X. Soman. Saint Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage and "Pope" of Africa

The author of the book is a prominent scientist, lawyer, expert in Roman law, who worked a lot on issues of land ownership in Roman Africa. St. Cyprian attracted his attention back in the 50s; he dedicated two articles to him 1, the thoughts of which, in developed and expanded form, formed the basis of this book. The book amazes with the novelty and originality of its constructions and conclusions. Novelty and originality, however, are not always a guarantee of the correctness of thoughts and a serious desire to see, discern with the greatest possible accuracy the events in question. Soman's concept is basically the following. The Roman state does not persecute Christians; it wants to live in peace with them, willingly comes to their aid and is inclined to see in Christianity a new support for its power. This tendency of the state is justified by the mood of the prevailing part of Christian society: Christians want a peaceful and harmonious life both with the pagan world around them and with the state authorities, whose demands to perform “Roman rites” and make sacrifices to the gods they calmly fulfill, without seeing any damage to their faith. Everything would have gone quietly and smoothly had it not been for some bishops who were irreconcilably hostile to the state. And here in first place is St. Cyprian. This is not at all the person with whom Benson and Monceau introduced us: a bishop completely absorbed in caring for the Church and his flock; he is a politician, a revolutionary, who passionately hates Rome, who dreams of creating a “city of God” - a Church that will undermine the foundations of the Roman state and take its place. He is the ideological inspirer of the native rebels who rebelled against Rome, ready to give them material assistance if the need arises. The support for these stunning new views is the treatise of St. Cyprian "De catholicae ecclesiae unitate" and his 62nd letter. The treatise in question, according to Somanya, is directed against the state and its intention to “incorporate African Christianity into the system of the Roman state” (p. 86). The state offers the Church peace, but this is an imaginary peace, and the Church must reject it, because it is promised by the “enemy” - Emperor Decius, inspired by the devil himself. “Cyprian’s words leave no doubt that he has Decius in mind” (p. 85). Let us turn to the treatise itself. It was written when the enemies of St. Cyprian broke away from the Church, organized their own “church” and arbitrarily appointed themselves a bishop. At the same time, the heresy of Novatian arose. The treatise is entirely devoted to denouncing schismatics and heretics and proving that there can be only one Church; a society of people who have broken away from the Mother Church cannot be revered by the Church. The Church is united: schismatics and heretics, maddened by the fury of discord, dare to tear it apart (scindere). They violate the unanimity (unianimitas, concordia) and peace that Christ bequeathed to the Church. The word “peace” (rah) appears 17 times in the text; invariably we are talking about peace within the Church. It is noteworthy that concordia and unianimitas are usually connected with the word “world”; peace in the Church is ensured by the fact that its members have “one heart and one soul.” This unanimity was violated by the schismatics. “He who violates the peace and harmony of Christ acts against Christ” (6). What kind of “world”, i.e. return to the Church and Eucharistic communion, can the enemies of the brothers give (13)? This “fruit of peace” (praemium pacis) cannot be received by those who “in the fury of discord have destroyed the peace given by the Lord” (11). “Peace must be sought and preserved by the son of peace; He must keep his tongue from evil disagreement” (24). “Christ gave us peace, taught us to be of one heart and one accord” (14). “If we are children of God, we must keep peace” (24). “He who, in the madness of discord, tears apart the Church, destroys faith, upsets the world” (15). There is not a word about the pax publica - the peace that the state gives, about its proclamation as a gift of the devil, and not a hint about Decius. Why is the “crafty enemy” who sets traps “undoubtedly Decius”? Why does Soman believe that under the “serpent that creeps secretly”, St. Does Cyprian mean Decius? It is worth re-reading the first chapter of the treatise to be convinced that St. Cyprian says about the devil: “At the very beginning of the world, he took advantage of the gullibility of an inexperienced soul and deceived it with flattering lies; trying to tempt the Lord Himself, he approached him secretly...” (1). It was not Decius who talked with Eve and it was not Decius who tempted Christ. Here is the text of St. Cyprian, who, according to Soman, irrefutably proves that the treatise “On the Unity of the Universal Church” is directed specifically against Decius. It is so important that we present it in translation (our own) and in the original: “The enemy deceives the unwary, preserving for them the name of Christians. He invented heresies and schisms (Decius in the role of heresiarch!), he snatches people from the Church... people who have not yet established themselves in the Gospel, who have not resisted in observing its commandments, call themselves Christians... the enemy deceived them with flattery; he, according to the Apostle, is transformed into an angel of light, and arms his servants as servants of righteousness. They declare night to be day, destruction to be salvation... they call the Antichrist Christ.” “inimicus... sub ipso christiani nominis tutilo fallat incautos. Haereses invenit et schismata... rapit de ipsa ecclesia homines... cum evangelio Christi et cum observatione eius et lege non stantes christianos se voceat... blandiente adversario atque fallente, qui secundum apostoli vocem transfigurat se velut angelum lucis et ministros subornat suos velut ministros institiae adserentes noctem pro die, interitum pro salute... antichristum sub vocabulo Christi.” The last lines in Soman's translation read: “The imaginary servants of truth assert that death (spiritual) should be recognized as salvation, and the Antichrist (i.e., the emperor) as a divine genius.” “The allusion to the formula of the prayer “Pro salute et per genium imperatoris” is obvious” (p. 86). The translation clearly does not correspond to the text. The author of the preface to Soman's book (it was published after his death) is prof. Lassus writes that Somagne made no reference to the Viennese edition of the works of St. Cyprian (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum) and that the editors, to the extent possible, tried to fill this gap. Soman gives so many accurate translations, gives so many short excerpts (two or three words) from the text of St. Cyprian that it is impossible to assume that he wrote from memory without looking at the text. His translations, including this text, with the exception of the last line, were made from the Vienna edition. How can we explain the difference between the text of Hartel (editor of the works of St. Cyprian in the Vienna edition) and the one that Somagne based his translation? Bevenot's text, which, after a careful comparison and study of the manuscript tradition of the above-mentioned treatise, made some amendments to Hartel's text 3, in this paragraph completely agrees with Hartel. As far as we know, no conjectures were made for this text. If Soman proposed his own, he had to prove its “right to exist,” first of all, paleographically, otherwise he would give rise to suspicion of a forgery of the text, arbitrarily changed in the sense desired by the author. The persuasiveness of any historical work depends on a convincing interpretation of the sources on which this work is based, and the first requirement for the researcher is that he must “listen to the text,” i.e. capture the author’s thoughts, and not attribute your own to him; to hear what the text testifies to, and not what its interpreter wants to hear. A “disobedient” researcher always inspires mistrust and inevitably suggests that he is not trying to find out “how, in fact, it really was” (Ranke’s words), but demands confirmation of his preconceived thoughts. This is exactly what Soman demanded from the treatise of St. Cyprian, violently interpreting the text, without stopping to distort it. It is difficult to imagine that a calm reading of the treatise could leave even the slightest doubt about his exclusive preoccupation with matters that concern the Church and only the Church. You involuntarily ask yourself: did Somagne read “De catholicae ecclesiae unitate” in its entirety, did he not limit himself to only the first page, from where he snatched the words “Sub doli hostis insidios”, and did not read further - further lines would have convinced him that they refer to the devil - decided that St. Cyprian talking about Decius? So, “De catholicae ecclesiae imitate” is by no means an anti-government pamphlet; it does not give any right to see in St. The Cyprians were staunch enemies of Rome. What about relations with the rebellious natives? Let's read the 62nd letter. Its content is as follows. Eight Numidian cities were attacked by barbarians, who captured and carried away a number of people. The bishops leading the Christian communities of these cities turned to the Carthaginian Church, as the richest, for help: they needed to raise money to ransom the prisoners, otherwise they would be threatened with slavery. 100,000 sesterces were collected, which St. Cyprian and sent it to the bishops of the affected communities, accompanied by a letter breathing love and sympathy. Why, asks Soman, is money collected to ransom captured Christians? The bandit gang didn't have time to figure out who they were grabbing. The most summary, but only careful use of the 62nd letter leads to the conclusion that a certain number of Christians, in particular the “brides of Christ”, who took a vow of lifelong chastity (in this regard, one can think that the captured “brothers” were bachelors and, perhaps, clergy), were forcibly detained as hostages, guaranteeing the payment of the appointed amount; before us is a measure taken by the legal authority against the native population as punishment or to prevent unrest among them. Barbari, mentioned by St. Cyprian, these are not native robbers at all; “if you look closer,” it turns out that these are Roman military leaders, under whose command are detachments of pagan barbarians. These, of course, are not robbers, but “persecutors” (pp. 168–171). One cannot help but recognize the amazing dexterity with which a simple and clear text turns under Soman’s hands into a mysterious picture, which he confidently and witty, without condescending to evidence, explains to the reader. The robbers, of course, seize those who come to hand, without singling out Christians or pagans, but it is clear that help is provided to Christians: the leaders of local Churches turned to the Mother Church for help, and money was collected among Christians. If St. Cyprian specifically mentioned virgines Christi, this does not mean that he did not think about the fate of all the girls who were captured (the thought of bachelors - “brothers” - there is not a word about such in the text - suggests that Soman suffered from an obsessive thought about debauchery in a Christian, especially in the church, environment). Why “on closer inspection” should the reader see in the “barbarians” (in manibus barbarorum) not robbers - Berbers, who, taking advantage of the fact that there was no Roman legion in Numidia, decided to profit at the expense of the defenseless population, but local troops and the Roman officers who commanded them? Soman has only one fact: assistance to captured Christians, which can be explained simply and naturally. He makes a biased interpretation of this fact the basis of his further unsubstantiated commentary, but this entire commentary is proof that he needs to connect St. Cyprian with the native population and make him the inspirer of “active and militant hatred” towards Rome. Only by forcibly handling the text, by legitimizing for oneself the method of extorting what was necessary for one’s own concept, could one turn the treatise “On the Unity of the Universal Church” into an anti-government pamphlet and make the 62nd letter evidence of an ideological connection between the Bishop of Carthage and local robbers. Proof of the Church’s attack on the state is the work of the Councils (in Carthage from 251 to 256 there were seven local Councils). Their decisions are a clear, consistent and aggressive system of establishing spiritual, moral and political order, the creators of which did not hide their goal to replace the system of state institutions with it (p. 97). We are well aware of the activities of the Carthage Councils. St. speaks about her in a number of letters. Cyprian (letters 44, 45, 48, 55–57, 59, 61, 64, 67, 68, 70–73). “Sentences” have been preserved - the opinions of bishops, participants in the last three Councils, regarding the baptism of heretics. How can all these decisions on the forgiveness of apostates, on the baptism of infants, a response to the complaint of two Spanish communities that had apostates installed as bishops, a reprimand to a bishop who thoughtlessly accepted an apostate priest, can be considered as a threat to the Roman state, as a system of institutions that are designed to sweep away its institutions? A good example of the extent to which Somany does not like to “listen to the text” are letters 76–79. In August 257 St. Cyprian was exiled to Curubis and there he learned that nine Numidian bishops, together with their clergy, were “placed in the mines” - in metallo constituti. These words, according to Soman, should not be taken literally: all those exiled live, in modern language, “in a free settlement,” just like St. Cyprian, who says that he is relegatus - "expelled." Let's turn to the text. “I myself should have come to you,” writes St. Cyprian, if only I, who had been exiled for confession, had not been kept within the boundaries of the place assigned to me” (nisi me quoque ob confessionem nominis relegatum praefiniti loci termini coercerent). From these words it is only clear that St. Cyprian, like his Numidian brethren, is deprived of freedom of movement - they have no basis for further conclusions. Cyprian, well imagining the life of those “placed in the mines,” writes to them to encourage and console them. The suffering they endure (severe beatings before departure, shackles, cold, hunger) are only the steps along which they rise to the crown of glory that awaits them: “You stand triumphant, awaiting the reward promised from God... you know that Christ is with you, rejoicing in the patience of His servants, who walk in His path and in His footsteps into eternal life” (76, VII, 1). Soman claims that the exiled did not know or experience any suffering; they were invented by St. Cyprian: being obsessed with a passionate desire for martyrdom for himself and for those around him, he is unable to see reality in its present form. How should his addressee, in Soman’s opinion, respond to this delusional letter? – Calm down his dreamer-correspondent by assuring him that those “placed in the mines” did not know any torment. Instead, the exiled bishops write what a consolation the words of St. were for them. Cyprian: they healed their wounds, dispersed the prison darkness and stench, leveled the piles of dug up ore (77, III, 1). What facts gave the right to doubt that St. Cyprian is not delusional, but is he referring to reality? That the bishops working in the mines were truly comforted by his inspired and heartfelt letter? One might think that what we are looking at here is not the correspondence of venerable hierarchs standing (they know it) on the verge of death, but the exercises of diligent schoolchildren competing in writing on fictitious topics, or the letters of two unfortunate madmen feverishly comparing their delirium. St. Cyprian sent help to the exiles - “what was necessary for our bodily needs and what we lacked” (77, III, 2): probably food supplies, clothing, money. To send such a package, Soman argues, one must be sure that those to whom it is sent will receive it, and only people who are free, but not “placed in the mines,” could receive it. Why? The Church has always strived to provide assistance to prisoners and workers in the mines: there was no obstacle to sending some and receiving to others. Inquiry about this could be made from Harnack (Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums. B. I. Leipzig, 1906, S. 142 and notes). With the bishops, Soman claims, “a multitude of people” went with them, among whom were girls and children. It is based on the following lines: “Many people have followed your example (exemplum vestrum - only example), they are connected with you by strong bonds of love, they are not separated from their leaders by either prison or mines (a praepositis suis nec carcere nec metallis separati).” These people, therefore, are not with the exiled bishops. Soman insists on the presence of women among the exiles and hints that there was a dirty revelry going on among those “placed in the mines.” Reproaches to Christians for orgies (Minucius Felix spoke about these accusations in detail in his Octavia) can, it turns out, with a certain mood, be repeated seventeen centuries later. Somany pays great attention to confessors and the role that the state played in issuing “letters of permission” to them. Let us briefly recall the events of that time. According to St. Cyprian, without contradicting; However, there were a handful of disobedient people who declared that they would not make the sacrifice. They were imprisoned and then temporarily expelled from their homes. Then some were jailed again. All of them, “who confessed the name of Christ,” are called “confessors”; those who died in prison from torture and a cruel regime are “martyrs.” All of them are people of ardent faith; in confessing it they saw the meaning of life, went to death as if it were a holiday, and wished martyrdom to their friends as they wish happiness. They were firmly convinced that the gates of eternity were open to them; The arms of Christ, their Leader and Friend, were opened to them, and in the rising dawn of this heavenly glory, “all the red” of the earth melted and floated away. But the cultural level of these people is not high: most of them are illiterate simpletons. Words of St. Cyprian about the head of the Carthaginian confessors Lucian - “not strengthened by reading the Divine books” (27, 1, 1) and: “not skilled in understanding the Scriptures” (27, III, 2) - can be attributed to all his comrades. They have no idea about church discipline, they do not understand the full meaning of such sacraments as Repentance and the Eucharist. They are theologically and ecclesiastically ignorant, but they do not realize this and are filled with the conviction of their significance and that they occupy a high rank in the Christian environment. It cannot be denied that there were grounds for this self-esteem: amid general confusion, numerous betrayals and renunciations, they remained faithful even to death. Christian society, including the clergy and St. Cyprian, deeply honors them. This further increased their proud consciousness of their superiority: modesty is not their virtue. It was a Christian freemen, and it caused the Church quite a lot of trouble. At the opposite pole of the Christian world are those who have renounced the faith - the “fallen”. The Decius persecution subsided quickly, and the “fallen” found themselves in a difficult situation. For these people there was a certain attractive force in Christianity, which forced them to join a community that paganism, which was still quite strong in the 3rd century, did not like and, on occasion, persecuted. Now they have been thrown out of this community, and they are already connected to it by a thousand threads - family, friendship, ordinary everyday affairs. And they are deprived of the Church, they are not allowed to receive Communion, and this is difficult for them. The Church, in the person of the bishop, does not reject them, but demands long-term repentance. Is it easy to live for years as an outcast? The entire Christian community was confident that the prayer of the confessors was strong before God, that He heard it. Wouldn't the confessor's request soften the bishop, whose power is to receive the lost sheep? We must turn to the confessors: let them send a “note” (libellus) to the bishop with a request to give “peace”, i.e. accept such and such into Eucharistic communion. There was nothing sinful or anti-church in such a thought and request. The trouble from the “notes” came because the “notes” were skillfully used for their own purposes by the enemies of St. Cyprian. We have a vague idea about them: they were some people, undoubtedly, with weight and significance, but not in Christian circles. Among them were those five priests who were dissatisfied with the election of St. Cyprian as bishop, and one of the founders of the schismatic community known as the “Church on the Mountain,” the wealthy and influential layman Felicissimo. They wanted to undermine the authority of St. Cyprian and remove him from the episcopal see, but, apparently, they understood that they could not do this on their own: it was necessary to move a more authoritative force against the bishop; the confessors turned out to be such. The circumstances were just favorable for the bishop’s enemies: his inflexibility, the melancholy of the “fallen,” their appeal to confessors. The confessors were convinced that they, the soldiers of Christ's army, meant more than the bishop who ran away and hid at the very time they were tortured and tormented, that they bought with their blood the right to forgive sins. “It is clear where Felicissimo’s party came from and where its roots are,” writes St. Cyprian: “At one time they courted some of the confessors, caressed them, talked with them and persuaded them not to be in agreement with their bishop and not to observe church discipline with faith and calmness” (43, II, 1). The confessors “in the frenzy of their glory, disregarding the Scriptures, desired what was contrary to the law of the Lord” (16, III, 2): people who did not have any right to “knit and decide” began to send the bishop not requests, but orders: “let such and such, together with his family, be accepted in the community” (15, IV). And in conclusion, this letter: “All confessors to Bishop Cyprian. Know that we have all given “peace” to those who will give you an account of how they behaved after what they did. We wish, through you, to notify other bishops of this guiding rule. We wish you to remain in peace with the holy martyrs. Lucian wrote..." (23). About this letter to St. Cyprian wrote that it “destroys the bonds of faith, the fear of God, the covenant of the Lord, the holiness and power of the Gospel” (letter to the Roman clergy 2, II, 1). Soman finds that the anxiety of St. Cyprian is explained by fear for his episcopal power and the fact that he is “more attentive to discipline than to faith” (p. 75). Can they be contrasted? Church discipline requires obedience to what is commanded by faith. The Church knew from its first days that the Lord gave the right to forgive sins to the apostles (Matthew 16:10, 18:18; John 20:23), and they passed it on to their successors - those who had the grace of the priesthood. Lay confessors, having arrogated this right to themselves, destroyed the very foundations of the church system: the performance of the sacraments did not require grace sent by the Holy Spirit, they became an act devoid of power and meaning; the church hierarchy turned out to be unnecessary, the earthly Church lay in ruins. Naturally, St. Cyprian rushed with all his energy to fight for “discipline”; it was a struggle for “faith,” for the very existence of the Church on earth. About how right the enemies of St. Cyprian's calculations and the difficult situation he found himself in is not the place to talk now. Let's return to Soman and his story about the expulsion of disobedient people and their second arrest. The proconsul (we are talking about proconsular Africa) could send the perpetrators to any region of his province. Did he send them to different places, considering that it was better to “disperse” these disobedient people; whether he sent them en masse to any one region - we don’t know. We can only say with some certainty that they were sent away from Carthage, to relatively deserted places with a predominantly pagan population. Soman decided that a kind of “concentration camp” was organized for the deportees: they were shown one, strictly limited place, where they were under the supervision of the local administration. He does not prove this assertion with anything, and our sources do not say anything about such “camps”. Why did the confessors, upon returning from exile, find themselves back in prison, why is their regime so strict, why are they tortured? Here is Somanya's answer: the state favors the “fallen”; These are precisely those people of “lite Christianity” who, by making a sacrifice, expressed their complete submission to the state, their desire to live in peace with it. And it willingly comes to their aid. The “fallen” want to return to the Church, the bishop does not accept them, but they are the enemies of St. Cyprian explained this to the authorities - you can do without him: you just have to turn to the confessors. Those returning from exile (and perhaps those returned on purpose before their deadline) are thrown into prison and tortured, forced to issue the aforementioned “permit notes.” The confessors resist, but then give in. Distribution of “notes” begins in “heaps” (gregatim). It is so important for Soman to prove the benevolent attitude of the state towards Christians and the possibility of their peaceful coexistence, a possibility that is hampered by such enemies of Rome and state power as St. Cyprian, who does not give any explanation for the amazing fact, passes by without noticing him. If confessors are tortured so that they agree to the distribution of “notes,” then when consent is obtained and the goal of torture and imprisonment is achieved, it is natural to stop interrogations and torture. Why is it that the “blessed martyr Paul,” who declared to another martyr Lucian: “If anyone, after my departure, asks you for ‘peace’ (i.e., acceptance into the Church), give it in my name,” is still sent for interrogation, after which he dies? Why did Lucian, who wrote in a letter to his friend: “And all of us whom the Lord deigned to call to Himself in this storm, all with common consent gave you “peace”” (22, II, 1), who sent St. Cyprian the above letter (23rd) and who distributed “notes” in thousands, died in prison, tormented by its terrible regime? Torture and the issuance of “notes” apparently were not connected, and if so, then, consequently, the state did not rush to help the “fallen” at all. Why are confessors still in prison, why are they tortured? Didn’t St. himself give the answer? Cyprian? “Confessors, who should be an example of good morality for others, do not comply with church requirements. Some, without hesitation, arrogantly and shamelessly extolled themselves in their confession, and then came the torture” (11, I, 3). Let us remember his persistent admonitions to confessors to be humble, calm and silent (13, III, 1; 14, II, 2). Many of them were apparently too restless and talkative. If, seeing themselves as defenders of the Christian faith, they insulted the pagan gods and generally somehow offended the religious feelings of the crowd, then the response was an explosion of wild, unbridled rage 4 . The easiest way to extinguish it and prevent, perhaps, an even more terrible pogrom was to arrest the especially restless defenders of Christianity. The authorities did just that. Was everything further: interrogations, torture, harsh regime - dictated by the desire to calm and calm the agitated mob? The proconsul, irritated by the behavior of these stubborn and disobedient people, decided to take the opportunity and, following the example of his recent predecessors (see: Tertullian. To Scapula, 3), bring some sense to the Christians? One thing is certain: Christians are in prison, they are being tortured and tormented to death, seeking... what? We will find the answer in letter 56, which talks about three citizens of the city of Kapsa - Nina, Clementian and Flora, who repented for three years for the offense they committed. Which one? Captured during persecution, these people “confessed the Lord, defeated the ferocity of the magistrate and the terrible murmur of the people... tortured and defeated by torture, they lost the glory to which they were heading with the courage dictated by faith... Persisting in their unshakable faith, they endured prison and for a long time withstood the threats of the proconsuls and the roar of the surrounding crowd, although they were again and again tortured and tormented... by Because of the weakness of the flesh, they could not receive a crown for their confession... they tormented the tormented not in order to defeat their invincible faith, but in order to wear out their weak flesh.” The entire situation of the interrogations, as it was conveyed to St. Cyprian, the very words that he invariably uses, presenting the confessors as soldiers going into battle for Christ: militia, acies, pugna - testify that Nina, Clementian and Flora were accused as Christians and they repented of renouncing their faith, and not at all, as Soman believes (p. 84), that they agreed to the issuance of “notes”, for which repentance was not imposed. What was required of people imprisoned in Carthage was not “notes,” but a renunciation of faith. The 56th letter is yet another confirmation of Soman’s amazing system: he does not see what is in his source. The translation he provided of one passage from this letter indicates that the Latin text lay before his eyes. Why did the three mentioned men turn into “a married couple living peacefully in the steppes of Kapsa”, and the six bishops who came to Kapsa for the celebration of the installation of a bishop - into clergy-missionaries sent by St. Cyprian from Carthage to the south of proconsular Africa? Why did he force people, about whom it was definitely said that they “confessed the name of Christ,” but could not withstand the torture and renounced and then repented of this renunciation for three years, to agree to the issuance of “notes”? If Somani does not trust his source, he is obliged to explain this mistrust and prove its validity. Having become familiar with Soman's method of work, let's take a look at his characterization of St. Cyprian. Soman doesn't like him. Every person is allowed to love and hate, but the historian is allowed to do this, so to speak, “in private”: he must write his work sine ira et studio, or at least consciously strive for this. Soman did not strive. Let's leave aside Soman's mocking ridicule: lumps of dirt that are thrown at people of high soul and pure life fly off from them without splashing them. Let us dwell on the serious charges brought against the Saint. Somany insists that St. Cyprian is hostile to the Roman government and this hostility is clearly reflected in both words and deeds: in the essay “De catholicae ecclesiae imitate” and the 62nd letter (we have already talked about them) and in the refusal to immediately return the “fallen” to the Church, i.e. precisely those Christians who were submissive to the authorities and whom the authorities favored. For most members of Roman cultural society, the gods of the old Roman religion were long dead; they came to life for Christians in the terrible guise of evil demons. For the Roman magistrate, the sacrifice to Jupiter Capitolinus was a pure formality, not burdening his conscience, and he looked with understandable amazement and indignation at the eccentric, ready to suffer torment for refusing to throw a few grains of incense into the fire. For him it was an empty gesture, non-binding, but for the “eccentric” it was full of terrible meaning: it returned him to the power of terrible forces from which his new faith freed him, deprived him of hope for salvation, for eternal life beyond the grave. And in his ears and in his heart the words were heard: “Whoever denies Me before people”... One can understand people who, out of fear of losing the blessings of life that were dear to them, went up to the church to make a sacrifice, but this was hardly done with a light heart. Those who renounced quickly realized that they had committed a grave crime, that they were on the edge of a terrible abyss and only the power of the Church could keep them from falling. Words of St. Cyprian, that many apostates continue to lead their former luxurious lifestyle, do not repent, do not fast and do not beg for forgiveness (De lapsis, 30), should, in all likelihood, be attributed to the minority of the “fallen”. Otherwise, it is incomprehensible why the “fallen”, with all the fervor of the African temperament, are breaking into church doors, begging to remove from them the heavy burden of sin, which they did not have the strength to bear. Hence this impatience, this search for any way (turning to confessors, to the “Church on the Mountain”, which easily accepted apostates), just to find “peace”, just to approach the Chalice. And the adamant bishop did not block their path with a light heart: “(The apostates) tore away from me and took part of my heart with them; their wounds hurt me” (17, I, 1). But he knew, as did those who begged him, that a grave sin had been committed; let them remember that “an impatient demand for “peace” will anger and offend the Lord” (ibid.). It was not hostility to the state, but a sincere, real concern for the salvation of the “fallen” that was dictated by his refusal to immediately accept them into church communion. With the state of St. Cyprian wanted to live in peace and tried - with the means available to him - to ensure this peaceful coexistence; fled from Carthage because his presence “could cause an explosion of ardent hatred among the pagans” and he would be “guilty of breaking the peace” (7, I); reminded that “calm behavior, modesty and a quiet good disposition befit all Christians” (13, III, 1); warned the Carthaginians against large gatherings: “We must... remain calm” (5, II, 1). Let us remember his instructions to the confessors, his sadness over their too noisy and tactless behavior. Both in his letters and in his treatises there is no desire to interfere in the affairs of the state, much less a desire to influence them. Such a desire would go against the very foundations of the worldview of St. Cyprian. Like many of his contemporaries, he was convinced that the world, dilapidated and exhausted, was coming to an end; the anxieties and misfortunes of that time supported this expectation of imminent and universal death; There was no need to put any effort into the earthly dispensation, but all attention should have been paid to bringing out from the present and future storms unharmed the ship on which only one can survive and be saved—the Church. All the thoughts and concerns of St. are about her and her people, about their salvation and mental health. Cyprian. His merits to her are great. He preserved its unity, repelling heresy and schism that threatened to “tear it apart.” Unshakably firm in observing the Gospel commandments and apostolic covenants, refusing “peace” to the “fallen” and mercifully comforting them and grieving with them, he managed to keep them in the Church and convinced them to wait for the decision of their fate at the Council. Under his intelligent and firm leadership, the Carthaginian Church acquired such authority that the Christian communities of Spain and Gaul turned to it for help and advice. After his conversion, he gave his entire life to the church and confirmed it with his martyrdom. You close Soman’s book with a feeling of bitter bewilderment. Why did the prominent scientist neglect in this work the elementary rules that are mandatory for historical research? A scientist has the right to the most daring hypotheses, but he is obliged to prove them by honestly analyzing his sources. Soman has no such analysis. Moreover, many pages of his book convince us that he did not want to carefully and calmly read the texts on which he relies. Entirely in the grip of preconceived thoughts and ideas, he does not hear what his documents clearly and intelligibly say. What did his book add to the development of the issue of persecution of Christians, the role of St. Cyprian in the church life of that time? The fireworks display of witty thoughts and bold hypotheses is not research: the fireworks go out quickly and without a trace. La persécution de Dece a Carthage d'après la Correspondance de s. Cyprien. Bulletin de la Societé nationale des Antiquares de France, 1959, pp. 23–42; La persécution de Dèce en Afrique d'après la correspondence de s. Cyprien. Bvzantion, 1962, t. 32. pp. 1–29. E. W. Benson. Cyprian, his Life, his Time, his Work. London, 1897; P. Monceaux. Histoire littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne. Paris, 1902. (The second volume of this work is entirely dedicated to St. Cyprian.) M. Bevenot. The tradition of Manuscripts. Oxford, 1961. St. Cyprian says about this rage: “Fremitum populi furentis” (56, II, 1); in a letter to the 40th he talks about the brutal lynching committed against Christians in some city.