridicule this opinion <...>. When the Holy Scripture says that the perfect man united and became one with the Word Himself through virtue, and that the soul of Jesus is not separated from the firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:15) <...>, the Holy Scripture says that the Body of Christ, quickened by the Son of God, is the Church of God (Col. 1:24 b), and the members of this Body are believers, considered as one whole" (Origenes. Contra Celsum VI, 48 // Op. cit. P. 426–427). Thus, Origen found this Stoic teaching acceptable, but understood it in a slightly different sense than the Stoics. He substantiated his concept that virtue is the same for God and people, from four positions: 1) anthropological (human creation, in the image and likeness of God); 2) Christological (God became man); 3) ecclesiological (the Church is the Body of Christ); 4) eschatological (God will become all in all). See: Shpidlik F. Spiritual tradition of Eastern Christianity. Systematic presentation. M., 2000. P. 338 and in more detail: Crouzel H. Théologie de l’image de Dieu chez Origène. Paris, 1956, pp. 239–245. Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 143 // SC. 148. P. 154. Rus. Transl.: Decree. Op. P. 41. Plato. Cratylus 411e. In one passage preserved by Stobaeus, from the work “On Justice,” the Platonist Hierax (2nd century), one also encounters the understanding of σωφροσύνη as a call for the preservation of φρόνησις. According to Porfiry, σωφροσύνη was once designated as σαοφροσύνη and, thus, ordered the “thinking person” to preserve and guard himself (see: Alieva O.V. “Socratic Protreptic” and the image of Origen in the “Gratitude Speech.” pp. 26–27). Let us note that St. Petersburg also gives a similar etymology. Anastasius Sinaita in his “Guide”: “The word prudence (σωφροσύνη) [comes] from “to think sensibly (σῶα φρονεῖν)”” (Anastasius Sinaita. Viae dux 2, 8; Russian translation: Anastasius Sinaita, St. Guide // Adrian (Pashin), abbot. The main Christological work of St. Anastasius Sinaite “Guide”: St. Petersburg, 2018. P. 182). In the note by V.N. Karpov attaches a similar definition to Aristotle and others. He himself gives the following comment: “In our opinion, σωφροσύνη, according to the most precise etymology, means sanity.” Therefore, V.N. himself Karpov, following Friedrich Schleiermacher, “wanting to take this word a little more broadly,” translated σωφροσύνη with the word “prudence” (Karpov V.N. Notes // Plato. Works. Part 5: Philebus, Cratylus, Theaetetus, Sophist / translated from Greek and commentary by V.N. Karpov. M., 1879. P. 245). However, A.F. Losev does not agree with this: “Plato’s term σωφροσύνη is so original that it cannot be translated into any modern language. Russian translations “reasonableness”, “judgment”, “prudence”, “reasonableness”, “sanity”, “common sense” are completely worthless due to the predominance of the rational element in them. Sophrosyne, indeed, is chastity, but chastity is not moral, not behavioral, or even moral stability and restraint, but chastity of the mind, integrity and enlightenment of a person’s rational ability” (Losev A.F. History of Ancient Aesthetics. Results of a thousand years of development. Book 2. M., 2000. P. 360). Plato. Alcibiades I, 131b. It should be said that the first person to connect self-knowledge with chastity was Heraclitus of Ephesus. His saying, which was preserved by Stobaeus, reads: “It is given to all people to know themselves and to be chaste καὶ σωφρονεῖν)" (Heraclitus. Fragmenta 116; Russian translation: Fragments of early Greek philosophers. Part 1: From epic theocosmogonies to the emergence of atomism / edited by A.V. Lebedev. M., 1989. P. 198). Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 144 // SC. 148. P. 154. Rus. Transl.: Decree. Op. P. 41. Albinus. Epitome doctrinae Platonicae XXIX, 3–4. Rus. per Albin. Textbook of Platonic philosophy / trans. Yu.A. Shichalina // Plato. Dialogues / trans. from ancient Greek, comp., ed. and then articles by A.F. Loseva; note A.A. Tahoe-Godi. M., 1986. P. 467. Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica 148–149 // SC. 148. P. 156–158. Rus. Transl.: Decree. Op. P. 42. Wed: With your patience (ὑπομονῆ ἡμῶν) save your souls (Luke 21:19), see also: Rom.15:4; 2 Thessalonians 1:4; Hebrews 12:1. Eusebius testifies to the strict asceticism of Origen: Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia ecclesiastica VI, 3, 8–12 // SC. 41. P. 88–90. On the virtue of patience, as one of the main virtues in ascetic practice, see: Zarin S. Asceticism according to Orthodox Christian teaching. Ethical and theological study. T. 1. Book. 2. M.: Pilgrim, 1996r. pp. 570–575. See: Plato. Protagoras 349b. In Christian literature this scheme will also be used. We clearly find it in Evagrius of Pontus with a reference, apparently, to the oral instructions of St. Gregory the Theologian: “The rational soul is tripartite, according to our wise teacher, and the virtue that resides in the rational (τῷ λογιστικῷ) part is called understanding (φρόνησις), common sense (σύνεσις) and wisdom (σοφία); in lust, chastity, love and abstinence (τῷ ἐπιθυμητικῷ, σωφροσύνη καὶ ἀγάπη καὶ ἐγκράτεια); in fierce, courage and patience (τῷ θυμικῷ, ἀνδρεία καὶ ὑπομονή); in the whole soul, as a whole, justice (δικαιοσύνη)” (Evagrius Ponticus. Practicus 89 // SC. 171. P. 680–687). Origen apparently did not adhere to any sequence and in different places lists the main virtues in random order. Ibid. 139–140 // SC. 148. P. 152. Ibid. 122 // SC. 148. P. 146. Ibid. 123 // SC. 148. P. 146. Ibid. 141–142 // SC. 148. P. 152–154. Ibid. 124 // SC. 148. P. 146. Ibid. 143 // SC. 148. P. 154. Ibid. 148 // SC. 148. P. 156. Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica. 122 // SC 148. P. 146. Ibid. 144 // SC. 148. P. 154. A rather similar formulation in the Christian tradition can be found in Evagrius: “The matter of courage is firmness in the truths [of Christian doctrine], even when heretics are fighting [against them], and not entering into [the area of] non-existent [things] (ἀνδρείας δὲ τὸ ἐγκαρτερεῖν τοῖς ἀληθέσι καὶ πολεμούμενον, καὶ μὴ ἐμβατεύειν εἰς τὰ μὴ ὄντα)" (Evagrius Ponticus. Gnosticus 44). Ibid. 146 // SC. 148. P. 154. Compare: Plato. Meno 99e–100c, also among the writings of the Platonists, the same idea is found in the treatise “On Virtue” (Plato [spuria]. De virtute 379d). Alcinous’s “Textbook” states: “Virtue is a divine thing, representing the best disposition of the soul” (Albinus. Epitome doctrinae Platonicae XXIX, 1; Russian translation: Op. cit. pp. 466–467). Aelius Theon. Progymnasmata // Rhetores graeci. Vol. 2/ed. L. Spengel. Lipsiae, 1854. P 110 (8–10). This tradition would continue into the Byzantine period. So, for example, St. Methodius I, Patr. Constantinople (IX century) in his “Encomia of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker,” will also mention four virtues, applying them to St. Nicholas: “For his reason oversaw affairs and directed every movement towards God, but anger moved only against the serpent, because of which the first man died. And his lust was completely directed towards God. Having become courageous and reasonable from this, he spent his life in righteousness and chastity, like the best charioteer, seated on a three-horse chariot of virtues and swiftly rushing on it to the heavenly final boundary" (Methodius, Patr. of Constantinople. Praise to St. Nicholas / introduced, translated from Greek, commentary by D.E. Afinogenova // Scripta antiqua. Questions of the ancient history, philology, art and material culture. 2017. T. 6. P. 602). Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata II, 95, 1–96, 4 // SC. 38. P. 106–108. It would be more accurate to say the spirit of Middle Platonic philosophy, which was a fusion of Platonism (in otnology and theology), Peripatetics (logic, categories, psychology) and Stoicism (ethics). On the four main virtues in middle Platonism, see: Kholodov E.V. The concept of the four main virtues in middle Platonism // Music in the cultural system: Scientific Bulletin of the Ural Conservatory. Ekaterinburg. 2019. Vol. 16. pp. 62–83. In the homilies for the “Sex Day” of St. Basil the Great writes: “All evil is a mental illness, but virtue corresponds to health. Well, some have defined health that it is the improvement of natural actions εὐστάθειαν τῶν κατὰ φύσιν ἐνεργειῶν). For this reason, chastity is praiseworthy for everyone, justice is commendable, courage is amazing, and prudence is desirable. These virtues are more akin to the soul than health to the body” (Basilius Caesariensis. Homiliae in Hexaemeron IX, 4 // SC. 26bis. P. 498; Russian translation: Basil the Great, St. Creations: in 2 vols. T. 1. M., 2008. P. 423). And St. John Chrysostom speaks about this in his conversations on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians: “Chastity and truth are the beauty of the soul, and courage and prudence are health for it ὑγίεια ψυχῆς ἀνδρεία, φρόνησις)" (Joannes Chrysostomus. Homiliae in Epistolam ad Ephesios 24, 5 // PG. 62. Col. 174). Shpidlik F. Spiritual tradition of Eastern Christianity. P. 342. In the 19th century The Optina elders St. Macarius and etc. Ambrose, they will find their place in St. Theophan the Recluse and in the guide to asceticism of Bishop. Peter (Ekaterinovsky). See: Peter (Ekaterinovsky), bishop. Showing the way to salvation. Ascetic experience. M., 2004. pp. 264–276 (section 3, chapter 2. On the main virtues) In the 20th century. Orthodox theologian J.-C. Larcher will devote a section to them in his famous book “Healing of Spiritual Diseases”: Larcher J. -C. Healing spiritual diseases. Introduction to the ascetic tradition of the Orthodox Church. Sergiev Posad, 2018. pp. 398–416.