ГЛАВА 2. КОНЦЕПЦИЯ ИСТОРИЧЕСКОЙ ПРИЧИННОСТИ ЕВСЕВИЯ КЕСАРИЙСКОГО

By the fourth century, when Eusebius produced the first Ecclesiastical History, there was already a strong intellectual tradition with which the early Christian authors had to reckon. History written in the early Christian period was largely determined by the rules and stereotypes of pagan and Greco-Roman historiography, which dates back to Herodotus. However, for Christian historians, the standards and traditions of ancient historiography presented many problems. Within this classical tradition, virtually all historians were of the opinion that the historical process was governed by the actions of Fortune, that the free human will was influenced by Fate, and that the gods intervened in history with their omens, retribution, punishment, etc. Fate (fortuna) was not only an abstract concept that was discussed at an academic, philosophical level. Throughout Greek culture, this motif was an expression of a basic, fundamental attitude towards life 229. Fortune, Fate, omens, retribution were discussed so often and played such a large role in Greek and Roman historiography that the Christian historian was forced to deal with them, start from these categories and, in order to develop a consistent Christian understanding of history and its active forces, reject them or adapt them in some way to Christian purposes. Therefore, Eusebius faced the difficult task of revising these basic ideas and somehow relating them to the Christian vision of God and the Christian interpretation of history. § 1. FATE, FATE, CHANCE IN THE HISTORICAL CONCEPT OF EUSEBIUS Fate was the most important category of consciousness, with the help of which the entire picture of the world of the ancient Greeks and Romans was built. In its most general form, the concept of “fate” can be defined as “an inevitable necessity that governs all things, it is a completely incomprehensible force to which all people are subject and which can either be personified or appear impersonal” 230. When Eusebius began writing his Ecclesiastical History, the concept of Fate, Fate (fatum, ειμαρμένη) was very popular and associated with many things. Classic stories with their oracles, visions and omens, astrological calculations and dreams were already revered as masterpieces of literature Fatalism, chance, the problem of free will - in the traditional pagan understanding of history, everything it was tied together. In the early Christian period, apparently, there was widespread fear of Rock, Fate. The philosophical system of the Stoics was very popular at the beginning of the 1st millennium, considering Fate as the reason for the emergence of everything in the world “The Law of Fate fulfills its right. No one's prayer touches him, neither suffering nor mercy will break him. He follows his irrevocable path, the destined follows from Fate. Just as the water of fast streams does not run backward and does not hesitate, because the following waters rush earlier ones, so the chain of events obeys the eternal rotation of Fate, and its first law is to observe the decision” 231. Based on the fact that all phenomena of nature and society are covered by one law, the Stoics considered it possible to predict all phenomena of the future and use for this purpose observations of the configurations of celestial bodies, predictions of the future by oracles, and fortune telling. Even fortune telling by the flash of lightning or the entrails of animals received philosophical justification from the Stoics 232 . In the first centuries of our era, many variants of Gnostic heresies spread, which promised, as the main element of salvation, freedom from the 7 planetary deities who rule this material world in accordance with the all-determining ειμαρμένη For Eusebius, such an explanation of history was unacceptable. For him, the only possible solution to this problem and the only explanation for what was happening could be the recognition that the world order is, to one degree or another, under the control of the Most High God. Thus, Eusebius, one way or another, had to resolve the issue of the influence and relationship between Fate (in different guises) and God on the historical process. In addition, he was strongly influenced by another feature of the Greek tradition, coming from Herodotus, in which the flow of historical events is described as the history of human decisions. According to ancient scholars, anthropocentrism was a characteristic feature of Greek historical thought. The ancients were characterized by “reducing events of world significance to ordinary human facts of a room scale” 233. “The ancients were interested only in the feelings, motives and characters of individual people and entire personalized states. In addition to the intervention of supernatural forces, this (and only this), in their opinion, shaped the course of human history 234. This contrast (with the new historiography) reveals a fundamental difference in views regarding the position of man in the cosmos, and it is here that the central feature of the ancient point of view is revealed to us. They made a tacit and unconscious assumption that the only causes that can be taken into account in historical work are the immediate causes and experiences of individual people or personified states. The first cause is the goal of the actor, and this is determined by his character. Christian history, thus, had to not only foresee its understanding of the historical process, but also express its attitude to the traditional, now habitual, explanations developed by ancient historiography. Eusebius was forced to foresee his own solution to the problem, which would show the influence of Fate on the course of human history, and the role of God and their own human decisions in this process - an explanation understandable to people brought up in ancient traditions, within the framework of the old culture, and at the same time appropriate new, Christian teaching. The first historian of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Josephus, also faced with this problem, simply took the Greek words traditionally used for the description. Fates (είμαρμένη, χρεών etc) and used them to denote prophecies, Divine foreknowledge, etc. 236 Eusebius, although he admired the historical works of Joseph, approached this problem completely differently 237. In his main work - “Ecclesiastical History” - Eusebius does not use the Greek concepts τύχη, είμαρμένη, χρεών, μοίρα, etc. The word είμαρμένη occurs only once (IV, 3, 2), and not independently, and in the title of the work of the author of the 2nd century, in the title of the dialogue between Bardesan and Antonin “On Fate” (Περίείμαχρμένης). Twice in the text of Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” there are words with the root μοίρα, but in the meaning of these words there is nothing reminiscent of Fate, the word άμοιρος (V, 1.49) has the meaning “deprived of anything”, “deprived”, and the word μοίρα (X, 5, 21) is translated as “party” "hostile side" Thus, Eusebius seems to avoid using those words that were traditionally associated with the concept of Fate. In other writings (Praeparatio Evangelica, for example), Eusebius specifically refutes the traditional concept of Fate. It is interesting that at the same time he does not present theological, strictly Christian arguments, but reproduces the arguments of Aristotle, the Cynics, and the Epicureans. He argues against rigid determinism and fatalism, citing the so-called “lazy” argument or, as it is also called, the “marathon runner with a broken leg” argument (PE 6 6 8–12 (234ad), Eus, Contra Hier, 39 5). The essence of this argument is that if we accept as true that all events are predetermined by Fate and nothing can change the given course of events, then we will be forced to admit the absurd consequences “If a person is destined to be the best shooter, then he will always hit the target, even if he is blind in both eyes,” or “if a person is destined to be the winner of the Olympic Games in running, then he will definitely come to the finish line first, even if he breaks his leg.” The second argument against Fate, used by Eusebius, can roughly be called a “moral” argument. According to his logic, if a human decision was determined by a force beyond human control, then that person cannot be held to blame or responsible for its consequences. At the same time, Eusebius actively uses the terms άνάγκη and δίκη, which could also be associated with Fate. It must be said that in the Greek language there are several concepts that are in one way or another connected with the understanding of Fate. However, for Eusebius they are not equivalent. He actively uses some concepts, despite their pagan origin, while others he never uses. Obviously, such selectivity of the Christian historian is not accidental. Behind each of these concepts there is a whole complex of images, associations and ideas. By the time of Eusebius, these concepts had come a long way in evolution. In ancient literature, they gradually turned from abstract concepts into powerful gods. In Plato, for example, the personified Ananka becomes not just one of the ordinary goddesses of fate, but the supreme arbiter of destinies 238. As V.P. Goran shows, in Plato’s Er-myth (“State”, pp. 616 et seq.). Ananka is depicted in all the grandeur of her cosmic role. Plato places Ananka above the Moiras. She is the mother of the Moiras, who are relegated to the position of her daughters, that is, beings younger than her and acting as her assistants. The axis of the spindle that she rotates between her knees is the axis of the world. The very image of this spindle acquired the scale of an image symbolizing a single pattern of movement of cosmic spheres 239 . Over time, Ananka begins to be associated not only with an omnipotent cosmic force, but also acquires the meaning of inevitability, grave inevitability. In the Orphic image of Ananka with a whip, which became established in the minds of the Greeks, apparently, in the 3rd-4th centuries BC. e. 240, it is clearly shown that the power of fate over oneself was perceived by the ancient Greek as something painful for him. Fate acts for the individual not only as a force external to him, but also as a force of brutal external coercion. Among the Orphics, this feeling of burdensomeness for the individual of the power of fate over him is quite clearly manifested in the fact that Ananka turns out to be a means of punishment. The hopeless fatality of its power over the individual is emphasized not only by the fact that it is a necessity itself, but also by the fact that there is no salvation from it even in death, for it is assigned just after death as a posthumous punishment 241. Thus, Ananka was associated with an omnipotent cosmic force, inevitable and threatening punishment. Another concept traditionally used by the Greeks to denote fate is Δίκη As V.P. Goran shows, “in Anaximander, the image of Fate comes close to the image of Dick, the goddess of justice, whose actions are also of a universal cosmic nature” 242 . These images are related, but at the same time they are significantly different. Dickie’s actions are no longer the naked arbitrariness of Fate. They personify the principle of justice. There is logic in them, a reasonable, rationally explainable beginning of Δίκη, apparently already has the character of a universal law, common to everyone, and not of individual predestination. “In the Hellenistic period, the images of Diki and Ananka are overshadowed by the image of Tyukha and gradually lose their meaning” 243. The Hellenistic image of Fate (τύχη) appears very clearly in the work of Polybius. The designation and internal content of this concept in Polybius differ significantly from similar concepts of previous eras. For the archaic and classical Greeks, fate seemed to be a kind of individual predestination of each person (μοίρα, εΙμαρμένη, etc.). Fate can be known through oracles and fortune telling, but cannot be changed. It is determined at the birth of a person once and for all. In the Hellenistic era, the idea of ​​fate changes significantly. It begins to be perceived as some kind of capricious incident 244. In many ways, this change in ideas can be explained by the fact that the time of Hellenism was characterized by a dynamic change in the destinies of both individuals and entire states. The picture of the surrounding world was changing almost before our eyes, and this gave rise to the idea of ​​a certain force that, at its will, could subject anything to change 245. Thus, by the 4th century AD. e. The Greek mythology of fate had a rich tradition. In the Greek language there were several concepts that were somehow associated with Fate. However, gradually the concept of Tyukha (Fate-Chance) comes to the fore, replacing or, rather, pushing into the background the concepts of Δίκη and A νάγκη. Perhaps it was precisely due to the fact that by the 4th century they ceased to be associated with powerful pagan gods that it became possible to include these concepts in the lexicon of Christian thinkers. A νάγκη acquired a neutral meaning and now simply meant “need,” “necessity,” something necessary, the compulsion of some action, or direct coercion. Δίκη came to mean precisely “justice”, “justice”, “court”, “court decision”, “fair punishment”, etc. Obviously, Eusebius’ choice of these categories was not a mere accident. In Eusebius, the use of the concept of δίκη has, as it were, two levels: the first - ordinary, relating to the activities of people (V, 21.3, VI, 9.4, X, 5, 2), and the second - associated with the activities of transcendental forces. Moreover, in the writings of Eusebius, δίκη, as a rule, appears as a manifestation of Divine power and is often used in combination with the definition θεου (God). Divine punishment (I, 8, 3, IV, 6, 3, II, 1, 12, VIII, 14, 7, IX, 6, 1, X, 4, 29, X, 4, 59), Divine Judgment (III, 5, 3, II, 6, 8, II, 7, 1, II, 10, 1, III, 5, 6, VI, 9, 7, VII, 30, 21, IX, 9a, 12, IX, 11, 5–6), the inevitability of the judgment of the All-Seeing Lord (VI, 9, 8), holy Truth (IX, 7, 2), etc. No less important in classical Greco-Roman historiography was the concept. A case that was denoted by the terms fortuna, τύχη. In all likelihood, this theory represented another side, another aspect of the concept of Fate. As V.P. Goran emphasizes, the affirmation of the image of Fate – “Quiet” – terminologically emphasizes the strengthening of irrationalistic-indeterministic tendencies in ideas about fate. This image captures the attitude of ancient man to fate as something not only external, but also accidental for a person. V. P. Goran sees in this symptoms of a crisis of the very idea of ​​fate. Already in the image of “Tikha”, fate is presented as an accident, therefore, as something, by the very content of this concept, incompatible with the essence of the idea of ​​fate, namely with the predetermination, the inevitability of what is destined by fate. This shift in attitude towards fate is also reflected in mass consciousness 246 . It is in this understanding that the idea of ​​Fate-Chance was very popular in the Hellenistic era. Thucydides, Polybius, Sallust all used this terminology and actively developed this idea. In classical Greek and Roman history, the action of Chance, or Fate, meant an unexpected occurrence created by the confluence of two or more independent chains of historical events. As a rule, these were situations that arose against the will of a person, which he could not control or foresee. This filled history with an anxious anticipation of how the chips would fall. Eusebius also had to deal with this aspect of the pagan historical tradition, but he had to develop an attitude towards it that was consistent with the new Christian philosophy of history There is still heated debate in the historical literature about whether Eusebius shared this concept and how he explained the random events of history. A very popular point of view is that, having introduced as the initial model of interpretation the concept of Divine Providence guiding historical movement and determining “human ways,” Eusebius (and his successors) completely abandoned the key concepts of fate and chance for ancient historiography as the main principles governing history, and at the same time refused to recognize any significance for people and their actions. And this new philosophy of history marks a complete break with the traditional pagan interpretation 247. This position has been subject to quite thorough criticism in the literature. The tactics of opponents boil down mainly to finding the use of traditional Greco-Roman ideas in the writings of early Byzantine historians. The conceptual connection of Eusebius with antiquity is indicated, in particular, by A. Momigliano, G. Chesnut, R. Grant, G. Trompf. They strive to prove that many ideas and concepts of ancient historiography, somewhat revised, confidently entered the conceptual toolkit of church historians and occupied an important place in it 248. G. Chesnut, for example, writes that Eusebius “placed at the center of his philosophy of history the idea of ​​Fate as a confluence of circumstances of history. He changed the name and called it τάσυμβεβηκότα, “cases” of history, instead of τύχη, but the idea was the same” 249. So, G. Chesnut sees in the work of Eusebius the ancient theory of Fate, Chance, slightly modified, dressed in Christian clothes. The researcher's evidence consists of three points. The first concerns the terminological aspect. He draws attention to the fact that Eusebius quite often uses traditional Greek concepts, and if he refuses some of them, he replaces them with others that are similar, for example, such as καιρός, τά συμβεβηκότα, etc. At the same time, their content, from the author’s point of view, remains unchanged. The logic of the English researcher is as follows: Eusebius does not use the word τύχη at all. Obviously, he needed a word that had never been used to name the pagan deity of success or the guardian spirit of the city or any other object of pagan cult. A word was needed that would not evoke previous religious associations, but at the same time, in its meaning, would be synonymous with τύχη. And Eusebius, according to Chesnut, finds it in the word τά συμβεβηκότα, used by Aristotle in his Physics to describe the actions of Fate. To prove his concept G. Chesnut also attracts the works of other early Christian historians - Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Evagrius of Pontus. Analyzing their works, he comes to the conclusion that “even when the usual pagan word τύχη was avoided, euphemism crept into their writings. For Eusebius, who used Aristotelian terminology, such expressions were the τά συμβεβηκότα, or “chance events” of history. For Socrates, Sozomen and Evagrius, this is the concept of kairos (καιρός), an all-changing event, a critical moment that could raise a person to the heights of power and then just as easily destroy everything... This alternation of bad and good was an important part of the basic structure of historical existence for these historians, and therefore they had to deal with this issue in the most careful way in order to create a Christianized version of classical history writing in the tradition of Herodotus and Polybius. 250. As you can see, from the point of view of the English researcher, both συμβεβηκότα and καιρός are just other names to designate the traditional ancient categories of Fate and Chance. Despite the originality of this concept, some points raise certain doubts. Indeed, Eusebius does not use the word τύχη at all. This conspicuous absence of any reference to it is precisely what distinguishes the approach of the first Christian historian. However, what is behind this? Does the author only reject the old (ancient) term, replacing it with a new one, or does he reject the very idea of ​​Fate or Chance? Τά συμβεβηκότα is a substantivized perfect participle of the verb συμβαίνω, so it could be translated simply “that which happened,” “that which happened.” If the verb συμβαίνω is analyzed in its root meaning “to come together,” then the participle could have the meaning of “coming together” (chains of causally determined historical events) or “confluence of circumstances.” In itself, ΟΒοτάσυμβεβηκότα has, it seems to us, a neutral meaning and does not carry the tragic connotation that the word τύχη had in antiquity. Therefore, it is unlikely that these two terms could express the same idea. Probably, now this unexpected confluence of circumstances did not have the frightening meaning that is clearly felt in classical ancient historiography. Even if the human future was completely unknown, it did not evoke fear of the power of blind chance, but was combined with a strong confidence that everything was in the power of God. and even in the most critical situation, the Lord will not abandon those who love Him. Secondly, the word τά συμβεβηκότα, as G. Chesnut himself admits, was used to describe the actions of Fate (τύχη) only in one place in Aristotle’s “physics” (Aristotle. Physics. 2. 5. 197a) 251. In this regard, the question arises: “Did the entire readership of Eusebius know this treatise of Aristotle so well that, having encountered the term τά συμβεβηκότα in the text, they would immediately correlate it with the concept of Fate?” Thirdly, it is worth paying attention to the fact that the term καιρός was not introduced into Christian historiography by Socrates and Sozomen. It was very actively used by Eusebius in his “Church History”, and this term acquired a completely new meaning from him, different from the ancient one. In the new, Christian interpretation, this is not just a situation that arose by chance, a purely mechanical combination of various circumstances. This is the moment in which the real interaction of human free will and Divine Providence is manifested, the moment of the discovery of God, his intervention in human history. It is no coincidence that the concept of καιρός turned out to be not only acceptable, but also important for Christian thinkers. In addition, Eusebius (and his successors), as it seems to us, did not at all strive to imitate Herodotus or Polybius in everything and adapt ancient historical writing to Christian goals. In the introduction to Chapter V, Eusebius directly says that he feels like a pioneer. He writes a new history, built on completely different principles (Euseb, NOT V, praef). Taking these points into account, we risk disagreeing with the opinion of the English researcher. It is unlikely that Eusebius uses the previous ancient idea of ​​Fate and Chance, only changing the names of these categories. In our opinion, the writings of Eusebius reflect rather the opposite process. Eusebius abandons only a few traditional Greek concepts that evoked strong pagan associations; he continues to use other, more neutral terms, but at the same time reinterprets them and gives them new content. Thus, in every historical set of circumstances, which, according to the same G. Chesnut, “classical Greek and Roman historians would attribute to Fortune” 252, was operative in Eusebius. Divine providence (πρόνοια), bringing τά συμβεβηκότα into any order (RE 6 6 45 (249cd), 7 12 1–2 (320c)). God guides τά συμβεβηκότα to achieve his goals, and Eusebius gives a number of examples of such divine guidance of “accidents” in history. Events unfold in such a way that Constantine was able to be present at the death of his father Constantius and thanks to this he accepted the throne as his father's heir (Eus, Vita Constantini, 1 18). Emperors who persecuted Christianity faced circumstances (τά συμβεβηκότα) arrayed against them for purposes of divine punishment (Eus, VC, 1 23). The troubles that befell the Jews since the time of Pontius Pilate are also described as τά συμβεβηκότα (Eus, HE, II, 5, 6, II, 6, 3, III, 5, 7). Thus, the term τά συμβεβηκότα, even if it was used by Aristotle to describe the actions of Fate, now it rather denotes historical events, at first glance unexpected, but as it becomes obvious from the entire historical perspective, they did not happen by chance, but according to the will of God and the secret plan of God to encourage some, punish others, or guide others to the path of truth. Thus, Eusebius, using previous concepts, terms, ideas and without loudly declaring his rejection of them, ultimately comes to a fundamentally different understanding of historical causality. The second proof of the English researcher concerns what a case is and how to understand it. Gl. himself Chesnut views a case as a confluence of circumstances, or more precisely, the intersection of two or more natural, causal processes. In this regard, he particularly examines the concept of nature (φύσις), natural processes, which he finds in Eusebius. “The Greco-Roman world had a very clear concept of nature (φύσις). The word φύσις implies the normal process of growth, functioning and behavior patterns. Even Herodotus used this word to designate behavioral patterns and possible limits of activity of a certain person or thing. This remained one of the main meanings of the word in Greek thought until the 4th century AD. e. Eusebius used it in the same sense. Eusebius emphasizes that nature has laws and that these laws of nature apply universally to all things, precisely indicating the course from the beginning to the end of each of the natural processes that constitute the essence of the universe" 253. “Eusebius calls them νόμοι. They were rules that determined such things as the position of the earth in the world, the regular movements of the sun, moon and planets, annual seasonal cycles, geological structures, etc. In addition, physical limitations affected every type of living thing. The cosmos as a whole was filled with countless living organisms, each trying to carry out its own “natural processes.” The collision of the specific natural activity of one specific natural organism with the specific natural activity of another specific natural organism was “accidental” 254 . In Eusebius, it seems to us, it is difficult to find passages describing such natural processes and their collisions. Analysis of the meaning of the term φύσις itself and the cases of its use also does not confirm this theory. Scattered mentions of nature (φύσις) and the laws of nature in the work of Eusebius, in our opinion, can hardly be considered evidence of the presence of a whole concept in him. He sometimes associates nature with origin (IV, 12, 1, V, 21, 2, VII, 31, 1, VII, 31, 3). Natural qualities are considered by him as innate, natural (I, 2, 2, 1, 4, 4, V, 13, 4, VII, 2, 2, VII, 32, 27, VIII, 9, 2, X, 4, 26, X, 4, 56–57, X, 8, 11, X, 23, 10). The laws of nature are mentioned in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History only three times (VII, 6, 23, VIII, 13, 21, X, 8, 3). More often, “laws” (νόμοι) mean in Eusebius the decrees of emperors or Divine decrees. Following the Old Testament tradition, he often refers to the Law, or Mosaic Law. In any case, the concept of “law” relates more to the sphere of human history than nature. Moreover, sometimes nature and law are opposed. In book 1, when talking about the genealogy of Christ, the tribes are considered by nature and by law, that is, by origin, or blood relationship, and by custom (I, 7, 2–9). Sometimes nature is compared with justice (IV, 17, 3, VII, 11, 7–9. X. 8, 3). In general, it is unlikely that Eusebius has any special concept of nature close to the traditional ancient understanding. It is unlikely that one can see here any parallels with the Stoic concept, according to which the laws of nature act as a universal principle and every action, even in human history, occurs only in accordance with certain laws of nature 255. Probably, Eusebius uses the concepts of “nature” and “law” in their ordinary sense, and they do not carry any special, additional semantic load. Apparently, this reveals another new feature in comparison with ancient historical thought. “Christianity, having undertaken a radical revision of ancient historicism, put an end to the identification of history and nature. Christian historicism freed the human mind from the power of colossal planetary movements to which it was subject in ancient times." 256 This tendency already appears in the work of Eusebius. Finally, the third and final point in the English researcher’s system of evidence concerns the explanation of human actions. He believes that “chance” also manifests itself in the fact that a person acts in accordance with some of his decisions, and the historian cannot explain the specific reason for such a decision or action. And, as he believes, the writings of Eusebius, like his followers, reveal a lack of causal explanation of specific actions of people. G. Chesnut writes that in the Greek historiographical tradition “there were several causal explanations. Historical figures, for example, could be described as being misled by people who gave false information." There could be other possible explanations. “But, in general, in the stories written by Eusebius and his followers, one must see not what is in them, but what is not there 257. One can imagine a long list of deterministic theories that were absent from these historical writings. Unlike Joseph, there was no appeal to the individual, invariant "nature" of man as an important psychological factor." There are no ideas of sociological determinism in the "Church Histories", since "Christianity liberated from the traditional laws and orders of the social group." "The idea that climate was the determining cause of human character, present in the Hippocratic corpus, finds echoes in historians like Herodotus, but none of them have from church historians. There is also no appeal to the brute material, economic (economic) forces that determine human actions. The Greek medical theory, according to which human behavior could be influenced by the ratio of 4 liquids, 4 characters, was not used to explain the motivation of the character of some historical figures." Chesnut, church historians carefully avoided common types of causal explanations and, therefore, left a significant place for Chance in history 258. It seems to us that the very method proposed by the researcher - “to look not for what is in them, but for what is not there” - is very doubtful. In addition, the absence of the listed types of determinism in Eusebius, in our opinion, is quite understandable and in no way proves the “randomness” of historical events and people’s actions. To explain historical events, Eusebius did not need to pile up deterministic theories of this kind. For Eusebius, a completely different, new factor operates, determining the course of history and explaining its meaning. This is God's Will, God's Providence, Providence. In general, being strongly influenced by the pagan tradition and actively using the classical heritage, Eusebius of Caesarea nevertheless builds his “Ecclesiastical History” on a fundamentally different conceptual basis. He abandons the key idea of ​​Fate, Fate for ancient historiography and accordingly avoids using the terms fatum, είμαρμένη, fortuna, τύχη. At the same time, he actively uses the ancient concepts of άνάγκη, δίκη, but connects them with Divine justice. Now they appear not as independent omnipotent forces, but as attributes of the Christian God. He reinterprets and uses other Greek concepts (καιρός, συμβεβηκότα), giving them new meanings and new semantic shades. Such transformations in the mass consciousness (or even in the head of one outstanding thinker) occur, obviously, not by chance. They inevitably had to be brought to life by some reasons, one way or another they had to be associated with changes in the economic, political and social structure of society. Very interesting observations are made by V.P. Goran, considering the evolution of the ancient mythology of fate. He makes this evolution dependent on changes in social relations. Ideas about fate indirectly, indirectly reflect the “power” of social forces and structures over the individual. “The real content of the mythology of fate is a person’s attitude to the social whole that determines his lot in life. Real changes in the nature of this relationship are peculiarly, but very clearly reflected in changes in ideas about fate” 259. He correlates the formation of polis statehood with the establishment of the concept of Δίκη (law, justice, order). The crisis of the polis, on the contrary, leads to the establishment of the concept of Τύχη and ideas about fatal accident, the blind and cruel power of Fate. “It was the social upheavals, as well as the great pestilence, the plague that struck Athens in the first years of the war, that extremely aggravated in ancient man the feeling of his fatal dependence not only on the institutions of the state that had become alien and even hostile to the individual, but also on spontaneous forces beyond the control of man.”... 260 Eusebius's work apparently reflects the opposite change. The author refuses to use τύχη, συμβεβηκότα and similar concepts that emphasize the power of blind chance or fate. The concept of Δίκη, associated with law and justice, turns out to be closer to Eusebius’s understanding of the historical process. But in the worldview of the Christian bishop it is combined not with the abstract law of nature, but with the justice and power of the Christian God. It is obvious that the approval of such ideas is associated not only with the development of religious views, but also with changes in social reality. The formation of Byzantine statehood in the 4th century and the adoption of Christianity as the state religion was obviously associated in the minds of Christians with the establishment of a new, fair world order. Accordingly, the concept of Δίκη becomes relevant, and Τύχη no longer fits into the new picture. In Eusebius, history is perhaps for the first time considered as a sphere of human activity with its own laws and rules, which does not coincide with the sphere of natural phenomena. The Christian historicism of Eusebius frees history from the power of the stars, planets, laws of nature, etc. And, finally, he introduces a new concept of the Providence of God (πρόνοια), which will firmly enter the worldview of the Byzantines and until the 15th century will remain a common feature of the understanding of history in Byzantium 261. § 2. GOD, PROVIDENCE, PROVIDENCE So, Eusebius abandons the ancient concepts of Fate and Chance and instead proposes the principle of Divine guidance of history. However, to say that Eusebius speaks of Divine intervention in history is to say nothing. This idea was quite common among the Greeks with their mythology, among the ancient Jews, as well as among many other peoples, and even in the philosophical systems of late antiquity. So what new did the Bishop of Caesarea Eusebius bring to the understanding of history and the forces that control it? This can only be understood by taking into account the complexity of the historical situation in which Eusebius lived and worked. He found himself at the intersection of various religious, literary, and historical traditions. At the turn of the 3rd-4th centuries, the intellectual situation was determined by the interaction of many factors. The pagan religion with many anthropomorphic gods did not want to give up its position. Judaism, which asserted the power of one God over the world, Yahweh, was popular in certain circles. The philosophical systems of the Stoics and Neoplatonists were very widespread, offering their own philosophical understanding of God. Various Gnostic and other dualistic systems had a certain impact on people's ideas. Finally, by the beginning of the 4th century, there was already a fairly extensive Christian tradition of its own, in which, however, the image of the Christian God had not yet taken final shape. Actually, the Christian sacred books 262 presented God in different places in different ways, revealing a lot of contradictions without creating any single coherent image, and thereby provided rich food for a variety of disputes. Early Christian thinkers, starting with the Apostle Paul and the apologists, conducted heated debates about the nature and properties of God. The formation and formulation of ideas about God, as shown by an analysis of sources and extensive literature devoted to various aspects of the formation of Christian doctrine, was a long and very complex process Among the huge variety of systems that existed at that time, perhaps none fully satisfied all the requirements The pagan gods aroused hostility among Christians and in no way could they find any significant place in history in its Christian understanding. The God of the Jews - the one God - was also unacceptable for the Christian historian, since he is the God of one, chosen people. Moreover, his appearance had too many anthropomorphic features. The Gnostics sought to distance themselves from Jewish ideas and contrasted the God of the Old Testament, the Creator and Creator of Evil, with another God - the good God, the Savior, Christ. Thus, they created a dualistic system, also unacceptable for Christians. Greek philosophers tried to deprive God of his anthropomorphic qualities, to elevate him to the absolute, to give him the features of an abstract principle that rules the world, incomprehensible to people. However, one could only think and reason about this Greek hb öv, but one could not pray to it. This was a purely philosophical existence. The gods of Olympus and the Capitol were more suitable for religious experiences. Hence the curious phenomenon that philosophy, while processing the concept of the One, at the same time does not turn away from polytheism, but pulls it along with it 263. Perhaps the first to try to combine Jewish religious ideas with Greek philosophy was Philo of Alexandria 264 (30 BC - 45 AD). This attempt was not very successful. His ideas about God remained very contradictory. On the one hand, Philo's God was very different from Yahweh. His God did not have human qualities; it would be wrong, for example, to say that He is “angry,” etc. All that we can know about God is the very fact of His existence and nothing more. On the other hand, as a Jewish believer, Philo revered Yahweh and believed that God revealed himself to the prophets. He was never able to reconcile these two ideas. Another theologian Athenagoras 266 was strongly influenced by Platonism and described God as an uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassive, infinite and incomprehensible being. Athenagoras was the first of the apologists to identify God with Reason (Νους), and the Spirit of God began to be viewed as an emanation of God by analogy with the rays of the sun. He was the first to put forward the doctrine of the Trinity, which will be discussed and debated for centuries to come. Tatian 267 speaks of God in a language very reminiscent of the Gnostic authors. In his Discourse he uses Gnostic expressions, speaking of a "perfect God" (Orat, 4) and calling the Logos a "suffering God" (13). His contemporary Gnostic Ptolemy distinguishes the Perfect God from the Creator and speaks of Sophia as a “suffering Zone.” Over time, his passion for Gnosticism would prevail, and by the end of his life he would become a “preacher” of Gnostic teaching. Theophilus of Antioch 268 shared the essentially Jewish concept of God, but presented it in Middle Platonic language. He insists on the transcendence of God, and considers biblical names such as Light, Logos, Mind, Spirit, Wisdom, Providence, Lord, Father, etc., as attributes of God or His external manifestations. However, he ends his description of God on a biblical note: “He is the Teacher of piety and the Father of justice, but he judges and punishes the wicked” (Autol 1 3). Thus, he combines biblical and philosophical ideas. The theology of Irenaeus of Lyons 269 is not at all philosophical. His ideas are much closer to original Christianity than the ideas of most apologists. His God actively intervenes in human affairs. He loves people and wants to educate and save them. The Alexandrian philosophers and theologians Clement 270 and Origen 271 largely followed the tradition laid down by Philo. Origen spoke reproachfully that ordinary believers represent God as a man, even worse than the most savage and unjust. Although over time, Origen’s own ideas changed. Instead of asserting Divine impartiality, he begins to talk about God observing our behavior with sadness, but he does not build a new image that would be closer to the biblical one. Subsequently, patristics and medieval theology would move away from “biblical realism” towards more speculative constructions 272 . Thus, the early Christian tradition reveals a tendency to combine the personal principle, characteristic of the Old Testament ideas about God, with the impersonal, coming from Neoplatonism and Greek philosophy. In this process, Eusebius is an important link. Neoplatonism apparently had a significant influence on the formation of Eusebius’s views. It is difficult to say whether he was directly familiar with the works of Plotinus, Proclus, etc. He does not name these names. There are no direct references to their works in his Ecclesiastical History. Although this could well be explained simply by the hostile attitude of the Christian church towards Neoplatonism as a manifestation of paganism. It is also possible that he did not perceive some of their ideas directly, but only in the transmission of Origen. In any case, the influence of Neoplatonism is noticeable in his ideas, and the ideas of the Neoplatonists receive a new interpretation from Eusebius. Being a student and follower of Origen and the forerunner of Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian, he occupies an important place in the process of developing the Christian worldview. In a special way, he connects the personal principle, characteristic of the Old Testament ideas about God, with the impersonal, coming from Neoplatonism. On the one hand, God appears to him as a Savior, Judge, Warrior, Doctor, even Forester, etc. and is described in the same categories as man. He experiences the human emotions of anger, joy, love, sadness. His main qualities are justice and kindness. At the same time, God is described by him in supranaturalistic categories. He has “immeasurable mercy,” “inexpressible power” (VIII, 7, 4) or “incomprehensible divine impulse” (VIII, 6, 6). Along with God, Eusebius has Providence and Grace, which sometimes appear with clarifying definitions of “God”, “God”, “Highest”, and sometimes are used independently. It is very difficult to draw a line between the concepts of God and Providence. Providence is essentially identified with God. These concepts are often used in the same context and operate in the same circumstances. However, the impersonal and abstracted Providence contains incomparably fewer personal qualities than the punishing and rewarding God, with whom one could enter into any relationship and whose mercy could be earned. Continuing the tradition of Origen, Eusebius characterizes God as an immaterial and supernatural, mysterious and unknowable being. Thus, Eusebius’s interpretation of God reveals, perhaps under the influence of Origen, a certain closeness with the Neoplatonists’ understanding of the Absolute, or the One God Eusebius combines the features of the personal and superpersonal principles. The relationship of God with subordinate substances is described by Eusebius in the same two ways. On the one hand, God in Eusebius performs ordinary human actions, teaches (I, 3, 12), admonishes (V, 28. 11-12), helps (II, 14, 2-4), tames (VI, 12), etc. Christ, the Holy Spirit, Grace are never called emanations of God in him, as in Origen. However, Eusebius still retains the terminology of the Neoplatonists in relation to the manifestations of God. God is almost always associated with light; Divine power. Grace "shines" (1,4,2 ("έπιλαμψαστής"), II, 14,2–4 ("άληθείας φέγγος", "έπιλάψας", " μαρμαρυγή")), “illuminates” (II, 3, 1 (“οίά τις ᾿ηλίου βολή τήνσύμπασαν οικουμένην ό σωτήριος κατηύγαζε λόγος")), “sheds” (II, 3, 3) “reveals itself” (VIII, 7, 2 (“’ επιπαροΰσαντήν αύτήν”)), “sheds its light” (IX, 11.1 (“διαλάμπων”)), etc. Thus, here, too, Eusebius’ interpretation combines elements of the Old Testament and Neoplatonic understanding of God. In the system of his ideas, the most important place, almost more than God the Creator, is occupied by Christ the Logos. He, like Origen, acts as the main mediator between God the Father and the world of people and nature. He is “the Giver of life leading to light, our Great Physician, King and Lord” (X, 4, 12), “the teacher of true piety, the destroyer of the wicked, the punisher of tyrants, the corrector of our life, who saved us, the outcasts” (X, 4, 10). Christ also performs a cosmological function. Eusebius writes: “The Creator of the universe and the Creator of everything entrusted the creation of the lower creatures to none other than Christ, namely His Divine first-born Word” (I, 2, 4). The most pressing question at that time was the nature of Christ. It caused heated debates and discussions. In this regard, Eusebius was often accused of being an Arian 273. How fair is this? In reality, Christian thinkers were faced with a very difficult philosophical and theological problem. If we recognize Christ as God of the same nature and significance as the Father, one could arrive at polytheism. If we recognize Christ as inferior in comparison with God the Father, who has human nature, then we will come to Arianism - a heresy that denies the divinity of Christ and thereby undermines the foundations of faith. Eusebius, brought up on the writings of Origen, speaks of the combination of Divine and human nature in Christ. He comes very close to the interpretation proposed by the “great Cappadocians” and subsequently adopted by Christian dogma. With Eusebius, apparently, the tradition of rethinking the three realizations of the first principle into three hypostases of one, mind and soul, begins. Thus, trying to show in his theological writings that in an implicit form the doctrine of the “sacred and blessed triad of hypostases of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” was already contained in pagan Platonism, he cites the corresponding texts from Plotinus, selecting them so that the One turns out to correspond to the Father, the mind to the Son, the soul to the Holy Spirit. Now the tradition of Platonism could influence the development in Christianity of the formula about a single essence and three hypostases of God 274. So, combining Old Testament ideas about a personal God and the ideas of Neoplatonism, Eusebius comes to a new understanding of God, which in the future will largely be accepted by the Christian church. He makes his contribution to the solution of the Trinitarian problem, to the solution of the question of the nature of Christ, etc. His works had a significant influence on the formation of Christian theology and the Christian worldview in general. However, we do not set ourselves the task of showing the importance of Eusebius as a theologian and theologian. He interests us primarily as a historian. Eusebius' ideas about God are important because God occupies a central position in his concept of historical development. Eusebius already has the features of a certain concept, which in science is usually called primitive Christian pragmatism 275. Its essence boils down to the following: God determines the course of earthly events, punishes people for sins and rewards people for virtues. The relationship between a higher power, God and the series of events is elementary and unambiguous, the “challenges” of violators of the divine world order entail a quick or, on the contrary, somewhat slower, but inevitable reaction, the “answer” (άπόφασις) of God. The divine will manifests itself, naturally, not only post factum, but also ahead of time, expressed in the form of predictions and omens. Of course, the concept of naive Christian pragmatism is equally characteristic of any Christian author, 276 including Eusebius. However, this is a very simplified picture, more typical of later lives and chronicles, but Eusebius, who lived in the era of the formation of the Christian Church and was at the intersection of various traditions, could not give such a simple and unambiguous diagram. His ideas are much more complex and multifaceted. Many events, random at first glance, are explained by Eusebius as occurring according to Divine Providence (τοϋ θεού πρόνοια). “According to God’s providence,” says Eusebius, “Timothy was not with us, and he was not captured” (VI, 40, 4). “At the same time, the All-good and humane Providence brought the Apostle Peter to Rome, a fighter against the corrupter of people” (II, 4, 16). According to God's Providence, this or that situation develops (VI, 8, 7, VI, 11, 6). The choice of bishops is also determined by Divine Providence (VI, 11.5, VII, 30, 17). In specific human acts, Eusebius also sees the action of Providence. So, for example, the provinces were received by the Emperor Constantine not only as a result of conquests and wise policies, but “Divine Providence handed them over” to him (X, 5, 18.) Or in another place Eusebius writes that “the heavenly Providence of God with the voice of his mother tamed the zeal” of Origen (VI, 2, 4) 277. Let us pay attention to another term that occupies an important place in the worldview of Eusebius and other early Byzantine church writers - οίκονομία. As the German researcher I. Irmscher writes, “in the place of the divine πρόνοια of Hellenistic and Roman philosophy there now appears the οίκονομία of Christ, leading to the salvation of the human race” 278 . Sharing the historian’s general belief about the importance of this concept and that people’s ideas about the forces that determine the course of history change significantly at the turn of the 3rd – 4th centuries, let us make a number of clarifications. Firstly, in Eusebius, in our opinion, πρόνοια is significantly different in its meaning and content from the Providence of Hellenistic and Roman philosophy. Seneca’s famous passage from the Moral Letters to Lucilius shows that Providence was understood by the Stoics as a kind of not entirely defined abstract principle: “Do you want to call him [God] fate? You can’t be mistaken, because everything in the world depends on him, he is the cause of all causes. Do you want to call it Providence? It will be true to say that everything is directed by his wisdom, so that there is no disorder in the world and everything receives a reasonable meaning and explanation. Would you call it nature? You cannot sin against the truth, for everything is born from him, we live by his breath. Would you call it peace? You will not be deceived, because he is the whole that you see, perfect in all his constituent parts, preserving himself by his strength” 279. For Eusebius, Providence is not just an abstract supernatural factor that can be invoked in order to give events a certain philosophical meaning, as in the philosophical system of the Stoics. This is the power of a personal God that concerns the whole world and especially people Πρόνοια - this is not just a principle that gives history a standard set of events, patterns and situations, it is a manifestation of the will of God who acts freely in history. This principle not only explains the "random" events of history, but also gives overall meaning and direction to the entire historical perspective. Secondly, with the introduction of the concept of οίκονομία (the economy of the Lord), the term πρόνοια does not disappear from the lexicon of church authors, but continues to be quite actively used. They do not oppose each other, but combine well and complement each other. The word οίκονομία itself is not an invention of Eusebius. It was already found in Dionysius 280, whom Eusebius quotes (VI, 40, 5; VII book); probably used before. Lampe's dictionary gives a huge number of examples of its use in Greek patristics 281 . In Greek it has a fairly broad meaning of management, order, etc. Moreover, most often it was used in relation to human activity. In the same meaning it is sometimes found in Eusebius (II, 1, 13; II, 2, 6, VII, 11, 14; VII, 32, 8; IV, 4, 1). However, from around the 3rd century it begins to be used to describe the action of transcendental forces. True, in this meaning it appears in philosophical and theological works, but Eusebius introduces this concept into a historical work - in his “Church History”. Here he uses it much more often with the definitions “Divine” (I, 1, 2), “Lord’s” (V, 1,32), “Christian” (I, 1, 7), “Economy of Salvation” (X, 4,46). As a rule, this term describes the divine guidance of the events of history (I, 1.2; I, 1, 7; I, 1.8; V40; 1.32; VI, 11, 1; VI, 2, 13; VI, 14.6; VI, 40, 5; VII, 11.2; X, 4, 46). Moreover, it could act as a synonym for Providence. For example, in Book II, as part of a sentence, it is translated “Such was God’s Providence regarding Peter.” Elsewhere it is translated “under such circumstances” (VI, 14.6). Thus, οίκονομία could mean historical circumstances, God's will, and human activity in managing affairs. Obviously, this indicates that the idea is fixed in people’s ideas that all events of history, all circumstances are controlled by God, just as a zealous owner manages everything in his household. It is God, as a wise steward, who determines the course of earthly events. The question of the activity of God’s intervention in earthly history, of the degree of His participation in human affairs, according to the ideas of church historians and Eusebius in particular, is resolved ambiguously in modern research literature. Some believe that for Eusebius and other early Byzantine church historians, all history is “a revelation of the power of God and his intervention in human affairs” 282 . There are even more categorical assessments, for example: “History in his [Eusebius’s] understanding is the activity of God, who decides the destinies of Christians and fights the enemies of the Christian church” 283. Others, however, believe that in the Ecclesiastical History God's intervention is uneven, varied in form, and does not cover all of historical time. According to I. V. Krivushin, for example, “God and the Logos exercise the general and final leadership of humanity, directly coming into contact with it only at turning points, critical moments” [which the author calls “macro-events” - I. V.]. But the role of the Almighty loses its significance in the “intermediate time.” The era of the 11th–111th centuries as depicted by Eusebius [the period between two “macro-events”. The Nativity of Christ and the establishment of the Christian Church] are distinguished by the general indifference of Heaven in relation to humanity and even to the church” 284. In our opinion, Eusebius himself did not even think about highlighting such periods in the activity of God. In his view, God always vigilantly monitors the activities of people. He controls and directs the general course of history, helps the weak and punishes the atheists. Almost all researchers of Eusebius note the mechanism of Divine reward-punishment as the main one in his ideas. According to G. Trompf, “the logic of retribution occupies a central place in his historiographical hermeneutics” 285. From his point of view, Eusebius felt obliged to show and explain why Divine Providence worked more in favor of Christians than in favor of their opponents. A large part of this explanation consists of documenting the punishments that fell on the enemies of the Lord. In general, Eusebius acted in this regard as an heir to both the biblical and Greco-Roman traditions, since both Jewish and ancient historians tried to demonstrate moral order in all possible cases of the past 286 . Eusebius himself, according to G.V. Trompf, borrowed this idea of ​​punishing immoral, ungodly behavior from Luke’s “Acts.” Just as in the Acts, Herod the Great receives punishment for his insolence in the form of a terrible wasting disease. Eusebius, however, does not stop there. He reproduces these stories in his Ecclesiastical History with much greater detail and detail, using them as lessons foreshadowing the retributions of his own time. Eusebius writes, “It is worth knowing what punishment befell Herod [the Great] for his crimes against Christ and his peers. Immediately, without the slightest delay, God's judgment befell him while he was still alive, as if showing in advance what he would receive by parting with his life (4). The state seemed to be prospering, but he darkened his home with continuous misfortunes by the murder of his wife, children, relatives, those closest by blood and those dearest. It is impossible to describe these events now, but a story about them would overshadow any tragedy (5). Immediately after the assassination attempt on our Savior and the other babies, the scourge of God overtook him and drove him to the very end” (1, 8, 3–5). Further (I, 8, 6–8) Eusebius gives a description of the serious illness that befell Herod, taken from Josephus’ “Antiquities of the Jews” (XVII, 6, 5). “Herod’s illness intensified. God punished him for his iniquities. It was a weak fire smoldering in him; when palpated, a large inflammation could not be detected, but it precisely intensified his internal illness. He had a terrible desire to eat something, and nothing could be done to help him, ulcers in the insides, especially in the rectum, and inflammation of the legs, full of clear fluid, severe pain (7). The same disease befell his lower abdomen; worms appeared on the rotting parts. He could only breathe when he stood up straight, and his frequent and heavy breathing gave off a heavy stench. All his members were experiencing unbearably strong convulsions (8). People inspired by God, to whom it was given to wisely foresee everything, said that God was exacting from the king for his many wicked deeds.” The fate of Pilate, ignored and not even mentioned in the New Testament, is revealed by Eusebius in the corresponding spirit; he kills himself in accordance with Divine justice - ' η θεία δίκη (II, 7, l) 287. Herod Agrippa I 288, guilty of the murder of the apostle, also suffers punishment in Eusebius. “The king’s malice against the apostles led to immediate consequences; he was immediately persecuted by the punishing executor of God’s judgment. Immediately after the intrigues against the apostles, the angel of the Lord struck him (Herod), and he died, eaten by worms” (II. 10:1). A little later, the author dwells in more detail on what kind of punishment Herod experienced 289 (II, 10, 7). “Abdominal pain appeared, which immediately became severe (9). After five days of excruciating abdominal pain, he died at the age of 54.” God punishes Herod Antipas 290 with the death of his army for the execution of John the Baptist (I, 11, 2). Emperor Galerius is also subject to punishment 291 “God’s punishment befell him, it began with a physical illness, and it ended with a mental illness” (VIII, 16, 1). “Suddenly an abscess appeared on his secret members, then a fistula-shaped ulcer formed in the depths, from which the incurable erosion of his insides began. Countless worms swarmed inside, and an unbearable stench came from his body. Even before his illness, he had become overweight and obese from gluttony; this decaying mass of fat was an unbearable and terrible sight” (VIII, 16, 4). The heretics, followers of Simon the Magus, “caught in their abomination,” were expelled from Rome, “just as Simon, caught in action by Peter, suffered a well-deserved punishment” (II, 1, 12). God punishes those who slandered the Jerusalem bishop Narcissus (VI, 9, 4–8). The military ruler of Phoenician Damascus, who slandered Christians and forced them to give false testimony against them, “soon committed suicide and was punished for his evil behavior” (IX, 5, 2 – IX, 6, 1). In Book IX, Theoteknos, a close associate of Maximinus 292 and the initiator of the persecution of Christians, was punished with violent death (IX, 11, 5–6). Maximin himself was also punished with a painful illness and a miserable, shameful death (IX, 10, 6). “He did not die the way military leaders who lead the course of a war die, who bravely fight for their loved ones and for the sake of glory; they courageously died a glorious death on the battlefield. This same wicked God-fighter, while his army stood in the field, ready to fight for him, remained at home and, hiding, suffered the deserved punishment, the scourge of God suddenly lashed him all over his body, in terrible, unbearable suffering he lay on his back and almost died of hunger, his whole body melted in the invisible fire sent by God, his former appearance completely disappeared, as if melted, only dry bones remained, something like an old skeleton. All those present looked at his body as nothing other than the grave of a soul buried in a completely destroyed corpse (15). The fire emanating from the brain itself burned him even more, his eyes rolled out of his sockets - he became blind. However, he still breathed and called for death, confessing the Lord. Finally, realizing that he was rightly suffering for his cruelty to Christians, he gave up the ghost” (IX, 10, 13–15). Licinius also turns out to be punished for all his atrocities, he “suffered the same thing that the wicked tyrants once suffered before his eyes, he suffered because he did not learn the lessons of prudence, did not come to his senses with the scourges that struck his loved ones, but went the same road of wickedness and, of course, came to the same abyss as them” (X, 9, 5). Thus, Eusebius quite clearly conveys the idea that a person’s wicked behavior brings upon him the wrath of God and just punishment. God's punishment overtakes not only individuals guilty of atrocities against the Savior or Christians, but also entire nations and states. The great disasters of the Jews, as was expressly stated, were God's punishment for their wickedness (δυσσέβεια) towards Christ (111, 7, 1). “The Jews, who dared to rebel against him, tried in every possible way to zealously plot against His apostles; first they stoned Stephen, then they beheaded James, and they killed [the other] James. God’s judgment finally befell the Jews, for their iniquity before Christ and His apostles was great, and the race of these wicked people was wiped out from the face of the earth” (III, 5, 2-3). “How much grief then fell everywhere on the whole people, and especially on the inhabitants of Judea, who reached the limits of disaster! How many young men in their prime, along with women and children, perished from the sword, hunger, or died in some other way! How many Jewish cities were under siege and in what kind! What horrors and more than horrors were seen by the refugees who rushed to Jerusalem, as if to an impregnable capital. And the whole appearance of the war and what happened in individual cases, and, finally, what an abomination of desolation in the anciently glorified church of God, destroyed and burned to the ground!” (III. 5, 4–6). Eusebius further describes the details of this punishment: “They [the three million people who had gathered from all over Judea in Jerusalem] were to be locked up, as in a prison, and to suffer death according to God’s judgment precisely in those days when the Savior and Benefactor of all, Christ, the Son of God, was handed over to torture (7). I will pass by the killed and those who died in some other way, but I consider it obligatory to talk about the suffering from hunger, so that the readers of my work can at least partially know that the Lord did not postpone the punishment for the iniquities committed against Christ, the Son of God” (III, 5, 6-7). The entire sixth chapter of the third book of Eusebius's History is devoted to a description of the terrible famine and disasters during the siege of Jerusalem. All this in the description of Eusebius is the retribution of “the Jews for their dishonor and for the iniquities committed against the Anointed of God” (III, 7, 1). The great epidemic and pestilence in Alexandria, described by Eusebius, are not commented on by the author, however, as researchers tend to believe, it is implied that these disasters were also a punishment for wickedness, since at that time the virtuous and peace-loving Gallienus 293 fought with his immoral opponents (VII, 22, 12–23, H) 294 . Eusebius gives a vivid description of famine, pestilence, wars, and all kinds of disasters that befell the empire after the publication of Maximinus’ rescript (IX, 8, 3–12). It recalls the horrific and detailed description of the famine in Jerusalem during the Jewish War (III, 6, 1 - 28) and the pestilence in Alexandria in the days of Dionysius the Great (VII, 21, 2-22, 10). “The usual downpours and rains during winter did not irrigate the land in the same quantity 295, famine and plague suddenly struck, and a new disease appeared - an ulcer, accompanied by fiery heat and for this feature called “anthrax.” Spreading throughout the body, it threatened great danger. It manifested itself mainly in the eyes and made countless men, women and children blind (2). These disasters were also joined by the war with the Armenians (3). All this collapsed at once, at the same time (4). He himself, together with his troops, suffered setbacks in the war with the Armenians; the inhabitants of the cities under his control were completely tortured by plague and famine (5). Thousands of people died in cities, and even more in villages and villages, almost all died from lack of food and plague disease (7). The noble women of the city were forced by need to forget their shame; they went out into the square and begged for alms (8). People, withered, like ghosts, fought with death, staggering, sliding, not having the strength to stand, they fell in the streets and, lying prostrate, begged for a piece of bread, until their last breath they shouted that they were hungry, they only had enough strength for this sorrowful cry (9). The dead lay unburied in the squares and streets for many days - a very pitiful sight for those looking on (10). Some have even become dog food (11). The plague, along with hunger, devoured entire families, especially those who, having food supplies, did not suffer from hunger (12). Thus, fighting with the two named weapons of plague and famine, death in a short time mowed down entire families from one house and carried out two or three dead at once (13). This is how Maximin paid for his arrogance and the decrees against us promulgated throughout the cities.” As can be seen from the above examples, punishment primarily falls on wicked rulers, tyrants or their possessions for their sins “I see,” writes Eusebius, “that the most wicked emperors, no matter how glorified they were, soon became inglorious, this same pious, God-loving emperor survived his seventh birthday” (VIII, 23, 4). Thus, Eusebius quite clearly conveys the idea of ​​the ruler’s responsibility not only for his own fate and personal salvation, but also for the fate of the empire entrusted to him. Eusebius himself, talking about the fate of the empire during the reign of Gallienus in Book VII, briefly formulates this general principle: “The kingdom [of Gallienus, after the ruler turned to God], as if shaking off old age and cleansed of former evil, blooms in full force, visible and audible from afar, penetrating everywhere” (VII, 23, 3). According to researchers 296, one of the fundamental ideas underlying Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” is the idea that, providentially, the fate of Christianity and the church is closely connected with the fate of the Roman Empire. The successes of the Christian religion are inevitably accompanied by the political successes of the state of the heirs of Augustus; the emperors who patronize the church are rewarded by heaven, while the persecutors are severely punished. In the twenty-sixth chapter of the fourth book, Eusebius quotes the founder of this theory, the greatest Christian thinker of the second half of the 2nd century, Melito of Sardinia 297. He cites excerpts from his work “To Antoninus,” which states that since the meeting of Christianity and the Roman Empire, the church has consistently flourished, and the state has not experienced any disasters, and that since Augustus, all emperors, with the exception of Nero and Domitian, have been distinguished by piety (IV, 26, 7-10). But does the first church historian make Melito's concept the organizing principle of his historical narrative? How often does he use it to explain historical events? Does Eusebius really accept and develop Melito's concept? Researchers answer these questions in different ways. So, for example, I. V. Krivushin divides Christian history in Eusebius from the point of view of Divine participation into three different periods: the incarnation of the Logos and the results of this incarnation controlled by God, the period of God’s removal from earthly affairs, and the period of God’s systematic intervention in the history of the church and the Roman Empire. That is, the role of the Almighty turns out to be decisive within the first and third periods, but it loses significance in the “intermediate time.” However, the objects of Divine attention in the initial and final eras are different: in the first it is directed to the church and the Jewish people, then in the second - to the church and the Roman state. In apostolic times, the persecuting emperors Nero and Domitian remained outside heavenly jurisdiction. Consequently, if the concept of Melito is used by Eusebius, it is only when describing the Great Persecution and the conversion of Constantine 298. And “the unique case of God’s help to the good emperor Marcus Aurelius on the battlefield is the exception that confirms the rule - the independence of the history of the Roman Empire from the activities of divine providence” 299. Other researchers do not identify similar periods, but also see a very limited application of Melito’s concept in the writings of Eusebius. Thus, G.V. Trompf writes “Despite the fact that Eusebius has the last five bad emperors dying for their sins, although he begins his story with Christ and even earlier, he does not apply this principle to earlier emperors, unlike Lactantius, who finds it even in the fate of Nero” 300. Thus, some researchers do not consider Eusebius to be a follower of Melito; Eusebius is certainly familiar with his works, but in his work he does not consistently adhere to his concept. The French researcher J. Sirinelli, one of the leading experts in the study of the legacy of Eusebius, presents a completely different, original point of view, in many ways opposite to the one named. Firstly, regarding the origin of Melito’s concept, he suggests that “it was not Melito, but Hippolytus who was the first to put the rise of the Empire and the birth of Christ side by side” 301 . Moreover, “Meliton did not even think of formulating the idea of ​​such a providential coincidence” 302. Thus, it turns out that the concept of Meliton, as it is commonly called, does not belong to Melito at all. The first person to express this idea of ​​the coincidence of empire and Christianity, although in a rather peculiar way, according to Sirinelli, was Origen. True, in Origen this idea was a consequence of a polemic with Celsus and had no political meaning at all. As for the presence of this concept in the works of Eusebius, then, according to the researcher, it is not only present here, but is quite highly developed and takes on different forms. Thus, in one place the empire in Eusebius appears as a sign of the coming of the Messiah (1,2,23). Elsewhere, the empire turns out to be an instrument of Providence (II, 2, 6). However, J. Sirinelli himself no longer refers to Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, but to his theological works, primarily to the Demonstratio Evangelica. In all likelihood, Eusebius, through Origen, Hippolytus, or the works of Melito himself, was familiar with this concept, shared it, and quite often addressed it in his theoretical works, but in relation to specific historical events he uses it very limitedly. Rather, it appears in the work of Eusebius as an integral part, or perhaps as one of the sides, of a broader view of history, in which the principle of Divine reward - punishment operates as a universal law. Eusebius paints an image of a punishing God, trying to stop evil with floods, fires, epidemics, wars and famine. We are apparently talking about the destruction of what cannot be corrected. But the punitive activity of the Almighty turns out to be not very effective, and, as, for example, I. V. Krivushin believes, the idea of ​​God the punisher is introduced by Eusebius solely in order to somehow interpret those famous historical disasters (primarily the global flood) that the Old Testament and Greco-mythological traditions attributed to the will of heaven (Yahweh or the Olympian gods) 303 . In our opinion, such an assessment of the punitive function of the Almighty and its significance for the entire course of history is hardly fair. Firstly, it should be noted that descriptions of “famous historical disasters” (primarily the global flood and other biblical catastrophes) in Eusebius are not only not the main and most striking part of his work, but are completely absent, contrary to all expectations. Secondly, it should be noted that the description of all kinds of punishments occupies a fairly large place in the historical narrative of Eusebius. And if we bring together all the cases of God’s intervention in history, as I. V. Krivushin himself does, it turns out that at least half of the cases are precisely the punishment of the wicked. Thus, God’s punishment of individual representatives of the human race and entire nations for atrocities and wicked behavior represents one of the most important ways of divine intervention in the course of history. However, this is not the only way God influences people and not His only function. The God of Eusebius is not at all like the Jewish God, who mercilessly judges and punishes people. In addition to the Supreme Court, Eusebius’s God also performs a lot of other functions. In the depiction of Eusebius, God appears as a warrior, “the foremost leader of the army” (X, 4, 23), winning “victories over the wicked” (X, 4, 16), “a great leader” (X, 4, 15) and “defender of the holy church” (IX, 7, 16). God often acts as a great physician (II, 7, X, 4, 12). He heals all the illnesses of people (X, 4, 71), strengthens them mentally and physically (V, 1, 27–28), “like a most skillful doctor who, for the sake of saving the sick, looks at the terrible, touches the disgusting and for the suffering of others he himself is subjected to grief. He cured us, not only the sick, tormented by terrible ulcers and purulent wounds, but already consumed by death, and snatched us from its jaws” (X, 4, 9–10). In one place, Eusebius even describes God as a forester. “On them, behaving in this way, the Lord, who oversees everything, sent streams of water and fire, as if on a wild forest that had grown over the entire earth. He eradicated them with continuous famine, plague, wars, lightning strikes, as if suspending with these grave punishments a terrible, most painful mental illness” (II, 2, 19). Sometimes God, as the Supreme Steward, carries out “cleaning” and cleanses the world “First of all, having predisposed the souls of the highest royal persons, the Word-Christ, with the help of people pleasing to God, cleansed the entire universe from all evil wicked people and from terrible and God-hating tyrants. Then, with the help of men who had long dedicated their lives to Him, as if with a spade and spade, they scraped off and cleansed with soulful teaching the souls that had recently been desecrated and covered with the rubbish and silt of godless suggestions” (X, 4, 59). One of the main Divine functions is salvific. God saves individual people from physical death (VI, 4, 1, VIII, 7, 2), saves human souls, but the main thing is that He saves all of humanity (II, 7, III, 5, 6–7, VII, 32, 23, etc.). “Once upon a time the entire human race perished, wandered in the impenetrable night and in deep darkness under the influence of criminal, God-hating demons, He appeared and untied the strong bonds of our iniquities - they melted like wax in the sun” (X, 4, 13). Almost always, the name of God is used with the definition “Savior and benefactor of all” (I, 2, 24.1, 4, 1–2, etc.). But the Lord saves the human race, not only by protecting it and healing human souls, but also by revealing the truth to people, teaching, instructing and educating them. Thus, one of the most important functions of God is the role of the Teacher of Virtue (I, 2, 22, II, 3, 1, II, 7, etc.) and the Educator “Christ conveyed to them virtue in its pure form and heavenly life and communicated to His disciples the true dogmas” (I, 3, 12). Christ is described first of all as “the Originator of the knowledge of God,” “Teacher of true piety,” and only then as “the Destroyer of the wicked, the Punisher of tyrants, the Corrector of our lives, who saved us outcasts” (X, 4, 10). At the same time, Christ acts as king and legislator. “Christ, having given such wise and pious laws, was able to sufficiently familiarize all people with them so that they could hear them from the ends of the earth to the ends of the universe.” His “meek and philanthropic laws changed the barbaric and rude customs of savage peoples” (X, 4, 17–18). Several times Eusebius also calls God the protector and primate of the church and the Great High Priest (X, 4, 23). So, in his “Ecclesiastical History” Eusebius of Caesarea presents a very colorful and versatile image of God. Its functions and responsibilities are rich and varied and are not at all limited to punitive and judicial ones. God is described by Eusebius in the same categories as man. He may have different “professions”, he may be angry and punish, but in general the God of the Bishop of Caesarea is meek and merciful. This is a new quality that was not characteristic of either the Jewish, punishing God, or the Greek Olympian gods. According to researchers, “the ideal of love and forgiveness is not the ideal of either ancient religion or ancient philosophy in its classical period. Neither Artemis’s hand wavered when she struck the children of Niobe, nor Apollo’s when he flayed Marsyas. Among Plato’s cardinal virtues there is no place for meekness and kindness” 304. The God of Eusebius is endowed by the author with qualities corresponding to Christian ethics. Eusebius repeatedly emphasizes “by the grace of Christ” (V, 1, 24), “by the grace of God” (V, 20, 7). “The mercy of God poured out on other nations” (II, 3, 3), “for their patience, the immeasurable mercy of Christ was shown to them. The living revived the dead, the martyrs forgave those who denied. Thanks to the confessors, most of the apostates returned to the faith, conceived new fruits, became passionate and learned the confession. Those who were revived, full of strength, approached the pulpit for a new interrogation, and the Lord rejoiced, not wanting the death of a sinner, who is merciful to the repentant” (V, 1, 45–46), “Christians, by the grace of God, have been granted long-lasting peace” (V, 16, 19). The mercy of God is manifested not only in relation to nations or groups of people, but also in relation to a specific person “The mercy of God again and again protected him from all evil intentions that threatened him for his zeal for the teachings of Christ and courage” (VI, 3, 5). His relationship with people is built, as depicted by Eusebius, as follows: “When events took such a turn, the Lord, the great and heavenly protector of Christians, having revealed His formidable wrath on all people through the indicated disasters, sent us, for what we had suffered from them in abundance, a bright ray of His Providence, as if in the deep darkness the light of the sent one miraculously shone for us. Peace to them, so that it becomes clear to everyone that the Lord Himself watches over us in all matters, punishes His people when necessary, tests them, but then, having sufficiently enlightened them, reveals Himself meek and merciful to those who place their hopes in Him” (IX, 8, 15). Or in another place, “God’s judgment, as usual, spared us and directed us, without extreme measures, to meekness” (VIII, 1, 7–8). The meekness and mercy of God are manifested even during punishment “It is fair, however, to say how the philanthropy of the All-Good Providence showed itself for forty years after the crime committed against Christ, their [the Jews - AND B] death was postponed. The Lord, in His watch, waited long-sufferingly to see if they would repent of what they had done and whether they would be able to receive forgiveness and be saved. And with such great long-suffering, He also sent them amazing omens of what would happen to them if they did not repent” (III, 7, 7-9). As you can see, the relationship between man and God in the view of Eusebius differs significantly both from the very close, personal relationship characteristic of the ancient worldview, when one could argue with God, He could be persuaded, appeased, or even deceived, and from the Jewish - cold and distant relationship, when God could only be revered and feared 305 . To summarize the above, let us note what ways of God’s influence on the course of human history Eusebius identifies. Firstly, contrary to the popular belief that within the framework of the early Byzantine church historical tradition, God and the devil become the main participants in human history, in the depiction of Eusebius, God is extremely rarely directly involved in the historical process. In the view of the Bishop of Caesarea, obviously. God sets only the general direction of history and gradually guides the course of events. He creates and in a certain way builds the so-called τά συμβεβηκότα, situations unexpected for a person, which should punish him or set him on the path of truth. Secondly, the Lord can and does act with the help of the Logos-Christ. It was he who gave people the basic laws, established the framework within which events could develop, and defined the main categories that explain the meaning of everything that happens. The third possible way of God's intervention in human history is through miracles. However, contrary to expectations, very few miracles are found in the works of Eusebius. Moreover, Eusebius uses miracles not so much to demonstrate “divine power, to suspend or change the normal action of nature” 306, but to prove the true holiness of his heroes 307 (II, 1, 11, IV, 15, 36–39, V, 3, 4, V, 7, 3–5, VI, 9, 2–3, VI, 29, 3, VII, 10, 4, VII, 1, 7). In Eusebius's History, God disrupts the course of events and changes its direction through miracles only three times. He sends a strong downpour at the prayer of Marcus Aurelius to save his army (V, 5, 1), Emperor Constantine “miraculously” wins victories (IX, 9, 1) and, finally, as a result of the miracle, the entire army of the wicked tyrant Maxentius dies (IX, 9, 5–8). The most often used by God and, as it turns out, the most effective way of influencing the course of history is divine pedagogy, or the education of people for Salvation. However, apparently, not everything is determined only by the Divine will, since God is merciful, but history, as Eusebius’ contemporaries clearly saw, is full of tragic moments. Eusebius is the first to introduce into history the figure of the devil - a figure of supreme importance, which from this time on will take its place in the works of all medieval Christian historians. It is Eusebius who is the author of the first historical work in which the devil appears as a character in real history and is used as a principle explaining the course of specific historical events 308. It is widely believed that “together with the Old Testament teaching about God, Christianity also adopted the Old Testament teaching about the devil, evil spirits and demons” 309. Judaism and Christianity rely on the Bible to affirm the existence of Satan and his army of evil angels. However, Eusebius, being the heir to the biblical tradition, was in a difficult position, since there are significant differences between the Old Testament and New Testament ideas about the forces of evil. In the Jewish faith (at least in its biblical version), the image of the devil occupies a subordinate place. In the Old Testament, in general, very little attention is paid to the personality of the devil 310. Satan in the Old Testament looks like a loner, like a general without an army. In addition, here he is not yet an antagonist of God, but, on the contrary, is in a fairly close relationship with him, carrying out his instructions and only sometimes allowing himself to quietly do dirty tricks on people 311. In the book of the prophet Zechariah, for example, he is depicted as a prosecutor, standing at the right hand of the Lord, and acts as an accuser (Zechariah 3:1). In the book of Job, Satan is even called the “son of God” (Job 1:6), and further the books of the Old Testament contain remarks about the “cooperation” of God and the devil. The concept of Satan as the antipode of God appears quite late in the Old Testament and appears only a few times. The religious system of Zoroastrianism with its detailed teaching about the two principles of the world - good and evil - had a strong influence on the formation of the image of the devil. The evolution of Judaism in this direction prepared the appearance in the New Testament of a much more complex, branched doctrine of evil angels. Here the devil already looks like a principled opponent of the good principle in the world, personified by God. In the New Testament, Satan is the enemy of God and people, a tormentor and tempter. He is so powerful that he tempted Christ himself (Matthew 4:8–9). Under his command is a gigantic army of his own angels, i.e. demons. The New Testament Satan already receives a mission of world-historical significance. According to the New Testament, Christ came to earth to free people from the power of Satan, to cast out the devil (Acts 26:18, John 12:31). The Kingdom of Heaven will come only after Satan is finally defeated by Christ and cast into the abyss. 312 When will this event happen? We will not find a single answer to this question in the books of the New Testament, just as we will not find in them a single opinion about the fate of the devil and his army of demons. Thus, by the 4th century, the image of the devil had not yet been completely formed, just as the canon of sacred books itself had not yet been formed and consolidated. Apparently, the church image of the devil as a humanoid creature, bodily and personal, developed only in the 6th century 313. French researcher Jean Delumeau provides interesting additional information. Satan was not depicted in early Christian art and cave paintings. One of the earliest depictions of Satan dates back to the 6th century. A fresco in the Church of Baunt in Egypt represents him as an angel, certainly fallen, with broken claws, but not scary, and with a slight smile on his lips 314. All this - the inconsistency of tradition, the lack of development of many issues concerning the devil in Christian books, the absence of graphic images of Satan in Christian art until the 6th century - obviously indicates that by the 4th century, when Eusebius began to write his “History”, the image of the devil had not yet been formed in its completed form. Some ambiguity and uncertainty of the very image of the devil, his place in the hierarchy of entities, functions, degrees of power and modes of action, presented by Eusebius, probably reflect the inconsistency of the Christian tradition itself and the unresolved nature of these issues in theological literature. Eusebius had a difficult task, relying on a very heterogeneous tradition, to adapt a rather abstract image of an evil demon to real historical events. To denote the power of evil, Eusebius uses different names: Satan, devil, demons. The name Satan comes from the ancient Jewish tradition. In the Old Testament, Satan is a name denoting opponents in human relationships, and sometimes it is used as the proper name of the superhuman adversary Yahweh (Job 1, 6–12, 2, 1–7, etc.). In the New Testament, along with the word “Satan” (“adversary”), the word “Devil” (“slanderer”) is used 315. In the work of Eusebius, this tendency is further developed. The bishop of Caesarea uses the terms “demon”, “devil”, “Satan” to denote the power of evil. He uses the name of Satan in all ten books of the Church History only 6 times, and often in quotations from early Christian works (IV, 14, 7, IV, 18.9, V, 1, 14, V, 1, 16, VI, 43, 14, VII, 31.1). Much more often, Eusebius uses the concept devil (διάβολος, “slanderer” - a derivative of the Greek διαβάλλω, “to slander”). Moreover, in the mouth of Eusebius, this concept and related ones can refer both directly to the devil (III, 36, 9, IV, 23, 12, IV, 26, 2, V, 1, 27, VII, 25, 21, etc.) and to man (VI, 8, 2, VI, 8, 5, VI, 9, 4, VI, 41,21). The term δαίμων appears much more often on the pages of Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History.” This is a traditional Greek concept for a deity, but not a very powerful one. In the New Testament, it already acquires a negative emotional connotation - this term began to denote an evil spirit, or demon. In Eusebius it is often used in the same meaning. In addition, Eusebius also calls former pagan gods, idols, oracles demons, also with a negative connotation (VIII, 14, 8, VIII, App, 3, IX, 8, 2, IX, 10, 2, X, 8, 10). Thus, the writings of the Bishop of Caesarea in this area reflect the intersection and coupling of different traditions. If the conceptual series is strongly influenced by the Jewish and early Christian traditions, then Eusebius chooses the language primarily under the influence of the Hellenic tradition. At the same time, the author rethinks some categories. Some vagueness and lack of clarity and rigor in the use of concepts indicates, in all likelihood, the incompleteness of this process. The same imprint of ambiguity, lack of formality, and some inconsistency is felt in the picture painted by Eusebius. The personified force of evil in the depiction of Eusebius does not seem to have its very specific name. Very often the devil is called by him not by name, but descriptively “the enemy of human salvation” (II, 13, 1), “an evil force, hostile to good, hating the salvation of people” (II, 14, 1), “a demon, a hater of beauty, an enemy of truth, a tireless opponent of human salvation, taking up arms against the church” (IV, 7, 1), “a malicious demon” (IV, 7, 10), “a crafty enemy and an envious person, an adversary of the righteous” (IV, 15, 40), “an enemy” (V, 1, 5), “an enemy of the Church of God, a hater of the beautiful and a lover of evil, who does not miss a single way to intrigue people” (V, 14, 1). In addition, the devil is often characterized by Eusebius in the traditional vein as “the culprit of evil and the enemy of good” (X, 4, 14), “an evil force hostile to good, hating the salvation of people” (II, 14, 1), or “a demon who rebelled against God” (VII, 31, 1). At the same time, Eusebius writes: “Justin said beautifully that before the Coming of the Lord, Satan never dared to blaspheme God, because he did not yet know that he was condemned” (IV, 18, 9). So, it turns out, firstly, that Satan was not initially created evil by nature, but he himself rebelled against God and this is his fault, and secondly, obviously, even after this, his fate and place in the world hierarchy and in history were not determined. In addition, the power of the devil is also not entirely unambiguously defined. On the one hand, he constantly plots against Christians and can do anything he wants, right up to their physical elimination. But on the other hand, “the evil demon is powerless to destroy love for Christ” (III, 27, 1), “the evil demon could neither denigrate us nor set up human intrigues while the hand of God was over us” (VIII, 1,6). Such an ambiguous assessment of the devil made it possible for some researchers to see in Eusebius’s “History” a constant confrontation between two forces – Good and Evil, while others – to regard the devil as God’s “helper”. Thus, at the very beginning of the 20th century, the opinion was established in Russian historiography that “The Devil works just as tirelessly in the Christian world for the sake of evil, just as God tirelessly works for good. The struggle between heaven and hell on stage constitutes the pragmatism of Eusebius' story. This is his main historical view” 316. This opinion is also quite widely represented in Western historiography. J. Sirinelli believes that the Christian era appears in the image of Eusebius as “the result of the tricks of demons” 317, from the point of view of A. Momigliano, the history of Eusebius is “the history of the struggle against the Devil” 318, and D. Timpe believes that Eusebius presents history as “a field of struggle between God and Satan.” “The devil is active, slandering Christians, and he is capable of achieving even some, albeit limited, results through persecution and delusion.” However, I.V. Krivushin, analyzing the text of Eusebius, casts doubt on the validity of these judgments. He believes that “the degree of Satan’s participation in the history of the first three centuries of the Christian era is small and cannot be compared with the degree of participation of his heavenly antagonist 319. From his point of view, “the prince of darkness has either the role of a weak and unlucky saboteur who tries to cause at least some damage to the church during periods when heavenly guardianship over history loses its universality and regularity, or the role of a kind of assistant, an involuntary participant in a cosmic play, the main director of which is God” 320. How does this force of evil operate and what is its role in human history, from the point of view of Eusebius of Caesarea? As a rule, the main method of action of the devil is slander, blasphemy, and various intrigues. The devil “led many of the inhabitants of Rome astray” (II, 13, 1), “exposed Simon as a great adversary of the apostles” (II, 14, 1), “tried. through charlatans... to slander the great mystery of faith and discredit church teaching" (III, 26, 4), "doomed the eternal death of people who were deceived to grief, and gave the pagans full opportunity to blaspheme the word of God" (IV, 7, 10), etc. First, as Eusebius writes, the devil "took up arms against the Church, using all sorts of tricks; Previously, he prepared persecution from the outside, now, deprived of this opportunity, he took advantage of the services of deceivers and magicians to destroy souls; inventing various methods of struggle, he invented all sorts of means so that these magicians and deceivers, hiding behind the name of our faith, would carry away the souls of the believers they captured into the depths of destruction...” (IV, 7, 1). Thus, the devil, as Eusebius writes (V, 14, 1), “worked at the emergence of heresies, terrible and hostile to the Church” (II, 13, 1; II. 14, 1–2; 111.26, 1, 111.27, 1; IV, 7, V, 14; V, 16, 7; VI, 43, 14, VII, 31, 1). In addition, “the devil has come up with other intrigues, imprisonment in dark, very harsh prisons, stretching of legs to the fifth hole and other torments to which the evil servants of the devil, filled with his spirit, usually subject prisoners. ." (V, 1, 27). The devil provokes persecution of Christians: “He used everything: he set us against us and taught us to persecute the servants of God” (V, 1, 5). In the final book of his History, Eusebius gives a very colorful and emotional description of the actions of the devil. “Now, when grace is so great and so much mercy has been shown, the hated demon, the author of evil and the enemy of good, has armed all his deadly forces against us. And, first of all, like a fierce dog who gnaws the stones thrown at him with his teeth and turns his rage on the soulless objects that are thrown at him in defense, he, in his brutal madness, rushed at the stones and at the soulless composition from which the churches were built, in the hope of thereby devastating our Churches. Then his terrible whistle and snake hiss were heard in the threats of wicked tyrants and in the blasphemous orders of evil rulers. And he also spewed out death (she is his creation), poisoned the souls he captured with destructive and deadly poison, almost killed them through a destructive sacrifice to soulless idols and aroused a humanoid beast, which raged against us in every possible way” (X, 4, 14). Thus, at first glance, the main culprit and organizer of persecution against Christians is the devil. Upon closer examination, however, it turns out that the devil's arsenal of weapons is not so great. He can only “blaspheme God” (IV, 18, 9, V, 16, 9), “construct people’s intrigues” (V, 14, 1, V, 21, 2, VIII, 1, 6). Moreover, he does not act on his own, but only with the help of people “The evil demon found a weak side in people and took them into his possession” (III, 27, 1). “Satan tried in every possible way to have a blasphemous word uttered through their lips” (V, 1:16). The power of Satan is also in doubt, since “the evil demon could neither denigrate us nor set up human intrigues while the hand of God was over us” (VIII, 1, 6). It turns out that even a person can resist the devil. An example of such steadfastness and courage is given by Origen, when “the demon lined up his entire army against him and attacked him with all his might and means” (VI, 39, 5). Even the fragile Bible survived, not afraid of torture and torment (V, 1, 25). In addition, such scenes as the possession of a demon in the false prophetess Philomena (V, 13, 2), the attempt to expel a demon from the false prophetess Maximilla, the death of Theodotus possessed by a demon (V, 16, 14) and the cleansing of a source inhabited by a demon in Caesarea Philippi (VII, 17) are extremely reminiscent of the Gospel attitude towards demons as not very powerful spirits, the attitude is essentially dismissive 321 . The devil in the image of Eusebius gives rise to, or, in any case, provokes the emergence of heresies. But, more importantly, not all of the heresies mentioned by Eusebius are of supernatural origin. The author associates with the devil the false teachings of Simon Magus, Menander, the Ebionites, Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocritus, Marcion, Montana, Novatus and Mani. However, a much larger number of heresies are derived from the framework of such a connection - the “errors” of Cerinthos, the Nicolaitans, Valentinus, Cerdon, the Encratites, Artemon, Asclepiodotus, Theodotus, the Arabs, the Elkesaites, Sabellius and Paul of Samosata. Despite the historian’s assertion that the generation of false teachings is the “professional” duty of Satan, the latter acts only as one of many initiators; at least, the fault of the heretics themselves is no less than the fault of the “invisible enemies” 322. The question of natural interest is who in Eusebius’s work, specifically dedicated to the history of the church of the first three centuries, is the culprit of the persecution of Christians. It would be logical to explain everything by the machinations of the devil. However, not everything is so clear in Eusebius. The material in the central part of “Church History,” as I. V. Krivushin concludes, does not allow us to speak of the devil as the “father of persecution.” Only in one case is the devil blamed for provoking mass persecution, and even then they are of a local nature; we are talking about the massacre of Gallic Christians under Marcus Aurelius (and this is evidence not of Eusebius himself, but of the Epistle of the churches of Lugdunum (Lyon) and Vienne (Vienna) quoted by him to the churches of Asia and Phrygia, V, 1). Rather, Satan uses persecution to harm individual Christian heroes - Polycarp, Apollonius, Origen. The true authors of anti-Christian persecution for Eusebius are the wicked emperors, as well as cruel proconsuls, envious priests and insane pagan people 323. In the future, the role and “tactics” of Satan changes. The devil ceases to be the inventor of false teachings to completely switch to organizing persecution. Only in this part of the “Church History” does he turn into a true “father of persecution.” In this capacity, Satan turns out to be the most important historical character. It is the special scope of his activities (the Great Persecution) that provokes the large-scale intervention of Logos in history on the side of Constantine and Licinius, and then on the side of Constantine alone. However, the fact that this activity is "allowed" by God limits its historical significance. The author views Diocletian's persecution in terms of Divine punishment and education of the fallen church 324. The perpetrators of persecution are the people themselves who have violated the commandments of God. “And this complete freedom,” writes Eusebius, “changed the course of our affairs, everything went somehow, by itself, we began to envy each other, shower each other with insults and just, on occasion, not grab arms, the heads of the churches broke verbal spears against each other, the laity rebelled against the laity, unspeakable hypocrisy and pretense reached the limit of vileness, God’s judgment, as usual, spared us (meetings were still being held) and directed us, without extreme measures, to meekness (8). As if having lost all understanding, we did not worry about how we could appease God, as if the atheists, believing that our affairs were not the subject of care and concern, we did evil after evil, and our imaginary shepherds, rejecting the commandment of piety, with all their ardor and fury got involved in quarrels with each other, multiplying only one thing - envy, mutual enmity and hatred, discord and threats, they sought power as greedily as tyrants sought tyranny. Then the word of Jeremiah was fulfilled" (VIII, 1, 7–8) Many researchers have seen in “Ecclesiastical History” a story of confrontation between supernatural forces, in relation to which the earthly participants in the historical drama turn out to be simple agents. Some even called Eusebius's work "mythological history" 325 . According to F. Winckelmann, for the Bishop of Caesarea, history “is realized through the interaction of two factors - God and Satan. Heretics, Jews, and pagans serve the demon as disruptors of development” 326. K. Hoisy also writes “The metaphysical background [of Eusebius’s “History” – I.V.] is dualistic: God and the devil, both with their angels, or rather, their demons, are in constant struggle with each other and are the true driving forces of history, and the human forces fighting each other are only their toys” 327. Other researchers, criticizing such statements, belittle the role of the devil in history, reducing it to the role of a weak and practically helpless pest or “the chained dog of the Lord” 328. However, it can hardly be assumed that Eusebius would have introduced the figure of the devil into history, thereby breaking tradition and risking being accused of Gnostic heresy, if this character had not been of significant importance in his historical concept. In our opinion, the devil in history, as understood by Eusebius, plays a very important role. God and the devil personify two poles, good and evil, between which humanity fluctuates in its historical movement. However, one should not reduce Eusebius’ ideas to a rigid dualistic scheme. He devotes quite a lot of space to his own human decisions. It is thanks to the presence of this component and the active participation of people in history that the result is not always what God would have wanted, and not what the devil expected. Thus, the scheme must include at least the three elements of God, devil and man. It is through the interaction of these three elements that the historical movement is realized. Accordingly, a new way of explaining events is proposed, a new understanding of the historical process, different from both the ancient and ancient Jewish ones. § 4. THE PLACE OF MAN IN HISTORY As already noted, the point of view has become almost generally accepted, according to which the Christian concept of world history is permeated with deeply idealistic ideas that take man from earth to heaven 329. In accordance with this general position, the work of Eusebius of Caesarea is viewed as deeply idealistic. People and nations, as is usually imagined, ceased to be active protagonists in the world drama, as was the case with ancient and early Byzantine secular historians, and turned into obedient executors of the will of the Creator God. The only engine of world history now became divine providence, transformed into a philosophical absolute. In understanding world events, reason had to finally give way to faith 330. However, in our opinion, Eusebius’s “History” is far from mythological works. The outcome of each specific event in question often does not correspond to the plan of the almighty God or the devil. Much in real earthly history is determined by the actions and decisions of people themselves. On the pages of Eusebius of Caesarea’s “Ecclesiastical History” we will not find lengthy discussions about the freedom of human will or about predestination, since this is not a theological or philosophical treatise. However, the author's worldview is reflected in how he explains certain real historical events, whether he attributes them to the action of fate, God, the devil or man. Eusebius himself, in the introduction to Chapter V, contrasts himself with ancient historians. For him, history is not a series of deeds of heroes and great personalities, “the exploits of military leaders and the valor of warriors.” At the same time, history in his depiction does not seem to be just a set of divine acts and decisions. For Eusebius, God is not the sole and exclusive arbiter of the destinies of mankind, as in Judaism. History for him is the history of “those who waged a peaceful war for the peace of their souls and courageously fought for the truth, for the faith” (H E, V, praef). Man is given a worthy place in it. From the very beginning of his existence, man independently, of his own free will, makes choices and makes decisions “The first man [himself, and not by God’s will - AND B] fell into this mortal and corruptible life and received this cursed earth instead of the former Divine pleasure” (I, 2, 17–18). Further, “they destroyed the innate mind, the seeds of the reasonable and meek in the human soul in an excess of voluntarily chosen depravity” (ibid.). The king “maliciously plots” against the apostles (I, 10, 1), the Jews rebelled against Christ (II, 6, 8, III, 5, 2–3), and the Roman Senate and Emperor Augustus, of their own free will, determine the fate of the Jewish people (1, 6, 7). A person independently determines his fate - to be saved or to destroy his soul. So, for example, Marcion, the founder of one of the heresies, “became an enemy of the universal Church, alienated from God’s mercy,” and thus he himself “drove his own salvation as far as possible from himself, justifying his name” (VII, 10, 5). A person determines by his own free will whether to turn to the true faith or to heresy. In the depiction of Eusebius, the founders of heresies are often people. Although heretics are described by him as “an instrument of the devil” (III, 26, 1), it is still not the devil, but “Simon was the first instigator of all heresies. From there until now. the followers of his heresy pretend to adhere to Christian philosophy - reasonable and everywhere glorified for the purity of life, but immediately find themselves in the grip of idolatrous superstition. (II, 13.6–8) Emperor Valerian 331 goes on a rampage, incited not even by demons, but by “his teacher, the head of the Egyptian magicians.” “But his teacher gradually convinced him to get rid of them [Christians – I V]. He advised him to execute pure and pious men and to persecute as enemies those who were a hindrance to his vile, disgusting spells. He invited him to perform unclean initiations, criminal witchcraft rituals, divine services displeasing to God, convinced him to destroy unfortunate children, sacrifice the babies of unfortunate parents, examine the entrails of newborns, cut and tear apart the creations of God, as if for the sake of his own happiness” (VII, 10, 4). So, the blame for these monstrous crimes lies entirely with people - the wicked emperor Valerian, who fell away from God, and his teacher. Elsewhere, Eusebius quotes extensively from the work of Hegesippus, explaining the origin of the various heresies that tore the Church from within. Its essence boils down to the following: “The Church was like a pure, immaculate virgin; if there were any who tried to destroy the sound and saving gospel, they sat huddled in their dark corners and remained in obscurity (8). When the holy apostolic person ended his life in one way or another and the generation passed away, worthy to hear with its own ears the voice of Divine Wisdom, then, under the influence of false teachers, with their deceptions, confusion and atheism began. Since none of the apostles remained alive, they decided to openly oppose the preaching of the truth with their false knowledge” (III, 32, 7-8). Eusebius lays the blame for the emergence and spread of Manichaeism entirely on man, on its founder: “Barbaric in language and disposition, he [Manes] had in his nature something demonic and insane. He compiled his false and blasphemous teaching from many blasphemous, long-vanished heresies, brought it from Persia and spilled this deadly poison throughout our land” (VII, 31, 1). The next time, talking about the reason for the emergence of the Montanist heresy, Eusebius writes: “A new heresy, which caused a schism in the church, arose for this reason: They say that a certain Montanus, one of the local converts, in an immense passion for primacy, allowed the enemy to enter into himself, animated by him, suddenly falling into a frenzy, he began to say something strange, prophesying contrary to the custom of the Church” (V, 16, 6). Thus, although Eusebius invokes the devil to explain the origin of this heresy, calling him figuratively “the enemy,” Montanus himself is ultimately responsible for this act. It was he who allowed the demon to enter himself and use it for his own purposes. In some places of his “History” Eusebius gives counterexamples when people do not allow the devil to do evil with their hands “Life could not catch them [Christians – I V] with its bait and did not force them to neglect the commandments of our Savior about confession and renunciation. They countered all the threats and insults of the judges with courageous and wise reasoning, or rather, with a pious soul that loves God” (VIII, 9, 6). Christian martyrs not only withstand all the torments and overcome all the wiles of the devil, but even wage a successful struggle with him for the salvation of their own souls and for others. “Their love [for God] was real, and therefore they had a great war with the devil; they wanted to squeeze his throat so that he would spew out those whom he was going to swallow whole. They did not exalt themselves over the fallen, but out of their maternal mercy they gave to those in need from their abundance and, shedding abundant tears for them before the Father, asked to give them life, and He gave it, they gave it to their neighbors and, having conquered everything, went to God” (V, 2, 6). In organizing the persecution of Christians, the people themselves, wicked emperors, heretics and mobs, take no less part than the devil. “When Nero’s power strengthened, he rushed to wicked deeds and rebelled to faith in God Almighty. It is not our current task to write about all the abominations that he was capable of, and many have left very detailed stories about him. All he lacked was to become the first emperor—the persecutor of faith in God” (II, 25, 1–3). Emperor Domitian, also without any participation of the devil or God, “in the end showed himself to be the successor of Nero in hatred of God and in fighting against God. He was the second to raise persecution against us” (III, 17) “After Nero and Domitian, under the emperor whose time we are now describing, partial persecutions against us in the cities were raised by the mob” (δήμος, III, 32, 1). “The threat of terrible persecution hanging over us had to some extent dissipated, but for people who wanted to harm us, there were no fewer opportunities left; in one place the mob was plotting an evil deed, in another the local authorities were preparing it” (111, 33, 2). So, the perpetrators of the persecution of Christians are again the people themselves, either the mob 332 or representatives of the authorities. In book VI, the initiator of the persecution turns out to be “some prophet” and heretics “The persecution began not with the royal decree, but a whole year earlier, when some prophet and the culprit of the disasters of this city began to excite and incite a pagan crowd against us, inciting their native superstition. The pagans taught by him decided that all atrocities were allowed to them and that the pious veneration of demons requires one thing - to kill us" (VI, 41, 1). During the reign of Maximin, the organizer of the persecution is a certain Theoteknos, "a terrible sorcerer and a crafty person, unworthy of his name 333 people" (IX, 2, 1). "He, mainly, waged war against us, diligently, in every way, hunting us," writes Eusebius. Through witchcraft and sorcery, he erected an idol of the friendly Zeus, invented in his honor some unholy sacraments, monstrous mysteries, criminal purifications. He brought stories about his supposedly fulfilled predictions to the king himself” (IX, 3, 1). Licinius does evil, prompted not by the devil or demons, but by his own envy and cruelty (X, 8, 2–17). Thus, in almost all cases, God leaves the right of choice to man and does not even use violence towards those who have fallen away from him. He either “wait patiently” for the sinner to correct himself and return to the path of truth, or he applies measures of “heavenly pedagogy” to him, sends him visions, signs, admonishes him, sends small punishments that encourage a person to think about his fate and turn to the true faith. In this matter, Eusebius apparently continues the tradition laid down by Origen 334. In his depiction, God, the embodiment of goodness and justice, is absolutely alien to violence; he can only convince, instruct, teach souls; he grants free will to His creations - up to the point of falling away from the deity. True, in the ten books of Eusebius’s “Church History” there are only two cases when the will of man comes into conflict with the will of God, and the Lord tries not only to reason with the sinner and direct him to the path of truth, but to influence him in more tangible ways. Here, for example, is how Eusebius describes the case of “a certain confessor Natalius,” whom the heretics “convinced to call themselves their bishop for a fee of 150 denarii per month” (V, 28, 10). “While he was with the heretics, the Lord often admonished him with visions, for the merciful God and our Lord Jesus Christ did not want the one who testified to His suffering to perish excommunicated. He, however, did not pay attention to these visions, having been caught in the bait of dominance and self-interest, which destroyed so many people. In the end, he was beaten by the holy angels, who scourged him all night; rising in the morning, covered in wounds, he put on rags, sprinkled ashes on his head and threw himself, shedding tears, at the feet of Bishop Zephyrinus. They accepted him back into the Church with difficulty” (V, 28, 11–13). The second case is associated with the name of Maximinus. The Tyrant, portrayed by Eusebius as a “wicked fighter against God,” at the end of his reign, “having given glory to the Christian God, issued the most perfect and complete law, ensuring them [Christians] freedom” (IX. 10, 6). To explain this unexpected turn of events, Eusebius resorts to the action of the Divine will: “The tyrant Maximin sent out a decree in favor of Christians, supposedly drawn up of his own free will, but in fact forced, falsely telling about what was never said or done to them” (IX, 9, 13). “Maximin acted forcedly, out of necessity, and not out of conviction, no one considered him truthful and trustworthy, and earlier, behind similar condescension, his deceitfulness and unsteadiness of thought were revealed. The great wicked man chose not to give up and only, having been comprehended by the judgment of God, was forced in the end to agree against his will” (IX, 96, 10). In the depiction of Eusebius, God admonished the wicked tyrant in various ways through military defeats, visions, illnesses, etc. Persisting in his errors, he tested the patience of God for a long time, but at the end of his reign, covered in shame, out of fear for his life, he was forced to surrender and issue a decree in favor of Christians, as the Lord wished. So, the concept of Divine Providence in the worldview of Eusebius of Caesarea leaves enough room for free human decisions. God determines the general direction of development, arranges the circumstances in which people act in a certain way, and extremely rarely directly intervenes in the course of events. Specific actions of people, significant and small, everyday, are performed in accordance with their own beliefs, desires and will. In this picture of the world, a large place is given to free human choice (προαίρεσις). By his actions, a person ensures his salvation or incurs the wrath of God. Thus, a person, to a certain extent, is able to influence the course of events, because this or that behavior causes a different reaction from God. The historical literature presents the opinion that neither Byzantine theologians, nor even more so historians, tried to resolve the contradiction that arises here between the idea of ​​the determination of events by the Divine will and the idea of ​​human responsibility for one’s actions 335 . In our opinion, behind this formulation of the problem lies the desire to find solutions similar to modern ones in the works of ancient authors. However, modern scientific ideas to a certain extent distort knowledge of the past, since they do not take into account the historical difference in views 336. A modern researcher evaluates the ideas of people of eras distant from us from the point of view of modern explanatory concepts, thereby imposing on them criteria and stereotypes that are completely unusual for them. In this case, it seems to us, Christian thinkers did not see any particular problem or inconsistency here. The logical contradiction between the position of the freedom of human will and the idea of ​​providentialism finds here a purely Christian solution. The understanding of the Providence of God, presented in the work of Eusebius of Caesarea, seems to us to be close to the Old Testament concept of derek 337. This term has many meanings: road, journey, enterprise, behavior, position, power, action of God, behavior required by God of a person, way of action of a person. In the very idea, in the image of the “road” or “path”, there is a certain duality. On the one hand, a road laid by someone guides the feet of those walking along it, shows him the direction, but only guides and indicates. And only the traveler himself chooses whether or not to step on this “path,” to follow it to the end or to deviate from it” 338. In Eusebius's view, the objects of choice among which people are allowed to choose are created by God, but the choice itself is left to man. In every human soul there is a certain impulse (όρμή), according to which a person determines the “direction” of his life, whether it will be directed towards good or towards evil. And he is not subject to either the Moirai, or Ananka, or Fate, or even God 339. It is no coincidence that Christian writers focus on personal salvation associated with personal responsibility for choosing the path “Free will” is apparently understood by Eusebius as a person’s ability to understand, accept or reject what Plato called God. Later, in the 4th century, Gregory of Nyssa developed this interpretation of free will and presented it very figuratively and clearly in his writings. He outlined two different ways in which people could be turned away from seeing true good. God as Good was like the sun shining from heaven. But by an act of free will, man could deliberately close his eyes and live in inner darkness. This was what the Greeks called φθόνος 340, or “envy.” The Greek word meant a slightly different phenomenon than the modern understanding. It meant hatred of goodness and a deliberate attempt to erase its manifestations. This was the path that Satan fell into, and people could also fall into “jealousy.” Another way of the origin of evil, as Gregory explained, is the way through “pleasure.” By nature, people strive for good, but there are two types of good: true, natural good and false good, which has only an attractive appearance - pleasure. In pursuit of pleasure, people who have succumbed to temptation move away from true goodness 341. The basis for this interpretation of the problem of free will can be found in the work of Eusebius. Using specific historical examples, he shows that in most cases, responsibility for a particular decision or action falls not only and not so much on God or the devil, but on the person himself. Thus, in the work of the Bishop of Caesarea, man with his free will appears as a fully capable and equal creator and participant in history. In accordance with his general concept, Eusebius also offers a new, different from the ancient view of man himself. He divides all humanity into two groups according to religious principles. The first group includes true Christians, martyrs, Orthodox emperors, the second - heretics, apostates, wicked tyrants. Eusebius describes the first as heroes. He endows them with various virtues, the set of which, however, is quite different from the virtues of the ancient era. Since the time of Aristotle, the social thought of antiquity has defined the ideal type of person - the citizen. He must be brought up in the spirit of virtue and fulfill state duties, i.e. engage in military affairs, legislative and judicial activities, own land, etc. The same polis ideal is also characteristic of the Roman social consciousness. In the minds of the Romans, the ideal, the model, is the iig bonus - the standard of a Roman citizen and patriot. Roman virtue (virtus) in the broad sense of the word is a comprehensive expression of the worthy behavior of every Roman within the civil community. In the Roman hierarchy of values, qualities and deeds aimed at the benefit of the fatherland are placed first. Moreover, virtue, valor (virtus) in the ancient view cannot exist in isolation from public life and activity, or be independent of the opinions of fellow citizens. “This is precisely what adorns a person,” says Cicero, “that awards for valor, feats approved by the judgment of people are considered honors” (Sis, De orat, II, 347). Thus, all ancient Roman virtutes are, to some extent, virtues of a social, political nature, and the image of vir bonus is the image of a landowner, warrior and statesman. Even pietas (piety) was understood as pious devotion to the fatherland, family, and loved ones 342. Eusebius's heroes have "piety, justice and all other virtues" ( διενεγκόντας ’ αρετή (I, 4, 5)). However, Eusebius puts a completely different meaning into this familiar characteristic. First of all, these are “people of righteousness” (1, 4, 6). “A Christian is distinguished by prudence, justice, patience in life, virtue, courage in piety and confession of the one God Almighty” (“Ό γάρ τοι δηλούν έθέλοι τούνομα, τόν Χριστιανόν άνδρα διά τής τού Χριστού γνώσεως καί διδασκαλίας σωφροσύνη καί δικαιοσύνη καρτερία τε βίου καί άρετής άνδρεία εύσεβείας τε όμολογία ένός καί μόνου τού ’ επί πάντων θεού διαπρέπειν..." (I, 4, 7)). Another most important virtue is continence (έγκράτεια), all other moral qualities are based on it (II, 17, 16). Chastity, contempt for bodily pleasures (II, 17, 19), abstinence in eating and drinking, wisdom and virtue (VI, 8, 5), hard work, diligent study (σπουδή) of the Scriptures (VII, 24, 4), a sense of proportion, love of truth, understanding and reasonableness (VII, 24, 8), compassion ( συμπαθεία) and love for mankind (φιλανθρωπία) (IX, 8, 14) - this is the main set of qualities that distinguish a true Christian. It is noteworthy that Eusebius pays great attention to the education of his hero. For example, characterizing Philo, he emphasizes that he was “a very remarkable man, not only among our [i.e. e. Christians - I.V.], but also among people who received Hellenic education. He came from an ancient Jewish family and was in no way inferior to those who were famous in Alexandria for their duties. How much and what kind of work he invested in the study of sciences related to faith and the fatherland can be seen in practice by everyone. How strong he was in philosophy and the liberal arts, familiarity with which a Greek education requires, there is nothing to say about this. He studied Plato and Pythagoras with special diligence; they say he surpassed all his contemporaries in this” (II, 4, 2-3). Thus, Eusebius emphasizes the antiquity of the family and origin, education, and familiarity with Hellenic sciences and philosophy is considered by Eusebius as an advantage, and not as a disadvantage of a Christian. “Malchion, a generally eloquent man, the head of the Antiochian Hellenic schools where rhetoric was taught, was awarded the priesthood in the local diocese for the purity of his boundless faith in Christ” (VII, 29, 2). “...Dorotheos, awarded the priesthood in Antioch, an eloquent man who loved the beauty of theology... began to study the Hebrew language in order to read the Holy Scriptures in Hebrew with knowledge of the matter. He was not alien to Hellenic education and its “liberal arts” (VII, 32, 2–3). Bishop Anatoly “for his eloquence and knowledge of Greek philosophy was reputed to be the first among our most famous contemporaries, for he perfectly studied arithmetic, as well as other sciences: dialectics, physics, rhetoric... He... opened a school of Aristotelian followers in Alexandria...” (VII, 32, 6). “Among my contemporaries,” Eusebius further writes, “there were rare people, for example Pierius, one of the Alexandrian priests, Meletius, bishop of the Pontic churches. The first became famous for his non-covetousness and his philosophical knowledge, reflections on the works of God, interpretation of them and excellent sermons in the Church on this topic. One could write about Meletius (educated people call him “Attic honey”) that he achieved perfection in his speeches. It is impossible to appreciate the power of his rhetoric. Someone will say: this was given to him by nature, but who surpassed him in wealth of experience and breadth of knowledge? In everything that requires reasoning and eloquence, he was the most skillful and gifted: just try him, and you will say: the nobility of his life corresponded to the rest” (VII, 32.26). Thus, Eusebius considered mastery of the Hellenic sciences, primarily philosophy and rhetoric, as evidence of the intelligence and special talent of his hero. However, in another place, Eusebius regards the lack of education, simplicity and artlessness of speech as evidence of purity and unspoiledness. Thus, the holy apostles, “who led their lives in perfect purity, adorning their souls with all the virtues, spoke in simple language. They relied on the Divine and miraculous power bestowed by Christ, but they did not know how and did not try to talk about the teachings of Christ in a convincing and skillful word... not knowing how to carefully select their words, and even caring little about it” (III, 24, 3). In all likelihood, for a Christian bishop, the education of his heroes and mastery of pagan sciences were not the most important virtues. However, in the context of the confrontation between pagan and Christian culture, he sought to emphasize that even learned people, brought up in the spirit of previous traditions, who highly valued rational knowledge, also turned to Christianity. It is interesting that the lifestyle of a true Christian is described by Eusebius in approximately the same terms as the life of a philosopher. Talking about Origen's youth, he writes: “For many years he lived such a life of philosophers, 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 led the life of the strictest philosopher, now exercising himself in fasting, now strictly measuring the time of sleep, sleeping, according to his zeal, not on a mattress, but on the bare ground” (VI, 3, 9). Bishop Pamphilus, “a very respected man,” is characterized by Eusebius primarily as “a true philosopher in his life” (VII, 32, 25). At the same time, the wide education of Eusebius’s heroes and excellent knowledge of philosophy does not yet give them grounds to be called “philosophers.” In Eusebius’s view, a philosopher is, first of all, one who leads an appropriate lifestyle. So, for example, Bishop Stefan, “who delighted many with his knowledge of philosophy and other Hellenic sciences” (VII, 32, 22), a Christian by his confessional affiliation, is not called by Eusebius either a Christian or a philosopher, since “questions of faith interested him less. The growing persecution revealed in him more of a hypocrite and a coward than a true, courageous philosopher” (VII, 32, 22). Thus, whether intentionally or not, Eusebius depicts the way of life of a Christian in categories inherent in the ancient consciousness. Among the martyrs, that is, people outstanding in their piety and steadfastness and therefore deserving admiration and respect, Eusebius especially singles out those who had all the virtues in accordance with the ancient ideas of a “good citizen.” “These were amazing people [martyrs - I V], but those who stood out for their wealth, birth, were famous for their eloquence and philosophical education deserve special surprise, and they considered all this as nothing compared to true piety and faith in the Savior" (VIII, 9, 6). In a number of other examples, Eusebius also seems to contrast traditional Roman values ​​with new, Christian ones. A certain woman, who, according to Eusebius, deserves the highest praise, “was famous for her wealth, birth, education and considered all this to be secondary compared to chastity” (VIII, 14, 15). True, Eusebius does not say whether she was a Christian. Thus, giving a brief description of his characters, Eusebius builds in parallel, as it were, two scales of values: the traditional, Roman, and the new, Christian. If in the traditional system of ideas vir bonus, a positive hero was characterized primarily as a citizen, a person leading an active social life, performing various public duties, holding high positions and, accordingly, well-born, noble, rich and beautiful in body, then the Christian value system does not attach special importance to these “virtues”. The emphasis is now on piety and adherence to the true faith. An ideal, righteous person is considered to be a person who leads a “perfect life, wise and pious” (I, 23, 1–2). Just below, Eusebius draws a vivid image of a Christian righteous man, describing the bishop of the Jerusalem Church, James. “He was holy from his mother’s womb, he did not drink wine or beer, did not eat meat, no razor touched his head, he did not anoint himself with oil and did not go to the bathhouse. He alone was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies; he wore linen, not woolen clothing. He entered the church alone, and he was found on his knees and praying for the forgiveness of all the people, his knees became calloused, like those of a camel, because he always prayed on his knees and asked for the forgiveness of the people. For his great righteousness, he was nicknamed “Righteous” or “Ovliy”, a word that means “fence of the people” and “righteousness” (II, 23, 4-5). To complete the image of the Christian righteous man (in this case, the prophet), Eusebius quotes from the work of Apollonius, full of rhetorical questions: “Prophets do not accept gifts. Tell me, does the prophet go to the bathhouse? does the prophet make eyeliner? does the prophet like jewelry? does the prophet play chess and dice? does the prophet give money on interest? Is this acceptable or not? (V, 18, 11). Wanting to give his hero a positive characterization, Eusebius describes him as a man who “has achieved the fullness of love for God and neighbor,” leading an impeccable life, acting “according to all the commandments and statutes of the Lord blamelessly,” not hesitating “to serve his neighbor in every possible way,” “having great zeal for God and burning in spirit” (V, 1, 9). However, Eusebius does not directly contrast ancient and Christian values. Sometimes they even complement each other. For example, “a certain Adauct, a man of high rank, a descendant of a noble Italian family, awarded by the emperors all these so-called honors and public positions, impeccably fulfilling the duties of managing the economy of the entire country, became famous both for his right faith and for his confession of Christ, the Son of God” (VIII, 11.2). “There was a certain woman in Antioch who was holy and marvelous in her spiritual virtue, known for her beauty, wealth, birth and good reputation, and she raised her two daughters in the rules of the true faith” (VIII, 12, 3). “In the same Antioch lived two girls, true sisters, pleasing to God in everything, famous for their birth, glorious in life, young in age, beautiful in body, lofty in soul, pious in disposition, marvelous in jealousy” (VIII, 12, 5). A certain Astyrius, mentioned by Eusebius, possessed “boldness pleasing to God.” “A Roman senator, a favorite of the emperors, known to all for his fame and wealth, was once present at the death of a martyr. He put the body on his back (and was in sparkling expensive clothes), clothed it in an expensive cover and buried it in the appropriate tomb” (VII, 16, 1). Sometimes, when describing even the people of the church, Eusebius notes their merits, which corresponded to traditional, secular ideas. For example, the bishop is characterized by him as “a prudent and sensible man” (X, 4, 61). Thus, wanting to give a positive image, Eusebius points out all the virtues and advantages of a person, regardless of whether they belong to the old value system or to the new one. The martyrs deserve special respect from Eusebius. They courageously endure suffering, “which was beyond all human strength” (V, 1, 20), “with great patience and courage they endured various tortures” (VI, 1,1). “They actually showed the power of martyrdom; they boldly spoke with the pagans; their patience, fearlessness, and firmness showed the nobility of their souls. They bowed humbly under the powerful hand that now lifted them high. Then they defended everyone and did not blame anyone and prayed for the executioners” (V, 2, 4–5). A typical image of a Christian martyr is represented by a certain Attalus. “He came out, ready to fight, his conscience was clear, he was truly instructed in Christian teaching and always testified to us about the truth” (V, 1, 43). Christian martyrs, who did not renounce their faith, even after enduring torture and other tests, were already different from other prisoners in their appearance. They did not lose heart “The confessors walked cheerfully, on their faces there was a stamp of grace and glory, the shackles seemed a worthy decoration - this is how clothes with gold embroidery suit a bride. From them came the fragrance of Christ” (V, 1, 34–35). Thus, the martyrs in concentrated form embody the best Christian qualities: humility, meekness and at the same time fidelity to their convictions, perseverance and courage. Eusebius pays a lot of attention to the characteristics of bishops of Christian communities. A bishop is not just a Christian, but also a “good true shepherd” of the people, zealously caring for his flock (III, 36, 10), and therefore must have special qualities. So, for example, Bishop Theodotus “was reputed to be the first in the art of healing the body, but no one could compare with him in caring for the soul; he loved people, sincerely sympathized with them, zealously provided help to those in need, and was very knowledgeable in theological sciences” (VII, 32, 23). Another bishop, Agapius, “worked, sincerely caring about the government of the people, and generously helping everyone, especially the poor” (VII, 32, 24). Thus, the bishop is considered by Eusebius not only and not so much as a holy man, truly committed to the Christian faith, a “philosopher” who cares about the salvation of his soul. In addition, a bishop must have significant knowledge, be a good organizer, protector, patron and mentor of the flock entrusted to him. Eusebius pays particular attention to Christian emperors, or, more precisely, rulers loyal to Christians. Eusebius includes Tiberius 343 as a good emperor, “under whom the name of Christians entered the world” and who, despite the resistance of the Senate, provided some protection to Christians, or rather “threatened with death those who denounced Christians” (II, 2, 6). He has some sympathy for Vespasian 344, who did not observe godless, cruel laws against Christians, Trajan 345, who forbade searching for Christians, Hadrian 346 and Constantius 347 (V, 5, 7). Emperor Valerian at the beginning of his reign is presented as an example of a good ruler, “as he was meek and disposed towards the people of God. None of the emperors were so merciful and benevolent to us, even those who were said to have openly become Christians did not receive us with such obvious friendliness and love as he did at the beginning of his reign. His whole house was full of pious people" (VII, 10:3). Emperor Constantius, the father of the pious king Constantine I, in the depiction of Eusebius is endowed with all excellent qualities. In Book VIII, Eusebius describes his reign as follows: “Emperor Constantius, who all his life was meek and merciful to his subjects, and was very disposed towards Divine teaching, leaving behind his own son Constantine as emperor and Augustus, died. He was the first to be numbered among the gods and after his death was awarded all the honors due to an emperor. He was the kindest and meekest of all the emperors. He was the only one of his contemporaries who spent the entire period of his reign with dignity, showing himself in other ways accessible to everyone and merciful to everyone. He did not participate in the war against us at all, protected his Christian subjects from harm and insults, did not destroy churches and did not invent anything else against us. And the end of his life was happy and thrice blessed; he alone died as a glorious and blessed ruler, leaving as his successor his own son, very reasonable and pious” (VIII, 13, 12, VIII, Arr, 4). Thus, characterizing the emperors, Eusebius draws attention primarily to their attitude towards Christians. The main virtues of rulers for him are meekness, kindness, accessibility and mercy. Only in a few cases does Eusebius refer to the wisdom or rationality of the emperor (V, 5,6, IX, 9, 1) and once to their military leadership abilities (IX, 10 b, 14). The embodiment of the ideal ruler for Eusebius was Constantine the Great. “Constantine, the most pious king, the son of the most pious and wise king, adorned with reason and piety” (X, 9, 1), “was a zealot of his father’s piety” (VIII, Arr, 5) and in relation to all his subjects acts as a merciful and caring ruler. From the very beginning of his reign, he manifests himself not as a tyrant and usurper, but as the heir and continuer of his father’s work, recognized by the people, the army and God himself (VIII, 13, 14). He is “the first in the kingdom in honor and position” (IX, 9, 1), “the best of sovereigns” (X, 8, 2, X, 8, 5), surpassing others “in everything, birth, upbringing, education, dignity, wisdom, and, most importantly, prudence and faith in the true God” (IX, 19, 1). The “beloved emperor” is fair to his subjects. “Combining the severity of justice with philanthropy, he decided to help those who were disadvantaged by the tyrant, and, by eliminating several villains, save most of the people” (X, 9, 2). With the establishment of the power of Constantine, the empire enters into a period of prosperity “The great victor Constantine, overshadowed by the power of piety, together with his son Crispus, most God-loving and similar to his father in everything, took the East into his own possession and united the Roman Empire, according to ancient custom, under one authority, subjugating under his peaceful scepter the whole earth from sunrise to the extreme west, as well as the countries in the north and south. People disappeared from all the fear in which their tormentors had previously kept them. Now the joyful and solemn days of crowded festivities have come, everything is filled with light. Former disasters and wickedness were forgotten, everyone enjoyed present blessings and, moreover, looked forward to future ones. The most humane decrees of the victorious sovereign and laws were promulgated everywhere, testifying to his generosity and true piety. All traces of tyranny were destroyed, firm and unchallenged royal power belonged to Constantine and his sons. Having erased all traces of the wickedness of their former rulers and realizing that so many blessings had been given to them by God, they showed their love for goodness and for God, gratitude to God and piety, revealing these virtues to people in their deeds” (X, 9, 6–9). I. S. Chichurov makes interesting comments when analyzing the image of Constantine drawn by Eusebius in another work, “The Biography of Constantine.” Of course, proving the exclusivity of Constantine, Eusebius highlights and evaluates everything that is connected with the religious transformations of the emperor. Constantine is exceptional as an example of piety, exceptional in the destruction of pagan temples (Evs., Life, 96. 3-5), in attributing his merits to God (Ibid., 119. 30-31), in the confession of Christianity (Ibid., 30-31). 146. 11–12), veneration of the Christian God (Ibid., 148. 16–18). However, despite the primacy of purely religious motives in the extensive comparison of Constantine and his predecessors, Eusebius still leaves room for mentioning those moments of Constantine’s biography that do not necessarily need to be directly associated with Christianity: the generosity of the emperor, his mercy and paternal care for his subjects (Ibid., 81. 16–22). Eusebius focuses on the invincible emperor, although the author connects his greatness with piety. The confessional aspirations of Eusebius in his characterization of Constantine do not mean the absence in the portrait of the emperor of features not related to the theme of religion. Piety appears in Eusebius among other virtues of Constantine, and does not always appear first. Listing the merits of his hero, Eusebius notes first of all good morals, then education, innate intelligence, and only in conclusion “God-given wisdom” (Ibid., 26. 3–6). Purity of faith is preceded in another characteristic by philanthropy and good will, and this characteristic ends with an indication of Constantine’s love for the truth (Ibid., 142. 28–29). Apparently, Eusebius is not alien to the idea that piety is not the only and certainly not the first virtue of Constantine. Philanthropy, as well as related generosity, long-suffering, meekness, pity and non-anger in dealing with subjects, accessibility, generosity, fatherly care for subjects are most often highlighted by the author in the guise of Constantine 348. In the long list of qualities attributed by Eusebius to the emperor, confessional traits do not necessarily play a major role. Along with piety, Eusebius emphasizes in Constantine his wisdom and related virtues: intelligence, knowledge, eloquence... The virtues of the ideal emperor postulated by Eusebius (wisdom, rationality, goodness, justice, courage, piety, philosophical attitude towards power, self-control, abstinence from carnal pleasures, external dignity in attire) find their counterpart in the writer’s final description Constantine, who succeeded in everything - in wars and the fight against his enemies, in overcoming dangers, foreseeing the future, caring for the common good and the good of the little ones of this world, in governing the state and leading the army, in legislation (Ibid., 259. ΙΟ Ι 8), a just, wise, pious, temperate emperor 349. It is not surprising that often (48 cases) in the “Biography” there are epithets characterizing Constantine’s attitude towards God, represented, however, by a few words: pious, blessed, holy, meek, etc. In total, there are more numerous (70 cases) and much more varied characteristics that are not related to the confessional sphere: they can relate to the qualities of Constantine as a commander, evaluate his glory and greatness, describe the attitude of the emperor towards his subjects and enemies, and finally, touch upon the purely physical characteristics of the hero 350. However, such a characterization of the ruler, in our opinion, marks a departure from the previous traditions of ancient historical writing. Long-suffering, meekness, pity, and love for mankind in the Christian understanding never before, it seems, were considered the virtues of an emperor. Eusebius represents a new image of a Christian sovereign. It begins with the formation of the paradigm of an ideal monarch from a Christian point of view. The ideal image is also created using a system of comparisons, metaphors and epithets. Constantine and other emperors are compared by Eusebius not with Hercules or any other character of ancient mythology or history, but with the Old Testament or, less often, with the New Testament heroes: Abraham, Zerubbabel, etc. The key stereotype in the presentation of the biography of Constantine is the Old Testament Moses in the “Biography”. Eusebius traces analogies with Moses in the childhood of Constantine, in the vicissitudes of his fate, the victories he won, and the emperor’s veneration of God. Even in portrait images, the features of transition are quite noticeable. The normativity of the harmonious unity of the spiritual and the physical, characteristic of classical antiquity, gradually lost its strength in the 4th century, giving way to an increased interest in the manifestations of the weakness and infirmity of the human flesh. This process, which took place in the transition period from antiquity to the Middle Ages, as researchers note, is accompanied and partly caused by such phenomena of cultural life as the disappearance of the gymnasium at the beginning of the 4th century, the growth of professionalism in sports, which turned from a way of life into a spectacle 351. And yet, the emerging early Christian trend does not mean the simultaneous disappearance of the ideal of bodily beauty in the minds of people of late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, be they Christians or pagans. Evidence of this is the use of portrait characteristics in constructing an ideal image. Eusebius, although he praised Constantine for asceticism and mortification of the flesh (Ibid., 54 14–16), was no exception. Emphasizing the primacy of spiritual virtues in Constantine, Eusebius still notes the physical beauty and strength of the emperor. Not only the spiritualized flesh, but also the elementary physical health admired Eusebius in Constantine, and at 60 years old his body did not undergo physical suffering, was strong, free from any defect, younger than the young, strong and beautiful, so that he could do everything he needed - be it classes in the gymnasium, horse riding or a military campaign (Ibid., 142 15-19). The assimilation by late antique aesthetics of the insignificance of human flesh as an object of art 352 in the 4th century, dating back to the Old Testament tradition, apparently still existed as a trend in the evolution of the late antique worldview, which had not yet supplanted the usual ideals of bodily perfection even among such ideologists of Christianity as Eusebius. So, when characterizing the emperor, Eusebius endows him with many virtues and virtues. Most of them traditionally describe him as a commander, politician and ruler. In accordance with the ancient principle of kalokagathia 353, Eusebius strives to show the harmony of the internal and external appearance of his hero. However, before us is a description of no longer an ancient ruler, but a Christian sovereign, Eusebius introduces, along with traditional virtues, another new quality that is necessary for a good emperor - piety and related mercy and care for his subjects. “The glorification of the emperor’s mental abilities, manifested in his education, wisdom, and eloquence, was an integral part of the previous tradition 354. Starting from Eusebius, there has been a tendency to highlight piety in the guise of an ideal basileus, which finds its completion and finalization in Theophanes’ “Chronography”. Thus, the writings of Eusebius reflect certain advances, changes in the worldview of people who lived at the turn of the 3rd-4th centuries, a certain restructuring of their system of value orientations associated with the establishment of the Christian religion. These changes are revealed not only in the characteristics of positive heroes, but also in the description of people condemned by Eusebius. This reverse scale complements the first and allows us to restore a more or less holistic idea of ​​​​a person inherent in the people of that era. Eusebius classifies anti-heroes as heretics, apostates and wicked tyrants-persecutors. Thus, initially they are distinguished from the general mass of people on a confessional basis by their affiliation, or, more precisely, non-belonging to the true church. However, their characteristics also contain many features associated not only with the Christian, but also with the ancient system of values. Eusebius paints a vivid image of a heretic when characterizing Paul of Samosata. “Since he departed from the rules of faith and accepted a false and illegal teaching, there is no point in judging the affairs of a person who is outside the Church, for example, that he was a poor man, a beggar, did not receive any means of living from his parents, was not taught any craft or anything useful at all, and now has become immensely rich through lawlessness and sacrilege, begging from his brothers and intimidating them. He deceives victims of injustice, promises to help for money, bypassing them, and easily makes money on the willingness of people who are confused in matters to give something in order to get rid of those who haunt them. He considers faith a means for profit. He is arrogant and proud, receives worldly titles and prefers to be called not a bishop, but a ducenarius, flaunts himself in the squares, is surrounded by many bodyguards, so that this pomp and contempt for others makes the faith hateful. He behaved not like a bishop, but like a sophist and charlatan “(VII, 30, 6). The main qualities that cause protest and rejection of Eusebius are envy, hypocrisy, pretense, hatred, desire for power (VIII, 1, 7–8), cowardice (VII, 32, 22). So, Eusebius, trying to characterize this or that hero, describes him, indicating the following qualities: poverty or wealth, education or ignorance, arrogance or meekness, pride or humility, external brilliance or modesty, a tendency to deceive (“sophist and charlatan”) or love of truth. Some of these characteristics, for example, humility, meekness, love of truth, can be associated with the affirmation of Christian ethics, but the other part is more likely to correspond to the previous, ancient system of values. A special place in Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” is occupied by descriptions of wicked rulers. The first wicked ruler in the image Eusebius was Nero. Besides the fact that he became a persecutor of Christians, he is endowed with many more vices. “Writing about all the abominations of which he was capable is not our current task, and many have left very detailed stories about him; anyone who is curious can become familiar with the rudeness and madness of this absurd man, who recklessly destroyed countless people, who, due to his bloodthirstiness, did not spare either relatives or friends; he destroyed his mother, brothers and wife, as if his worst enemies, putting them to various deaths” (II, 25, 1-3). Another emperor, Domitian, also became famous for his injustice and cruelty. “Domitian was fierce towards many people: he executed many prominent and noble people in Rome without a real trial, sent thousands of famous people, innocent of anything, into exile and took away their property. In the end, he showed himself to be the successor of Nero in hatred of God and in fighting against God” (III, 17). It is noteworthy that Eusebius charges them not so much with their religious views, as one might expect from a Christian historian, but with their desire for tyrannical rule and cruelty. The first thing that Eusebius notes in his characterization of Emperor Maximin is that “he was a complete despot, he appropriated the title of Augustus to himself and became one by his own will” (VIII, 13, 15), and only then describes him as “a wicked and godless man” (Ibid.). “His son, Maxentius, ruled tyrannically in Rome; at first, wanting to please the people and flatter them, he pretended to adhere to our faith, ordered his subjects to stop persecuting Christians and, portraying himself as pious, assumed the appearance of an accessible and meek ruler than the previous ones. In reality, he turned out to be not what he was thought to be. In whatever wicked deeds he found himself: dirt and all sorts of debauchery, depraved corruption... Everyone... suffered from his cruel tyranny” (VIII, 14. 1). “It is impossible to list how many senators he executed in order to take possession of their property... He crowned his crimes with an appeal to magic... He ruled Rome as a tyrant, and it is impossible to express to what extent he enslaved his subjects; such extreme poverty and lack of food supplies, according to the recollections of our contemporaries, never happened either in Rome or in other places” (VIII, 14, 4–6). Maximin is characterized as his “brother in villainy” (VIII, 14, 7–8), “a hater of good” (IX, 6, 4), “a furious enemy of the Christian faith (was there ever such an atheist in the world!)” (IX, 1, 1). In Eusebius’s view, this is the focus of all negative qualities: arrogance (IX, 8, 13), vanity and arrogant insolence (IX, 7, 2). Moreover, his guilt lies not only in the fact that “the first of the sorcerers and magicians received the highest honors from him, because he was extremely fearful and superstitious and highly revered pagan delusions regarding idols and demons... and therefore undertook to persecute Christians more often and stronger than his predecessors” (VIII, 14, 7-9). He is also described as a bad ruler: “He began to torment and oppress... all the provinces subject to him without exception with heavy taxes, extortion of fabulous amounts of gold, silver and other treasures and all sorts of injustices... He was inferior to no one in drunkenness and debauchery, and became a teacher of evil behavior for the managers and servants in his circle; destroyed discipline in the army, accustoming the soldiers to a pampered and luxurious life; he encouraged the rulers and military leaders who almost ruled with him to rob his subjects and profit from them” (V40;III, 4, 10–11). Maximin is also depicted as a bad military leader - unsuccessful and cowardly. Having suffered defeat, “the unfortunate man, hastily taking off his unbecoming royal attire, cowardly, lowly and cowardly disappeared into the crowd, and then, hiding, wandered through the villages and villages...” (IX, 10, 4). Thus, bringing together all the negative qualities of his hero and giving a general description of Maximin’s personality and his activities, just as in the case of Maxentius, Eusebius simultaneously uses two scales: ancient and Christian. On the one hand, the wicked emperor is naturally portrayed as an atheist and “the enemy of the Christian faith,” 355 but, on the other hand, facts and characteristics that are completely unrelated to the sphere of religion are cited as confirmation. The bad emperor is portrayed as a tyrant, a cruel and unjust ruler, a bad military leader (cowardly and cowardly) and the center of all sorts of vices (drunkenness, debauchery, etc.). Moreover, these two scales of values ​​are not opposed. On the contrary, they complement each other perfectly and serve one purpose - the formation of a coherent negative image. Eusebius pays special attention to Licinius. At first, he acts on the pages of “Ecclesiastical History” as a good ruler, “adorned with reason and piety” (IX, 9, 1), “the great Emperor Constantine awarded him the second place after himself and the high honor of becoming related to him” (X, 8, 2), but later he appears as a fighter against God, a misanthrope and the focus of all sorts of vices. Eusebius explains this change entirely by the will of Licinius himself. He himself “left the path of goodness and followed the evil path of atheists - tyrants. With his own eyes he saw the terrible end of their lives, but he preferred to share their way of thinking rather than maintain the friendship and favor of the best of the sovereigns” (X, 8, 2). Further, Licinius appears as an envious, ungrateful, insidious and hypocritical oathbreaker. “Full of envy of the one who showered him with benefits, he began a criminal and cruel war with him, despising the laws of nature, not remembering either oaths, or kindred blood, or treaties. Licinius daily launched all sorts of intrigues against the best of the sovereigns, as if he was deliberately figuring out how to pay evil to his benefactor. At first he tried to hide his intentions, pretending to be a friend and hoping to achieve his goal more easily through cunning and deception” (X, 8, 3–5). Later, “seeing that his secret intrigues were not successful, for God revealed all the treachery and deceptions of his co-ruler, and no longer able to hide, he began an open war. But, having decided to fight with Constantine, he prepared to rebel against the God of all, whom, as he knew, Constantine honored. He began little by little to persecute his pious subjects. Having lost his common sense, completely gone mad, he decided to fight with God Himself” (X, 8, 7–10). He began to oppress Christians, issued “the most lawless” (X, 8, 11), “extremely cruel and shameful” (ibid.), “barbaric, unjust, truly lawless and illegal” (X, 8, 12) laws. “He came up with thousands of pretexts to extort gold and silver from conquered peoples in every possible way, to remeasure the land and collect taxes even from those farmers who no longer lived in the villages and had long since died, exiled completely innocent people, noble and worthy men, put them under arrest” (X, 8, 12-13), etc. “Having reached the limit of madness, he rushed at the bishops and secretly and cunningly destroyed the most famous churches with his machinations; some were destroyed to the ground, while others were locked. Since the wicked man succeeded in his measures, he decided to begin a general persecution of Christians in the future” (X, 8, 14-18). Thus, the characterization of Licinius given by the Bishop of Caesarea has several aspects. Firstly, using the example of the same person, first the image of a positive hero is drawn, and then a negative one. In the scale of values ​​that Eusebius uses to assess the personality and activities of Licinius, as in many other cases, confessional traits are far from being in the first place. In accordance with ancient ideas, a bad ruler is portrayed primarily as a cruel and unjust tyrant; he oppresses in every possible way not only Christians, but also his other subjects. “The malice in him did not decrease, on the contrary, he even more increased his rage against the peoples under his control; oppressed, tortured by this terrible beast, there was no hope of salvation” (X, 9, 3). Secondly, the characterization of Licinius is indicative from the point of view of assessing human will. In Eusebius' account, all blame and responsibility for his actions is placed not on God or the devil, but entirely on himself. Of his own free will, he “left the path of goodness and followed the evil path of atheists - tyrants.” His own choice determined all his subsequent actions. So, with the emergence of Christianity, a decisive shift occurred in man’s worldview compared to pagan antiquity 356. Already the historical concept of Eusebius of Caesarea is characterized by those special features that will constitute the specificity of early medieval Christian historicism. First of all, the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea demonstrate the rejection of many ideas characteristic of the ancient worldview. Those factors with the help of which ancient historiography explained the course of history now fade into the background or completely disappear from the pages of “Church History”. Instead of the impersonal cosmos, which was typical of the ideas of antiquity, he found himself at the center of the Christian worldview. The Creator of all things is God, endowed with the attributes of transcendence, immutability, omniscience and omnipotence 357. This theocratism of Christian historical thought often gives modern researchers a reason to reproach early Byzantine historians and Eusebius primarily for anti-historicism. However, these accusations are unlikely to be fair. Neither Eusebius nor other historians, up to the modern era, thought or could imagine history without God. In our opinion, it would be more correct to talk here about one of the features of early medieval historicism. The Christian historicism of Eusebius removes history from the power of the laws of nature, the movement of stars and the configurations of celestial bodies. For the first time, perhaps, history stands out from the sphere of nature into an independent branch and begins to be understood as a sphere of human activity. His personal salvation and often the fate of the state depend on a person’s choice and decision. In addition, unlike ancient ideas, where the power of unpredictable and cruel Fate or blind Chance dominated, the course of history is now subject to a completely different logic and pattern. In Eusebius's assessment of historical events, moral accents are very noticeable. In the description of historical events, the “moral logic” is quite clearly visible: unrighteous behavior necessarily entails punishment, and the goal of the entire historical movement is the final moral purification 358. And although many researchers regard this moral order of history rather as a flaw in the historical work of Eusebius, we note that this is also an integral feature of early medieval Christian historicism. Having pushed the Universe and Cosmos into the background, refusing to explain historical events with the help of natural or astrological factors, Fate or blind Chance, Christian historiography offers other principles and a completely different logic of explanation. An important feature of medieval historical thought is the idea of ​​providentialism, the manifestation of God's Providence in the course of history. The core idea that permeates medieval historicism is now the dogma of the providential determination of the direction of history, its ultimate goal, its main stages, the meaning and significance of each of them. Creation, the Fall, redemption, the coming Second Coming of Christ - these are the providential nodes that bind together the chain of times 359. The entire history of mankind in the image of Eusebius is marked with the seal of God's Providence. In addition, Eusebius is the first to introduce the figure of the devil into the historical narrative as a character and, accordingly, as an explanatory principle. God and the devil personify the two poles of good and evil, between which humanity fluctuates in its historical movement. However, Eusebius' historical scheme is far from dualistic; it includes at least three necessary components: God, the devil and man. In this respect, the providentialism of Eusebius and the providentialism of, for example, Augustine differ markedly. If, in the view of a Western thinker, “in earthly life a person plays out a drama, essentially, destined from time immemorial by heaven and under its vigilant control” 360, then the “History” of the Bishop of Caesarea presents a person as a real participant in historical events and a full-fledged actor. A person, be it an emperor, a bishop or a mere mortal, makes his own choice, independently, of his own free will, determines his path and bears responsibility for his actions. So, the most important feature of the historical views of Eusebius and many subsequent Christian authors is the recognition of the freedom of human will and, therefore, man’s responsibility for his choice and for his actions. Eusebius does not specifically formulate this thesis or build a system of proof for it, but the text of his “History” itself shows the significance of free human actions and their influence on the course of historical events. Since man has free will and acts in accordance with his own decisions, one of the ways in which Divine Providence came into contact with human will and, probably, one of the most real ways of God influencing current events was synergy. As Eusebius writes, “Divine providence cooperated with our desires...” (Eus. RE. 6.6.45 (249cd): συνεργούσα τε καί συμπράττουσατοϊςέφήμίν) 361. This idea is not new. It was presented in patristic literature. The Alexandrian tradition, beginning with Clement and Origen, used the term συνεργία to describe the way in which God's grace sanctified Christian ascetics who strived for perfection. Eusebius adapted this idea to describe not so much sanctifying grace as to explain how Divine Providence works in history. Divine Providence is powerful, but it works only in cooperation with people. This idea of ​​synergy, as G. F. Chesnut notes, was the main idea of ​​​​every part of the historical work of Eusebius. It is present even when the word συνεργία itself or its equivalent does not appear in the text 362. So, God creates history in synergy with man - this is the main point of the historical concept of Eusebius of Caesarea. In addition, along with Christianity in the European tradition, paradoxical as it may seem, the idea of ​​objective history 363 arose. Now history begins to be understood not as a process determined by a mechanical set of random events or volitional decisions of individual outstanding individuals, but as an objective, natural process, developing according to its own laws and subject to its own logic. True, within the framework of the Christian worldview, this logic takes on a unique character: any event, any human act causes a certain reaction from God; The main principle regulating human relations and actions becomes the principle of divine reward-punishment, and the meaning of the entire historical movement is understood as the wise education of humanity towards Salvation. Thus, within the framework of the Christian worldview, there arises “the need to explain events in extra- and supra-historical, transcendental terms. As a result, the idea of ​​history took the form of a theology of history” 364. However, in the distant historical perspective, this meant the birth of the idea of ​​objective history. Toynbee A. Greek Historical Thought. New York, 1952. P. 12. Chesnut G. F. The First Christian Histories... P. 14. Downey G. The Perspective of the Early Church Historians // GRBS, Vol. 6. 1965. No. 1 P. 57. Taho-Godi A. A. Hellenistic understanding of the term “history” and related ones // Questions of classical philology Vol. II. M., 1969. P. 151. Gaidenko V.P. The theme of fate and the idea of ​​time in the ancient Greek worldview // VF. 1969. No. 9. pp. 88–98. Bondarenko Yu. Ya. The idea of ​​fate, roots and evolution. M., 1989. Dorner A. Fortune // Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Ed by J Hastings Vol 5 Edingburgh, 1912 Seneca Moral letters to Lucilius // Anthology of world philosophy T 1 Part 1 Μ, 1969 P 508–509 Asmus V.F. Ancient philosophy Μ, 1976 P 486–492 Lurie S. Ya. Herodotus M.-L., 1947 P 158 A.F. Losev connects these two factors together. He emphasizes that “the deepest and most important laws of life with such a sculptural worldview had to be left at the stage of complete unknowability and transcendence, governing not only people, but also the gods. Therefore, Fate in classical historicism was not only a genuine (and at the same time unknowable, unforeseen and completely unexpected) pattern of cosmic world-historical and individual human life, when this Fate not only did not understand anything else that it was creating, but it also did not understand itself. Being an absolute law of life, Fate forced people to act as if it were their own and maximally internal aspiration and desire, as if it were their inner and true freedom. Therefore, ancient classical historicism demanded the unconditional recognition of three ideas, from the point of view of the new European tradesman, in no way compatible. These were the idea of fate, the idea of sculptural design of life and the idea of the complete indistinguishability of freedom and necessity.” For more details, see Losev A.F. Ancient philosophy of history. 244–245 Josephus, Antiq, 19, 77, 8, 251 8, 229,11, 274, 18, 116–117, Bell Jud, 4 622 (about Fate-Chance), 5 355 5 572 6 314 (about Fate-Fate) Josephus in this perhaps follows Philo of Alexandria who used the concepts τύχη and δικη to express the power of God over human history. Eusebius Η E IV, 6, 3, VIII, 14.7 IX, 11.6 X,4, 5, 9, X, 6, 10, IX, 6, 1,1,8,3,11, 1, 12,111,5,7, VI, 1.IX, 10, 14 Goran V. P. Mythologem of fate and some aspects of the genesis of the category of necessity in ancient Greek philosophy // Logical-semantic analysis of knowledge structures Foundations and application Novosibirsk, 1989 P 69–80 Goran V. P. Ancient Greek mythologem of fate Novosibirsk, 1990 P 283 Aka Ancient Greek mythology C 287–288 According to V.P. Goran, already in the III-IV centuries. BC e. the Orphic image of Ananka is formed. Confirmation of this hypothesis is a vase dating from this time, found in Sicily, depicting scenes from “life” in the Underworld. In one scene, a figure with a whip is placed above the figure of Sisyphus, forcing Sisyphus to roll his stone up a mountain. The plot and signature force us to identify this figure with Ananka (Ibid. C 285–286) Goran V. P. Mythologem of fate C 74 Ibid C 74 See also Bekboev A. A. The concept of necessity and chance in the teachings of ancient and eastern thinkers Frunze, 1989. On the foregrounding and dominance in the Hellenistic period of ideas about chance and, accordingly, the categories of fate, fate, chance, for more details see Schwartz E. Uber das Verhältnis der Hellener zur Geschichte // Geschichtliche Schriften Bd I Berlin, 1938 S 62 ff Nilsson M. P. Geschichte der griechischen Religion 2 Aufl, München, 1961 S 190sqq Tyzhov A. Ya. Polybius and his “General History” // Polybius General History T I St. Petersburg, 1994 P 20 Goran V. P. Ancient Greek mythology C 327–328 Milburn R. L. P Early Christian Interpretations of History L, 1954 P 147–148 Trompf G. W. The Logic of Retribution P 140–141 Chesnut G. F. Op cit Croce V., Emmeth A. Historiography in Late Antiquity An Overview // History and Historians in Late Antiquity P 6–7 Chesnut G. F. Op cit P 41 Regarding the use of the term συμβεβηκός to specify the action τύχη, an interesting suggestion was made by V. P. Goran. He draws attention to the use of this word by Aesop and believes that it was not Aristotle who gave the word συμβεβηκός the meaning of “accident,” and in this meaning it was used long before Aristotle, but also before Democritus. Democritus apparently relied on an already existing tradition. Aristotle uses this word only when appealing to Democritus, and Aristotle himself, as evidenced by the entire tone of Part II of Physics, clearly does not share his views and cites them rather as an object for criticism. For more details, see: Goran V. P. Necessity and chance in the philosophy of Democritus. Novosibirsk, 1984. pp. 101–102. Chesnut G. F. Op cit P 49–50 Asmus V.F. Ancient philosophy Μ, 1976 P 463 Jaan Unt “Reflections” as a literary and philosophical monument // Marcus Aurelius Reflections St. Petersburg 1993 P 109 Barg M. A. Epochs and ideas C 154 Chesnut G. F. Op cit P 63 Goran V.P. Decree. op. pp. 326–327. Khvostova K.V. Socio-economic processes in Byzantium and their understanding by Byzantine contemporaries (XIV40-XV40 centuries). M., 1992. P. 124. Christian teaching was just taking shape; the tradition itself was not sufficiently stable. The New Testament canon in its current form was formed only at the end of the 4th century, although the selection of sacred books began two hundred years earlier. The main part of the canonical works was recognized as sacred books already in the time of Irenaeus, i.e. by the end of the 2nd century. However, a huge number of works, despite their antiquity and fairly wide circulation, were not recognized by everyone as authentic and sacred. In the 111th century, a list of sacred books was compiled in Rome; at the same time, Alexandria had its own list, different from the Roman one. Gnostic Christians and Judeo-Christians had their own set of “sacred scriptures.” A turning point in the compilation of the canon occurred in the 4th century. In 363, at the Council of Laodicea, it was decided to send letters to Christian communities with a list of canonical works. The Laodicean Canon included all the works that were later included in the New Testament, except for the Revelation of John. In 367, in a letter from Bishop Athanasius, all 27 works of the New Testament were already named. The Didache and “The Shepherd of Herma” remained controversial. But this list was not final; the Christians of Syria did not recognize the Revelation of John in the 4th century; Egyptian Christians did not accept orthodox teaching at all (they had their own “holy books”). The word κανών itself began to be applied to the holy books of Christians and to designate a model with which all statements, actions, and sermons should be compared only from the middle of the 4th century. The list of holy books was finally approved only at the Council of Carthage in 419 (For more information about this, see A. P. Kazhdan. From Christ to Constantine, p. 108. I. S. Sventsitskaya, Early Christianity, pages of history, pp. 191–209). Andreev I. D. Arians // Christianity Encyclopedic Dictionary M., 1993 T. 1 P 115 Philo of Alexandria is an outstanding representative of Jewish Hellenism, theologian, major religious thinker, apologist, representative of the Alexandrian theological school. Armstrong K. A. History of God London, 1993 P 83–84 Athenagoras - apologist of the 1st century. A native of Athens, he received a philosophical education and devoted his knowledge to serving Christianity. Main works: “The Petition” to Marcus Aurelius (177 AD), “On the Resurrection of the Dead.” Tatian is a Christian apologist writer of the 2nd century, a student of Justin. Originally from Assyria, he received a traditional philosophical education and was “very famous for his pagan wisdom.” Towards the end of his life he became interested in Gnosticism. The time of his death presumably dates back to the year 175. The main work is “Speech against the Hellenes.” Theophilus of Antioch - saint, apologist writer of the 2nd century. Pagan by origin. Well educated Having converted to Christianity, he became its zealous confessor and defender. Since 168 - Bishop of Antioch. Died in the 80s of the 2nd century. The only surviving work is “Epistle to Autolycus on the Christian Faith.” Irenaeus of Lyons - saint, major theologian, church father of the 2nd century. Born c. 130 in Asia Minor, was a student of Polycarp of Smyrna and the elders who had also seen the Apostle John. The Bishop of Lyon is well acquainted with Greek poetry and philosophy. During the persecution of Septimius Severus in 202, he died a martyr's death. The most important work is “Exposing and Refuting False Knowledge,” or “Against Heresies.” Clement of Alexandria, Titus Flavius, - presbyter, famous teacher and writer of the late 2nd - early 3rd centuries. Probably a pagan by birth, perhaps from a wealthy family, widely educated. The main works “Protreptic”, “Teacher”, “Stromata”, etc. Origen - famous Christian theologian and philosopher Born in Alexandria ca. 185 in a Greek or Hellenized Egyptian family that converted to Christianity. Well educated. He was engaged in teaching activities. In 228 he was ordained a presbyter, in 231 he was condemned by the church. He died in 254 after a heavy imprisonment during the Decius persecution. His main works were “Hexaples”, “On the Principles”, “Against Celsus”. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Ed by E Ferguson London, 1990 P 376–382 For more details, see Prestige G L God in Patristic Thought L, 1952 Grant R. M. The Early Christian Doctrine of God Charlottesville Univ of Virginia Paris, 1966 Grant R. M. Gods and the One God Philadelphia Westminster, 1986 The religious and theological views of Eusebius were assessed differently in the scientific literature. Some researchers focus on the strong influence of Arian ideas on Eusebius. Others, on the contrary, consider the Bishop of Caesarea to be a moderate orthodox, who sometimes showed certain hesitations. On the Arianism of Eusebius, see Rozanov N. Eusebius Pamphilus S 19, Averintsev S. S. The order of the cosmos and the order of history S 274–275, Yastrebov A. Eusebius of Caesarea S 143–147, Dempf A. Eusebios als Historiker S 12–13, Idem Geistesgeschichte der altchristlischen Kultur Stutgart, 1964 S 80–89 Berkhof H. Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea Amsterdam, 1939 P 65 ff, Chesnut G. F. Op cit P 159, Winkelmann F. Kirchengeschichtswerke S 8 Wallace-Hadrill D. Eusebius of Caesarea Westminster, 1961. Shichalin Yu. K. history of rethinking the term ύπόστασις // Ancient Balkan Studies Issue 3 Linguistic data and ethnocultural context of the Mediterranean Μ, 1978 P 60–61 Lyubarsky Ya. N. Byzantines on the “engines of history” // Social consciousness in the Balkans in the Middle Ages Kalinin, 1982 P. 5. It is interesting that the concept of providence (πρόνοια), or foresight, care, care is used not only in relation to God, but by this term. Irmsher I. Main features of ideas about progress in Byzantium // VV T 49 1988 C 53 Anthology of world philosophy T 1 Part 1 M.1969 P 506–507 Dionysius - Bishop of Alexandria (246–265 AD), head of the catechetical school from 223 See Eusebius Pamphilus Church history From 425 Note 40 Downey G. The Perspective... P 57 Golubtsova N.I. At the origins of the Christian Church. M., 1967 C 12 Krivushin I.V. Birth C 29–30 He is also Early Byzantine C 73–74 Trompf G. W. The Logic of Retribution P 134 An analysis of Eusebius’s language leads the researcher to the conclusion that Eusebius tried to take into account the specific perception of both audiences brought up in the biblical (especially ecclesiastic) tradition and the pagan one, which existed especially at the imperial court, well familiar with the examples of Greek historiography, but not familiar with Christian history. On the one hand, Eusebius constantly returns the reader to the Old Testament stories, as well as to Luke’s Acts, which constantly appeal to the theme of Yahweh’s punishment of evil and justification of obedience (Trompf G. W. Notions of Historical Recurrence in Classical Hebrew Historiography // Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament Ed by J A Emerton Leiden, 1979 P 219–229), as well as to the psalms and prophecies. However, Eusebius uses non-biblical terminology. In the Septuagint and New Testament literature there is very rarely an actually hypostatized Justice, or Punishment (Δίκη). For Eusebius, Δίκη (God's punishment) is one of the most important categories. This probably suggests that Eusebius's choice of language was driven more by the Hellenistic tradition (Idem The Logic of Retribution P 135). However, Eusebius rethinks this concept. If in the Greco-Roman tradition it acted as an abstract principle of Justice, then in Eusebius it is associated with God (' η άξία δίκη, ' η θεία δίκη). Herod Agrippa I, the grandson of Herod the Great, took possession of all of Palestine in 40. In 44 he suffered a terrible death (Wed Acts 12:23). The evidence cited by Eusebius from Scripture and Josephus names different kings. One tells of Herod, who was sometimes associated with Herod the Great, the other of Agrippa. Eusebius himself does not hide these discrepancies, but makes an attempt to explain them. “I am surprised at the coincidence of this story in Joseph and in the Holy Scriptures,” he writes, “it is truthful. If some think that there is disagreement in the name of the king, then both deeds and days point to the same person. Perhaps the scribe made a mistake and changed his name, or perhaps the same person bore two names, as happens with many (II, 10, 10). As modern researchers confirm, this king really bore the double name Herod Agrippa (Eusebius Pamphilus “Church History” M, 1993 C 382 Note 27). Herod Antipas - one of the sons and heir of Herod the Great Galerius, official name Caesar Gaius Galerius Valerius Maximian Augustus - adopted son and co-ruler of Emperor Diocletian, in 305 he was proclaimed Augustus together with Constantius Chlorus after the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian Herculius and received control of Illyria, Asia and the East, his residence was Nicomedia Galerius was an active enemy of Christians, and it was under his pressure that Diocletian started persecuting them. However, at the end of his life, having fallen ill with an incurable disease, Galerius sharply changed his policy and published Maximin (full name Caesar Galerius Valerius Maximin Augustus, went down in history under the name Maximin Daza) - nephew of Emperor Galerius, received the title of Caesar in 305, and the title of Augustus in 309, ruled Egypt and Syria. At the beginning of his reign, he was outwardly lenient towards Christians, many of them were released from prison, returned from the mines, they were not persecuted and they were allowed to gather for meetings. However, Maximin then continued the policy of brutal persecution of Christians. In 313, he was defeated in the Battle of Adrianople by Licinius, fled and ended his life under unclear circumstances, either he was poisoned or committed suicide. All eastern provinces recognized the authority of Licinius. For more details, see Fedorova E.V. Decree op. C 258–259 Gallienus (full name: Caesar Publius Licinius Valerian Egnatius Gallienus Augustus, 218–268 AD) is the son and heir of Valerian, Roman emperor from 253 (until 259 - in co-government with his father). The entire period of his reign was filled with the struggle against numerous usurpers in the provinces, who in most cases were supported by the local aristocracy Philhellen, a friend of Plotinus, the patron of Neoplatonism. He stopped the persecution of Christians started by his father. Other authors give Gallienus and his reign a very unflattering description. See Authors of biographies of the Augustans Trebellius Pollio Two Gallienae IX, XVI, XXI // VDI No. 2 1959 He is Thirty Tyrants I // VDI 1959 No. 3 For more details, see Fedorova E. V. Decree op. C 233–235 Trompf G. W. The Logic of Retribution P 133 Robert Grant refutes the testimony of Eusebius, accusing him of bias and outright falsification of facts (Grant R. M. The Case against Eusebius, or Did the Father of Church History write History? // StP Vol 12 1975 P 416–418). However, the author himself bases his accusations only on assumptions. However, in this case we are not interested in the veracity of Eusebius, but in his interpretation of history, the very way of explaining events. Chesnut G. F. Op cit P 76–83 Timpe D. Op cit S 182 Melito - Bishop of Sardia, in Lydia, apologist of the 2nd century From the apology written in 172 and directed to Marcus Aurelius, only fragments have survived. There is very little information about his life. For more details, see Writings of ancient Christian apologists St. Petersburg, 1999 Krivushin I.V. Early Byzantine church historiography C 73 He is also the Birth of church historiography C 30 Trompt G. W. Op cit P 134 Hippolytus of Rome, St. Probably Greek by origin, but born in Rome. Disciple of St. Irenaeus of Lyons. Widely educated Presbyter in Rome. In the 30s, antipope. In 235, he was expelled to Sardinia, to the mines, where he died. The main work is “Exposure of all heresies” Sirinelli J. Les vues historiques P 388–390 Krivushin I.V. Early Byzantine S 60 Kotlyarevsky S. Introductory essay // M. Aurelius Reflections Magnitogorsk, 1994 From LXX11 In scientific literature, the early Byzantine church tradition and Eusebius as its representative are rarely contrasted with Jewish historiography. It is usually noted that Christian authors use such ideas of Jewish historiography as the idea of providential history, the idea of constant action in history of the principle of divine influence, the idea of continuity of true teaching, etc. However, researchers sometimes point out that in the works of Eusebius and his successors elements are found that are completely unacceptable for Judaism, the main of which are the recognition of the importance of the figure of Christ, the theory of divine pedagogy. For more details, see Tgtre D. Op cit S 171 – 204 Trompf G. W. Op cit P 135, 138 Widgery A. G. Interpretations of History from Confucius to Toynbee London, 1961 P 98–104,114–139 Chesnut G. F. Op cit P 47 It is interesting that miracles in Eusebius’s view are not so much evidence of the omnipotence of God (as in the Old Testament tradition), but rather the result of free cooperation between the will of the Wonderworker and the will of the believer (in the spirit of the Gospel teaching). On the understanding of miracles in the Old Testament, see Kryvelev I.A. Bible historical-critical analysis pp. 93–94. On the perception of a miracle in the Gospel understanding, see Averintsev S.S. Christianity in the history of European culture // Problems of the Middle Ages Culturological studies. Scientific notes of the Moscow Cultural Lyceum No. 1310. Series theory, history and philosophy of culture Vol. 3 No. 1–2 Μ, 1998 WITH IZ. Trompf G. W. The Logic of Retribution P 139–140 Sheinman M. M. Belief in the devil in the history of religion M. 1977 C 18 Sandlov Yu. Devil Historical and cultural phenomenon St. Petersburg, 1997 P 34, 55 Kryvelev I. A. Religious picture of the world and its theological modernization Μ, Ibid. C 181 Sheinman M. M. Decree op. From 18 Sheinman M. M. Decree op. C 33 Delumo J. Horrors in the West M, 1994 C 204 According to experts, the word “devil” is used 37 times in the New Testament, and “Satan” 35 times. For more on this, see Encyclopedia of Early Christianity New York-London, 1990 P 833 Lebedev A.P. Church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th to the 20th centuries St. Petersburg, 1903 C 68 Sirinelli J. Les Vues historiques P 291 Momigliano A. Pagan and Christian Historiography. P 90 Krivushin I. V. Birth of S 32 Krivushin I.V. Early Byzantine C 78 Onzhe Birth C 35. Krivushin I. V. Early Byzantine S 77 Godecke M. Geschichte als Mythos Eusebs Kirchengeschichte Bern, 1987 Nigg W. Die Kirchengeschichtsschreibung Grundzuge ihrer historischen Entwicklung München, 1934 S 15 Winkelmann F. Kirchengeschichtswerke S 9 Heussi K. Zum Geschichtsverstandnis des Eusebius von Casarea S 90 Krivushin I.V. Decree op. From 74–78 Belenky M. S. On the mythology and philosophy of the Bible Μ, 1977 Hessen S. Piatonismus und Prophetismus Die antike und biblische Geistewelt in strukturvergleichender Betrachtung München, Basel, 1955 Udaltsova 3. V. Evolution of concepts C 32 She is also Church historians of early Byzantium // VV, 1982 T 43 C 3–21 Mayorov G. G. Formation of medieval philosophy M, 1979 Sokolov V. V. Medieval philosophy M, 1979 The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy Ed by A. H. Armstrong Cambridge, 1967 Winkelmann F. Die Kirchengeschichtswerke im ostromischen Reich // BS, 1976 Bd 37 S 1–10,172–190 Valerian (full name: Caesar Publius Licinii Valerian Augustus (193–260 AD)) was a Roman emperor from 253 to 259. According to some researchers, during his reign the crisis of the 3rd century reached its highest point. In 257–258 he carried out persecution of Christians. In 258 he was defeated by the Persian king Sapor I at Edessa and was captured. He died in 260 in a Persian prison. As I.V. Krivushin shows, in the “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius of Caesarea there are three peoples: 1) a Christian, chosen people, called λαός, 2) a pagan people, described with a negative connotation - δήμος, 3) a people on the path to Christianity, an intermediate substrate, πλήθος (Krivushin I.V. History and people in church historiography of the 5th century Ivanovo, 1994 C 13, 18). It is in this negative context that Eusebius uses the word “people”, “rabble” here Theotekn means “child of God” in Greek. Kazhdan A.P. From Christ to Constantine S 86–87 Beck P. N. Vorsehung und Vorherbestimmung in der theologischen Literatur der Byzantiner Roma, 1937 S 21 Bryanik N. V., Trubina E. G. Interpretation in historical and scientific research // Interpretation as a historical, scientific and methodological problem Novosibirsk, 1986 P 109–120 For more information about this, see Weinberg I.P. Man in the culture of the ancient Near East Μ, 1986 C 158 Chesnut S. F. Op cit P 57 The word φθόνος is of archaic origin, however, unlike τύχη or μο᾿ιρα, φθόνος carries considerable semantic load in Christian texts. According to the Lampe dictionary, φθόνος is equivalent to evil in general, and in some Christian texts it is translated as "devil". The first translation (“envy”) is more correct, of course, but without understanding the allusions of the second, it is difficult to fully understand the meaning of Christian texts (Zhurenko N.B. Rhetoric in Early Byzantine Poetry C 221) Chesnut G. F. Op cit P 58 As an illustration, Gregory cites the well-known fable about a dog that bent over the water with a bone in its teeth. Seeing the reflection of a bone in the water, she tried to grab the reflected image, which looked even more attractive than the original, and dropped the real bone. Utchenko S. L. Political teachings of ancient Rome M, 1977 From 183–185 onwards Tiberius Claudius Nero (42 BC – 37 AD). Roman Emperor from 14 AD e. In the ancient tradition, he was most often portrayed as a tyrant and a hypocrite, especially by Tacitus. For more details, see Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus The Life of the Twelve Caesars M “Science”, 1993 – Tiberius 21–24, Tacitus Annals I, 7 Fedorova E. V. Decree op. S 109–114 Vespasian Titus Flavius (9–79 AD) - Roman emperor from 69, the first emperor of non-senator origin, founder of the Flavian dynasty, one of the most prominent rulers of the Roman principate Vespasian had the reputation of a fair, unforgiving, accessible and lenient man. The Romans preserved the memory of him as one of the best emperors. He was officially deified and a luxurious marble church of Vespasian was built in the Forum. For more details, see Suetonius Vespasian Tacitus History, IV, 1–50 Fedorova E. V. Decree op. S 161–172 Trajan Marcus Ulpius (53–117 AD) - Roman emperor from 98. He began his career as a simple legionnaire, in 91 he became consul, and in subsequent years distinguished himself by commanding troops on the Rhine. Having come to power, he quickly rid Rome of informers (Gaius Pliny Caecilius Secundus Panegyric to Emperor Trajan 34–36 // Letters of Pliny the Younger Letters of I-H. Edited by A. I. Dovatur M “Science”, 1984). He took care of improving roads and harbors, which contributed to the development of trade. On his initiative, the state took upon itself the care of raising orphans and children of poor parents. He managed to provide Rome with bread. He maintained regular correspondence with provincial rulers and kept the entire Roman Empire in his sights. The Senate awarded him the title "best emperor." Known as a great conqueror. He defeated the Dacians and Parthians, conquered the Nabatean kingdom, annexed Mesopotamia and Armenia. For more details, see Fedorova E.V. Decree op. S 178–183 Publius Aelius Hadrian (76–138 AD) – Roman emperor from 117, adopted son and heir of Trajan. For more details, see Fedorova E. V. Decree op. C 186–190 Flavius ​​Valerius Constantius I Chlorus (Pale) - father of Constantine the Great, founder of the Constantius dynasty. He was proclaimed Caesar in 293 and became Augustus together with Galernius after the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian in 305. He received control of Gaul, Italy and Africa, but then abandoned Italy and Africa. Eutropius writes that he was a gentle and courteous man and lived so modestly that on holidays he even borrowed silver dishes from others, the Gauls loved him and rejoiced that got rid of both the feigned prudence of Diocletian and the bloodthirsty recklessness of Maximian Herculius (Eutropius X, 1). Constantius Chlorus was very lenient towards Christians, of whom there were many among his close associates. For more details, see Fedorova E.V. Decree op. C 251 Chichurov I. S. The place of Theophanes’ “Chronography” in the early Byzantine historiographical tradition (IV – early 9th centuries) // The most ancient states on the territory of the USSR. M., 1981. pp. 84–85. Chichurov I.S. Decree. op. P. 86. Cameron A. Circus Factions Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium. Oxford, 1976, pp. 215–216. Averintsev S. S. Poetics pp. 60–64 For more details, see Losev A. F. History of ancient aesthetics Results of the thousand-year development of Book II Μ, 1994 P 386–438 Chichurov I. S. Decree op. From 71–78 It is interesting that Eusebius describes Maximin in the same terms as the devil himself - “The said ruler of the East, a tyrant, a hater of beauty, an enemy of all good, being unable to bear it, did not allow this state of affairs to persist for six full months. This is how he came up with the idea of ​​disturbing the peace” (IX, 2, 1). Probably, in the system of ideas of Eusebius, the tyrant and the devil are more or less equal participants in history; Their guilt and responsibility for this course of events, from the point of view of Eusebius, are apparently approximately the same. Meyerson I. Les temps, !a memoire, l’histoire // Journal de psychologie 1966 Vol 53 No. 3 P 2 Barg M. A. Epochs and ideas C 78 Skvortsov L.V. Time and necessity in history. M., 1974. P. 8. Barg M.A. Decree op. P 84. Mayorov G. G. Formation... P 332. Quoted from: Chesnut G. F. Op.cit. P. 59.n. 72. Marcus R. Saeculum, History and Society in St. Augustine. NewYork, 1970. P. 42. Barg M.A. Decree. op. C. 83.