The asceticism of Evagrius of Pontus and Origen

Contents The most ancient evidence of the practice of the “Jesus Prayer” Introduction 1. Biographical information about the life of Origen and Evagrius of Pontus 1.1 The life and works of Origen 1.2 The literary heritage of Origen and his teachings 1.3 Origen - adamant, Origen - a centaur: the posthumous fate of Origen and his teachings 1.4 The life and works of Evagrius Pontius 1.5 Literary heritage of Evagrius and his teaching. 1.6 Abba or heretic: “Evagrius question” 2. Asceticism and mysticism of Origen and Evagrius 2.1 Origen as an ascetic and mystic 2.2 Asceticism and mysticism of Evagrius 2.3 The most ancient news about the practice of the “Jesus Prayer” and its connection with the teachings of Evagrius and Origen Conclusion The oldest evidence of the practice of the “Jesus Prayer” [Course essay on student patrolology. III building of the Rostov-on-Don branch of the service station at theol. fak. PSTGU, Kholodova, E.V.] Considering the teachings of probably the most extraordinary personalities in the history of the Church of Christ is not an easy task. Origen and Evagrius are two personalities that are impossible, and indeed impossible, to approach unambiguously. Both of them greatly influenced the development of Christian philosophy, the first laid the foundation for its speculative part, the second for its practical part. But both the first and the second went down in history as people rejected by the Church and subject to excommunication. But at the same time, their role in the spiritual life of the East is difficult to overestimate. The teachings of Origen were spread by the Cappadocians, giving it an Orthodox form. Thanks to St. Gregory of Nyssa and Evagrius, subsequent generations accepted the basic principles of Origen's mysticism 1. Evagrius, a student of the Cappadocians, also continues their work and teaches the Egyptian hermits a way of prayer and connection with God, which corresponded to Origen’s understanding of the relationship between God and man. But, if St. Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa (who shared only Origen's eschatology) were able to remain within the Orthodox tradition and not go beyond its boundaries, while Evagrius was less fortunate. Evagrius is a consistent Origenist: in cosmology, Christology, anthropology and eschatology, he unconditionally adheres to the Alexandrian didascalus 2, although nowhere does he give a systematic presentation of his cosmology and Christology in the Origenian spirit, but it manifests itself spontaneously 3. Only in triadology is Evagrius a true “Cappadocian” 4. Although the thesis about the consistent Origenism of Evagrius, his heretism is subject to certain doubt by some (for example, A.I. Sidorov 5), none of the modern scientists (naturally guided by the Orthodox tradition) dare to call for a revision of his anathema at the V Ecumenical Council. We can say that Origen (in our Russian patrolology) is treated with some sympathy (starting from Filaret and up to A.I. Sidorov). We will allow ourselves to make a brief excursion into antiquity and see how Origen and Evagrius were treated in the monastic tradition of the 5th – 9th centuries. It is known that disputes over Origen’s teachings began during the latter’s lifetime 6 . As for Evagrius, he did not raise such passions as were according to Origen, although they treated him with due caution. In the 6th century, the famous Gaz ascetics Ven. Barsanuphius (Barsanuphius) and John warned their wards about Evagrius, advising them to have a negative attitude towards the “gnostic” writings of Evagrius. So Barsanuphius calls his (together with Origen and Didymus) teaching “pagan dogmas”, the words of “idle people”, the product of “delusion” 7. And St. John responds with words from the Epistle of James: This wisdom is not from above, but is earthly, demonic (James 3:15) 8. When the student asked St. John, how can some of the monks, revered as sound and good monks, read the “gnostic” works of Evagrius, then St. John replied that this was happening to them by God’s permission, since they did not “ask God to reveal to them whether this teaching was true, and [therefore] God left them to their own understanding” 9 . However, John did not completely prohibit reading the books of Evagrius, but if anyone really wanted to read these works, then let him read from them only what “serves for spiritual benefit,” choosing the good and spewing out the evil 10. Their contemporary, Rev. John Climacus, showers Evagrius with unpleasant epithets: “god-hating”, “the craziest of the insane”, criticizing the rigoristic ascetic ideas of Evagrius, St. John says that Evagrius is crazy not only in this, but “in many of his opinions” 11. Bright negative Rev. John to Evagrius is explained by the fact that John was a contemporary of the events of 543 and 553, when the teachings of Origen, Didymus and Evagrius were first condemned at a local council (543), and then confirmed at the V Ecumenical Council (553) 12. Finally bl. John Moschus in his “Limonary” directly calls Evagrius a heretic, and even conveys one vision that was to a certain brother named Theophanes, to whom the Lord, in order to reveal what true faith, showed hell, in which, among other famous heresiarchs Arius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches, etc., who were “in the flames”, in a gloomy and stinking place were Evagrius, Didymus and Origen 13. In the heat of these events, Evagrius certainly suffered, his authority was greatly shaken, and his influence weakened, 14 but he was not completely forgotten or rejected. His writings and thoughts, cleared of some of his errors, continued to be disseminated under the names of other persons (mainly under the name of the monk Nile of Sinai (Ancyra)), his works were translated into all known languages ​​of the Christian world (Latin, Syrian, Arabic, Armenian, Copt., Ethiopian, Slavic). His ideas were reflected in the work of St. John Cassian (5th century), bl. Diadoche (5th century), Abba Isaiah (5th century), St. Dorotheus of Gaza (VI century), St. Maximus the Confessor (VI century), St. Isaac the Syrian (VII century) 15, St. Peter of Damascus (XII century), St. Gregory Palamas and others. Through these saints. fathers, the legacy of Evagrius will be firmly entrenched in Orthodox spirituality. Through St. Nile of Sorsky, St. Nicodemus the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky and, finally, St. Theophan the Recluse's works by Evagrius are included in monastic anthologies on spiritual and practical work 16 . Thus, Evagrius penetrated into the “holy of holies” of Orthodox spirituality. In modern science, not a single monograph devoted to the problem of Orthodox spirituality can do without considering the ascetic teaching and mysticism of Evagrius 17. In science, the opinion has become stronger that Evagrius had a strong influence on the formation of the hesychast tradition, developing a “theology of prayer” that helps to rise to the “gnosis of the Trinity,” i.e. practice of “smart motivation” 18. But the “smart prayer” of Evagrius and the “Jesus Prayer” are not the same thing. In the first, of course, you can see the forerunner of the second, but there is also a big difference between them, they have their pro et contra. In our essay, we set ourselves the task of reviewing the ascetic and mystical directions in the teachings of Origen and Evagrius, and our main emphasis will be on Evagrius, but since the mysticism of Evagrius is rooted in Origen, therefore, we will briefly consider the mysticism of the latter. The main question that we posed in our essay is the problem of the asceticism and mysticism of Evagrius and the asceticism and mysticism of the “hesychast” tradition. The structure of our abstract has some features that should be specifically mentioned. This is, firstly, a large number of footnotes, which will reflect mainly bibliographic information and some draft materials. We indicate sources not according to the scheme accepted at PSTGU, but according to the classical one (Author's surname, year of publication of the book, page), a bibliographic description of each source is given in the appropriate section (see section: Sources and literature, at the end of the essay). It is possible that the essay will exceed the standard size (15 pages), because... A significant place will be occupied by a biographical section, which examines the biography, literary heritage and - briefly - the main and most important points of the teachings of Origen and Evagrius. The second section is devoted to the ascetic-mystical views of Origen and Evagrius, where we will consider the degree of dependence and the degree of originality of the second on the first, and consider the practical and contemplative aspects of the teachings of Origen and Evagrius: their teaching on prayer, spiritual perfection and knowledge of God, and compare their teaching with the tradition of the “Jesus Prayer” in order to find out what place the heritage of both occupies in the Eastern Orthodox tradition "hesychasm". The sources and literature on which we rely when writing our work are not specifically specified, i.e. We do not provide any special review of the sources (this will only expand the already large format of our abstract); any information about the source, if necessary, will be placed in the links below the text, in the appropriate place. We hope that when reviewing our work, you will approach it with some degree of leniency, given that this is not scientific research, but only student experience. 1. Biographical information about the life of Origen and Evagrius of Pontus 1.1 Life and works of Origen The main sources for information about the life and deeds of this famous Alexandrian didaskal are the “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius of Caesarea (where he devotes almost the entire 6th book to Origen), the “Panarion” of St. Epiphany of Cyprus and some. etc. Origen’s life is usually divided into two periods – Alexandrian and Caesarian 19 . Origen was born into a Christian family; Almost with his mother's milk, he absorbed Christian teaching and already in his youth showed an amazing ability to learn and zeal for everything Divine. Origen received his primary education from his father, the martyr Leonidas, who was a professional grammarian and possibly a reader in the Alexandrian Church. Then Origen began to attend the famous Alexandrian Catechetical School, where Clement of Alexandria taught at that time. When in 202, due to the outbreak of persecution of Christians under the Emperor. In the north, the famous Clement was forced to flee from Alexandria to Palestine, the school was left without a mentor. Then the Alexandrian primate Demetrius, seeing his extraordinary intelligence and zeal, put him at the head of the Alexandrian school (Origen was not even 20 years old at that time). Many different interesting legends and stories related to his activities in Alexandria have been preserved about Origen. Eusebius (in Ts.I. VI, 2), saying that the life of Origen was remarkable from the very cradle, says that when, in the 10th year of the reign of Severus, the next persecution of Christians flared up and the crowns of martyrdom were placed on the heads of many, then Origen, being still very young, was inflamed with such a thirst for martyrdom that he joyfully hurried to meet the dangers. Many times a mortal threat loomed over his life, and he was on the verge of death, but every time “and only God’s Providence” somehow prevented this from happening. When Origen learned that his father had been taken and imprisoned, he wanted to go to him and share his glory of martyrdom, and even the persuasion of his mother, who said that at least for the sake of her and his brothers he had stayed at home, could not stop him. Then the mother hid all his clothes and thus stopped her son from going to his death. But while sitting at home, Origen wrote an admonishing letter to his father, telling him to hold tight and not change his mind for the sake of his family. “Hold on,” the son wrote to his father, “and don’t change your mind for our sake!” Origen's father suffered martyrdom. Another story, from Eusebius, tells that when his father died and all the family’s property was confiscated, Origen was taken into custody by a rich and famous matron who looked after Christians. She also had one heretic, Paul, a native of Antioch, living with her, who gathered a lot of people around him, even from church people, but Origen categorically refused to have communication with this man and he could not be forced to stand with him in prayer (C.I. VI, 2: 12 - 14). His zeal and fearlessness, they say, he boldly went out to meet the martyrs who were being led to execution, and loudly glorified them, aroused crowds of pagans against him. Origen was some kind of amazing person, wherever he went, no matter who he talked to, people followed him everywhere and converted to the Christian faith. Not only did his words testify to the height of Christianity over paganism, but his life was so excellent that it was the clearest evidence of his faith. More and more people followed Origen; crowds of people wishing to be declared public and to receive Baptism gathered at the school. Seeing this, the pagans began to lie in wait for the young man in the streets, surrounding his house, so that there was no place in the city where he could hide. Epiphanius says that Origen, in his young years, suffered many persecutions “he suffered a lot for the holy teaching of the faith and for the name of Christ. In the city they insulted him many times, reviled him and subjected him to cruel tortures” 20, and reports one case when the Hellenes, having caught him, cut off his hair and, dragging him to the pagan temple of Serapis, sat him near the entrance so that he would distribute palm branches to those entering and glorify the idol, because “the priests of their idols have such a custom.” “Taking up the branches,” writes Epiphanius, “Origen, without any timidity or hesitation, exclaimed with a loud voice and boldly: “Go, accept not the idol’s branch, but the branch of Christ.” 21 It seemed that for such exploits he should have been honored as a martyr or confessor, but this did not happen. Epiphanius reports the following incident about this. One day, the pagans, seeing such superiority of Origen and his preaching over paganism, decided to inflict “shame” on him, i.e. They, having caught him and brought him to an Ethiopian, said that if he did not sacrifice to idols, they would give him to this Ethiopian to desecrate his body; at this time Origen was already a mature man. And so, as Epiphanius says, Origen, unable to withstand such their malice, shouted, “that of the two things proposed to him, he was rather ready to make a sacrifice,” then the pagans laid incense on his hand and forcibly “threw him from his hand onto the hearth of the altar” 22. The martyrs and confessors, having then gathered a council and listened to Origen’s sincere confession, decided to deprive him of the glory of a confessor and subject him to church ban, and he was already a presbyter at that time. Unable to endure the ridicule of his scolders, Origen leaves Alexandria and goes to Palestine. The hierarchy of the Palestinian Church received him well and even convinced him to preach in the Church, and Origen, standing up, pronounced a saying from the Psalm: To the sinner God says: that you preach My statutes and take My covenant in your mouth (Ps. 49:16). And unable to bear it any longer, he closed the book and began to cry, and everyone in the Church began to cry with him 23 . This incident is also mentioned by Nemesius of Emesa, only he says that there were several Ethiopians, 24 and the emperor also remembers him. Justinian in his letter to Patr. Mina 25. However, this incident is not mentioned at all (or is silent about it) by Eusebius. Priest G. Malevansky believes that this was just popular rumor, and Deacon A. Kuraev calls these stories “gossip,” and A. Sidorov calls for Epiphanius’ information to be treated “with great caution” 26 . There is also a legend, for example, about the self-castration of Origen (Historians treat this story with great confidence). Eusebius writes that Origen, while still young, decided to literally fulfill the covenant from Scripture about the eunuchs, in order to thereby stop various slander against him, because he often talked about faith not only with men, but also with women. Having castrated himself, Origen wanted to keep it a secret, but they found out about it anyway. Bishop also found out about this. Demetrius, as Eusebius writes, even praised Origen “for his zeal... and advised him not to lose heart and... be diligent in the matter of the announcement” 27. Epiphanius, mentioning this, says that some say that he castrated himself with iron, others that he applied some medicinal plants in order to dry up certain places, or even took some kind of potion, which, affecting the memory, reduced voluptuous thoughts. But Epiphanius himself is not too trusting of this story: “We don’t quite believe the extraordinary stories about him” 28. There are many other stories about his hard work, tireless studies in theology, strict ascetic life, etc. Be that as it may, Origen's life took an important turn around 230 or 231. Origen was forced to leave Alexandria forever (the reason for this was the breakdown of his relationship with Bishop Demetrius) 29 and move to live in Palestine. Origen was well received in Palestine. The Bishop of Caesarea, Theoctistus, and the Bishop of Jerusalem, Alexander, patronized Origen, and Origen’s old friend and patron of the arts, Ambrose, also lived there. When a district message regarding the case of Origen arrived from Alexandria, it was not accepted in the Churches of Palestine, Phenicia, Achaia and Arabia. Theoktistus invited Origen to settle in Caesarea, and insisted on his public service in his Church by oral and written instructions. The famous bishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia, Firmilian, also patronized Origen; sometimes he himself came to him, and sometimes he called him to him so that Origen could instruct his flock. It was in Caesarea Palestine, where Origen lived and where a special school had already been formed, that two brothers Theodore and Athenodorus came to him. These were young people eager to receive a philosophical education and preparing themselves for a legal career. Having come to Origen, a man already famous throughout the world at that time, they wanted to listen to his lessons. And it so happened that Origen gradually directed their thoughts from vain philosophy to true philosophy, and both of these brothers remained with Origen and completed a full course at his school (5 years) 30. Subsequently, they were both ordained bishops: Athenodorus was the bishop of Pontus, and Theodore, who received the name Gregory in baptism (this is the famous St. Gregory the Wonderworker), became a bishop in Neocaesarea. The Caesarea school of Origen, after his death, had its successors in the person of the martyrs. Pamphilus († 309) and Eusebius of Caesarea († 340). In Caesarea, Origen's ideas, his theological and exegetical methods spread throughout the East, 31 but in Alexandria his influence remained quite noticeable (St. Athanasius, Didymus), but not so authoritative due to his many incomprehensible religious and philosophical ideas. In the middle of the third century, severe persecution fell upon the Church, undertaken by the authorities by decree of the Emperor. Decia. Origen was already a fairly famous person, even respected by many of the pagans (for example, the philosopher Plotinus), but by law he was called to account. And now, already elderly, but like a youth powerful in spirit, Origen hastened to confess his faith and devotion to Christ. He was imprisoned, where he suffered many severe torments and tortures. True Adamant, he remained indestructible here too. He was subjected to such torture that after he was released he was neither alive nor dead. His old friends and students, delighted that their teacher had become famous for such a glorious confession, sent him their messages (St. Dionysius the Great and others. Origen somehow ended up in Tyre at that time). The wounds inflicted on Origen in prison were so severe that they were the direct cause of his imminent death (c. 254). 1.2 Origen's literary heritage and his teachings As a Christian teacher, Origen was straightforward, sincere, frank and fantastically hardworking. Origen always directly said everything he thought and did not refuse anyone: “whenever a listener came, Origen entered into a conversation with him, instructing him, even if the teacher had to lose his night’s rest” 32. We know Origen’s pedagogical concept from the words of Eusebius, one brief mention that Origen divided the school in Alexandria into two levels; the first offered propaedeutic disciplines, taught by Herakles. Theological disciplines were taught at the second level. Another testimony, a very detailed description of the course of study with Origen, was left to us by St. Gregory of Neocaesarea. At the end of his course of study with Origen, he composed a word of praise for Origen (Panegyric), in which he describes in detail the entire course of his studies with the latter. Gregory's panegyric actually refers to the Caesarea period in the life of Origen. Therefore, the question often arises whether Origen's method in both Alexandria and Caesarea remained the same without any significant changes. Some believe that in Caesarea, in the school founded there by Origen, education was more systematic than in Alexandria. But the researchers did not find any significant changes or differences. So A. Lebedev says that the testimony of St. Gregory about Origen’s teaching at the Caesarea school can also be applied to the Alexandria school “because, without a doubt, in general, Origen’s teaching plan was the same in both Alexandria and Caesarea” 33. Origen's teaching and missionary activity was accompanied not only by the spoken word, but also by many writings. More than 500 conversations have come down from Origen, which he delivered to the people in the Church (mostly in translations, only 20 survived in the Greek original) 34. One interesting document was recently discovered, which is a record of a discussion between Origen and a certain Heraclides. Thus, Origen was something of an expert in matters of faith, an “advocate of Orthodoxy,” whose opinion was listened to by learned theologians and hierarchs. Origen became famous in his missionary work and as an excellent apologist, who compiled a voluminous work in refutation of Celsus 35. Origen's work “Against Celsus” is recognized as the most perfect apologetic creation, a kind of compendium of Christian apologetics 36. Origen can firmly be called the first theorist and systematizer of Christian theology. He had the first experience of creating a harmonious and systematic theological system. His work “On Principles” can be called the first textbook on dogmatics in the history of Christian theology. Origen's theological system is very thoughtful, harmonious and logical, but in many ways it is not flawless (if you look at it from the heights of the post-Nicene period). It was this essay that became a stumbling block and temptation in the Church of Christ, it was in it that all the pros and cons of Origen’s teachings were most clearly reflected, and it was this essay that became fatal in the “Origen case.” Based on this work, we can build the following system: God is a super-existent and incomprehensible Monad, which is absolutely transcendental to this world, but can be understood in part from His creations. In God, Origen distinguishes between the Father and His eternal Logos - the Son of God, Wisdom. It is like a ray of light emanating from the original source. Logos is the image of the Father's hypostasis - the image of the Prototype. He is the Mediator in the creation of this world, in Him everything was created by the Father. The Father not only has the Son, but also the Holy Spirit, who is just as eternal as the Son. Origen, in his commentary on the Gospel of John, reports that in his time there were two equally incorrect opinions about the Holy Spirit: some said that He was created through the Son, others argued that He was uncreated, but only because they recognized Him as the simple, impersonal power of the Father. While Origen resolutely declared his disagreement with the second opinion, he hesitated regarding the first. Sometimes he says that the Spirit is created by the Divine Logos, and sometimes he teaches that He “truly proceeds from God Himself” and is “partaker of the Father and the Son in honor and dignity.” Obviously, Origen did not know how to actually teach about the Holy Spirit, and was influenced by Neoplatonic philosophy. According to the presentation of Origen's triadology by Bl. Jerome, St. Justinian and St. Photius, the Alexandrian didaskal taught about sequential subordination 37 (subordination in the doctrine of the Trinity is found in all of Origen’s contemporaries: in the Holy Martyr Hippolytus, St. Dionysius and others, the only exception is St. Irenaeus, but he was not understood by his contemporaries and was comprehended only in the era of the Ecumenical Councils). Origen was the first to propose trinitarian terminology (essence - hypostasis) 38, which will be brilliantly rethought by the Cappadocians and will become classical. The most vulnerable points of Origen's system are his cosmology, pneumotology (the doctrine of spirits) and Christology. Origen's God is the Creator, Who eternally creates, He did not become the Creator, but is eternally the Creator (this again shows the influence of Neoplatonism, where God and matter are eternal). In its ideal, but not empirical existence, the world is eternal to God; God created and destroyed worlds billions of times 39. God created a world of ideal beings who moved forever towards the Divine until some of the spirits decided to fall away. The consequence of their fall was the formation of our multi-level universe, consisting of various degrees of spiritual beings (angels, people, demons). Those of the spirits who remained with God form the angelic world, those who fell, according to the degree of their cooling towards God, formed the human and demonic worlds. From this cosmology of Origen follows his teaching about Christ. According to Origen, the human soul of the Logos, which, according to the eternal plan of the Father, was to be incarnated, pre-existed even before His incarnation. This was the kind of soul that, of all those who “grew cold” towards God, most of all retained its love for Him. Here are some of the most striking and significant outlines that we have isolated from Origen’s system in order to show his essential features, along which he diverged from church tradition 40 . Origen was a man of his era, and his era was marked by a rethinking of the philosophy of the great Plato. Neoplatonism became the last fortress of paganism, which Christianity had to overcome in its intellectual dominance over the minds of people. Neoplatonism was already formed in a Christian environment, and took a lot from Christianity. Neoplatonism was very similar to Christianity, except for its weaknesses (for example, pantheism), it became the most “acme” of Greek philosophical thought. Origen, as an excellent thinker of his time, simply could not help but be involved in Neoplatonic philosophy, firstly, from external goals (missionary oikonomia), and secondly, from internal goals (Origen tried to build a theological system of Christianity, within the framework of Platonic and Neoplatonic terminology) 41. 1.3 Origen - adamant, Origen - centaur: the posthumous fate of Origen and his teachings It can be seen that already in the 3rd century (maybe already during Origen’s lifetime, but, in any case, immediately after his death), heated debates began over Origen’s system. If the judgments about Origen by Bishop. Demetrius, Herakles and Dionysius are not known to us with all accuracy, namely that they condemned Origen for his dogmatic errors 42. The first debates about Origen's dogmatic errors begin at the end of the 3rd century, under St. Peter of Alexandria. Having become the rector of the Alexandrian School of St. Peter began to gradually cleanse the school of Origen's excesses. His successor at the school, Achilles, did the same. In the East (in Antioch) the voice of St. Eustathius, who criticizes the allegorical method of Origen (Treatise on the Sorceress of Endor, against Origen), criticism and reproaches against Origen from St. Methodius (Treatise on the Resurrection, against Origen). At the very beginning of the 4th century, the torment. Pamphilus and Eusebius write an “Apology for Origen”, from those passages that are known, it is clear that when defending Origen, Pamphilus and Eusebius most of all refer to the work “On the Elements”, which means that the critics most of all saw the danger in this work of Origen. Didim, in mid. IV century, writes a commentary on the books “On the Beginnings.” This comment has not reached us, but the church historian Socrates says that Didymus: “interpreted Origen’s books on the principles and made notes on them, in which he recognizes these books as beautiful, saying that scientists argue in vain, trying to accuse this man and blaspheme his writings - they cannot even understand the wisdom of this man” 43. At this time, Origen was also criticized by Marcellus of Ancyra, who defines Origen's teachings as illegal metastases of Platonism into Christianity. And St. Athanasius the Great calls for Origen to distinguish his own thoughts from those moments where Origen expounds the systems of heretics. St. himself Athanasius resorts to the authority of the “hardworking” Origen, citing his work (including “On the Principles”), in refutation of the Arians 44. In defiance of the Arian disputes, the great Cappadocians (in their youth studying the books of Origen), also refuting the Arians, referred to the works of Origen. The historian Socrates says that: “studying his (Origen - E.H.) writings, they (St. Basil and Gregory the Theologian - E.H.) strongly disputed the Arians, and although the Arians, in confirmation of their teaching, themselves, as it seemed to them, testified to Origen, they (St. Basil and Gregory - E.H.) denounced them and showed that they do not understand the wisdom of Origen" 45. It is therefore quite obvious that Origen's system contained a lot of sound judgment. But at the same time, we must not forget that if we look at Origen’s system (as outlined by him in his book “On Elements”), in general, it is of course false. But for all its falsity, it is difficult not to be seduced by it. It attracts with its genius, originality and logical completeness. St. Vincent (Vincent) Lerinsky very well characterizes Origen as the most brilliant, most prolific teacher of antiquity 46. But the tragedy of Origen, Vincent believes, mainly consists of his arrogance and self-satisfaction with his knowledge and the power of his mind. “The great and glorious Origen used the gift of God with great arrogance, indulged his mind without boundaries, trusted himself too much, put the ancient simplicity of the Christian religion at nothing, imagined himself to have more understanding than anyone else, and, despising church traditions and the teachings of the ancients, interpreted some passages of Scripture in a new way” 47 . Origen fell into his own intellectual trap, which he prepared for the pagans. Prof. Martynov says about Origen’s system: “Origen’s system retains many advantages that strongly attracted its favor. This is a general philosophical concept..., logical coherence and harmony, rational validity, breadth and depth of its formulation - all such qualities that could not help but attract the minds of Christian philosophers” 48. In the East and in Alexandria, at the end of the 4th century, new unrest associated with Origen arose, many sources speak about this, describing in detail these “passions according to Origen.” Thus, Sulpicius Severus in the first “Dialogue” 49 conveys the words of Postumian, who, having arrived in Alexandria just during the heated debate over Origen, shared his impressions of what he saw and heard that happened at the council (probably assembled by Theophilus of Alexandria) 50. The result of the dramatic fate of Origen was that his teaching (or rather, some of his theologumena, which are set out in the 15 anathematisms of Justinian) was anathematized at a local council in Constantinople (543/4), and his name, like the names of some of his followers (Didimus and Evagrius), were attached to the creeds of the 5th Ecumenical Council (553) and repeated on the VIth (Prove. 1), as the names of heretics. In the presentation of the “Origenite disputes” in the scientific world, the question is usually raised about how different the true teaching of Origen is from the Origenism that was condemned at the V.S. This question is resolved by different scientists in different ways. Thus, some are inclined to believe that Origen ≠ Origenism, others believe that Origen = Origenism 51. Prof. N.I. Sagarda called Origen “the father of theological science in the proper sense of the word and at the same time the founder of that theology that reached development in the 4th – 5th centuries” 52. Origen's main merit in the history of theology is that he was the first to build a “system of dogmatic theology.” His essay “On Principles” essentially represents the first experience of a dogmatic system in Christianity 53 . “Origen had a huge influence on the development of subsequent theology,” writes Fr. O. Davydenkov, - and for several centuries Origen’s system remained essentially the only holistic system of Christian theology” 54. The great Cappadocians also relied on this system, avoiding, however, the extremes of Origen. In addition, as an undoubted merit, Origen must be given credit for the development of the scientific-critical method in biblical studies. Origen, himself being a strict ascetic, laid down some principles of ascetic teaching and contemplative achievement; it was these ideas of his that would later be developed by Evagrius of Pontus. 1.4 Life and works of Evagrius of Pontus The personality of Evagrius is no less a unique phenomenon than the personality of Origen. “A philosopher in the desert,” according to A. Guillaumont, Evagrius was almost the only desert intellectual. In the 4th century, when the monastic movement was just being born and the deserts of Egypt and Palestine were inhabited by ascetics, few could boast of such learning and eloquence as Evagrius possessed. You can learn about the life of Evagrius from the “Lavsaik” of Palladius, who personally knew Evagrius 55, in addition, you can glean some important data from the stories of Socrates and Sozomen and others. 56 Evagrius was born ca. 345, in a village called Ivor (in the Pontic region), in the family of a presbyter. Father Evagrius was on good terms with St. Basil the Great, under whose canonical supervision it was (Pontus was then part of the Cappadocia Metropolis). It seems that Evagrius received a good education at home and was noticed by St. Vasily and promoted by him to reader. Thus, Evagrius spent his youth at the feet of the Great Basil. Already at this time, Evagrius received a good education in external sciences. After the death of the pillar of Orthodoxy (meaning St. Basil), who died suddenly in 379 57, Evagrius goes, perhaps not without the desire of Basil himself, to Constantinople to St. Gregory the Theologian, who becomes the “second teacher” of Evagrius. St. Gregory ordains Evagrius as a deacon and Evagrius becomes something like Gregory’s secretary and a faithful assistant in the fight against the Arians. Together with St. Gregory Evagrius was also present at the Ecumenical Council of 381. The splendor and beauty of the capital strongly attracts a young village youth, gifted with wisdom and the gift of eloquence. According to the description of the historian Sozomen, Evagrius stood out for his handsome appearance and loved to dress with taste 58 . When St. Gregory retired, Evagrius remained in the capital under the new hierarch. Having received an excellent education in external sciences, instructed in Christian philosophy by St. Basil and both Gregory, Evagrius becomes a famous church leader and preacher, whose career promises great growth in this area. But suddenly one incident occurs that will turn his whole life upside down. One day he met the wife of an eparch, and a passionate feeling flared up between them, which was about to turn into an illicit relationship. Tormented by heavy thoughts, Evagrius, one fine day, is enlightened by a sleepy vision that seems to show the future outcome of this passionate union. After this vision, Evagrius, bound by an oath, leaves Constantinople and retires to Palestine, where he becomes close to the circle of the educated Roman nun Melania and the presbyter Rufinus 59. Hiding in the desert, Evagrius is overcome by doubts and sadness about the world; he cannot get over the thought of the capital’s splendor and the fact that he deserves a greater honor than to live the rest of his life in the desert. He begins to be overcome by vanity thoughts. But the Lord sent Evagrius a long and debilitating illness for edification. Perhaps, anticipating his imminent outcome, Malania and Rufinus ordain him as a monk and he swears that if he recovers, he will retire to the sultry Egyptian deserts and spend the rest of his life as an anchorite. And it happens that Evagrius recovers again, and, bound by a terrible oath to God, retires to Egypt, blessed by Melania and Rufinus. Evagrius arrived in Egypt c. 383 and remained there (however, sometimes retiring to Alexandria on special business) until his death approx. 399 Evagrius spends the first two years in the Nitrian desert, and then, “having passed the initial test of monastic life” 60, he retires to the Kellia desert. Here God's providence brings Evagrius together with the torch of the monastic life of St. Macarius the Great (Egyptian), Evagrius is in communication with another outstanding contemporary of his, St. Macarius of Alexandria. Possessing extraordinary abilities, a subtle and critical mind, and - most of all - a passion for Christ and a desire to put off the old man, with his passions and lusts, Evagrius indulges in extreme asceticism 61 . So he spent many years, enduring constant spiritual warfare and being tempted by the devil. The main spiritual feat of Evagrius was the feat of fighting the spirit of fornication and vanity. According to Palladius, the demon of fornication sometimes strongly rebelled against Evagrius, with whom Evagrius fought in every way by killing his body, so that even “he sat naked in a well all night during winter, so that his whole body became numb” 62. As Bamberger writes: “chastity (Evagria – E.Kh.) was subjected to the most severe tests, which he met with heroic tenacity” 63. During his diligent ascetic life, Evagrius received the gift of discerning spirits 64. And he acquired a reputation as a person who has an amazing insight into thoughts and is able to discern demonic pretexts even in their infancy. At the end of his life (and Evagrius died at the age of 54), Evagrius acquired such spiritual and physical purity that, as he himself admitted to Palladius, for three years he was not bothered by carnal thoughts. Evagrius gained enormous fame not only among the hermits, but also outside the desert. Evagrius died in 399. 1.5 The literary heritage of Evagrius and his teaching. “An eloquent, original, brilliant writer,” Russell writes, Evagrius was “a far better analyst of the human psyche than a theologian theorist.” ... Displaying a combination of psychological insight and familiarity with all levels of society, from the highest circles of Constantinople to the simple Coptic monks of the Nitrian desert, Evagrius’s works had a wide circulation.” 65. Soon after the death of Evagrius, the works of Evagrius were distributed not only in the Greek East, but also in the Latin West (in translations into Latin made by Rufinus). Evagrius, being a younger contemporary of the founders of monasticism, St. Macarius the Great and others, became the successor of their work and in this he was not alone. A close friend of Evagrius in the desert was Ammon, one of the so-called. “long brothers”, so named for their tall height. Evagrius’s circle consisted of very educated people, they were engaged in rewriting books and made a living that way, but they also wrote a lot themselves, systematizing the spiritual experience of their predecessors and teachers: St. Anthony, Macarius, Pavmo and others. Thus, Evagrius was the first systematizer and theorist of monasticism 66. He had a strong influence on the entire Byzantine, Syrian and no less on Latin spirituality and asceticism 67. Evagrius was an experienced monk, having undergone great trials and battles with demons, he made an invaluable contribution to the development of the doctrine of “sobriety” and mental warfare. Evagrius is responsible for the development and definition of the eight main evil thoughts and the way to resist them, the classification of passions, as well as many other ideas that would later become part of the classics of the genre (for example, the genre of “centurions”, or “gnostic chapters”) 68. Agreeing with Russell and Bamberg, we must admit that even if Evagrius can be called one of the best ascetic teachers, he is not a theoretician. Theological and dogmatic views were greatly influenced, on the one hand, by the great Cappadocians (the triadology of Evagrius fits into the “Cappadocian canon”), and, on the other hand, by Clement of Alexandria and, especially, Origen (in mysticism, anthropology, cosmology and Christology) 69 . Let's make a brief excursion into the theology of Evagrius. Thus, his triadological views are clearly aligned with the Cappadocians. Evagrius says that we must confess “God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit,” three “not in number, but in nature” 70. In Its essence, the Divinity is simple and uncomplicated, It is One and Only, the Father and the Son are of the same nature, the Son is consubstantial with the Father 71. The Holy Spirit is also consubstantial with the Father 72 . Here we observe that the general thought follows the Cappadocians, especially St. Gregory the Theologian, but the influence of Origen in terminology (“One”, “Single”, etc.) is also observed 73. The cosmology of Evagrius is adjacent to Origen, although some researchers believe that he did not understand Origen in its entirety and the cosmology of Evagrius is saturated with “an even greater flavor of Neoplatonism” than that of Origen 74 . So Evagrius accepts the theory of the fall of spirits. “The One” (First Genada) creates an ideal world (second Genada), this is a world of pure spirits, minds (νοες). In this world, at some point there is a “movement” (κίνησις), away from God (the Unit). Then God determines the counsel for the salvation of the world. The Logos of the Father, having found the only spirit (nous) that remained in a motionless state, enters into union with it (the first incarnation) 75; the beginning of the material world is based in the Logos. From this moment on, there is a division in the world (the second genad), into the angelic, material and demonic worlds. The degree of decline of spirits depends on the degree of their falling away from the primordial state. Angels are hot and have a substance similar to fire, the souls of people are clothed in a substance for which the earth served as material, demons are cold and their substance is like cold air, they are devoid of light. With God's help, a person, through asceticism and unceasing, mental prayer, can rise along the ontological scale until he unites with God. On the “seventh” day of judgment, God will determine punishment for all creatures according to their sin. But the punishment will not be permanent and, on the “eighth day,” all minds will be brought to their original state (apokatastasis), and all evil will cease to exist 76 . It is not surprising that A. Guillaumont called Evagrius “a philosopher in the desert,” but unlike A. Sidorov, we tend to understand this expression in a different sense 77 . Evagrius transferred the “Origenite myth” to the monastic environment, adding Neoplatonic ideas to it. Evagrius is a consistent Origenist 78 and, although nowhere does he directly refer to Origen, his dependence on the latter is felt in the very way of thinking and language of Evagrius 79 . A. Sidorov admits that: “Evagrius, having developed a number of erroneous premises of Origen (the pre-existence of souls and their fall, the doctrine of “apocatastasis”, etc.), especially in Christology, gave them a complete heretical flavor,” for which he was justly condemned at the V Ecumenical Council 80. 1.6 Abba or heretic: “Evagrian question” The fate of Evagrius, like the fate of Origen, represents a strange antinomy. On the one hand, Evagrius firmly entered the tradition of Orthodox mysticism and asceticism, giving direction to many of its forms, on the other hand, he was condemned by the conciliar mind of the church as an Origenist heretic. So who is Evagrius: “Abba” or “heretic”? An ascetic teacher or a philosophizing Origenist theologian? In our opinion, neither one nor the other (although more the second than the first, he was still condemned at the council). Following the words of the apostle, who said try everything, hold on to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21), we will try to look at Evagrius from several sides. On the one hand, it is impossible to deny the undoubted contribution of Evagrius to the development of the Eastern contemplative direction in Christian mysticism, the development of ascetic principles, the development of the doctrine of virtues and vices, demonology, etc., which became firmly established in the Christian tradition, which cleansed Evagrius’s thought from evil growths and poured the life-giving well of Christian tradition into a pure source. On the other hand, Evagrius was rightly condemned for his errors in dogmatic teaching, for following Origenite myths. It is unlikely that we should recognize two Evagrievs: an abba and a heretic, as our respected A.I. Sidorov. This would be too simple, and we are already accustomed to idealize and present the Christian tradition “without spot or blemish,” but the historical path of Christianity is much more complex. Many teachers of the Church, in its most ancient period, had to suffer themselves and go down in history with the name of “heretic,” although he served the Church with his entire life and brought it, to some extent, glory, and to some extent, shame. This is how, in our, perhaps too bold, opinion, two geniuses appeared for the church - Origen and Evagrius 81. Evagrius wrote a lot and his works were widespread and popular in the East and West until they were banned, after the condemnation of Evagrius in the V.C. After which in the Greek East they began to fall into oblivion, but continued to be distributed under other people's names (St. Basil the Great, St. Nile, St. Maximus) some of the works of Evagrius, which were most free from those opinions for which he was condemned. In the Syrian East, where Christianity, after the time of Chalcedon, developed independently from the Greeks and parallel to them, the works of Evagrius continued to spread and be translated into eastern languages. Until the end of the 19th century, the name and legacy of Evagrius somehow did not attract attention, but starting with the “Philokalia movement,” when some of his works were included in the Greek, glories. and Russian collections of the Philokalia, Evagrius received a kind of rebirth (rehabilitation) and entered the life of Orthodox spirituality in the 19th century as “Abba Evagrius.” In the 20th century, two brothers A. and K. turned to the legacy of Evagrius. Guillaumont, famous researchers of ancient monasticism in the Syrian and Greek East, and thanks to their works, the legacy of Evagrius began to gradually come out of hiding 82. 2. Asceticism and mysticism of Origen and Evagrius We move on to consider the ascetic and mystical views of Origen and Evagrius. Here we should immediately make a reservation: the fact is that, as it should be when working on an abstract, we are compiling it no more than by extracting the material we need from the relevant works devoted to the ascetic and mystical views of Origen and Evagrius. And here we come across a new problem, which is that there is practically no material we need. At the moment, the corresponding topic is poorly developed in domestic patrolology. Therefore, we should limit ourselves to the minimum that we were able to identify and collect 83 . 2.1 Origen as ascetic and mystic Origen, however, together with his predecessor Clement, stand at the very origins of the ideological current of Christian mysticism. Origen puts forward such a beginning of inner life as Christian love and understands deification as the imagination of Christ in the soul 84. Well-known researcher of ancient church mysticism P.M. Minin calls Origen the “ancestor” of the moral and practical direction of Christian mysticism 85. To what extent this statement corresponds to the true state of affairs, it is now impossible to determine, in view of the fact that there is not a single good study in Russian about this aspect of Origen’s theology, except for the works of P. Minin. Another outstanding Russian scientist-patrologist S.L. Epifanovich, disagreed with P. Minin on this issue, believing that Origen: “can only be considered a mystic with some restrictions: it is unlikely that he was a mind capable of experiencing the high tremors of the mystical spirit” 86. But such a too one-sided understanding is unacceptable. Here it is important to find a middle ground, as V.N. does. Lossky says that Origen was “a Greek who strived for intellectual contemplation, and at the same time a zealous Christian, seeking the concrete realization of union with God in a life of asceticism and prayer.” 87 Origen undoubtedly led a strictly ascetic life. Eusebius describes his life as follows: For many years he lived, discarding everything that fed youthful passions; throughout the whole day he bore the hard work of his asceticism; he devoted most of the night to studying the Holy Scriptures, stubbornly leading the life of the strictest philosopher, now exercising himself in fasting, now strictly measuring his sleep time; He slept, according to his zeal, not on a mattress, but on the bare ground. He considered the most important thing to be observance of the Gospel words of Christ: not to have two coats, not shoes, and not to worry about the future. In a jealousy that did not correspond to his age, he stubbornly endured both cold and nakedness. His extreme non-covetousness amazed those around him. They say that for many years he did not put on shoes at all and walked barefoot on the ground, for many years he refused wine and all food except what was necessary; eventually he began to face severe pulmonary disease. Eusebius. Ts.I. VI, 3: 9 – 12. Origen was distinguished by such ascetic zeal from a young age and retained this way of life until his death. In his ascetic views, Origen proceeded from the Platonic tradition of anthropological dualism of soul and body. The root of Origen's ascetic and mystical views should be sought in his anthropology. The spiritual-physical nature of man, for Origen, is an anomaly, the soul (ψυχη) is nothing more than a cooled spirit, cooled in love for God and descended down the ontological scale, and as punishment clothed in a mortal body. The soul is the image of God; having lost its likeness to God, it lives in the body (the source of passions), as in a prison. To save and restore your nature, you must overcome three stages. The first stage is πρακτικη - practice, doing. This is asceticism, the struggle for dispassion and the cultivation of divine love, with the help of which the order of nature is overcome. Having achieved dispassion, having risen above everything carnal, the ascetic enters the courtyard of his church. Now he has access to φυσικη θεωρια - natural speculation - knowledge of the secrets of the world created by the Logos. Knowledge is an ascent that leads to a more perfect knowledge (θεολογια) of God in Christ. This is true theology. Knowledge of God is Origen’s ideal, salvation and purification of the mind, rooting it in the contemplation of God through His Logos. Victory over the body is the meaning of asceticism, for the body is temporary and transitory. The liberation of the mind, flight from the flesh, its purification and ascension, through φυσικη θεωρια, which leads to θεολογια and deification, which consists in the union of the mind with God. Then God becomes “all in all,” the mind no longer knows anything except God and knows everything in God. Origen's mystical views were reflected in many of his writings. Reading the works of Origen, you are faced with the feeling that on the pages of Origen’s works you see, as it were, two people: a cold intellectual and a fiery Christian. Sometimes they are internally at war with each other, and sometimes they present a striking synergy to a large extent, complementing each other. In the homilies on the Song of Songs, of which only two have come down to us (in the Latin translation of Jerome), Origen appears before us as a man with a deep spiritual and mystical appearance. So in one place of the first homily he says: The Song more than once describes things that are impossible to understand without experiencing it yourself. God knows, I often felt that the Bridegroom was coming to me, that He was already here, next to me; but just as suddenly He disappeared, and I did not know where to look for Him. I desire His new coming - and sometimes He appears a second time: but when I already see Him and can touch Him with my hands, He slips away again and returns again, and so many times until, finally, I hold Him and ascend upward, leaning on my Beloved (Song. 8:5). Origen. Gom. on P.P. 1.7. Here Eugen stands before us no longer as an exegete-allegorist, not a scholar-philologist, not a theologian-theorist, but first of all, as a mystical theologian experiencing the presence of Christ. Without a doubt this is not an abstract, but a genuine spiritual experience. An experience of prayer and spiritual sobriety of the mind, seeking its Groom. In the homilies on the Song of Songs, Origen laid down that current of mystical contemplation, which firmly entered the patristic tradition, outliving Origen himself 88. Origen's mysticism is essentially noetic in nature and orientation. This is the mysticism of the mind - noecentrism, and in this it is insufficient. Origen does not need the salvation of the whole person, but only his mind, his true essence, and not what it became by falling away from God. The undoubted merit of Origen, who can safely be called the pioneer of Christian philosophy, is that he was the first to talk about deification as the most important component of the Christian path. Before Origen, this idea was developed by St. Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement, but it was Origen who was to deeply imprint it in the Christian consciousness 89 . The subsequent tradition of Eastern Christian mysticism had only to translate the unethical context of Origen's mysticism and the doctrine of deification into an anthropological aspect 90 . In the second homily on the Song of Songs one can find a very interesting fragment that cannot be missed by us. Explaining the text of the Song: You are beautiful, O close to Me, you are beautiful; your eyes are like a dove (Song 1:15), Origen says: Do not think that this is said only about the carnal eyes (although it is not useless to think about them), but by entering into the interior of your heart and exploring with your mind other eyes, which “are enlightened by the commandment of God” - for “the commandment of the Lord is the light that enlightens the eyes” (cf. Ps. 19:9) - clarify, strain and develop them in order to sacredly understand everything that is said and, like “the Spirit descending in the form of a dove” (Matthew 3:16), hear: “Your eyes are like a dove” (Song 1:15). Origen. Gom. on P.P. 2, 4. If we assume a priori that here in Origen in this passage it is not an allegoresis, but a mystical interpretation, then we have the first evidence of a vision of light. By plunging our minds into our hearts, we can contemplate with our inner eyes, which are illuminated by the Divine light. There is nothing surprising in the theory we have put forward; Plotinus also spoke about the vision of divine light 91 . But the theory remains just that - a theory - an assumption of unreliability. 2.2 Asceticism and mysticism of Evagrius The ascetic and mystical views of Evagrius are rooted in the views of Origen. Since the Christology and idealistic anthropology of Evagrius are adjacent to Origen, therefore, the goal of asceticism according to Evagrius is the same as that of Origen. Following Origen, as Origen followed Plato, Evagrius considered the body to be the prison of the soul. And if only the one who combined them can non-violently separate the body from the soul, then the separation of the soul from the body is in the power of the ascetic, who in his feat died for everything carnal, but lives in the spirit (Evagrius. Sl. about spiritual. deeds. 52). After all, a soul infected with sin is a mind that has fallen away from the contemplation of the Monad 92. Evagrius also adopts from Origen the three-stage path of ascent to God. The beginning of asceticism is faith, combined with the fear of God; it leads the ascetic through abstinence, prudence, patience and hope to dispassion - the pinnacle of virtues. Then, just as with Origen, dispassion brings peace of mind, its fruit is spiritual love. Spiritual love raises the ascetic to the contemplation of intelligible natures. Finally, through unceasing mental prayer, the ascetic comes to the contemplation of the Trinity. In this state, the soul becomes the mind - a small apokatastasis - acquiring pure prayer. In his writings, Evagrius more than once mentions the ascetic’s vision of light during prayer. Sometimes Evagrius attributes this light to the natural light of the mind 93, and sometimes to the Divine light 94. According to Evagrius, the blessed light of the Trinity represents the action (ενεργεια) of the Divine, and the light inherent in the mind is the action of our mind, which, although related, to some extent, to the light of the Divine, is not identical to it 95. During prayer, an ascetic who has achieved dispassion contemplates the light of his own mind, sometimes the mind contemplates the light of the Trinity, which merges with his own light 96 . Having achieved the gnosis of the Trinity, the soul becomes pure mind and the light of the Trinity is imagined in the mind and the mind contemplates the light of the Trinity. The mind becomes the church of the Divine and God by grace. By intelligibly comprehending God, the mind sees itself in God and God in itself. This is a purified mind (naked mind), which is “perfect in the vision of itself and which has been worthy of participation in the contemplation of the Holy Trinity” 97. He who wants to know God must first of all know himself 98. And he who knows God also knows himself, as the receptacle of God, as the place that receives the light of the Trinity 99. The entire mystical teaching of Evagrius is imbued with intellectualism and, like that of Origen, is predominantly noetic in nature. 2.3 The oldest news about the practice of the “Jesus Prayer” and its connection with the teachings of Evagrius and Origen Prayer is the core of a person’s spiritual life; a religious person differs from a non-religious person precisely in that the first believes and prays, while the second, although he may believe, does not pray. Origen’s teaching on prayer can be judged by his treatise “On Prayer,” written at the request of Ambrose. In which Origen “comprehensively and thoroughly”, in a strict logical sequence, outlined his concept of prayer, which, however, reflects the contemporary tradition 100. According to Origen, prayer is a conversation between the soul and God. In prayer there is no need for verbosity, one should not pray about trifles, but begin to pray having cleared oneself of passionate thoughts, concentrating without distraction, having driven out all passionate excitement from the heart, as if to appear before God. Every thought must be filled with God's presence 101. During prayer, the mind should be cleared of all thoughts and “should not be disturbed by any extraneous thoughts.” When the eyes of the soul ascend to spiritual heights, leaving everything earthly and everything created, stopping exclusively at the “contemplation of God,” then “a certain Divine outpouring from God” descends on the one praying, which lifts the one praying to an indescribable spiritual height, and the soul itself “then renounces its nature (το ειναι) and becomes already a spiritual soul (ψυχη πνευματική) 102. Prayer should not be offered to any creature, not even to the Lord Christ, but only to God the Father, through Christ, our intercessor and High Priest 103. This, in brief, is Origen's teaching on prayer. In general, it reflects Origen’s worldview, is associated with his teaching about the fall of spirits, etc., but Origen’s treatise itself was quite popular in the monastic environment of the 4th – 5th centuries, or rather in the environment that spread the traditions of Origen. The teaching on prayer of Evagrius is in many ways similar to the teaching on prayer of Origen. Similarly, as for Origen, prayer for Evagrius is the path of the soul’s ascent to God, the same path of disembodiment, or what we called small apocatastasis. Prot. I. Meyendorff believed that Evagrius was the great teacher of “smart prayer”, who taught the monks this spiritual way of prayer and union with God 104. But, as V.N. showed. Lurie, such an opinion is “untenable” 105. All that can be said about Evagrius is that he systematized the teaching that was transmitted orally, which was sanctified by three generations (counting the generation of Evagrius himself) of monks who labored in the deserts and indulged in intense prayerful and mystical feats. This partly explains the fact that the later tradition accepted the teaching of Evagrius dedicated to active theology and partly contemplative. Systematizing the teachings of the fathers who grew old in monasticism, such leaders of desert living as St. Anthony and both Macarius, Ammon and others, Evagrius added his own experience to this. Addressing himself among the admirers and followers of Origen, Evagrius built his system in accordance with Origen's and Platonic understanding of the relationship between God and man. The mental prayer of Evagrius, which is “continuous communication of the mind with God,” 106, as mentioned above, is of a noetic nature, and it, contrary to the opinion of some scientists, was not subsequently transformed into the practice of the “Jesus Prayer.” It is better to talk about two parallel developing currents: one of which was represented by the tradition that came from the author of the “Makarevsky Corpus” and which is usually called “mysticism of the heart”, or “Christological anthropology”, and the other current was represented by the tradition that came from Evagrius, with its idealistic and dualistic anthropology, etc. "mysticism of the mind" 107. Later, both of these traditions found their common consensus, through St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Gregory of Sinaiti and St. Gregory Palamas, realized in Byzantine Athonite hesychasm. The concept of the “Jesus Prayer” is directly related to the concept of “hesychasm” 108. Already from the 4th century, the word hesychia entered the lexicon of Christian mysticism and, according to Archpriest. I. Meyendorff, became: “a technical term denoting a state of peace and inner silence, which the monk achieved through victory over the passions and which allowed him to move on to contemplation” 109. Thus, hesychia is the ontological gathering of “the human being and life into its center (“heart”); and through this, gathering in God, as the only source of peace” 110. This tradition has been observed since the very beginning of the monastic movement in the East. The first documented evidence of the use of the Jesus Prayer dates back to the 5th century. These include the works of Blessed. Diadoche of Photikiy, St. Isaiah of Scete, the apothegm from the Alphabetical Patericon (the earliest of all the patericons), the statements of Amma Theodora, an ascetic who lived in the 4th century, in “The Tale of Abba Philemon” written no later than the 6th century, the Jesus Prayer is repeatedly mentioned in the questions answered by St. Barsanuphius and John. Further, the Jesus Prayer is mentioned several times in the “Ladder” of St. John of Sinai (VII century), which had a huge influence on the development of Eastern Christian asceticism. The work of St. Rev. can be considered a consolidation of this tradition. Hesychia, traditionally attributed to St. Hesychius of Jerusalem (5th century), but in fact belonging to a later period (late 7th century), and possibly belonging to Hesychius of Sinai 111. In all these writings the Jesus Prayer is used, either in its short form: “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me,” or “Lord Jesus Christ, help me,” but also in its lengthy form: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me.” The practice of the Jesus Prayer, apparently, took hold in the 5th – 6th centuries, but the practice of short prayer itself dates back to the first generations of monks, St. Anthony and etc. Macarius the Great, only instead of the Jesus Prayer known to us, phrases from Holy Scripture were used: “Lord help me, God come to my help,” etc. The rooting of the practice of the Jesus Prayer was also influenced by Christological disputes in the 5th – 6th centuries. (mainly Nestorianism) 112. Until the mid-twentieth century, it was believed that Evagrius was one of the spiritual ancestors of Byzantine hesychasm. The ideas he laid down in his writings can be traced throughout the entire monastic and ascetic tradition. That the “smart prayer” of Evagrius, with its Origenite and Gnostic tendencies, became the spiritual leaven on which the entire subsequent movement of Byzantine hesychasm was leavened 113. But the latest research has shown that the spiritual-ascetic tradition of the Jesus Prayer and the “smart prayer” of Evagrius cannot be identified. Influence, of course, existed, but it existed through the opposition of the “Orthodox” and “Evagrian” traditions. There is much in common between these traditions, because Evagrius systematized the spiritual experience of his great predecessors in the desert. But there is also a significant difference in these traditions, because Evagrius, the heir to Plato's Academy and a follower of Origen, added Origenite and Neoplatonic dirt to that pure tradition. We are in solidarity with V. Lurie, in that Evagrius not only systematized the tradition of the fathers, but also in systematizing this tradition, retreated from the patristic tradition 114. It cannot be denied that the Orthodox Tradition has accepted some of the profound and spiritual insights of Evagrius. But, as S.S. rightly writes. Khoruzhy: “Tradition in its integrity has quite distinct positions, obviously alien to the named deviations” of the Evagrian heresy, condemned by the conciliar mind of the Church 115. In the bosom of the whole and purest Tradition, that part of the teachings of Evagrius, which was accepted and transformed into the whole of the Tradition, and is filled with meaning from this whole. 1. Haggadah, 1999. – Haggadah literature. – Jerusalem, 1999. 2. Afanasy. About personal Nikeisk. – Athanasius the Great. The message that the Council of Nicaea, having seen the treachery of Eusebius’s adherents, set out its definition against the Arian heresy in a decent and pious manner.// St. Athanasius the Great. Creations: in 4 vols. T.1. – M., 1994. – (Monuments of church writing). 3. Vikenty. About faith. - Vikenty Lerinsky. About the Sacred Tradition of the Church. – St. Petersburg: Scroll, 2000. 4. Question – St. Barsanuphius and John’s guide to spiritual life: in answers to questions from students. – M., 2002. 5. Philokalia. – Philokalia [in 5 vols.]: Vol.1. – Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1993. 6. Evagrius. Thoughts. – [Evagrius] Thoughts.//Creations of Abba Evagrius. Ascetic and theological treatises/. Transl., intro. article, comment. A.I. Sidorov. – M.: Martis, 1994. 7. Evagrius. About prayer. – [Evagrius] A Word on Prayer.//Creations of Abba Evagrius. Ascetic and theological treatises/. Transl., intro. article, comment. A.I. Sidorov. – M.: Martis, 1994. 8. Evagrius. About thoughts. – Abba Evagrius of Pontus. About thoughts.//At the origins of the culture of holiness: Monuments of ancient church ascetic and monastic writing/. Entry Art., trans. and comment. A.I. Sidorov. -M., 2002. – (Orthodox monasticism and asceticism in research and monuments). 9 . Evagrius. Last about faith. – [Evagrius] Message about faith.//Creations of Abba Evagrius. Ascetic and theological treatises/. Transl., intro. article, comment. A.I. Sidorov. – M.: Martis, 1994. 10. Evagrius. Sl. oh spirit. business – [Evagrius] A Word on Spiritual Work, or a monk.//Creations of Abba Evagrius. Ascetic and theological treatises/. Transl., intro. article, comment. A.I. Sidorov. – M.: Martis, 1994. 11. Evagrius. Speculative. – [Evagrius] Speculative.//Creations of Abba Evagrius. Ascetic and theological treatises/. Transl., intro. article, comment. A.I. Sidorov. – M.: Martis, 1994. 12. Eusebius. Ts.I. – Eusebius Pamphilus. Church history. – M.: PSTBI, 2001. 13. Epiphanius. Panarion. - Epiphanius of Cyprus. Panarion (Excerpts) 14. Jerome. Pis. to Trankv. – [Jerome] Letter to Tranquillin.//Blessed Jerome of Stridon. Let your clothes be bright: Sat. letters / Comp. I.G. Shakhmatova. – M., 2006. – (Letters about spiritual life). 15. John. Ladder. - Our Venerable Father John, Abbot of Mount Sinai, Ladder, or Spiritual Tablets. – [M.:] Sretensk. mon-ry; [Krasnodar:] Trinity Word, 1999. 16. Clement. Extract – Clement of Alexandria. Extracts from Theodotus.//Valentine's School. Fragments and evidence/. Transl., preface and comm. E.V. Afonasin. – St. Petersburg: Aletheia, 2002. – (Ancient Christianity. Sources). 17. Lavsaik, 2003 – Palladius, Bishop of Elenopol. "Lavsaik, or the story of the life of the holy and blessed fathers". – M., 2003. 18. Moskh. Meadow. – Spiritual Meadow, the creation of Blessed John Moschus / Transl. from Greek, note. prot. M.I. Khitrova. -Ed. 2nd. – Rep. ed. St. Tr. Sergieva Lazry, 1915. 19. Nemesius. About other people - Nemesius of Emesa. About human nature / Transl. from Greek F.S. Vladimirsky; Comp., afterwords, total. ed. M.L. Khorkov. – M.: Kanon†, 1998. – (History of Christian thought in monuments). 20. Origen. Gom. On P.P. - Origen. Homilies on the Song of Songs / Trans. from lat. N. Kholmogorava //Patristics: new translations, articles. – Nizhny Novgorod, 2001. – (Library of the magazine “Alpha and Omega”). 21. Origen. About prayer. – On prayer and Exhortation to martyrdom. Works of the teacher of the Church Origen/. Per. and note. N. Korsunsky. – Ed. 2nd. – St. Petersburg, 1897. 22. Rufin. Life. – Life of the Desert Fathers: The Creation of Presbyter Rufinus/. Per. from Latin, explanatory and note. priest M.I. Khitrov. - Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1898. - (Trinity Library; Book 3). 23. North. Dial. - Sulpicius Severus. Dialogues // Sulpicius Severus. Essays. – M.: ROSSPEN, 1999. 24. Socrates. Ts.I. – Socrates Scholastic. Church history. – M.: ROSSPEN, 1996. 25. Justinian. Last To Mina. – The word of the most pious Emperor Justinian, sent to Mina, the most holy and blessed archpastor of the prosperous city and patriarch, against the wicked Origen and his indecent opinions // Acts of the Ecumenical Councils [in 4 vols.]. T.3.: IV Council (part 2), V Council. – Ed. 5th, rev. – Reprint. – St. Petersburg: Resurrection; Pilgrim, 1996. 26. Photius. Biblioth. – Photius. Bibliotheca or Myriobiblion (Cod. 1–165, Tr. Freese). – Online publication from the CCEL website. – www.ccel.org. 2.1. Monographs, scientific articles. 27. Alfeev, 2001. – Hilarion (Alfeev), abbot. Venerable Simeon the New Theologian and Orthodox Tradition. – Ed. 2nd. – St. Petersburg, 2001. – (Byzantine Library). 28. Alfeev, 2002. – Hilarion (Alfeev), bishop. The sacred mystery of the Church: Introduction to the history and problems of the name-slav disputes [in 2 vols.]. T.1. – St. Petersburg, 2002. 29. Asketirion, 2003. – Asketirion. Monastic life in Egypt IV – V centuries. – M.: Russian Chronograph, 2003. 30. Bobrinsky, 2005. – Bobrinsky, B., protopr. The Mystery of the Holy Trinity. Essay on Dogmatic Theology. – M.: PSTGU, 2005. 31. Bulkagov, 1994. – Bulgakov, S.N. Non-evening light: Contemplation and speculation. – M., 1994. – (Thinkers of the 20th century). 32. Gartsev. -IP. – Gartsev, M. A. Anthropology in Byzantine thought: towards the characteristics of the conceptual paradigm. – Internet publication. 33. Guroyan, 2003. -Guroyan, V. Embodied love: Essays on Orthodox ethics/. Per. from English O. Korneev, E. Yanzina. – Ed. 2nd. – M.: BBI, 2003. – (Modern theology). 34. Dezei, 2006. – Plakida (Dezei), archim. "Philokalia" and Orthodox spirituality. – M.: PSTGU, 2006. 35. Dunaev, 1999. – Dunaev, A.G. Creations of St. Meliton, Bishop of Sardinia. // Writings of ancient Christian apologists [Reprint reproduction of the ed., published. in 1895, with additional]/ Comp., total. ed., additional, commentary, bibliography, index. A.G. Dunaev. – St. Petersburg: Aletheia; Blagovest, 1999. – (Ancient Christianity. Sources.). 36. Dyakonov, 2006. – Dyakonov, A.P. Types of higher theological school in the ancient Church of the 3rd – 6th centuries. // Dyakonov, A.P. John of Ephesus and his church historical works. Types of higher theological school in the ancient Church of the 3rd – 6th centuries. Cyrus of Batan, Syrian church historian of the 7th century. On the history of the Syrian legend about Mar-Eugene. – St. Petersburg: Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2006. – (Library of Christian Thought. Research.). 37. Epifanovich, 2003a. – Epifanovich, S.L. Rev. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine theology. – M.: Martis, 2003. 38. Epifanovich, 2003b. – Epifanovich, S. L. Bibliographic notes: P. Minin. The main directions of ancient church mysticism. Sergiev Posad, 1916. 87 pp. Ts. 50 k. <Review>// Teach. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine theology. – M.: Martis, 2003. 39. Kartashev, 2002. – Kartashev, A.V. Ecumenical councils. – St. Petersburg: Bibliopolis, 2002. 40. Korsunsky, 1897. - Korsunsky, N. About Prayer, the creation of the teacher of the Church Origen. Preliminary information.//About the Motive and Exhortation to Martyrdom. Works of the teacher of the Church Origen/. Per. and note. N. Korsunsky. – Ed. 2nd. – St. Petersburg, 1897. 41. Krivoshein, 2006. – Vasily (Krivoshein), archbishop. Angels and demons in spiritual life.//Angels and/Archbishop. Valiliy (Krivoshein), priest. Seraphim (Rose); Comp. A. Baranov. – M., 2006. 42. Kuraev, 2001. – Kuraev, A., diac. Where does the soul go? Early Christianity and the Transmigration of Souls. – Rostov-on-Don: Trinity Word, 2001. 43. Lebedev, 2003. – Lebedev, A.P. The clergy of the ancient Universal Church from the times of the apostles to the 10th century. – 2nd ed., rev. and additional – St. Petersburg: Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2003. – (Library of Christian Thought). 44. Lebedev, 2005. – Lebedev, A.P. Two Russian works on patristic science.// Lebedev, A.P. Church history in the light of Tradition: Research. according to history ancient Churches. – St. Petersburg: Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2005. -(Library of Christian Thought. Research.). 45. Lega, 2002. – Lega, V.P. Philosophy of Plotinus and Patristics: a view from the point of view of modern times. Orthodox apologetics. – M.: PSTBI, 2002. 46. Lossky, 2003. – Lossky, V.N. Vision of God. // Vision of God [collection. works] / Trans. from French V.A. Reshikova; Comp. and entry Art. A.S. Filonenko. – M., 2003. – (Philosophy). 47. Lurie, 1997. – Lurie, V.N. Comments // Meyendorff, I., prot. Life and works of St. Gregory Palamas: Introduction to the study. – Ed. 2nd, rev. and additional/. Per. from English G.N. Nachinkin, ed. I.P. Medvedeva, V.M. Lurie. – St. Petersburg, 1997. – (Subsidia Byzantinorossica. T. 1.). 48. Lurie - IP. – Lurie, V.N. The Calling of Abraham: The Idea of ​​Monasticism and Its Embodiment in Egypt. – Internet publication. 49. Martynov, 1886. – Martynov, A.V. The teaching of St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, on human nature. (Research experience in the field of Christian philosophy of the 4th century). – M., 1886. 50. Meyendorff, 1997. – Meyendorff, I., prot. Life and works of St. Gregory Palamas: Introduction to the Study. -Ed. 2nd, rev. and additional/. Per. from English G.N. Nachinkin, ed. I.P. Medvedeva, V.M. Lurie. – St. Petersburg, 1997. – (Subsidia Byzantinorossica. T. 1.). 51. Meyendorff, 2000. – Meyendorff, I., prot. Jesus Christ in Eastern Orthodox theology / trans. from English priest O. Davydenkova, approx. A.I. Sidorova. – M.: PSTBI, 2000. 52. Meyendorff, 2001. – Meyendorff, I., prot. Introduction to Patristic Theology. – Ed. 2nd, rev. and additional – Klin: Christian Life, 2001. 53. Nesteryuk, 2006. – Nesteryuk, A. Logos and space: Theology, science and Orthodox tradition/. Per. from English M. Karpets (Golybina). – M.: BBI, 2006. – (Theology and Science). 54. Omenn. - IP. – Omen, J.O.R. Christian spirituality in the Catholic tradition/. Per. from English N. Vakulenko. – Internet publication: resource – www. a gnuz.info. 55. Radovich, 2005. – Amfilohiy (Radovich), Metropolitan. Hesychasm as the development of the inner world.//Amphilohiy (Radovich), Metropolitan. Spiritual life according to the Alphabetical Patericon. Hesychasm as the development of the inner world. – M.: Obraz, 2004. [Using this poor edition (the publishers managed to make three mistakes in the first and last name of this famous Serbian theologian, calling him Antilohiy (Rodovich)), we quoted it with significant changes, because the translation simply distorts the idea of the original] 56. Russell, 2001. – Russell, J.B. Satan: The Perception of Evil in the Early Christian Tradition. Per. from English A.P. Sanina. – St. Petersburg, 2001. 57. Sidorov, 1993. – Sidorov, A.I. St. Maximus the Confessor: Epoch, life, creativity.//Creations of St. Maximus the Confessor. Book 1: Bogoslovsk. and ascetic. Treatises/. Transl., intro. Art. and comment. A.I. Sidorov. – M., 1993. 58. Sidorov, 1994. – Sidorov, A.I. Evagrius of Pontus: Life, literary activity and place in the history of Christian theology. // Works of Abba Evagrius. Ascetic and theological treatises/. Transl., intro. article, comment. A.I. Sidorov. – M.: Martis, 1994. 59. Sidorov, 2000. – Sidorov, A.I. Notes//Meyendorff, I., prot. Jesus Christ in Eastern Orthodox theology / trans. from English priest O. Davydenkova, approx. A.I. Sidorova. – M.: PSTBI, 2000. 60. Skvortsov, 2003. – Skvortsov, K. Philosophy of the Fathers and Teachers of the Church (the period of apologists). – Kiev, 2003. 61. Spassky, 2006. – Spassky, A.A. Hellenism and Christianity. History of literary and religious polemics between Hellenism and Christianity in the early period of Christian history (150 – 254). – St. Petersburg, 2006. – (Library of Christian Thought. Research). 62. Khoruzhy, 1998. – Khoruzhy, S.S. On the phenomenology of asceticism. – M., 1998. 63. Tsurkan, 2002. – IP. – Tsurkan, A.V. Origen: The problem of interaction between religion and philosophy. – Novosibirsk, 2002. – Internet publication: resource – www.agnuz.info. 64. Bamberger, 1982. – Bamberger, J.E. Evagrius Ponticus: The Praktikos (Chaptes on Prayer). – Kalamazoo; Michigan, 1982. 2 .2 Reference publications and educational literature. 65. Bulgakov, (1994)1868. – Macarius (Bulgakov), archbishop. Orthodox dogmatic theology [in 2 vols.]. T.1. – M., 1868 [reprint 1994]. 66. Gumilevsky, 1996. – Filaret (Gumilevsky), archbishop. Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church. – M.: Pilgrim, 1996. – (Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church in the Studies of Orthodox Scholars). 67. Davydenkov, 1997. – Davydenkov, O., priest. Dogmatic theology: A course of lectures. Part 1, 2. – M., 1997. 68. Dunaev – Khoruzhiy, 2004 – individual entrepreneur. – Hesychasm: An Annotated Bibliography/. Under. ed. S.S. Horuzhego. -Online publication: resource – www.danivius.orthodoxy.ru/hes 69. Sagarda, 2004. – Sagarda, N.I., prof., Sagarda, A.I., prof. A complete course of lectures on patrolology. – St. Petersburg: Resurrection, 2004. 70. Solovyov, 1998. – Solovyov, V.S. Philosophical Dictionary. – Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 1998. 71. Stolyarov, 2004. – Stolyarov, A. A. Patrology and patristics: A brief introduction. – Ed. 2nd, rev. and additional -M., 2004. Epifanovich, 2003a. – P. 25; Meyendorff, 1997. – P. 188. Meyendorff, 2000. – P. 53, 57 – 58. This can be stated with confidence, based on his “Epistle on Faith” (usually placed among the letters of St. Basil the Great - letter 8, but as has now been proven, it actually belongs to Evagrius), and then only if we agree with the thesis that it belongs to the latter. Sidorov, 1994. – P. 49 – 52. We will not consider them, because this is not our task. The best reviews of these disputes, in Russian. language can be called the introductory article by A.I. Sidorov to the works of Evagrius of Pontus: Creations of Aava Evagrius. – M., 1994. – P. 33 – 48 [a good review, not without an apologetic shade], as well as a monograph by Fr. I. Meyendorff. Jesus Christ in Eastern Orthodox theology. – M., 2000. – P. 53 – 76 [considers the very peak of the Origenite disputes, with a detailed analysis of 15 anathematisms]. John. Ladder. 14, 12. Although it is completely known that St. John relied heavily on the achievements of Evagrius. The popular opinion is that the teachings of Origen, Didymus and Evagrius were condemned at the V.S., but serious science accepts it only with a great deal of doubt, or even does not accept it at all, but believes that Origen and “Origenism” were condemned 10 years earlier, at the local Council of Constantinople, and then repeated and consolidated at the V.S., but the fact is that the teaching Origen and Evagrius, developed by their followers, was undoubtedly condemned by the conciliar mind of the Church. Dunaev, 1999. – P. 478 – 479, approx. 193; Sidorov, 1994. – P. 46; Sidorov, 2000. – P. 260; Soloviev, 1998. – P. 343; Kartashev, 2002. – P. 364 – 368; Skvortsov, 2003. – P. 419 – 421; Kuraev, 2001. – P. 432 – 445; Dezey, 2006. – P. 27. Epifanovich, 2003a. – P. 30. In his “Words” St. Isaac refers to the authority of Evagrius 14 times. Asketirion, 2003. – 189 – 190; Sidorov, 1994. – 60 – 70 [A. Sidorov traces the Evagrian tradition from his closest contemporary to St. Gregory Palamas, who “manifests himself as the successor and continuer of the asceticism of Evagrius, creatively assimilated by the patristic tradition.” P. 70]. Dunaev – Khoruzhiy, 2004 – individual entrepreneur. Dunaev - Khoruzhy, 2004. - IP; Omenn. – IP; Meyendorff, 2001. – 238, 240; Sidorov, 1994. – P. 52 The literature dedicated to Origen is incredibly extensive; for example, we will give a list (and even then it is far from complete) of only Russian-language literature on Origen, without touching on the vast foreign literature. 1. Sources: St. Gregory of Neocaesarea. Speech of gratitude to Origen; Eusebius of Caesarea devotes the entire 6th book of his work “Church History” to Origen; this is one of the most important sources about the life and works of Origen. Also see: Socrates Scholastic. Church history. Book 4, ch. 25 – 27; Book 6, ch. 7, 9, 10, 12 – 14, 17; Book 7, ch. 6, 32, 45 [this source is important because it is devoted specifically to the problems of Origen’s theology]; Sulpicius Severus. Dialogues, I, 6 – 7 [also devoted to debates about Origen]; Epiphanius of Cyprus. Panarion. (Against Origen Adamantov, 44 or 64 heresies). [New, rechecked in Greek, with the restoration of places missed by pre-revolutionary translators, but the abridged translation can be read on R. Khazarzar’s website. – www.khazarzar.skeptik.net ]; St. Barsanuphius and John. Guide to spiritual life in questions and answers. Question 606, 608. 2. Educational: Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. Historical teaching about the fathers. – T.1. – P. 178 – 205; V.V. Bolotov. Lectures on history. other churches. T.2. – P. 323 – 324, 330 – 331, 337 – 347; N.I. Sagarda. Full body of lectures on patrol – St. Petersburg, 2004. – P. 554 – 597; L. Karsavin. Holy fathers and teachers Churches. – M., 1994. – P. 63 – 79; Prot. I. Meyendorff. Enter. in the Holy Fathers theology. – Klin, 2001. – P. 103 – 125. 3. Monographs: G. Malevansky. Origen's dogmatic system//TKDA. – 1870 et seq.; V.V. Bolotov. Origen's teaching on the Holy Trinity; K. Skvortsov. Philosophy fathers and teachers. Churches. – Kyiv, 2003. – P. 326 – 421; A.A.Spassky. Hellenism and Christianity. – St. Petersburg, 2006. – P. 140 – 355; P. Minin. Mysticism and its nature. – Kyiv, 2003. – P. 102 – 106; Archim. Cyprian (Kern). Anthropology of St. Gregory Palamas. – M., 1996. – P. 112 – 128; V. Lossky. God-vision. – M., 2003. – P. 353 – 366; A. Sidorov. Evagrius of Pontus: Life, literary activity and place in the history of Christian theology // Works of Abba Evagrius. Ascetic. and theological treatises. – M., 1994. – P. 24 – 52; Diak. A. Kuraev. Where does the soul go? Early Christianity and the Transmigration of Souls. – Rostov n/d, 2001. – P. 286 – 497. 4. Articles: A. Sidorov. Origen’s life path//Patristics. New translations, articles. – Nizhny Novgorod, 2001. – P. 290 – 322 [etc.] Epiphanius. Panarion. (44) 64, 1. Epiphanius. Panarion. (44) 64, 2. Nemesius. About other people 30 (268). Justinian. Last To Mina [ICE. T.3. – P. 528]. Malevansky, 1870. – P.7; Kuraev, 2001. – P.392; Sidorov, 2001. – P. 293. Eusebius. Ts.I. VI, 8. The same tradition is repeated by Jerome. Epiphanius. Panarion. (44) 64, 3. St. Photius, in the “Thousand Book” (outlining the work of the martyr Pamphilus in defense of Origen), reports that two councils were convened on the case of Origen (230/231), the first in which the Egyptian bishops and Alexandrian presbyters gathered and decided to remove Origen from teaching at the school and expel him from Alexandria. Pamphil says that, however, they did not dare to deprive him of his clergy. But then, suddenly Bp. Demetrius and some bishops who were at the first meeting decided to deprive Origen of the priesthood, which was done at another meeting of the council. Photius. Biblioth. Cod. 118. In total, St. Gregory and Athenodorus stayed with Origen for 8 years, because after completing the main course they stayed with Origen for another 3 years. Bobrinsky, 2005. – P. 224; Sidorov, 1994. – P. 27. Lebedev, 2003. – P. 242; Dyakonov, 2006. – P. 450. Meyendorff, 2001. – P. 109. Celsus is a pagan writer of the 2nd century, the author of the work “The Truthful Word,” aimed at criticizing Christian teaching. This work was the most powerful of all those written against Christianity; it penetrated into all areas of Christian teaching, not only its external, but also its internal aspects. Spassky, 2006. – P. 345. Spassky, 2006. – P. 353. “God and the Father, containing everything, influences every being, imparting to each being from His own being, for He is the Existing One. Less than the Father is the Son, whose activity extends only to rational beings, for He is second from the Father. Still less is the Holy Spirit, who acts only on the saints. Therefore, the power of the Father is greater than the power of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the power of the Son is greater than the power of the Holy Spirit, and, again, the power of the Spirit is much greater than the other saints” (On the beginning I, 3: 5 - according to fragments from Jerome and Justinian). In Rufinus's translation this passage is noticeably softened. Although Origen came close to the concept of God as a Consubstantial nature in three hypostases, his denial of the “consubstantiality” of Persons is an important non-canonical thesis. In the teachings of Origen, “The first hypostasis exists substantially, the other two exist incidentally.” Stolyarov, 2004. – P. 128. Similar views were observed in Judaism, for example, in “Bereshit Rabbah (Interpretation of Genesis)” it is said: “The Almighty created worlds and destroyed them until he created the present world. [Until] the Almighty said: “This is good, otherwise it was not good.” Agad., 1999. – P. 37. Among other misconceptions of Origen, it is also worth highlighting: 1) the fact that he rejected the eternity of hellish torment (apocastasis), 2) he taught that bodies after the resurrection would undergo a strong change and be transformed into spiritual ones, and would have a spherical shape, 3) he recognized the possibility that the Lord should water in the world of demons and save demons, in the likeness of how He became human in our world and saved us (however, this is an accusation does not have a solid base). See: Lega, 2002. – pp. 43 – 44, 54. It is difficult, however, to agree with the almost universal opinion that Origen borrowed something from Plotinus. Origen was an older contemporary of Plotinus and made a rather strong impression on the latter (see the story of Porphyry in the Life of Plotinus). To say that Origen was influenced by Neoplatonism or the ideas of Plotinus is completely unscientific and anachronistic. Origen was particularly influenced by Plato, Stoicism and Neopythagoreanism, but not by Plotinus. Tsurkan, 2002. – IP (chapter 2: 1, c; 2: 2, a). According to V.N. Lossky, Plotinus and Origen: “in different religious settings they developed the same themes characteristic of the spiritual aspect of Hellenism: escape, disappearance from the sensory world.” Lossky, 2003. – P. 365. It is known that the conflict with Bishop. Demetrius stood more on a conanic than a dogmatic basis (see Eusebius. Ts.I. VI, 23; Photius. Biblioth. 118; Gumilevsky, 1996. - T.1. - P. 182 - 184). As for Bishop. Herakles, he confirmed the condemnation of his predecessor from the same canonical considerations. True, Coptic sources give a different version: Herakle expelled Origen for the heresy that he spread, but it is difficult to say anything positive about the reliability of this data (in essence, it goes back to Theophilus of Alexandria). Oh St. Dionysius can be said that although he did not cancel the decisions of his predecessors, he was sympathetic to his teacher, and in many ways was his follower. Afanasy. About personal Nikeisk. 27. “I would not have enough time,” writes Vincent, “if I decided to calculate even the slightest share of Origen’s merits, which, however, all related not only to the glory of religion, but also to the greatness of temptation. Who could tear himself away from a man who had such intelligence, such learning, such pleasantness in his manners, and not be better than the opinion that he wants to err with Origen rather than think the truth with others? Martynov, 1886. – P. 56; Lebedev, 2005. – P. 101. For a brief summary of the history of Origenite disputes, see the article by A. Sidorov. Sidorov, 1994. – P. 31 – 47; And also: Skvortsov, 2003. – P. 412 – 421; Kartashev, 2002. – P. 167 – 176; Meyendorff, 2000. – P. 53 – 77. Among the first of our scientists is A.I. Sidorov, the second direction can be attributed to Rev. I. Meyendorff. Sidorov, 1994. – P. 47 – 48; Meyendorff, 2001. – P. 328; Meyendorff, 2000. – P. 7. Quote according to Sidorov, 1993. – P. 42. Origen’s predecessors in this matter were St. Irenaeus of Lyons, whom the same N. Sagarda recognizes as the founder of theological science in the methodological sense, for “Irenaeus “established the basic principles of Church Theology, which essentially remain unchanged for all subsequent times.” Sagarda, 2004. – P. 511. And also Clement of Alexandria. Davydenkov, 1997. – P. 28; Nesteryuk, 2006. – P. 8. Bulgakov, (1994) 1868. – T.1. – P. 41. Davydenkov, 1997. – P. 29. Palladius also wrote a biography of Evagrius, but for obvious reasons it has not survived. The Coptic version of Lavsaik seems to contain an epitome of this life. The literature on Evagrius, so rich abroad, in Russian theology cannot boast of even a single travel article, not to mention a monograph. A recognized expert on the work of Evagrius is the Frenchman A. Guillamont, who owns a monumental monograph dedicated to Evagrius and a dozen articles written by him alone, or in co-authorship with K. Guillaumont (for the latest bibliography on Evagrius, see: Hesychasm: An Annotated Bibliography/. Ed. S.S. Khoruzhy. - Internet publication: resource - www. danivius.orthodoxy.ru/hes). From literature, in Russian. language you can indicate the following: 1. Sources: Palladium, ep. Elenopolsky. "Lavsaik", or the story of the life of St. and blessed fathers (chapter about Evagrius the famous deacon); Rufinus, presbyter. Life of the Desert Fathers, ch. 27; Anonymous. History of the Egyptian monks (about the Nitrian monks); St. Barsanuphius and John. Guide to spiritual life, vopr. 606 – 609; Socrates Scholastic. Church history, book. IV, ch. 23; Ermiy Sozomen. Church history, book. VI, ch. 30; St. Theophan the Recluse. Philokalia. T.1. - WITH. 563 – 568 [combined presentation of the data of Palladius, Rufinus, Socrates and Sozomen]. 2. Monographs: A.I. Sidorov. Evagrius of Pontus: Life, literary activity and place in the history of Christian theology. // Works of Abba Evagrius. – M., 1994. – P. 5 – 75; Lazarus, monk. Asketirion: Orthodox monasticism in Egypt IV – V centuries. – M., 2003 – P. 184 – 205; 3. Educational: Florovsky, G., prot. Byzantine fathers of the 5th – 8th centuries. – M., 1992. – P. 163 – 165; Meyendorff, I., prot. Introduction to Patristic Theology. – Klin, 2001. – P. 237 – 240; A.L. Dworkin. Essays on the history of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church. – Nizhny Novgorod, 2005. – P. 241, 246 – 247; etc. The last few years of his life, St. Vasily suffered from a severe illness that led to cirrhosis of the liver. With all this, St. Vasily did not cease to fight for the purity of Orthodoxy against the Arians, Anomeans, and others, which only left the saint’s already weak health. Philokalia, 1993. – T.1. – P. 567. Sidorov, 1994. – P. 9 – 10. According to Evagrius himself (in Lavsaik), since he settled in the Kellia desert, he has not eaten: “no salad, no greens, no fresh plants, no tree fruits, no grapes, did not wash his body, did not eat meat, bread, wine, or anything that is cooked on fire, except for some raw vegetables and a small amount of water.” Lavsaik, 2003 – P. 252. Only at the end of his life, due to an upset stomach, Evagrius slightly weakened his fast. Bamberger, 1982. – P. XLIII. Sidorov, 1994. – P. 14; Sidorov, 2002. – P. 97; Lurie, 1997. – P. 406; Khoruzhy, 1998. – P. 54, approx. 35. Lossky, 2003. – P. 394 – 395; Florovsky, 1992. – P. 165. Dezey, 2006. – P. 26 – 27; Lossky, 2003. – P. 394 – 395. Evagrius. Last about faith, 4 – 5. Evagrius. Last about faith, 5, 7, 21, 22, 29. Evagrius. Last about faith, 30. The terms μονας and ενάς go back to the Platonic tradition; they are key in Neoplatonism; Origen transferred them to the Christian tradition. The roots of this teaching can already be observed in Clement of Alexandria. Clement. Extract 19, 1 – 5. See: Guillamont, A., Guillamont, C. Evagre le Pontiquë Traite pratique ou le moine, SC 170 – 171, 1971; Bamberger, J. E. Evagrius Ponticus: The Praktikos (Chaptes on Prayer). – Kalamazoo; Michigan, 1982. – C. LXXV – LXXVII; ABOUT . Clément. Origins. Theology of the Fathers of the Ancient Church, M., 1994. – P. 332 – 334. I expounded on Russell’s book: Russell, 2001. – P. 163; Question 607. A good article by Klein is devoted to the Christology of Evagrius (F. Kline. The Christology of Evagrius and the Parent System of Origen // Cisterian Studies. 1985. No. 20. - P. 155 - 183), which examines the teaching of Evagrius about the eternal Logos and the Christ-mind. See: Sidorov, 1994. – P. 5. There is no point in doubting this, based on the fact that Evagrius does not appeal to the authority of Origen in his writings. It should be borne in mind that the whole life of Evagrius is, as it were, saturated with the Origenite spirit: in his youth he turns to the “Cappadocia circle”, where, as is known, the books of Origen were studied, then we see him in Palestine with Rufinus and Melania - zealous Origenists, again - in the Nitrian desert he becomes close to Amun, one of the “long brothers”, who, according to contemporaries “I re-read all the books of Origen and Didymus.” Florovsky, 1992. – P. 165; Meyendorff, 2001. – P. 237 – 238. When one of the recipients is blessed. Jerome, named Tranquillinus, asked whether it was worth reading the works of those church writers who were mistaken, then Jerome answered him like this: “For my part, I think that Origen, for the sake of his learning, should be read like Tertullian, Novatus, Arnobius, Apollinaris and some other church writers, both Greek and Latin - read in order to choose their good and beware of the bad, according to to the apostle who says: Test everything, hold on to what is good (1 Thess. 5:21)." Jerome. Letter to Trenkv. They are preparing a complete critical edition of the works of Evagrius of Pontus. The works of P. Minin and I. Popov can be considered the beginning of research on ancient Christian mysticism, but Minin, although he has information about the mystical views of Origen, lacks data about the mystical views of Evagrius. I.V. Popov, in his article “The Idea of ​​Deification in the Ancient Church,” completely ignores Origen and Evagrius, not mentioning them at all. One of the best works in Russian science dedicated to the ascetic teaching of the Church should be recognized as the monumental monograph by S.M. Zarina, consisting of two voluminous volumes (currently only the second has been republished). But this work also provides an exposition of ascetic teaching according to the “usual paradigm of external dismembering description. in the key of detailed systematization, scholastic classifications and schemes.” Khoruzhy, 1998. – P. 25. Our work is prosoporgaphic in nature, and we need works that present the ascetic and mystical tradition based on research into the traditions of individual persons. In this sense, the essay by V.N. is very useful for us. Lossky’s “God Vision”, which we put at the forefront. Some of the most valuable scatterings of the ascetic views of Origen and Evagrius can be found in the works of Archpriest. I. Meyendorff, V. N. Lurie and Bishop. Illarion (Alfeev), who are involved by us in addition to the study of V. Lossky. Minin, 2003. – P. 102; Tsurkan, 2002. – IP. Epifanovich, 2003b. – P. 185. The image created by Origen would subsequently be developed by many fathers, starting with St. Methodius of Olympia, St. Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa, St. Macarius, Nilus (Evagrius?), Maximus the Confessor, who canonized this image, clearing them of the heterodox tendencies of Origen’s thought, giving them an orthodox orientation. Minin, 2003. – P. 105 – 106. For Origen, as we said above, deification is the union of the mind with God; there is no place for the deification of the body in Origen’s system. For the Orthodox tradition, deification is the ascent of the individual to the likeness of God, in which all nature is adored, and not just the mind. According to Rev. Maximus the Confessor: “The solid and worthy basis for the deification of human nature is the Incarnation, which makes man a god to the extent that God himself becomes man.” Guroyan, 2003. – P. 30 – 31. Bulkagov, 1994. – P. 99. Especially see note. No. 38 on page 380. Sotnitsa III, 28. – Quoted. according to Lossky, 2003. – P. 397. Evagrius. Speculative. 45; About prayer. 74. Evagrius. Thoughts. 3; About thoughts. 42 Alfeev, 2002. – T.1. – P. 169; Alfeev, 2001. – P. 369 – 371. Sotnitsa III, 6. – Quoted. according to Lossky, 2003. – P. 398. Philokalia. – T.1. – P. 601. Korsunsky, 1897. – P. 4 – 5; Alfeev, 2002. – T.1. – P. 166. Meyendorff, 1997. – P. 188. Lurie, 1997. – P. 406. Archbishop also finds this point of view a little exaggerated. Vasily (Krivoshein), saying that, although the influence of Evagrius was quite large, but “the spiritual direction represented by the “Spiritual Conversations” of St. Macarius. and the works of St. Diadoche, was more influential and mystically significant." Likewise, “the mysticism of the Jesus Prayer... alien to Evagrius, left a deeper and more lasting mark on Eastern spiritual life than all the contemplations of Evagrius with their numerous subdivisions.” Krivoshein, 2006. – P. 44 – 45, approx. 42. Although some scientists want to get rid of such schematicism, it is still impossible to do without this scheme. Since the differences in traditions are obvious, according to M. Gartsev: “If in the mysticism of the followers of Macarius of Egypt (up to the hesychasts of the 13th – 14th centuries) the understanding of the “heart” as the focus of intellectual and emotional life prevailed and the extremes of dualistic anthropology were blocked, then in the speculative mysticism of the Origenist of the 4th century. Evagrius of Pontus, the Neoplatonic concept of catharsis was linked not only to the dualism of soul and body, but also to the dualism of soul and mind.” Gartsev. - IP. We can say that subsequently these two movements could unite and form into one tradition, cleared of evil growths and represented by the teaching of St. Maximus the Confessor and representatives of the Byzantine hesychast tradition. Hesychasm - from Greek. – ησυχια – peace, silence, silence – prayerful silence. Meyendorff, 1997. – P. 187. Alfeev, 2002. – T.1. – P. 177. Lurie, 1997. – P. 409; Lurie -IP. Meyendorff, 1997. – P. 193 – 194. Khoruzhy, 1998. – P. 54, approx. 35.