Письмо от монаха Максима монаху Софронию, называемому Евкратом (Окончание Письма VIII) 280 , 281

And so that you know, honest fathers, a new [thing] that has happened here today, I will tell [about it] concisely, in a few [words]. The blessed servant of God, the eparch [George], who is glorified by everyone here, having returned from the queen of all cities [Constantinople], according to the order of the most pious of the kings [Heraclius], he made all the local Jews and Samaritans who migrated to Africa Christians, along with their wives and children, and servants, in a myriad of souls 282, forcing them to be led to all-holy baptism on the day Saint of Pentecost of the fifth indiction 283. I hear that the same thing is happening throughout the Roman Empire. Because of this, I am seized with great fear and therefore I tremble. For, firstly, I fear that the great and divine sacrament may be profaned if it is given to those who have not previously shown the intention (γνώμη) [to receive baptism] in accordance with the [profession of] faith. Secondly, I consider those 284 themselves to be [exposed to] spiritual danger: as if having plunged into an even greater darkness of unbelief, they were not exposed to condemnation many times greater, for in the depths they retain the bitter root of the unbelief of their fathers and cut off the light of grace for themselves. Thirdly, I fear the great apostasy predicted by the holy apostle 285, and lest it begin because of their mixing with the nations of the faithful, which will allow them to quietly produce the bad seed of seductive [teachings] contrary to our holy faith, among the simpletons, so that that clear and indisputable sign of the notorious end of the world will be revealed, in which great trials await [in the struggle] for the truth and struggles are those who prepare themselves for it with prayers, and supplications, and many tears, and for righteousness by leading the way of life that they seek. But if you add something in this regard [on your own], according to the God-moving power of knowledge that you have, respect and explain to me, your slave and disciple, that I have no reason to have [because of all this] such strong trepidation and fear 286 . Through this letter I greet your Holiness as present [here] and all who [are] with you. G. I. Benevich. Regarding the “End of Letter VIII”, St. Maxima A. Forced baptism of Jews in Carthage - two approaches Publication of a translation of the End of Letter VIII 287, containing valuable historical information about the forced baptism of Jews in Carthage and the attitude of St. Maxim, we considered it necessary to provide a brief historical and bibliographical note, without pretending to be a full-fledged study of this topic. The present text in its original form was first published by Devreess in 1937 as the unpublished ending to Letter VIII. However, the very fact of the existence of the letter of St. The maxim regarding the forced baptism of Jews was known before this. In 1917, S. L. Epifanovich published a short version of this text 288 based on one of the manuscripts of the Vatican Library. His translation was published by Yu. A. Kulakovsky in the work “History of Byzantium” 289 even before the publication of Epifanovich’s book, but with reference to his find. Here is the translation in its entirety: The blessed and true servant of the Lord God, the glorious eparch, who by divine grace achieved his goal according to the will of the pious kings, returned [to us], shining with the grace of the Holy Spirit, and on the day of the Holy Resurrection of Christ he immediately made Christians all Jews and Samaritans, natives and aliens living throughout Africa, numbering many tens of thousands of souls, with wives, children and servants 290. There was no exact dating in this version of events, although, considering the exact date of the forced baptism of Jews and Samaritans in 634 in the message of Michael the Syrian (XII century), Kulakovsky dated the decree of Emperor Heraclius about this baptism in 634. 291 In such a perspective, the baptism of Jews could be understood as a kind of preventive measure to consolidate the population of the empire in view of the Arab invasion of Byzantium, which was already in full swing. Nevertheless, the publication by Devreess of the End of Letter VIII, which contains the exact dating of the event - the day of Holy Pentecost of the fifth indiction, i.e. May 31, 632, led to the re-dating of Heraclius' decree. Moreover, since the date shifted to 632, i.e., to the time before the Arab invasion of the empire (633–634), the connection between the forced baptism of Jews and Samaritans in 632 with this invasion was called into question. This was noticed immediately after the publication of Devreess in an article by Starr 292, who, however, still writes that perhaps it was the fear of an Arab invasion that could lead to such a measure, although he himself admits that there is no evidence that even at that time in Constantinople they could feel a threat to the distant provinces of the empire emanating from the Arabs who had not yet shown their strength to the world. To add to Starr's doubts, it does not take a politician or a psychologist to suggest that forced baptism would be more likely to alienate the Jews and Samaritans from the Christian Byzantines and make them allies of the Arabs rather than loyal citizens. It is more likely that Heraclius’ initiative to baptize Jews and Samaritans fit into the policy of ideological and political unification of the empire, which he pursued throughout his life, especially within the framework of the mono-energist and monothelitic ideology. As for this policy itself, V. M. Lurie recently expressed the idea of ​​its pseudo-messianic background: “The reign of Heraclius itself, which opened the new dynasty [of the Heraclids], set itself, without any exaggeration, messianic tasks, and, most surprisingly, there were moments when their fulfillment seemed close: it was not only about the religious unification of the Roman empire, but also about the baptism and political dependence on Byzantium of the second largest empire and the main enemy of Byzantium throughout its previous history - Zoroastrian Iran. If this plan had succeeded, then for the people of that time it would have meant approaching the end of history - when Christianity was preached throughout the entire universe. Heraclius himself would have been destined for the role of, if not the Messiah himself, then his closest predecessor. The official ideology of Heraclius spoke about all this” 293. And although the hypothesis about the messianic ideological program of Heraclius requires further verification, it must be admitted that the attempt to forcefully baptize Jews and Samaritans by Heraclius fits perfectly into it. However, it should be noted that the history of Christian states in the 7th century. knows many examples of forced baptism of Jews, which did not necessarily proceed from the messianic ideological program 294. In any case, whatever the motivation for Heraclius’s initiative, there is no doubt that it took place, although, as Yu. Kulakovsky 295, as well as modern researchers 296, notes, there is no reliable evidence of the enforcement of this decree of Heraclius in other places except Carthage. But we have several independent evidence about the baptism of Jews and Samaritans in Carthage. In addition to the text of Rev. Maximus the Confessor, such evidence, as Devreess already pointed out, is the Byzantine anti-Jewish work The Teachings of James, Just Baptized, not fully preserved in Greek, but in its most complete form extant in Slavic 297. This version, included in the Cheti-Minea of ​​Metropolitan Macarius, 298, begins with a description of how Eparch George, it should be noted, is a highly revered saint. Maxim (of which there is much evidence in his letters), fulfills the emperor’s order to baptize Jews and Samaritans. The story of this is told on behalf of the newly baptized Jew Joseph, who tells about the Jewish teacher of the law and merchant Jacob, who arrived at that time in Carthage with goods, was baptized, fell into doubt, by the miracle of the appearance of a “light-bearer” (angel?) who preached Christ to him, was convinced of the truth of Christianity and successfully preached among his former co-religionists, and converted, among others, the author of the story, Joseph. Let us present the beginning of this story in the Russian translation from Slavic, in that part of it that intersects to the greatest extent with what is written by St. Maximus at the End of Letter VIII: King Heraclius commanded that Jews be baptized everywhere. And when George, who was an eparch, arrived in Africa, he commanded that all the first Jews gather to him. And when we gathered to him, he said to us: “Are you the king’s slaves?” And answering, they said: “Yes, sir, we are the king’s slaves.” And he said: “The good [king] commanded that you be baptized.” And when they heard, they trembled and were afraid with great fear, and none of us dared to say anything. And when he said: “Are you not answering?” - answered one of us named Non, saying: “We will not do this: this is not the time for holy baptism.” And getting angry, the eparch stood up and hit [him] in the face with his hands, saying: “If you are slaves, then why don’t you carry out the command of our lord?” We were petrified with fear. And he commanded that we be baptized. And we were baptized, wanting it and not wanting it, but we were in great doubt and great sadness. Judging by the fact that this work was written after attempts to baptize the Jews, somewhere in 634–641, it can be assumed that its happy ending—the acceptance of Christianity by the Jews as a result of the preaching of the baptized James 299—clearly had an apologetic meaning. The author of the text not only creates an extensive treatise in the genre of theological anti-Jewish polemics, but wittingly or unwittingly justifies forced baptism, since baptism, judging by this treatise, ultimately led to a certain benefit - the sincere conversion of the Jews to Christ 300. Quite differently, as we see from the End of Letter VIII, St. Petersburg reacted to this baptism. Maxim. Not only does he not try to justify the baptism of the Jews (despite the fact that Eparch George was very close to the monk and revered him as his spiritual father, and St. Maxim himself spoke very highly of him), but he expresses extreme anxiety and “fear of God” regarding what is happening. Concerns of Rev. Maxims regarding the coming apostasy and the consequences of the forcible baptism of Jews, as is known, came true, although somewhat differently than he expected, that is, not due to the fact that forcibly baptized Jews spread heresies among Christians. Already in 633, within the framework of the union ideology of Heraclius and Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople - the same one that probably motivated the baptism of Jews and Samaritans - a union was concluded with the Monophysites in Egypt, and at the same time the heresy of monoenergism declared itself, with which St. Maxim will fight until the end of his life. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the forced baptism of Jews and Samaritans in Carthage in 632, as well as the previous persecution of Jews in Palestine in 630 301 (these persecutions probably led to an influx of Jews into Carthage) prepared Jews and Samaritans to easily go over to the side of the Arabs in their war with Byzantines, which undoubtedly contributed to the loss of the Byzantine Empire a huge part of its possessions. It is characteristic that the first defeat of the Byzantines in a clash with the Arabs was in 634. happened when the dux of Palestine, Sergius, who led an army composed mainly of Samaritans 302, was completely defeated. As Kulakovsky notes, citing the words of Joseph from the Teachings of Jacob, who had just been baptized, the defeat of the dux Sergius from the Arabs caused rejoicing among the Jews in Caesarea (Palestinian) and other cities of Palestine. Even then, judging by this work, there were Jews, whom Joseph calls “mixed with the Arabs (Saracens)” 303, i.e., as the historian says, “violence against the Jews strengthened the solidarity between them and the Arabs, which existed earlier” 304. In fact, in Letter XIV, sent to the Exarch of Africa as an illustration to Peter after the Arab attack, Maximus describes the closest unity between the Jews and the hordes of “savage” Arabs: We see a tribe of wild desert inhabitants sweeping through a foreign land as if it were their own, indomitable ferocious beasts, people ruining a cultural state by their mere appearance, as well as the Jewish people, from ancient times rejoicing in human blood... 305 and hating God, imagining to worship Him; the most unfaithful of all the peoples of the earth and therefore the most inclined to accept opposing power, by custom and structure preceding the coming of the evil one and by his deeds heralding the coming of the Antichrist, for he did not know the true Savior 306. This anti-Jewish passage, however, should be read in conjunction with the End of Letter VIII, which we publish, where St. Maxim unequivocally says that the forced baptism of Jews prepares for general apostasy. Actually, at the end of Letter XIV, after the denunciation of the Jews, St. Maxim, explaining the reason for the defeat of the Byzantines, writes: “....this happened due to the multitude of our sins” 307 and, calling on Peter not to allow the distortion of Orthodoxy (obviously, entering into a union with the Monophysites, and more broadly, subordinating the religious sphere to the political), adds: “...we must further strengthen our faith because of what is happening... and confess God before people, without fearing any death at all.” 308. B. Circumstantial virtues and apostasy From the history of the forced baptism of Jews in Carthage and two perceptions of it - St. Maxim and in his essay on the newly baptized Jacob, some conclusions can be drawn regarding the patristic approach to freedom of conscience. To do this, it is necessary to expand the context somewhat, touching on the topic of the Church’s attitude towards forced baptism in general. Outlining in his afterword to the translation of the treatise by St. Gregory of Nyssa “On the Structure of Man”, the theory of “circumstantial virtues”, V. M. Lurie, in contrast to the “liberal-humanistic” understanding of human rights and freedoms, cites a number of evidence from the holy fathers, saying that they recognized the possibility (and usefulness), under certain circumstances, of forced baptism 309. In particular, he gives the example of St. Porphyry of Gaza (IV-V centuries), who baptized part of the pagans of Gaza by force and gave a kind of theological and pastoral explanation of this baptism. St. Porphyry objected to those who believed that baptism should only be voluntary, saying that sometimes God, having used all other means, brings a person or group of people to Himself under pain of punishment. This is the case of “circumstantial virtues.” If we now compare the Teachings of Jacob, who has just been baptized, preserved in Tradition and very widespread in the Christian world, with the End of the Letter of VIII St. Maxim, it is clear that in these two texts the attitude towards the forced baptism of Jews is different. The Teaching of James, quite in the spirit of the theory of “circumstantial virtues,” implies that there can be benefit from the baptism of Jews under threat, and it not only allows, but, in fact, justifies such a practice. St. Maxim, on the contrary, considers it (at least in relation to the Jews) extremely dangerous, fraught with future apostasy. Let's consider his arguments in more detail. Among the arguments of Rev. There are maxims against the forced baptism of Jews that, it would seem, apply primarily to Jews, although, if you think about it, they also apply to bearers of some other “old-fashioned”, from the point of view of Orthodoxy, heresies and generally stable non-church worldviews. This is the second example cited. Maxim’s argument is that the Jews are rooted in unbelief and will become even more embittered and move away from the truth if they are baptized (any person of strong convictions, that is, any conscious adult bearer of faith or worldview, can become embittered by violence against conscience), and his third argument is that, being baptized forcibly, they will introduce false teachings into the Christian environment (this is also true not only for Jews) 310 . And the first argument is absolutely the same for everyone (at least adults and mentally healthy people): the sacrament of baptism can be profaned “if it [is] given to those who have not previously shown the intention (γνώμη) [to receive baptism] in accordance with the [profession of] faith.” This argument applies in principle to those baptized from both Jews and pagans, as well as from any heresy. It should be noted that St. Maxim does not object to the violation of some “freedoms” of believers, but speaks of the danger of desecrating a shrine. So, comparing the positions of St. Porfiry of Gaza and St. Maxim, we can say that, although Tradition allows forcible baptism, it, in the person of St. Maxima warns of the great danger of desecrating this sacrament with such violence (note, by the way, that violence can be not only physical, as it was in Carthage. That is, the Church, which allows such methods, also takes responsibility for their consequences. As for the forced baptism of Jews (and the bearers of any other non-Orthodox worldview, if only they are firm in it), then two more factors come into force here, which the saint speaks about. Maxim and who make such forced baptism three times dangerous. Therefore, although in church teaching and Tradition there is indeed no categorical (that is, canonical or dogmatic) prohibition on violence in the field of freedom of religion, but in the person of such holy fathers as St. Maxim, the Church warns that violence in this area can lead to catastrophic consequences. Freedom of religion is not an unconditional and absolute value for the church tradition (here we can agree with V.M. Lurie), but the trampling of this freedom, as the Venerable teaches. Maxim, this is a great risk, and its price is the danger of desecration of church sacraments, and in many cases also the danger of anger against Christianity and the Christian state, as well as the danger of apostasy. This has been confirmed more than once in history. As we noted in the note to Letter XXVIII, there are different opinions regarding the addressee of this letter. At present, the most likely addressee is considered to be John of Cyzicus, and not St. Sophrony. Or: numbering many tens of thousands of souls. Our translation of this passage is close to Starr’s (Starr J. St. Maximos and the forced baptism at Carthage in 632 / Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbucher. 16, 1940. P. 195). Another translation option proposed by A. M. Shufrin: “...explain to me, your slave and student, who does not yet have such great fear.” According to Shufrin, expressed in personal correspondence, the meaning of this phrase is that Maxim resorts to his usual rhetoric of humility, excluding himself from those preparing for the end of the world with due diligence (“with prayers and supplications” - see the previous sentence). It is no coincidence that he speaks of them in the third person. We use the title End of Letter VIII to designate the text of St. Maxime, published by Devreesse in 1937 in the article: Devreesse R. La fin inédite d’une lettre de saint Maximë un baptême forcé de Juifs et Samaritains à Carthage, en 632 / Revue des Sciences religieuses. 17, 1937. P. 25–35. Epifanovich S. L. Materials for the study of the life and works of the teacher. Maximus the Confessor. Kiev, 1917. P. 84. Kulakovsky Yu. A. History of Byzantium. Kyiv, 1915. T. III. P. 432. Quote according to the editor: Kulakovsky Yu. A. History of Byzantium. T. III. St. Petersburg, 2004. pp. 126–127, approx. 6. Starr J. St. Maximos and the forced baptism at Carthage... P. 192–196. Lurie V. M. History of Byzantine philosophy. Formative period. СПб., 2006. С. 290. При этом автор ссылается на свою статью: Лурье В. М. Александр Великий – «последний римский царь». On the history of eschatological concepts in the era of Heraclius / Byzantine Russian. 2, 2003. pp. 121–149. Среди таких попыток можно упомянуть насильственное крещение евреев в правление Маврикия (582–602) в Византийской Армении или то, как вестготские короли Испании, начиная с 613 г., на протяжении столетия пытались насильственным путем обратить евреев в христианство ( Хазанов А. Евреи в раннесредневековой Византии / Вестник Еврейского университета в Москве. 1 (5), 1994. pp. 4–34, see: http://ww.jcrelations.net ru ?item2107). В свою очередь, Старр замечает, что нет основания, как это делали прежде, приписывать попытки вестготских и франкских королей крестить иудеев в 613 и 629 гг. the influence of Heraclius (see: Starr J., St. Maximos and the forced baptism at Carthage... P. 196). J.-C. Ларше (см. наст. изд.) высказывает мнение, что насильственное крещение иудеев и самарян могло быть вызвано желанием Ираклия раз и навсегда покончить с их мятежами, но не вполне понятно, как такое насилие над совестью могло бы прекратить мятежи. Kulakovsky Yu. A. Decree. op. P. 126. Kaegi W. Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium. Cambridge University Press, 2003. P. 216. The Slavic title of this work: Faith and resistance of the baptized Jews in Africa and in Carthage, and about the questioning, and about the answers, and about the strengthening of Jacob the Jew. There are also Arabic, Syriac and Coptic versions (see: Blake R.P. On the relations of Jews to the government of the Eastern Roman Empire in 602–634 AD / Christian East. 2, 1914. P. 177; Lurie V.M. Alexander the Great - “the last Roman king”... P. 127). Such a distribution of this work shows that anti-Jewish polemics were relevant throughout the Mediterranean, as well as the fact that this work was, so to speak, a classic example of such polemics. It is also interesting that this text is best preserved in Slavic (perhaps due to the polemics with Jews and Judaizers that were relevant for Rus'). According to Lurie, the original Greek version of the monument dates back to the last years of Heraclius’s life: 634–641, i.e., it was written a little later than the writing of the letter to St. Maximus was probably in the same place, in Carthage, where at that time there were many Greek-speaking refugee monks from all over the empire. Great Menaion of Cheti. December. Ed. Metropolitan Macarius. M., 1907. Col. 1438–1439. By the way, if you believe the text, Jacob was a former persecutor and enemy of Christianity, who skillfully used clashes between different factions in Byzantium to beat Christians he hated (a clear allusion to the story of the Apostle Paul). It should be noted that on the same day, December 19, in the Four Menaions in the Life of St. Gregory, Archbishop of Omirite († 552), there is a story about another, no less miraculous conversion of Jews to Christianity, which, judging by his life, took place in Ethiopia. This text also contains an extensive treatise - an example of anti-Jewish polemics, as well as a story about the miracle of Christ's appearance to the Jews through the prayer of St. Gregory, after which they turned. These persecutions, which included physical extermination and eviction, represented revenge for the persecution of Christians and the destruction of Christian shrines by the Jews under Persian rule. The persecution of the Jews in Palestine was carried out by Emperor Heraclius at the request of the Palestinian monks, “who took upon themselves this sin,” despite the fact that Heraclius gave his word to the Jews who repented of their actions under the Persians not to touch them (see: Blake R.P. On the relations of the Jews... P. 190). Blake cites, in particular, Eutyches of Alexandria (PG 111 1084) as a source regarding these events. St. Maximus says that the Jews “from ancient times” rejoiced in human blood, probably meaning that the entire history of the Jews, described in the Bible, starting with the death of the Egyptian babies, the army of Pharaoh and the violent conquest of Canaan, is full of examples of the shedding of the blood of other peoples during the formation and survival of the Jewish people. Venerable himself Maxim, as A.M. Shufrin noted when discussing this passage with us, insisted that the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament is useful in its spiritual interpretation, and although he did not reject the literal-historical, he considered it old, in essence (in isolation from the spiritual interpretation) anti-Christian. Translation by E. Nachinkin. This is the same place from St. Maxim is understood by some researchers in the sense that Maxim considered the union of Arabs and Jews to be so close that he practically did not distinguish one from the other. Thus, the modern American researcher Rollin Armour, according to the Russian translation of his book, citing an excerpt from the Letter of the XIV St. Maxim, describing the “barbarians from the desert,” writes: “Maxim calls these enemies “Jews” ... who delight in human blood,” and further notes: “... although it may seem to someone that Maxim’s description of the Arabs as “Jews” ... reflects some knowledge of their religion, in reality he hardly knew about them more than that they were Semites, descendants of Abraham” (Armour R. Christianity and Islam . Difficult history. M., 2002. P. 75). The passage we cited above from Letter XIV, however, still does not allow us to assert with certainty that St. Maximus confused the “savages of the desert” with the Jews, nor did he consider these “savages” to be descendants of Abraham. From this passage we can only say that for St. Maxim was interested in thinking in two coordinates: barbarism - a cultural state (which he identified with the empire) and anti-Christianity (especially Judaism) - Christianity. Moreover, with the traditional anti-Judaism of the Church Fathers, St. Maxim, as we see from Letter VIII, warned about the extreme danger of forced baptism of Jews as a way to solve the “Jewish question,” believing that the lesson from the disasters of Christian peoples and states that befall them due to the aggression of Arabs and Jews should be repentance of sins and standing in faith. Common in the position of the prp. The maxim both on the issue of the baptism of Jews and on the issue of union with the Monophysites is the refusal to subordinate the religious sphere to the political. Translation by E. Nachinkin, see present. ed. See: Lurie V.M. Afterword / Saint Gregory of Nyssa. About the structure of man. St. Petersburg, 1995. P. 168. We owe these considerations to A. M. Shufrin. You might be interested in: