Н. Примогенов. Устав иноческой жизни Василия Великого и сравнение его с уставом святого Пахомия 494

Monastic life, during its initial formation in the East, almost simultaneously manifested itself in two forms: in the form of hermit or hermitage monasticism, and in the form of communal monasticism. People who wanted to please God, who set the goal of their lives to be salvation and the achievement of an eternal, blessed life, left cities and villages in the desert and there labored in the rules of piety or alone, an example of which life can be the saints Paul of Thebes, Onuphrius the Great and Anthony the Great, or in community with other, similar zealots, as, for example, the saints pleased God Pachomius, founder of the cenobitic monasteries in Tavenna, Basil the Great and others. It is obvious that for the monks who led a solitary, hermit life, no external orders and decrees were required by which they could arrange their salvation. Each hermit was guided in his exploits either by his own considerations, or by the instructions and advice of the elders, around whom in most cases the newly arrived monks settled, as more experienced and more mature men in the matter of salvation. On the contrary, in cenobitic monasteries, where several monks labored together, having common property, common food and clothing, it was necessary to establish certain rules for different occasions, certain regulations that would protect the harmonious course of life of the monks, especially when their number was significant. Just as in any public institution, state, for example, in military and educational institutions, in government and official places, a certain kind of discipline is necessary, the introduction of a certain kind of rules and regulations so that order, harmony and harmony in the general course of affairs are not violated, so in the same way in spiritual institutions (in cenobitic monasteries) it is necessary to introduce discipline, establish various rules and regulations. This is indeed what happened in reality. With the founding of each cenobitic monastery, one or another charter was introduced, prescribing how a monk should act in various cases of his life, and originating for the most part from the founder of the monastery himself. For the same reason and the same necessity, the appearance of the Rule of St. Basil the Great, who laid the foundation for communal monasteries in Pontus and Cappadocia, and even earlier - the appearance of the Rule of St. Pachomius, the first founder of communal monasteries in the East. As for the charter of the monastic life of Basil the Great, it is so important in its significance in the organization of monastic life in general, it so fully and comprehensively expresses the idea of ​​asceticism that it fully deserves to dwell on it and consider how this charter was drawn up and in what relation it stands to other monastic regulations, and mainly to the charter of St. Pachomia, as the first in time of appearance. First of all, we note that by the concept of the rules of monastic life of Basil the Great we mean not only his “Ascetic rules for those who labor in community and hermitage,” but also “Long” and “Brief rules set out in questions and answers,” since both of them were written by St. Basil specifically for monks. One might think that if not the entire charter of Basil the Great, not all of his monastic rules, then at least most of them were compiled during his stay in the Pontic desert, in the place where he initially settled for his exploits and where a society of ascetics like him first gathered around him. One can think so because in the introduction to the “Long Rules” of St. Vasily expresses himself in this way: “Because, by the grace of God, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, we have come together, having assumed for ourselves the same goal of a pious life, and you express a desire to know what is necessary for salvation, but I have the need to proclaim the justifications of God... and besides, the present time is very convenient for us, and this place is silent and provides complete liberation from external noise, then let us pray for each other so that I may be given to my fellow servants “in time for life” (Luke 12:42)” 495. In the same way, in the introduction to the “Brief Rules” we read: “Therefore, if ... we are now in great peace from external riots,” says St. to the monks gathered around him. Vasily, “then we will not do anything else and will not give up our body to sleep, but will spend the rest of the night taking care of that and researching what is necessary for us” 496. But, on the other hand, there is no doubt that not all of these rules were written here - in the desert, because the formulation of some questions and the content of the answers show needs that go far beyond the circle of needs of the small desert brotherhood that was around St. Vasily, and point to obligations that this brotherhood could not assume. Such, for example, are the questions of whether it is necessary to give from fraternal reserves to those in need from outsiders 497; Is it necessary for a brotherhood to be a teacher of worldly children 498; questions and answers about the admission of children into the brotherhood with a detailed explanation of the means for their maintenance, their way of life in the brotherhood, mutual relations with each other and with the elder brethren, about the time of their vows, etc. Similar questions were probably posed and explained by Basil the Great later, when he was already a presbyter or bishop. The fact that the author of both the “Long” and “Short Rules”, as well as the “Ascetic Rules”, was the same is confirmed by the fact that in the “Brief Rules” Vasily often refers to his “Long Rules”, and in the “Ascetic Rules” he sometimes talks about the same thing that he talked about in the “Long” or “Short Rules”, only more fully. Thus, in the second rule from the “Brief Rules” he points to the eighth of the “Long Rules”, in the 74th - to the 7th, in the 103rd - to the 27th, in the 220th - to the 33rd; in the 22nd chapter of the “Ascetic Rules” he speaks more fully about obedience, in the 30th chapter he talks about what he talked about in the “Brief Rules”, etc. But both the “Long Rules” and the “Brief Rules” belong specifically to St. Basil the Great, and is not a later work. This is proven by the reference to them by Vasily’s contemporaries. Thus, we know that his contemporary, Presbyter Rufinus of Aquileia, made an extract from the rules of Vasiliev and translated them into Latin for Abbot Ursisius 499. In the 5th century, the Monk Cassian referred to these rules of Basil in his instructions to the monks. The Monk Theodosius, the head of the hostel in Palestine, often read them, as can be seen from his biography 500. In the 6th century, Emperor Justinian, in a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople Mina, cites rule 267 from the “Brief Rules” under the name of Basil the Great. Likewise, the content of these rules, the depth of thought contained in them, the clarity, persuasiveness and clarity of arguments - all this undoubtedly leads to the conclusion that their writer was none other than Basil the Great. However, in such an important and very difficult task, St. Vasily also received considerable help from St. Gregory the Theologian, who from time to time visited his friend in his desert solitude and whom Basil the Great earnestly asked to stay with him forever in the desert. Saint Gregory, in one of his letters to Basil, which he wrote after returning from a trip to Pontus, among other pleasant memories of his life in the Pontic desert, mentions the following: “Who will give me competition and encouragement for virtue, which we protected with written statutes and rules?” 501 Having thus shown the reason for the writing of the monastic charter, known under the name of Basil the Great, the place and time of this writing, making the remark that the author of this charter was undoubtedly Basil the Great, although Gregory the Theologian also took part in its drafting, we will now move on to consider the next question, to which we will mainly turn our attention, namely: in what relation does this charter stand to other charters that appeared in the East even earlier than the charter of Basil Great, that is, does he have any resemblance to them or not? From the circumstances of St. Basil the Great is known that, before retiring into the desert and forming his monastery there, he decided to first visit the great ascetics who lived in Alexandria, Thebaid and other places in Egypt, also in Palestine, Cilicyria and Mesopotamia, in order to collect into his monastery all the best that had been developed by the long experience of the holy ascetics 502. This is how he himself talks about it: “... having read the Gospel and seeing there that the most effective means of improvement is to sell one’s property, share it with poor brothers and not care about this life at all, not to give in to any attachment to the things here, I wished to find some brother who had chosen this path of life, so that with him I could swim across the fleeting wave of this life. And indeed I found many in Alexandria, many in other places in Egypt, and others in Palestine, in Kilisyria and in Mesopotamia; I marveled at their abstinence in food, marveled at their patience in their labors, marveled at their relentlessness in prayers, at how they overcame sleep, without yielding to any natural necessity, always maintaining a high and unenslaved way of thinking in their souls, “in hunger and thirst, ... winter and nakedness” (2 Cor. 11:27). Marveling at this and pleasing the lives of these men, who in practice show that they carry the deadness of Jesus in their bodies, I myself wished, as much as I could, to become an imitator of these men.”503 And indeed, the holy men whom St. Vasily, were in fact such that they were an object of surprise and imitation not only for his contemporaries, but also for subsequent centuries. Then there was the most flourishing state of monasticism in Egypt. Although the founders of monastic life, St. Anthony the Great and St. Pachomius, at that time they had already departed to the Lord, but the deserts of Egypt were filled with thousands of disciples of these righteous people and their imitators. These disciples and imitators of the great ascetics Anthony and Pachomius, combining high wisdom in advice with amazing asceticism, also possessed various special spiritual gifts, which testified to the presence of the Spirit of God in their souls. It is not surprising, therefore, if Basil the Great, when establishing his monastery in Pontus, borrowed a lot from the monasteries he saw in other places, and that when writing his charter, he introduced a lot into it from the charters that existed at that time in the monasteries of Alexandria and Egypt. We will be fully convinced of this if we compare the charter of St. Vasily with the statutes of the monasteries he saw that have come down to us. There is no great need for us to consider all the statutes with which St. Basil, in order to judge what exactly and from where he borrowed when writing his charter, there is no need because the majority of monasteries not only in Egypt, but also in Palestine and Mesopotamia were guided by the charter originally given by St. Pachomius. The device of St. Pachomius of the Tavenna monasteries served as a model for the organization of other monasteries in various countries, and at the same time the charter of St. Pachomius in the newly established monasteries was accepted as a guide to life, if not in its entirety, then at least in its essential features. Therefore, it is enough for us to compare the charter of St. Basil only with the charter of St. Pachomius, to see the similarity of this charter with the charters of other monasteries that Basil the Great happened to visit. We will proceed to this comparison in our further speech. But first of all, you need to familiarize yourself with the charter of St. Pachomia. St. Pachomius drew up and introduced his charter gradually, as the monastery he founded expanded and as the number of brethren in it increased 504. The biography of Pachomius tells that initially the rules of monastic life were given to St. Pachomius by an Angel and that this charter, inscribed on copper tablets, was preserved by the disciples of Pachomius even after his death. But this charter is very short in content, so it was necessary for Pachomius to supplement it and add new rules to it. In its entirety, the charter of St. Pachomius has not survived to us 505. A more detailed exposition of it is found in Blessed Jerome, translated from Greek into Latin 506. Palladius 507 and Sozomen 508 also have a brief account of this charter. According to the assumption of Professor Kazansky, the charter of St. that has come down to us in various collections. Pachomius in its entirety does not belong to him, but is supplemented by his students. But what exactly was later added to its charter, according to Kazansky, there is no way to indicate 509. Looking at this charter from the outside, we see that it is set out without any system, without any specific distribution of rules on certain issues. Not a single issue in it is resolved in detail in one place, but in parts - in different places. A rule concerning prayer is followed by some other rule relating, for example, to manual activities, then again there is a rule about prayer, then regarding clothing or how to behave during general meetings, etc. By the way, we note that in the charter of Basil the Great there is also no strict consistency in the formulation of questions and a specific plan, although in comparison with the charter of St. Pachomia, he is highly systematic. As we noted above, the statute of Basil the Great consists of three parts: “Rules, extensively stated,” “Rules, briefly stated,” and “Ascetic statutes for ascetics in the community and in hermitage.” All these parts consist of questions and answers to them and serve as a kind of addition to each other. Some of the questions placed in one part are also repeated in other parts, and most of them are without any connection with each other. Let us now turn to a comparison of the statutes of Basil the Great and St. Pachomius, considering them from the point of view of content. When comparing these statutes, we notice first of all the significant similarities between them. This similarity is also revealed in the identity of the goal pursued by both organizers of ascetic life: this goal is the salvation of those who entrusted themselves to the spiritual guidance of experienced mentors; similarities are also noticeable in the means that both leaders prescribed for the guided monks to successfully achieve the goal. Saint Basil, like St. Pachomius, prescribed the same spiritual exercises for the monks, namely: prayer, contemplation of God, silence, fasting, etc.; similarities are revealed both in bodily exercises and in the punishments imposed for violating well-known rules. According to the statute of St. Pachomius, monastic life rests mainly on two virtues: obedience and non-covetousness. Anyone wishing to join the brethren of the monastery, even before entering the monastery, had to show experiences of humility and obedience. For ten or more days, he had to throw himself to the ground outside the monastery in front of passing brethren, endure reproach and do everything that was ordered to him 510. But even after entering the monastery, the monk, in the same way, did not for a minute leave his obedience and dependence on the abbot, superiors and elders of the monastery. His dependence on the abbot extended to the smallest actions. Without the permission of the abbot, he not only could not leave the monastery, but also in the monastery he could neither start new work, nor move from one place to another, nor wash clothes or do anything else, such as, for example, pick up a palm leaf from the ground, shave the head of himself or another, etc. Without the permission of the abbot, no one could also go to the place where artists or craftsmen work. When the brethren are called to work, no one should refuse it and should not even ask where to go, because the abbot himself always walked ahead of the monks 511. Any contradiction and disobedience was protected by strict rules and was punished. To the same extent, if not further, renunciation of one's property or non-covetousness extended among the monks. The new monk not only did not bring anything with him to the monastery, but even his secular clothes had to be given to the monastic steward, with whom they were kept until the newcomer finally entered the society of the brethren, and then they were distributed to needy laymen 512. According to Blessed Jerome, the property of the monks consisted only of the following: “They had in their cell,” he says, “a chair with a back, which served as a bed for them, two Levitons 513 and a third, worn, for clothing during sleep, a linen blanket and two dolls, a mantle, a linen belt, sandals and a staff for traveling. Here is all their property" 514. But even this, all that constituted the property of the monks, was not their property, but was distributed to them for temporary possession, as long as they were among the monastic brethren. The monk had no property of his own. If a monk, albeit by mistake, called a book, writing boards, slate, clothes, in a word, those things that were given to him from the monastery, his own, then he was subjected to penance for this too 515. Rule 81 of the statute commands everyone to have in his cell only what is permitted by monastic laws and to take away from him everything that is found besides this 516. So, for example, it was considered an important crime if someone saved money in his cell, even the smallest coin 517. Saving money and, in general, all monastic things was the responsibility of the so-called steward and his assistants; Others from the brethren did not touch money at all. Therefore, many died without even knowing what money was, if they entered the monastery at a young age, without having yet seen it. The same virtues or vows were laid down as the basis of monastic life by Basil the Great. According to the statute of St. Basil, the obedience of monks to their superiors should extend until death, following the example of the Lord, who “became obedient to death, even death on the cross” (Phil. 2:8) 518. Monks must carry out the work ordered to them, without even inquiring on what basis the order is given to them 519. Even for a very short time they did not have the power to control themselves and indulge in their own pursuits. “For,” says Basil the Great, “just as a tool cannot move without an artist and a member cannot separate for a short time from the whole body or move without the will of the inner artist who rules the whole body, so the ascetic does not have the power to do or perform anything without the will of the abbot” 520. Without the will of the abbot, he cannot even choose a useful occupation for himself. “Whoever chooses a business for himself according to his own desire, accuses himself, firstly, of self-indulgence, and secondly, of being disposed to such an occupation either for worldly glory, or in the hope of profit, or for something else similar, or that, out of laziness and effeminacy, he prefers the easiest. And to be guilty of this means not yet freed from the vice of passions” 521. To make it easier to practice obedience and submission, monks should always keep in mind the example of the holy apostles and the Lord Himself. The obedience of the monks to their abbot should be as complete and boundless as the apostles showed to their Teacher, since the abbot, in the words of Basil the Great, “is nothing more than a man who represents the Face of the Savior, has become a mediator between God and people, and sacredly acts before God for the salvation of those who submit to him” 522 . In addition, newly admitted monks, according to the charter of St. Vasily, they also had to take a vow of non-covetousness. In his “Ascetic Rules,” Basil the Great gives the following instruction about this: “An ascetic who has entered into the society of the brethren must be free from any acquisition of worldly things into the property. For if he does not do this, then, firstly, he violates the strictness of community life by acquiring property, and moreover, he himself provides complete proof of his unbelief, as someone who does not trust God to feed those gathered in His name. The harm from acquiring property is not limited to this, but extends further. For he who strives to have something of his own thinks of nothing other than separation and retreat. And whoever does not have this in mind, why should he have property when he knows that the servants of Christ, by the grace of Christ, always have an abundance of everything they need. Therefore, it is clear that such a person is planning to cut off and kill his own soul, betrays his own salvation for a small number of obols and becomes (let me put it somewhat boldly) a second Judas, starting with theft, because the acquisition of property is theft, and ending with betrayal, because he also betrays the Word of truth, just as Judas betrayed the Lord" 523 . According to Basil the Great, the acquisition of property for a monk is thus theft and betrayal of the Word of truth. So, as according to the charter of St. Pachomius, and according to the Rule of St. Basil the Great, monks who entered the brethren of the monastery had to take a vow of obedience and complete renunciation of their property. The essence of these vows according to both statutes is absolutely the same, as can be seen from what has been said 524. Further, paying attention to how the external life of the monks was formed according to one and the other charter and how their inner life flowed, we will see from this side that the charter of St. Basil the Great has great similarities with the charter of St. Pachomia. The external structure of monastic life in the monasteries of St. Pachomia can be presented in this form. The entire society of monks, even if it consisted of several monasteries, was controlled by one leader, who primarily owned the name of the abba. The chief observed all the monasteries; visited them himself, sending them on his behalf and other trusted monks for inspection. And to make it easier for him to oversee all the monasteries, a special leader was appointed in each monastery, who was called the abbot and abbot. The abbot had an assistant, who sometimes took the place of the abbot when he was sick or absent on business. In addition, since each monastery was divided into communities consisting of three or four houses, for the convenience of monitoring each individual house, private overseers were also supplied. Each house had twelve or thirteen cells, in which two or three brothers lived. The overseer of each house reported on his management to the abbot of the monastery 525. The economic part of each monastery lay in the hands of the so-called steward and his assistants. The economists managed the supply of food and clothing to the brethren from materials prepared in the monastery or purchased by them on the side with money received from the sale of monastic products. The rules of Pachomius set out in some detail the duties of abbots. According to his internal disposition, the abbot must be confirmed in humility, enlightened by the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, be a strict executor of the law of God and a zealot of fatherly traditions. He must mortify passions, love truth and hate untruth, be zealous in fulfilling his duties, fear neither work nor death, but only God alone. In outward behavior, the abbot must be an example of rigor, caution, moderation, abstinence and self-mortification. In relation to the brethren entrusted to his care, Pachomius wanted the abbot not to overstep the boundaries of his power, to rule without cruelty, to be careful not to allow feelings of pride or vanity into his soul, when he would be obliged to correct the shortcomings of the monks, but with a sense of humility to express the truth. Having made it the abbot's main duty to oversee the preservation of the monastic charter in all its strictness, Pachomius wanted the abbot himself to be its executor. If general work happens, the boss must go ahead, be responsible for the monks when the law of silence does not allow them to speak, and enlighten them about what they do not know. As a result of all this, abbots must be experienced in spiritual life 526. In relations between the brothers, there was a strict order of seniority and subordination of younger monks to older ones. Their seniority was calculated not by age, but by the time of each person’s entry into the monastery. “Whoever enters the monastery first,” says Blessed Jerome, “is the first to sit down, the first to rise, the first to sing a psalm, the first to extend his hand at the table, and the first to receive communion in church. Their attention is paid not to age, but to their lifestyle” 527. The new monk, who entered the monastery after a preliminary test, was assigned a certain place in the dining room, in general meetings, for example, at prayer, at work, etc., and under no circumstances did he have the right to change this place without permission without the permission of the superiors 528. The clothing of the monks was the simplest and consisted of a sleeveless linen tunic, sewn like a sack, reaching to the knees, and a mantle (leather clothing), which the monks threw over their tunics, following the example of Elijah and John the Baptist. On their heads they wore woolen caps, on which were made red crosses and also, when the number of monasteries under the leadership of Pachomius increased, badges of the monastery and the house from which the monk was. The tunics were girded around the loins with a belt and a baldric. For a more complete description of the appearance of the monks of the Pachomiev Monastery, we add that they did not cut their hair, but wore their hair long, loose over their shoulders 529. This cut and appearance of the monks was fully consistent with their modest gait, not too slow, but not too fast, their modest downcast gaze and always serious, but not stern, expression 530. Observing simplicity and uniformity in clothing, the monks observed the same in food. Their food almost always consisted of bread, olives, cheese, salted or chopped vegetables and cooked with vinegar and oil, figs and other fruits according to the season. “The Tavennes monks considered chopped onions, wild cabbage, crushed salt, olives, and small salted fish to be a luxury at table,” writes Cassian. They ate in silence, with the veils pulled down over their faces, so that no one could see their neighbor, but only the dish 532 standing in front of him. The monks were located in their homes, according to Blessed Jerome, in this way: “Brothers engaged in the same craft live in the same house and under the supervision of the same abbot; for example, those who weave linen live together, those who prepare matting form a special family” 533. This whole society of monks, at the invitation of the chief abba, held general meetings twice a year in the main monastery - one on Easter, so that everyone could celebrate the bright holiday together, and the other in the month of Mesor, corresponding to our August. At this time, each commander received from the chief abba the orders that he needed; at the same time, new abbots and leaders were elected, if necessary; all disagreements that could arise between the brothers ceased, and those who had any enmity were reconciled with each other. Blessed Jerome calls these days similar to the days of the jubilee 534. Here is a brief outline of how the external life of the monks took shape according to the Rule of St. Pachomia. External life was formed in a similar way in the monastery built by St. Basil the Great, as can be seen from his charter. And here, in the same way, at the head of the entire community there was one abbot, who at first was St. himself. Vasily. This is the representative of Jesus Christ 535, who replaced the ascetics’ earthly parents 536. He had to be voluntarily elected by the brethren 537 and, when elected, he became the head, heart and will of the entire community. He had to know all the thoughts, all the desires, all the dreams of each brother in order to judge the state of his spiritual life and determine the right means to improve it. All orders came from him, starting with the distribution of hours of prayer and general meetings and ending with the appointment of private classes, work, and assignments 538 . Without his will, no one could be accepted into the brotherhood 539, no one could be punished from the brethren 540 and no one could see the brethren from outside visitors, even if they were immediate relatives 541. Such an unusual position imposed extraordinary demands on the abbot: he must present in his life “a clear example of every commandment of the Lord, so that he does not give those taught any reason to consider the commandment of the Lord impossible to fulfill or conveniently neglected” 542. Only standing at such a moral height gave him the right to be chosen by the brethren as their leader 543 and the right to introduce his will into the internal and external life of the brethren 544. In case of any error of the abbot, he must be admonished, with due respect, by the most experienced of the brethren 545. The abbot must look at himself as a common servant and therefore should not limit himself to moral services to the brethren, but not stop at physical ones 546. In case of absence or illness of the abbot, the brethren must elect an assistant for him from among their members 547. As we see, the abbot appears before us with exactly the same properties and qualities, and in the charter of St. Pachomia. Like St. Pachomius, Basil the Great also ordered that the abbots of individual monasteries communicate with each other to resolve and discuss various important issues. In his “Rules Explained at Large” to the 54th question (should the superiors of a fraternity report their affairs to each other) he gives the following answer: “It is good that the superiors of the fraternities, at certain times and in certain places, have meetings at which they inform each other about cases that have occurred beyond any expectation, about incorrigible moral vices and how they acted in each matter, so that a mistake committed by someone will be more reliably revealed in the judgment of many, and what was done correctly will be confirmed by the testimony of a larger number” 548 . These relations had to be done “in the spirit of mutual goodwill and with full respect for the order established in each brotherhood: caring for each other, the abbots should not ruin what was arranged by others, and not simply and indiscriminately accept those who leave other brotherhoods. For this is complete confusion, disorder and destruction of spiritual affairs" 549. As for the relationship of the members of the brethren to each other, here in the monasteries of St. Vasily, we see the division of the community into elders and juniors, although such a division was more practical than regulatory. The advantages of elders were purely moral and were determined by the degree of their experience in spiritual life. The younger ones were advised not to suddenly sit down in the presence of their elders and listen in silence to what they had to say 550. We do not find anything about clothing and food in the charter of St. Basil the Great such detailed and specific instructions as are found in the charter of St. Pachomius, but, nevertheless, in the rules of St. Vasily declared the requirement of simplicity and uniformity in the clothing and food of the monks. To the question of what kind of clothing is appropriate for a Christian, Basil the Great answers this way: “Our word has shown in advance that humility, simplicity, and an effort in everything to be of little value and small costs, so that bodily needs provide us with less reasons for entertainment” 551. The same is prescribed regarding food: “In every kind of food, one must prefer those that are easier to have, so that, under the pretext of abstinence, one does not bother about more beloved and expensive dishes, seasoning the food with expensive sweets” 552. Elsewhere, Basil the Great makes the following injunction: “The ascetic should in no way seek variety in foods and, even under the guise of abstinence, a change in the dishes offered. For this is the cessation of general decorum and the occasion for temptations...” 553 Here St. Vasily points out which dishes are appropriate for monks to consume. This is bread seasoned with a small amount of herbs and sometimes dipped in a decoction of salted fish, a boil from seeds, if any, roots of herbs, etc. As we see, the items from which monastic food was prepared are in the charter of St. Basil's names are different than those named in the charter of St. Pachomia. In the same way, we notice some differences in the instructions of Basil the Great regarding clothing. But on what this difference depends and how far it extends, we will talk about this later. Management of all monastic things, according to the charter of St. Basil the Great, as well as according to the charter of St. Pachomius should be entrusted, at the choice of the abbot, to one of the brethren, who was also assigned an assistant 554 to facilitate such complex work. In the hands of the chosen guard there was a common pantry, where clothes, shoes and food supplies of the brotherhood 555 were stored. Of all the things under his control, he gave to everyone what he found necessary at his own discretion 556. He also distributed alms from the brotherhood's reserves and old clothes, which were returned to him by the brothers as unfit for use in the brotherhood 557. There were no longer any positions in the community, and all ordinary and random matters regarding the internal life of the brotherhood or its external relations were performed by those from the existing brethren who were entrusted by the abbot 558. On the external behavior of the monks of St. Vasily writes in a letter to his friend St. Gregory: “A humble and contrite way of thinking is befitting of a sad gaze lowered to the ground, carelessness about appearance, unkempt hair, and unwashed clothes. What those who cry do with intention, we must do unintentionally. The gait should not be slow, which would reveal mental relaxation, and again, not fast and hasty, which would reveal frantic movements of the soul” 559. From this it is clear that in appearance the monks of the Pontic desert were very similar to the monks of the Tavenna monasteries. So, the external structure of monastic life in general and essential features seems to be the same both according to the rules of Basil the Great and according to the rules of St. Pachomia. Let us now move on to the inner life of the monks of the Tavenna monasteries and the Pontic community. The inner life of the Tavennes monasteries took place, on the one hand, in spiritual exploits - in prayer, spiritual conversations, reading books of spiritual content, contemplation of God, on the other hand, in bodily exploits - in physical labor, fasting or abstinence from food. According to the statute of St. Pachomius, given by the Angel, the monks were to perform twelve prayers during the day, twelve in the evening and twelve at night. When Pachomius said to this that there were not enough prayers, the Angel answered him: “I put so much so that the weak can comfortably fulfill the rule without burden; those who are perfect have no need for a rule, because, being alone in their cells, they spend their entire lives in the contemplation of God” 560. From the charter of St. Pachomius, we see that public worship was performed only twice a day - day and night - and consisted of reading psalms and prayers. To this was added reading from the Old and New Testaments. On Saturday and Sunday, as well as on the days of Pentecost, readings were both from the New Testament - one from the Apostolic Epistles, the other from the Gospel 561. Monks gathered in church according to this sign, and no one had the right to avoid the general meeting for prayer 562. Those who were traveling or busy with some errand that did not allow them to attend prayer had to perform prayer themselves at certain hours. In addition to these public prayers, the monks had to perform special prayers in each house separately in the morning, as well as in the evening, before going to bed. From the charter it is clear that six prayers and psalms were read in the evening, and probably the same number were read in the morning. After morning prayer, the monks did not immediately have to go to their cells, but first they had to listen to a conversation or instruction from the abbot about the truths of the Christian faith and morality. The abbot of each community talked with his monks two or three times a week, who listened to him sitting and standing 564. Moreover, in the life of St. Pachomius says that the head of the monastery offered all the monks one conversation on Saturday, and two on Sunday, in a designated place. When the monks, after listening to the conversation, dispersed to their cells, each one had to think about what he had heard in the teaching, and in case he was asked by the abbot about this, he had to prepare an answer, remembering everything he had heard 565. If someone, while sitting during a lesson, allowed himself to fall asleep, the superior or abbot should force him to stand for as long as he deems decent. Those who did not come to listen to the teaching at the first call 566 were subjected to the same punishment. In addition to listening to spiritual conversations, the monks were edified in their free time by reading books of spiritual content. From the charter we see that in the Tavenna monastery there was a library, which was managed by the steward and his assistant. At the request of the monks, books were distributed to the monks at home, but in the evening they were demanded back from the monks, since no one was supposed to keep books in their cell without need. In general, they had such strict care for books that the charter forbade leaving a book open in the cell when going to the refectory or to worship 567. The main reading of the monks was, of course, the reading of the books of the Holy Scripture, which they reflected on not only during the day, but also at night. But in addition to the books of Holy Scripture, they also read the writings of the holy fathers or ascetic works, as can be seen from the fact that both in the charter and in the life of St. Pachomius often instills in monks to follow the instructions of the ancients, by which are meant the former saints 568. When they found it difficult to read something that was incomprehensible to them, they turned to the head of the monastery or the abbot of their community to explain the incomprehensible. Reading books provided the monks with many objects for contemplation of God. Unceasing thought of God was constantly instilled in the monks, and it constituted the same essential side in their spiritual, inner life as prayer or spiritual conversation. In every place and everywhere - whether they go to the church, or to the refectory, or are on the road, or are engaged in handicrafts - they should always have in their mind some place from the Holy Scriptures on which their thoughts should dwell 569. Since the charter required that the monks memorize something from the Holy Scriptures 570, such as the psalms, the New Testament, their memory could always present them with some subject for pious reflection. But the monks spent most of their time in physical labor, and one of their main occupations was predominantly needlework. The work that the monks did was of various kinds: they cultivated the land, planted gardens, worked in forges, mills, tanneries, carpentry, fulled cloth, weaved baskets and mats 571. All this work was carried out by persons specially appointed for this purpose, who were placed together in one house and formed communities, each having its own abbot and his assistant 572. The common handicraft of the monks was weaving mats. Even those who were engaged in special crafts wove mats in their free time 573. In general, the monks were engaged in all kinds of crafts necessary to support the whole society: they had no outside means of subsistence. They went to work in order and silence, following their superior, and on the way they reflected on some passage of Holy Scripture. If on the way they met someone who wanted to speak with one of the brethren, then the abbot himself was responsible for him 574. The charter forbade the bosses from overburdening the monks with work. They must be moderate, assigning work according to the strength of each, so that they perform it without sorrow and murmuring 575. But the monks were equally commanded not to complain without reason about the difficulty of the matter and to work with humility and love for God 576. Spending time in physical labor and thus depressing the body in order to elevate the spirit over the flesh, for this purpose the monks imposed on themselves voluntary fasts, in addition to those prescribed by the rules - church and monastic, that is, they abstained from the most necessary consumption of food. Cassian, Rufinus and Palladius speak of the Tavennian monks as people of strict abstinence. So, according to Palladius, “they sat down to the meal only for show, in order to hide their fasting from each other; they took two or three pieces of bread and only touched the rest, so that it could not be said that they had not eaten anything” 577. Anyone who wanted to was allowed to observe strict abstinence. Those who did not want to be at the meal were given two small loaves of bread per cell, without any seasoning, except salt and water; No other bread seasoning was allowed. Those who loved fasting remained two, three and four days without food, especially during fasting. Wednesday and Friday were days of fasting for all monks, excluding the time of Pentecost 578. This is how it proceeded and how it should have proceeded according to the charter of St. Pachomius the Great: the inner life of the monks of the Tavenna monasteries. Was this the inner life of the monks in the Pontic community? The entire monastic life should have taken place in those same spiritual exercises, in those studies and labors, and according to the rules of St. Basil the Great? In one of his Words on the asceticism of St. Vasily gives the following instruction to the monks: “Let all life be better than a time of prayer” 579. From this we can conclude that prayer was at the heart of the entire inner life of the monks of the Pontic community, as indeed it was in reality. But at the same time we find in the rules of St. Basil also instructs that monastic life, in addition to prayer, should be spent in contemplation 580 and thoughts of God, in general conversations 581 and physical labor 582. And all these activities were supposed to serve as the main pastime for the monks, just like prayer. This is how time passed in the Pontic community between classes, according to the instructions of St. Basil the Great. Although prayer should be a constant activity for monks, according to the words of the Apostle: “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17) 583, however, certain hours of the day are prescribed for it in the charter. Monks, according to the rules of St. Basil, they were supposed to gather for prayer and psalmody seven times a day, based on the words of the Holy Scripture: “in the day of the week we praised Thee about the destinies of Thy righteousness” (Ps. 119:164). First of all, the monks had to pray at midnight, following the example of the saints - the prophet David, St. Apostle Paul and others 584. The monks had to greet the first rays of the rising sun with prayer, so that they could dedicate the first movements of their soul and mind to God. The monks had to do the same in the evening and at noon 585. But they especially devoted to prayer those hours of the day that were marked by various significant and dear events for Christians in the history of the Christian Church. Thus, they spent the third hour of the day in prayer, marked in the history of the Church by the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles. The monks were found praying at the sixth hour, reminding the believer of the Savior’s suffering on the cross, and the ninth, reminiscent of the death on the cross of the Divine Redeemer 586. Their meager meal in the middle of the day was preceded and accompanied by general prayers of thanks. The monks ended their day with prayer, when they bowed down to sleep on their wretched bed 587. At all the indicated hours, prayer and psalmody were replaced each time by one another, so as not to tire the hermits with monotony. “I reason that the variety and variety of prayers and psalmody at set hours are useful for the reason that uniformity often leads the soul to some kind of indifference and distraction, and through the change and variety of psalmody and reading at every hour, its desire acquires new strength, and sobriety is renewed” 588 . Prayer and psalmody, as in the Tavenna monasteries, were performed by the monks in turn, so that with the multitude of worthy people, decorum was constantly observed and so that this very matter was not considered unimportant and indifferent 589 . Another important activity of the monks was contemplation or contemplation of God. According to the statute of St. Vasily, the thought of God should be constantly inherent in the ascetic - whether he is silent or speaks, does what he does or does not do. The purpose of such constant contemplation or concentration of thoughts on the main object of our love - God - is, according to the holy father, so that the soul is constantly affirmed in sobriety and decent actions, exercises its morality in what is right, just, decent and peaceful 590. “And as soon as [the soul] stops thinking and stops delving into proper contemplation,” he says further, “then the rebellious bodily passions, like disorderly and arrogant dogs over which there is no overseer, begin to bark loudly at the soul, and each passion intensifies to torment it in every possible way, separating for itself a part of its vital force” 591. In order for contemplation to better achieve its goal, Basil the Great gives a general rule that each of the brethren must certainly devote several hours a day to solitary meditation on God 592 . In the intervals between hours of general prayers and psalmody, the monks sometimes gathered for general conversations. The subject of these conversations was always the cause to which they devoted their lives. In the introductions to his rules, St. Vasily lets us see that these very rules were formed in precisely such conversations. The monks, having gathered together, either proposed to their abbot the questions that interested them, or discussed with him the means to better organize their spiritual life 593 . The rest of the time, free from the above-mentioned activities, the pious monks devoted to physical labor. Engage in physical labor St. Vasily commands, on the one hand, so that he does not depend on anyone for the means of his own life, on the other hand, because it is possible to give a little of his earnings to the share of poor and God-loving people, and finally, because through these labors the monks mortify their flesh 594. From the memories of St. Gregory the Theologian about his life in the Pontic desert, we learn that the labors of the monks consisted of planting and watering trees, carrying firewood, preparing them in case of winter blizzards and bad weather; they cut stones for simple home hearths, on which the hermits' meals were prepared, etc. 595. In general, work was assigned to everyone at the discretion and will of the abbot 596. The lowest and most difficult work should not seem like that to anyone, and anyone who was entrusted with such work by the abbot had to perform it unquestioningly, in the name of the vow of unconditional obedience to the statutes of the brotherhood 597 . In all the occupations we have listed, not excluding the most difficult work, St. Vasily himself preceded the brethren by his example, as we again learn from the memoirs of St. Gregory the Theologian about his life in the Pontic community. As for reading books of a spiritual and moral nature and fasting, these two forms of monastic deeds and activities are prescribed by the charter of St. Basil, especially fasting or abstinence from food as the main means for mortifying the flesh and freeing it from the bonds of passions 598. Thus, from what has been said, we see that the inner life of the monks of the Pontic community of St. Vasily furnished her with the same exploits and activities, the same means for moral improvement and salvation, with which St. furnished her. Pachomius in the Tavenna monastery he founded. For any violation or failure to comply with the rules of the charter and St. Vasily, and St. Pachomius established various punishments for guilty monks in accordance with the degree of their guilt. Some punishments were determined by the charter, others depended on the will of the abbots. The punishments determined by the statutes of both fathers mainly consisted in the fact that the guilty were either forced to publicly repent, or were deprived of meals and forced to stand on their feet while others were eating food, or were separated from the society of the brethren, deprived of the monastic rank, and in extreme cases, even expelled from the monastery completely. The means that the leaders used to correct their monks consisted in most cases of reproof and admonition, alone and in front of others, depending on the need, in reprimand and punishment commensurate with the guilt and inclinations of the monk, and also commensurate with his age. St. Pachomius orders in some cases to reprimand the perpetrators up to ten times, and if the perpetrators did not repent after that, he commands the commanders to take more severe measures. Likewise, according to the charter of St. Basil orders that the leaders first repeatedly persuade and admonish the guilty, and then if anyone, even after repeated admonitions, does not show correction in practice, then such a person should be cut off from the common body, that is, expelled from the monastery 599. But the abbots, for their part, were themselves subject to punishment if they imposed arbitrary punishments on the monks or were negligent in their duties. In this case, according to the charter of St. Pachomius was reprimanded by the elder monks, numbering twenty or ten. If, even after the reprimand made to him, he remained careless in fulfilling his duties, then he was demoted from the level in which he stood, and another was elected in his place 600. However, in the regulations regarding punishments, there is also some difference between one and the other statute, which will be discussed below. Based on everything that has been said so far, we now have the right to conclude that Basil the Great, when drawing up his charter, used either directly the charter of St. Pachomius, or some other charter similar to this, as a result of which a significant similarity is noticed in the structure of the external and internal life of the Tavenna monasteries and the Pontic community. But, despite such obvious similarities between the statutes of Basil the Great and St. Pachomius, we at the same time see a considerable difference between them. The structure of monastic life prescribed by the Rule of St. Vasily’s system of life undoubtedly surpasses Pachomiev’s. Charter of St. Pachomius does not represent that integrity in the organization of the monastic system, that completeness and certainty of instructions regarding the external and mainly internal life of monks, which the statute of St. Vasily. In terms of its scope, the charter of St. Pachomius is quite brief, containing rules and regulations that seem to be private, random, and fragmentary. These are more moral instructions than canonical decrees, rather spiritual experiences gained either by the great Abba’s own ascetic life (Pachomius), or by the lives of other famous ascetics, rather than a discipline elevated to theory. Moreover, St. Pachomius does not present any grounds or considerations for his prescriptions - neither from the Holy Scriptures, nor from his own reason. This is not what we see in the charter of Basil the Great. This holy father organizes the integral structure of monastic life, gives instructions for all cases that may arise in the life of monks, and at the same time he does not leave any of his rules without basis and evidence. He bases almost every rule on the Holy Scriptures, on the example of righteous and holy men of the Old Testament and New Testament Churches, and sometimes he puts forward his own considerations, distinguished by a deep understanding of the matter, clarity, simplicity of presentation and persuasiveness. As a result, the monks who accepted his charter did not have to dwell on resolving the question of why one should act this way and not another, why one should do this and not another. In a word, at St. Vasily, we find a complete and thorough system of monastic life, leaving nothing to the personal discretion and arbitrariness of everyone. Nothing was forgotten by them, everything was weighed and rules were given regarding everything, while St. Pachomius did not give any instructions on some essential issues. So, at St. Pachomius, we do not find canonical decrees regarding the monastic vows of virginity or chastity and renunciation of the world. In the monasteries of Pachomius these vows were fulfilled according to tradition and by virtue of custom, and St. Basil gave more or less detailed instructions regarding these vows. Basil the Great speaks in some detail about virginity in his third “Ascetic Word.” Here he says first that a person, in order to achieve a blessed life and in order to become like God, must eradicate in himself passionate desires, through which he fell into sin in the person of his forefathers and lost the image of God. And such an eradication, he further says, is greatly promoted by virginity, especially by those who preserve this gift in purity. What is this gift? To this he responds as follows: “The gift of virginity includes not just one thing, to abstain from childbearing, but the entire way of life, and life itself, and morals must be virginal, showing incorruption in every celibate activity. You can commit adultery with your words, commit adultery with your eyes, defile your ears, accept uncleanness in your heart, and break the laws of chastity by immoderation in food and drink. And whoever, through abstinence in all this, observes himself under the law of virginity, really shows in himself the perfect and successful grace of virginity in everything... Therefore, without having yet made a vow of strict life, anyone who wishes, in accordance with permission and the law, can enter into everyday relationships and indulge in marriage. But whoever has already made his vow must observe himself for God as one of the sacred offerings, so that the body dedicated to God by vow, once again defiled by the service of ordinary life, does not fall under the Judgment for sacrilege” 601. “Let this be some general rule for those who have chosen a temperate and pure life,” - this is how St. ends his instructions on virginity. Vasily 602. From here we can see how highly St. looked upon virginity. Vasily, and like the monks, carefully had to fulfill this vow, pronounced by them upon entering the monastery. Basil the Great also speaks in some detail about what the vow of renunciation from the world consists of and how to fulfill it. “...Perfect renunciation,” he says, “consists in achieving impartiality even to life itself and having in oneself the “condemnation of death... lest we put our hope in all things” (2 Cor. 1:9). It begins with the alienation of external things, such as: property, vain glory, habits of life, addiction to the useless, which the holy disciples of the Lord James and John showed us by their example, leaving their father Zebedee and the very ship that delivered all the means to support life; also Matthew, who rose from the tollhouse and followed the Lord, not only leaving the benefits of his trade, but also despising the dangers that should have befallen him and his household from the authorities for leaving unfinished accounts for the collection of duties” 603. And how obligatory this vow should be for monks, how carefully they had to observe it, is shown by the Holy Father in his final words on this matter: “And if we do not succeed in it [that is, in renouncing the world], we cannot begin to live according to the Gospel of Christ. For contrition of the heart, humility in the way of thinking, liberation from anger, sorrow, worries, in short - from destructive passions, can this take place with wealth, worldly cares, addictions and habits towards others? 604 Many other instructions, on other issues, can be found in the charter of Basil the Great, which are not in the charter of St. Pachomia. These are, for example, the instructions relating to joining a monastery: is it necessary to leave slaves who have run away from their masters in the monastery; how one must accept those who have committed themselves to marriage 605, etc. Or instructions concerning the spiritual disposition of monks and their internal state, such as: about love for God and neighbor, about the fear of God 606, about prudence, about faith and hope, about humility 607 and others. In addition, Basil the Great explains various vices, certain spiritual properties and qualities, indicates means of how to get rid of various shortcomings and sinful inclinations, etc. In particular, we find many such explanations and instructions in his “Rules, Briefly Stated.” Here he gives answers, for example, to the following questions: what is slander, reproach? What is self-love? What is the difference between rage, anger and annoyance? What are uncleanness and debauchery? How can you not get angry? How to avoid the passion of people-pleasing? How can one come to hate sins? 608 etc. In general, when we look at the charter of Basil the Great, we see that most of his rules are aimed at organizing the inner life of monks and protecting their mental state from everything vicious and harmful, while in the charter of St. Pachomius, most of the rules are aimed at establishing the external behavior of monks and establishing one strictly established discipline between them. At St. Pachomius, at every step, we encounter instructions on how to sit, walk, talk with others, how to behave in church, in the dining room, at work, etc. Meanwhile, he does not find explanations of why certain inclinations appear in a person, what is the essence of this or that vice, what spiritual qualities are most appropriate for a monk. As for the actual difference between the charter of St. Basil the Great from the Rule of St. Pachomius, such a difference is noticed in the regulations regarding food and clothing, arts or crafts prescribed for handicrafts, regarding the time of general prayers, fasting or abstinence and punishments imposed on those who are faulty or those who violate the regulations. Regarding food, we noted above that the items from which it is prepared are called differently in the charter of Basil the Great than those named in the charter of St. Pachomia. We said that among the Tavenna monks it almost always consisted of bread, olives, cheese, salted or chopped vegetables and cooked with vinegar and oil, figs and other fruits in accordance with the time of year; whereas, according to the instructions of Basil the Great, monastic food should consist of bread with the addition of a small amount of herbs, boiled seeds, herb roots and sometimes a decoction obtained from salted fish. As you can immediately notice, this difference arose nothing more than from the fact that the areas in which the monasteries of both fathers were located were different. Monasteries of St. Pachomius were located on one of the islands of the Nile River and in a place where olives, figs and other fruits grew in abundance, with which the monks were mainly content with their meager meals. This area, moreover, was surrounded by beautiful pastures on which shepherds grazed their flocks; and this made it possible for the monks to easily obtain butter and cheese to season their table, exchanging them for the products of their own hands. The area where Basil the Great founded his monastery, in addition to being located much to the north of the Pachomiev monasteries, was also mountainous and surrounded on all sides by rocks. As a result, due to natural and climatic conditions, the fruits that grew on the Nile Islands could no longer grow on it. Here nature was incomparably harsher and poorer: it could supply the monks with various kinds of greens, vegetables, seeds of various types of herbs and trees for food; The rivers flowing through this area supplied the monks with fish from time to time - and that’s all. There could be no talk of figs, olives, or olives here. Thus, Basil the Great, of necessity, had to prescribe other items for food to the monks than those prescribed in the Rule of St. Pachomia. The same must be said about clothing. The warm and even hot climate of the area on which the island of Tavenna was located made it possible for the Pachomiev monks to make do with thin and light clothing, such as their levitons, and did not require their concern for warm clothing that could protect them from the cold. If in the Tavenna monasteries the monks also wore leather clothes - mantles - in addition to their levitons, then this was solely due to the exploits and dejection of their body, and not to protect it from the influence of external temperature. But such clothing could not be used in the Pontic community. Here the monks needed to protect themselves from winter blizzards and bad weather, take shelter from the cold and protect their bodies from other unfavorable external conditions. As a result, Basil the Great orders monks to have one type of clothing that would cover their nakedness and at the same time could warm them and serve as protection from the harmful air 609. Thus, the difference in clothing is that among the Tavenna monks it consisted of two levitons, and, moreover, thin ones, easy to wash, while among the monks of the Pontic community it consisted of one thick tunic, capable of protecting them from bad weather during the day and serving as their cover at night 610. In addition, the difference is also noticeable in the fact that Basil the Great, instead of a mantle, which served as a means of depressing the body and humbling the soul of the monks of the Pachomius monasteries, ordered his monks to wear a hair cap for the same purpose in addition to ordinary clothing 611. However, everyone wore the hair shirt voluntarily, and not by virtue of a mandatory requirement. Further, we notice a difference in the instructions regarding handicrafts. In the Tavennes monasteries, as we know, even such complex crafts as blacksmithing, leather dressing, felting, carpentry, etc. were in use. Basil the Great, on the contrary, instructs monks to engage in crafts that are least complex - those that do not disturb the peace and silence of monastic life, do not require much effort in obtaining material and selling products. In particular, he advises engaging in agriculture, which, as he puts it, supplies what is necessary and saves farmers from long wanderings and from running here and there. And although he does not reject crafts (carpentry, joinery and blacksmithing), he nevertheless advises avoiding them, since these skills distract the brethren from the unity of life and break silence 612. In general, in the monasteries of Pachomius, the monks spent most of their time on physical labor and practicing various skills, while in the monastery of Basil the Great, divine services, an abstract, spiritual activity, were widely developed. Thus, in the monasteries of Pachomius the monks gathered for public worship only twice a day, but in the Pontic community they gathered seven times a day. As a result, one must think that from the material side, the Pachomius monasteries were much better off and protected from outside help than the monasteries of St. Vasily. As for abstinence or fasting, this feat is equally prescribed for monks to observe as the statute of St. Pachomius, and the charter of Basil the Great. The difference is noticeable only in the fact that the very concept of fasting in Basil the Great is conceived more extensively and deeply than in St. Pachomia. By the concept of fasting, Basil the Great means not only abstinence from food, but mainly abstinence from passions, bad and vicious inclinations and one’s own wills. This is how he himself defines the concept of abstinence: “We call abstinence, of course, not the complete abstinence of oneself from food (this would be a violent destruction of life), but the abstinence of oneself from sweets, which is acceptable when overthrowing carnal wisdom for a pious purpose... The feat of abstinence concerns not only the pleasure of sweet foods, but extends to any elimination of an obstacle. Therefore, exactly as he who is abstinent will gain victory over his belly, he will not yield it over himself to human glory; just as he triumphs over vile desires, so he will not refuse to triumph over wealth or any other ignoble disposition, for example, anger, sadness and everything that usually enslaves ignorant souls... He who is temperate in the consideration of glory is humble-wise; he who observes abstinence in dealing with property fulfills the gospel measure of non-covetousness; one who refrains from irritation and anger is not angry. The strict law of abstinence assigns measure to the tongue, limits to the eyes, unquestioning hearing to the ears” 613. And St. Pachomius understands by this feat precisely abstinence from eating food, even in the most limited quantities. The difference in punishment is that St. Pachomius also imposed punishments for the smallest actions of monks. For example, if a monk accidentally broke a clay vessel, then in order to make amends for the offense, he would have to bear public punishment for this as well. In the same way, anyone who made any involuntary mistake when singing psalms or who made an inappropriate answer to a question, etc. 614 However, from the statute of Basil the Great it is not clear that he imposed punishments for such minor and unimportant offenses. In addition, in the charter of St. Pachomius is commanded to do corporal punishment in certain cases, 615 while in the charter of Basil the Great this is again not the case. The charter of Basil the Great also does not say that monks, when there is a violation of order in the church or in their own consciousness of their guilt, go out to the middle of the church and prostrate themselves before the altar, waiting until the abbot allows them to stand, as prescribed by the charter of St. Pachomia. On the other hand, in the charter of St. Pachomius does not encounter one punishment that is prescribed by the statute of Basil the Great, namely, not to give blessings to the sinner until he repents 616. Establishing a general view of the statute of Basil the Great, we must say that this statute is, as it were, a development and revision of the statute of St. Pachomia. In the main and essential features, both of these statutes are similar to each other, but in particulars, as we said above, there is a considerable difference between them. Basil the Great abolished some of the instructions of Pachomius, changed others, and added or shortened some. In addition, one cannot help but notice in the rules of Basil the Great a certain softness and meekness - properties that are usually manifested in the relationship of a father to his children. But at the same time, Basil the Great does not ignore a single offense on the part of the monks and does not do without giving instructions on how to correct those who have sinned and what punishments to impose on them. This explains the fact that even during the life of Basil the Great, his charter spread far beyond the borders of Asia Minor, and over time came into general use in the East. Published by: Orthodox Interlocutor. 1900. No. 6. P. 1–42. – Ed. Wed: St. Basil the Great. Rules set out at length // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 149. St. Basil the Great. Rules, briefly stated // Ibid. pp. 223–224. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, briefly stated, 302 // Ibid. P. 315. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, briefly stated, 292 // Ibid. P. 312. See: Rufinus of Aquileia. Ecclesiastical History II, 9. This testimony and further ones are borrowed by us partly from: Addition to the Works of the Holy Fathers. M., 1852. Book. 3. P. 18, note under the letter “c”; partly from the archimandrite. Agapit (Agapit, archimandrite. The life of St. Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia, and his pastoral activity. St. Petersburg, 1871. P. 128). See: “Life of St. Theodosius" (Vita Theodosii) // Acta Sanctorum. 11 January. P. 693. St. Gregory the Theologian. Letter 6. To Basil the Great // St. Gregory the Theologian. Creations. T. 2. P. 421. See: Agapit, Archimandrite. Life of St. Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and his pastoral activities. P. 60. St. Basil the Great. Letter 223. Against Eustathius of Sebastia // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. pp. 791–792. See: Kazansky P. S. History of Orthodox monasticism in the East: In 2 parts, Part 1. M., 1854–1856. P. 129. See: St. Anthony the Great // Christian reading. 1879. September. P. 305. See: PL. T. 23. Col. 62–80. St. Palladium of Elenopolsky. "Lavsaik", 37. Ermiy Sozomen. Ecclesiastical History III, 14. See: Kazansky P.S. History of Orthodox monasticism in the East. P. 129. See: Hieronymus Stridonensis. Regula Pachomii. No. 49 (Blessed Jerome of Stridon. Rule of St. Pachomius (Latin translation of Blessed Jerome). (Hereinafter referred to as Regula Pachomii). See: Regula Pachomii. No. 69, 74, 84, 95, 123, 127, 157, etc. Also in the Bollandist edition (Bolland. No. 22–24, 30, 40, 41, 43). See: Rev. John Cassian. On the rules of cenobitic monasteries, IV–VI // Writings of the Venerable Father John Cassian the Roman. M., 1892; STSL., 1993. pp. 27–84 (hereinafter – St. John Cassian. On the rules of cenobitic monasteries); also in Jerome: Regula Pachomii. No. 49. Leviton - monastic linen clothing. Praefatio ad regul. Pachomii. No. 4 (Preface by Blessed Jerome to his translation of the Rule of St. Pachomius // Works of Blessed Jerome of Stridon. Part 6. Kyiv, 1903. pp. 53–57). (Hereinafter – Praefatio ad regul. Pachomii.) See: Rev. John Cassian. On the rules of cenobitic monasteries IV, 13–14. See: Regula Pachomii. No. 81. See: Rev. John Cassian. On the rules of cenobitic monasteries IV, 3. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, briefly stated, 116 // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 258. See: St. Basil the Great. Ascetic statutes, 19 // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 355. St. Basil the Great. Ascetic statutes, 27 // Ibid. P. 371. St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 41 // Ibid. P. 208. St. Basil the Great. Ascetic statutes, 22 // Ibid. P. 366. Wed: St. Basil the Great. Ascetic statutes, 34 // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 375. What external form these vows took is not clear either from the statutes of Basil the Great or from the statutes of St. Pachomia. In the rules of Basil the Great, only vague hints are made about this. Thus, in the 15th answer of the “Rules Explained at Large” to the question of how to take vows from children raised in fraternities and who have reached adulthood, St. Vasily says: “The primates of the Church should be taken as witnesses of the disposition [to enter the community on the terms of an actual member], so that through them the consecration of the body can be accomplished, as a kind of offering to God, and the perfection will receive firmness in the testimony. For it is said: at the hearing of two or three witnesses every word will become (Matthew 18:16)” (St. Basil the Great. Creations. Vol. 2. P. 178). In the same rules, in answer 12 to the question of how to receive those who have committed themselves to marriage, the Holy Father commands to receive “in the presence of witnesses” (Ibid. p. 175). Thus, it is obvious that during St. Basil in the cenobitic monasteries there was a custom of formal admission to monasticism, but the exact method of taking vows remains not fully disclosed. The first of these rules does not clearly indicate the meaning of the primates, and the second does not clearly indicate the meaning of the witnesses. In the charter of St. Pachomius does not have any indication of the forms in which the monks pronounced vows upon their entry into the society of the brethren. See: Praefatio ad regul. Pachomii. No. 2, 7. See: Regula Pachomii. No. 159, 169–170. See: Praefatio ad regul. Pachomii. No. 3. See: Regula Pachomii. No. 1, 29, 30. See: Rev. Cassian the Roman. On the rules of cenobitic monasteries I, 1–10; Praefatio ad regul. Pachomii. No. 4; Ermiy Sozomen. Ecclesiastical History III, 14; Regula apud. Bolland. No. 39, 40. An indication of this can be seen in all those rules in which a monk is forbidden to laugh, is instructed not to look at others, not to be sad, etc. Rev. John Cassian. On the rules of cenobitic monasteries IV, 11. Bolland. No. 8; Ermiy Sozomen. Ecclesiastical History III, 14; Regula Pachomii. No. 29. Praefatio ad regul. Pachomii. No. 6. See: St. Basil the Great. Ascetic statutes, 22 // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 366. See: St. Basil the Great. Ascetic statutes, 20 // Ibid. P. 356. See: St. Basil the Great. A Word on Asceticism (The Ascetic Word 13) // Ibid. P. 141. See: St. Basil the Great. Ascetic statutes, 28 // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 371; A Word on Asceticism (The Ascetic Word 13) // Ibid. pp. 141–143. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, briefly stated, 112 // Ibid. P. 256. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 50 // Ibid. pp. 216–217. See: St. Basil the Great. Ascetic statutes, 20 // Ibid. pp. 356–357. St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 43 // Ibid. P. 211. See: St. Basil the Great. A Word about Asceticism (Prologue 5) // Ibid. pp. 145–146. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 27 // Ibid. P. 192. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 31 // Ibid. P. 195. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 45 // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 213. St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 54 // Ibid. P. 218. Wed: St. Basil the Great. Ascetic charters // Ibid. P. 373. Wed: St. Basil the Great. The ascetic word and exhortation about renunciation of the world and spiritual perfection // Ibid. P. 133. St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 22 // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 188. St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 19 // Ibid. P. 184. St. Basil the Great. Ascetic statutes, 25 // Ibid. P. 369. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 34 // Ibid. P. 198. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, briefly stated // Ibid. pp. 266–267. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 22 // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 188; Rules, briefly stated // Ibid. pp. 271–272. St. Basil the Great. Rules set out at length // Ibid. P. 251. Thus, we see alternate weekly ministers, whose duty was probably the same as the duty of the weekly ministers in the Tavennes monasteries. St. Basil the Great. Letter 2. To Gregory the Theologian // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 446. Vita Pachomii apud Bolland. No. 15. See: Rev. John Cassian. On the rules of cenobitic monasteries II, 6. See: Regula Pachomii apud Bolland. No. 1. See: Regula Pachomii. No. 15 and 155. See: Ibid. No. 20, 21; 156. See: Regula Pachomii. No. 22, 23. So, for example, at the end of the 159th rule, the abbot is instructed to follow the rules of his ancestors and the law of God. See: Regula Pachomii. No. 28, 36, 37, 59, 60, 116. See: St. Palladium of Elenopolsky. Lavsaik, 35. See: Praef. ad regul. Pachomii. No. 6. See: Regula Pachomii. No. 26, 27. St. Palladium of Elenopolsky. Lavsaik, 43. See: Regula Pachomii. No. 80. St. Basil the Great. A Word on Asceticism (The Ascetic Word 13) // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 142. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, briefly stated // Ibid. P. 232. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, briefly stated // Ibid. pp. 223–224. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules set out at length // Ibid. pp. 203–204. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 37 // Ibid. P. 204. See: St. Basil the Great. A Word on Asceticism (The Ascetic Word 13) // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 142. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules set out at length // Ibid. P. 205. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, briefly stated, 307 // Ibid. P. 318. See: St. Basil the Great. Ascetic charters // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 329. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules set out at length // Ibid. pp. 164–165. See: St. Basil the Great. The Word on Asceticism (The Word on Asceticism 13); Rules laid out at length; Rules summarized; Ascetic charters // Ibid. P. 141; 210; 283, 305; 335. See: St. Gregory the Theologian. Letter 5. To Basil the Great // St. Gregory the Theologian. Creations. T. 2. P. 420. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules laid out at length; Rules, briefly stated // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 206; 256, 265, 268. See: St. Basil the Great. Ascetic statutes, 23 // Ibid. P. 367. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 16 // Ibid. pp. 179–180; It's him. Rules, briefly stated // Ibid. P. 262. See: Praec. atque judicia S. Pachom. 160–176. Wed: St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 143, 193, 215, 237, 256, etc. See: Regula Pachomii. No. 168, 190–191. Wed: St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 27 // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 192. St. Basil the Great. A Word on Asceticism (The Ascetic Word 13) // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. pp. 139–140. St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 8 // Ibid. P. 170. St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 8 // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. pp. 171–172. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 11–12 // Ibid. pp. 174–175. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 2–4 // Ibid. pp. 155–161. See: St. Basil the Great. Ascetic charters // Ibid. P. 349. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, briefly stated // Ibid. pp. 232–233, 240, 245, 233–234, 234–235, 228. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 22 // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. pp. 188–189. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, briefly stated, 90 // Ibid. P. 251. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 22 // Ibid. P. 188. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 38 // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 206. St. Basil the Great. Rules, stated at length, 16 // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 180. See: Rev. John Cassian. On the rules of cenobitic monasteries IV, 16. Compare: Regula Pachomii. No. 125. See: Praec. et judicia S. Pachomii. No. 163 and 173. See: St. Basil the Great. Rules, briefly stated, 122 // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 260.