Письмо XXVIII. Епископу Кирисикию 226

By the grace of Eminence bestowed upon you, having become, honest father, an imitator of Divine goodness on earth, you did not leave anything inherent in it unfulfilled, but, walking accompanied by the entire totality of its signs, you tried to decorate the sacrament of Eminence with a robe woven by the Spirit in heaven (John 19:23) - and this robe can never be torn apart by demons, no matter how many trials they crucify you. Try to gather together the scattered children of God (John 11:52). After all, this is also a sign of Divine goodness; and as the head of the precious body of God’s holy Church, unite Her members to each other under the leadership of the Spirit, and call loudly, like a herald of Divine teaching, both those who are far away and those who are close, and bind to yourself with inextricable bonds of spiritual love - if only the fear of enemies has completely departed and disappeared, because of which so many left their homeland - so that you too can say [362] with Christ: “Here I am.” children whom God has given me” (Gen. 33:5). To your poor and unworthy servant, who comes running to you with prayer, honor this, holy father, with your precious letter and do not refuse to remember me in your prayers, offering a sacrifice of praise to God. J.-C. Larcher in approx. to the preface of the Letters of St. Maxima notes: “Letter XXVIII, according to the text in the Patrologia Graeca, is addressed to a certain Kyrisikios. But, as F. Combefis noted (PG 91 619), here we are dealing with a corruption of the word Κυζικηνός, i.e. we are talking about [John] Cyzicus (see: Sherwood R. An Annotated Date-List of the Works of Maximus the Confessor. Rome, 1952. P. 27).” Nevertheless, the question of the addressee of this, as well as a number of other letters to St. Maxim is not so clear-cut. In a number of lists, Letter XXVIII (and, therefore, due to the similarity of some expressions, Letter XXX, as well as Letters XXVIII and XXIX, which have the same addressee), is addressed to Sophronius, the future Patriarch of Jerusalem, which gave the basis to Devreesse and Garrigues, who followed him, to consider Sophronius as the addressee of all or some of these letters (see: Devreesse R. La Fin inédite d’une lettre de saint Maximë un baptême forcé de Juifs et de Samaritains à Carthage en 632 / Revue des sciences religieuses. 17, 1937. P. 25–35 and Garrigue J. M. Maxime Le Confessuer: La charité, avenir divin de l’homme Paris, 1976. P. 40–42). Sherwood argued against this version, and Larcher joined him. However, after the work of Sherwood K. Rosemon (Rozemond K. Jean Mosch, patriarche de Jérusalem en exil (614–634) / Vigiliae Christianae. 31:1, 1977. P. 60–67), a bold hypothesis was put forward, according to which one of the addressees of these letters, St. Maxim could be St. John Moschus, who, according to this assumption, was the Patriarch of Jerusalem, was in exile in Constantinople! Since Rev. Sophrony was inseparable from his teacher, St. John, a letter addressed to one could be simultaneously addressed to another. Within the framework of the same hypothesis, an explanation is given for the naming of the bishop, the addressee of St. Maxima, “Kirisikiem”; at the same time, Rosemon relies on the hypothetical Armenian origin of John Moschus and the Palestinian origin of St. Maxima. Unfortunately, Larcher does not mention this hypothesis. Be that as it may, due to the ambiguity of the question about the addressee of Letter XXVIII, we decided to leave the inscription of the addressee’s name as in PG, leaning towards the fact that Rosemon’s hypothesis without further confirmation looks unlikely, especially since it is based on the dubious version of the Syrian Psogos about the Palestinian origin of the saint. Maxim and significantly shifts the scientifically accepted date of death of St. John Moschus. – Approx. comp. You might be interested in: