Saint John Chrysostom in historical documents

It is difficult to dispute the fact that the origins of Russian civilization, and even more so of Orthodox spirituality, are largely, if not primarily, connected with Byzantium, with the spiritual heritage of the Byzantine Fathers of the Church. Greco-Byzantine examples had a profound influence not only on the speech structures of Russian literature, but also on the structure of thought and the formation of personality type. In this regard, the topic of the spiritual experience of St. John Chrysostom, one of the most prominent thinkers of Byzantium, a saint whose lifestyle and way of thinking greatly influenced the formation of the cultural archetype of the Russian person, seems extremely relevant. The spiritual heritage of John Chrysostom, perceived by Russian culture primarily through the translation of his works into ancient Slavic languages, had a powerful impact on the formation of our own traditions of thinking, our original literature, philosophy, and contributed to the formation of models, norms and standards of life of the domestic Christian culture. The works of John Chrysostom are found in ancient Russian collections of spiritual and edifying content (“Zlatotstruy”, “Izmaragd”, “Margarit”, etc.) more often than the works of other authors, and therefore it would hardly be a mistake to say that it was Chrysostom who enjoyed the highest authority in Rus' as a teacher and as an interpreter of the Holy Scriptures. However, Chrysostom's influence on ancient Russian culture was not limited to his creations. Since the 14th century. (and most likely earlier) in the Slavic world, different editions of the life of St. John Chrysostom began to spread and gained popularity. The Byzantine life of this saint, attributed to George of Alexandria (7th century), became known earlier in Rus' than others. A critical commentary edition of the Church Slavonic translation of this life was carried out by E. Hanzak 1. According to Hanzak, this life is the first in a series of lives of Chrysostom of the 7th-11th centuries, which do not have value as a historical source, but are compilations of earlier materials 2. An unknown author, compiling the text of the life of John Chrysostom, openly declares that he collected information “from the writings of the Church historian, and other from other writings” 3; He also does not forget about the work of Chrysostom’s main biographer, Bishop Palladius, “I myself was in the city of Konstantin in those years and saw with my own eyes everything that happened” 4. In his narration, the author of the life also includes extensive material from the oral tradition: “and I heard something else from the faithful priests, who are the purifiers, and from the pious, with terrible oaths, it was written down and found by us who confessed about it” 5 . The introduction of elements of oral tradition into the story of Chrysostom was a response to the demands of the hagiographic genre in Byzantium 6 . Oral tradition also played a significant role in the subsequent Byzantine Lives of Chrysostom, which periodically appeared after the work attributed to George of Alexandria, and clearly depended on each other (the authors of these Lives were Emperor Leo, anonymous, Metaphrastus). In addition to historically reliable evidence about the life of the Saint, they also contain numerous folk legends about miracles performed by Chrysostom at different periods of his life, legends about his brilliant studies in Athens, etc. On Slavic soil, the folk tradition associated with the name of Chrysostom received further development. Gradually, from a living person, Chrysostom turns into a kind of absolutely unattainable standard of an ideal shepherd and preacher: “Every preacher must have the books of St. Chrysostom, and be diligent in honoring it: for such a person will learn to formulate the purest and clearest word, although he will not be equal to Chrysostom” 7. Thus, John Chrysostom in Russian culture becomes a spiritual symbol, a kind of supra-individual “measure” of spiritual life, a “cultural hero.” All this makes us wonder what the real John Chrysostom was like? There is a need to separate reliable historical evidence from later cultural layers and analyze both of these components, from the combination of which the image of the great teacher and saint of the Church was formed in Rus'. This article is an attempt to give a brief overview of the main sources that can be more or less recognized as reliable, helping in the search for the “historical” John Chrysostom. Conventionally, all evidence is divided into two groups: 1) personal testimony of John Chrysostom himself; 2) testimonies of historians about the life and work of the Saint. The most authoritative source, undoubtedly, is Chrysostom’s own creations. However, to the great regret of researchers, it was not the Saint’s custom to talk a lot about himself: in his works that have survived to this day, he gives very little personal information 8 . Nevertheless, the collection of his works is a real treasury from which theologians, historians and archaeologists draw information about the urban, political and church life of those times. Thus, it allows us to restore the sociocultural context in which the personality and talent of the great saint developed. The largest amount of personal evidence is contained in the letters of the Saint. The extensive corpus of Chrysostom's letters 9, with one exception (the first letter to Pope Innocent I), dates back to the last period of his life, to the time of his exile - 404–407. and also has great historical value, shedding “especially the brightest light on the state of mind and concerns of the great Saint in this most difficult era of his life” 10. In his letters from the time of exile, Chrysostom wrote to friends about the hardships of the journey, about the attitude of the people he met along the way towards him, about his health, dangers, loneliness, etc. The largest number of letters (seventeen) was addressed to the Constantinople deaconess Olympias 11. These letters are the longest and the most “personal”, and therefore the most famous. Of particular importance for reconstructing the life path of the “historical” Chrysostom are his two letters to Pope Innocent I, the first of which was written in 404, after Easter, before John, who had been removed from his post as Archbishop of Constantinople, was sent into second (and last) exile. The first letter contains evidence of the events that took place in Constantinople after the arrival there of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria (in June 403), of the removal of John at the so-called “Council under the Oak” (Synodus ad Quercum), of John’s restoration to episcopal dignity in July 403, and of the subsequently renewed intrigues against him. In the same letter, Chrysostom describes the terrible events that occurred on the eve and during the Easter festival itself in 404 12. The letter is quoted from Palladium 13. The second letter to Pope Innocent was written after June 406, as is clear from John's remark that he was spending his third year in exile 14 . This letter, very short in volume, contains words of gratitude to the pope for his efforts to rehabilitate John and a request not to abandon these efforts. The second group of sources, the most reliable from a historical point of view, include: 1) Dialogue about the life of John Chrysostom (Dialogus de Vita Sancti Johannis Chrysostomi), written by Palladius of Hellinople 15; 2) Church history (Historia Ecclesiastica) of Socrates (Socrates Scholasticus) 16; 3) Church history (Historia Ecclesiastica) of Sozomen (Salaminius Hermias Sozomen) 17; 4) Church history (Historia Ecclesiastica) by Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus 18. In one of his publications, the historiographer van Hommeslage proves that the biography of Chrysostom, the authorship of which was attributed to Martyrius of Antioch (†471), was compiled by a contemporary of the Saint 19 . Thus, this hitherto neglected document is also considered by some scholars to be a significant source. Basically, the texts of these biographies tend to present subjective facts: "Chrysostom's opponents are most often portrayed as villains. The motives for their actions are seen only as resentment and envy" 20 . Palladius, Bishop of Hellinople, friend of John Chrysostom and author of the Historia Lausiaca, compiled a biography of Chrysostom in the form of a dialogue around 408, that is, a little after the death of the Saint. Plato’s “Phaedo” served as a model for constructing the Dialogue. The dialogue between the Eastern bishop and the Roman deacon Theodore takes place in Rome shortly after the death of Chrysostom. The main purpose of writing the Dialogue is to defend Chrysostom from the slanderous pamphlet “Liber innormis”, written by Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria, Chrysostom’s worst enemy. The pamphlet itself has not reached us, but its main attacks can be reconstructed based on the text of Dialogue 21. The purpose of writing the Dialogue explains some of the shortcomings of this work that must be taken into account when using it as a source. Firstly, Palladius says almost nothing about the political situation outside the Church; he, for example, never mentions the name of Empress Eudoxia, who, as is known, played a prominent role in the life drama of Chrysostom. Secondly, Palladius rarely indicates the dates of the events discussed in the Dialogue - for example, he does not indicate the date of the death of John Chrysostom. Thirdly, Palladius's narrative is very selective; some facts are omitted for apologetic or literary reasons 22 . However, despite these shortcomings of the Dialogue, Palladius, according to most researchers, deserves the greatest attention among all other biographers of Chrysostom, since he was an eyewitness to many of the events described. The authors of “Church Histories” Socrates and Sozomen, according to the laws of the genre, also say very little about secular politics, even when secular events obviously influenced church affairs. Both historians sympathize with John Chrysostom, but Socrates includes in his narrative data mentioned in the writings of the Saint's enemies. Socrates has about 20 factual errors, and the most prominent researcher of the life and work of John Chrysostom, Baur, relies on his information only if it is confirmed by other sources 23. Other scholars consider Socrates' work to be valuable primarily because of its literal citation of sources 24 . It is known that Socrates was not a cleric. In fact, he is the first of the laity to labor in the field of church historiography. This circumstance contributed to the fact that Socrates is “objective, does not interfere in theological disputes, and is impartial (nonpartisan)” 25. He is far from being categorical in his assessments of his heroes; Julian the Apostate, for example, appears in Socrates' description not only as an unambiguous anti-hero, a persecutor of Christians, but also as a remarkable politician and administrator 26 . Sozomen wrote somewhat later than Socrates. His description is more complete, in some places he seeks to supplement or correct his predecessor, and includes in his work some archival data and Syrian material unknown to Socrates. “In terms of style, Sozomen's work is superior to that of Socrates, but Sozomen is less critical and at times includes legendary material in his narrative” 27. Sozomen as a historian was always much less famous than Socrates 28 . The life attributed to George of Alexandria, for example, does not include material from Sozomen in its compilation. The Ecclesiastical History, written by Theodoret (c. 448–491), devotes only a small part to the Archbishop of Constantinople. Nevertheless, Theodoret provides some unique information - for example, a story about Chrysostom’s petition to the emperor to refuse to allocate a church to the Arians of the Goths within the boundaries of Constantinople. Theodoret gravitates towards apologetics (he is widely known for his apologetic writings and irreconcilable struggle against heretics) and often includes in his narrative facts that are not controversial from a historical point of view. Due to this “apologetic” inclination, Theodoret cannot always be considered as a completely reliable source 29 . Less significant, but still valuable historical sources include 30: 1) Bibliotheca Photius, chapter 59 31, where Patriarch Photius talks about the “cathedral under the oak tree,” including citing the main points of the accusations against Chrysostom; 2) Vita Porphyrii ep. Gazensis; This work was written by Deacon Mark, who tells of his travels in March 389 and early 401 to Constantinople and his meetings there with Bishop John and Empress Eudoxia 32 . In Deacon Mark we find unique confirmation that Chrysostom denounced Eudoxia regarding the vineyard, which she took by force from a certain widow (as we know, this story is not mentioned either by Palladius, or by Socrates, or by Sozomen, on the basis of which the historicity of the mentioned event is sometimes questioned). Baur cites several chapters of the life of Bishop Porfiry of Gaza in his study 33 . 3) Historia nova, written by Zosima (c. 450–500) 34. The narrative of this zealous pagan, a worshiper of the “old gods,” is openly biased; in addition, it is full of factual errors 35 . However, Zosima's work is interesting because it presents the point of view of a person who did not sympathize with either Chrysostom or Christians in general. These are the main documents that provide the mosaic material from which we have to compose a portrait of the “historical” Chrysostom. Unfortunately, there is still no comparative analysis of all existing sources about the life of the Saint. This brief overview is a first step towards overcoming this obstacle 36 . Hansack E. Die Vita des Johannes Chrysostomus des Georgios von Alexandrien in kirchenslavischer Ubersetzung. Band I-III. Wurzburg, 1975–1984. Metropolitan Macarius. Great Menaion of Chetia. November, 13–15. St. Petersburg, 1899. P. 900. Coleman-Norton P. R. The “Vita S. Chrysostomi” by Georgius Alexandrinus // Classical Philology. 1925. 20. P. 69–72. Spiritual regulations. St. Petersburg, 1721. P. 34. For personal testimonies, see: On the Priesthood (PG 48, 624–625); On Contrition (PG 47, 403); To a young widow (PG, 48, 601); 38 homilies on the Acts of the Apostles (PG 60, 274–275). PG 52 collects 240 letters of John Chrysostom. Orthodox Biblical Encyclopedia. T.VI. 1905.926. Coleman-Norton P. R. The Correspondence of St. John Chrysostom. (With special reference to his Epistle to Pope Innocent I) // Classical Philology. 1929. 24. P. 279–284. PG 47; English commented ed. see: Palladii Dialogus de vita S. Johannis Chrysostomi / Ed. with revised text, introduction, notes … by Coleman-Norton P. Cambridge, 1928. PG 67; see also: Socrates. Historia Ecclesiastica/Ed. Hussey. Oxford, 1853 and modern Russian translation: Socrates Scholasticus. Church history / Article and commentary. Krivushina I.V.M., 1996. PG 67; see also: Sozomen. Historia Ecclesiastica/Ed. J. Bides & G. C. Hansen // Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte. Leipzig; Berlin, 1960 and old translation: Sozomen (Ermius). Church history. St. Petersburg, 1851. PG 82; see also Russian. translation: Theodoret. Church history. St. Petersburg, 1852. Ommeslaeghe F. La valeur historique de la Vie de S. Jean Chrysostome attribut?e … Martirius d’Antioche // Studia Patristica. 1975. ? XII. P. 478–483. Liebeschuetz J. H. W. G. The Fall of John Chrysostom // Nottingham Medieval Studies. Vol. XXIX. Nottingham, 1985. P. 1–2. Hunt E.D. Palladius of Helenopolis, a Party and its Supports in the Church of the Late 4th Century // Journal of Theological Studies. 1973. Vol. XXIV. P. 456–80. Liebeschuetz J.H.W.G. Decree. op. P.2. Baur C. John Chrysostom and His Time. Vol. 1. London, 1959. P. xxviii. Dressler H. // New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. XIII. Washington, 1967. P. 409. See Bibikov M.V. Historical literature of Byzantium. St. Petersburg, 1998, pp. 51–52. Chiovaro F. // New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. XIII. Washington, 1967. P. 489. Baur C. Decree. Op†. P. xxix. Canivet P. // New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. XIV. Washington, 1967. P. 22. We find a complete list of authors who wrote about Chrysostom from an anonymous author (10th century) in his “Vita” (Savile H. Chrysostomi Opera Omnia. Vol. 8. Etonae, 1612. P. 293 ff.). Gr-goire H. et Kugener M. A. [ed.] Marc le diacrë ‘Vie de Porphyre que de Gaza’. Paris, 1930. Baur C. Decree. op. P. 169–179. Zosimus. Historia nova / Transl. by James J. Buchanan and Harold T. Davis. San Antonio, 1967. For an analysis of the “New History” see Goffart W. Zosimus, the First Historian of Rome’s Fall // American Historical Review. 1971. 76. P. 412–441. For a brief biographical sketch that gives experience in understanding the life and works of St. John Chrysostom, see Archpriest Mikhail Dronov. Saint John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople // Alpha and Omega. 1995. No. 4(7). – Ed.