Часть первая. Жизнь св. Григория Чудотворца

Chapter I. Pontus - a general outline of his condition before St. Gregory the Wonderworker St. Gregory the Wonderworker, as far as we know, spent his entire life, with the exception of very few years, in Pontus, mainly in his hometown of Neocaesarea, and here he exercised his episcopal ministry as the founder and first organizer of the Pontic churches. There is no doubt that the nature of his activity in many respects depended on the conditions - geographical, historical, ethnographic, cultural and religious - in which it took place. In view of this, we must first of all enter into consideration of these conditions - in such quantities, of course, as is required by our immediate task and as far as possible according to the current state of scientific data. Pontus in later usage was the name given to a long strip of varying width in different places in the northeastern part of the Asia Minor peninsula along the southern coast of the Black Sea. In the west it bordered on Paphlagonia, from which it was separated by the river Halys, and on Galatia; in the south - with Galatia, Cappadocia and Lesser Armenia; in the east it extended to the river. Phasis and bordered on Colchis and Greater Armenia, and in the north it was washed by the Black Sea 2. This region received the name “Pont” from Pontus Euxine (Πόντος Εὔξεινος), as the Black Sea was called in ancient times. It is necessary, however, to note that the name “Pont” received such geographical certainty only during Roman rule. The most ancient Greek writers used the name “Pont” to designate the shores of the Black Sea in general and, above all, the Greek cities that covered these shores. Attic orators usually used this term in application to the Greeks of Chersonese, Tauride and Bosporan kingdom; but Herodotus already speaks of the Greeks of Pontus, who delivered Xerxes to the fleet in 480 BC. 100 ships, and, obviously, generally refers to the southern coast of the Euxine Pontus, and Xenophon in Anavasis designates with the name “Pontus” the eastern parts of the southern coast of the Black Sea 3. Consequently, "Pontus" was originally a descriptive rather than a proper geographical name. When in Greek times a state was formed here, embracing many different nationalities of this region, and the interior of the country was called Cappadocia, Cappadocia under Taurus, then the coastal part was called Pontus or, more precisely, Cappadocia under Pontus 4. In the II century. BC Polyvius calls the kingdom “Cappadocia at Euxinus” 5. From here, little by little, the abbreviated name “Pont” arose. but, as the testimony of Strabo shows, in his time it was not yet in common use. Thus, the name “Pont” only in later times and due to political circumstances received a more or less definite content. But even now, since the kingdom was formed through conquest from various nationalities and did not have firmly established boundaries, either natural or national, its limits and the mutual relations of individual parts were constantly changing, which must be kept in mind when determining the scope and meaning of the term “Pontus” in each individual case. These changes will be clarified, if possible, when reviewing the historical destinies of Pontus; when determining the character of the Pontic country in topographical and ethnographic terms, to which we will first of all turn, one can be content with the indicated approximate borders of Pontus, which embraced the space of the current Turkish vilayets - Trebizond, Sivas and part of Erzurum. Pontus represents one of the most mountainous and wild countries on the globe: it is all filled with high mountains and mountain ranges; the plains here are a complete accident: they are actually wide mountain valleys, basins of dried up mountain lakes and alluvial areas at river mouths. The Pontic Mountains are a continuation and offshoot of the Caucasus Mountains. The general direction of these mountains, located in the form of a chain, is parallel to the Black Sea coast. Along this chain there are several massifs, each with its own special name. In ancient times these mountains were called Pariadra (Παρυάδρις) and are known under the general name of Pontic Taurus. These mountains are particularly high, reaching up to 8,000 feet or more in individual peaks, in the eastern part of Pontus. To the west they gradually decrease, but are still quite high, and at certain intervals they form significant ridges, for example, Gyumush-Dag between Lik and Tarabul Lake, Kemer-Dag - between Lik and Iris, Chamlibel - to the south of Iris. In the valleys of the Pontic Taurus, the rock walls are either polished or furrowed. Traces of volcanic activity are visible; At present, the only signs of underground sources are frequent earthquakes and the presence of hot springs gushing out of the ground at the base of mountains and at heights. The rocks from which the slabs are broken out contain deposits of wavy jasper, which lends itself well to polishing; Here, it is believed, those jasper vases that Mithridates VI loved to show to his guests were made. The limestone mountains that rise inland are covered with yellowish clay, in which nests of ferrous stone with a small metal content are found, and the locals smelt this ore in small village factories to obtain iron of excellent quality. The local residents involved in this trade are also miners, blacksmiths and charcoal miners; They lead a nomadic life, moving their huts and forges to a new place when the ore deposits in the old one seem depleted to them. All such mountains are dotted with ruined ore smelting furnaces and piles of slag 6 . To the southwest of Pariadra, as if a continuation of it, is the even higher, wild and inaccessible mountain range Skidis (Σχυδίσης) or Scordis (Σχορδίσχος), separated from Pariadra only by small valleys cut by wild mountain streams. This snowy mountain, rising to 10,000 feet, forms the watershed between the Pontic rivers and the region of the Araxes and Euphrates to the south. In the west, this mountain range passes into the Cappadocian Antitaurus, which stretches in a southwestern direction and forms the watershed between Halys and the Euphrates. The mountain ranges of the Pontic Taurus have numerous branches that run in parallel ridges to the north and reach the Black Sea itself; they form deep and winding valleys through which numerous streams, originating at the heights of the mountains, make their way to the sea. The spurs of the mountain range for the most part abruptly break off at the very shore of the sea, so that there are almost no coastal lowlands; but the southern slopes of these mountains towards the mountain valleys located among them are always sloping. Parallel mountain ranges continue even after their river breaks through. Iris, to the west of it, like the branches of Pariadra. Mountain masses cut by the river. Gadis, then move to Paphlagonia, Galatia and Bithynia. Strabo says that the Pariadra is intersected at many points by steep ravines and slopes 7 . He also mentions the steep high cliffs that made up the natural fortifications 8. Such inaccessible rocks played an outstanding role in the history of the Pontic kingdom. In the center between the two main chains - Pariadros and Skidis - lies an area that is far from accurately called the “Plain of Iris”: in reality it represents an extremely undulating terrain with very large folds, a whole series of plateaus with scattered peaks and isolated mountain ranges, such as, for example, Lifr (Λίθρος) and Oflim (’ Όφλιμος ) 9 ; Pontic rivers and mountain streams wind between them. Surrounded by high mountains, Pontus is literally furrowed by rivers 10. True, most of them, especially those that originate on the northern slopes of the mountain range, are only short and swift streams; but they make their secluded valleys fertile and therefore are of great importance in the life of the country. Of the more significant rivers in Pontus, it is necessary to name first of all Gadis (Ἄ λυς), now Kizil-Irmak, and Iris (Ἴ ρις), now Yeshil-Irmak, with Face ( Λύχος), now Kelkit-Irmak or Hermili, and Thermodon ( Θερμώδων), now Terme tea. The Halys rises on the border of Greater Cappadocia, Lesser Armenia and Pontus in the Armenian mountains, that is, where Skidis meets Antitaurus, at an altitude of almost 5,000 feet, and in its course makes a large arc, heading first to the west, then turns to the northwest and north, passes through Cappadocia and Galatia, then forms the border between Pontus and Paphlagonia; then it enters the coastal mountain range, through the gorges of which it makes its way with force and with great noise, making many meanders, and finally, on the coastal plain, it flows through several mouths into the Black Sea between Amis and Sinop. In its course it receives only a few small tributaries. The Galis shares the common fate of all mountain rivers: it is full of water only during the rains, when it rises above its banks; in normal times they move freely even close to the mouth. The speed of the current, waterfalls and low water make Galis completely unnavigable. This river, with its rocky banks, does little to enliven the area through which it flows, and does not even serve for artificial irrigation of the areas adjacent to it 11. The Pontic River par excellence, the main artery of the country is the Iris. It originates on Antitaurus, in the inner, eastern parts of Pontus, and in its course repeats, in smaller sizes, the meanders of Halys: it heads first west past the Pontic Comana, across the Daximonitis plain, then receives the Scylax tributary (Σκύλαξ) on the left, turns northeast to Amasia, cuts through the mountain range and in the Phanaria plain connects with the right a tributary of the Likom, then heads north, cuts through the last chain of rocks with a gorge and, having entered the coastal plain of Themiscyra, is divided at the mouth into a large number of branches, having conquered a significant space from the sea with sediments. Iris flows into the Amis Bay of the Black Sea. Iris is smaller than Galis and is also not distinguished by the abundance of water - only in the spring it rises above the banks. Much more abundant than the Iris is its tributary the Lik, which originates in the highest part of Skidis and much east of the Iris, under the meridian of Trebizond, and in its upper course is accompanied by high and wild mountain ranges, between which lie rich valleys. For a considerable distance from Nikopol to the Neokasari plain, the river flows in narrow mountain gorges. In the south, the Face is separated from the Iris, whose flow is almost parallel to its current, by a rather high mountain range; but its width in some places does not exceed ten miles. On the northern side of the Licus, the foothills of Pariadra rise and soon reach a considerable height, forming a watershed line between the streams of the northern slope and the Licus region. Continuing its long course, the Face receives only mountain streams. When the snow melts or even during a rainstorm, swollen streams rush into the river, which overflows its banks and throws coastal stones into its waters, as a result of which the bottom of the Lik constantly changes its surface and rises significantly over time 12. St. Gregory of Nyssa depicts this river this way: “One river flows through the Pontic country, the very name indicating the speed and indomitability of the flow, for because of the harm it causes to the inhabitants, it is called Λύχος - wolf. With such force it rushes from its sources from Armenia because the high mountains of this country provide it with abundant water. But, being deep in all places, flowing along the soles of the mountains, it is especially overflowing with winter streams, receiving all the water flowing from the mountains. In the lowlands of the country through which it flows, pressed on both sides by banks, in some places it often leaves the channel on both sides, flooding with water everything that is above its bed, so that the inhabitants of these places are constantly exposed to unexpected dangers, because the river often floods fields on a stormy night, and often during the day. Therefore, not only plants, crops and animals perish from such a rush of water, but even the inhabitants themselves are in danger, unexpectedly experiencing a shipwreck in their homes from this flood” 13 . The Thermodon River, small in length but full-flowing, originates on the northern slopes of the Pontic Taurus with several sources. The high valley through which this river flows was known in ancient times for the legend about the Amazons associated with it; - one of the rocky chains that Thermodon cuts, continues west to the river. Iris called Mazon-dag or “Mountains of the Amazons”. Thermodon flows into the Black Sea at Themyscira (Terme). Between the mountain ranges, cut by mountain streams and rivers with their tributaries, lie more or less extensive plains. Of these, the first place belongs to Phanaria (Φανάροια), on the eastern side bounded by Pariadro, and on the west by its spurs - Livre and Ophlim; Almost in the middle of the valley the Iris and the Face merge. Strabo says that Phanaria occupies the best part of Pontus; it represents a valley of considerable length and width 14. West of Phanaria near the river. Halys lies Phasimonitis (Φαζημονῖτις) - a plain more elevated than Phanaria and less fertile. The part of Phasimonitis adjacent to Phanaria, according to Strabo 15, had Lake Stephanou, similar in size to the sea, abundant in fish and surrounded by luxurious, varied pastures. Nearby there were warm springs, “very healthy,” as Strabo put it, 16 which were famous in ancient times. To the southeast of Phanaria was the “fertile plain” 17 of Daximonitis (Δαξιμωνῖτις) or the plain of Gaziura, on the right birch of Iris and between its bends. To the north-west of Amasia there was a valley, at first not wide, then widening and forming the so-called Hyliocom plain (Χιλιόζωμον πεδίον); and then the valleys stretched to Galis - Diakopina (Διακοπηνὴ) and Pimolisina (Πιμωλισηνή). The valleys of the Lika River are still recognized as the most flowery in Asia Minor 18. The Pontic Mountains, as was said, abruptly fall off the Black Sea, and therefore there are no lowlands on the coast, except for the coast where Halys, Lycastus, Iris and Thermodon flow into the sea next to each other. Here are the following plains in the direction from west to east from the Halys River: Gazilonitida (Γαζηλωνῖτις) - “fertile area, level and abundant in everything” 19, Saramina (Σαραμὴνη) - “beautiful area” 20, Themiscyra ( Φεμίσκορα) - a plain, one part of which is washed by the sea, and the other is located at the foot of a mountain range, covered with luxurious forest, watered by rivers that also have their sources there; Thermodon, which receives all these rivers, and Iris 21 flow through it. Beyond Themiscyra lies Sidina (Σιδηνὴ) - “a fertile plain, unevenly irrigated” 22. In climatic terms, Pontus compares favorably with its neighboring countries - Cappadocia and Galatia. There cannot be monotony in it due to its very geographical location: on the Black Sea coast and on the northern slopes of the Pontic Taurus, the climate should be different than on the southern slopes of the mountain range, in the basins of the Iris and Lika rivers. The northern and western winds, passing through the Black Sea, reach the Pontic coast greatly softened and saturated with moisture. Rainfall here is plentiful, and frosts, even moderate ones, are rare. The further from the coast and the higher into the mountains, the harsher the climate becomes: on the mountains and in mountain gorges frosts reach significant levels, and snow lingers for more than half a year. The Irisa River basin is closed to the north by the Pariadrome, and the climate here is much milder. The temperate and humid climate favors luxuriant vegetation. Even now, forests occupy a fairly large area, covering mainly the slopes of the mountains. The upper strip of mountain forests consists of species of pine, spruce, cedar, and larch that are highly valued as shipbuilding material: then there are oaks, elms, plane trees, myrtles, beech, azaleas, and rhododendrons; a little lower they are replaced by wild cherries, apple trees, pears and other fruit trees, and finally, even lower - vast forests of walnuts, chestnuts, plane trees, cypresses; lemon and oil trees and vineyards surround towns and villages. The valleys are rich in pastures and suitable for farming. Strabo, a native of Pontus 23, describing its plains, testifies to the rich vegetation in different places; according to him, Gazilonitis was a fertile area, abundant in everything - it had fine-wool sheep, which Cappadocia and Pontus (eastern) suffered from a lack of 24; Themiscyra always has enough moisture, is always covered with grass, and is capable of feeding herds of bulls and horses; Mostly, or rather continuously, buckwheat and millet are sown on it; there is never a drought here, and famine never befalls the population in these areas; on the other hand, the border mountain provides such a quantity of wild fruits, namely grapes, pears, apples, nuts, that people visiting the forests find there in abundance throughout the summer, all these fruits are either still hanging on the trees, or in large piles of fallen leaves or under them; Thanks to the abundance of food, all kinds of game are often hunted here 25. Phanaria has olive trees and vineyards 26. In Fazimonitite, around Lake Otifani, which abounded in fish, there were luxurious and varied pastures 27 . The Amasia region abounded in forests, was convenient for feeding horses and all kinds of livestock, and was generally suitable for excellent settlement 28 . According to Strabo's elephants, the Pariadra mountain range was well irrigated and covered with forest 29 . Coastal residents were engaged in fishing, mainly bonito and dolphins - the latter, chasing herds of fish - young tuna, female tuna and bonito, become fat and become easy to catch, because in search of tasty food they come close to the shore; A large amount of fat was extracted from dolphins, which was used for various needs 30. Such was the main character of the Pontic country. We find a pictorial description of one corner of Pontus, located near Neocaesarea, on the banks of the Iris, in the correspondence of St. Basil the Great with Gregory the Theologian. St. Basil the Great writes to Gregory the Theologian 31. “Now I’m going to Pontus to learn how to live. Here, of course, God shows me a place that exactly corresponds to my character; for this is how I see him in reality, as I am often used to imagining him in my mind at leisure and for fun. It is a high mountain, covered with dense forest on the northern side. But beneath the mountain lies a sloping valley, constantly thickened by moisture from the mountain. Around the valley, a forest that has grown on its own, from various kinds of trees, serves as a kind of fence, and in comparison with it, the Calypsin Island, the beauty of which Homer especially seems to be amazed at, means nothing. For not much is lacking for the valley, due to the strongholds fencing it from everywhere, to resemble an island. Deep ravines have been dug on both sides, and on the side the river flowing from the rapids also serves as a continuous and impregnable wall. And since the mountain stretches in both directions and adjoins ravines with moon-shaped bends, access to the foothills is blocked. There is only one entrance to it, which we own. Behind our place of residence there is another ridge, its lofty peak rising above the mountain, and from it the entire plain unfolds before our eyes; from above you can also see the river flowing past the plain, which, in my opinion, gives no less pleasure than the Strymon, if you look at it from Amphipolis. For the Strymon, in its slow flow spreading into the form of a lake, due to its immobility almost ceases to be a river. And this river, being the fastest of all known to me, is somewhat fierce at the neighboring cliff and, reflected from it, swirls in a deep whirlpool, which gives me and every spectator a very pleasant view, and brings the most satisfactory benefit to the native inhabitants and in its depths feeds an innumerable multitude of fish. Is it necessary to talk about the coolness of the earth and the breezes from the river? Let anyone else marvel at the multitude of flowers and songbirds, but I don’t have the leisure time to pay attention to them. Of all that I can say about my refuge, the most important thing is that, although the convenience of the situation is capable of growing all sorts of fruits, for me it brings back the sweetest of fruits - silence, because it not only frees me from urban riots, but also does not bring a single traveler to us, except for those who meet us on the hunt for animals. For, above all else, there are also animals here, however, not bears, or your pins, no, herds of deer, wild goats, hares and the like live here. Therefore, consider what danger I, feeble-minded, would be exposed to if I stubbornly decided to exchange such a refuge for Tiberin - this earthly abyss.” St. Gregory the Theologian, who visited St. Vasily in his Pontic solitude, does not share his enthusiastic review and in an ironic tone, but bearing in mind the actual features of Pontic nature, for his part gives the following description of the same area 32. “I will marvel at your Pontus and the Pontic twilight, this dwelling worthy of fugitives, these mountain ridges hanging overhead and the wild beasts that test your faith, this desert lying below, or a wormhole with honorable names: monastery, monastery, school, these forests of wild plants, this crown of steep mountains, with which you are not crowned, but locked. I will be amazed that you have plenty of air and a rare sun, which you see as if through smoke, Pontic Cimmerians, sunless people, not only condemned to a six-month night, as they say about others, but even never in their lives without a shadow - people whose whole life is one long night and in the full sense (I will say in the words of Scripture) the shadow of death (Luke I, 79). I also praise this narrow and cramped path, which I don’t know where it leads - to the kingdom or to hell; but for you, let it lead to the kingdom. And what is in the middle, shouldn’t I call it, if you want (but, of course, not in truth), Eden and a source divided into four principles, from which the universe is fed? Or call it a dry, waterless desert, which some Moses will fertilize, drawing water from a stone with a rod? For what is not covered with stones is dug into ravines; and where there are no ravines, everything is overgrown with thorns; and above the thorns there is a cliff, and on the cliff there is a steep and unreliable path, which accustoms the traveler’s mind to composure and exercises caution. Below, the river roars, and this is you, high-voiced creator of new names, this is the amphipolitan and quiet Strymon, abundant not in fish, but in stones, not pouring into the lake, but being carried into the abyss. The river is great and terrible, drowning out the psalmody of those living above; In comparison, waterfalls and rapids mean nothing: it stuns you so much day and night. It is swift, impassable, cloudy, undrinkable; in only one thing is it lenient, which does not carry away your abode when mountain streams and bad weather infuriate it. That's all I know about these happy islands, or about you, the lucky ones. And don’t praise those moon-shaped curves that suppress rather than protect the approach to your foothills; do not praise this peak hanging above your heads, which makes your life Tantalus; do not praise to me these blowing breezes and this earthly coolness that refresh you, tired to the point of darkness; Do not praise the songbirds, which, although they sing, are hungry, and although they flutter, they are in the desert.” And this was the area near the river. Iris and, moreover, in the western part of Pontus, where the mountains were less high and the country had a less wild appearance than in the eastern part, filled with large massifs of mountains. In these, roughly indicated by us, boundaries of Pontus in ancient times lived, according to the nature of the area, isolated, small, heterogeneous and generally wild and warlike tribes, the ethnographic nature of which remains poorly understood to this day: the indigenous inhabitants of the Pontic Mountains cannot be recognized as either Aryans or Semites - these were tribes sui generis - perhaps they are related to the South Caucasian tribes 33 . It is also difficult to more or less accurately determine the place of their settlement. The tribes that inhabited the mountains of the north-eastern part of Pontus, east from Thermodon to Acampsis (Gunpowder), were known under the general name Tsanovili Sanni during Roman rule, and later were called Lazes 34 . Among them, the following tribes are known by name, living along the banks of the Pontus and in the Pontic Mountains, counting from west to east: Khalivs (Χάλοβες) or Chaldeans, Tivarines (Τιβαρηνοί), Mosiniki (Μοσύνοικοι), Drils ( Δρίλαι,) Vehirs (Βέχειρες), Vizirs (Βύζηρες), Macrons (Μὰχρονες) or Macrocephali, Taohi (Τἀοχοι), Colchians ( Κολχοι), Fasians (Φασιανοί) 35. All these peoples represented the remnants of ancient tribes who lived on the plains, but were gradually pushed back to the heights of the mountains by a stream of successive invasions; there, in small valleys, separated from each other by spurs of mountain ranges, like partitions, they lived, without communicating with each other or with the outside world and becoming stronger and stronger in their rudeness; they retained both their names and their distinctive character over the centuries. Thus, the eastern Pontic Mountains can rightly be called a museum of fossil nationalities 36 . It is necessary, however, to note that the above enumeration of tribes, on the one hand, cannot be considered even approximately complete, since information about the inhabitants of Pontus in sources 37 is random and not exhaustive; on the other hand, the mutual relationship of these names has not been clarified - whether they are all designations of truly separate tribes, or whether some of them belong to the same tribes, and in this regard, which of them are common and which are the most private; - all these questions have not yet been clarified, just as the settlement of the Pontic tribes on the Black Sea coast and in the Pontic Mountains has not been precisely established. This explains the significant difference in the names of the tribes that inhabited Pontus and in the indication of their places of residence in studies concerning these issues. Of the named nationalities for that part of Pontus which is of particular interest. for our purpose, the ones that matter most are the Khalivs, who were also called the Chaldeans. In the coastal zone, the center of their settlement was the city of Farnacia (Φαρνακία); but they were widespread far into the interior of the country and lived on the heights of Pariadra and Skidis. Xenophon calls the Khalivians 38 the strongest and most warlike of the tribes through whose regions the Greeks passed in Pontus; They lived in fortified places, where food was carried away. The Khalivas were famous among the Greeks as good blacksmiths, and Khaliwa steel was known to the ancients. They did not have mines in the proper sense, and iron ore was found everywhere in the mountains close to the surface. The ore was not rich, and the inhabitants of the mountains had to lead a harsh life, full of labor and hardship. They were also coal miners and constantly moved their huts and forges from one place to another, as soon as a shortage of ore and wood was discovered in their immediate vicinity. Only a small part of this tribe lived near the coast - here the Khalivs were mainly engaged in fishing 39 . To the west from Thermodon to the river. Halys lived the Cappadocians (Καππαδόκαι), part of the great nationality that inhabited the river basin. Iris (Pontic Cappadocians), and mainly the hills on the other side of the upper and middle Halys to the Taurus (Taurus Cappadocia or Great Cappadocia): the entire isthmus of the Asia Minor peninsula was the region of the Cappadocian language. The Cappadocians were numerous and occupied a predominant position in the country. Strabo writes about them 41: “Cappadocia consists of several parts and has undergone many vicissitudes. The most monolingual are those Cappadocians who in the south border with the so-called Cilician Taurus, in the east - with Armenia, Colchis and with the peoples living between these regions and speaking a different language, in the north - with the Euxinus to the mouth of the Halys, in the west - with the people of the Paphlagonians, with the Galatians who occupied Phrygia, to the Lycaonians and Cilicians inhabiting the harsh Cilicia." This importance of the Cappadocians in the Pontic region also explains the fact that the entire coastal country was called “Cappadocia near Pontus.” The Cappadocians were a mixed race, which included a wide variety of elements from local and alien tribes. The Cappadocians are sometimes called Cimmerians because beyond the river. The Galis fled and merged with the Cappadocians, the remnants of the Cimmerians, expelled from Western Asia by the Lydians. Even in the era of the Pontic Kingdom, the Cathaons, who were considered a special people by ancient geographers, retained their individuality among the Cappadocians 42. The Greeks called the Cappadocians “Syrians”, or “white Syrians” (Λευχόσυροι), in contrast to the southern bronze Syrians, from which they usually conclude about Semitic origin Cappadocians 43. But this name undoubtedly does not contain ethnographic content: apparently, the Cappadocians should be classified as an Indo-European tribe, to which most of the Asia Minor tribes belonged, and above all the Phrygians, Lidians, Mysians, and Carians 44 . The population of the Pontic Mountains, as they approached Colchis and Armenia, was characterized by increasing savagery. Strabo definitely states that the entire population of Skidis and Pariadras is completely savage; but the Eptacomites are superior to all others in this regard: some of them even lived in trees or in towers, which is why the ancients called them Mosiniki, since such towers are called Mosin. The population ate game meat and tree fruits; it also attacked passers-by, descending from the heights. The Eptanomites destroyed three Pompeian troops as they crossed these mountains, because they prepared bowls of intoxicating honey on the roads, which are delivered by the ends of tree branches; then, attacking people who got drunk and lost consciousness, they easily overpowered them. Some of these barbarians were also called wazirs 45. To all that has been said, it must be added that, despite its natural wealth, Pontus did not possess the data necessary for the development of a high civilization: it was hidden in its mountains, which provided free access only to the south of the Asia Minor peninsula, from where anything useful could least be expected in this regard, and made relations with the civilized world difficult. The Pontic Taurus divided the country into two parts, the communication of which with each other was difficult. The rivers, which should have facilitated communication, were navigable only at their mouths. The gorges had difficult passages and remained inaccessible for most of the year. The Black Sea coast was also not a completely convenient path for external favorable influences: the coast is slightly indented, usually rocky, since the spurs of the Pontic mountains break off right next to the sea; there are almost no good harbors, and ships cannot be protected from the prevailing north-westerly winds 46 . Thus, the character of the country and the composition of its population did not contain the data for its development as an independent political unit of sustainable significance. Only the fertile valleys of Iris and Lika and the coastal strip partly contained some conditions for the possibility of development; Therefore, the entry into the historical field of the Pontic kingdom seems to a certain extent to be a random phenomenon, due to elements alien to Pontus - the Greek colonists and the ruling princes from the Persians. Reliable news about the historical destinies of the Pontic region dates back to the time of Persian rule here. At this time, the Pontic kingdom did not yet exist 47, and the mountain tribes in Pontus, of which the sources name Moschov, Tivarinov, Macronov, Mosinikov and Marov 48, formed a separate - nineteenth satrapy. However, Persian rule never reached full strength and was soon overthrown again in the Pontic mountains, and some mountain valleys could never be completely conquered 49 . Cappadocia and Paphlagonia, together with the entire valley of Iris, belonged to the third satrapy, and the region was later known as Minor. Armenia - to the thirteenth. Persian rule greatly affected the way of life of the Pontic peoples. True, the Persians did not forcibly evict local residents and did not persecute national customs; but they established the feudal system here in the harshest forms: almost all the land was confiscated and then distributed among the large Valdelians, noble Persians and priests who moved here. The country was covered with fortified castles, which served both as state fortresses and palaces of landowners, and small freeholds disappeared. At the same time, the Persians also contributed to the rise in the country's well-being, improving and facilitating communications between one region and another 50. As a result, the interior of the country was strongly permeated with Persian influence for two or three centuries. Persian rule was replaced by Macedonian rule. However, Alexander the Great paid little attention to Pontus, and there was even an attempt to form an independent kingdom, undertaken by the ruling Persian Ariarat; the center of this kingdom was the river basin. Iris, and the residence is the ancient fortress of Gaziura. However, after the death of Alexander the Great, the Macedonians turned to this forgotten country, and Cappadocia became a Macedonian satrapy. During the bloody struggle of the successors of Alexander the Great, the country was a battlefield several times. Among these troubles, which, of course, could not attract the sympathy of the population to the Macedonians, the foundation of the Pontic Kingdom was laid completely unnoticed. Strabo reports that the Macedonians themselves formed a kingdom here instead of satrapies: they called one part their own Cappadocia, Cappadocia under Taurus, and also Great Cappadocia, and the other part - Pontus or Cappadocia at Pontus 51. However, the news about the ancient Pontic kingdom, which already existed or arose during the reign of the Persians, must be treated with great caution, since there are undoubted traces of later embellishments in them: the Pontic Darians had a great interest in giving their domination the appearance of legitimacy and pushing it back to the most ancient time possible, and imparting to their family the splendor of an ancient and noble origin. The lists of the most ancient kings were undoubtedly fabricated in a later era for dynastic interests by the official historiographers of Ariarat and Mithridates. However, there is no agreement in the news about the origin of the Pontic kings; even in the time of Polyvius, they simply presented themselves as the descendants of one of the seven Persians; but later they inserted Cyrus and Darius into their genealogy 52 . The fact is firmly attested that the organizer or founder of the Pontic kingdom in the proper sense was Mithridates (Mithradates) I, the son of Prince Mithridates of Kios, in the Propontis, who therefore received the name ὁ Κτίστης - Founder. He took advantage of the confusion caused by the wars of the Diadochi and came to Pontus with only six horsemen; but his power grew so quickly that he soon became the owner of the Paphlagonian and Cappadocian regions on both banks of the Halys and in 296 BC. could already take the title of king. This year was the beginning of the Pontic era. Mithridates I died in 266. He was followed by: his son Ariobarzai (266–250), Mithridates II (d. c. 210), Mithridates III (d. c. 190), Pharnaces (d. 170), Mithridates IV (d. c. 150), Mithridates U Euergetes (d. 120) and Mithridates VI Eupator or the Great (121–63). All these Pontic kings were distinguished by great energy and a highly developed thirst for power. The foreign policy of the Mithridates was a simple rule: keep what they have and take what they do not have. To achieve the single goal they set for themselves—the territorial increase of their possessions—they considered any means good: proper war, a surprise attack during peace, purchase, appropriation, marriage, etc. Having originated on the shores of Halys, the Pontic kingdom gradually expanded mainly to the east along the shores of the Black Sea, although it is impossible to determine how far the conquests of the Pontic kings extended into the region of the tribes of the Pontic mountains. The Pontic kingdom reached its greatest size and highest degree of power under Mithridates VI, the most energetic, persistent and ambitious of all the Pontic kings. He included Lesser Armenia and Colchis into his kingdom and thus united under his rule all the Asia Minor regions that made up Pontus in the broadest sense of the term 53 . In addition, he captured almost the entire northern coast of the Black Sea to the Danube. Having more than doubled his kingdom and his income and prepared a sufficient number of troops, Mithridates decided to wage further conquests in the western part of Asia Minor. Perhaps he hoped that the Romans, who had hitherto paid no attention to his conquests in the east and north, would not stand in his way in this direction, or perhaps he relied on his own strength. Mithridates tried first of all to establish himself in Paphlagonia and then in Galatia (c. 102 BC); He was especially attracted to Great Cappadocia, to which his father had already laid claim, and soon afterwards he intervened in the affairs of Bithynia. But the Romans resisted all attempts of Mithridates and did not allow him any conquests in Western Asia. A clash occurred between the Pontic king and Rome. The war lasted from 89 to 63 BC. At first, success was on the side of Mithridates, but then the Romans gradually began to gain the upper hand, and when the leadership of military affairs in Asia Minor was entrusted to Pompey, who received unlimited powers, the war was soon over. Mithridates fled to the kingdom of Vosporus, began preparing for a new war there, created a plan for the invasion of Italy, but the troops refused to obey him. In Penticapaeum, the residence of Mithridates, his son Pharnaces rebelled against him. The troops went over to the latter’s side, and the elderly king was forced to commit suicide 54 (in 63 BC). Pharnaces immediately afterwards made peace with the Romans. With the death of Mithridates, the independence of the Pontic kingdom ended. But only part of it was annexed by Pompey in 65 - even before the death of Mithridates VI - to the Roman possessions as a Roman province, namely the western part of the Pontic kingdom, that is, the Paphlagonian coast from the river. Galisa; this area was connected to Bithynia under the name Bithynia et Pontus or Bithynia Pontus. However, both parts of the province, although they were united under the authority of one governor, retained some independence in the administration: Bithynia had Nicomedia as its metropolis, and ora Pontica had Amastris, where the Κοινὸν τοῦΙιόντου 55 took place. The regions lying east of Halys were divided by Pompey into many parts, which formed independent possessions mainly under the control of local kings who fought in alliance with him. Pharnaces, the son of Mithridates, had to be content with the Vosporan kingdom. The comans were ruled by a priest; Gazelonitis and Pontic Armenia were presented to Deiorates, the Galatian king. However, there was no stability in atomic fission; the changes here followed so quickly that it is not possible to trace them in detail. “Subsequently,” says Strub 56, “the Roman leaders made more and more divisions of the country, appointed new kings and princes, liberated some cities, subjugated others to the princes, and left others under the rule of the Roman people.” In 39 BC. Anthony restored the Pontic kingdom and gave it first to Darius, the son of Pharnaces and grandson of Mithridates, and then, in 38 or 37 BC, to Polemon, the son of the famous Laodicean rhetorician Zeno. He first received Cilicia, a few years later the Kingdom of Pontus, and in the 33rd year, Lesser Armenia. Under Augustus he was confirmed as king of Pontus and in the 14th year he received Vosior 57. Polemon started a dynasty that ruled Pontus until 63 AD. In 7 BC. a further region of the Pontic kingdom was annexed to the empire, occupying a small part of the sea coast immediately east of Pontus, formerly part of the province of Bithynia et Pontus, with Themiscyra and Phanagoria, and together with a large expanse of land inland to the south and southwest, with two important inland cities - Amasia and Pontic Comanae. This district was connected to the province of Galatia and received the name Pontus Haitticus (Pontus Galaticus). The entire rest or “eastern part of the former Pontus, with the seaside city of Polemonium (Sida) and Zila, Neokesarea and Sebastia (Megalopolis) - within the country, was left outside the empire, as a vassal kingdom under the rule of the heirs of Polemon. When Polemon I died (8/7 BC), he was succeeded by his second wife Pythodoris, at least until 19 AD - she was the daughter of Antonia and, therefore, the granddaughter of the triumvir Antony; after her, power passed to Polemon II, the grandson of Polemon I from his daughter Tryphaena, known from the apocryphal “Acts of Paul and Thecla” (chap. 36), who was first the king of Pontus and Bosporus, and from the year 41 - of Pontus alone. In 63 AD. Nero's government came to the conclusion that the areas of the Pontic kingdom had risen to such a level of peace and order that they could be included in the empire. A new strip from the former Pontic kingdom, stretching along the coast from Thermodon to the city of Kitiora, was annexed to Galatia and received the name Polemon Pontus (Pontus Polemoniacus), in contrast to the former - Galatian Pontus. The most important cities of Polemon Pontus were Zila and Neokesarea. The remaining eastern half of Polemon's kingdom was annexed to Cappadocia and received the name Pontus Cappadocicus. The main city of Cappadocia Pontus was Trebizond. This connection of regions continued until 106 AD. When, then, under Trajan, a new distribution was made, Galatian Pontus, Polemotsov Pontus, Cappadocia Pontus and Minor Armenia were ranked as Cappadocia 58. In the subsequent history of the 1st and 6th centuries, Pontus Galaticus, Polemoniacus and Cappadocicus retain their names and are considered for administrative purposes as different areas of the vast province of Cappadocia, of which they were part, with their main cities - Amasia, Neokesarea and Trebizond. This division remained until the reorganization of the provincial system carried out by Diocletian about 295, when the Pontic regions were completely rebuilt, Pontus Polemoniacus retaining its name, although it was reduced in size. Thus, from 63 AD. and until the end of the 7th century it is necessary to distinguish four Pontus: a) the region west of Halys, with the name Pontus, united into one province with Bithynia; b) Pontus Galatia - east of Halys; followed by c) Pontus Polemonov and, finally, d) Pontus Cappadocia. This distinction must always be borne in mind when assessing news relating to this time, especially regarding the spread of Christianity in these areas. In the interior parts of ancient Pontus, the population lived in villages that grew to the size of cities, like Comani and Zila, but which did not have an urban structure. It is remarkable that the plain in the region of Amasia was called Hiliocom 59 . The Pontic kings built fortresses and castles everywhere, in which they hid their treasures and which, in the event of an attack by enemies or popular indignation, served as a place of refuge and strongholds for the army. Strabo reports that many treasury depositories were built on the Pariadra mountain range; Mithridates VI fled here, pursued by Pompey. He also built seventy-five fortifications in Lesser Armenia, in which he placed most of his treasures 60. How the more significant fortresses were constructed is given sufficient information about this by Strabo, who describes his hometown of Amasia as follows: “Amasia, our homeland, is located in a deep, large gorge through which the Iris River flows. With the help of art and by nature itself, our city is built very well and can fulfill, along with the purpose of the city, the purpose of the fortress. This is a high, sheer cliff all around, plunging towards the river; it has on one side a wall at the edge of the river near which the city is located, and on the other side another wall reaching to the mountain peaks on both sides; the latter number two - they have grown together and represent beautiful towers. Within these limits there are royal houses and tombs. The peaks have a very narrow isthmus, on both sides they have from five to six stages in height, if you climb the mountain from the river or from the outskirts, and from the isthmus to the peak there remains a path of one stage, steep, beyond any effort. The city, in addition, has water inside, which cannot be stopped, because there are two underground passages - one to the river, the other to the isthmus. There are bridges across the river: one leads from the city to the suburb, and the other from the suburb to the surrounding area, because at this last place the mountain lying behind the rock ends” 61. There was a fortress of the same kind near Kavira. Strabo writes: “here there is the so-called New Place, a rock fortified by nature itself, steep, less than two hundred stadia from Cavira. At its top there is a spring that throws out a lot of water, and at the base there is a river and a deep ravine. The height of the rock above the depression is extraordinary, due to which the rock cannot be taken by the enemy. In addition, it is remarkably fortified with walls, not counting what was demolished by the Romans. Its entire surroundings are covered with forest, mountainous and waterless to such an extent that the army cannot camp over a space of one hundred and fifty stadia” 62. Strabo's grandfather handed over fifteen fortifications to the Roman commander Lucullus, Pompey's predecessor. There were many such fortifications in the Pontic Mountains, and they gave a special imprint to the life of the entire country. In addition to fortifications, some settlements received priority importance over others solely due to their liturgical and religious purpose; such, for example, are the Pontic Comans, Kavira and Zila. In general, the absence of an urban structure is a characteristic feature of the original, culturally untouched life of this country 64 . The development of cities began on the Black Sea coast, where they were founded by Greek colonists. The shores of the Black Sea, especially the southern ones, very early began to attract Greek merchants, who exported the iron (Khaliv steel) and silver mined in the Pontic Mountains by the Khalivas and Tivarins, traded in slaves and sought to acquire markets within the country. Thus, colonization developed from trade relations, as a result of which Ιιόντος Ἂ ξενος - “inhospitable sea” - received the name Πόντος Ε ὔ ξεινος - “hospitable sea”, the shores of which in the 7th and 6th centuries. BC covered with flowering settlements 65. These Greek merchants were conductors of Greek culture, contributing to the colonization of the region and the establishment of cities here. The main carriers of colonization in these countries were the Milesians. The oldest and most important city founded by them (in 630 BC) was Sinop. It became a rich trading city that enjoyed independence. Under Mithridates Eupator, who was born here, Sinop became the main residence of the Pontic kings and, as a result, grew greatly, was built and decorated. Lucullus took Sinope and plundered it. In the time of Strabo, Sinope was still a large, beautiful and well-fortified city, with two good harbors on either side of the peninsula on which it is located. But its value gradually fell 66. Sinop was also a trading port for the interior of the country - it began the trade route to Cappadocia and the Euphrates. But Sinop was not only a commercial center, but also an educational one - it had its own porticoes and its own gymnasium, science and the arts flourished in it. Sinop, in turn, was the founder of a number of colonies along the Black Sea coast in the region of wild Pontic tribes, such as; Kotiori is a colony and trading post in Polemon Pontus, in the region of Tivarinov, Kerasund and Trebizond. The latter acquired particular importance under Roman rule, since it represented the starting point for a relatively easy road from the coast through the Pariadra Pass, immediately near the city, rising to 2600 feet, into the Armenian hills. Under Trajan, Trebizond became the main city of Cappadocian Pontus. In addition to those mentioned, the following cities were located on the Pontic shores: 1) Amis, founded by the Milesians or Phocians, rose especially from the time of Mithridates Eupator, who had his own palace in it and often lived in it; he built churches in the city and significantly enlarged it with the construction of a new part of the city, called Evpatoria. Amis was heavily fortified. It was a city of beautiful buildings and elegant language. 2) Polemonium, founded in later times by King Polemon. 3) Pharnacia - in Polemon Pontus; the city was probably founded by Pharnaces, the grandfather of Mithridates the Great. 4) Apsara is probably one of the oldest Greek cities on the banks of the Pontus at the mouth of the river of the same name. Within the country, Mithridates VI began to found cities with a Greek character - he understood their importance for planting culture in his kingdom. But Pompey gave the strongest impetus to their development: he founded thirty-nine cities in the east and thus created centers of Greco-Roman civilization in this country without cities - a significant part of them are in Pontus. Strabo names five cities of Pontus, elevated to this rank by Pompey: a) Magnopolis at the confluence of the Iris and Lycus rivers - there was already a city here, named by its founder Mithridates VI - Eupatoria; Pompey, finding the city half built, expanded its boundaries, added inhabitants and called it Magnopolis 67; b) Kaviru - a fortress where Mithridates VI kept his treasures; Pompey turned it into a city and renamed it Diosnol; Pythodoris expanded the city and called it Sebastia; c) 3ila, which the ancient kings considered not as a city, but as a sanctuary of Persian deities - Pompey called it a city 68; Megalopolis, on the border of Cappadocia and Lesser Armenia, later called Sevastia; e) Naples, turned into a city from the village of Fasimon 69. In addition to these cities, it is necessary to name: 1) Amasia, a strongly fortified city on both mountainous sides of the river. Iris, which has already been mentioned earlier. Amasia, due to its advantageous position as a fortress, was first the residence of Mithridates VI, then during Roman rule under Domitian it was made a free city, and later the main city of Galatian Pontus; 2) Gaziuru on Iris, southeast of Amasia, a fortified city and the residence of the first Pontic kings, by the time of Strabo it had already been destroyed; 3) Pontic Comani - an ancient, rich and famous city of the Galatian Pontus in the upper valley of the river. Irisa, which flows through the middle of the city, is a significant trading post for merchants from Armenia; these Comans, in contrast to the city of the same name in Cappadocia, were called Pontic. But Comana was especially famous for the church of the local goddess, who also had a sanctuary in Cappadocia Comana 70. But for us, the homeland and place of the episcopal ministry of St. Gregory the Wonderworker - located in a parallel valley of the river. Lika city of Neokesarea. The city of Neokesarea, present-day Niksar, is located on the right side of the Licus, in a fold of the mountain, open to a vast plain through which the river flows. A face emerging from the forested mountains. In the depths of the shady valley, a stream rushes down, on which the mills are now located and which drives the wheels of hydraulic structures that irrigate the gardens and orchards. In the middle of a ravine covered with greenery rises a rocky ridge that makes up the acropolis of Neokesarea. It is crowned with the ruins of a large and strong fortress. The proximity to the sea, due to the possibility of transportation through the Taurus, which is low in this place, created great convenience for the development of trade. In ancient times, Polemonius served as a port for Neokesarea. St. Gregory of Nyssa in his eulogy to St. Gregory the Wonderworker writes: “I don’t think of looking for great glory in the saints in the fact that his country abounds in fruits, or that the city is decorated with buildings, or that goods are brought in abundance from everywhere by the neighboring sea” 71. Thanks to this position, the city was naturally destined to become a trading post and fortress and to gain important importance in the administrative management of the country: “by the general court of the people,” says St. Gregory of Nyssa, - as if a certain head of all other surrounding cities became the (domestic) city of the great Gregory, which one famous king who held power from the Romans, named Caesar, captivated by this area and fell in love with it, recognized it worthy to call the city, after his own name, Neocaesarea” 72. As you can see, the certainty in the above words of St. There is no Gregory of Nyssa, and on the basis of them it is not possible to establish under which emperor the city received the name Neocaesarea and what it was called before. That this is the name of a later - imperial time - is self-evident. Neokesarea is mentioned by Pliny 73, but is still unknown to Strabo. Thus, the name of the city Neokesarea must be attributed to the interval between the two named writers. On the other hand, it is very difficult to admit that the city appeared only at this time. This raises the question with which ancient city Neokesarea can be identified. It is now recognized as highly probable that Neokesarea is the newest name for old Kavira, which, according to the description of Strabo 74, was located on the slope of Pariadra, not a hundred and fifty stadia south of Magnopolis, as Amasia is west of Magnopolis. In Kavira there was the royal palace of Mithridates, water mills and menageries were built, and wild animals lived nearby and there were mines. Cavira was turned into a city by Pompey and renamed Diospolis; and Pythodoris expanded the city, called it Sebastia and had her residence in it. The position of Neocaesarea and the ruins preserved in it bear a striking resemblance to what Strabo reports about Kavir. During the wars of Mithridates VI with the Romans, Cavira became important in his operations in this part of Pontus: the fortress built here was supposed to dominate the gorge and the entire rich and fertile plain - therefore, all the necessary conditions were in place to make this place the residence of King Mithridates. Further, Kavira was located 150 stadia southeast from the junction of Lycus with Iris and at the eastern end of the plain of Phanaria, on the way to Armenia, not far from Lyca, on its right bank, since Mithridates crossed the river into the plain when he opposed Lucullus, and not far from Coman, where he retreated after failure. It is impossible to imagine a position that would better satisfy all these conditions than Neokesarea. In addition, from the junction of Licus and Iris and up the Licus in the distance indicated by Strabo, no traces of an ancient city were found, except for Neocaesarea. Finally, one cannot ignore the fact that Kavira, together with its later names Diospolis and Sebastia, is not mentioned by any of the writers together with Neokesarea, and all these names disappear as soon as the city is called by this last name 75. Kavira, which was one of the residences of Mithridates VI, then became the residence of Polemon, and a royal palace was built here. Under Roman rule from 63, Neokesarea became the metropolis of not only Polemon Pontus, but also Pontus Galatia. In Neokesarea there were meetings of κοινόν, composed of representatives of Neokesarea, Zila, Sebastia, Amasia, Sevastopol and Koman, and thus Neokesarea was the administrative center of more than just Polemon Pontus. Since the time of St. Gregory the Wonderworker Neokesarea becomes the center of Christian preaching in the inner regions of Pontus. The Greek colonies on the Pontic coast were the centers from which the Greek colonization received constant nourishment for its further spread and from where Greek culture gradually began to penetrate into this wild country. The influence of Greek culture was greatly facilitated by the fact that the Pontic princes, and then the kings, very early came into contact with Greek culture. For the Mithridates, Hellenism was in some way a family tradition. Already Mithridates the Founder was a perfect Hellenist, a pure philhellen. His successors followed his example. The court of the Pontic kings was soon Hellenized under the influence of the Macedonian princesses: Mithridates II and Mithridates VEvergetes were married to the daughters of the Seleucids, and from that time on, while the sons continued to be called Mithridates and Pharnacamnes, the daughters often took Greek names (eg Laodice). The court staff consisted of Macedonians. The official language was Greek: the coins of the Mithridates do not speak any other language. During the reign of Mithridates VI, many villages of inland Pontus, such as Comana, Kavira, Gaziura, Pimolis, not counting Amasia and Laodicea, minted coins with Hellenic images and inscriptions. Mithridates VI himself received a Greek upbringing and was a lover of music and Greek games; he, like his father Mithridates Euergetes, sent gifts to the Delian gymnasium, and here, it seems, there existed, named after Mithridates VI, a society of Eupatorists. In general, the Pontic kings never acted as local national rulers and did not lead the national reaction against Hellenism; Yes, in the Pontic kingdom there could be no talk of national feeling and national life: the most diverse nationalities were united in it, and the most important part of the country, namely its shores, were in the hands of Greek cities. Thus, Greek culture from the very beginning found the widest access to Pontus, and the Greek language little by little began to spread in the interior of the country 76 . But Mithridates VI directly contributed greatly to the spread and strengthening of Greek civilization in the kingdom: he attracted hundreds of Greeks of all origins and different professions to his service; at his court, during the heyday of his political power, all those dissatisfied with the rule of the Romans gathered. In addition, Mithridates understood the influence that the social genius of the Hellenes could have on his country, which had just embarked on the path of development: he founded new Greek cities in the interior of Pontus or patronized the Hellenization of old villages. In the beautiful plain of Phanaria, at the confluence of the Iris and the Lik, he founded a city named after him Eupatoria 77 . During his reign, Amasia became a completely Greek city. The genealogy of the famous geographer Strabo, a native of this city, gives us very valuable evidence that the Greeks mixed with the local population through marriage, and this was one of the important factors in the gradual change in the cultural appearance of the country: among his ancestors were Greeks, natives of Amis, one Persian and one Paphlagonian 78 . With the spread of Roman rule in the east, along with Greek influence, in its wake and partly in parallel with it, Roman influence began to establish itself. One of the effective means of spreading this influence was colonization, which, however, due to a significant decrease in population during continuous wars, could develop only to a very weak extent. Of greater importance for the Romanization of the East was the widely practiced granting of the rights of Roman citizenship, with which the requirement of scire latin was itself connected. It is known that the Emperor Claudius deprived of Roman citizenship one noble Lycian who did not understand his question addressed to him in Latin, and explained that one who did not understand the language of Rome could not be a Roman citizen 79 . Further, the Roman citizen, wherever he lived, was naturally forced to become acquainted with Roman law, which gradually penetrated into all areas of the Roman state, so that already at the beginning of the 11th century AD. Roman principles dominated provincial law, suppressing and displacing local law. Since knowledge of Roman law was certainly required of anyone who wanted to make a career in the public service, it is self-evident that the study of specifically Roman jurisprudence made rapid progress, and in this way the spirit of Roman law penetrated into the most remote areas of the state. The language of Roman custom remained Latin everywhere, and whoever from the Greeks or the East wanted to study law in Rome or at the famous legal academy in Virita had to first study Latin. This fact, as we will see below, was also important in the fate of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea. The speakers and distributors of the Latin language in the east were, to a certain extent, Roman troops, as well as merchants. As a result of the influence of all these factors, a significant Romanization of the East resulted. In the best Greek circles, a fashion for everything Roman began to take root; Roman names appear in large numbers, Roman citizens have the family names of Roman emperors - hence Ἰ ούλιοι, Φλάβιοι, Αἴλιοι, Αὐρήλιοι. The Roman influence was so strong that Hellenistic romantics, like Apollonius of Tyana, the foremost fighter of Hellenism against Romanism, were already afraid of the barbarization of the Greeks by the Romans 80. It is difficult to say to what extent Romanization manifested itself in Pontus. However, we can be sure that in the Pontic cities founded during Roman rule, starting with Pompey, Roman influence must have been reflected to a significant degree. This is also confirmed by a fact from the life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, who, while still in Neocaesarea, studied Latin and had the intention of going to Rome or Virite to study Roman law. The nature of the religious beliefs of the peoples of the Pontic Mountains cannot be presented in all detail and in their historical development. There is no doubt that there were local deities here, but there is also no doubt that foreign influences began to penetrate early - first Persian, then Greek and Roman; in parallel with them, the religious cult became complicated due to the contact of the peoples of the Pontic region with the neighboring peoples of Asia Minor. Thus, the original religion was gradually subjected to changes through the introduction of various elements: the pantheon of the Pontic peoples is of an extremely eclectic character, which indicates a mixture of many races and many beliefs. Based on the available data, only some of the most important features can be noted, which, however, allow us to get a general idea of ​​the main content and features of the religion of the Pontic peoples. The most revered deity, and the one with the strongest influence on the life of the Pontic peoples, was the national goddess, whose local name was Ma, that is, without a doubt, Mother. Her sanctuary, the oldest and most revered, was located in Cappadocian Comana, in Cataonia. But the Pontic kingdom also had its Comans, which became no less famous than the Cappadocian ones. Strabo reports the following about the veneration of this goddess in both Comanae: “In Antitaurus there are deep and narrow valleys in which the Comanae and the church of Enio, which is otherwise called Ma, are located. The city is significant, and the majority of the population consists of divinely inspired persons (θεοφόρητοι) 81 and church servants. The inhabitants of the city, the Kataons, are apparently subordinate to the king, but obey more the priest. The priest owns the church and its servants, who during my stay there were more than 6,000 men and women together. Adjacent to the church is a large piece of land, from which the priest uses the income. In general, after the king, the priest is the second person in Cappadocia; even for the most part the kings and priests belonged to the same family. It seems that the local cult of Artemis Tavropola was transferred here by Orestes and sister Iphigenia from Tauride Scythia; Here he also placed mourning hair (χόμη), which is where the name of the city came from” 82. “Above Phanaria lie Comana in Pontus, the same name as the city in Cappadocia, dedicated to the same goddess and originating from there: they have almost the same order of sacred rites, the same form of divine enthusiasm, the veneration of priests, especially before under the kings, when twice a year during the so-called exit of the goddess the priest wore a diadem and was considered second in importance after the king” 83. “On the festival of the appearance of the goddess, people flock to the city from all sides from cities and villages, men and women, and some others come here by vow to offer sacrifice to the goddess. Added to this are many women who sell bodies, most of whom are dedicated to the goddess; the inhabitants of the city are pampered, and all their land is under vineyards. This city is like a small Corinth, because, thanks to the many hetaeras who were dedicated to Aphrodite, there was a large influx of foreigners and participants in local festivities. Merchants and soldiers went completely bankrupt, so the saying applies to them: “not every man enjoys sailing to Corinth.” Such are the Comans” 84. “Within the sacred place (in Pontic Comana) there is the dwelling of the priest and priestess; in this sacred place, in addition to observing other requirements of holiness, they strictly abstain from eating pork, which, however, is observed in the whole city, where pigs are not allowed” 85. The goddess Ma - Μ ᾶ, Ἀμυία Ἀμμ ᾶ ς - was a local Asia Minor deity, and her veneration formed the basis of the religion of the original and ancient population of Asia Minor. She was a nature goddess, and seems to be identified with the Mother Goddess, who appears under different names in different regions of Asia Minor, but is especially known as the famous Phrygian Cybele. The essence of the veneration of this god pi seems to be as follows: as the goddess of the productive forces of nature, she was revered with noisy joyful celebrations, and prostitution constituted a liturgical act; but, on the other hand, as the goddess of dying nature, she was revered by wild, mournful festivities, combined with self-castration and bloody sacrifices. Both of these understandings existed in parallel with each other, and, apparently, did not raise the need for their reconciliation 86. Regarding the cult of this goddess, the following data can be extracted from the above message of Strabo. In the Comanae of Cappadocia, most of the inhabitants, by nationality Cataonians, were inspired by the deity (θεοφόρητοι) and servants (ἱερόδουλοι) of the goddess - by the time of Strabo there were more than 6,000 such servants, men and women together. At the head of the church and all its servants was a priest, who was second in command after the king and usually belonged to the same clan. The church owned a rich estate, the income from which was used by the priest. The same church of the goddess Ma with the same cult, veneration of the priest and with the same form of divine enthusiasm was also in Comana Pontus. The very extensive church was located on a steep mountain, the foot of which was washed by Iris. Around the church there was a populous city, the surroundings of which were planted with vineyards, and the inhabitants were known for their effeminacy. The whole country depended on the great priest, who was considered second only to the king. Twice a year a great solemn festival was held in honor of the goddess, the so-called “exit of the goddess” (αἱ ἔξοδοι λεγόμεναι τῆς θεοῦ), and during these celebrations the priest appeared adorned with the royal diadem, no doubt; as the heir or descendant of the ancient priestly kings. The city lived by the cult of its goddess and, so to speak, breathed its atmosphere. Countless numbers of pilgrims - men and women - flocked to Comana from all sides - from cities and villages, especially on holidays, with solemn gifts, some under vows. The presence of many women dedicated to the goddess, selling bodies, gave the cult of the goddess Ma a specific character. This circumstance gives Strabo reason to compare Comana with Corinth, where, thanks to the many hetaeras dedicated to Aphrodite, there was a large influx of participants in local festivities, and where merchants and military men went completely bankrupt. The importance of the cult of the goddess Ma in Pontus can be seen from the fact that King Mithridates VI raised the entire population of the country against the Romans, spreading a rumor that the Romans were coming into the country only to rob the most sacred churches of the goddess 87. Therefore, later, for political reasons, the Romans not only spared this cult, but also provided it with patronage. So Pompey recognized the importance of the priest of the church in Pontic Comami, but tried to appoint people loyal to Rome to this place: he appointed Archelaus, the son of Archelaus, who passed from Mithridates to the Romans, as priest, increased the sacred area belonging to the church by 60 stadia in circumference and gave him unlimited control over both the servants of the church and the inhabitants of all the land assigned to the church - only he no longer had the right, as before, to sell church servants. Under Archelaus' son Lycomedes, the sacred area was increased by another 120 stadia 88. The cult of the goddess Ma continued to exist under Emperor Augustus and his successors, who again increased the territory of the pontificate. In addition to the Coman of Cappadocia and the Coman of Pontic, there were churches of the goddess Ma in other places: in the Nile, Antioch of Pisidia, Gaziur, as well as in Kavir (later Neokesarea) and Amasia 89 . If in these places the churches were not so rich and the priests did not enjoy such authority, then in any case the basic character of the cult remained the same everywhere 90. Next to the cult of the goddess Ma, there was also the cult of the god Min (Μή ’) or the Month. Ming was also a popular deity of Western Asia: his cult dominated the entire region from Mesopotamia to the Euxine Pontus. This popularity of the god Ming was expressed in numerous forms and places of worship. The institution of hierodules flourished in the churches of Mina no less than in the churches of the goddess Mä, the number of priests and priestesses was counted in the thousands. Strabo reports on a number of such churches, which were still respected in his time 91. The cult of Minus continued under the influence of Greek and Roman culture, since most of the coins that have come down to us with the image of Minus come from the Greek and Roman periods. The temples of Min also had an attractive force for Strabo’s contemporaries, and his veneration did not stop until the last days of paganism. The cult of Minus was so deeply rooted in the popular consciousness that the Greeks and Romans simply had to adapt to it 92 . For Pontus, the main evidence of the cult of the god Min is the message of Strabo 93. He says that Kavira “also belongs to the church of Mina, called Pharnakov, and the village-like city of Ameria, which has many church servants and sacred land, the income from which is always used by the chief priest; The kings revered this church extremely highly, so that they clothed the so-called royal oath in the following form: “royal happiness” or “Minus of Pharnaces.” This church is similar to the Albanian or Thracian - also of Selene, as well as the church of Minus in the area of ​​the same name, the church of Askaya in Antioch near Pisidia, and, finally, the one in the Antioch region. Thus, the church of Mina Farnak was located near Kavira (Neokesarea) and had many sacred servants and estates, the income from which was at the disposal of the chief priest. This god was so respected in the country that the Pontic kings swore by his name in the so-called royal oath. St. Athanasius of Alexandria reports that there was a soothsaying in Kaviri 94. St. Gregory of Nyssa in “The Sermon on the Life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker" says that on the way to Neocaesarea St. Gregory went with his companions to one church; This church was one of the famous: “in it, the suggestions of the demons revered there were openly communicated to the priests through the magical predictions published there” 95. From this we can conclude that there was an oracle in the church of Minus Pharnaces. As for the name of the god Μὴν Φαρνὰκου, we must admit that the explanation of the epithet Φαρνάκου after the city of Pharnacia is completely incredible, because, on the one hand, it would then be Φαρνακεύς, and on the other, because the main place of worship is Μηνός Φαρνλακου was Ameria. Another explanation derives this name from the name of one of the Pontic kings, a historical figure, or the mythical ancestor of the dynasty of Pontic kings. But if we take into account the analogy at the end of this nickname with Μὴν Τιάμου, Μὴν Κάρου, then it is natural to come to the assumption that Φαρνάκου was an inflexible application, and its explanation must be sought in local dialects - but it has not yet been found 96. Regarding the basic idea and nature of the cult of the Moon god in general, and especially his cult in Pontus, it is difficult to say anything definite, since information about this is gleaned almost exclusively from brief and obscure evidence from numismatics, and these latter relate only to imperial times. One can only note the merger or identification of the god Min with Sîn, the moon god of the Semitic peoples, as well as with other deities, especially Mithras, Attis, Asclepius and even with the female deity, the Greek Hecate, goddess of the moon and mistress of the night 97 . The sanctuaries of the Moon god owned vast lands and had many servants; the income from the lands was used and administered by the priest. The sanctuary of the Month of Pharnak in Ameria near Kavira also had such possessions, according to Strabo’s above statement. In addition, there is news that in the Pontic kingdom the god of heaven, called Zeus by the Greeks, was revered; this god was especially revered in Gaziur, the ancient royal residence. Next to him, the sun god, whom the Greeks likened to Apollo 98, was also revered. Along with the veneration of these local deities, the influence of the Persian religion can be observed in Pontus. It is known that a significant part of the Pontic aristocracy, which at the same time constituted the class of large property owners, belonged to the Persians, who moved here after the spread of Persian rule to Pontus. The Persians respected the local religion and left large land holdings, royal honor and many hierodules to the great priests of local sanctuaries. But they also placed their altars next to the local churches and gave privileges to the Persian priests, although they did not seek to spread the Persian religion to the local religion: both cults lived side by side. The Persian gods did not have churches in the proper sense of the word, but only sacred enclosures, scattered throughout the country and at the disposal of the college of magicians. Most of these sacred enclosures were dedicated to the highest god - Ormuzd. But in Zila, an ancient Pontic city, there was a special sanctuary dedicated to three popular deities - Anaitid, Oman and Anadat. The city was located on a completely regular hill, which the ancients called the Hill of Semiramis. One might think that there was an ancient local sanctuary in Zila, which was appropriated by the Iranian conquerors; but for this reason, the very cult of the Persian deities in Zila was organized on the model of local cults: the great priest of Zila competed with the priest Koman in importance, wealth, the volume of land holdings and the number of hierodules; here, just as solemnly as in Komany, a wooden image of the god Oman was carried through the streets of Zila. The inhabitants of the surrounding regions came here, no matter what tribe they belonged to, and took their oaths in Zile 99. Sacred prostitution also flourished at the church of Anaitida. Strabo reports the following information about the Persian cults in Pontus: “In Zilitis there is a city built on the mound of Semiramis, which has a church of Anaitida, who is also revered by the Armenians. The sacrifices are performed there with great ceremony, and all the Iontians there swear on important occasions. The crowd of church servants, the reverence for the priests were here in the time of the kings as we described them earlier... Many kings distorted the sacred service, reduced the number of church servants and reduced other wealth. The adjacent region, the so-called Zilitida, which has the city of Zila on an earthen mound, was reduced and divided into a large number of provinces. In ancient times, the kings treated Zila not as a city, but as a sanctuary Persian deities, and the priest in it was the unlimited ruler. The city was occupied by a large number of church servants and priests who had large incomes.... the land was sacred and belonged to the priest and was subject to the jurisdiction of a few servants." 100 Elsewhere, Strabo says that the Sakai "reached the Cappadocians and especially those peoples of Euxine, who are now called Pontiki. The Persian commanders of that time attacked. them at night during a feast after the robbery and completely destroyed them. On the plain, with the help of an earthen embankment, they gave the rock the appearance of a hill, surrounded it with a wall and built there a church to Anaitida and two other Persian deities who had a common altar, Oman and Anadat; They also established an annual folk holiday - Sakai, which is celebrated to this day by the inhabitants of Zila" 101. Strabo also gives information regarding the cult of Persian deities. Having reported that in Cappadocia there was a large class of magicians, also called pyretheans, he says that there were many churches here, called pyretheans, or churches of fire, representing extensive premises; in the middle of them stood an altar, on which the magicians maintained a lot of ash and an unquenchable fire. Every day they entered the church and sang mysterious songs in front of the fire for almost a whole hour, holding a bunch of twigs in their hands and wearing woolen tiaras on their heads, from which veils descended down both cheeks, covering even their lips. The same was observed in the churches of Anaitida and Oman; and these deities had sacred premises, and the image of Oman was carried in processions 102 . In particular, regarding the cult of Anaitida, Strabo reports such details that to a certain extent bring it closer to the cult of the goddess Mai, which make clear the possibility of its wide spread and influence among the Pontic population. “In the churches (of Anaitida),” he says, “there were ministers and attendants... In addition, the noblest of the people dedicated their maiden daughters to the goddess, for whom there was a law: to prostitute themselves for a long time in the service of the goddess, and then marry; no one refused to marry such a woman” 103. When Greek influence began to penetrate the country, Greek elements began to mix into local religious cults. This confusion was expressed primarily in attempts to translate the names of local deities into Greek and assimilate them with the deities of Olympus; hence Ma is called Artemis or Aenio, Ormuzd is called Zeus the Warrior, and the Greek Dorilaus becomes the great priest of Comanus, without arousing any protest. Having identified the goddess Coman of Cappadocia with Artemis Tauropola, they spread the legend that her cult was brought here from Tauride Scythia by Orestes with his sister Iphigenia, and that the place itself received the name Coman because here he removed his hair, which had grown during sadness (κόμη) 104. Further, it is reported 105 that both the Cappadocian and Pontic Comans claimed to own the sword of Iphigenia, or also that Orestes, after his return to ἐκ Ταύρων, fell into illness and, having asked the oracle about healing, received the answer that he would only recover when he built a church to Artemis in a place completely similar to the area of ἐν Ταύροις; he first built a church in Pontic Comana, but then, when the illness did not leave him, in Cappadocia Comana 106. Roman rule in turn brought with it Roman influence in the field of religion; this is where Apollo and Bellona came from. As you know, the Romans were tolerant of national religions. But the policy of Romanization of provincial cities required a force that would connect the disparate parts of the state; Such a force was the cult of emperors, which was broader than every national religion and should be accepted by all peoples united under the rule of Rome. And in Asia Minor, already under Augustus, every significant city had its own church in honor of the emperor 107. There were two such churches in Neocaesarea - one was dedicated to Augustus, and games of Ἄ κτια were performed in his honor, probably already under Polemon and Pythodoridas; and the second - to Alexander Sever 108. However, the Greco-Roman influence cannot be exaggerated, either culturally or regionally. religion. There is no doubt that large cities also adopted Greek or Latin names; Latin and Greek were the language of government, the language of the educated classes and, in general, the highest circles of society. But Greek did not become the national language even in the 3rd century. according to R. Chr.: the mass of the people spoke local languages, although those who wrote books sometimes wrote them in Greek, and administrative officials spoke Latin. The people continued to believe in their own religion: its gods were identified by the educated classes with the gods of Greece and Rome and called by Greek names, but they did not have a Greek and Roman character - they were Asian deities 109. This can be said about all of Asia Minor in general, - the same can be applied to Pontus in particular. To complete the picture of the religious and cultural influences in Pontus before the spread and establishment of Christianity there, it is necessary to point out the undoubted presence here, at least in the coastal trading cities and larger and more important points of the internal Pontus, of the Jews of the dispersion. We find a very definite indication of this in Acts. II, 9. Further, the Jew Aquila, a companion of the Apostle Paul, was from Pontus (Acts XVIII, 2); from Pontus there was also a Jewish proselyte, Aquila, a translator of the Old Testament. From the fact that the last Aquila was a proselyte from the beginning of the 2nd century. according to R. Chr., it is clear that Judaism, here, as elsewhere, developed its propaganda and had a certain success. Judaism was also widespread in Cappadocia 110. An interesting fact for characterizing the methods of spreading Judaism is the marriage of Polemon II to Bernice, the daughter of the Jewish king Agrippa I (Acts XII) and the sister of Herod Agrippa II (Acts XXVI). Bernice, who had been a widow for a long time after the death of her husband and uncle Herod Chalcis (d. 48 AD), herself convinced Polemon to marry her. The latter agreed to this marriage mainly for the sake of her wealth and even accepted circumcision. But when Bernice soon left him, he, in turn, abandoned Jewish customs 111. There is no doubt, of course, that Judaism in Pontus had the same importance in preparing the ground for the spread of Christianity as in other places 112. The first mention of the spread of Christianity in Pontus is in the first conciliar letter of St. ap. Peter, who addresses in it the chosen strangers of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1 Ptr. I, 1). Whoever is meant by the chosen newcomers of the dispersion, whether Christians from the Jews, or Christians in general, whose position in the provinces of Asia Minor is compared with the position in the world of the Jews of the dispersion, in any case, the fact is indisputable that already at the beginning of the second half of the first century there were Christians in Pontus; and if we bear in mind the analogies of other places known to us of the initial spread of Christianity, as well as the historically established relationships of pagan and Jewish elements in the provinces of Asia Minor in connection with the well-known position occupied by the ap. Peter in resolving the issue of pagan Christians, it is necessary to come to the conclusion that the churches to which the ap. addresses. Peter in his first epistle were of a mixed, predominantly linguistic-Christian nature 113. But here questions arise in what sense the writer of the epistle uses the name Pontus, and in what way Christianity penetrated at such an early time into the northern regions of Asia Minor. As for the meaning of the name Pontus, contrary judgments are proposed in this regard: one can understand the province of Pontus, which formed part of the province of "Bithynia-Pontus", on the basis that the simple name Pontus, without any qualifying epithets, was usually used to designate the Roman province connected with Bithynia, except, of course, in those cases when the context requires a different understanding and when at the same time there is no need for a distinctive epithet: e.g. Κοινὸν ΙΙόντου on the coins of Neokesarea, the capital of Polemon Pontus, means this latter country, and on the coins of Zila τοῦ Πόντου; in Πρώτ ῃ Πόντου on the coins of Amasia you need to see the Galatian Pontus 114. On the other hand, it would seem completely natural to take the view that the New Testament generally adheres to the popular use of geographical names, especially since in this case Pontus and Bithynia, two parts of one province, are divided: Pontus is placed in first place, and Bithynia in fifth 115. By the way, the order in the names of the provinces (Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia) attracts the attention of researchers of the first conciliar letter of St. ap. Peter and in the sense that they want to find reinforcement in it to prove the origin of this message from Babylon (and not from Rome): the first place in the list is occupied by Pontus - the easternmost of the regions named here and the closest to Babylon, and in last place are the western regions named Asia and Bithynia. In resolving this issue, it is fair to recognize the most natural explanation as given by F. Hort 116 . In his opinion, the distribution of the provinces - Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia - represents such an order that must be considered incredible from the point of view of a writer mentally passing through these provinces from Babylon. Nor can the assertion that the epistle refers not to Roman provinces, but to countries in their popular designation, be justified. Finally, the opinion seems firmly founded that the order of the names of the provinces in the message is determined not by their mutual geographical location, but by the very special conditions of the distribution of the message in these provinces. The message was written through the “faithful brother” Silouan; one might think that Silouan was instructed to personally disseminate it in those areas to which the apostle wanted to address the word of edification, and also give oral explanations to Christians on behalf of the apostle. Silouan had to enter Asia Minor soil in one of the harbors of the province of Pontus, pass through Galatia, visit Cappadocia, go to Asia and complete his journey in Bithynia. We cannot say why this journey of Silouan had to begin with Pontus - perhaps Silouan was a native of Pontus, or perhaps some private affairs, his own or others, prompted him to land in Pontus; Silouan's personal motives for this journey could be conveniently combined with the commission of St. ap. Peter to visit the already established Christian communities in these regions of Asia Minor. With this explanation, it becomes clear why in the message Bithynia and Pontus, which constituted one province, were separated and placed at opposite ends of the list: Silvanus’s journey, starting on the Black Sea coast from one of the ports of Pontus, ended on the same coast in the neighboring province of Bithynia. Thus, based on the greeting of St. ap. Peter in his first letter, one can decisively assert the existence of Christians only in that part of Pontus that was united into one province with Bithynia, that is, on this side of Halys. The spread of Christianity here was already quite significant, since the attitude of Christians towards the non-Christian population already constitutes an essential assumption for the admonitions of the sacred writer 117 - obviously, Christians have already aroused hostility towards themselves on the part of the pagans. The planting of the faith of Christ in the province of Bithynia-Pontus could be accomplished through Phrygia and Galatia: but to a much greater extent it could occur by sea from the western coast of Asia Minor and even from Rome, with which the Greco-Roman colonies on the shores of the Black Sea had lively relations. But there is every reason to believe that the first evangelists in Pontus were the apostles. We are not even talking about the fact that on the feast of Pentecost, on the day of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles, there were strangers from Pontus (Acts II, 9), who could be among the first to believe in Christ, or among those saved whom the Lord added to the Church all the days (P, 41-47). But ancient church tradition, reflected in the apocryphal acts of the apostles, persistently affirms the direct evangelistic activity within the Ponto-Vosporan kingdom of the entire “Pontic group”, which included the apostles - Peter, his brother Andrew, Bartholomew and Matthew 118. Even if we agree that the ancient legends in the part relating specifically to the ap. Peter, are based on the greeting of his first letter, and that the well-known testimony of Origen 119 and the remark of Epiphanius of Cyprus 120 have their source in it, then in any case the legend about the joint activity of the apostles Peter and Andrew in Sinope cannot be deduced from them. Sinop according to the acts of St. Andrei, according to other ancient legends, was the center of his activity, and its geographical limits in the northeastern part of the Asia Minor peninsula are outlined, although not entirely definitely, by the mention of the rivers Phasis, Apsara, Lika and Skylax, as well as the cities of Trebizond, Neokesarea, Amasia, Amis, Sinop 121. In parallel with ap. Andrew was preached by the Evangelist Matthew and Bartholomew 122, although the area of ​​their activity cannot be determined with any precision. Ancient legends about the Apostle Bartholomew place him in direct relation to the Polemon dynasty. According to one legend, he preached in Vospor, the kingdom of Polemon I and from 38 to 41 AD. - Polemon II, and subsequently in Greater Armenia, where he suffered martyrdom in the city of Urbanople. According to another legend, he preached in Lycaonia, or in Upper Phrygia and Pisidia. The third legend transfers his activities to India, but also calls Polemius and Polymius king of the country and mentions his brother Astreg or Astyages - obviously, these are only distortions of the names of Polemon II and Artaxius 123. The acts of Paul and Thecla indicate the possibility of other ways of spreading Christianity in Pontus, again in connection with the Polemon dynasty. The virgin Thekla, converted by the Apostle Paul in Iconium, enjoyed the patronage of Queen Tryphaena, who became a second mother for her, saved her life and honor, and was herself converted to Christianity by Thekla. It is now recognized that Tryphaena is a historical person and is identical with Tryphaena, the daughter of the Pontic king Polemon I and Pythodoris and the mother of Polemon II, a relative of the emperor Claudius 124. Her residence under Claudius near Iconium could only be temporary, since in 54–55. she appears with the name of the queen on Pontic coins 125. We do not know what influence Tryphaena had on the spread of Christianity in Pontus, but Christian tradition has preserved the memory of the martyr Tryphaena in Cyzicus, 126 in which Queen Tryphaena at one time lived, being married to King Cotis. It is difficult to admit that so many links connecting the Polemon dynasty with the early history of Christianity were entirely fictitious, and that there was not some historical reality from which the legends drew their material. The result of the activities of these known and completely unknown preachers during the second half of the 1st century was that already from the beginning of the 2nd century we have very definite evidence of the strong spread of Christianity in the province of Bithynia - Pontus. The governor of this province, Pliny the Younger, in a letter to Emperor Trajan (111–113), turned to the latter for clarification of issues related to the trials against Christians and which aroused bewilderment in him. Here Pliny incidentally reports that among the accused there were men and women of all ages and conditions, and there were also Roman citizens; Of those brought to trial (but presented to him on a nameless list), some admitted that they really were Christians, but left their society - some three years ago, others a little earlier, and others even twenty years ago. Pliny especially confused many Christians. “This matter,” he writes, “seemed to me worthy of a meeting (with you), especially due to the large number of people exposed to danger. For many of every age, every condition, even both sexes, are and will be in danger. The infection of this superstition spread not only through the cities, but also through the villages and villages; it seems to be able to be stopped and corrected. Indeed, it is sufficiently known that the almost abandoned churches began to be visited in large numbers, and sacred festivals, long interrupted, were resumed and herds of sacrificial animals appeared, for which hitherto there were very few buyers. From this it is easy to understand how many people can be corrected if room for repentance is given” 127. Thus, Pliny claims that Christianity penetrated into all layers of the population and spread not only in cities, but also in villages and villages, that pagan temples were largely deserted and sacrifices ceased. Christianity appeared here not in the last days, but long (diu) before the reign of Pliny; Some of those brought to trial had left Christianity twenty years ago. Let us assume that Pliny had reason to imagine this distribution as strongly as possible; but the essential facts - the spread of Christianity even in villages and its penetration into all segments of the population - could not be made up 128. Pliny in his letter does not name the cities and areas where Christianity spread, but it is possible to more or less accurately determine the area he is talking about. Pliny was the ruler of the province officially called Bithynia et Pontus; this province had a very significant extent, stretching from the Rindaka River in the west to the city of Amisa in the east. Pliny visited the eastern part of his province in the summer and autumn of 112, and letters 96 and 97 were written by him during this journey, perhaps from Amis. Consequently, Pliny, in a letter to Trajan, speaks of the events that took place here, and the description of the great power of the new religion must be applied to the eastern part of the province of Bithynia-Pontus. But there is no reason to limit his depiction only to this part of the united province: the general impression that the letter gives is that Pliny describes the state of affairs of the province as a whole and is not limited to a small district 129. Thus, in the province of Bithynia and Pontus, already at the beginning of the 2nd century, Christianity occupied such a strong position that it posed a serious threat to paganism. Based on Pliny’s letter, we can say that it appeared here a long time ago and in any case no later than 20 years before him. However, it would hardly be fair for the random number “20,” indicated, perhaps, simply to give the judge the impression that the person brought to trial left Christian society so long ago that it is not worth talking about, to attach the significance of a certain chronological term for the spread of Christianity here: its emergence in Pontus undoubtedly goes back to the depths of the 1st century and is associated, perhaps, with the newcomers of the dispersion of the first letter of St. ap. Peter and those Jews from Pontus who were in Jerusalem on the day of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles, as well as with the evangelistic works of the apostles of the “Posporan-Pontic group”. Obviously, the seed of Christianity fell on fertile soil here. Around the half of the 2nd century, Lucian of Samosata accidentally points to the strong spread of Christianity in Pontus, the former homeland of the soothsayer Alexander of Avunoteich 130, who testified that the whole country was filled with atheists (i.e., Epicureans) and Christians. By the time of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, there were several churches in the province of Bithynia and Pontus, among which the primacy belonged to the Bishop of Amastrid. Eusebius reports that Dionysius of Corinth (in the second half of the 2nd century) wrote a letter “to the church of Amastris together with the churches existing in Pontus” 131. In this letter, Dionysius, according to Eusebius, “mentions Bacchylides and Elpistus, who inspired him to write the letter, sets out an interpretation of the divine scriptures, calls Palma by the name of their bishop, gives many instructions regarding marriage and chastity, and commands to accept everyone who converts after apostasy and crime, or even heretical error.” Since Dionysius of Corinth undoubtedly coordinated the content of his message with the condition and needs of those to whom he wrote, one can think that it contained important information about the life of Christians of Amastrid and other churches in the province of “Bithynia and Pontus.” Soon after this, when Palma, the eldest of them, still prevailed among the Pontic churches, the Pontic bishops took part in the Easter dispute and wrote a letter on this matter 132, apparently after a preliminary conciliar meeting. The heretic Marcion was the son of the Bishop of Sinope in the province of Pontus; Aquila, the translator of the Old Testament into Greek, was also from Pontus. By the middle of the 2nd century there was already an episcopal see in Amasia, the main city of Galatian Pontus. However, the Pontic Comans did not yet have a bishop, although the ground was already ready for the emergence of an organized church here. If the assumption is correct that Pliny’s letter to Trajan was written from Amis and that it was here that the apostates who declared during interrogation that they had left the Christian Church twenty years ago ended up, then the spread of Christianity in the coastal strip of the Galatian Pontus must be attributed to the first century. Both from the position and commercial significance of Amis, it is natural to assume that Christianity spread in it and its surroundings very early, and Amasia indicates its penetration into this country. Unfortunately, there is no information about the spread of Christianity further along the Black Sea coast within the Pontus Polemonov and Pontus Cappadocia until the middle of the 3rd century. Of course, its spread here in the trading ports is quite possible - even moreover: one can express confidence in the existence of Christianity here; There is no specific data. If we take into account that in Pontic Comana the Christian Church received its first bishop from Neocaesarea, and that in Neocaesarea itself the first bishop was St. Gregory the Wonderworker, then it will become clear to us that the spread of Christianity, heading from west to east, within the country has not yet reached Polemon Pontus and has stopped even within the Galatian Pontus. And in general, it must be said that from the coastal strip of the province into the country, Christianity spread very slowly, and one cannot be surprised at the contrast that is seen in ancient news regarding the rapid and widespread spread of Christianity in the province of Bithynia and Pontus and its slow and weak penetration into the center of Polemon Pontus, which did not lie on the path of the cultural movement. The preaching of Christianity approached the borders of Polemon Pontus and from the south - from Cappadocia. Christianity appeared in this area very early, as evidenced by the first letter of St. ap. Peter (I, 1). Christians from Cappadocia are often found in other provinces from the second century: the disciple of St. Justin the Philosopher Evelpist came from Cappadocia from Christian parents; The martyrs Seleucus and Julian, who suffered in Caesarea in Palestine, came from Cappadocia. Between 180 and 196 there was such a persecution of Christians in Cappadocia that even Tertullian in distant Carthage knows about it 133 . The church in Caesarea, the main city of Cappadocia, flourished from the beginning of the 3rd century, under the leadership of such enlightened bishops as Alexander and Firmilian. Here at the very beginning of the 3rd century. Clement of Alexandria also developed his missionary activities. Caesarea at this time had already become a center of theological education 134. True, we do not know how successfully Christianity spread in the north and northeast of Cappadocia towards the borders of Polemon Pontus. However, it remains undoubted that Polemonov Pontus, remote from the main paths of the then civilization and political life, somewhat backward in comparison with Galatian Pontus and Cappadocia, was not yet enlightened by the light of the Christian faith, even if it was not completely unfamiliar with the new teaching and considered at least individual Christians among its inhabitants. Christianity began to gradually penetrate into the main city of Polemon Pontus - Neocaesarea. But the establishment of Christianity in the internal regions of Polemon Pontus in a significant area dates back to the middle of the 3rd century and is in connection with the fruitful missionary activity of the enlightener of this country in the proper sense of the word, its apostle and the first bishop of its main city of Neocaesarea and the organizer of the churches of St. Gregory the Wonderworker. Chapter II. Sources of the biography of St. Gregory the Wonderworker Regarding the sources of the biography of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea, a well-known researcher of his life and works 135 expressed a very sharp judgment: he finds it impossible to present the life and work of this famous bishop and teacher of the Church in a consistent biographical presentation, since the available materials for a biography are insufficient - they consist in a number of individual colorless chronological dates and in his creations, the exact dating of which is for the most part impossible. This verdict undoubtedly suffers from exaggeration, and the named scientist himself finds in the same sources valuable information that gives him the opportunity to quite clearly characterize the life and personality of the Pontic saint. But there is also a significant amount of truth in the above review: about St. Ancient church writers speak of Gregory the Wonderworker with such deep respect that one could rightly expect from them more accurate and detailed information than what they actually gave. True, both in terms of their volume and antiquity of origin, they do not seem to leave much to be desired, especially if we compare them with the data that science has about others close in time to St. Gregory the Wonderworker, church leaders and writers; however, regarding the second half of the life of St. Gregory, specifically about his episcopal activity, they present material that does not make it possible to depict it with the desired completeness and in consistent development, and mostly simply state the amazing successes of his archpastoral and missionary service. Nevertheless, here too in reports about St. Gregory, the undeniably significant features of his personality and work are noted, which exclude hopelessness in constructing a scientific outline of the life and work of St. Gregory the Wonderworker with significant details. Among the sources for the biography of St. Gregory, in the first place should be given his own speech, delivered by him in Caesarea Palestine at farewell to Origen, after completing his studies with him. In this speech there are 136 St. Gregory provides brief information about his origin, initial upbringing and education, and the path by which he was brought to Caesarea in Palestine to Origen, then describes in detail his long communication with Origen before his separation from him. Here data is presented not only about the course of the external life of the author of the speech, but mainly about his internal development, about the gradual growth of his spiritual life: with amazing objectivity, simply and clearly, the speaker describes how divine Providence led him to the knowledge of Christian truth, if not against his own desire, then in any case without deliberate and conscious efforts on his part, depicts a struggle with himself, zeal for self-improvement, the desire to penetrate into Christian truths, a thirst for virtue - in a word, in a certain sense, the history of the development of the character of a young man who later became an outstanding father of the Church of the 3rd century. Finally, the speech also marks the path along which the formation of the theological views of St. Gregory, and the degree of his penetration into the depths of Christian truths, which he achieved in Caesarea Palestine, under the leadership of Origen. Speech of St. Gregory to Origen is a source of paramount value and does not arouse the slightest doubt in any of its details. This source covers the first half of the life of St. Gregory until he returned from Caesarea in Palestine to his homeland and entered the field of public activity. In this part of the biography of St. Gregory, all other information must be brought into agreement with the data of his speech. A very important addition to the speech of St. Gregory is served by a letter to him from Origen, in which the famous teacher’s view of his beloved student is expressed, adding a significant touch to the characterization of St. Gregory 137. Following these sources, it is necessary to put a whole group of ancient reports about St. Gregory, which relate entirely (with the exception of a relatively insignificant part of one of them) to the activities of St. Gregory in the rank of Bishop of Neocaesarea. This group of sources includes: a) The Word about the life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker Θαοματουργόν, γενόμενον ἐπίσχοπον τῆς Νβοχαισορίας, written by St. Gregory of Nyssa; b) The Tale of the Glorious Deeds of Blessed Gregory, Bishop of Neocaesarea, preserved in Syriac; c) the message of Rufinus in his additions to the translation of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, and d) finally, brief remarks by St. Basil the Great in his book on the Holy Spirit to Amphilochius (chapter 29). In view of the fact that these documents are the main source for getting acquainted with the life and work of St. Gregory in his episcopal service, and also in view of the fact that they are subject to severe criticism from the point of view of their historical value, we consider it necessary to clarify in detail their mutual relationship and the sources of the information contained in them in order to determine the suitability of the material given in them for constructing the biography of St. Gregory. Life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, written by St. Gregory of Nyssa 138, represents the actual word of praise, pronounced, probably with abbreviations, in a meeting of believers on the day dedicated to the memory of St. Gregory; therefore, it bears all the features characteristic of this type of work and is written in compliance with the forms and techniques established for them 139. The eulogy does not contain all the necessary biographical information. St. Gregory of Nyssa, in contrast to the Greek orators, does not want to praise the great Gregory's fatherland, does not want to take his ancestors to help his praiseworthy word, does not mention his parents, the culprits of his carnal origin, refuses to talk about their wealth, honor and worldly nobility. “Therefore, how, from whom he (St. Gregory the Wonderworker) came, in what city he first lived - all this,” says St. Gregory of Nyssa, - as it does not lead us at all to the intended goal, we omit, and as a beginning for praising him we will take the time when he began a virtuous life. For these reasons, St. Gregory of Nyssa begins his story about St. Gregory, in fact, from the time when he consciously took the path that later led him to Christianity. However, following such a decisive statement that he does not want to follow the path of worldly orators, Gregory of Nyssa still, albeit briefly, praises Pontus and its inhabitants, as well as the native city of St. Gregory to Neocaesarea. And about the future life of St. Gregory before his consecration as bishop, Gregory of Nyssa reports little information. He says that St. Gregory diligently studied external philosophy and, having gone through all the teachings of the Hellenes and having learned by experience the weakness and inconsistency of their positions, becomes a disciple of the Gospel. But even before converting to Christianity, he achieved such perfection in life that he did not bring any sinful filth into the baptismal font. In confirmation of his chastity, Gregory of Nyssa cites the case of the accusation of St. Gregory as a harlot when he lived in Egypt, in the large city of Alexandria, and punishing her for slander. After completing his full training in external wisdom, he met Firmilian; Having revealed to each other their way of thinking, they together came to the main leader in Christian philosophy at that time - Origen. Having spent the time necessary to study the divine sciences with him, St. Gregory returned to his fatherland and, instead of demonstrating his learning in general meetings, retired into solitude, not interested in state and public affairs. Such is the brief information conveyed by the laudatory word about the life of St. Gregory in the first half. Subsequently, the story of St. Gregory of Nyssa is made more detailed. He tells the story of the dedication of St. Gregory as Bishop of Neocaesarea by Thedemus of Amasia and the revelation to him of the Creed, the text of which is given. Then he reports on a number of miraculous actions of St. Gregory: about the expulsion of demons from a pagan temple on the way from the desert to the city (after dedication) and the movement of the rock, which resulted in the conversion of the priest to Christianity, about the arrival in Neokesarea and the warm welcome given to him by the inhabitants of the city, about the success of the sermon in Neokesarea, about the construction of the temple, which remained intact and unharmed during the earthquake that had already occurred under Gregory of Nyssa, when all the buildings were around, both private and and the public turned into ruins; about the appeal to the court of Gregory in controversial cases and his miraculous drying up of the lake, about protecting the country from the floods of the Lika River, about the consecration of the coal miner Alexander as bishop of Koman, about the attempt of two Jews to deceive St. Gregory and about their punishment, about the healing of a possessed young man, about the persecution of Christians and the removal of St. Gregory with his flock into the desert, about the miraculous salvation of St. Gregory and his deacon, a former priest, from the persecution of persecutors, about the vision of St. Gregory regarding the martyrdom of Troadius and the verification of his story by the deacon, about the deacon’s salvation from a demon in the bathhouse, about the return of St. Gregory to the city and the establishment of holidays in honor of those who suffered for the faith. The conclusion describes the death of St. Gregory. After this, the speaker recalls another miracle performed by St. Gregory: cessation of the ulcer through the prayer of St. Gregory and the conversion of many to Christ. St. Gregory of Nyssa ends his laudatory speech with the remark that other miracles of the great Gregory were also preserved in memory, which he did not add to those described, sparing the ears of the incredulous. In 1894, the famous expert on the Syriac language, Victor Rissel, who rendered great services to science with his translations of important Syrian monuments, published in “Theologische Zeitschrift aus der Schweiz”, Zürich, XI, 4, S. 241–254, a translation of the Syriac life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea, made by him from a manuscript in the British Museum (add. 14648), which, according to W. Wright, belongs to the 6th century. This life turned out to closely coincide in its main content with the laudatory word of St. Gregory of Nyssa about the life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker; However, in the arrangement of facts, in their details and in the general nature of the narrative, it differs significantly from the biography of St. Gregory of Nyssa. In 1896 Paul Bedjan, based on the same manuscript from the British Museum that W. Rissel used, published the Syriac text of the life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker in "Actamartyrum et sanctorum", t. VI (Parisiis 1896), p. 83–106. This text differs in many respects from V. Rissel’s translation. However, it is not always possible to accurately determine whether these deviations are based on a more correct reading of the manuscript or on Bedjan's own guesses. In any case, according to Gen. Hilgenfeld, - they are mostly improvements, and for his part, on the basis of P. Bedjan’s edition and amendments, he gave amendments to V. Rissell’s translation of the most striking deviations, in which, in his opinion, P. Bedjan offers a more correct reading 140. P. Bejan, recognizing the edition of the Syrian life in the British Museum manuscript as not entirely accurate, corrects it in footnotes based on the Berlin manuscript No. 321. The text of the latter is almost four times more extensive than the text of the British Museum manuscript; but P. Bedjan could not use it as the basis for his edition, since most of the leaves of this manuscript are in a deplorable state 141. P. Bedjan, apparently, did not compare the life in the Berlin manuscript with the biography of St. Gregory of Nyssa. Meanwhile, the passage cited by R. Bedjan in approx. 1 per page 84, leads V. Riessel 142 to wonder whether the Berlin text is simply a translation (in a somewhat common form) of the life of Gregory of Nyssa. P. Bedjan does not provide material for judging this, and we are not able to say whether other parts of this biography are not adjacent to the Greek life, although this may be indicated by the inscription noted by Bedjan in large red letters, made by an unknown Orientalist on leaves 8 b and 9 a of the Berlin manuscript: “The History of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa.” But even if in other parts the Berlin text coincides with the Syriac biography, then even in this case, according to V. Rissel, it can be assumed that the Berlin manuscript provides an interpolation of the ancient Syriac biography through material borrowed from the Greek biography of St. Gregory of Nyssa. The Syrian life is called “The Tale of the Glorious Deeds of Blessed Gregory, Bishop of Neocaesarea” 143 - therefore, it is the same as the praiseworthy word of St. Gregory of Nyssa, does not set out to describe the entire life of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea and therefore does not contain historical dates and facts that would expand our historical knowledge about the life and work of the Wonderworker. After a short introduction, which points out the various types of spiritual life by which God leads people to salvation, the compiler of the story directly begins the message about the calling of the hermit Gregory to the bishop of Neo-Caesarean and his consecration by Gregory of Nazianzus. Then the author of the story proceeds to present the miracles, which are arranged in this order: deception of the Jews, their punishment and pardon; the expulsion of the demon-soothsayer from the temple and the conversion of the pagan priest, the priest’s doubt in Gregory’s story about the martyrdom of the young man and his confirmation of this; victory of the priest over the demon in the bathhouse through the prayers of St. Gregory; diversion of the Lika River from the city it threatens; draining the lake to reconcile two brothers; election of coal miner Alexander to bishop; slander of St. Gregory the harlot, her punishment and forgiveness; healing of a possessed youth; persecution of Christians and flight of St. Gregory; You will miraculously save Gregory and his deacon from their persecutors. The story ends with a brief message about the return of St. Gregory, the success of his activities and death. Rufinus, in his translation of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, considers it necessary to supplement Eusebius's message with an indication of the deeds of the great man, glorified under the eastern and northern skies. He talks only about three miraculous deeds: the draining of the lake, the miraculous movement of the rock, and the expulsion of the demon from the church of Apollo 144. St. Basil Vel., the elder brother of Gregory of Nyssa, in the book about the Holy Spirit to St. Amphilochius (chapter 29) writes that St. Gregory, with the assistance of the Spirit, had terrible power over demons and received such grace of the word in obedience to faith in the pagans (Rom. I, 5), that, having accepted only seventeen Christians, he led all the people, both urban and rural, to God through knowledge; he also changed the flows of the rivers, commanding them in the great name of Christ, and dried up the lake, which gave the covetous brothers a reason for war; and his predictions about the future are such that he is in no way inferior to the other prophets, and it would be quite a long time to retell the miracles of this man, whom, due to the abundance of gifts in him, revealed through the action of the Spirit with all power in signs and wonders, the enemies of the truth themselves called the second Moses” 145. The relationship of the material in the above reports about the life of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea undoubtedly: St. Gregory of Nyssa and the Syrian life mostly talk about the same events; Rufinus states three facts, and St. Basil the Great mentions two of them, making a general reference to the terrible power of St. over them for demons. Gregory, which lies at the basis of the stories of St. Gregory of Nyssa and the Syrian life, and on the gift of prophecy, and notes that it would be absolutely long to retell the miracles of this man. First of all, the question arises about the mutual relationship between the given narratives. We can actually talk about two lives - St. Gregory of Nyssa and Syrian and only partly about the messages of Rufinus; as for the brief remarks of St. Basil the Great, then they gain significance only when assessing the life set forth by St. Gregory of Nyssa. The relatedness of the material can come from mutual - direct or indirect - use, from the use of a common written source, and finally, from the independent use of the same oral tradition. In relation to the lives of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea, the first way to explain the similarities is eliminated, since neither the life of St. Gregory of Nyssa cannot be derived from the Syrian life, nor vice versa. Life of St. Gregory of Nyssa in more detail about the Syrian life: it contains more miraculous deeds of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea, sometimes gives indications of the historical setting of the events presented, etc. On the other hand, the Syrian life, despite its shorter form, contains features that do not allow us to see in it a simple extract from Gregory of Nyssa: the presentation of events in the Syrian life presents such features, the explanations of which cannot be found in Gregory of Nyssa; Not everywhere the narrative of the Syrian life is shorter, but often longer and more detailed than the Greek one. Therefore, the theory of mutual use is excluded and, as far as is known, it is not applied by anyone. Two other ways of explaining the relationship of the material found energetic defenders in the person of V. Rissel 146 and P. Koechau 147 . The first of them, who studied the Syriac life in the original and, by translating it into German, made it possible for wider circles to become familiar with it, sees in it a literary monument of venerable antiquity, or, more precisely and more correctly, an extract from a work of ancient Christian literature, the existence of which we have hitherto had no knowledge of and the original of which is, in the highest degree, probably lost irretrievably (S. 229). From a comparison of the Syrian life and the praiseworthy words of St. Gregory of Nyssa V. Rissel concludes that Gregory of Nyssa wrote about the life and work of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea, not according to the memories of the Christians of his homeland, but on the basis of a written source, which he, as usual, wrapped in brilliant rhetoric, leaving aside everything that did not correspond to his education, his taste, as well as the possibility for him, as an educated person, to believe what was contained in the legends. This could not be stated with such certainty if in the depiction of Rufinus we were not given a means of controlling Gregory of Nyssa and his work, since Rufinus obviously took advantage of the same material and, as a historian, made of it a slightly different use than the orator. But this, at the same time, also explains the observation that was hitherto made on the basis of a comparison of the news of Gregory of Nyssa and Rufinus, namely, that Rufinus in his narrative is independent of Gregory of Nyssa, which naturally leads to the further assumption that Rufinus must have drawn from a different source than the biography of Gregory of Nyssa (S. 229–230). Likewise, the Syrian did not draw from Gregory of Nyssa, giving only extracts from his praiseworthy words and only disseminating in some cases (S. 232). V. Rissel got the impression that the Syrian had great originality everywhere, which is why he could not be dependent on Gregory’s material. Wherever there are deviations, one can understand that they stem from Gregory, and not from the Syrian (S. 233). IN. Rissel even finds it possible to explain on what grounds Gregory of Nyssa revised the written material that was at his disposal. Rissell considers the most interesting those passages in which Gregory of Nyssa clearly finds temptation in the miraculous element of the stories, either because he does not want to assume in his readers too much ability and good desire to believe in these miracles, or because to himself, a finely educated writer in Greek taste accustomed to moderation, these miracles seemed too crude and little internally justified. For only in this way can one explain Gregory’s desire to depict some of these miracles more rationally and naturally, or to make them probable through an explanation of the miraculous. It is precisely the majority of the deviations between the Syrian’s story and the laudatory word of Gregory of Nyssa that, according to V. Rissel (S. 234), is completely convincingly explained as a result of Gregory’s way of thinking and views. Other deviations are explained in Gregory by a stronger preponderance of biblical flavor and biblical-dogmatic way of thinking. In the first respect, one must remember the many comparisons with biblical personalities; various changes in particulars must be traced to the latter. Some deviations were made by Gregory for ecclesiastical legal reasons. As for the material that Gregory of Nyssa gives in his life and which is not in the Syrian life, this material for the most part, if not exclusively, comes from Gregory himself, and not from the original source. This includes, first of all, all the decorations in the depiction of particulars, especially in the depiction of visions and acting personalities, comparisons with biblical figures and richly revealed images - in a word, everything that constitutes Gregory’s rhetorical appendage and in which he, in other cases such a subtle writer and speaker, often oversteps the bounds of moderation and good taste. In addition, Gregory of Nyssa owns the introduction and conclusion, transitions from one episode to another, which should all the more be recognized as the fruit of Gregory’s free creativity, since he also changed the very sequence of individual stories. From Gregory of Nyssa comes the depiction of the landscape of Pontus, the city of Neocaesarea and its environs, and the depiction of church relations in Cappadocia by the time of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, how they developed through his orders during the difficult transition from paganism to Christianity, as well as various details from the life of St. Gregory and church-historical explanations, such as about the persecution of Christians. Finally, Gregory also owns some individual features in the presentation that serve as the best motivation for events. But V. Rissel at the same time must agree (S. 236) that when comparing material from Gregory and the Syrian, it is always necessary to keep in mind that in individual cases it is often difficult to decide where Gregory of Nyssa extends or simplifies the presentation of his original and where the Syrian abridges his original. However, with all the differences in presentation and material in both lives, there is so much homogeneity in both lives that it is inadmissible to doubt their literary relationship and one cannot think about the possibility of a completely distant contact only through the assumption of only different written processing of the same, initially only orally disseminated, grain of the narrative, since in addition to close contact in content, for which examples can be given from almost every paragraph, there is also in various places a coincidence in expressions and, moreover, in such form, as it is possible only with literary dependence. From these observations, apparently, the conclusion should follow that the Syriac life constitutes the source for Gregory of Nyssa, and in this case it would have to be assumed that all the material that Gregory of Nyssa offers as an addition to the Syriac narrative is a free addition to himself. But V. Rissel himself proves that against the assumption that Gregory drew from the Syriac biography in the form in which it is known to us at the present time, serious doubts are raised, which have their basis in the fact that the original work was compiled not in Syriac, but in Greek, as already shown by the explanation of the name of the river Λύκος by Gregory, which in the Syriac life is made understandable only through a reverse translation into Greek language. The assumption of the Syriac original work is contradicted by the sharp anachronism according to which the bishop who consecrated Gregory of Neocaesarea as bishop was Gregory of Nazianzus: such a mistake, according to V. Rissel, is understandable only if the Syrian is guilty of it, who allowed it during the translation and processing of the original Greek text. To these internal grounds is added external evidence in favor of the Greek original: the Syriac life in the only manuscript that contains it is found behind the Syriac translation of Palladius's Historia Lausiaca, so from here we can conclude that the Syriac life of St. Gregory is also borrowed from the Greek original. If, therefore, neither the Syrian could draw from Gregory of Nyssa, nor the latter from the Syrian life, then the assumption naturally follows about the common Greek main work that both Gregory of Nyssa and the Syrian had before them; Rufinus also drew from the same source (S. 238). On the question of what relation the Syriac life stands to the Greek original - whether it literally conveys it as an exact translation, or whether the Greek original was more extensive than the Syriac story known to us, and only partly literally transferred into it, in which case the Syriac story would be a free reworking or a free extraction from the Greek original, V. Rissel (S. 238) recommends the latter already because the Syriac story does not give the impression of being literal translation from Greek. But regardless of this, the assumption that the Greek original was more extensive than the Syriac story follows from a comparison of the material in Gregory of Nyssa with the material contained in the Syriac story. Even if a significant part of the material in the panegyric of Gregory of Nyssa constitutes his additions, one thing could not have been added by him and, first of all, such details as the name of the city of Coman and the name of the martyr Troadius were hardly invented by Gregory. On the contrary, the Syrian could simply omit the data for which he could not assume that his readers would have either understanding or interest. This assumption is confirmed by the fact that Rufinus uses a work of similar content and verbal expression. Rufinus did not draw from Gregory, as evidenced by traits that Gregory does not have, but which the Syrian does (S. 239). V. Rissel (S. 240) also rejects the possibility that there were two Greek works of different volumes, but completely similar content, as difficult to accept. Thus, for him the conclusion naturally follows that the only, more extensive original was the Greek work from which the Syrian story provides extracts. Rufinus closely adheres to this original, and the Syrian abridged the least of all the miracles that Rufinus recounts. The time of origin of the Greek work that served as the source for three reports about the life of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea, V. Rissel dates it to the first half of the 4th century, more precisely, to 300–325. (S. 240). On the one hand, the legendary nature of the narrative requires that several decades pass from the death of Gregory the Wonderworker to its composition; on the other hand, Gregory of Nyssa would hardly have reworked a completely new work in his panegyric. This work in its Greek text was easily forgotten, after the panegyric of Gregory of Nyssa conveyed its contents in an elegant form. For Syriac processing, the terminus adquem is in the date of the manuscript in which it was received: according to the authoritative judgment of W. Wright, from the 6th century; and the terminus quo is in the expression “monks” (§4) and in the mention of Gregory of Nazianzus. P. Koechau, who wrote about V. Rissel’s assumptions, based on an analysis of the latter’s arguments, came to a completely different conclusion: V. Rissel’s assumption about a common written primary source, which was used by Gregory of Nyssa, the Syrian and Rufinus, should be considered unproven; rather, the contact between different authors can be explained only from the processing of the same orally widespread material of legends. At the same time, it is established that of the authors who processed this oral tradition, the most original material is offered by Gregory of Nyssa, whose laudatory speech partly still contains historical data mixed with legendary tales. We find a significantly darkened and even more rhetorically embellished legend already in Rufinus, a younger contemporary of Gregory of Nyssa. But the Syrian’s story reveals much greater deviations from the original type of legends: there is absolutely nothing historical here; Instead, gross historical errors have penetrated into the story, the miraculous is multiplied and intensified, some legends are expanded, others are greatly changed. Even if some of these differences can be attributed to the compiler of the Syriac life, there remains, however, so much that we must consider the Syriac treatment to be significantly later than the Greek. Since the Syriac manuscript, which contains the life, according to W. Wright, belongs to the 6th century, the original should be dated to the time around the end of the 5th century. Rufinus stands between Gregory of Nyssa and the Syrian, but closer to the former than to the latter (S. 248–249). This is the position of the question of the mutual relationship of existing hagiographic narratives. As you can see, the question is not only about which work served as the source. for them, but also about the historical value of the stories. The last question is, of course, of greater importance for us than the first, but the solution to the first question is not without scientific historical and literary interest. It is necessary to carefully weigh both views presented in order to come to a reasonable conclusion about the meaning of the Lives. The most visual and convincing way to do this can be a detailed comparison of individual narratives. We will consider them in the order in which they are presented by St. Gregory of Nyssa, and we will always keep in mind the views expressed by V. Rissel and P. Koechau 148. a) Election of St. Gregory to the episcopal see of Neocaesarea. Gregory of Nyssa says that St. Gregory, having completed his philosophical and theological education, retired into the desert. Fedim of Amasia made every effort to give him leadership in the church so that he would not spend such a good life idly and uselessly. But St. Gregory, having learned about this intention, decided to hide, moving from one desert to another. Having tried all the means to achieve his goal, Fedim appoints him in absentia as bishop of Neocaesarea. This city until that time was completely pagan: in the populous city and its surroundings there were no more than seventeen Christians. Forced to accept the episcopal title, St. Gregory, upon completion. over him everything legalized, having asked Fedim for some delay in order to enter into the ministry entrusted to him, he asked himself from above for the revelation of the mysteries of the faith. The truth was revealed to him at night in a vision: he first saw a husband who looked like an old man, who pointed him to a woman who appeared in an unearthly radiance; from their conversation with each other, he not only learned the true knowledge of faith, but also learned that those who appeared were the Apostle John and the Virgin Mary. The Evangelist John in brief words expressed the mystery of faith, and Gregory, at the end of the vision, wrote down the revelation, the text of which Gregory of Nyssa reports, adding that Gregory’s own handwritten note is kept to this day in the neo-Caesarean church. Having received some boldness and courage through this revelation, Gregory left the desert and rushed to the city in which he was to build a church for God. Having reported on the expulsion of demons from a pagan temple on the way to the city, the movement of the rock and the associated conversion to Christianity of the priest (which will be discussed below), Gregory of Nyssa describes the entry of St. Gregory to Neocaesarea. The glory of Gregory, who expelled the demons and led with him and their servant, spread in the city, and all its inhabitants came out to meet: St. Gregory entered the city so crowded by those accompanying him, as if the whole city had already honored his holiness. Since Gregory had neither a church nor his own house in the city, his companions began to worry about where they could find shelter. Gregory reproaches them for forgetting that they are under the roof of heaven, and that they need to take care only of the house that is built by virtues. At this time, the noble and rich husband Musonius asks him to stay at his house; others also began to invite him to their place. Grigory went to the first. At first there were a small number of those who heard his words; but before the day was over and the sun had set, many believed. In the near future, he attracted so many people that he began to build a church - everyone contributed to this endeavor with money and labor 149. In the Syrian life of St. At the beginning, Gregory is depicted as a hermit; his fame spread to many cities. At this time, the neo-Caesarean bishop died, and the clergy turned to Gregory of Nazianzus with a request to give them a shepherd. Gregory of Nazianzus, having listened to them, released them, and he himself turned to God with prayer (the text of a short prayer is given). In a dream, he heard a voice commanding him not to choose anyone other than the hermit Gregory. When Gregory of Nazianzus expressed bewilderment as to how he could find a mountain dweller who had no permanent residence, a voice commanded him to call the clergy, enter the altar, remember the name of Gregory and appoint him bishop, even if he was not there. Gregory of Nazianzus did just that. The angel informed Gregory of his appointment as bishop of Neocaesarea and ordered him to go to Jaasianz to receive a blessing from Gregory and then head to his city. Having surrendered himself in prayer (the text is reported) to the will of God, Gregory went to Nazianz, where he remained for some time. Arriving in Neocaesarea, Gregory was struck by the prevailing idolatry and asked the Lord to give him “through His writings an image of the hidden mysteries of the faith.” Immediately the words appeared on the wall: “The Three Persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the divine nature.” That same night he saw in a dream a young man - John the Evangelist, who was holding a book in his hand, and a virgin - Mary, the Mother of the Lord; they showed him the faith that came from heaven 150. The symbol text is not given. From a comparison of both narratives, first of all, historical incongruities in Syrian life are revealed, while Gregory of Nyssa stands in agreement with historical reality. The Syriac Life speaks of the predecessor of St. Gregory in the neo-Caesarean see and about the clergy of the neo-Caesarean church asking for a shepherd, meanwhile Gregory of Nyssa absolutely correctly believes that St. Gregory as the first bishop of Neocaesarea, in agreement with Basil the Great, who testifies that St. Gregory initially laid the foundation of the neo-Caesarean church, and therefore it is natural that under such conditions the initiative to dedicate St. Gregory as bishop of Neocaesarea came from Bishop Phaedim 151. However, the Syrian life twice speaks of 17 Christians in Neocaesarea before the arrival of Gregory 152. The Syriac Life calls Gregory of Nazianzus the Metropolitan of Pontus, that is, undoubtedly Gregory the Theologian, while the praiseworthy word of Gregory of Nyssa correctly indicates Phaedim of Amasia. This gross anachronism cannot be explained by a copyist's error when distributing lists of Syrian life, since it occurs several times. V. Rissel explains it by the mistake of the Syrian author, who, when translating and processing the Greek primary source, instead of the name Amasias, especially if it was written in the original unclearly and incorrectly, read Anzianz, as the Syrians often wrote instead of Nazianz, and due to ignorance of chronology, placed the name of Gregory of Anzianz, known to him, instead of the name of Phaedim of Amasia (S. 237). The unnaturalness of this explanation itself is striking, especially if we take into account the fact noted now that the name Nazianza occurs several times. Was it really written unclearly and incorrectly in all cases? If we accept the common written source, then we can assume either an arbitrary change on the part of the Syrian, whose motives would be mysterious, or most likely to think that the name of the metropolitan was missing in the common source, and it was filled in correctly by Gregory of Nyssa, but falsely by the Syrian. The Syriac Life, to explain how the hermit Gregory learned of his appointment to the episcopal see, introduces the medium of an angel, which Gregory of Nyssa does not mention, reports on the journey of the clergy to Nazianza, on the proclamation of the name of the new bishop in the church, and introduces several short prayers. In the description of the vision in which Gregory was told the secrets of the faith, the Syrian life in detail also has significant differences from the life of Gregory of Nyssa, namely: in it the words inscribed on the wall appear to Gregory, John the Theologian is presented as young and with a book in his hands. Gregory of Nyssa has St. Gregory learns the secrets of faith from the conversation between Elder John and the Virgin Mary and, at the end of the vision, he himself concludes writing received divine revelation 153. If we take into account the entire nature of the presentation of the relevant facts in the laudatory speech of Gregory of Nyssa and in the Syrian story, it is clear that originality is not on the side of the Syrian life, which sins against history and contains elements that enhance the extraordinary character and election of St. Gregory to the pulpit, and communicate to him the mysteries of the faith. Both lives, of course, generally report the same facts, but with such differences in detail that inspire fair doubt as to whether both narratives can be deduced from the use of the same written source. b) Expelling demons from a pagan temple and moving the rock. Gregory of Nyssa says that St. Gregory, walking from the desert to the city, as evening came and heavy rain began to fall, he and his companions entered a pagan temple. The church was famous for the fact that the demons revered there communicated predictions through priests. Gregory terrified the demons by invoking the name of Christ and, having cleansed the air defiled by sacrificial smoke with the sign of the cross, spent the night in prayers and chants. In the morning he went further; when the priest began to perform the usual service to the demons in the morning, the demons who appeared said that the church was inaccessible to them, because there was St. Grigory. No matter how much he later used cleansing ablutions and sacrifices, all his efforts were in vain: the demons did not obey his call. Then the priest, burning with anger and rage, overtook St. Gregory, threatened him that he would report him to the authorities, use force against him, and bring to the king’s attention his insolence, that he, being a Christian and an enemy of the gods, dared to enter the church. Gregory responded to the impudent and rude rage of the priest with an expression of confidence in the power of the One who fought him, that he could drive out demons from wherever he wanted and settle them in such places as he wanted, promising to provide proof of this. The priest asked Gregory to show his power over these same demons and again place them in the church. St. Gregory tore a small piece from the book, wrote on it: “Gregory to Satan: enter,” and gave it to the priest. The latter put the note on the altar, performed the usual sacrifices and saw the same thing that he had seen before. After this, the priest became convinced that Gregory possessed some kind of divine power, with the help of which he was stronger than the demons; he caught up with him again, when he had not yet reached the city, and asked him to reveal to him the secret about God, who has power over the demonic nature. When St. Gregory briefly outlined the secret of piety, but the priest considered faith in the manifestation of the Divine to people in the flesh to be a humiliation of the concept of God. St. Gregory told him that faith in this sacrament is confirmed not only by words, but its reality is certified by miracles. The priest wished to see another miracle from him in order to come to conviction of faith; he demanded that one of the large rocks lying before his eyes, without the help of a human hand, by the mere power of faith, at the order of Gregory, move and move to another place. St. Gregory immediately ordered the rock, as if an animate creature, to move to the place shown by the priest. After this miracle, the priest believed 154. The Syrian life tells about the expulsion of the demon-soothsayer and the conversion of the priest in a different connection. St. Gregory came to some city and saw a church outside it, entered it, and spent the night in it awake. The demon, revered in the church, was afraid of Gregory’s prayer and left there. Having finished the night service, St. Gregory went on his way. When daylight came, the priest who usually performed the service came to the church, prayed a lot and cried, but the demon did not appear; out of great sadness, the priest tore his clothes and prayed again - the demon appeared and said; “from now on you can no longer wish for me to come here; Gregory, a disciple of Christ, came here, prayed here and expelled me, and thus I can no longer come here.” The priest told him: “So, if Gregory had ordered you, you would have entered here.” The demon replied: “If he commands me, I will come here.” Then the priest ran to Gregory in the mountains and told him that if he commanded the demon to return to his place, and he did so, then he would become a disciple of his God, Whom he preached. St. Gregory wrote on the tablet: “Gregory, disciple of Christ, to the idol: enter your place.” The priest placed the tablet on the ground in the church. The demon immediately appeared. The priest said to him: “Now that you have received orders to do this, have you returned to your place?!” He told him: “Yes.” Then the priest replied: “So, Gregory is stronger than you, so you obey his orders?!” The demon told him: “it is impossible for us to resist the power of the Cross, because legions of angels and people and demons are subordinate to it.” Then the priest replied: “So, if the student is so much stronger than you, then how much more so is his teacher! Therefore, it is my duty to leave to serve someone greater than you.” He immediately left him, went to Gregory and became his disciple 155. The Syrian life does not speak about the movement of the rock either in this connection or elsewhere. Both narratives, although separately, are found in Rufinus. His first story goes like this. Traveling through the mountains in winter, Gregory reached the very top ridge. Everything was covered with snow; There was no refuge anywhere except the church of Apollo. Gregory entered it, spent the night and left. At the church there was a priest who used to question the image of Apollo and give answers to those who demanded, thereby earning food for himself. After Gregory left, the priest, as usual, came to propose questions and ask for predictions, but received no answer. He repeats the sacrifices, but the silence continues. The priest was perplexed. At night a demon appeared to him in a dream and said to him: “Why are you calling me when I can no longer come”? When asked by the priest about the reason for this, the demon said that he was driven out by Gregory's presence. When he questioned about the means against this, the demon said that now he could enter that place only with the permission of Gregory. Hearing this, the priest went to Gregory, explained to him the essence of the matter, reminded him of his hospitality and, mourning the opportunity for acquisition that had been taken away from him, urgently asked to return everything to its previous state. St. Gregory immediately wrote a letter in these words: “Gregory to Apollo: I allow you to return to your place and do what you are accustomed (to do).” The priest placed this letter next to the image. The demon immediately appeared and gave answers to his request. Then the priest began to think to himself: “if Gregory ordered, and this god left and could not return except after receiving the order, and was restored again by Gregory’s order, then isn’t Gregory much better than him, whose orders he obeys.” Therefore, having locked the doors of the temple, he went to Gregory and asked him to introduce him to that God, by whose power he commands the gods of the pagans. He was catechized, baptized and so successful in life and faith that he was Gregory's successor in the bishopric 156. Rufinus talks about the movement of the rock as follows. In one village it was necessary to build a church. But in the place where it was necessary to build, there was a rock of a neighboring mountain on the eastern side, and a river flowed on the other, so there was not enough space to build a church. There was no other place, and everyone was saddened that they did not have land to build a church. St. Gregory spent the night in prayer, remembering the promise given by Jesus Christ (Matt. XVII, 20), and since he asked with full faith to move the rock, by dawn, when the people had gathered, it turned out that the inconvenient rock had moved away as much as the space required to build the church 157. The story of the expulsion of demons from the pagan temple in all three lives is based on one fact, and the initial impression from reading it is that they all speak very much in agreement. Meanwhile, if we look at the details, there will be differences in them that exclude the possibility of using one written source. First of all, the position of the church is defined differently: by Gregory of Nyssa and in the Syrian life - outside the city, by Rufinus - far from the city on the top of a mountain. Gregory of Nyssa motivates the entry into the church by rain, Rufinus says that everything was covered with snow, and there was no other shelter, and Syrian life does not indicate any reasons. According to Gregory of Nyssa, many demons lived in the church, according to the Syrian life - one demon, according to Rufinus - Apollo. Further, according to Gregory of Nyssa, demons appear to the guard in the morning and explain that they cannot enter, no matter what means he uses; in the Syrian life, the demon appears after the priest’s vain efforts and declares that Gregory is preventing him from returning to the church; In Rufinus, Apollo appears to the priest in a dream at night. According to all three narratives, Gregory, in order to fulfill the desire of the pagan priest, sent a letter - according to the Syrian life to the demon of the temple, according to Rufinus - to Apollo and according to Gregory of Nyssa - to Satan 158. There is no agreement between the three authors even in the text of the letter to St. Gregory, where, apparently, there should be an exact coincidence if they got information about this from the same written source. All three authors also disagree regarding what the letter to St. was written on. Gregory: in Gregory of Nyssa there is a small piece from a book, in the Syrian life there is a tablet, in Rufinus there is a letter. The conversion of the priest is also described differently. At the same time, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that Gregory of Nyssa, in order to convince the priest of the superior power of God, whom St. serves. Gregory, a new miracle was required: at the command of the latter, the rock indicated by the priest moves. This narrative is not found in the Syrian life, and this alone is able to destroy the theory of V. Rissel that Gregory was seduced by the miraculous element of some narratives and sought to make individual miracles more natural and acceptable to reason (S. 233). But this miracle is the most amazing of all the miracles of St. Gregory: “the most incredible and great miracle,” as Gregory of Nyssa himself says, and it is performed, according to Gregory of Nyssa, not for the sake of those reasonable grounds that are indicated by Rufinus: Rufinus indicates the basis for it in the extreme need of the villagers, and according to Gregory of Nyssa it is performed simply to convince the priest and at the desire of the latter. Finally, it is impossible, together with V. Rissel, to recognize this story as not being part of the original composition of the stories about St. Gregory on the grounds that he is not in the Syrian life; but it could not be an invention of Gregory of Nyssa, since it, although in a different connection, is also reported by Rufinus, who wrote independently of Gregory of Nyssa, as in this case is clear from the very transmission of the fact. Shouldn't it have belonged to a common source if V. Rissel's theory had been sound? If we look at the narrative of Gregory of Nyssa and the Syrian life from the point of view of the question of originality, then in this regard the story of Gregory of Nyssa about the behavior of the priest when he learned why the demons do not go to the church is important. “The priest, blazing with anger and rage, overtakes the great man, threatening him with all the terrible threats that he will report him to the authorities, and will use force against him, and will bring to the king’s attention his insolence, that he, being a Christian and an enemy of the gods, dared to enter the church, that from his entrance the power acting in the sanctuary has disappeared and the usual prophetic broadcasts of demons in these places are no longer happens." This course of the story, firstly, corresponds to the historical position of Christians of the time of St. Gregory, secondly, and psychologically understandable from the side of the priest who looked at St. Gregory and his God from his pagan point of view. There is no indication of this either in the Syrian life or in Rufinus. This feature of Gregory of Nyssa’s narrative cannot be attributed to his fabrication, since at the time of writing the laudatory word, circumstances had changed radically. If this was said in a general source, then why did neither the Syrian story nor Rufinus mention it? b) Draining the lake to reconcile the brothers. Gregory of Nyssa reports that the authority of St. Gregory was so great that in controversial everyday matters no other court was known above him, but every dispute and all inconvenient and complicated matters were resolved by his advice. As an example, he talks about one of his trials, since, according to the proverb, all fabric is recognized by us by a sample. Two brothers, young in age, having divided their father's inheritance among themselves, could not come to an agreement about the lake: each tried to take possession of it and did not allow the other to share it. The judge is St. Grigory. He tried to persuade the young men to reconcile and persuaded them to end the matter amicably and prefer the benefit of peace to the benefit of income. But the admonitions turned out to be invalid: the young men became excited and, excited by the hope of profit, became more and more inflamed with anger; on both sides an army was being prepared from those under their control; many hands, under the influence of anger and youth, thirsted for blood - the time of battle was appointed. But on the eve of the end of St. Gregory spent the whole night in prayer on the shore of the lake and with prayer dried up all the water, by the morning he made the lake dry and waterless, so that there was no water left in its recesses. After this he left; the bickering between the young men ceased: with the destruction of the object over which the quarrel was being prepared, peace took the place of anger. And now,” says Gregory of Nyssa, “one can see obvious traces of this divine decision, for around the former lake some traces of the water spill still remain, but what was then submerged in water and located in the very depths, all this has now turned into a forest, a dwelling, meadows and arable land 159. The Syrian life tells that a noble man lived in the city, who upon his death left two sons. They divided the entire inheritance - only the lake remained, which brought enormous income to its owner, since it contained a lot of fish. Because of him, disagreement arose among the heirs, which turned into enmity: they kept their servants ready to fight. Their friends informed St. Gregory about this state of affairs. St. Gregory convinced the heirs to reconcile and advised one to take the lake, and the other the money that would come for it. The brothers did not agree. Then St. Gregory ordered everyone to go to the lake. Here he again urged reconciliation, pointing out that they were arguing over something that did not belong to them: the water belonged to God. To a new proposal to reconcile, with a warning that otherwise St. Gregory will show that the lake does not belong to them, they answered in the negative. Then St. Gregory stretched out his hands over the waters and in the name of Jesus Christ commanded them to withdraw into the abysses of the earth. The water disappeared and the bottom of the lake became visible. St. Gregory said to the brothers: “Do you see now that the waters did not belong to you? Were they in any way subject to your command? The brothers were reconciled with each other 160. Rufinus states the same fact in this way. In the Pontic countries there was a lake abundant in fish, which gave great income. It was inherited by two brothers. But greed for money broke even the fraternal bond: during fishing, murders and wars arose, and human blood was shed over fish. By the providence of God, St. arrived here. Grigory. He saw the struggle of the raging siblings and tried to investigate the reasons for the enmity, but did not find any other reason than fishing. St. Gregory, taking advantage of the lull in the struggle that occurred on the occasion of his arrival, turned to the brothers with an admonition not to destroy the fraternal peace because of the greed of acquisition and invited them to go with him to the shore of the lake, promising by the power of the Lord to free them from the cruel dispute. In full view of everyone, he stuck the stick he was holding in his hand at the very edge of the water of the lake 161, knelt down and said a prayer in which he asked the Lord to have mercy on the brotherly blood of the young men and command that the waters be cursed, because of which they forgot about brotherly love, and that there be a field here, plowed by a plow and abundant with the fruits of the field. As soon as he finished the prayer, the water disappeared and the brothers were left with a dry field 162. There is great agreement in the narrative about the draining of the lake. But even here there are such features in the presentation of Gregory of Nyssa that indicate that he wrote down this story in its most original form: Gregory of Nyssa distinguishes the first unsuccessful attempt of St. Gregory to end the discord and the second, which ended in the destruction of the subject of the dispute. Between these attempts a significant period of time must have passed, during which an open struggle broke out between the brothers. Meanwhile, in the Syrian life and in Rufinus, two events are connected. It is more incredible to suppose that Gregory of Nyssa invented the first attempt than it is otherwise, that in the tradition little by little the initial failure of St. Gregory weakened and disappeared. According to Gregory of Nyssa, the most draining occurred after the night prayer of St. Gregory - in the morning. According to the Syrian life and according to Rufinus, the prayer and the miracle itself are performed before the assembled people. Is it not possible to see here the usual phenomenon that over time the miraculous element intensifies, and the miracle is performed in the presence of many witnesses? They wanted to add to this the differences between the Syrian life and Rufinus in the transmission of the actions and speeches of St. Gregory, that Rufinus does not speak about a noble man, about friends who sent to St. Gregory to inform about the threatening danger of an extreme aggravation of discord, and the Syrian life does not mention that discord occurred every time during fishing, then a detailed comparison of the narratives will show that the alleged written source has very little common material left that would be accurately reproduced in all the narratives. d) Fencing the city from floods of the Lika River. St. Gregory of Nyssa talks about this miracle as follows. In the Pontic country there flows a river whose very name indicates the speed and indomitability of the flow, for because of the harm it causes it is called Λύκος (wolf). The high mountains in Armenia, which serve as its source, provide it with abundant water. Flowing along the foothills of the mountains, it is especially overflowing with winter streams. In the lowlands, in some places it leaves the channel on both sides, flooding everything with water, so that residents are exposed to unexpected dangers: not only plants, crops and animals perish, but also houses and people. Residents took all measures to prevent evil: they threw stones, built embankments, but they could not stop the troubles caused by water. When the rumor about the committed St. Gregory's miracles spread everywhere, then all the inhabitants of this country: husbands, wives, children - headed to St. Gregory with a request to grant them some relief from the troubles that befall them. In order to further arouse his compassion, they asked him to personally look at the misfortune and make sure that it was impossible for them to move their homes and that at any time they were in danger of death from the pressure of the water. St. Gregory came to the place. The river's deviation was pointed out to him; the very traces of the disaster were clear, because this place was dug up by the flood of water and presented deep holes. St. Gregory pointed out to those gathered that changing the direction of the flow of water is not a human task - only divine power can do this. St. Gregory, with a great voice, prayerfully called on Christ to come to the aid of the task at hand and placed the staff he was holding in a place on the shore damaged by water. Since the ground was wet and muddy, the rod was stuck deep. Having prayed to God that this would be a barrier to the disorderly rush of water, St. Gregory returned home. A short time later, the rod took root on the river bank and grew into a tree. For the river, this tree served as the limit of the flow, and for the residents it serves as “a spectacle and the subject of a historical story”: when the river, overflowing from rains and streams, rushes with a terrible noise, then, hitting the surface of the waves against the trunk of a tree, it rises again and heads towards the middle of the riverbed, as if afraid to touch this tree. The name of this tree even to this day is “rod”, and it is always preserved by local residents in memory of the grace and power of Gregory 163. The Syrian life in a condensed form sets out the same thing and in the same sequence, differing, as in other narratives, in greater detail in the speeches 164; in addition, it vaguely indicates the place of the miracle and the hoisting of the rod. Still, here too the general impression is in favor of the comparative originality of the narrative of Gregory of Nyssa, since the prayers are evidence of later processing. e) Election of the blacksmith Alexander to the bishop. Hearing about the miracles of St. Gregory spread throughout the country, and everyone believed that they were produced by the power of faith in Christ; The sermon spread everywhere, many were baptized, and the priesthood was established everywhere. From one neighboring city - Koman came to St. Gregory the embassy to ask him to come to them and “confirm the church they have with the priesthood.” St. Gregory fulfilled their request. He preached with them for several days. When the time came to elect someone as a bishop of the church they had established, the minds of the main persons in the city were drawn to people distinguished by their eloquence, nobility of family and other external merits. The voices were divided, and St. Gregory was waiting for instructions from above. Not paying attention to the opinions about each of those elected, he looked at one thing, whether anyone, even before this election, had demonstrated virtue in his life by the rigor of life and morality. He asked to pay attention to those who, in their external way of life, are poorer than others, since even among them there may be a person who, in terms of spiritual wealth, is higher than those who have the external virtues of life. One of the main voters considered the opinion of St. as an insult. Gregory, that among the common people there might be found more worthy of the priesthood, and St. said with mockery. Gregory, that in this case it remains to call the coal miner Alexander to the priesthood. Although this was said with the aim of reproaching St. Gregory for his strictness towards the best people, but from these words St. The thought appeared to Gregory that it was not without the will of God that Alexander came to the memory of voters and they started talking about him. To the question of St. Grigory, who is this Alexander, one of those present laughingly brought his husband into the middle, dressed in thin rags and not all over his body, with his hands, face and whole body stained in coal. In this form he was the subject of general laughter. But for the perspicacious St. Gregory revealed something different: a husband in extreme poverty and in a despised state pays attention only to himself and seems to rejoice in that appearance, which for inexperienced eyes served as a subject of laughter. The fact is that Alexander did not choose this way of life out of need and poverty, but was a kind of philosopher, as his subsequent life showed, and was superior to others; so that he was honored with martyrdom, ending his life in fire; but he tried to hide it, because he had a low value for the well-being that many care about, and he considered this life to be nothing, striving for a higher and true life. In order to better succeed in the pursuit of virtue, he tried to skillfully hide his virtues under the most base occupation. In addition, being in his blooming youth, he considered it dangerous for chastity to reveal the beauty of his body. Therefore, he voluntarily took upon himself the craft of a coal miner: with this type of occupation, the body was exercised in labor, beauty was covered with coal impurity, and the money obtained by these labors was used as an aid to fulfill the commandments. St. Gregory took Alexander out of the meeting, carefully questioned him about everything concerning him, entrusted him to those who had arrived with him, ordering them to do what was necessary, and he himself returned to the meeting to instruct the people, offering a conversation about the priesthood. With his conversation, he held the meeting until those serving him, having fulfilled his command, returned with Alexander, already washed from soot in the bathhouse and dressed in the saint’s own clothes. Gregory, they were ordered to do this. When everyone turned their gaze to Alexander, they were amazed at this phenomenon. Having delivered a reproachful admonition to those gathered, St. Gregory dedicated Alexander, legally conferring upon him the grace of the priesthood. When everyone asked the newly ordained saint to say some word to the church, Alexander immediately proved the validity of the saint’s judgment about him. Gregory: his words were full of intelligence, although they were little decorated with the flowers of eloquence. On this occasion, one young man from Attica laughed at the shortcomings of his speech, that it was not decorated with Attic art, but was admonished by the divine vision of doves shining with indescribable beauty, and it was explained to him that these were the same doves of Alexander that he had laughed at 165 . This is how Gregory of Nyssa puts the case. In Syrian life, the same event is conveyed this way. There was a small city in the country, subordinate in ecclesiastical terms to the bishop of Neocaesarea. The bishop died in it. The clergy went to Neocaesarea to get a shepherd there. They presented St. Gregory, a list of persons from among whom a bishop could be elected. By the way, it contained the name of a husband who had many shortcomings, but who was included in the list for the sake of wealth. Among the clergy there was one zealot; Having heard this name on the list, he said that no one should be elected bishop except the blacksmith Alexander. St. Gregory, having heard this, realized that the story with the blacksmith Alexander did not arise by chance. He dismissed the clergy, and he himself turned to God in prayer, asking him to choose a husband pleasing to Him. A voice from heaven told him that he should not install anyone as a bishop except the blacksmith Alexander. To the question of St. Gregory, who would show him this husband, a divine voice told him that he could get information about Alexander from the husband for whom he worked. St. Gregory sent for this husband, and the latter said that Alexander was pretending to be a man unfit for anything, but in fact he was working well; from his earnings - more than 150 groschen - he takes only 50 for food, and distributes the rest to the poor; he doesn’t eat meat or drink wine, and no one has ever seen him wash in a bathhouse. But from time to time his words reveal such wisdom as the philosophers of the world have never spoken. St. Gregory asked this husband to bring Alexander to him under some pretext, which was done. Alexander, having appeared to Gregory, began to pretend to be meaningless and speak strange words. However, St. To Gregory he immediately seemed like a shining star. With a spell, he asked Alexander not to pretend and show himself in his true form, to tell where he was from. Alexander, fearing the spell, told him that he was the son of Maximian from Rome 166, that after the death of his father, he sold everything he inherited and distributed it to the poor, and set his slaves free, deciding that for a soul that loves God, it is preferable in this world to be in poverty. St. Gregory, having heard Alexander’s confession, gave praise to God, who had given such a treasure in an earthen vessel, and immediately dedicated it. At the request of the people, St. Gregory invited him to ascend the pulpit and instruct the people with his divine sayings. With his speech, Alexander surprised everyone. After this, Alexander retired to his flock, and St. Gregory, in a lengthy prayer, thanked God for sending him his husband Alexander. Thus, the Syrian life speaks of the death of Bishop Alexander and of the clergy who came to St. Gregory to ask for a new bishop. Gregory of Nyssa, more consistent with the history of the spread of Christianity in Pontus, states that St. Gregory founded a church in the city of Komanakh and installed a bishop there, and elections are made by the community of believers with the assistance of the metropolitan. Further, in Gregory of Nyssa, the name of the coal miner Alexander was named by one of the participants in the meeting in mockery, but St. Gregory saw this as an order from above. In the Syrian life, the name of the blacksmith Alexander is mentioned by one of the zealous clerics, and St. Gregory, after prayer, receives orders to consecrate this Alexander as a bishop and obtain information about him from his master. St. Gregory of Nyssa quite simply reports that Alexander was washed and dressed in the clothes of the saint himself, after which he aroused not ridicule, but surprise among those gathered. He makes a good, but simple speech, which provokes the ridicule of the young man, who was later admonished in the vision. According to the Syrian life, Alexander talks about his origin, about his renunciation of wealth, and after the dedication he makes a speech that caused general surprise. From a comparison of both narratives, it follows that Gregory of Nyssa simply and naturally depicts a historical event, while the Syrian life embellished it, supplementing it with prayers and speeches and strengthening the element of the supernatural. According to Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory is an experienced leader of a church meeting, able to preserve church interests while clearly detecting unworthy passion among those gathered. Based on all this, there is no doubt that Gregory of Nyssa portrayed the historical event correctly in a significant way, while the Syrian life wonderfully embellished it and presented it in many ways changed. In relation to the question of the sources of both narratives, in view of their significant deviations from each other, it does not seem possible to assume a written fundamental principle here. P. Koechau (S. 236) sees undoubted signs of a later expansion by the Syrian of the original narrative given by Gregory of Nyssa in the following features of the story: a) the addition of the person of the owner for whom Alexander was a worker: the divine voice commands Gregory to bring this husband as a witness in favor of the advantages of Alexander. The blacksmith now testifies that his worker lives like a complete ascetic, does not eat meat, does not drink wine, does not wash, and shares his meager earnings with the poor. Then the blacksmith cunningly brings his worker to Gregory, who initiates him, despite his opposition. The identity of the blacksmith, as a guarantor for the dignity of Alexander, was obviously introduced at a time that considered only perfect ascetics worthy of the episcopal see. This introduction, better than that of Gregory of Nyssa, motivates the quick decision of Gregory, who only mentions that Gregory was sufficiently inquired about the identity of Alexander; b) the legend is expanded by the spell of Gregory, who forces Alexander to reveal the truth about himself and report about his origin and his former life, as well as c) a lengthy conversation and a long prayer of Gregory towards the end of the story. Perhaps the origin of these increases should be sought in Comana. According to V. Rissel (S. 230), a direct reference to Alexander as one zealot for God’s cause is much better suited to the nature of the whole story than the artificial presentation by Gregory of Nyssa, according to which one of those present, surprised by the demand of St. Gregory to pay attention to people of lower origin, prophetically exclaimed that then they could take the coal miner Alexander, in which Gregory later saw a divine indication. More original and more consistent with the general course of the story, according to Rissel, is also the news of the Syrian life that a radiance emanated from the one covered with coal dust when he entered the episcopal chambers, contrary to the story of Gregory of Nyssa, according to which Alexander had to first wash himself and only then, when he, dressed in the magnificent (?) clothes of Gregory, reappeared in the assembly, attracted the surprise of everyone. In the same way, the justification for Alexander’s special way of life in Syrian life is much simpler and clearer than that of Gregory of Nyssa. But shouldn’t we also see in this the desire of the compiler of the Syrian life to strengthen the element of the extraordinary and miraculous? f) Deception of the Jews and their punishment. Everyone knew that St. Gregory was primarily concerned with always providing comfort to those in need. Two Jews, having profit in mind, or intending to laugh at St. Gregory, lay in wait for him on his way back. One of them, pretending to be dead, lay on the edge of the road, and the other seemed to be mourning the deceased and asked Gregory, who was walking past, to donate as much as possible to cover the body of the deceased. St. Gregory immediately took off his outer clothing, placed it on the deceased and set off on his further journey. When St. Gregory walked away to a considerable distance, the one who was crying began to laugh and forced the one lying down to stand up, but the latter did not hear the voice and did not feel the shocks, but lay in the same position: he turned out to be truly dead 167. In the Syrian life, this story is reproduced in accordance with the narrative of Gregory of Nyssa, with the only difference that the conversation of the Jews among themselves and the appeal of the weeping Jew to St. Gregory; in addition, according to the Syrian life of St. Gregory cut off half of the cloak to cover the body of the deceased. But Gregory of Nyssa’s narrative ends with the message that the pretending Jew turned out to be dead, and to justify such apparent cruelty he recalls the example of St. Peter, who punished Ananias with death. The Syrian life continues the story in this way: when the Jew saw that his comrade was really dead, he caught up with St. Gregory, admitted to the deception, explaining that this was done out of poverty, and begged, following the example of the Lord, who showed mercy to the worthless Jewish people, to show his kindness to them, since the deceased has a wife and children who are waiting for him. St. Gregory returned, prayed over the deceased, took him by the hand, and he stood up. All those who were at the same time glorified God, and the Jews accepted baptism and became faithful monks 168. This addition to the story in comparison with the narrative of Gregory of Nyssa shows, on the one hand, that the Syrian life represents a later version of it, responding to the natural desire to see the end of this story more consistent with the general character of the personality of the gracious saint and more edifying, and on the other, clearly confirms the already expressed idea that the similarity does not depend on the written source, since it is hardly possible to assume that Gregory of Nyssa would have omitted the ending of the story if it was in the original source. The conclusion could not be omitted by Gregory of Nyssa for the sake of reducing the element of the miraculous, since killing by means of a cloak cannot be called a natural phenomenon. Finally, it is not clear why Gregory of Nyssa puts this story at the end, and in the Syrian life at the beginning, and how this can be reconciled with the assumption of a common source. Shouldn't we rather assume that this story was not fixed in oral tradition and therefore was put in a different sequence 169? g) Healing of a possessed young man. During one open-air meeting in some area of ​​that country, everyone was amazed at the teachings of St. Gregory. At this time, the boy shouted to those gathered that the teacher was not speaking on his own, but another, standing near him, was uttering words. When, at the end of the meeting, to St. They brought a boy to Gregory, he told those present that the boy was not free from the demon, and, taking the omophorion from his shoulders, placing it on the breath of his lips, he placed it on the young man. The young man began to fight and scream, throw himself on the ground, rush about, in a word, experience everything that those possessed by demons suffer from. When St. Gregory laid his hand and stopped his seizures, then the demon left the young man, and he, having returned to his previous state, no longer said that he saw someone near St. Gregory 170. In the Syrian life, the essence of the story is conveyed in accordance with the narrative of Gregory of Nyssa; but in the details there are features characteristic of Syrian life. In Gregory of Nyssa, the expulsion of the demon followed at the end of the meeting, in the Syrian life directly after the words of the young man. But Gregory of Nyssa St. Gregory places his omophorion (ὀθόνιον) on the young man, and according to the Syrian life, a piece of the outer clothing of the young man himself. Finally, the Syrian life supplements the narrative with a report of the words spoken by the demon after the command of St. Gregory, and his threat that rang out in the air that the pagan king would take revenge on Gregory for him 171. This message serves as a transition to the next story about the persecution of Christians. h) Persecution of Christians, removal of St. Gregory into the desert, his salvation from persecution, the vision of the martyrdom of Troadius, the confirmation of this by the former priest and his victory over the demon in the bathhouse. All of the listed events in Gregory of Nyssa are placed in close connection with each other. The strong spread of Christianity and the damage it caused to paganism aroused anger in the representative of the Roman government, who sent a decree to the leaders of the nations, threatening them with punishments themselves if they did not take the most decisive measures to bring those who worship Christ back to paternal service. In that province the ruler was a man who did not need the highest command to fulfill his evil intention, being himself bloodthirsty by nature and hating Christians. A persecution began, the horrors of which Gregory of Nyssa describes in detail. St. Gregory, seeing that, due to the weakness of human nature, many cannot strive for piety to the point of death, advised his flock to withdraw from the terrible misfortune for a while, considering it better for them to flee to save their souls than to become fugitives of the faith. In order to convince others that there is no danger for the soul to save the faith by flight, St. Gregory set an example for removal, himself, before others, moving away from the impending danger. Meanwhile, the leaders sought to capture him in order to, by capturing the leader, destroy the system of faith. St. Gregory retired to a mountain together with a former pagan priest, who was already endowed with the grace of the diaconate. The persecutors, at the direction of a certain man, overtook them in large numbers: some guarded the base of the mountain so that he would not leave, others looked for him on the mountain and were already heading their way towards him. Then St. Gregory ordered his companion to stand firmly and unshakably, trusting in God, with raised hands and not to be afraid, even if the persecutors were nearby. He himself also stood with a fixed gaze, outstretched arms and an upright position, looking at the sky. Those who came running to them examined the place from all sides, walked around all the bushes on the road, carefully searched all the elevations of the rocks and the recesses of the gorges, then rushed to the foot of the mountain, thinking that St. Gregory fled and fell into the hands of those guarding the foot of the mountain. But he wasn’t there either. The pursuers claimed that in the place that was indicated to them, they did not see anyone except two trees not far from each other. The informer, when the pursuers left, found St. Gregory and his companion standing in prayer, realized that they seemed like trees to their persecutors, and believed in Christ. St. Gregory remained in the desert for a long time. The persecution intensified, and it became even more clear to everyone that St. Gregory does not undertake anything without the will of God, because by flight he preserved himself for the people and was a help to all those who labored. As if observing with his spiritual eye what was happening, he called on divine help for those struggling for the confession of faith. So, one day, during a regular prayer with those who were with him, he was suddenly filled with languor and fear; it was clear to those present that he seemed to be horrified and in awe of some vision, listening as if some noise were coming to him. Quite a bit of time has passed, St. Gregory remained motionless and in the same position; then, when the spectacle presented to him seemed to end happily, he again returned to his normal state and praised God in a joyful voice. When those surrounding St. Gregory was amazed and wanted to know what vision appeared before his eyes; he said that at that time he saw the great defeat of the devil to some young men in the struggle for piety; when they did not understand what this meant, he said that at that hour one young man, named Troadius, from the nobles, brought by the executioners to the commander, with help from above, fought hard for the faith and was crowned with the crown of martyrdom. The deacon did not dare not believe what was said, and was unable to believe it; so he asks St. Gregory permission to visit the place, see with my own eyes and find out about what happened. When St. Gregory pointed out to him the danger threatening him; the deacon said that he hoped his prayers would help. St. Gregory prayed, and the deacon confidently made his way, not hiding from anyone he met. In the evening the deacon came to the city and, tired of the journey, wanted to relieve his exhaustion by washing in the bathhouse. But some kind of demon ruled the bathhouse, killing people who appeared during the darkness of the night, why this bathhouse was not used after sunset. The deacon asked the bailiff to let him into the bathhouse. The bailiff warned him of the danger. But the deacon insisted on his own. Then the bailiff gave him the key, and he himself moved away from the bathhouse so as not to be in danger. The deacon entered the bathhouse. The demon tried to frighten the deacon with all sorts of horrors, visions, shaking of the bathhouse, underground flames, etc., but with the banner, the name of Christ and the help of the prayers of his mentor, he dispelled both seeming and real fears. The defeated demon shouted in a human voice so that he would not consider the power with which he got rid of death to be his own, for he was saved by the voice of the one who entrusted him to God’s protection. After this, the deacon learned from questioning that the valiant deeds of the martyrs were performed in the city just as the saint living in the desert said. Gregory 172. Syrian life about the persecution of Christians, the removal of St. Gregory into the desert, his rescue from persecution on the mountain is reported in general agreement with Gregory of Nyssa, but in a significantly abbreviated form 173. In the story of the flight of St. Gregory with his flock, the Syrian life reports that St. Gregory prayed to God to tell him the lot that he must take upon himself, and immediately a voice was heard commanding him to retire with his church into the desert. Gregory of Nyssa does not talk about this, limiting himself to a general remark later that when the persecution after the removal of St. Gregory intensified, it became even more clear to everyone that he was not undertaking anything without the will of God. From this it is obvious which of the narratives presents the event in a more original form. About the salvation of St. Gregory and the deacon, the Syrian life tells this way. The judge, having learned about the removal of St. Gregory with his flock, sent the best people to pursue St. Gregory and bring him. They found him with a former pagan priest near a cave and mistook them for trees. Returning to the judge, they said that they had walked around the entire desert, searched in caves, in gorges and in the abysses of the earth and found no one except two trees planted near the cave. But those of the judge's soldiers who secretly believed in Christ knew that it was a miracle and glorified God. If we compare this very condensed story with the naive apology of the messengers included in it that they found no one in the desert except two trees near the cave, with the soldiers who secretly believed in Christ and understood the miracle, then there can be no doubt about the greater originality of the detailed message of Gregory of Nyssa with its natural development of action. Vision of St. Gregory's martyrdom of the young man and the victory of the priest over the demon in the bathhouse in Syrian life are torn out of the natural connection in which they are placed in Gregory of Nyssa. Presented in general agreement, these narratives in the Syrian life are much shorter and in detail are not as clear as those of Gregory of Nyssa 174. In the story of the vision of St. Gregory even observes confusion in the martyrdom of the young man in Syrian life: St. Gregory at first seems to be in the city in which the previous event took place (the expulsion of the demon from the church), then it turns out that the former priest is heading to the city - therefore, St. Gregory was in a different place. Here we see a clear example of how the legend gradually confused the indications of the time and place of the story. Obviously, the Greek narrative is original, since it clearly dates the event to the time of the persecution and definitely indicates its place. From the life of Syria, the former priest himself sees the torment, and from Gregory of Nyssa he learns from the stories of others that everything happened as St. said. Gregory, which completely agrees with the course of the story. The Syrian life adds one feature that Gregory of Nyssa does not have: the martyrdom of the young man was accomplished by means of fire; but it does not know the name of the martyr. Such a difference undoubtedly would not have existed if both compilers had used a written source. In the story of the victory of the former priest over the demon, the Syrian life is much shorter than the story of Gregory of Nyssa. In detail, it admits the following feature: Gregory of Nyssa says that entering the bathhouse was harmful after sunset, and Syrian life limits the time for safe use of the bathhouse to only 3 to 4 hours. A picturesque and vivid description of the horrors (θεάματα) with which the demon wanted to frighten the deacon shows that Gregory of Nyssa did not seek to reduce the element of the miraculous in his narrative. i) Slander of St. Gregory a harlot. There are especially many differences between Gregory of Nyssa and the Syrian life in the story about the slander brought against St. Gregory a harlot. Gregory of Nyssa reports that St. Gregory, even before converting to Christianity, achieved high moral perfection. When he lived in Alexandria, where youth flocked from everywhere to study philosophy and medical science, the chaste Gregory was unpleasant to his peers, who led a dissolute life. The libertines decided to slyly tarnish the reputation of St. Gregory. To slander him they use a harlot from an indecent house. When Gregory, as usual, was sitting in select company and discussing some philosophical subject, this woman approached him with feigned affection and tenderness, pretending that she had a connection with him, and accusing him of not giving her the agreed payment. Those who knew Gregory’s pure life were indignant; he himself remained completely calm and, being slandered, did not call witnesses to his life, did not deny the slander with an oath, did not denounce those who had arranged this plan against him, but, turning to one of his comrades, asked to give her the money so that she would not interfere with the continuation of studies and conversations. The harlot was given as much as she asked. But when the slander of the libertines against the chaste reached its goal, and the payment was in the hands of the dishonest woman, then God Himself gave evidence of the chastity of the young man and a denunciation of the slander of his comrades: defeated by the evil spirit and with a wild grinding sound emitting an inhuman cry, the woman fell on her face in the midst of the congregation with her hair loose, tormented by her hands, with her eyes bulging and foam at the mouth. The demon only stopped strangling her when Gregory appealed to God and propitiated Him for her 175. The Syrian life, in agreement with Gregory of Nyssa, says that the harlot, incited by Gregory’s enemies, publicly demanded the agreed payment from him and was punished by demonization. But the significant difference between the Syrian life and the narrative of Gregory of Nyssa lies in the time to which the event is attributed to both narrators: Gregory of Nyssa says that it was in Gregory’s youth, before his conversion to Christianity, and the Syrian life puts it at the time when St. Gregory was already a bishop. Then, according to Gregory of Nyssa, the place of the event was Alexandria, and according to Syrian life - Neokesarea. In its presentation, the Syrian life presents the following features. About the impending temptation of St. Gregory was warned: after the prayer of St. Gregory fell asleep and in a dream saw how someone in the form of a husband stood on his right side and called on him to be courageous, since he had to endure a lot from his enemies; but he will withstand the struggle and his enemies will fall into the pit that is being prepared for him. The motive that prompted the slander of St. Gregory, a strong spread of Christianity is exhibited: in Neocaesarea, in which there were only seventeen Christians, St. Gregory led countless thousands to the true faith. At the instigation of the enemy of the human race, the slaves of lies bribed a dissolute woman for 20 gold pieces, who appeared in the meeting when St. Gregory explained to the people St. Scripture. She demanded payment for the night spent with her. St. Gregory and all the people were surprised at her speech, and Archdeacon Stephen ordered St. Gregory was silent, but he himself began a conversation with the harlot as if her accusation and demand applied to him. A harlot who did not know the face of St. Gregory, turned her demand to Stefan, calling him Gregory. Thus, it became clear to everyone that this was slander. After this, Stephen turned to the harlot with an accusatory speech, after which St. Gregory ordered him to pay the woman as much money as she wanted. But as soon as she stretched out her hands and took the sinful payment, the demon threw her to the ground and left her only at the command of the saint. Gregory in the name of Jesus Christ. St. Gregory released her and ordered her not to disclose the deception of the liars 176. The presented features of Syrian life in comparison with the narrative of Gregory of Nyssa about the same fact in no case allow the possibility of using a common written source. What was in it? The whole story and the whole setting of the event in Gregory of Nyssa is simpler and more natural, while the Syrian life with its Archdeacon Stephen, with the public and obvious denunciation of the slander of the harlot, has a more artificial character. V. Rissel (S. 231–232) points to the story of the slander of Gregory by a harlot as an illustration of the fact that in the Syrian life a better connection is established between what precedes and what follows. In his opinion, a long introduction that precedes a message completely gives the impression of originality, precisely because it is internally connected with what precedes and what follows. In general, this story by the Syrian is in its original place, and Gregory of Nyssa deliberately moved it to another place. What reasons prompted him to do this, we do not know; one can only assume that he considered this kind of accusation in relation to a young man much more possible than in relation to a bishop. In addition, V. Rissel (S. 234) sees the result of the philosophical education of Gregory of Nyssa in the fact that his harlot caught Gregory during a philosophical conversation, and with the Syrian - explaining the Holy Scriptures. The end of Gregory of Nyssa’s laudatory speech is devoted to a description of the activities of St. Gregory after the end of the persecution and his return to Neocaesarea: the establishment of holidays in honor of the martyrs, dying orders, the pestilence and deliverance from it through the prayers of St. Gregory, who was at the beginning of his bishopric, and on this occasion the conversion of the pagans to Christ. The Syrian Life sets out the end of its narrative very briefly: it only marks the return of St. Gregory with the faithful “to his church”, certificate of St. Gregory that there were only seventeen unbelievers left, a prayer of thanks for this and death. About the pestilence and deliverance from it through the prayers of St. Gregory is not mentioned at all in the Syrian life. Thus, here too the question naturally arises whether this information was in a written source, and if it was, then why the author of the Syrian life did not use it. Based on comparisons of individual narratives of Gregory of Nyssa’s commendable speech, the Syrian life and the messages of Rufinus, it seems possible to draw the following conclusions: 1) On the issue of originality, it is clear that preference should be given to Gregory of Nyssa: a) the laudatory word of Gregory of Nyssa represents a complete and coherent story, while the Syrian narrative provides a collection of passages not united with each other; b) in Gregory of Nyssa we find many truly historical details, instead of which fictitious speeches and dialogues were inserted into the Syrian life, through which the compiler wanted to expand and revive the meager material: c) there is no doubt that Gregory of Nyssa does not strive, contrary to the opinion of V. Rissel, to reduce the element of the miraculous, - on the contrary, the Syrian narrative, in the absence of historical data in it, is distinguished by a special love for the miraculous and clearly strengthens it when it talks about the embassy of an angel as an intermediary between the Metropolitan and the hermit Gregory, about the letters that appeared on the wall, about the often heard voice from heaven, about the resurrection of a dead Jew, about the draining of the lake before the eyes of everyone, about the demon who, out of revenge, initiates persecution against Christians, about a divine command by which the bishop and deacon escape and are miraculously saved. V. Rissel, asserting the originality of the Syrian life, seems to proceed from the view that the legend should be considered the more original, the more miraculous features it contains, P. Koechau (S. 233), in contrast, points out that the legends associated with the personality of St. Gregory, in no case should be considered as mere images of fantasy or as an expression of the opinion of contemporaries and descendants about the Wonderworker given in the form of a legend - no, they presuppose an actual event, but add miraculous motives or heavenly influences, explain natural events in a supernatural way and thereby satisfy the miraculous and superstitious crowd. It is given in the very essence of the legend that, passing from mouth to mouth over time, it changes, that certain historical features are omitted as unnecessary or no longer incomprehensible, and others are added, partly from the imagination of the narrator, partly borrowed from other stories. Thus, the less historical a legend is and the more it contains miraculous and supernatural details, the further it must stand in time, and sometimes also in place, from the event to which it owes its origin. In addition, one can note in the Syrian life a number of features that can best be explained as a product of later reflection. 177 Thus, the option that Gregory threw half of his cloak (instead of the whole cloak of Gregory of Nyssa) on the Jew, arose from the consideration that the bishop must hold on to at least half of his cloak so as not to lose completely this necessary part of clothing. A later change can also be seen in the fact that Gregory (instead of his own clothes, like Gregory of Nyssa) uses a “rag of outer clothing” of a young man for the spell - perhaps later they thought that the spell would be more valid this way. Also, the “tablet” on which the letter to the demon was written, during the legend, seems to have appeared in place of the vague concept τμῆμα τοῦ βιβλίου solely for the sake of intelligibility and clarity. The later origin of the Syriac version is especially indicated by the news of Gregory’s numerous missionary successes already in Nazianza. There is a gross mistake here, since the same thing was reported by Gregory of Nyssa about Neocaesarea and fits the number of 17 Christians conveyed by both, who were present when Gregory was chosen as bishop. It is inconceivable that the Syrian would have found this error, together with the second one, closely connected with it, about Gregory’s visit to Nazianzus already in the supposed primary source - how could Gregory of Nyssa borrow what was correct and original from the same source? But it is also impossible to assume that the Syrian himself, who according to Rissel has “great originality,” was guilty of two such gross errors when processing the source. On the contrary, one can easily understand that over time the story of missionary activity was transferred from Neocaesarea to the metropolitan city, so that the miraculous power of St. could manifest itself there too. Gregory; hence the visit of St. that was told only in the Syrian life. Gregory Nazianza, who expanded the original story about the episcopal election. This should also include the additions that both Jews, after the miraculous resurrection of one of them, became Orthodox monks, that the young man (whose name is not given by the Syrian) suffered death from fire, that the father of the two brothers was a noble man, that Gregory in Neocaesarea and Alexander in Comana had predecessors. This kind of increase can be explained by the involuntary adaptation of the legend to changed relationships or the completion of what is apparently missing. 2) On the question of the original common written source, the analysis of narratives also presents a lot of definitely negative data. First of all, both narrators (and in some tales three) in individual stories exhibit such differences that make V. Rissel’s hypothesis very doubtful; these differences pass consistently through all the narratives, in some of them especially intensifying, and nowhere are minor details communicated with such similarity as would be necessary if V. Rissel’s hypothesis were valid. If, based on a comparison of the two narratives, we wanted to restore the supposed original source, we would end up with an extremely poor essay, much shorter than the Syrian’s story, from which the latter could not be extracted 178 . Further, if both authors used a common source, then it is natural that they would preserve the inconsistency of individual legends that was in it, and would allow deviations from it only for very specific reasons. In fact, in both narratives there appears to be such a difference in the order and choice of material, which is not justified by anything 179. To prove the dependence of all three narratives on one written primary source, V. Rissel refers to “various, almost completely literal agreements” primarily between the Syrian and Rufinus. Thus, the complaint of an expelled demon: “Why are you calling me here when I can no longer come,” the expression of a pagan priest: if Gregory ordered and this god left and cannot return except by order, and again, when Gregory ordered, he returned, then why is Gregory not much better than him, whose orders he obeys, the final turn of this story is that the pagan priest “became announced” by Gregory, as well as in the story about the drying up of the lake, the phrase is: “human blood is shed because of the fish.” These coincidences are partly joined by the expressions of Gregory of Nyssa that the warring brothers intended to wage war and bloodshed (chapter 23), “not clean from demons,” “Satan kills.” P. Koechau argues that such coincidences necessarily appear during different processing of the same oral material, which in the main is naturally and at a later time retained by tradition. To this solid grain, which is usually repeated even in a version that evades otherwise, belong especially characteristic expressions of the characters who continue to live in the legend as firmly as individual facts. Such coincidences, since almost all secondary circumstances are different, cannot have evidential value. The expressions noted by V. Rissel are so closely connected with the inner essence of the corresponding stories that they can also appear in literary independent works. As for the fact that there are more such coincidences between Rufinus and the Syrian, this is simply explained by the fact that they stand closer to each other in comparison with Gregory of Nyssa, who offers a relatively ancient and original form stories about the miracles of Gregory of Neocaesarea 180. 3) Conducted a similarity of material in three narratives about the life of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea cannot be explained either by the mutual use of their authors or by a common written source, it is necessary to evaluate the third possible explanation for this phenomenon - the use of oral tradition about the life of Gregory the Wonderworker. Let us turn first of all to the monuments themselves—do they not provide grounds for such a conclusion? As for the Syrian story, it is absolutely impossible to find a single expression in it indicating the source of the information reported. V. Rissel, based on the play on the word L ύκος, claims that the Syrian used a Greek source. But this fact does not necessarily require a written source, since such a play on words, like the sayings of Gregory, could be transmitted orally. V. Rissel’s argument that the Syriac life of Gregory in the manuscript stands behind the Syriac translation of Palladius’ Historia Lausiaca also has no compelling force, since this argument is not supported by other evidence; and in this case, the placement of both works side by side can be explained simply by their related content, especially if we assume that the Syrian copyist is not identical with the translator or the author of the adaptation: he could rewrite both works from different sources and combine them in one manuscript due to the similarity of content. But undoubtedly, this does not exclude the possibility that the basis of the Syrian life is a written Greek original, which was revised or translated, but it was a later collection of legends about Gregory of Neocaesarea, and not the Greek primary source common to the three narrators 181. The hypothesis of such a primary source, in addition to the considerations given earlier, is untenable because it contradicts the direct indications of other narratives about their sources. Rufinus does not know any written source and speaks only of oral tradition. In the introduction to his messages he writes: “verum quoniam beati Gregoriï historiae textis attulit mentionem, dignissimum puto tanti viri gesta, quae sub orientali et septentrionis ax cunctorum sermore celebrantur, omissa nescio quo casu huic narrationi ad memoriam posteritatis inserere”; also uses phrases: memoratur etiam aliud – gestum; traduntur eius et alia quam plurima etc. It can hardly be assumed that from such expressions one can draw a conclusion about the written source. Gregory of Nyssa also gives instructions regarding the sources of his information. In all his speech there is no hint of a written source. For the story of the youth of St. Gregory, Gregory of Nyssa uses the expression “narration” (δνηγὴματα): “such are the stories about the youth of a great man” 182; he notices that he will mention one or two more miracles told (λεγομένων, and not ἀναγεγραμμένων) about him 183, he says: “they point out, also they keep in memory a miracle” 184, and constantly chooses expressions, “they say” ( λέγεται, not γεγραπται), or: “some report” (φασί τινες), etc.: “they say the great one said to those present” (εἰπεῖν λεγβταιπρὸς τούς παρόντας), “the demon, they say, shouted to him with a human voice” 185 (ἐκβοῆσαιλέγεται πρὸς αὐτὸνἀνθροπίν ῃ φωνῆ τὸδαιμόνιον) 186; “then, they say, this great (husband) performed the most incredible miracle of all.” θαῦμα τὸνμέγαν ἐκεῖνον 187 . Particularly characteristic and important for determining the actual source of Gregory of Nyssa’s information about St. Gregory are those places where he speaks about his time and is naturally independent of any written source. About Gregory’s confession of faith, the word says: “their people have been taught the secrets to this day, remaining inexperienced from all heretical malice” 188 - then follows the text of the symbol. “Whoever wants to be convinced of this,” continues Gregory of Nyssa, “let him listen to the church in which he preached this teaching: they still have the very marks of that blessed hand” 189. About the church built by St. Gregory, it is said: “We see this church to this day” 190. The remark about the draining of the lake is added to the story: “and now one can see obvious traces of this divine decision, for around the then former lake some traces of the water spill still remain” 191, and the whole story ends with the words: “this is how what is told and shown about the lake happened” 192. In the narration about protecting the inhabitants from the floods of the Lika River, Gregory of Nyssa writes: “the name of this tree even to this day is “rod”, and it is always preserved by local residents as a memory of the grace and strength of Gregory,” and further: “The Face, after once being restrained in its disorderly striving, makes Gregory’s miracle permanent for all subsequent time, remaining the same as the faith of the great man made it during the miracle-working.” 193. And one more thing: “and now, as in the whole church, and especially among them, this story serves as a monument to the help Gregory gave to her husband at that time” 194. The above and similar expressions could have been written by Gregory of Nyssa only if he himself was on the spot and personally heard the “narrations” there, or received them from there through a person deserving his complete trust. Since the image of “the landscape of Pontus, the city of Neocaesarea and its environs and the depiction of church relations in Cappadocia by the time of Gregory” is rightfully attributed by V. Rissel himself (S. 235) to Gregory of Nyssa, and all these additions reveal the most accurate knowledge of both the area and church traditions, then the assumption naturally arises that Gregory of Nyssa himself visited the places of activity of the great Neocaesarea bishop and there he collected material for his speech. It was composed mainly of a number of local legends, which, like the story of Gregory’s rod, were attributed to a specific place and there were told by the inhabitants to a believing visitor. Naturally, stories of miracles spread little by little further to neighboring countries: Cappadocia, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, etc. etc., and during this wandering were subject to changes. This is where Rufinus and the Syrian deviate. The story of Gregory of Nyssa about the stay of St. Gregory in the house of the noble and wealthy husband Musonius reveals for us another new source of his information, again not written, but reliable. Gregory of Nyssa writes that Musonius asked St. Gregory to stay with him and honor his house with your entrance, in order to be more honorable and known to him even after death, since time conveys such honor to his descendants 195. From this we can conclude that the Musonia family retained the memory of the visit to St. Gregory the Wonderworker. Basil the Great in one of his letters mentions one of the successors of St. Gregory - a neo-Caesarean bishop named Musonia 196. It can be assumed that this bishop was a descendant of the named Musonius, and Gregory of Nyssa could have learned this story from him or from another member of this family and brought it in out of attention to the family. In itself, this fact is so insignificant that it could be omitted without prejudice; but he enlivens the narrative and introduces a feature that is essential for assessing the historical significance of the life written by Gregory of Nyssa. It is clear why it is not repeated by Rufinus and the Syrian: by its nature it does not belong to the legends that were part of the general tradition about St. Gregory the Wonderworker. St. Basil the Great also mentions 1) that at the beginning of Gregory’s activity there were only 17 Christians in Neocaesarea, but subsequently the entire people became believers; 2) that he changed the flow of rivers, commanding them in the great name of Christ; 3) that he dried up the lake, which gave the covetous brothers a reason for war; 4) that his predictions about the future are such that he is in no way inferior to other prophets. The information noted in the first three paragraphs is found in Gregory of Nyssa and the Syrian; but for the fourth point we would look in vain for parallel news. What does St. mean? Basil the Great under the prophecies and how does he know about them? Undoubtedly, not from a written source, because neither the data at our disposal (except for the prediction of a pestilence in Gregory of Nyssa, which the Syrian does not have), nor, therefore, the supposed general written source of such προαγορεύσεις does not report. It remains again, as the only possible assumption, that St. Vasily draws his information from oral tradition. He concludes his brief report on miracles with the remark that it would take a long time to retell the miracles of this man, whom, due to the abundance of gifts in him, revealed through the action of the Spirit, with all power in signs and wonders, the enemies of the truth themselves called “the second Moses.” Comparison of St. Gregory with Moses is reminiscent of the same comparison made by Gregory of Nyssa. Finally, Basil the Great, like Gregory of Nyssa, says that the memory of St. Gregory is preserved in Pontus: “even now there is great amazement before him and a new and always fresh memory in the churches continues to live, not weakened by any time”; therefore, also in Pontus, the institutions of Gregory, which in the 4th century seemed already outdated 197, were faithfully preserved. Нельзя, конечно, решительно отрицать возможности пользования со стороны Василия Великого похвальною речью Григория Нисского, так как мы не знаем, когда написана речь Григория. Однако гораздо вероятнее предполагать, что оба брата, писавшие независимо друг от друга, почерпали из устного предания о Чудотворце, особенно живого в их семействе. От самого Василия Великого мы знаем, кому он обязан нравственно-религиозным образованием. In a letter to the neo-Caesarians, he writes: “What proof of my faith could be clearer than the fact that I was raised by my grandmother, a blessed wife, who is yours by birth? I’m talking about the famous Macrina, from whom I learned the sayings of the Most Blessed Gregory, which were preserved before her by succession of memory and which she herself observed and imprinted on me from an early age, forming me with the dogmas of piety” 198 . В письме к Евстафию Севастийскому он пишет: «то понятие о Боге, какое я приобрел с детства от блаженной матери моей и бабки Макрины» 199 . Thus, St. Basil the Great owes his grandmother Macrina and mother not only his religious education, but also, undoubtedly, an accurate knowledge of the Wonderworker, his sayings and deeds. In addition, he repeatedly emphasizes his close personal connection and familiarity with Neocaesarea. Thus, in a letter to neo-Caesarean scholars, he writes: “both by the habit acquired from childhood towards this place (i.e. Neocaesarea), because here I was raised by my grandmother, and by my frequent stay in it subsequently, when, fleeing popular rebellions and learning that this place, due to its deserted silence, was convenient for philosophy, I lived in it for many years in a row” 200. Why else should we look for some special written source for Gregory of Nyssa? He either, together with his elder brother, received Gregory’s instructions in the faith from his grandmother Macrina and mother and listened to her stories about the revered teacher, or, if he was much younger than St. Vasily, learned from the latter, whom he calls his “father and teacher (πατὴρ καὶδιδάοχαλος 201. Gregory the Wonderworker is also indicated by the following words of his praise: “tombs, monuments, inscriptions, dead stories (which Gregory of Nyssa himself is supposed to have seen), what can be added to the praise of one who exalted himself above the whole world?” 202. But what is especially important in this case is the following passage in the letter of St. Basil the Great to Eustathius of Sebaste: “How many times did you visit me in the monastery on the Iris River, when my God-loving brother Gregory, who has the same goal in life with me, was there with me?.. How many days in the village, with my mother, did we spend with each other, like friends, night and day continuing the conversation?” 203. From these words it is clear that both brothers were on Iris and in their mother’s house, that is, near Neokesarea. There is no doubt that Gregory of Nyssa often visited Neocaesarea at that time. He could repeat his visit towards the end of 379, when he visited his sister Macrina, who lived on the river. Iris. All this in. The historical value of Gregory of Nyssa’s messages about St. is also sufficiently determined. Gregory the Wonderworker. P. Koechau 204, pointing out that the purpose of his laudatory word was panegyric and edifying and that nothing lay so far from the author as wanting to offer pure historical truth, still agrees that the word of Gregory of Nyssa also contains something historical, for the extraction of which, however, a sharp selection of legendary details and a completely unprejudiced judgment is necessary. К бесспорным историческим известиям он относит следующие подробности: что св. Gregory met with Firmilian and together with him used the instructions of Origen; that Gregory, despite many attempts to keep him, returned to his fatherland; that Fedim of Amasia consecrated him a bishop (however, the details are considered unhistorical), and that in the neighboring city of Komanakh he happily installed Alexander, later a martyr, and then still a coal miner, as a bishop. He also finds it possible to consider the news of the Decian persecution in Pontus as a historical fact, excluding the legendary additions, as well as the fact that St. Gregory encouraged his flock to flee, and that he himself fled, and at the end of the persecution he instituted a holiday in honor of the martyrs. On the contrary, II. Keuchau considers it necessary to reject in the laudatory word of Gregory of Nyssa, as in all legendary statements, local and chronological data, if they are not confirmed from other sources; in support of this, he points out that Gregory of Nyssa calls the meeting place of St. Gregory with Origen Alexandria is the most famous residence of Origen, without mentioning Caesarea in Palestine, and the story of the accusation of St. refers to Alexandria. Gregory a harlot. Major mistakes of this kind, according to P. Koechau, are partly explained by the fact that Gregory of Nyssa amazingly did not know the works of the Wonderworker, no matter how close in time he stood to him - and in his entire life one cannot find a trace of the use of the saint’s speech of gratitude. Gregory. That Gregory of Nyssa in his laudatory speech does not reveal familiarity with the works of St. Gregory (except for the symbol) and in particular with his speech of gratitude to Origen, and also knows nothing about his stay in Caesarea in Palestine - this is noted correctly by P. Koechau; There is also no doubt that, in view of the edifying and panegyric purpose of his word, Gregory of Nyssa does not give an accurate and detailed historical account of the course of the life of St. Gregory, but is limited primarily and, one might even say, almost exclusively, to his miraculous deeds, in which the action in him and through him of the Holy Spirit was clearly reflected. However, to limit the historical value of Gregory of Nyssa’s praiseworthy words only to those few data pointed out by P. Keuchau, would be a manifestation of excessive and too narrow criticism, in which one does not want to see the whole behind individual facts and details; and this whole, in our opinion, with its entirety, and individual details, and even small features, paints before us a living, historical image of the great Pontic saint, with his extraordinary activity. As has already been indicated, Gregory of Nyssa knew Neokesarea and its environs well, knew local legends, and from family memories clearly represented the whole image of the great saint - and traces of all this are reflected in many details that are scattered throughout his laudable words from beginning to end. What St. For subsequent generations, Gregory invariably appeared in exactly the same image in which Gregory of Nyssa represents him; this is evidenced not only by St. Basil the Great, Rufinus and the Syrian Tale, but also Jerome, Blessed. Theodoret, Socrates, etc. Theodoret places next to St. Gregory his brother Athenodorus, Firmilian, Helen, but only St. Gregory is credited with the gift of miracles 205. It is also necessary to pay attention to how Gregory of Nyssa himself defines the purpose of his commendable word, which, according to him, is “so that this man, through the memory of his virtues, would appear to those present (at the holiday) the same as he himself was to those who saw his contemporaries’ deeds” 206. To achieve this goal, Gregory of Nyssa, as we have seen, had all the necessary data and means, and he completed this task successfully, revealing a certain restraint and critical sensitivity in the use of the material at his disposal. At the conclusion of his laudatory words, he writes: “there are other miracles of the great Gregory, preserved in memory even to this day, which we do not add to those described by us, sparing the ears of the distrustful, and so as not to harm those who, due to the greatness of the events narrated, are ready to recognize the very truth as a lie” 207. Therefore, we find it completely justified to use the word of praise of St. Gregory of Nyssa as a source for the biography of St. Gregory not only in certain dates, but also in certain features of the image of his personality and activities. As for information about St. Gregory in other sources, they are distinguished by extreme poverty, completely out of harmony with the energetic praise that they give to the famous Pontic saint. Eusebius only reports that when Origen was doing his usual business in Caesarea in Palestine, and countless disciples flocked to him, both from the inhabitants of that country and from other places, among others came to him - Theodore, later the famous Bishop Gregory, and his brother Athenodorus; They were greatly interested in the sciences of the Hellenes and Romans, but Origen instilled in them a love of philosophy and convinced them to change their previous occupation to a divine exercise. Having stayed with Origen for five whole years, they achieved such perfection in the divine that both, while still young, were awarded bishoprics in the Pontic churches 208. This is all that we learn from the famous church historian about the outstanding church figure of the 3rd century: he does not mention anything not only about his literary activity in general, but in particular about his symbol; and yet he undoubtedly knew the speech of gratitude of St. Gregory to Origen, since it was appended to the apology of Origen written by Pamphilus, with the participation of Eusebius 209. Eusebius does not say that St. Gregory was the first bishop of Neocaesarea and does not even name the city itself. It cannot be assumed that Eusebius does not talk about St. Gregory because he did not have documentary data for this - he knew the thank-you speech, as it is now said. It is difficult to see the reason for such paucity of information in the remoteness of Pontus from the center of the then church life, especially since St. Gregory should have been of interest to Eusebius, as a famous and devoted student of Origen. Perhaps the basis for such an attitude of Eusebius towards St. It served Gregory that he assumed that his readers would be familiar with Origen’s apology and the information about St. Gregory, which were set out in it. But the apology was lost, and with it those messages about St. Gregory, which were set out in it. But be that as it may, Eusebius in his “Ecclesiastical History” reports about St. Gregory is too small, and this circumstance adversely affected the completeness of the news of subsequent historians. Blazh. Jerome 210 stands in undoubted dependence on Eusebius; however, he makes some additions on his part. Thus, he calls the Pontic Neocaesarea, as the episcopal city of St. Gregory; reports incorrectly that the brothers, to study Greek and Latin sciences from Cappadocia, first went to Virit and from there to Caesarea Palestine, and then, after five years of study with Origen, they were sent by him to their mother. What follows in Jerome is a completely new section, compared to Eusebius, where he says that, setting out from Neocaesarea, Theodore (i.e. St. Gregory) wrote a panegyric of thanks to Origen and, having convened a huge meeting, read it in the presence of Origen himself - this speech, notes Jerome, exists to this day; testifies that he wrote a transcription of Ecclesiastes, short but very useful, and that his other epistles are also known, but mainly his signs and wonders, which he performed with much glory for the churches. These increases are blessed. Jerome may have as its source, on the one hand, his direct acquaintance with the works of St. Gregory - with a speech of gratitude, an arrangement of Ecclesiastes and “other letters”, on the other hand, those stories about the miracles of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea, which he could hear during his stay in the east 211; and, finally, the blessed one’s own conclusions. Jerome (studying at Virita). Socrates 212 reports that about St. Gregory of Neocaesarea there are many stories in Athens, Virita, and throughout the Pontic region; that he came out of the Athenian schools and listened to the laws in Virita, but having learned that in Caesarea Origen was interpreting St. Scripture, he went to him and, listening here to the lofty explanation of Holy Scripture, said goodbye to Roman laws and never left Origen. Instructed by Origen in true philosophy, Gregory, by order of his parents, returned to his fatherland and there, while still a layman, performed many miracles - he healed the sick, cast out demons with his messages, and in words, and even more so in deeds, led pagans to the true faith. Next, Socrates gives a valuable message that about St. Gregory is also mentioned by the martyr Pamphilus in the books he wrote in defense of Origen, to which the farewell speech of St. Gregory to Origen. With the exception of the last message, the rest of Socrates' news seems to disagree with more reliable news and therefore has no significance for the biography of St. Gregory 213. Later documents do not report anything new - they are either limited to brief praises of the great teacher, especially emphasizing the gift of miracles, or they repeat in abbreviation the praiseworthy word of Gregory of Nyssa 214; Therefore, we will not dwell on their analysis. Messages containing references only to the works of St. Gregory, almost exclusively forged, will be cited and evaluated in the corresponding chapters of the study. These are the sources on the basis of which, in connection with the course of modern St. Gregory of church life, we will try to give an outline of the life of the great apostle of the Pontic country and the famous father of the Church of the 3rd century. Chapter III. Essay on the life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker St. Gregory also had another name - Theodore. Eusebius, reporting that many disciples flocked to Origen in Caesarea Palestine, not only from local residents, but from everywhere, says that of them he knows as the most outstanding, Theodore, who is identical with the famous among the bishops contemporary to Eusebius Gregory (ὧ ν ἐπισήμοος μάλιστα ἔγνωμεν Θεόδωρον , ὃ ς ἦ ν αὐτὸς ο ὗ τος ὁ καθ ’ ἡμ ᾶ ς ἐπισκόπων διαβόητος Γρηγόριος), and his brother Athenodorus 215. Blazh. Jerome calls him Theodore, who was later named Gregory (Theodorus qui postea Gregorius appellatus est 216. St. Gregory of Nyssa does not know anything about the name Theodore. From the words of Eusebius one can draw the conclusion that St. Gregory, when he was a bishop, was called only by this last name and was known by this only name to others. But it was accepted by him before his consecration as a bishop, since Origen wrote in a letter to him, several years before his installation as a bishop, he already calls him Gregory. If he came to Origen with the name Theodora (as Eusebius says), and left him with the name Gregory, as should be concluded from Origen’s letter, then the change of name obviously falls during his stay in Caesarea Palestine with Origen and should be associated with an important event in his life, one might think - with baptism. Even if we assume that he had two names - Θεόδωρος ὁ καὶ Γρηγόριος 217, and at first the first name was predominantly used, then there is no doubt that from the time of his stay in Caesarea he began to be called exclusively Gregory. St. Gregory came from a noble and wealthy family - an indication of this can be found in the thank you speech of St. himself. Gregory (§ 56), where he speaks of his mother’s desire to give him the kind of education that children of noble birth received 218, and Gregory of Nyssa, in a commendatory speech, directly says: “I will not mention in my speech either his parents, the culprits of his carnal birth; I will not talk about their wealth, honor and worldly nobility” 219. There is no direct data to judge what nationality the parents of St. Gregory; but throughout the family situation, as it is captured from St. Gregory, from the nature of his education and plans for his life career, from the language of his works, especially his speech of gratitude, one can conclude that they belonged to the descendants of Greek settlers in Neocaesarea, perhaps who entered into family ties with the local nobility, as was often the case then. “Morals in the father’s house (St. Gregory) deviated from the truth,” and St. Gregory was completely under the influence of his father, a worshiper of demons (§48: ὑπὸ πατρὶ δεισιοαίμονι). Thus, the initial education of St. Gregory was purely pagan, and the pagan direction was so definite that neither Gregory himself, still an unreasonable child, nor anyone else had any thought or hope that any change could occur in his religious life (§18). About his primary education St. Gregory does not provide any information; from this we can conclude that it took place in the usual way for children of his circle. Perhaps the beginning of his training was laid by his father; and then, from about the age of seven, he entered the school of a grammarian, where he studied reading, writing and arithmetic in the amount and according to the methods that were then established for schools of this lower type; At about twelve years old, he moved to a grammar school, where he acquired basic knowledge of general education 220. At the age of 14, St. Gregory lost his father, who remained a pagan until the end of his life. But with this sad event, Gregory retained in his memory the memory of some extraordinary circumstance that was especially important in his inner life: “then,” he writes, “the loss of my father and orphanhood, which may have been the beginning of true knowledge for me, and then for the first time I turned to the true and saving word” (§§49–50). St. Gregory could not subsequently understand exactly how this happened, voluntarily, or under some kind of coercion. But thinking about... Later, he saw a sign of a sacred and wondrous providence about him precisely in the fact that this happened when he was fourteen years old. According to the prevailing view at that time, at the age of fourteen, the universal mind reaches a clear expression in a person - λόγος or ἡγεμονιχόν, which is why from this time it was prescribed to begin the study of philosophy. And St. Gregory emphasizes such a “confluence of circumstances” that the beginning of his conversion to the path of knowledge of the truth coincided with this natural mental maturity: on the one hand, everything that preceded this age, insofar as it was an error, should be attributed to his immaturity and unreason; on the other hand, when the soul became capable of rational activity, it was not deprived, if not of divine reason itself, then at least of the fear corresponding to it, and thus human and divine reason began to dominate in it simultaneously, one helping with the inexplicable power inherent in it, and the other receiving this help (§§50–58). From that time on, the divine light began to enlighten his mind and gradually grew in his soul until he came to a perfect knowledge of the truth, under the guidance of his Angel, who had guided, educated and cared for him since childhood, and the common Savior of all, the great Council of the Angel, who guided him not in those ways that seemed useful to himself and his relatives, but in accordance with the true benefit of the soul (§§41-44). One cannot see here any indication of Gregory’s conversion to Christianity, otherwise he would have marked a decisive turn in his religious development; and yet he points to what happened to him as something unclear, indefinite, which then did not produce a decisive effect and the meaning of which for himself became clear only in the light of subsequent circumstances of his life - perhaps it was a meeting and conversation with one of the Christian teachers, or, most likely, reading sacred Christian books. Be that as it may, but then its development continued to take place from the outside in a completely ordinary way. After the death of his father, the leadership of his son passed entirely to his mother, who wanted to give him an education no worse than that received by all children of noble birth. Around this time, Gregory completed his education at the grammar school 221 and, at the request of his mother, he entered the rhetorician school, which aimed to train speakers and lawyers. Gregory's successes at this new stage of education were so significant that, according to knowledgeable people, he himself was soon to become a rhetorician (§ 56). However, St. Gregory, even in the unhealthy atmosphere of the then school of rhetoricians, retained a sensitivity to the truth unusual among this class of people: he did not allow himself to glorify anyone or make laudatory speeches about anyone if this was inconsistent with the truth (§130). An educated person at this time within the Greco-Roman Empire could not do without knowledge of the Latin language 222. Anyone who wanted to hold a public position had to know the state language, and in order to study it, many young people from the east went to Rome. Roman influence was undoubtedly strong in such an important center of the political and cultural life of Pontus as Neokesarea. It is natural, therefore, that among Gregory’s mentors there was also a Latin teacher; however, he did not set himself the goal of achieving perfection in it, but studied it simply so as not to be ignorant of this language. But this circumstance had completely unforeseen consequences for Gregory. The Latin teacher had some knowledge of law and began to persistently convince St. Gregory to study Roman laws, pointing out that knowledge of the laws is important not only for rhetoricians speaking in courts, but also in other official fields. St. Gregory agreed, but more out of a desire to please his teacher than out of a disposition for law. Thus, the Latin teacher rejected St. Gregory from the then usual educational path, which directed Greek youths from the school of rhetorician to the school of philosopher. But from what he said, St. Gregory’s arguments in favor of studying Roman laws are clear that he well understood the spirit and requirements of the time: philosophy at that time no longer enjoyed the same respect due to the deep internal decline it was experiencing, and knowledge of Roman laws represented great advantages in practical life, which is why the study of Roman jurisprudence began to strongly attract especially noble young men. At this time, a higher legal school existed not only in Rome, but also in the east - in Virita, a Romanized Phoenician city. Subsequently, the famous Antiochian rhetorician Livanius repeatedly complained that his richer listeners were leaving him for legal studies in Rome and Virt 223 . The study of Roman jurisprudence was for St. Gregory experienced great difficulties and undoubtedly required a lot of time from him, since he had to study the laws in Latin (§7). But this study also became extremely important for him, although not in the utilitarian sense that his teacher had in mind. He himself taught Gregory with great diligence, and then began to persistently advise him to go to law school in Virita to improve his Latin language and thoroughly master Roman laws. St. Gregory realized that once he began to study Roman laws, then in a certain sense, this already imposed bonds on him, and he had to think about Virita (§57-62). True, to study Roman laws it was possible to go to Rome, as many young men from the eastern provinces and, perhaps, from Neocaesarea did - such an opportunity was presented to St. himself. Gregory (§64). But circumstances were such that St. Gregory and his brother Athenodorus were faced with the need to go to a country adjacent to Phenicia. St. Gregory saw in this a direct effect of industry about him, which led him to Origen. While he, agreeing with the teacher’s arguments, was wondering where to go and, apparently, chose not Virita, Gregory’s son-in-law, the husband of his sister, an efficient lawyer, was unexpectedly appointed as a legal adviser to the imperial governor of Palestine in Caesarea. He left alone and wanted his wife to follow him after a while and take both brothers with her. He sent a warrior from Caesarea to accompany his sister and her brothers. State chariots and certificates of entry were released for travelers. The preparations thus made for their journey, the safety of their sister on the journey, and the desire to visit her husband and his relatives, who could assist in obtaining a legal education in Virita, prompted the brothers to accept this offer. “This was the visible side of the matter,” says St. Gregory; but there were reasons that, although they were not obvious, were nevertheless the most true, namely: communication with this man (i.e. Origen), the true teaching through him about the Word, the benefit that I should have received from this for the salvation of my soul - (all this) led me here (to Caesarea Palestine) - although I was blind and did not realize it, - however, it served to my salvation. So, not a warrior, but a certain divine companion and kind guide and guardian, preserving me throughout this entire life, as if on a long journey, having passed other places and Virit himself, for whose sake I most of all intended to rush here 224, brought me to this place and stopped me here” (§§70–71). Thus, everything turned out in such a way that St. Gregory and his brother arrived in Caesarea in Palestine. At the same time, they did not abandon the idea of ​​heading to Virit later. However, they did not have to carry out this intention. Around this time, the famous teacher of the Alexandrian school, Origen, arrived in Caesarea Palestine, forced to retire from Alexandria; Using the patronage of the local bishop, he soon became the center of a circle of philosophically educated men from Christians and pagans, and thus continued the work to which he devoted himself with such love in Alexandria. A new center of Christian education was formed in Caesarea. Origen, who had visited Caesarea before, soon gained such fame that many people, not only from local residents, but also from other countries, flocked to him to listen to him and learn from him. This fame of Origen brought the brothers Gregory and Athenodorus, who arrived in Caesarea, to him. St. Gregory subsequently, in his speech of gratitude, called the first day of his acquaintance with Origen the most precious of all days, when the true sun first began to rise for him (§73). But this was the later judgment of St. Gregory after a five-year stay in Caesarea and on the basis of the beneficial results of communication with Origen that were completely clear to him. Now the brothers went to Origen, perhaps more out of curiosity - to see and listen to the Caesarea celebrity. The first meeting had an effect on St. Gregory’s impression was irresistible: “I was struck by his speech like an arrow, and precisely from the first day, for his speech was in some way a combination of pleasant attractiveness, persuasiveness and some kind of coercive force” (§78). Origen, for his part, drew attention to new listeners. A few conversations were enough to notice the brothers’ talents, and Origen decided to make them his actual disciples in the undoubted foreknowledge of the great benefit that they could bring in the service of the Church and Christian enlightenment. Jerome 226 reports that Origen, noticing the excellent talents of the brothers, inclined them to philosophy, and this news is quite consistent with the data of the grateful speech of Gregory himself, who makes it clear that at first it was Origen who made every effort to keep the brothers in Caesarea: he “first of all made every effort to bind us to himself, while we, like animals, fish or birds, fell in a snare or in a net, but those trying to escape or run away wanted to retire from him to Virit or to the fatherland” (§73). Origen first of all tried to convince them of the benefits of philosophy and the absolute necessity for everyone to study it. He praised philosophy and the lovers of philosophy with extensive, numerous and befitting praises: only philosophers live a life truly characteristic of rational beings, since they strive to live correctly and first achieve knowledge about themselves and then about the truly good, which a person should strive for, and about the truly evil, which should be avoided; on the contrary, he condemned the ignorant, blind in mind, not even knowing what they themselves are, wandering as if without reason, not knowing and not wanting to know what the real essence of good and evil is; such people crave money, fame, honor from the crowd and well-being of the body; Of the arts, they value those that can deliver these benefits, and when choosing a field of activity, they prefer military, judicial service and the study of laws. He argued that for one who does not engage in philosophy, true worship of God is impossible. Origen gave such speeches not just once, but for many days at the beginning, when the brothers came to him; he spoke with great persistence and skill, giving many reasons one after another until he achieved his goal: “I still hesitated and pondered,” says St. Gregory,” and decided to take up philosophy, not yet being completely convinced, but on the other hand, I could not, I don’t know why, move away from him, but was more and more attracted to him by his speeches, as if by the force of some higher compulsion.” As if enchanted, Gregory was no longer able to resist (§§74–80). But Origen acted on St. Gregory not only with the strength of his arguments, but also with the charm of his personality: “he struck me with the sting of friendship, which is not easy to fight, sharp and powerful, the sting of skillful treatment and good disposition, which, as benevolent towards me, was revealed in the very tone of his voice when he addressed me and talked with me” (§81). At the same time, Origen aroused love for the teacher of piety himself - the saving Word, “which comes to many and conquers everyone with whom it meets” (§82). “Like a spark that fell into my very soul, my love was kindled and ignited, both for the most sacred, most worthy of love, the Word itself, which, by virtue of His ineffable beauty, is most attractive of all, and for this man, His friend and preacher” (§83). St. Gregory decided to neglect all the affairs and sciences that seemed decent to him, even the “beautiful laws”, the thoughts of which until that time he had not abandoned, his fatherland and relatives, both in Caesarea and in Neocaesarea: “one thing was dear and dear to me - philosophy and the leader in it - this divine man” (§84). Between Gregory and Origen such a close friendship was established as was between David and Jonathan (1 Sam. XVIII, 1). Firmilian, the famous bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, took some part in introducing Gregory to Origen, or perhaps in resolving his hesitation as to whether he should remain in Caesarea. We find an indication of this in St. Gregory of Nyssa, who writes: “when, after completing his full training in external wisdom, he (St. Gregory) met with Firmilian, one of the noble Cappadocian youths, similar to him in morals, as he showed in his subsequent life, having become an adornment of the Cappadocian church, then, having revealed to this friend the image of his thoughts and his life, as if it were before God Himself, and having learned that he also has the same desire and aspiration, he leaves everything studies in external philosophy and comes with him to the main leader in Christian philosophy at that time - that was Origen" 227. However, the reliability of this evidence, as regards its particulars, is questioned. The basis for it lies in the following testimony of Eusebius: “it was the tenth year of the aforementioned reign (Alexander Severus), when Origen moved from Alexandria to Caesarea, leaving the local catechetical school to Herakles. Not long after, the bishop of the Alexandrian church, Demetrius, died, having served for forty-three years. His successor was Irakl. At the same time, the Bishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia, Firmilian, enjoyed particular fame.” 228 Although, of course, there is no need to assume that already in the year of Herakles’ accession to the Alexandrian see, Firmilian was the bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, but this evidence cannot in any way be reconciled with the narrative of Gregory of Nyssa that Firmilian was still a youth when St. Gregory and was his fellow student with Origen: there is no doubt that during the reign of Alexander Severus, that is, before 235, he was already a bishop 229. But this does not exclude the fact that St. Gregory and Firmalian and the possibility of the latter’s influence on the former. Eusebius, immediately following the above words, writes: “this bishop (Firmilian) was so attached to Origen that sometimes, for the benefit of the church, he called him to his regions, and sometimes he himself went to him in Judea and lived with him for some time to improve himself in the knowledge of divine objects” 230. On one of these visits, Firmilian could have met St. Gregory and help him resolve his painful hesitation. Thus, Gregory and Athenodorus remained in Caesarea and became students of Origen. Now the actual training begins. First of all, Origen began to prepare the soil for future sowing. He subjected his new students to the most thorough test in order to determine their actual knowledge, clear them of errors, accustom them to orderliness and clarity in thinking, and curb unreasonable impetuosity; at the same time, the insufficiency of their own knowledge and the need for further learning should have been clearly revealed to the students. This process is described in detail by St. Gregory in his speech of gratitude to Origen. St. Gregory says that Origen dealt with them as a farmer dealt with land that was salty, burnt, rocky and sandy, uncultivated and barren, or with land that, although not completely barren and at least not devoid of vegetation, even fat, was nevertheless not cultivated, left neglected, overgrown with thorns and wild bushes; or like a gardener with a tree that needs grafting, is not pruned, not watered, neglected and smothered by many superfluous shoots that grow aimlessly on it and mutually hinder the achievement of perfection; So Origen took possession of St. Gregory and with his characteristic art examined, penetrated not only what is visible to everyone and seen on the surface, but also dug deeply and explored the innermost foundations of the soul. He proposed questions, analyzed his answers; when he found something useful and useful in it, he stopped at it and began to “dig, plow, water”, applied all his skill and care and carefully cultivated it; thorns and thistles he pruned and removed with his reproofs and prohibitions. When a student showed instability and disobedience, he, through the Socratic method, with evidence from his own mouth, calmed him down and brought him into obedience. St. Gregory admits that at first it was difficult and not painless for him, because he was not yet accustomed to such methods and had not practiced obeying the arguments of reason (§§93–98). Having thus cleared the ground and prepared St. Gregory to the assimilation of true scientific knowledge, Origen began to communicate various parts of philosophy and, above all, logic and dialectics; he taught him to always stick to the set goal, in no case deviating from the straight path, forced him not without reasoning to agree with whatever came his way, but to accurately examine not only what catches the eye and in appearance seems true, not only the external side, but mainly the inner essence of each thing, try to convince himself of its dignity and only then agree with the external impression and express a judgment regarding each individual phenomenon. By this he developed in St. Gregory, according to the laws of logic, the ability to critically evaluate individual expressions and turns of speech (§§99–106). In this respect, Origen apparently had to struggle with some of the habits of Gregory, acquired by him in the school of rhetorician (cf. §107). Along with this formal development, Gregory also enriched himself with positive knowledge, primarily from the field of natural science. “I was amazed,” says St. Gregory, “at the greatness and miracles, as well as the diverse and wise structure of the world, and I marveled, although without understanding, and was completely amazed by deep reverence, but, like unreasonable animals, I did not know how to explain anything” (§109). Origen examined and explained each subject separately down to its most primitive elements, then made generalizations both regarding individual subjects and their entirety, until with his teaching and clear arguments he put into his soul a reasonable wonder at the sacred government of the universe and the most perfect structure of nature (§§110–112). Precise geometry and astronomy soaring in the heights completed this part of the curriculum - geometry with its clear and undoubted foundations constituted, as it were, a support and strong foundation for everything, and astronomy raised it to the highest regions: “through both of these sciences, he, as if by means of a ladder rising to heaven, made the sky accessible to me,” says St. Gregory (§§113–114). The next stage of training was ethics on a philosophical basis. But Origen did not limit himself only to imparting knowledge of the virtues, but sought to ensure that the character of the saint was formed in accordance with the instructions. Gregory, his whole way of life. His persistent and wise speeches embraced all aspects of moral teaching, clarified the psychological foundations of moral activity, explored the most spiritual movements and feelings; therefore they captured and captivated the listener. “He controlled my internal movements... through the study and observation of mental movements and feelings - since our soul is usually then most likely put in order out of disorder, when the latter is recognized, and from a state of confusion it passes into a definite and well-ordered one - so that it, as in a mirror, contemplates itself, precisely the very beginnings and roots of evil, the entire unreasonable essence from which our obscene passions flow, and on the other hand, everything that constitutes the best part of it - the mind under whose dominance it remains in itself unharmed and dispassionate. Then, as if having weighed this in herself, she must repress and eliminate all this, which comes from the lower nature, weakens us with licentiousness, or suppresses and oppresses us with despondency, such as, for example, sensual pleasures and lusts, or sadness and fear and the whole series of disasters that follow this kind of state - all this she must repress and eliminate, rebelling against them at their very emergence and first growth, and not allow even the slightest increase in them, but destroy and force disappear without a trace. But what, on the contrary, stems from the best part and is good for us, then she must educate and support, carefully caring for it at the very beginning and protecting it until it reaches perfect development. For in this way [in his opinion] the soul can in time acquire the divine virtues,” namely prudence, moderation, justice and courage (§§115–122). But these lessons of Origen had all the more influence because they were accompanied by corresponding actions of the teacher himself: he did not so much expound in his speeches the doctrine of virtue as he called for action, and he called rather by his actions than by what he said: by his own way of life he convinced both to listen to his speech about the rules of life and to carefully follow it. “He forced me,” writes St. Gregory, “if I may say so, to act justly through the activity of my soul, to which he urged me to join, turning me away from the multi-care that everyday life and the anxiety of public service require, on the contrary, encouraging me to carefully examine myself and do what is truly my own business” (§138). St. Gregory strongly emphasizes that his teacher was not like other philosophers who declared themselves teachers, who did not go beyond simple speeches. This study of ethical philosophy gave Origen the opportunity to acquaint his student with the ethical views of philosophers, as well as with their entire moral character. St. Gregory thoroughly learned his teacher's lessons. He says that Origen was the first and only who persuaded him to study Hellenic philosophy, convincing him with his own way of life and listening to his speeches about the rules, and carefully following them (§133); but at the same time he clearly understood the whole difference between the philosophy of Origen and the teaching of other modern philosophers, regarding which he, judging completely impartially, can say that during the rest of his life he would not want to approach them (§128). Thus, Origen, by his own admission, St. Gregory, made him a lover of virtues, loving them with the most ardent love; by his own virtue he instilled in him a love for the beauty of justice, the truly golden face of which he showed him, a love for prudence, a love for true wisdom, a love for godlike moderation, which is balance and peace of soul for all who acquire it, and a love for the most admirable courage, a love for patience and above all a love for piety, which is rightly called the mother of all virtues, since it is the beginning and end of all virtues. Here, it was already clear that all moral teaching was imbued with the light of Christian truth, since the student had already learned that he must become a friend and defender of the glory of God, and that taking care of the virtues is necessary in order to approach God not in a state of unworthiness and impurity, but with all virtue and wisdom, and he establishes with full conviction that the goal of everything is no other than that, having become like God with a pure mind, to approach God. Him and abide in Him (§149; cf. §§115–149). All this attracted St. Gregory to a Christian philosopher, while other philosophers of his time were repulsed. It is clear that it was a force of personality which stamped doctrine and life with the stamp of the greatest truth and the strictest moral seriousness. - an ideal image of a teacher who, rising above sophistic ostentation and ambitious school squabbles, was able to release in himself and in his student all the forces of spiritual and moral life and direct them to the great goal - to possess all the riches of personal inner life, which draws the best strength from the ideal world and from communication with God 231. The next step was theology, knowledge of the cause of everything. Origen taught this extremely important area to Gregory with special care, diligence and attentive care. In order to prepare the student for the perception of the pure light of Christian truth, Origen demanded that he study the works of ancient philosophers and poets who considered this issue, without excluding or rejecting anything except the works of philosophers who denied the existence of God and Providence - the latter stemmed from Origen’s desire to protect the student’s soul from desecration by speeches contrary to the veneration of God. Familiarity with different systems and views, on the one hand, did not allow the student to stop at one teaching and get carried away by it as the only true one; on the other hand, the mutual struggle of teachings and the contradictions of philosophers and their divisions should have clearly shown their instability in the most important and most necessary of all - in the knowledge of God and piety. But so that Gregory would not get entangled in the labyrinth of teachings, would not get lost in this vast, high and dense forest and would not get stuck in a marshy swamp, but would choose and learn from the Hellenic and barbarian teachings only the truly best, Origen himself supervised this reading and study: “he himself walked with me ahead of me and led me by the hand as if on a journey, in case he encountered anything uneven, secret or insidious; ... he himself collected everything that each philosopher had that was useful and true, and offered it to me, and what was false, he singled out both other things and, in particular, what in relation to piety was people’s own business” (§§150–173). Thus, St. Gregory, “having diligently studied external philosophy, thereby, which for many serves as a support for paganism, was brought to the understanding of Christianity and, leaving the false religion of the fathers, sought the truth of existence, from the very works of external philosophy, learning the inconsistency of pagan teaching; for, having noticed that both Hellenic and barbarian philosophy in the doctrine of God is divided into different opinions, and that the representatives of these opinions do not agree with each other, but each is strengthened, with the help of exquisite evidence, to give precedence to his opinion - he left them, as in an internecine war mutually overthrowing each other... As the Scripture says about Moses, that he was taught all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts V ΙΙ, 22), so this great man, having gone through all the teachings of the Hellenes and having learned by experience the weakness and inconsistency of their positions, becomes a disciple of the Gospel” 232. As for piety, Origen advised Gregory not to listen to any human teaching, even the teaching of a generally recognized sage; but listen only to God and His prophets. Thus, Origen, from the study of pagan philosophers, quietly led his student to the study of the source of Christian teaching - to the Holy Scriptures. Scripture. And here Origen himself led the classes, interpreting prophetic broadcasts and explaining what was dark and mysterious. This final part of the course - Origen's exegesis made an impact on St. Gregory is especially strongly impressed: the admiring student claims that Origen has one skill in receiving into his soul the pure and bright content of divine sayings and teaching others, because the First Author of all these sayings, Who spoke to the God-loving prophets and inspired all the prophecies and mysterious and divine speeches, honored him as a friend and appointed him as their interpreter; he spoke no other way than in communion with the divine Spirit; he received from heaven the most excellent lot to be the interpreter of divine words to people, to perceive the divine as if from the mouth of God and explain it to people as it is accessible to human hearing (§§174–181). This ended the course of teaching of St. Gregory in Origen. St. himself Gregory, with great enthusiasm and, perhaps, with an involuntary exaggeration that is very understandable in his position, presents the results he achieved in this way: “for me,” he says, “there was nothing forbidden, for there was nothing hidden and inaccessible: but I had the opportunity to gain knowledge about every teaching, both barbarian and Hellenic... and divine and human [and precisely in such a way that] with complete freedom I could make everything the subject of my study and research and be satiated and enjoy all spiritual benefits (§182). According to the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa 233, many asked and kept St. Gregory was in a foreign land and was persuaded to stay with them, but he preferred the land that gave birth to him over everything, and returned to his fatherland, bringing with him a wealth of diverse wisdom of knowledge, which, like a merchant, he acquired through dealing with all the men who had gained fame in external sciences. Maybe his mother, who was still alive, called him - at least St. Gregory, who mentioned the death of his father in his speech, says nothing about the death of his mother, and Blessed Jerome directly states that Origen, after five years of study, sent Gregory and Athenodorus to their mother 234. St. Gregory and his brother Athenodorus returned directly to their homeland, bypassing Viritus, which had once attracted them to itself. Before parting with Origen, in a solemn and crowded meeting, perhaps specially convened, in the presence of Origen himself and his friends and disciples 235, St. Gregory gave his famous acceptance speech. It is clear from it how difficult it was for St. Gregory to part with the teacher, who became for him, in his words (§189), a true father and whose personality made such an irresistible and charming impression on him, to leave that environment and atmosphere of undivided concentration on higher spiritual interests, in which he felt like in a paradise of pleasure - and from it he is now, as it were, expelled. He now faces civic activity, and with anxiety and confusion he thinks about the squares, courts, crowds, etc. connected with it (§§184–207). In addition, it was difficult for him to part with his Caesarean relatives, with whom he had become friends and in whom, as he learned only later, he had people very close to his soul (§189). To what time does this stay of Gregory with Origen date back? When did he arrive in Caesarea and when did he leave it, having delivered his speech of gratitude before parting? The chronological definition here encounters difficulties that are difficult to resolve. To embrace all the historical news about the life of St. Gregory, before his consecration as bishop of Neocaesarea, which are brought in to resolve the issues raised, it is also necessary to point out that Origen’s letter to Gregory has been preserved, written undoubtedly before his episcopate, but without a specific indication of the time and place of writing, as well as the residence at that time of Origen and St. himself. Gregory. In this letter, Origen expresses the conviction that Gregory, with his good talents and necessary exercises, can become an outstanding Roman lawyer and a famous Hellenic philosopher; but Origen expresses the desire that he would bring his rich powers to the service of Christianity, having learned from Hellenic philosophy only those parts that contain general knowledge preparatory to Christianity, and from geometry and astronomy that which is useful for the explanation of Holy Scripture, so that philosophy would perform in relation to Christianity the service that, according to philosophers, geometry, music, grammar, rhetoric and astronomy perform as auxiliary sciences for philosophy. This, as Origen thinks, may be indicated by the narration of the book of Exodus, that the children of Israel begged from their neighbors in Egypt gold and silver vessels and clothes, in order to prepare from them what was needed for the service of God; whereby the ark of the covenant with the mercy seat, the cherubim, the atonement, and the golden vessel for manna were made of the noblest gold; of the second grade of gold - a golden lamp with lamps on it, a golden offering table, a golden incense altar; from the third and fourth grades - sacred vessels, from Egyptian silver - other things, from Egyptian clothes - internal and external curtains and bedspreads. Thus, the children of Israel used what they took from Egypt, which the Egyptians did not give proper use to, for worship. However, Holy Scripture tells how, on the contrary, the descent from the land of Israel into the land of Egypt served for evil, indicating that for some it serves for evil to live with the Egyptians, that is, with the sciences of this world, after they were raised in the law of God and in the Israeli service to Him. This is proven by the example of Ader the Edomite, who, while he lived in the land of Israel and did not eat Egyptian bread, did not build idols, but when he fled from the wise Solomon to Egypt, through marriage he became a close relative of Pharaoh and gave birth to a son who was raised with the sons of Pharaoh 236. Returning from there, he led the people to worship the golden calf. Based on experience, Origen says that there are few who used the gifts of the Egyptians to serve God, and, on the contrary, there are many brothers of Adera who brought heresies to life and placed golden calves in Bethel, that is, in the house of God. The Word of God understands precisely those who put their inventions into the Holy Scriptures, figuratively called “Bethel.” At the very extreme border of the earth - in Dan, next to the pagan borders, a second calf was placed, and this indicates the close relationship between the fabrications of the Ader brothers and paganism. At the conclusion of the letter, Origen persistently convinces Gregory to read the Holy Scriptures and study them with attention, not to mention them. something too hastily, to study with a godly mood, the right and with firm faith to seek a thought hidden from many and with constant prayer for the granting of understanding of the divine scriptures. Origen writes these instructions out of fatherly love for him. – We will now see how the contents of this letter are used to resolve the issues raised, but now let’s turn to consideration of other, more definite news. Eusebius in his “Ecclesiastical History” (VI, 30) writes that Theodore (Gregory) and Athenodorus spent five whole years with Origen (πέντε ὃ ὲ ὅ λας ἔτεσιν αὐτῷ σογγβνόμενοι ). The news of the arrival of the brothers in Caesarea Palestine was placed by Eusebius after the report of the persecution of Christians during the reign of Maximin and the entry, after him, into the kingdom of Gordian (VI, 28 and 29.1). From this it must be concluded that if not the entire time of St. Gregory and Athenodorus in Caesarea, then at least some part of it and, in any case, its end should fall during the reign of Gordian, which lasted from 238 to 244. Here, of course, there is no precise indication of the time of the brothers’ removal from Caesarea, but there is no absolute need to place it in 238 - there are more reasons to move it away from the beginning of Gordian’s reign. Further, Eusebius definitely says that Gregory and Athenodorus spent five whole years with Origen. Jerome also testifies to this: quinquennio itaque eruditi ab eo remittuntur ad matrem 237. It would seem, therefore, that at least the duration of St. Gregory in Caesarea Palestine is verified quite definitely. However, the accuracy of this instruction by Eusebius and (depending on him) Jerome (and Svida) is disputed 238 . They point to the words of Gregory himself in his farewell speech, §1, where he speaks. “Eight years have already passed (καὶ ὀκταετὴς μοι χρόνος ο ὗ τος ἤ δη) since neither I myself had to say anything at all, or write any large or small speech, nor to hear anyone else who would privately write or made, or publicly held, laudatory and defensive speeches (§3). These eight years, during which Gregory did not deal with rhetoric, are attributed to the time of his stay in Caesarea, and the sticky three years, in comparison with Eusebius, are attributed to the time of persecution. Maximina Thracian (from July 235 to May 238), when Origen had to flee to Cappadocia to Bishop Firmilian, as a result of which the studies of St. Gregory were interrupted for three years 239. I. Drazeke 240 tries to reveal and substantiate this same idea by analyzing the above-mentioned letter of Origen to St. Gregory. Dreseke finds it impossible to date this letter to the time when Gregory finally broke up with Origen and returned to his homeland. In his opinion, there should be a contradiction between the exhortations and speeches of Origen in the letter to Gregory and Gregory’s own expressions in his speech of thanks, if we accept the usual opinion about the origin of the letter. At the beginning of the letter, Origen points out the possibility for Gregory of a dual career in life - to become either a good lawyer or a famous philosopher; meanwhile, in his speech of gratitude, Gregory clearly points only to legal practice. Further, Origen could not persistently convince Gregory to study the preparatory sciences for philosophy - geometry, music, grammar, rhetoric, astronomy and philosophy itself, as a preparatory to Christianity, and above all to the attentive study of Holy Scripture, combined with prayer, and even warn against the possibility of deviating from the truth after Gregory in his speech animatedly sang the praises received through Origen to Christian Science and in particular praised Origen's gift in interpreting St. Scripture, thanks to which for the attentively listening student there was nothing hidden or inaccessible left in the Holy Scripture. But everything that we know from other sources is that Gregory, having returned from Caesarea to his homeland, essentially completed his scientific studies. Origen's letter, on the contrary, shows that Gregory is still in the middle of his studies. All this is in contradiction with Gregory’s own expressions and is incompatible with the true Christian consolation with which he turns to himself at the end of his speech of gratitude. For these reasons, I. Drazeke considers it impossible to believe the origin of the letter after the final removal of St. Gregory in Pontus and thinks that he should be placed several years earlier. I. Drazeke first of all points to the message of Gregory of Nyssa about the stay of St. Gregory in Alexandria, when he was still a young man, - here an attempt was made to slander him through a dissolute woman 241. He insists that in such a fundamental fact from [the life of St. Gregory, as his stay in Alexandria, one can hardly make a mistake on the part of Gregory of Nyssa. Further, according to I. Drazeke, Gregory himself in his farewell speech hints at his stay in Egypt. At the beginning of it, where he apologizes for his inability to pronounce beautiful, brilliant speeches, he motivates this deficiency by pointing out the insufficiency of his talent and then continues that eight years have passed since he himself did not make speeches, and did not hear others except these amazing men who devoted themselves to the pursuit of beautiful philosophy. Who should we understand, asks I. Dreseke, among the τῶν ? In any case, they say to I. Drazeke, Gregory does not indicate by this the philosophers present. St. Gregory mentions a few philosophers with whom he came into contact before Origen captivated his soul, but they did not go beyond empty speeches in philosophy (§134). Such philosophers, according to I. Drazeke, should be sought not in Caesarea, but in Alexandria, where Gregory went when the dangerous persecution of Maximin in 235 forced Origen to flee. Origen's letter to Gregory, as stated by I. Drazeke, also clearly testifies in favor of Gregory's stay in Alexandria. The introduction of the letter definitely shows that Gregory's studies are not yet finished. The allegorical explanation of Holy Scripture that follows the introduction and occupies most of the letter could not have the goal only of thoroughly illustrating the completely general idea that Gregory must renounce the glory of a great jurist or philosopher, which is not unattainable for him, and devote all his knowledge in all areas of learning to Christian science; but this goal must also be historically tangible in some way. In the very content of the letter, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the five types of Egyptian jewelry, as well as the five types of sacred vessels prepared from them by the Israelites, obviously stand in connection with the sciences auxiliary to philosophy, previously named by Origen. And if by the image of Egyptian gold, silver and clothing it is necessary to understand secular sciences, then they must be those disciplines in which, for the most part, Origen himself instructed Gregory, and regarding which he expresses the wish that his disciple, just as the Jews received from the Egyptians, instructed by divine wisdom, used for worship of God, would also use as a propaedeutic to Christianity. But why does Origen designate secular sciences, against which he warns his student to be too enthusiastic, with the image of Egyptian jewels? Did he do this because he accidentally did not have at hand a better example from Holy Scripture, or because he himself brought the knowledge of these sciences to Caesarea precisely from Egypt and there, through them, showed his disciples the path to Christian knowledge? According to I. Drazeke, it was not by chance that Origen wrote that Scripture knows that for some the descent from the land of the children of Israel into Egypt served as an evil, by which it hints that for some living with the Egyptians serves as an evil, i.e. with the sciences of this world after they have been brought up in the Law of God: γίνβται τὸ παροικὴσαι τοῖς αἰγυπτίοις indicate, according to I. Drazeke, the resettlement of St. Gregory to Alexandria and his stay there. It was there that Origen sent his message after the disciple who had gone to Egypt. Such a resolution of the question of the time and circumstances of the origin of Origen’s letter to Gregory, in Drazeke’s opinion, has the advantage over the usual dating of it that it explains everything. Origen gathered a circle of animated disciples around him in Caesarea and in his activities enjoyed the patronage of the emperor’s mother, Julia Mammaea, who was disposed towards Christians; but in 235, Alexander Severus was unexpectedly killed by soldiers along with his mother, and immediately his rude successor Maximin, out of hatred for the house of Alexander, which mostly consisted of Christians, as Eusebius says 242, launched a persecution, which was directed mainly against the heads of the churches, as the main disseminators of the Gospel teaching. With pain, Origen parted with the place of his activities, which was especially threatened due to the proximity to Syria, where the imperial family came from, in order to seek safety in a foreign land. He left his students and Gregory among them orphans. The alliance of friendly personal relations with him was broken - no one could say - whether it was forever. There was a serious threat and danger for the seed that he sowed, for the light of Christian knowledge that he kindled in Gregory. Who could guarantee that Gregory's further studies in a pagan environment under the guidance of outstanding teachers, who could only be sought in Alexandria, would not take a direction that would again make him completely alien to Christianity? Origen wants to warn the inexperienced, at least to make him attentive to danger. And thus, having learned about the whereabouts of his student, he wrote him a letter, probably from Cappadocia, whose allegorical explanation of Holy Scripture finds its full explanation in these relations. First of all, there is a mention of the flight from Solomon to Egypt by Ader, whom Origen confused with Jeroboam. This example suited Gregory, who from the land of Israel, from Caesarea, hurried to Egypt; This case is parallel to the biblical one, feature by feature, just as completely definite expressions and phrases point to this explanation as the only correct one. Just as Ader, while he was in the land of Israel and did not taste Egyptian bread, did not arrange any idols, so Gregory, while he lived in the place of pure knowledge in Caesarea, could not be afraid of falling into paganism. But he went to Egypt and through marriage entered into a very close alliance with the reigning pharaoh of the country - and Gregory? Origen is afraid that he will enter into a close, at least dangerous, relationship with the leader of minds in Alexandria, the teacher of secular sciences, Ammonius Saccus, whose student he himself was once, though in a more mature age, and from whose speculations, incompatible with Christian teaching, he barely renounced. Ader, of course, returned back, but only to divide the people into two camps and lead to the Egyptian service of the calf in Bethel and Dan. It would be possible to assume that Gregory would return with an intact soul, a soul not born to him by paganism. But Origen’s own experience spoke against this assumption - hence the warning words, despite the generality of the expression, which have a special meaning: “I, taught by experience, can tell you that there are few who took useful things from Egypt and came out of it and built something that relates to the service of God - on the contrary, there are many brothers of the Edomite Ader. These are precisely those who, as a result of Hellenic ingenuity, brought to life heretical teachings and, so to speak, built the golden heifers at Bethel.” Didn’t Gregory also have this εντρέχβκχ ἐλληνιχὴ? Could he also become the founder of a sect, like the Gnostics Basilides, Valentinus, Carpocrates, who all taught and acted in Alexandria, who all “erected their own structures in the Scriptures,” perhaps involuntarily appearing before the writer’s gaze? After these fears, which in the allegorical interpretation of Origen can be read between the lines, the persistent final exhortation to carefully study the Holy Scriptures and with constant prayer to God for enlightenment receives its good meaning and internally deep justification. – Origen’s letter completely achieved its goal and brought glorious fruit, as Gregory’s speech of gratitude convincingly proves 243. This is Draeseke’s hypothesis, which, I must admit, at first glance captivates with its apparent naturalness and the convincingness of the considerations presented in its substantiation. But different results are obtained with a detailed analysis of it. First of all, it is appropriate to ask the question whether St. Gregory in Alexandria? St. Gregory of Nyssa, as J. Drazeke correctly pointed out, reports that St. Gregory in his youth lived in Egypt, in the large city of Alexandria, where youth flocked from everywhere to study philosophy and medical science. The indication is very specific; but it is undermined in its meaning by the fact that Gregory of Nyssa in this connection says nothing about Origen and his previous training with him; only later does he report that St. Gregory, after completing his full training in external wisdom, met with Firmilian, a young man similar in disposition to him, and together with him, leaving all studies of external philosophy, he came to Origen, the main leader in Christian philosophy at that time; but at the same time, however, it does not report anything about the place of this meeting and generally does not mention at all the unconditionally attested fact of the residence of St. Gregory in Caesarea Palestine. From here the assumption naturally arises that Gregory of Nyssa had previously mistakenly directed St. Gregory to Alexandria, because the idea of ​​the famous Alexandrian teacher Origen was associated with this city. Confusion at this point is entirely possible, and therefore this basis by I. Drazeke must be considered, at least, unreliable. If Drazeke attaches such decisive importance to the message of St. Gregory of Nyssa, then he would have to admit that St. Gregory was in Alexandria before meeting Origen. St. himself Gregory in his speech of thanks does not say anything about his stay in Alexandria, and yet he very thoroughly, step by step, tells how divine Providence led him to Origen. St. Gregory would not have missed the opportunity to report the impression that the Alexandrian philosophers made on him, and the warning that he received from his teacher, who did not forget his student even in separation. For a rhetorically structured speech, all this would provide a very beautiful and instructive page. The expression ἀσπασαμένων already in view of one thing τούτων cannot point to the philosophers of relatively distant Alexandria and, obviously, means the students and friends of Origen who were present at the meeting. Finally, as for the historical commentary of I. Drazeke to the letter, then, with all its wit, it is based on such features of the letter that do not necessarily require such an understanding and are easily compatible with the idea of ​​​​the origin of the letter after the end of Gregory’s Caesarea education. Gregory’s words about the field that he was to enter upon his arrival at home did not oblige Origen to talk about jurisprudence alone: ​​knowing Gregory’s inclinations and abilities, he could foresee another possibility. Further, if we take the letter as a whole, then it has a good meaning even after the completion of St. Gregory education. Origen here expresses general thoughts about the importance of general education for Christian enlightenment, which undoubtedly were the subject of repeated personal conversations between teacher and student: having established at the beginning the general position about the need to study general sciences, Origen in further parts of the letter shows and justifies, on the basis of an allegorical explanation of two facts from St. Scripture, firstly, this necessity, and secondly, the danger that can arise from such a passion for them when an internal affinity with them is established. To prevent the latter from happening, Origen convinces Gregory to study the Holy Scriptures. But in order to avoid the possibility of misinterpretation, Gregory must constantly pray for the enlightenment of the mind. Such advice cannot contradict Gregory’s statement that the meaning of Holy Scripture was revealed to him, since Origen himself could and undoubtedly looked differently, on the basis of his own experience and history, than his enthusiastic student, who also expressed this thought in a laudatory word to his teacher. Further, in his letter, Origen urges you to read Holy Scripture, with attentive penetration into it, so as not to say or think anything hastily about it, to knock on what is contained in it, to look for the thought of the Divine Scriptures hidden from many. These admonitions presuppose that Origen and Gregory had already been studying the Holy Scriptures and, moreover, for a long time, when the student had reached such a degree of knowledge of it that he could comprehend the “thought hidden from many” of it. If we take into account that, according to the depiction of the course of study in the thank-you speech, the interpretation of Holy Scripture constituted the highest, final part of the course, then we will hardly find a place for that break in the studies that I. Dreseke speaks about, especially energetically emphasizing the elementary nature of Origen’s instructions and thus suggesting that the break in the studies occurred when they were still in the initial stage, but not at the highest level. Contrary to I. Drazeke, it can be argued that the assumption about the origin of Origen’s letter after Gregory’s thank-you speech is not only not refuted by the correlation of the thoughts expressed in it, but even finds support in it. Origen’s persistent admonition to Gregory to continue studying the Holy Scriptures upon returning to his homeland is motivated by the fact “so as not to say or think anything about them (the Divine Scriptures) too hastily.” In this one can see the hidden reproach of St. Gregory, who in his speech of thanks spoke “too hastily” about the meaning of Origen’s interpretations, who alone can open what is closed, as the interpreter of divine words who received this gift from heaven (§§174–183). Against such exaggerations, Origen writes St. Gregory, further revealing the image he took: “knock on what is contained in it (the Divine Scripture), and it will be opened to you by the doorkeeper, about whom Jesus said: “to him the doorkeeper opens,” and indicates to his disciple that it is not enough to knock and seek, but prayer is also necessary in order to understand the divine Scriptures, and, finally, expresses the wish that he become a partaker of the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. And the final words: “I dared to do this because of my fatherly love for you” are reminiscent of the words of St. Gregory in a speech of gratitude that he is leaving the house of his true father (§ 189) 245. Thus, with sufficient grounds we can assume the origin of the message after the end of Gregory’s scientific studies with Origen and upon his return to his homeland. Returning to his pagan fatherland, St. Gregory, far from Christian influence, could, according to Origen, be in danger of not standing at the height of Christian knowledge and Christian aspirations to which he was elevated by him, and get carried away by the career of a public figure, giving independent significance to those pagan sciences, which for him should have served only as a propaedeutic to Christianity. The issue of Origen's removal during the persecution of Maximinus in Cappadocia has not been resolved in the scientific literature. The opinion that Origen spent two years in Cappadocia to avoid persecution by Maximinus is based on the authority of Palladius 246. P. Koechau 247 recognizes this news as an invention of Palladius and suggests that the error of this writer, in other respects completely unreliable, can be explained by a misunderstanding or distortion and combination of messages by Eusebius 248. Eusebius writes 249: “this bishop (Firmilian) was so attached to Origen that sometimes, for the benefit of the churches, he called him to his regions”... And further: “at this time (i.e., during the persecution of Maximinus) Origen wrote an essay on martyrdom and dedicated it to Ambrose and the presbyter of the Caesarea church Protoctitus, since both of them were in no small danger during this persecution. During the three-year reign of Maximinov, they really glorified themselves, they say, by confessing their faith. Origen indicated the time of this persecution in the twenty-second book of his commentaries on the Gospel of John and in various epistles.” In VI, 17, Eusebius reports information about the translator of the Old Testament Symmachus, and says that Origen received his heretical remarks on the Gospel of Matthew, along with other interpretations of the Holy Scripture, as he himself says, from a certain Juliana, and she, according to him, inherited them from Symmachus himself. Thus, the report of Origen's journey to Thythmilian in Cappadocia, the subsequent account of the history of the persecution of Maximinus and the mention of Juliana, who, according to Palladius, was a Christian virgin in Caesarea Cappadocia, for whom Origen struck two years during the persecution of Maximinus, according to II. Koechau, and gave rise to the assumption that Origen fled to Cappadocia during the persecution of Maximin. Meanwhile, Eusebius himself knows nothing about Origen’s flight and does not hint at it in a single word, even when he writes that Origen indicated the time of persecution in the 22nd book of his commentaries on the Gospel of John. According to P. Koechau, neither in Origen nor anywhere else, Eusebius found any indications regarding Origen’s flight to Cappadocia. However, Hell. Harnax, agreeing that the assumption of Origen’s two-year stay in Caesarea in Cappadocia is based only on the message of Palladius, does not dare to attribute this news simply to fables 250, and Professor V.V. Bolotov accepts it without any hesitation 251. But for our purpose in this case, this or that solution to this issue does not matter. It is certainly important to note here that, firstly, St. Gregory, in his speech of gratitude, decisively does not speak of any significant break in his studies with Origen, which would undoubtedly have been noted if such a break had existed and if it had lasted, as in this case, about two years. But even if Origen, and with him St. Gregory, during the persecution, remained in Caesarea in Palestine, then even in this case Gregory in his speech would have depicted general suffering or fears - at least, it would have been reflected in it one way or another 252. Consequently, regardless of whether Origen went to Caesarea in Cappadocia during the persecution of Maximinus or not, we get what can be said as an undoubted conclusion that the stay of St. Gregory in Caesarea Palestine does not fall at this time - it must be placed either before the persecution or after it - only without interruption. The question now remains of the contradiction that is observed between Eusebius’ message that St. Gregory stayed in Caesarea with Origen for five whole years, and in the words of St. Gregory that he had not made speeches before the meeting for eight years. In this regard, the following considerations can be given: first of all, St. himself. Gregory, in the words of his speech that are meant here (§3), does not establish a connection between his stay in the school of Origen and his lack of skill in making public speeches - he speaks only of the time when he ceased to study rhetoric. From the same speech of St. Gregory shows that before arriving in Caesarea, he had already been intensively studying Roman law for some time, which especially emphasizes the difficulty for him of studying the Latin language and Roman laws (§7), which is completely natural, especially for a Pontic. It is clear that at this time he could no longer engage in rhetoric. The study of laws should have been relatively long, since by the time of his trip to Caesarea he had already completed his legal education: he intended to go to Virit not because there was an urgent need for this, since, even without getting to the city where there was a higher Roman legal school, after five years of purely philosophical and theological studies, upon returning to his homeland, as shown by the conclusion of his thank-you speech (§192), he intended to immediately engage in legal practice 253. In addition, some time must be set aside for travel and stay in Caesarea before joining the ranks of Origen's disciples. In view of this, there is no reason to doubt the exact instructions of Eusebius, especially since another method of reconciling seemingly contradictory instructions cannot be considered valid. Thus, St. Gregory stayed in Origen's school for five years, which was the usual period of time in philosophical schools. To resolve the question of which years the stay of St. Gregory in Origen, it is still necessary to find out when Origen settled in Caesarea and how soon after that Gregory arrived there. On the first question, there is quite definite news from Eusebius, who writes: “it was the tenth year of the aforementioned reign (i.e., Alexander Severus), in which Origen moved from Alexandria to Caesarea, leaving the local catechetical school to Herakles; not long after him, the bishop of the Alexandrian church, Demetrius, died, serving for forty-three years. ἡγεμονίας, καθ ’ ὃ τὴν ἀπ ’ Ἀλβξανδρείας μετανάστασιν ἐπὶ τὴν Καισάριαν ὁ Ὠ ριγένης ποιησάμενος Ἠ ρακλ ᾷ τὸ τῆς κατηχήσεως τῶν αὐτόθι διδασκαλοῖον καταλείπει οὐκ εἰς μαχρὸν δὲ καὶ Δημὴτριος ὁ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων ἐπίσχοπος τελευτἀ, ἐφ ’ δλοις ετεσι τρισι καὶ τεσσοράκόντα τ ῇ λειτουργί ᾳ διαρκέσος ) 254 . If Eusebius extracted these exact data from the writings of Origen, which is very likely, then the year should be determined here from the Alexandrian point of view, and in Alexandria the 10th year of Alexander Severus ended on August 29, 231. On October 10, 231, Demetrius of Alexandria died, indeed not for long (οὐκ εἰς μακρόν) having survived the 10th year of Alexander Severus. “It is very improbable that Origen’s migration took place in the very first days of the 10th year. If Eusebius had actually read from Origen a chronological date that was so amazingly accurate, it would probably have been said explicite, e.g. ἀρχομένου δ ’ ἔτους δεκάτου – εὑθέως τὴν μετανάστασιν . And if the death of Demetrius followed in the same year in which the resettlement of Origen, then Eusebius would probably have expressed himself in the same way as in IV, 1; V, 21, 1, i.e. instead of οὐκ εἰς μακρὸν δὲ I would simply put ἐν ᾦ or ἐν τούτ ῳ. Origen himself in Joh.t. 6:1 says that even after he was “saved from Egypt,” the “enemy” insulted him in a “new message” and “raised against him all the winds of Egyptian malice.” All this took more than 40 days 255 (of course, from August 29 to October 10, 231). Thus, based on the text of Eusebius’s message, we can say that Origen’s resettlement to Caesarea Palestine was about half of the year 231. Whether this migration took place immediately and completely, or whether Origen still remained near Alexandria for some time, and after the death of Demetrius, to the bishopric of his former student and collaborator Heracles, tried to return to Alexandria, we do not know 256 and therefore we consider it necessary to remain at the certain date indicated by Eusebius. From the words of the thank you speech of St. Gregory: “and other things seemed to attract me towards this sacred man and brought me to this country from Egypt, from the city of Alexandria, where he lived before” (§ 63), they conclude that St. Gregory arrived in Caesarea almost simultaneously with Origen and that the beginning of his studies with Origen should be considered from 231 257; why teaching St. Gregory to Caesarea covers the years from 231 to 238 (with a break during the persecution of Maximinus), or from 233 to 238 (P. Koechau). But the words of St. Gregory in the accepted understanding of them does not exclude the assumption that Origen had already lived in Caesarea for a certain time when Gregory arrived there: his resettlement was an “event” and could not be obscured even after several years 258. In addition, it must be borne in mind that St. Gregory arrived in Caesarea to his relatives; then he should spend some time on his preliminary acquaintance with Caesarea, attempts to establish relations with the philosophers there, acquaintance with Origen, the desire to free himself from his beginning influence, as St. himself says. Grigory. But, in our opinion, the quoted words of St. Gregory does not at all contain a chronological relationship between Origen’s relocation to Caesarea and the arrival of St. Gregory. In this part of his speech, St. Gregory, with deep faith in Providence, depicts how, completely unexpectedly for himself, he was brought to Caesarea, where other circumstances, also, obviously, through the action of divine Providence, seemed to attract and lead Origen towards him. It is clear that in such a connection “as if towards” loses any chronological imprint and could have been used by St. Gregory, regardless of the number of years that have passed. St. Gregory undoubtedly knew what affairs forced Origen to leave Alexandria (§63), he also knew that Origen taught in Alexandria for about 30 years, and in view of this long stay of Origen in Alexandria, in a living speech, concisely representing the entire past life of the speaker from the point of view of the highest leadership manifested in it, a period of several years no longer mattered. If we take into account all the considerations expressed, then we can believe that St. Gregory arrived in Caesarea, or at least his lessons with Origen began already when the persecution of Maximinus had subsided, and Origen was calmly going about his business. This could have been in 236–237. Pushing back the start of classes for St. Gregory further does not seem possible in view of the fact that during the reign of Gordian (238–244) Origen’s long journey to Athens and Nicomedia falls, during which he completed his interpretation of Ezekiel and wrote five books of interpretation on the Song of Songs. Therefore, the end of the five-year stay of St. Gregory in Origen cannot be dated further than 242 - perhaps Origen’s supposed journey was partly the reason for the end of Gregory’s studies, although he himself, it must be said, says nothing about this. Thus, the speech of thanks was delivered by St. Gregory between 240 and 242, and Origen's letter from St. It was written to Gregory, perhaps from Nicomedia, after this, it is not known how soon after the separation, but in any case case before the dedication of St. Gregory to the rank of bishop 259. St. Gregory, in his speech of thanks to Origen, clearly says that, on the advice of his teacher in legal sciences, he intended to complete his studies in Roman law at the Virita law school or even in Rome, but he did not carry out his intention and remained in Caesarea Palestine, from where he went straight to his homeland. However, Jerome categorically asserts that Theodore, who was later named Gregory, bishop of the Pontic city of Neocaesarea, while still very young, went from Cappadocia to Viritus to study Greek and Latin sciences, and from there to Caesarea Palestine, taking with him his brother Athenodorus” 260. Jerome retells Svid 261, who used the Greek translation of the work of Blessed. Jerome. The historian Socrates evades the testimony of St. even more. Gregory: he writes 262 that Gregory of Neocaesarea, having left the Athenian schools, studied the laws in Virita, but having learned that in Caesarea Origen interprets St. Scripture, immediately went to Caesarea; listening here to the high explanation of St. Scripture, Gregory said goodbye to Roman laws and never left Origen. In view of the obvious contradiction in these reports about the journey and activities of St. Gregory in Virita and even in Athens with a definite statement of the course of his life and teaching by the saints themselves. Gregory, there is no need to dwell on their analysis - their source, undoubtedly, lies in the incorrect understanding of Gregory’s speech (by Blessed Jerome) and obvious embellishments that do not take into account historical facts (by Socrates). However, I. Drazeke finds it possible to use these messages for his assumption about the actual connection of St. Gregory with Viritus 263. He finds it probable and quite understandable that Gregory, during his five-year stay in Caesarea, repeatedly found leisure and by sea route quick and convenient ways to visit the city, which was pointed out to him several years before by his teacher, who advised him to go to Virit for further improvement in legal knowledge; Of course, he did not stay in Virita for long, but he had enough opportunity, as is natural for a young man so devoted to science, to get acquainted with the teachers there. For this assumption, I. Drazeke finds a basis in the very speech of gratitude of St. Gregory: here he speaks of modern philosophers of whom he either personally learned or heard from others (§127) - these philosophers of whom he himself learned must be philosophers whom he heard elsewhere. All things considered, it can only be Virit. But such an assumption by I. Drazeke remains only an assumption, not based on anything, since the philosophers of St. Gregory could have known both in Neocaesarea and in Caesarea Palestine, but about his trips to Virit, except for the obviously incorrect reports of Jerome and Socrates, there is no reliable news - the main thing is: St. himself. Gregory does not mention this, although... By the nature of speech, after pointing out the failure to fulfill the original intention of traveling to this city, he had every reason to talk about his acquaintance with it and with the scientists there. In addition, Jerome and Socrates place Viritus before Caesarea Palestine. St. Gregory returned to his native Neokesarea a completely different person than he had been when he left it several years ago. Then, brought up in a pagan environment and educated in a contemporary spirit, he did not even think about the possibility of a radical change in his spiritual life; Now through philosophy he was brought to the knowledge of Christian truth. Perhaps in Caesarea Palestine he received baptism itself - about the place and time of this sacred and important in the life of the saint. Gregory's act in ancient news we do not find any indications. To the father's house of St. Gregory appeared reborn. But, as the end of his speech of gratitude shows, at that time he still had the intention of plunging into the whirlpool of public life and was already mentally imagining the complete opposite of its bustle and quiet and serene life in Caesarea in Palestine. Origen listened to these assumptions, listened to St.’s own exposition. Gregory of his worldview, to which he gave wide space in his speech, and, incredibly, anxiety regarding the future of his gifted student crept into his soul. True, he left his teacher with the firm intention of preserving the seeds of Christian teaching he had sown and bearing fruit (§202); but St. himself is already here. Gregory feared that they would be imperfect and which would be feasible for his civilian activities. In addition, Origen obviously took into account the ardor of his student’s nature, as well as his still insufficiently deep penetration into the essence of Christian teaching: the philosophical interest that served as the basis for Origen’s influence on him remained dominant in him, but, on the other hand, even during separation it was expressed in a one-sided assessment of Christianity - only from a philosophical point of view, mainly as καλὴ φιλοσοφία, - the theological teaching taught to him by Origen had not yet become his independent conviction. All this taken together made Origen fear that his student, on whom he had high hopes, would become completely carried away by social activities, or, even worse, that he would not take the path of “Hellenic ingenuity” and follow the path of heretical fabrications. Worried by such fears, and perhaps having some news about the energetic social activities of St. Gregory, he probably, in a relatively short time, after separation, sent the student a letter in which he urged him to bring all his talent and knowledge to the service of Christianity and to engage in a careful study of the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures, prayerfully asking God for insight into those hidden from many of his thoughts. Since the return of St. Gregory to Neocaesarea, we are deprived of such valuable guidance for depicting his future life as St.’s speech of gratitude has hitherto been for us. Gregory. Information about his subsequent life and activities is contained in the laudatory word of St. Gregory of Nyssa, which, although it has historical value, but, as was said, is not distinguished by historical clarity and thoroughness. We encounter the absence of such certainty in the news in the solution of the first naturally presented question, namely, what field of life the saint chose. Gregory on his return to Neokesarea. It is usually stated that St. Gregory initially devoted himself to legal activities; but it must be said that this statement is based solely on the intentions expressed by St. Gregory in a speech of gratitude, and has no basis for himself in the sources. Gregory of Nyssa writes that in his fatherland, St. Gregory, when all the people turned their attention to him. and everyone expected that he would reveal his learning publicly in general meetings, so that in praise and fame he would receive some fruit of his long-term labors, knowing where those who have carefully mastered it should begin to preach true philosophy, so as not to wound their souls with the passion of curiosity, shows his wisdom by silence, showing the treasure located in him with deeds, and not with words: having moved away from the noise of the squares and from all city life in general, in He remained in solitude with himself and through himself with God, caring little about the whole world and its affairs, not being curious about state affairs, not asking about the leaders, not listening to stories about how public affairs were going, but caring about how to bring the soul to perfection through virtue 264. The Syrian Life (§2) 265 also depicts him as a hermit who found his joy in the desert of the mountains: his soul completely surrendered to this blissful joy and strove for a perfect way of life, and his fame spread in many cities. We have no reason not to trust these reports, since Gregory’s inclination towards alienation from the world was clearly revealed already in his speech of gratitude to Origen. The Pontus Mountains provided a convenient place for solitude. In the vicinity of Neocaesarea, St. subsequently labored. Vasily Vel. with Gregory the Theologian, finding this place, due to its deserted silence, convenient for philosophy. But this news actually speaks of a later stage of the spiritual development of St. Gregory, without defining how he came to renounce his intentions to devote himself to social activities, although they already contained the necessary data for the direction of his life depicted by Gregory of Nyssa and in the Syrian life. Therefore, it is psychologically consistent, although, we repeat, there is no positive news for this, to assume that St. Upon returning to his homeland, Gregory took up household chores and entered the legal field, but could not devote himself entirely to practical activities: the mood that dominated the school of Origen and which he so vividly depicted in his speech took over him too much - it attracted him to other ideals, to a different service. Origen's letter was supposed to make a strong impression on him: it revived in him the image of the “true father,” all his instructions, the whole situation of life in Caesarea in Palestine, and the vanity of public life was supposed to appear before him in all its ugliness. So, one might think, it happened with St. Gregory’s decision to “move away from the noise of the squares and from all city life and in solitude to abide with yourself and through yourself with God.” We do not know how much time was devoted to one and the other life. In any case, it is hardly possible to allow a particularly rapid change here. After Maximinus the Thracian came the reigns of first Gordian (238–244) and then Philip the Arabian (244–249), when Christianity existed and spread peacefully. At such a time, the conversion to Christianity of St. Gregory could become a well-known fact, but at the same time it should have attracted attention due to the fact that St. Gregory belonged to the highest circle of Neo-Caesarean society and received a good education. His subsequent withdrawal from public activities, one might think, seemed incomprehensible to the people of the world; but for the zealots of Christianity it represented factual and decisive confirmation that a beneficial revolution had indeed taken place in the life of Gregory. This circumstance did not escape the attention of the Amasian bishop Fedim. Unfortunately, no news has survived about him; but one might think that he was devoted to the cause of spreading Christianity and was probably busy with the thought of organizing church life in such an important point as Neokesarea. “Until that time,” says Gregory of Nyssa, this city was possessed by the delusion of idols, so that out of the countless number of inhabitants inhabiting the city itself and its environs, there were no more than seventeen people who accepted the faith.” 266 At the end of his laudatory speech, Gregory of Nyssa says that, foreknowledge of his death, St. Gregory carefully investigated throughout the surrounding area, wanting to know if anyone else remained alien to the faith, and learned that no more than seventeen people remained in the old error 267 . This is the same statement that by the beginning of the work of St. Gregory there were only seventeen Christians in Neocaesarea, and by the end of it only seventeen pagans remained, the author of the Syrian Life (§15) puts into the mouth of the saint himself. Gregory. About the seventeen Christians in Neocaesarea before the bishopric there of St. Gregory says and St. Basil the Great. Obviously the number “seventeen” in local legend was very stable, having a historical basis for itself, at least in its first part, as we find in St. Basil the Great. 268 But Fedimus of Amasia recognized it as possible and, for missionary purposes, necessary to give the neo-Caesarean community full church organization even with such a small number of Christians. The results fully justified the validity of his assumptions. Fedim decided to put St. at the head of the neo-Caesarean church. Gregory. It is quite natural to assume that Fedim knew him well. It is safe to say that St. Gregory, having returned from Caesarea in Palestine as a Christian, immediately entered into communication with the Christians of Neocaesarea and neighboring areas, including the Amasian bishop. The latter himself could pay special attention to the noble and educated neo-Caesarean. Probably, Fedim influenced Gregory in the matter of changing the direction of his life. When Gregory abandoned public life and retired into solitude, then the connection between him and Fedim could strengthen even more. Thus, Fedim undoubtedly had sufficient grounds for his decision. But St. Gregory wanted to decisively avoid such a responsible service. A native of Neocaesarea, he knew well the difficulties that lay ahead of him in carrying out the task assigned to him by Phaedim; in addition, episcopal service naturally distracted him from solitude and returned him to the whirlpool of social activity. But Fedim also knew whom he wanted to appoint, he knew what benefits his installation as a bishop would bring precisely in Neocaesarea. It was unusual for a semi-barbarian country for the son of one of the most noble families, who had received an excellent education, to devote himself to the service of the Church. For missionary purposes, in connection with the personal merits of St. Gregory, and this circumstance was important. All this makes understandable Fedim’s insistence on placing a young, but spiritually mature, saint on the candlestick of the neo-Caesarean church. Gregory. Gregory of Nyssa describes the efforts of Phaedim to achieve the installation of Gregory as bishop of Neocaesarea. “When Fedim, who at that time was the head of the Amasian church and had the power of insight into the future from above from the Holy Spirit, used all his efforts, having taken possession of the great Gregory, to give him leadership in the church so that he would not spend such a good life idly and uselessly, then he, having learned about the saint’s intention, decided to hide, moving from one desert to another. The glorious Fedim tried all means, used all the art and diligence, but could not bring this man to the priesthood, who took all precautions so as not to be taken by the hand of the saint; both of them bickered in their efforts, one wanting to catch, the other wanting to avoid the pursuer, for one knew that he would bring God a sacred gift, and the other was afraid that the concerns of the priesthood attached to life, like some kind of burden, would serve as an obstacle to his wisdom. After this, Fedim, overwhelmed by some divine impulse towards the intended goal, not paying any attention to the distance separating him from Gregory (for he was three days away from him), but looking up to God and saying that God at this hour equally sees him and him, instead of a hand puts a word on Gregory, dedicating him to God, although he was not present in body, assigning him this city, which until that time was obsessed with idolatry delusion" 269. In essence, the narrative of the Syrian life 270 is similar to this. In this extraordinary way, St. Gregory was installed in the episcopal see. St. Gregory believed that he could not resist this appointment, although made in such an unusual way. Gregory of Nyssa says that after this everything legalized was done to him ( that is, undoubtedly, everything that was required for consecration as a bishop. 271 In what year did St. Gregory was installed as a bishop, it is not known for sure - only a few thoughts can be expressed on this issue. Vsebius reports 272 that both brothers, Gregory and Athenodorus, were recognized in their youth as worthy of bishopric over the Pontic churches. Here, as you can see, there is no chronological certainty; from the connection of speech one can only conclude that. the installation of Gregory and Athenodorus as bishops cannot be moved particularly far from their stay in Caesarea in Palestine. On the other hand, during the persecution of Decius (249–251) St. Gregory was already the bishop of Neocaesarea, and by this time his activities had already achieved significant results 273 - therefore, before the beginning of the reign of Decius, several years of the bishopric of St. had already passed. Gregory. If we keep in mind that St. Gregory returned to Neocaesarea between 241 and 242; everything that happened here between his return to his homeland and his installation as a bishop also took several years, then the beginning of the episcopal service of St. Gregory must be placed around the year 245. In this regard, it is possible to approximately indicate the time of his birth, for which we did not previously have discussed data. ’ Ἐτι νέος Eusebius cannot be exaggerated: St. Gregory was ordained bishop when he was no younger than 30 years old, and perhaps older - this is in accordance with the practice of the ancient Church; in this case, the time of its birth must be assumed between 210–215 - a more accurate dating will be arbitrary, since we do not know the timing of its formation and the intervals between its different stages. Forced to take upon himself the burden of episcopal service, St. Grigory felt very embarrassed. He clearly saw that the philosophical understanding of Christianity that he had acquired was not entirely suitable for his new ministry, when he had to preach not only to educated people, but mainly to the simple masses; and St. Gregory, according to Gregory of Nyssa, “having asked from those who appointed him the priesthood for a short time to understand exactly the sacrament (faith), he no longer found it necessary to turn, as the apostle says (Gal. 1:16), to flesh and blood, but asked himself from above for the revelation of mysteries and not before he dared to preach the word, as the truth was revealed to him by some appearance” 274. However, it is quite natural that St. Gregory told Fedim about his confusion and bewilderment, 275 who shared with him the results of his missionary experience, talked with him on issues of faith, and from these conversations, perhaps, he was especially convinced of the need for “accurate understanding of the sacrament of faith” of divine help. The very fact, for the communication of which the words now cited serve as a preparation, is depicted by Gregory of Nyssa as follows. “Once, when he spent the whole night thinking about the subject of faith and was agitated by various thoughts (for at that time there were some people who distorted pious teaching and, with faith-like speculations, often presented the truth as doubtful even to the reasonable); - at this time, when he, preoccupied with the search for this truth, spent the night without sleep, a certain man in human form appears in reality, an old man in appearance, resplendent in the design of his clothes, both by the pleasantness of his face and by the slenderness of his appearance, revealing signs of great virtue. When he, frightened by the vision, was afraid to get out of bed and ask who he was and why he had come, he, calming his spiritual confusion with a meek voice, said that he had appeared to him, by divine command, to resolve his perplexities, to reveal the truth of the pious faith. At these words, courage returned to him, and he looked at him with some joy and amazement. Then, when he extended his hand and, with straight-pointed fingers, seemed to point to a phenomenon standing to the side, he, turning his gaze in the direction of his hand, saw opposite the face of what appeared another vision in a female form, more excellent than a human one - and again he was frightened to the point that he bowed his face, confused by the vision and not being able to bear this phenomenon with his eyes; The extraordinary nature of the vision lay especially in the fact that in the deepest night such a light surrounded those who appeared to him, as if some kind of bright lamp had been lit. So, when he was unable to bear this phenomenon with his eyes, he heard a conversation between the persons who appeared to him, who were talking to each other about the subject of his research. Through this conversation, he not only learned the true knowledge of faith, but also recognized those who appeared by name, because each called the other by his own name. So, they say, he heard that the one who appeared in female form asked the Evangelist John to reveal the secret of piety to the young (bishop), and he said that he was ready to please the Mother of the Lord in this, since it pleased Her. Thus, having uttered (this secret) in harmonious and short words, they again disappeared from view. Gregory immediately put this divine revelation into writing, after which he preached the word of God in the church and left this God-given teaching as a kind of legacy to his descendants; The people of this city have been secretly taught even to this day by this teaching, remaining inviolable from all heretical malice.” Gregory of Nyssa also cites the very text of the “secret teaching” 276. Having received through this revelation “some boldness and courage,” St. Gregory “sets out for feat”: “for nothing else,” says Gregory of Nyssa, “his entire life in the priesthood should be called exploits and struggle, during which he labored by faith against all the forces of the enemy” 277. Indeed, the widest field opened up for intense activity: at this time, “the whole country,” according to the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa, was possessed by demonic flattery; nowhere was a church built for the true God; the whole city and neighboring settlements were filled with altars, churches and idols, since all the people tried to decorate the churches and churches of idols and to establish insane idolatry among people, supporting it with sacrifices and rituals and unclean sacrifices” 278. But, on the other hand, to begin the activities of St. Gregory also had very favorable circumstances: firstly, the reign of Gordian and Philip the Arabian was a time of favorable attitude towards Christians and a weakening of popular fanaticism, and secondly, the former social position of St. Gregory, his fame as an educated man who showed great promise, opened up wide scope for his missionary influence, ensuring, under these conditions, a warm welcome in society, especially the highest. A reflection of this attitude towards St. Gregory can be seen in the narrative of Gregory of Nyssa about the solemn welcome given to him by the inhabitants of Neocaesarea. Apparently no longer having property, he stayed here in the house of a certain Musonius, a well-known man in the city, who “by family, wealth and everything else he possessed was considered among the first” 279 . Eusebius does not report anything about the episcopal activities of St. Gregory. One might think that St. Gregory focused his attention and strength primarily on the multiplication and organization of his church and, like a true and faithful shepherd, lived exclusively for the good of the flock entrusted to him. The more intense and limited in location his activity was, the more success it could achieve. Gregory of Nyssa says that his activities immediately attracted masses of people to him: “those who heard his word at first were a small number; but before the day was over and the sun had set, so many of them had joined the first assembly that the multitude of those who believed was sufficient to constitute a people. In the morning, people again appear at the door, along with them wives, and children, and those elderly and suffering from demons or some other ailment. And he, standing in the middle, gave by the power of the Holy Spirit to each of those gathered what corresponded to his needs: he preached, reasoned, exhorted, taught, healed. And he especially attracted many to his preaching because he had the same effect on both sight and hearing, and through both he showed clear signs of divine power, for hearing was amazed by the word, and sight by miracles performed on the sick. The one who cried received consolation, the young man received admonition, the old man was instructed with decent speeches, slaves so that they obey their masters, owners so that they treated their subordinates philanthropically; He taught the poor that the only wealth is virtue, that this property can be acquired by anyone who wants; on the contrary, he admonished and taught the one with wealth that he was only the manager of his estate, and not the master. He gave decent rules to wives, age-appropriate children, and decent rules to fathers.” “All the inhabitants of both the city and its environs were amazed by the apostolic miracles and believed that everything he said and did was done and said by divine power. In controversial everyday matters, no other court was known higher than him, but every dispute and all intractable and confusing matters were resolved by his advice. From here, through his beneficial influence, legal justice and peace were established in the city, both for everyone in general and for everyone in particular; much good came, both in particular and in general, because no evil violated mutual agreement” 280. In these words, of course, one must see a generalization of the results of the entire activity of St. Gregory in Neokesarea and its environs. St. Gregory of Nyssa was clearly aware that such an extraordinary success of the preaching of St. Gregory may even seem incredible, and yet he resolutely insists on the correctness of his message: “as for the rapid conversion of an entire people,” he says, “from Hellenic vanity to the knowledge of the truth, then let each of the readers of the story about this marvel at this, but let no one doubt it, bearing in mind the ways of Providence by which such a change was accomplished in those who turned from lies to truth” 281. Gregory of Nyssa casually notes, obviously on the basis of the Pontic tradition, a very characteristic feature in the missionary activity of the modest saint, wholly devoted to the interests of his educational ministry. Reporting that St. Gregory was asked to protect residents from disasters caused by the river. Likom, Gregory of Nyssa writes: “So, he came to the (designated) place, because laziness never served as an obstacle to his good, and he did not need a chariot, or horses, or anything else for his journey, but leaning on one rod, he made the whole journey, contemplating with his companions about the desired heavenly life” 282. Having received a comprehensive and deep education, St. Gregory became an educator not only of the common people, but also of representatives of the intelligent classes of neo-Caesarean society. This is partly indicated by Gregory of Nyssa, in the words just cited, noting his love for reasoning about sublime subjects. But his works especially clearly testify to this, in which he gives answers to questions in the Christian faith that seemed inconvenient to the pagans - they show at the same time what kind of perplexities he had to deal with. Thus, in a lost conversation with Elian, according to the testimony of St. Basil the Great 283, he convinced the pagans on the issue of the Holy Trinity and in this, not considering it necessary to observe precision in the statements, sometimes yielded to the customs of the instructed, so that he would not contradict the main thing. In his treatise to Theopompus, he considers the question in what sense we can talk about the suffering of God, and in his solution he was supposed to refute the views of the Epicureans about the indifferent attitude towards the world of the Divine, who is in inviolable peace. Perhaps due to the spread of Epicurean views and ideals in the surrounding St. Gregory’s society, not only pagan, but also Christian, stands for his “Arrangement of Ecclesiastes.” In his treatise on the soul to Tatiam, he gives guidance for the defense of the correct teaching, therefore a very important point in the system of Christian teaching, not on the basis of Holy Scripture, but through rational arguments, and in a letter to Evagrius he resolves the most essential question of the Christian confession - the relationship of the unity of the divine being to the trinity of Persons. With such a variety of methods of missionary activity, embracing all layers of society, the success of this activity undoubtedly loses its apparent unusualness, the narrative of which, according to the assumption of Gregory of Nyssa, could cause bewilderment in his listeners, bordering on disbelief. Believers in Neokesarea, as in other places, gathered for worship and teaching in private homes. But when their number increased significantly, St. Gregory, taking advantage of favorable circumstances during the reign of Philip the Arabian, decided to begin the construction of a special building for the church. According to the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa, believers contributed to this enterprise with labor and money. He actually laid the foundation for the construction of this church, and one of his successors decorated it with dignity. This church existed during the time of Gregory of Nyssa. It was built in the most prominent place in the city, as if it were some kind of foundation for the priesthood of St. Gregory. And in the construction of this church some divine power was manifested, as subsequent times testified. Gregory of Nyssa reports that “during a powerful earthquake that once happened in our times in the city (Neokesarea), when all the buildings, both private and public, collapsed and turned into ruins, this one church remained intact and unharmed” 284. Spreading the teachings of faith in Neokesarea and its immediate surroundings, St. Gregory could not help but pay attention to the center of paganism in its most fascinating form for the people - the neighboring city of Neokesarea, Pontic Comani, famous for its temple of the goddess Ma, with a richly furnished corrupting cult. For the further success of Christianity, it was necessary to strike a blow at paganism in this sensitive point for it. Therefore St. Gregory apparently made every effort to organize church life here. St. Gregory of Nyssa 285 and the Syrian Life 286 tell in detail about his appointment of the coal miner Alexander as bishop of this city, who turned out to be worthy of the high task for which he was called 287. The time of the establishment of the episcopal see in Pontic Comana is unknown, but one can think that it was during the period of peace and freedom for Christians, which they enjoyed during the reign of Philip the Arabian. After several years of bishopric, St. Gregory suddenly suffered the persecution of Decius, which also extended to Pontus. By this time, the missionary activity of St. Gregory achieved great success: it seemed that idolatry was completely destroyed in Neocaesarea and its environs. “The Divine preaching spread everywhere, and all the inhabitants of both the city and its environs were converted to the pious teaching of the faith, the altars, churches and idols in them were destroyed; human life has already been cleansed from idolatrous filth, and the unclean incense of the victims has died out, sacrificial blood and uncleanness from the slaughter of animals have been washed away; everyone carefully erected prayer churches in the name of Christ in every place. The false rites of the fathers are despised, and the Christian mystical teaching multiplied, and the church spread throughout the universe, increasing and increasing in number constantly joining this teaching” 288. In Pontus, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa, the ruler, was a man who did not need a special command to persecute Christians: he was by nature bloodthirsty and cruel and hated those who believed the Word. Upon receiving the decree, he announced to the people a strict order that they must either renounce the faith or undergo all kinds of torture and death. Gregory of Nyssa paints a vivid picture of the persecution that befell Christians. St. Gregory, knowing the weakness of human nature, understood that many of his young flock would not be able to endure cruel torment, and in order to prevent apostasy, he advised everyone to withdraw from this terrible scourge for a while, “considering it better for them to flee to save their soul than to be fugitives of faith while standing in the battle line.” But not everyone shared this view; there were also those who considered it dangerous for the soul to save the faith by flight. Then St. Gregory resolves these doubts by his own example, retiring with the believers, as Dionysius of Alexandria and Cyprian of Carthage did during the same persecution. Meanwhile, as Gregory of Nyssa says, in perfect agreement with what is known about the nature of the persecution of Decius, primarily directed against the heads of the churches, the leaders had a special goal that, through St. Gregory, as a captive leader, destroyed the entire system of faith, and for this reason the enemies tried to capture him into their own hands. From the narrative of Gregory of Nyssa we can conclude that St. Gregory retired to the nearby mountains; but the authorities did not lose hope of finding him here, and for this purpose they sent reliable people in search, who, however, were not successful. St. Gregory of Nyssa reports both about these persecutions and how he miraculously got rid of them 289. But with St. Not all Christians of the neo-Caesarean church left Gregory: some of them suffered not only before the removal of St. Gregory, but after this, and between them, the martyr Troadius, whose name was preserved by Gregory of Nyssa, was tortured by fire, as the Syrian life reports 290. Like a zealous shepherd, St. Gregory, after the end of the persecution, the duration of which in Pontus cannot be determined, hastened to personally verify the state of his church after the trial that befell it and walked around the entire surrounding country. One can imagine the mood of the believers when the holy inspiration caused by the persecution passed: the loss of many members was undoubtedly deeply felt, and it was necessary to find an outlet for the natural feeling and to encourage them for the future in the event of an always possible repetition of persecution. St. Gregory “instituted a certain addition to worship everywhere, legalizing (celebrating) solemn holidays in honor of those who suffered for the faith. The remains of the martyrs were distributed in various places, and the people, gathering annually at certain times, rejoiced, celebrating in honor of the martyrs." 291 But St. Gregory could not help but notice that those recently converted from paganism continued to perform pagan festivals that flattered their sensuality, especially, of course, in honor of the goddess Ma. Therefore, he decides to take such a measure, which shows in him a prudent shepherd who understands the soul of his flock. Gregory of Nyssa writes: “and this serves as proof of his great wisdom that he, suddenly transferring the contemporary generation to a new life and, as it were, a certain charioteer assigned to (human) nature, firmly holding them with the bridle of faith and knowledge of God, allowed the obedient ones to play with joy under the yoke of faith. Having noticed that the foolish and ignorant majority of the people adhere to the error of idolatry due to (combined with it) carnal amusements, in order to achieve success in relation to them mainly in the main thing, i.e. so that instead of the vain objects of their reverence they would turn their gaze to God, he allowed them to have fun on the days of remembrance of the holy martyrs, to indulge in joy and rejoicing, so that over time they would move on their own to a more holy and strict life under the guidance of faith, and this has already happened to many: with them all pleasure, having lost the (character of) bodily amusement, took the form of spiritual joy” 292. Before the Pontic Church had time to recover from the shock caused to it by the persecution, a new, even more severe disaster befell it; it was the Vorads and Goths (Βοράδοι καὶ Γότθοι), after the conquest of Trebizond, who invaded Pontus and Bithynia and devastated them in the most terrible way. Indications of this invasion and the disaster associated with it are found in the canonical letter of St. Gregory. Despite its brevity, the message, written immediately after the invasion and under the vivid impression of it, makes it possible to visually and clearly present the events of the then terrible reality. Residents fled in horror from their enemies, abandoning their homes and all their property; many were killed, and even more were taken captive, where the captives were forced to eat food with the barbarians. Women were subjected to violence, and some, apparently, voluntarily indulged in debauchery. The property was plundered, but either due to haste, or due to the abundance and severity of the booty, much was left in empty houses, scattered along the way. Apparently, it also happened that the barbarian had already broken into a house with booty, found the best here, so he left what he had previously captured and took a new one. The cattle, not taken by the robbers and left unattended, wandered through the fields. Unfortunately, the disaster was not limited to these external deprivations: very sad phenomena were revealed in the inner life of the Christian population itself. And the most disastrous consequence of the invasion was that it unleashed the lower instincts, revealing very unsightly sides of a people obviously not deeply imbued with the spirit of the new faith. So, some, previously captured, quickly became wild, forgot that they were Pontians and Christians, and together with the enemies they took part in attacks on their fellow tribesmen, killed them and robbed them; they even became the leaders of the raid: in the mountainous country, the Vorads and Goths could not quickly find their bearings and therefore, perhaps, would not have noticed much, in general they would not have been able to quickly move forward in an unknown area: but these traitors and traitors showed them the way to settlements that they had not noticed. After the removal of the enemies, many wanted to take advantage of the public disaster and general confusion in the interests of the most vile greed: they sought profit from the blood and death of escaped or killed prisoners. Some simply kept the property they found from others; others, in the words of St. Gregory, became Vorads and Goths for their fellow tribesmen and brazenly seized other people's property on the grounds that during the invasion they had lost theirs. Some reached such “cruelty and inhumanity” that they forcibly held in captivity their fellow tribesmen and fellow citizens who had escaped from captivity, either as slaves, or perhaps with the aim of selling them on occasion. In the Canonical Epistle the barbarians who invaded Pontus are called Vorades and Goths; since the Vorads were put in first place, the initiative and leadership of the raid apparently belonged to them. This combination of tribes gives reason to identify this invasion with the one reported by the historian Zosimus (late 4th or early 5th century), who in this case writes out a contemporary of the Gothic raids on the Roman Empire, the historian Dexippus. Zosima reports (1, 31–34) 293 that the Vorans, Goths, Carps and Urugunds, the tribes living along the Ister, did not leave a single part of Italy and Illyricum unravaged and took possession of everything without any opposition. The Ravens even tried to penetrate the Asia Minor coast of the Black Sea and, indeed, soon realized their intention with the help of the inhabitants of the Vosporan kingdom, 294 who, out of fear of them, gave them their ships and showed them the way when crossing the sea. While they had kings who received power according to the correct order of inheritance from father to son, they, due to friendship with the Romans, the benefits of trade relations and gifts sent to them annually by the emperors, constantly kept the Scythians, which in the language of Zosimas is equivalent to the Goths. When the royal family ceased, Zosima obviously wants to say that as a result of indignation the previous dynasty was overthrown - and unworthy people became the head of government, then, as is said, out of fear they allowed the enemies of Rome to pass through Vospor to Asia and even transported them on their own ships, which they took back and returned home 295. The Ravens and Goths thus appeared on the eastern coast of the Black Sea, plundering and devastating everything in their path. They reached Pitiunta (now Pitsunda). Here they encountered strong opposition. The city itself was protected by a strong wall, and at the head of the garrison was the intrepid and experienced warrior Successian, a man of the old Roman style. All enemy attacks were repulsed with great damage. The barbarians, fearing that the garrisons of other fortresses would come to the rescue, captured the ships and returned home with great danger. Saved by the courage and foresight of Successian, the inhabitants of the coast of the Euxine Pontus cherished the hope that the Scythians, frightened by the defeat at Pitiunta, would not dare to attack again. But Emperor Valerian recalled the valiant defender Pitiuntus Successian to Antioch, appointed him praefectus praetorio and instructed him to restore and organize Antioch, devastated by the Persians. As soon as the news of this reached the Goths, they undertook a new campaign on Vosporan ships; but this time they detained the ships and did not allow their escorts to sail back. After a vain attempt to take possession of the church of Artemis at Phasis (near present-day Poti), the riches of which greatly attracted them, they again headed on their ships to Pitiunt. This time they took possession of the fortification very easily. Meanwhile, summer has come - the most favorable time for sailing. The Goths decided to continue their raid. For this they had enough ships, and from the numerous captives they selected the most skilled rowers and sailed to Trebizond, on the Cappadocian coast of the Pontus. The city was rich and with a large population; Since the time of Hadrian, it became the center of local government, had a well-arranged harbor, was surrounded by a double ring of walls, and was heavily fortified. It was guarded by a garrison, significant in number, but extremely dissolute and careless. Residents of the surrounding area, frightened by the approach of the barbarians, fled to the fortress, taking with them everything valuable. The garrison, confident in the indestructibility of the walls, did not even allow the thought that the barbarians could take the city, and showed criminal negligence, without even establishing proper surveillance of the besiegers. Taking advantage of this, the enemies at night dragged the previously prepared logs to the walls, climbed the defenseless walls and quietly entered the city in small detachments. The garrison was seized with horror; part of him fled to the opposite gate, others were beaten. A difficult fate befell the large population of the city. Many prisoners and all kinds of treasures were taken as booty by the barbarians. Churches and other rich buildings were destroyed, and their ruins for a long time served as reminders of the terrible invasion. Without encountering opposition, the barbarians passed through almost the entire Pontus, plundering, killing and devastating. One might think that the main stream of this destructive invasion was directed along the beautiful, fertile and densely populated valleys of the Lika River. Before Neocaesarea, as can be concluded from the letter of St. Gregory, the enemies haven’t arrived. Then, as quickly as they had appeared, they returned home in their ships, taking away a huge number of captives and rich booty. These are the details of the barbarian invasion of Pontus. The invasion of the Vorads and Goths, which served as the occasion for the “Canonical Epistle” of St., is usually identified with him. Gregory. It must, however, be noted that this invasion was not the only one; there is evidence that later, in 264, the Goths were in Cappadocia, captured the cities and from there headed their way to Bithynia 296. However, the details of the invasion depicted by St. Gregory, the connection of the Vorads and the Goths and, in general, the great certainty in Zosima’s narrative about the raid of the Vorans and the Goths inclines us to admit that it was precisely the invasion from which those led by St. suffered. Gregory Pontic churches. When did this invasion take place? Drazeke, based on an analysis of the news of Zosimas about the attacks of the Gothic tribes on the Roman Empire, persistently proves that the first, unsuccessful campaign of the Vorans and Goths on the eastern coast of the Black Sea was in 253, and the next, which ended with the capture of Trebizond and the plunder of Pontus, in the summer of 254 297. But other researchers, using the same history of Zosima, date the last raid to 256 298, 257 299 and, finally, to 258 300. This is explained by the fact that Zosimas does not have exact chronological dates, and regarding the raids of the Vorans and Goths that he talks about, one can only say that they took place during the reign of Valerian and his son and co-ruler Gallienus. No other basis for chronological calculations, outside the history of Zosima, has yet been found. Therefore, if the usual opinion is true that the letter of St. Gregory was caused by the consequences of that raid of the Vorans and Goths, which is reported in the history of Zosimus, then regarding the time of this invasion we can only say that it was during the reign of Valerian (253–260), but not earlier than 254, since a year before the invasion of Pontus they made an unsuccessful raid on Pitiunt 301. Thus, St. Gregory had to fulfill a difficult pastoral task - to condemn and punish those who committed such grave violations of the requirements of not only Christian love and mercy, but also the most ordinary love of mankind, on the other hand, and not completely alienate the still few cultured Pontians from the church. The bishops of the Pontic churches experienced great difficulty and, as the letter shows, one of them (and perhaps several) turned to the founder of the Pontic church and the authoritative leader and interpreter of church institutions, St. Gregory of Neocaesarea with a request for clarification and instructions. St. Gregory responded with a message, which he sent with Euphrosynus, one might think, a neo-Caesarean presbyter; the latter had to not only deliver the message, but also establish the practice of the neo-Caesarean church everywhere and judge from whom he should accept accusations and who should be excommunicated from prayer. From the subsequent life of St. Gregory is known to have participated in the first Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosata, which took place in 264. Eusebius reports that Dionysius of Alexandria was also invited to this council, but, apologizing for his old age and physical weakness, he refused to attend personally and presented his opinion on this issue in writing. “The rest of the shepherds of the churches rushed towards Paul from all sides and hastily gathered in Antioch. Of these, the most famous were: the Bishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia Firmilian, the pastors of the Pontic dioceses - brothers Gregory and Athenodorus, then the Tarsian diocese of Helen and Iconian - Nikomas, etc. 302. Blazh. Theodoret puts St. Gregory is in first place: “of those gathered,” he writes, “the leaders were Gregory the Great, the famous, who performed the miracles sung by everyone for the sake of the grace of the Spirit dwelling in him, and Athenodorus, his brother, and Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, a glorious man, possessing both external and divine knowledge,” etc. 303. It is clear that at this cathedral of St. Gregory occupied a prominent place, and, one might think, this was due to his high education, his widely known fruitful activities, and his position as metropolitan of the churches of his district. But it would be very important for us to find out what caused his presence at this council, directed against the heretic Paul of Samosata? It would be most natural to assume that the Pontic shepherds hastened to Antioch because heresy had managed to penetrate into Pontus; however, we cannot say this due to the complete absence of any data. It is not impossible, of course, that the dangerous religious movement in Antioch found echoes in Pontus. But St. Gregory could have been aware of it in the same way as Dionysius of Alexandria, Firmilian of Caesarea-Cappadocia and others, and, comprehending the essence of the new heresy, as well as clearly representing the consequences of its spread that would be detrimental to truly Christian religious consciousness, he hastened to this council, which, however, did not pass a definite condemnation on Paul of Samosata 304; however, from communication with the most prominent bishops gathered in Antioch, he undoubtedly learned even more accurately the essence of this heresy and its relationship to the Orthodox confession. The presence of St. Gregory at the Council of Antioch, without providing material for judging the state of his church, introduces a new feature into the characterization of the neo-Caesarean saint: he listened sensitively to all sorts of religious movements and eagerly responded to them, both for the sake of protecting the purity of the general church teaching and the observance of his flock in it. And St. Vasily, obviously, in this aspect of the activity of St. Gregory had reason when he wrote to the neo-Caesarean church: “the storm of heretical winds, which brought changeable souls to ruin and drowning, did not concern you. And may it never touch you, O Lord of all, who for the longest time granted the grace of serenity to Your servant Gregory, who originally laid the foundation of this church” 305. In 268 there was the “last” Council of Antioch on the case of Paul of Samosata. Eusebius does not list the participants in this council, but instead gives a list of bishops who signed the conciliar letter 306. Among them there is no name of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea. There is no reason to assume that here he is understood under the name Theodore 307, since, firstly, the same Eusebius previously called him Gregory, and it is not clear why he would have been given a different name here; secondly, contrary to the previous attribution of St. Gregory to the famous, among the bishops who signed the letter, Theodore is named in last place. But from the fact that St. Gregory was not at the council; it does not follow that he died before this council. This usual conclusion seems to have its basis in the fact that another famous participant in the first Council of Antioch, Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, was not present at the last council really because he died in Tarsus, on the way to Antioch 308. However, in relation to St. Gregory, the possibility of such a conclusion, which does not have documentary evidence for itself, is further complicated by the fact that the brother of St. Gregory - Athenodorus. Is it necessary to assume that both brothers died between the councils of 264 and 268? Perhaps some local business kept them both in Pontus. Svida believes the death of Gregory during the reign of Aurelian, and although his message cannot be of importance, since he is in the news of St. Gregory is not independent at all, but there is no reason to dispute this news! One might therefore think that St. Gregory died no earlier than 270: but, we repeat, nothing justifies the definite dating of his death to 270. If the birth of St. Gregory dates back to the time between 210–215, then he died at the age of about 60 years. St. Gregory, according to the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa, foresaw his death. He wanted to carefully explore throughout the surrounding area to see if anyone else remained alien to the faith, and he learned that no more than seventeen people remained in error. Lifting his gaze to God, he expressed grief over the imperfection of the completeness of those being saved; but at the same time he expressed gratitude that he was leaving to his successor in governing the neo-Caesarean church as many pagans as he himself found Christians here. Having prayed that those who had already believed would prosper in perfection, and those who did not believe would be converted, he departed from human life to God. St. Gregory bequeathed to those close to him not to buy a special place for his burial, because, not having any property and spending his life in other people’s dons, he wanted to be a “priest” of someone else’s grave after death 309. Rufinus calls St. Gregory as a martyr (martyr); the same can be deduced from the testimony of the fifth and sixth council; but neither Gregory of Nyssa nor St. Basil the Great is not spoken of about his martyrdom. Therefore, we can believe that he, like his older contemporary - St. Dionysius of Alexandria, rested in peace. The best assessment of the life and work of St. We find Gregory at St. Basil the Great, who, both from his childhood memories 310 and from his family legends, is the most reliable witness. He writes: “Where shall we give place to Gregory the Great and his words? Is it not with the apostles and prophets? I’m talking about a man who walked in the same Spirit with them, walked in the footsteps of the saints all his life, and carefully succeeded in living the Gospel all his days. This is what I say about him; Otherwise, we will violate the truth by not counting this soul among the members of God, this man, who, like some great luminous luminary, illuminated the Church of God, who, with the assistance of the Spirit, had a terrible power over demons, and received such the grace of the word in obedience to faith among the Gentiles (Rom. I, 5), that where before him there were only seventeen Christians, all the people in the cities and villages having taught theology, he brought it to God. He and the river flow, commanding it in the great name of Christ, turned it back; he also dried up the lake, which served as a pretext for war for the covetous brothers. And his predictions about the future are such that he is in no way inferior to other prophets. And, of course, it would be a long time to retell all the miracles of this man, whom, due to the abundance of talents that were revealed in him through the action of the Spirit in all power in signs and wonders, the enemies of the truth themselves called the second Moses. So in every word and deed, as if done by grace, some kind of light shone - a sign of heavenly power, invisibly accompanying him. And to this day the surprise of the native inhabitants is still great for him, the firmly rooted memory of him is new and always fresh in the churches, not fading even from time itself. Therefore, in the church there they did not add any actions, words, or any mysterious sign beyond those that he left, and therefore much of what they did, given the long-standing establishment, seems insufficient, because those who successively built the house in those churches did not agree to accept in addition anything that was found after him” 311. Characterizing personal qualities, St. Gregory of St. Basil writes to the neo-Caesarean clergy 312: “this pure soul and worthy of the communion of the Holy Spirit avoided oaths, being content with saying: to her and not according to the commandment of the Lord, who said: I say to you: do not swear in any way (Matt. V, 34). He did not allow his brother to say: freak, fearing the threat of the Lord (v. 22). Fury, anger and grief (Eph. IV, 31) did not come out of his mouth; he hated slander, which does not lead one into the kingdom of heaven; envy and conceit were expelled from this unflattering soul. He did not present himself to the altar without first being reconciled with his brother. He abhorred deceitful and cunning words and those invented to slander someone, as he knew that lies are from the devil, and that the Lord will destroy all who speak lies” (Psalm 5:7). Information about the personality and life of St. Gregory, contained in his speech of gratitude, in the word of St. Gregory of Nyssa and in the given testimonies of St. Basil the Great, allow at least to some extent to draw a living image of the holy man. By nature gentle, inclined to readily submit to the leadership of others, in childhood he is under the undivided influence of his father and the entire environment of the pagan family. After the death of his father, he obeys his mother’s desire to make him a rhetorician, and then, under the influence of a Latin teacher, he turns to the study of Roman laws, not so much out of conviction in its usefulness and personal disposition towards this area of ​​​​knowledge, but out of a desire to please the teacher, and is confirmed in the idea of ​​going to Virit to improve in jurisprudence. Circumstances were such that he and his brother Athenodorus ended up in Caesarea in Palestine. Here he was immediately attracted to the personality of Origen. He felt that here all his plans regarding the further nature of his education should collapse; he tries to fight against this, even the thought of fleeing Caesarea Palestine appears; However, the influence of the great teacher overpowers his own desires and aspirations, and he remains for five years under his educational and educational influence: the bonds of friendship and love, reverent veneration for the high moral personality of Origen and admiration for his scientific authority bound him so much that St. Gregory could not even imagine life without communication with Origen and outside the atmosphere and mood that he created in the close circle of his students. Therefore, the whole tone of his farewell speech, all those expressions of his love and reverence for the teacher, all the sorrow at the thought of the impending separation are a direct reflection of the state he was experiencing then. Here in Caesarea, towards the end of his stay with Origen, for him his entire previous life, with all its seemingly unexpected turns, was illuminated with a clear light from the point of view of complete conviction that everything happened according to the will of Providence, directing him to a specific goal and giving him a holy angel to guide him, shepherding him from his youth 313. That direction from the earthly and sensual to the highest and ideal, which Origen cultivated in his students, found favorable soil for its development in the soft, receptive soul of St. Gregory and was revealed in him in his homeland, where, according to the expression of Gregory of Nyssa, caring about how to bring his soul to perfection through virtue, he directed all the cares in his life towards this and said goodbye to everything in the world, withdrew from the noise of the squares and from all city life in general, and remained in solitude with himself and through himself with God. He devotes himself to this new way of life with such zeal and enthusiasm that he energetically opposes the desire of Fedim “to give him leadership in the church,” fearing “so that the concerns of the priesthood added to life, like some kind of burden, will not serve as an obstacle to his wisdom.” He continued this inclination towards philosophy in his episcopal service. St. Gregory of Nyssa says that St. Gregory, called to get rid of the disaster caused by the Lyk River, “leaning on one rod, made the entire journey, contemplating with his companions about the desired heavenly life, which is always what he was primarily doing, considering other things extraneous in comparison with this most excellent occupation” 314. About this love St. Gregory’s contribution to conversations on theological and philosophical topics is evidenced by his treatise “To Theopompus on whether God is subject to suffering or not,” his “conversation with Aelian,” his letter to Evagrius about the Divinity and, finally, his “Translation of Ecclesiastes,” which so answered his mood in relation to the world with all its pleasures and glory. Pontic legend, which reached St. in a reliable way. Basil the Great, portrays him as a meek saint, free from exaltation and anger, striving first of all in his personal life and in personal relationships to carry out the commandments of Christ. From here naturally flowed his deep moral influence on all aspects of the life of his flock. As Gregory of Nyssa reports, “in controversial everyday matters, no other court was known above him, but every dispute and all intractable and confusing matters were resolved by his advice; from here, through his beneficial influence, legal justice and peace were established in the city, both for everyone in general and for everyone in particular; much good came, both in particular and in general, because no evil violated mutual agreement” 315. A heart imbued with love was able to understand both the danger that threatened the flock during the cruel persecution, and the difficulty for many to decisively break with all their habits, particularly in religious customs; it also suggested the real tone of the appeal to her after the revealed moral decline of many during the barbarian invasion. The same condescension permeated his attitude towards the still unbelieving pagans, who were tempted by certain provisions of Christian teaching: he was ready to adapt to the understanding and established views of his opponents in the unimportant, just to reach agreement on the main thing. Missionary activity of St. Gregory was crowned with very significant and obvious results. We do not have data to indicate the exact limits of the spread of Christianity in Pontus under St. Gregory the Wonderworker; but from subsequent fragmentary news it can be concluded that Polemonov Pontus, at least in its western part, in relation to enlightenment by Christianity, became close to the previously Christianized regions of Asia Minor; the path was paved for the penetration of Christianity further into the depths of this semi-wild country, remote from cultural centers. In 315 (or around this time) a large council was held in Neocaesarea itself, the metropolis founded by St. Gregory of the Pontic Church, presided over by the neo-Caesarean bishop Longinus. That by the end of the first quarter of the 4th century Christianity was very widespread here, this is indicated by the special energy of the persecution of Christians, erected by Licinius in particular in this region of Pontus 316. But the success of the educational activities of St. Gregory was expressed not only in the acquisition of new masses and new areas for Christianity, but also in the establishment of discipline and moral order in a country with such a strong influence of the flattering sensuality and morally corrupting pagan cult. The founder of the Neocaesarian Church, the apostle of the Pontic country, left his stamp on all aspects of the life of the Pontic Christians, who vividly retained a strong memory of their enlightener even in the second half of the 4th century; the symbol given to them was kept in their own handwriting; the neo-Caesarean flock, secretly taught by the teaching contained in it, remained inviolable from all heretical malice 317. In liturgical practice, as St. Basil the Great in the above words, the neo-Caesarians under the leadership of the successors of the St. Gregory of the bishops, until the second half of the 4th century, “they did not add any action, nor word, nor any mysterious sign beyond those that he left,” so that many of the institutions of the neo-Caesarean church, in comparison with other churches, were outdated. In order to fully appreciate the full significance of what St. Gregory of the results and the energy expended on this, it is necessary to always remember those cultural and religious-moral conditions among which he had to act and which were so clearly revealed at the first suitable opportunity - the invasion of the Vorads and Goths. The source of this success and the irresistible influence of St. Gregory, who left such a deep mark in the life of neo-Caesarean Christians, lay in the faith that animated him, permeating his entire life and activity, for which nothing is impossible, since for it everything that, from an ordinary human point of view, seems to be beyond what is given to man, seems natural. He so freely overcame all the obstacles encountered in his missionary field that everyone who came into contact with him saw in him a constant and unchanging possessor of divine power: “so in every word and deed, as if done by grace, some kind of light shone - a sign of heavenly power, invisibly accompanying him.” His speeches were imprinted with the inspiration of the ancient prophets. It is natural, therefore, that the stories about the life of St. Gregory soon turned, but mainly into stories about the abundance of talents, “which were revealed in him through the action of the Spirit in all power in signs and wonders,” and that he early acquired the title “Wonder Worker” (Θαοματουργος 318, which, together with the epithet “great” constantly attached to him (in St. Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus and others, as well as in the inscriptions of his works in Syriac) testify to the glory that crowned his personality and activities. Forbiger Alb., HandbuchderaltenGeographieausderQuellenbearbeitet. II Band: Politische Geographie der Alten Asia. Africa. 2 Ausgabe. Hamburg 1877. S. 408 See Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Königreichs Pontos. Lepzig 1879, S. I Strabo. Geography. XII, vol. 4: ἡπρὸς τῷ Πόντφ Καππαδοκϊα. Russian translation by F. G. Mishchenko. M. 1879, p. 545 General History, V, 43. 1: ΚαππαδοκίαἡπερὶτὸνΕ ὔ ξεινον. Russian translation by F. G. Mishchenko, vol. 1st Moscow 1890, p. 578 Reclus El., Earth and people. General geography. Volume IX. Western Asia, Afghanistan, Balochistan, Persia, Asian Türkiye and Arabia. St. Petersburg 1887, pp. 476–477 See ForbigerAlb» Handb.dalt for a list of them. Geogr., II. S. 416–418, Anm. 49 Meyer Ed., Kesch. d. Königr. Pontos, S. 7–8; Forbiger Alb, Handb. d. alt. Geographie, S. 98–99 Studio Pontica. II. Voyage d'exploration archéologique dans le Ponte et la Petite Arménie, par Fr. Cumomt et Eug. Cumont.Bruxelles 1906, p. 239 “A Sermon on the Life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker”: Migne, PGr. t. 46, col. 928; Russian lane, part 8, pp. 164–165 RitterС, Vergleichende Erdkunde des Halbiensellands Klein Asien. I Theil.Berlin 1858, S. 216 Strabo, XII, 3. 16. Cm. Farbiger Alb., Handb. d. alt. Geographie, 11, pp. 419–420; Meyer Ed., Gesch. d. Königr. Pontos, S. 4–6 His homeland was Amasia: Geography, XII, 3. 39 Letter 14: Migne, PGr, t. 32, col. 276–277; Russian lane Moscow Spirit. Academy, Sergiev. Posad 1892, part VI, pp. 47–49 Letter 3 (7): Migne, PGr, t. 37, col. 25–28. Russian translation of the Moscow Theological Academy. Moscow. 1848, part VI, pp. 99–100 Heinr. Kiepert, Lehrbuch der alten Geographie, Berlin 1878. S. 73. 94 Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums, V. I. Stuttgart 1884, S. 293. Ed. Alb. Fertiger, Handb. d. Alt. Geographie, V. II. S. 409–412 Ed. Meyer, Gesch. d. Alterthums, V. I, S. 293. Ed. Meyer, Gesch. d. Königr Pontos, s. 10-ii. Iw. Miller, Geographie und politische Geschichte des Klassischen Altertums. Nordlingen. 1889, S. 248 Reinach Th., Mithridate Eupator, roi de Pont. Paris 1890, p. 18 Mainly in Xenophon, Anavasis, V, 5 lines, and in Strabo, Geography, XII, 3. 18 lines Reinach Th., Mithridate Eupator, roi de Pont, p. 15–17 Reinach Th., Mithridate Eupator, roi de Pont, p. 16–17. Vit. Cuinet (La Turquie d'Asie. Géographie administrative, statistique, descriptive et raisonnée de chaque province de l'Asie Mineure. Paris 1892, pp. 100-101) considers it very probable that the Leucos-Syrians were in fact true Syrians who came to this region with Sesostris, when he conquered all Asia as far as the Euxine Pontus and imposed taxes on this country. Ed. Meyer, Gesch d. Königr Pontos, S. 14–17 Reinach Th., Mithidate Eupator, roi de Pont, p. 12. 13 Ed. Meyer, Gesch. d. Königr. Pontos, S. 30–34 Ed. Meyer, Gesch. d. Königr. Pontos, S. 26 Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums. 3 Bd., Stuttgart 1901, S. 109 Retnach Th., Mithridate Eupator, roi dePont, p. 23–24 Ed. Meyer, Gesch d. Konigr Pontos S. 32–33 Strabo (XII, 3. i) says that Mithridates Eupator owned the country, the border of which was Halys to the Tivarines and Armenians, as well as the areas on this side of Halys to Amastris and some parts of Paphlagonia; he annexed the sea coast to Iraklia on the western side, and the areas to Colchis and Lesser Armenia on the opposite side, connecting them with the Pontic kingdom. Вen. Niese, Grundriss des römischen Geschichte nebst Quellenkunde. 3 Aufl. München 1906, S. 172 ff., 193 ff. Russian translation from the 4th German edition, edited by M. I. Rostovtsev: B. Nize, Essay on Roman history and source study. St. Petersburg 1910, pp. 255 ff., 284 ff. For a detailed overview of the expansion of Mithridates's possessions and his wars with Rome, see ReinachTh, Mithridate Eupator, roi de Pont, p. 301–413. S. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, r ß. 2 Leipzig 1881 (in I Handbuch der römischen Altertümer von J. Marquardt und I h. Mommsen. B. IV), S. 349–355 Dio Cass., Historia Bomana (ed. Urs. Ph. Boissevain, Berolini 1898), XLIX, 25; XLIX, 33. 34; LIII. 25; LIV, 24 For more details, see J. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung S. 359–363 Et. Kulin, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des Römischen Reichs bis auf die Zeiten Justinians. II. Theil. Leipzig 186 S. 246 Meyer Ed., Geschichte des Altertums, 2 Bd. Stuttgart1893 Strabo, XII, 3. 11. Forbiger Alb, Handb. b. alt. GeographieB. II, pp. 402–404 Farbiger Alb., Handb. d. alt. Geogradhie, B. II, S. 426–429 Migne PGr. t. 46, col. 897; Russian lane 4.8, p. 132 St. Gregory of Nyssa “Sermon on the Life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker": Migne PGr. t. 46, col. 897: Russian translation, part 8, pp. 131–132 Naturalis Historia, ed. Lud. Janus,Lipsiae 1854, VI, 3 Hamilton Will., Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia, with some Account of their Antiquities and Geology. I-II. London 1842, p. 346–347. D.G. Hogarth and I A. R. Munro, Modern and ancient Roods in eastern Asia Minor. London 1893, p. 732 Meyer Ed., Gesch. d. Königr. Pontos, s. 62–67; Reinach Th., Mithridate Eupatore, roi de Pont. p. 35–36 Reinach Th., Mithidate Eupator, roi de Pont, p. 248–249 Hahn Ludw. Zur Sprachenkampf in römischen Reich bis auf die Zeit Iustinians (Sonderabdruck aus: "Philologus, Zeitschrift für das klassische Altertum"), Leipzig 1907, S. 680–682. For details on the early period, see Lud. Hahn, Rom und Romanismus im griechisch-römischen Osten. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Sprache. Bis auf die Zeit Hadrians. Leipzig 1906. Ludw. Hahn, Sprachenkampf im römischen Reich, S. 682–683 There is no data to determine what the position of these θεοφόρητο was; and what were their functions. XII, 8. 9. For an analysis of all these news from the point of view of the data they contain to characterize the agrarian relations in Cappadocia and Pontus contemporary with Strabo, see prof. M. Rostowcew, StudienzurGeschichtedesrömischenKolonates. Leipzig u. Berlin 1910, S. 269 ff Ed. Meyer. Gesch. d. Königr. Pontos. S. 18 Ritter S. Vergleichende Erdkunde des Halbinselslands Klein Asien. 2, Teil, S. 114 “In the main regional city of Amasia there was a church to the fabulous mother of the gods, which the erring people of that time, in their superstition, built somewhere on the bank of the river.” St. Gregory of Nyssa in his eulogy to the Great Martyr Theodore Tiron (Migne, PGr, t. 46, col. 744) For the goddess Ma, see AusführlichesLexicondergriechischenundrömischenMythologie, herausgeb.v. W. H. Roscher, II, 2, col. 2215–2225 (Drexler's article); There is extensive literature on this issue here. Henle, Der Men – und Mithrakult in Phrygien in Theologische Quartalschrift, 70 (1888), S. 590 ff. Roscher W. H. Über die Reiter Statue Jul. Caesars auf dem Forum Julium und den ἵ ππος προτόπους einer Münze des Gordianus Pius von Nikaia (Bithynien), in “Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Geselschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig." Philol.-hist. Classe. Bd. 43 (1891), S. 119. See also Drexler's extensive article on the god Mina, with reference to relevant literature, in Ausführliches Lexicon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, II, 2, col. 2687–2770. Homily on the Incarnation of God the Word, § 47: Migne, PGr., t. 25, col 180; Russian transl., part and. Sergiev Posad, 1902, p. 251 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 916; Russian transl., part 8, M. 1872, p. J49 Ya. Smirnov. About the Phrygian god Month (in “Σχέφονος”. Collection of articles in honor of F. F. Sokolov. St. Petersburg. 1895, p. 99 Roscher W. H., Über die Reiterstatue Iul Caesars, S. 131–136 Reinach Th. Mithridate Eupator, roi de Pont, p. 245–245. 24 W. N. Roscher, Ausführl. Lexicon griech. u. Rom. Mythologie, B. li, Abth. 2, col. 2219 W. M. Ramsay, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. Oxford 1895, P. 53. 343. Th. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, T. V. Berlin 1886, S. 319 Studio Pontica. II. Voyage d'exploration archéologique dans le Pont et la Petite Armenie par Franz Cumont et Eugene Cumont. Bruxelles 1906, p. 268 Prof. W. M. Ramsay, The historical Geography of Asia Minor. London, 1890, p. 24 Em. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. 4 Aufl. Bd. III. Leipzig 1909, S. 23. The jewish Encyclopedia Vol. IV. New York a. London 1903, p. 561 Josephus, Antiquitates, XX, 7. 3 Ad. Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. 2 Aufl. BandII. Leipzig 1906, S. 153 F. Siefert y Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopädie, Bd. XV, S. 204; F. H. Chase in Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by James Hastings, Vol. VII, p. 783 b.; Ch. Bigg, A critical and exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. Edinburgh 1901, p. 70–72 W. M. Ramsay in A Dictionary of the Bible, Ed. by James Hastings. Vol. IV, p. 17a Jos Felten, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte oder Judeutum und Heidentum zur Zeit Christ und Apostel. Bd. II. Regensburg 1910, S. 369 F.I. A. Hort, The first Epistle of St. Peter. 1, 1-II, 17. The Greek Text with introductory Lecture, Commentary and additional Notes. London 189З, p. 168. Cp. W. M. Ramsay in Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by J. Hastings, Vol. IV, p. 17 b., and F. H. Chase in the same edition, Vol. III, b. 792 Harnack A., Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 2 Aufl. B. II, 1906, S. 157, Anm. 1 Prof. V.V. Bolotov, Lectures on the history of the ancient church. Vol. II. St. Petersburg 1910, pp. 251–252 In Eusebius, Church. ist. III, 1: “Of the sacred apostles and disciples of our Savior, scattered throughout the entire universe, Thomas received as an inheritance for preaching], as is known from legend, Parthia, Andrew - Scythia, John - Asia, where he died in Ephesus; and Peter in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia and Asia preached to the Jews of the dispersion and, finally, arriving in Rome, was crucified upside down.” Panarius, 27.6 (Migne, PGr., t. 41, col. 733): “the Apostle Peter often visited Pontus and Bithynia.” Lipsius Rieh. Die Apokrypken Apostelgeschichte und Apostellegenden, Bd. II, H.i. Braunschweig 1887, S. 4–5, 605–606 Prof. V.V. Bolotov, Lectures on the history of the ancient church. Vol. II, p. 252. W. M. Ramsay's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. IV, p. 16 a.m. Prof. B. B. Bolotov, Lectures on the history of the ancient church, Vol. II, pp. 251–252 Edg. Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen Tübingen 1904, S. 358 f., and Handbuch zu den neutestamentlichen Apokryphen, Tübingen 1894, S. 370 ff. Rieh. Alb. Lipsius, Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, Bd. II, S. 424 ff. W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170. London 1893, p. 375 ss W. M. Ramsay in A Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. IV, p. 16 a Acta sanctorum, Jan. 31, r. 696 Epist. 96: C. Plinii Caecilii Secundi epistularum libri novem. Recogn. H. Keil, Lipsiae 1889, p. 231–232 Harnack Ad., Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, S. 158 Ramsay IV. M., The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170. London 1893, p. 224 Luciani Samosatensis opera, ed. Tib. Hemsterusius et Jоh. Fred. Retrius. T. II. Amstelodaui 1743, p. 232: λέγων (Alexander Avunoteikhsky) ἄθέων ἐμπεπλησθῆναι καὶ χριστκανῶν τὸν Πόντον, οἴ περὶ αὐτοῦ τολμῶσι τὰ κάκιστα βλασφημεῖν. Ts.I. IV, 23: τ ῇ ἐκκλησί ᾳ τ ῇ παροικούση Ἄ μαστριν ἅ μα ταῖς κατὰ Πόντον. In all cases, we quote the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius from the latest edition: Eusebius Werke. ZweiterBand. Kirchengeschichte, bearb. V. Ed. Schwartz. Erst. Theil. Leipzig 1903. Zweit. Theil Leipzig, 1908. Russian. translation ed. Petrograd Theological Academy. St. Petersburg 1858 Eusebius, Ts. I. V, 23: τῶν κατὰ Πόντον ἐπισκόπων, ὦ ν Πάλμας ὡ ς ἀρχαιότατος προυτέτακτο. To Scapula 3: Apologetic writings of Tertullian, Russian. translation, ed. Kiev Theological Academy, Kiev 1910, p. 222 Harnack Ad., Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, S. 162–164 Vict. Ryssel, Gregorius Thaumaturgus. Sein Leben und seine Schriften. Nebst Übersetzung zweier bisher unbekannter Schriften Gregors aus dem Syrischen. Leipzig 1880, S. V For its Greek text see Migne, PGr., t. 10, col. 1051–1104, and in R. Koetschau, Des Gregorios Thaumaturgos Dankrede an Origenes, als Anhang der Brief des Origenes an Gregorios Thaumaturgos. Freiburg in Br. und Leipzig 1894. S. 1–39; Russian translation in "Works of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea,” published by the author of this study (Pgr. 1916), pp. 18–52. Printed by Arm. Robinson's The Philocalia of Origen. The Text revised with a critical Introduction and Indices. Cambridge 1893, p. 64–67, and y P. Koetschau, Des Gregorios Thaumaturgos Dakrede an Origenes, als Anhang der Brief des Origenes an Gregorios Thaumaturgos, S. 40–44; Russian translation in "Works of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea", pp. 53–56 Migne, P.G. t. 46, col. 893–958. Russian translation, published by the Moscow Theological Academy. Part 8. Moscow 1872, pp. 126–197 Méridier Louis, Influence de la seconde sophistique sur l’o_euvre de Grégoire de Nysse. Paris 1906, p. 239s Die Vita Gregor's des Wundertäters und die Syrischen Acta martyrum et sanctorum in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 41 (1898), S. 454–456 Acta martyrum et sanctorum, p. VI Literal. Centralblatt, 1896, Nr. 21, Sp. 761–762 Its Russian translation is published in the Works of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea", pp. 1–17 See Eusebius Werke. Zweiter Band: Die Kirchengeschichte, bearbeitet im Aufträge Kirchenvater-Commission der königl. Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften v. Eduard Schwarz. Die lateinische Übersetzung des Rufinus, bearbeitet im gleichen Aufträge v. Theod. Momsen. Zweit. Theil. Leipzig 1908, S. 953–956 Migne, P.G., t. 32, col. 205–206; Russian translation h. 3, Moscow 1891, pp. 281–282 Vict. Ryssel in "Theologische Zeitschrift aus der Schweiz", herausbgeb v. Friedr. Meili. Zürich, XI (1894), 4, S. 228 ff R. Koetschau, Zur Lebensgeschichte Gregors des Wunderthäters, in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 41 (1898), S. 211–250 Comparison of the praiseworthy words of St. Gregory of Nyssa and the Syrian story made by P. Koetschau in his named article: Zur Lebensgeschichte Gregors des Wunderth äters in “Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie”, 41 (1898) S. 211–250, which we used in the detailed development of the question posed. Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 908 sq.; creations of St. Gregory of Nyssa in Russian translation, part 8, pp. 142–149, 153–159 Russian translation, §§2–3, pp. 1–3 According to V. Rissel (S. 234), Gregory of Nyssa’s deviation here is due to ecclesiastical legal considerations: when choosing Gregory as a bishop, he attributes all the initiative to Bishop Fedim, as a metropolitan, who here thus acts according to the 4th rule of the Council of Nicea in 325, while for the Syrian the initiative of choice comes from the clergy. The groundlessness of this judgment is obvious. Russian lane, §§11 and 15, pp. 13 and 17 According to V. Rissel (S. 236), the message about the letters suddenly appearing on the wall and the subsequent appearance of the Virgin Mary and the Apostle John in Gregory of Nyssa is combined into one narrative for the sake of simplifying the miraculous, which is impossible to agree with, since it is more natural to recognize the expansion of the miraculous in the Syrian story. V. Rissel finds (S. 231) the image of the Apostle John in a night vision from a Syrian to be simpler and his representation with a book in his hands more characteristic; but why is not clear. Migne PGr., t. 46, col. 913; Russian transl., part 8, pp. 149–152 In Eusebius Werke, bearb. v. Ed. Schwartz u. Th. Mommsen, r. 954–955 The original, according to V. Rissel, is obviously found here in the Syrian, who simply calls the unclean spirit that lives in the church and gives answers to the questions of the priest a demon; Rufinus calls this oracle god by the name of Apollo, which is why the letter is addressed to him; Gregory of Nyssa, who similarly depicts the church as a place of oracles, already speaks of many demons, which is why he directs the letter to the highest of the demons, that is, according to New Testament usage (Matthew XII, 24 ff.) - to Satan. But this evidence is not convincing. Migne, P. G., t. 46, col. 925 sq.; Russian transl., part 8, pp. 159–164 Russian trans., § 9, pp. 8–9 Virgam quam tenebat in manu ad primas litoris undas defigit is a feature in the story that, as V. Rissel has already noted (S. 239), belongs to the story of the blocking of the Lika River. If Rufinus, as V. Rissel says (S. 240), closely adheres to the text of the original source, then such a confusion could hardly have happened “by oversight.” On the contrary, it is very simply explained by the fact that already by the time of Rufinus the boundaries of individual legends were mixed, and individual features were added to this or that story. In Eusebius Werke, p. 953–954 Migne P. Gr., t. 46, col. 929; Russian transl., part 8, pp. 164–168 Russian transl., §8, pp. 7–8 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 933; Russian transl., part 8, pp. 169–116 According to V. Rissel (S. 236), Gregory of Nyssa omitted the name of Alexander’s father because the noble “Maximinian of Rome” could easily recall the same name of the emperor, as if this name was considered exclusively imperial, at least in Rome itself. Migne, P. G., t. 46, col. 94.0 sq.; Russian transl., part 8, pp. 176–179 Russian transl., § 4, pp. 4–5 Hilgenfeld Heinr., in "Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol." 1898, S. 452–453, cites several facts that make it likely that the stories reported about Gregory the Wonderworker were, in any case, widely disseminated orally: they were also transferred to other men; but this was more possible if the source was not written, but oral tradition. One of them is directly related to the narrative in question. In the Syriac biography of James of Nizibia (†338), which Bedjan published in volume IV. Acta martyrum et sanctorum, p. 262–273, there is a story that exactly agrees with the story of Gregory’s deception by the Jews and their punishment. It says here (p. 267): “But then some people tried to deceive the saint and said to one of their comrades: you lie down as if you were dead, maybe we will get something from him. Then one of them lay down on his cloak, and his comrades carried him. They began to ask Jacob to pay for the burial. The saint accepted their request and prayed to God as if for a dead man, so that his sins would be forgiven, and he would be accepted as a saint, and give them what they asked of him. And while he was praying, the soul of the one who pretended to be dead flew away. When the saint moved a short distance away from them, his comrades approached him and began to tell him to get up. But he didn’t answer. They approached him and saw that he had been dead for a long time. Then they ran, caught up with Saint James and prayed to him and kissed his hands and feet and frankly stated the reason for their audacity: it was precisely because of our need that we did this. They prayed to him to forgive their sin and return the soul of this man to his body. He heeded their request in the hope of God’s mercy and performed a miracle, and through his prayer the soul returned to its home. – Here it is important to answer that the end of the legend is conveyed in accordance with the Syrian story about St. Gregory the Wonderworker. Sozomen in Church History (VII, 27) conveys a similar miracle to St. Epiphany, in which, instead of Jews, the characters are beggars. Sozomen knows that the same miracle was performed by Gregory the Wonderworker. Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 941; Russian transl., part 8, pp. 179–180 Russian transl., § 12, p. 15 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 944 sq.; Russian transl., part 8, pp. 180–391 Russian translation §§ 13 and 14, pp. 15–16 Russian transl., § 7, pp. 6–7 Migne, P.G., t. 46. ​​col. 901 sq.; Russian transl., part 8, pp. 136–139 Russian translation § 11, pp., 13–15 P. Koetschau S. 220–221 and 229. In connection with the latter kind of arguments of W. Rissel Ad. Harnack (Chronologie, II, 2, S. 98) supplements P. Koetschau with the assumption that by the time of Gregory of Nyssa there were records of individual legends about St. Gregory, which were read in the days of his memory, since the agreement of the information in question in some places cannot be explained solely by oral tradition. However, as we will see below, Gregory of Nyssa invariably appeals only to oral tradition and never hints at the existence of any written sources. Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 905; Russian translation, part 8, page 138 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 944; Russian transl., part 8, p. 180 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 929; Russian transl., part 8, p. 164 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 941; Russian transl., part 8, p. 169 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 962; Russian transl., part 7, p. 190 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 9 I 7; Russian transl., part 3, p. 151 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 912; Russian transl., part 8, p. 146 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 913; Russian transl., part 8, p. 146 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 924; Russian transl., part 8, p. 158 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 928; Russian transl., part 8, p. 162 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 933; Russian transl., part 8, pp. 168–69 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 913; Russian transl., part 8, p. 191 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 921; Russian transl., part 8, p. 156 Pis. 202 (210): Migne, PGr., t. 32, col. 772; Russian translation, part 7, page 81 On the Holy Spirit to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, ch. 29, § 74: Migne, PGr. ,t. 32, col. 205; Russian transl.. part 3. M. 1891, pp. 281–282 Migne, P.G., t. 32, col. 752–753; Russian translation, part 7, page 67 Migne, P.G., t. 32, col. 769; Russian transl., part 7, pp. 79–80 Migne, P.G., t. 32, col. 825; translation translation, part 7, page 120 On the structure of man, introduction: Migne, PGr. , t. 44, col. 125; Russian trans., part and, page 77. On the six-day, introduction: Migne, PGr., t. 44, col. 64; Russian transl., part 1, pp. 1–2. Migne, PGr., t I. 46, col. 900; Russian transl., part 8, p. 142 Migne, P.G., t. 32, col. 825; Russian translation, part 7, page 121 Des Gregorios Thaumaturgos Dankrede an Origenes, S. VI-VII Haereticarum fabularum compendium, II, 8: Migne, PGr., t. 83, col. 393–396 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 893. Russian. lane h. 8, pp. 126–127 Migne PGr., t. 46, col, 957; Russian translation, part 8, page 197 Church ist. VI, 30; cp. VII, 14 and VII, 28 Socrates, Church. ist. IV, 27 Devir. ill., p. 65: S. Albr. Bernoulli, Der Schiftstellerkatalog des Hieronymus. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur. Freiburg i. Br. u. Leipzig 1895, p. 40–41. S. A. Bernoulli, Der Schriftstellerkatalog des Hieronymus, S. 279–293 Ad. Harnack does not share Erw Preuschen’s opinion that Socrates wrote about St. Gregory drew from the apology of Pamphilus (Theolog. Lit. - Zeit. 1902, Sp. 208), on the basis that almost all of them are scabbarded and at the same time reveal dependence on the praiseworthy word of Gregory of Nyssa (Chronologie, II, S. 98, Anm. 2). For example, Sozomen, Church. ist., VII, 27; Synaxarium of the Church of Constantinople (Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae codice Sirmondiano, nunc Berolinensi, adjectis synaxariis selectis, opera et studio Hippol. Delehayé. Bruxellis 1902, p. 230–231; Minology of Vasily Porfirorodnago: Migne, PGr, t. 1x7, col. 185. Suidas: PGr., t. 117, col. 1267, which almost literally rewrites Blessed Jerome, obviously using his Greek translation, and only adds that St. Gregory died under Aurelian (previously it was printed incorrectly: ἐπὶ Ἰ ουλιανοῦ). Ancient evidence about St. Gregory collected and printed in Migne, PGr. X, col. 973-982, and y Ad. So for Svida: Migne, PGr. t. 117, cal. 1267 The depiction of the life of St. Gregory, until the end of his education in Caesarea Palestine, Origen is supposed to give his speech of gratitude to Origen, with paragraphs designated according to the edition of R. Koetschau, Des Gregorios Thaumaturgos Dankrede Origenes, and the Russian translation of the author of this study: The Works of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea. Pgr. 1916, pp. 18–52. Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 900 On the organization and scope of teaching in Greco-Roman elementary schools, see Gerh. Rauschen, Das griechisch-römische Schulwesen zur Zeit des ausgehenden Heidentums. Bonn 1901; Ussing, Darstellung des Erziehungs – und Unterrichtswesens bei den Griechen und Römern, deutsch aus dem Dänischen übersetzt. Altona 1870; Grassberger, Erziehung und Unterricht im klassischen Altertum. I-III. Würzburg 1864–1881. Especially for the first centuries of the Christian era, see Edw.Hatch, Griechentum und Christentum. Zwölf Hibbert Vorlesungen über den Einfluss griechischer Jdeen und Gebräuche auf die christliche Kirche. Deutsch V. Erw. Preuschen. Freiburg in Br. 1892, pp. 19–35. Elementary education then ended between the ages of 14 and 16. Gerh. Rauschen, Das griechisch-römische Schulwesen, S. 11. Gerh. Rauschen Das griechisch-römische Schulwesen, S. 49 St. Gregory does not name Caesarea, but says only “here”, “here” - however, there is no doubt that he is talking about Caesarea in Palestine, as evidenced by Eusebius (C. I. VI, 30) and Jerome (De vir. III. p. 65). Devir. ill. c. 65; Wed Eusebius, Church. ist. VI, 30 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 905; Russian transl., part 8, pp. 139–140 Wed. Ad. Harnack, Die Chronologie II, S. 102; V. Ryssel, Gregorius Thaumaturgus, S. 17, Anm. 1. However, P. Koetschau (Des Gregorios Thaumaturges Dankrede an Origenes, S. VII) considers historically correct the news of Gregory of Nyssa that St. Gregory met with Firmilian and together with him used the instructions of Origen; but he does not try to eliminate existing doubts about the correctness of such a statement. R. Wendland, Christentum und Hellenismus in ihren litterarischen Beziehungen. Leipzig 1902. S. 12–13 St. Gregory of Nyssa, Sermon on the Life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker. Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 901; Russian transl., part 8, pp. 136–138. St. Gregory of Nyssa attributes this process in the spiritual life of St. Gregory to another time, preceding his acquaintance with Origen. Migne, P.G. , t. 46, col. 905; Russian transl., part 8, p. 140 Devir. ili. With. 65: quinquennio itaque eruditi ab eo remittuntur ad matrem. It should be noted that Gregory of Nyssa assumes the death of both parents before the start of the educational journey of the saint. Gregory (Migne, PGr., t. 46, col. 900; Russian translation, part 8, p. 33); and Socrates, on the contrary, says that St. Gregory returned home, called by his parents (Ts.I. IV, 27). It is obvious that the testimony of the blessed. Jerome agrees with the data extracted from the speech of gratitude of St. himself. Gregory. However, Carl Bernoulli (Der Schriftstellerkatalog des Hieronymus, S. 277) believes that this message is blessed. Jerome presents his own conclusion from the speech of thanksgiving of St. Gregory: from the latter it is clear (§ 49) that the father of St. Gregory died early, and yet at the end of it (§ 189) he speaks of the return of εἰς τὸν οτκον τοῦ πατρὸς μοῦ; bliss Jerome concluded that at least the mother was alive, since in this case it is customary to talk about the father’s house. However, it is hardly fair to interpret the message of the blessed one in this way. Jerome; especially since at the end of the same speech he had to read that St. Gregory left Caesarea Palestine voluntarily (§ 198), - in this case, if he had only drawn conclusions from his speech, he could no longer write: ab eo remittuntur ad matrem. Blazh. Jerome, De vir. ili. With. 65: convocata grandi frequentia ipso quoque praesente Origene. 1 Kings XII, 28. Origen here and further attributes to Ader what Jeroboam did. Devir. ill. With. 65. Also with Svida: Migne, PGr. t. 117, col. 1267 Ryssel V., Gregorius Thaumaturgos, S. 12; Joh. Draeseke, Jahbuch. fut. protest. Theol. VII (1881), H. 1, S. 105 Ryssel V., Gregorius Thaumaturgus, S. 12 Der Brief des Origenes an Gregorioe von Neocäsarea in Der Brief an Diognetos" Leipzig, 1881, S. 155 ff Migne PGr., t. 46, col. 901–944; Russian lane part 8, page 136 words The opinion that St. During the break caused by the persecution of Maximinus the Thracian, Gregory was in Alexandria, the author of the article about St. Gregory in A Dictionary of Christian Biography to the End of the sixth Century. Ed. by Henr. Wace u W. Piercy. London 1911, p. 403. Migne, P. G., t. 46, col. 905; Russian lane, part . 8, pp. 139–140 R. Koetschau, Des Gregorios Thaumaturgos Dankrede an Origenes, S. XVI-XVII. Cp. Ad. Harnack, Die Chronologie, II, S. 96, Anm. 1 Gregorios Thaumaturgos Dankrede an Origenes, S. XII-XIII Cp. K. I. Newnann, Der römische Staat und die allgemeine Kirche, I, S. 228, Anm. 4 Ad. Harnack, Chronologie, II, S. 95; cp. 33, Anm. 5 Lectures on the history of the ancient church, Vol. II, p. 115: “The persecution of Maximin is remarkable in that it was necessary to flee from it. the famous Origen, who was especially exposed to danger at this time due to his proximity to the court of Alexander Severus, due to relations with his mother.” Ad. Harnack, Chronologie II, S. 95 R. Koetschau, Des Gregorios Thaumaturgos Dankrede an Origenes S. XI-XII Ts.I. VI, 26. In some manuscripts and even in the best cod. Mazarinaens instead of δέκατον is read δωδέκατον, and thus the resettlement of Origen to Caesarea is supposed to be in the 12th year of Alexander Severus, or in 231/2. However, not only handwritten data, but also historical considerations (primarily the time of death of Demetrius of Alexandria) force one to accept it as correct δέκατον, which is also adopted in the new edition of Eusebius’s Church History Ed. Schwartz'a. Prof. V.V. Bolotov, From the history of the Syro-Persian Church. St. Petersburg 1901, p. 121 and note. 65 We are referring to the vague news preserved by the patriarchs. Photius and, perhaps based on a confusion of names, that Herakles excommunicated Origen from the church and expelled him from Alexandria, and then deposed the Bishop of Thmuy Ammonius, who allowed Origen, who came to him, on his way to Syria, to say a teaching word in his church (in A.I. Pokrovsky, Councils of the ancient church of the era of the first three centuries. Sergiev Posad 1915, p. 325–326; Ad. Harnack, Chronologie, I. S. 33, Anm. 2 and S. P. Koetschau, Gregorios Thaumaturgos Dankrede an Origenes, S. IX; however, instead of 231, he puts 233 without any reason. Ad. Harnack, Chronologie, II, S. 94 P. Koetschau, to prove that Origen's letter was written no later than 238 and that, therefore, Gregory's stay in Caesarea began no later than 233, refers to the parallel between the speech of thanks and Origen's commentary on the Gospel of John (vol. 32, p. 6). St. Gregory is a bold image: τοῦ λόγου) ἀκοαῖς κτλ, obviously borrowed from Origen, who in the indicated place is expressed as follows: καὶ καθ. and soon afterwards (p. 7) he talks about σωματικοὶ and αἰσθητοὶ πόδες τῶν ἀδελφῶν. P. Koetschau it seems that from this the conclusion can be drawn that St. Gregory used his comparison under the lively impression of Origen's comparison. But if,” continues P. Koetschau, “according to Eusebius (C.I. VI, 24) and Origen (in Joh., volume 6, p. 1) volumes 1–5 of the commentary on the Gospel of John were written in Alexandria, volumes 6–22 in 233–235/6 (Eusebius C.I. VI, 28) in Caesarea, then volumes 23–32, with the correct continuation of the work, very likely arose in 236–238, so that the use of a recently composed commentary in a thanksgiving speech is natural if it was compiled no later than 238 (R. Koetschau, Gregorios Thaumaturges Dankrede an Origenes, S. XII-XIV). However, first of all, the literary dependence in this case seems controversial: the image could have been taken from the speeches of Origen: and then, volume 32 could have been written in 240–242; in addition, even if it had been written in 236–238, then St. Gregory could have used the image used in it even after 238 (cf. Ad. Harnack, Chronologie II, S. 95, Anm. 2). Finally, the addition λόγου, κινῶν) clearly shows that we are talking about a saying here (Carl Weyman in Philologus. Zeitschrift für das classische Altertum, B. 45, H. 1 [N. F. B. 9, H. 1], 1896, S. 463–464); Why can’t we draw any conclusions from such a coincidence in the use of the proverb? Migne, P.G., t. 117, col. 1267 Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 44 (1901), S. 95 ff Migne. PGr. t. 46. ​​col. 908; Russian lane Part 8, pp. 141–142 Migne PGr., t. 46. ​​col. 909; Russian lane, part 8, pp. 143–144 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 953; Russian lane, 4. 8, p. 193 On the Holy Spirit to Amphilochius, ch. 29, § 74: Migne, PGr., t. 32 col. 205; Russian transl., part 3, p. 281. Migne, P.G. t. 46, col. 908–909; Russian lane, part 8, pp. 142–144 Russian transl., pp. 2–3. For the differences between the two hagiographic tales, see above, pp. 77–82. Migne, P. G., t. 46, col. 909; Russian lane, part 8, page 144 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 944: Russian lane, part 8, page 180 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 909; Russian lane part 8, page 144 One cannot help but regret that no news has been preserved about Phaedim - perhaps in his theological direction and influence on St. Gregory, we need to seek a solution to the question about some aspects of the theology of St. Gregory. Migne. PGr., t. 46, col. 909 –913; Russian trans., part 8. pp. 144–147 Migne, P.G., t. 46, co l . 913; Russian lane, part 8. p. 148 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 920–921; Russian lane, part 8, pp. 154–157 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 921–924; Russian lane, part 8, pp. 157–159 Migne, P.G. ,t. 46, col. 956; Russian transl., part 8, pp. 193–194 Migne, PGr. ,t. 46, col. 929; Russian transl., part 8, p. 166 Migne, P. G., t. 32, col. 776; Russian translation, part 7, p. 84 Migne, P. G., t. 46, col. 924; Russian trans., part 8, pp. 158–159. The Byzantine chronograph Theophanes († c. 817) tells († 344) that during the earthquake that completely destroyed Neokesarea, only the church built by Gregory stood firm and motionless (Theophanis Chronographia, recensuit C. de Boor, V. I, Lipsiae 1883, p. 144). Theodore the Reader (c. 525) and Kedrin († 1057) report that this preservation of Gregory's church during the general destruction of the city by earthquake was repeated during the reign of Emperor Anastasius in 499 or 503, and to this they note that shortly before this second earthquake a soldier saw two men going into the city, and a third behind them, who asked them to leave the undestroyed church where Gregory’s body rests and which still bears his name. This story, in a slightly modified form, found access to Syrian literature. Bar-Ebrey's Chronicon Syriacum (edd. Bruns et Kirsch, p. 82) says: exerit etiam Anastasius statuam super columnam, quia statua Theodosii terrae motu dejecta erat, quo pariter Neocaesarea eversa erat, excepta aede S. Gregorii Thaumaturgi (V. Ryssel, Gregorius Thaumaturgus, S. 20). Migne, P. G., t. 46, col. 933–940; Russian lane, part 8, pp. 169–176 He crowned his missionary feat with martyrdom. That Alexander was the first bishop of the Pontic Comans is clear from the message of St. Gregory of Nyssa, who writes: “an embassy is sent to him from one neighboring city, so that he comes to them and confirms the church they have with the priesthood; the name of this city is Comana” (Migne, PGr., t. 46, col. 933; Russian translation, part 8, pp. 169–170). And further along the entire course of speech it is clear that there was no bishop here before. Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 944; Russian lane, part 8, page 180 Migne, P.G. t. 46, col. 944 sq. ; Russian lane, part 8, page 184 seq. See above, pp. 102–107. Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 953; Russian transl., part 8, p. 191 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 944 –952; Russian lane, part 8, pp. 189–192 Zosimi comitis et exadvocati fisci Historia nova. Ed. Lud. Mendelssohn, Lipsiae 1887, p. 22–24 Vosporus Cimmerian - on the Crimean Peninsula and along the shores of Maeotis (Sea of ​​Azov). About this kingdom, see Academician V.V. Latyshev, "Ποντικά. Collection of scientific and critical articles on the history, archaeology, geography and ethnography of Scythia, the Caucasus and the Greek colonies on the coasts of the Black Sea." Published by the Imperial Archaeological Commission. St. Petersburg, 1909, p. 50–128: “A brief outline of the history of the Vosporan kingdom.” Here on pp. 69–70, note 2, the most important literature on the history of the Vosporan kingdom is indicated. Since the coins of the Vosporan kings continuously exist for the entire third century and beyond, Zosima’s words about the extermination of the royal family should be considered inaccurate, but only allow for internal unrest and the struggle of different claimants, as is confirmed by the existence of coins with the names of two different kings for the same years in the fifth and sixth decades of the 3rd century: see V.G. Vasilievsky, Life of John of Gotha, in “Proceedings of V.G. Vasilievsky." T. II, no. 2. St. Petersburg 1912. Published. Emperor Academy of Sciences, p. 352, as well as in V.V. Latysheva. Ποντικά, page 119. See V.G. Vasilievsky, Life of John of Gotha, p. 256 Der Brief an Diognetos. Nebst Beitragen zur Geschichte des Lebens und der Schriften des Gregorios von Neocaesarea. Leipzig 1881. S. i 86 ff V. G. Vasilievsky, Life of John of Goth, pp. 354. V. G. Vasilievsky dates the origin of the message to 264 (page 365). Eg. Joh. Oberdieck, Die Romerfeindlichen Bewegungen im Orient während der letzten Hälfte des 3 Jahrhunderts nach Christus (254–274), Berlin 1869, and depending on it Prof. F. Brun in the article: Black Sea Goths and traces of their long stay in Southern Russia (Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. T. 24, book I. St. Petersburg 1874. p. 4). V. Ryssel, Gregorius Thaumaturgus. Sein Leben und seine Schriften. Leipzig 1880, pp. 15–16. Br. Rappoport (Die Einf ä lle der Goten rin das römische Reich bisauf Constantin, Leipzig 1899, 50–51) establishes the chronology of the Gothic invasion by the time of the first capture of Antioch by Sapor. According to the testimony of John Malala, it falls between October 255 and September 30, 256; If we take into account the Olympic Games mentioned, then the conquest of Antioch took place in the summer of 256. In view of this event, Valerian went east; after the return of Antioch, which must be assumed in the spring of 257, he summoned Successian from Pitiunt. According to this calculation, the first attack of the Gogs on Pitiunt falls in the year 256, and the second in the summer of 257. In this case, the message of St. Gregory must have been written in the same year 257. Haereticarum fabularum compendium, U, 8: Migne, PGr., t. 83, col. 393–396 For details about the Councils of Antioch, see: A.I. Pokrovsky, Cathedrals of the ancient church of the era of the first three centuries. Historical and canonical research. Sergiev Posad 1915, pp. 651–694. Pis. 28: Migne, PGr., t. 32, col. 305; Russian transl., part 6, p. 71 V. Ryssel, Gregorius Thaumaturgus, S 17 Eusebius, Church. ist. VII, 30 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 956; Russian lane, part 8, pp. 192–193 Letter to the Neo-Caesareans, 202 (al. 210): Migne, PGr., t 32, col. 305; Russian transl., part 7, pp. 79–80 On the Holy Spirit to Amphilochius ch. 29, § 74: Migne, PGr., t. 32, col. 206: Russian lane, part 3, pp. 281–282 Letter 199 (al 207): Migne, PGr., t. 32, col. 765; Russian transl., part 7, p. 76 Thanks speech, §§ 40–47 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 929; Russian lane, part 8, page 166 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 924; Russian lane, part 8, page 159 Eusebius, Church. ist. X, 8.15; Vita Constantini, II, 1.2 St. Gregory of Nyssa in “The Sermon on the Life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker": Migne, PGr. , t. 46, col. 912–913; Russian lane, part 8, pp. 146–147 Name of St. Gregory the Wonderworker - Θαοματουργίς is not used either by Eusebius or Jerome; It is not found in the text of St.’s words of praise. Gregory of Nyssa, where it is called ὁ μέγας, ὁ πάνυ, ὁθαυμαστὀς; but here we already meet ἐυ τῷ καιρ ῷ τῆς θαυματοοργίας. The title of the praiseworthy word already contains Θαυμοτοοργάς, but the title, of course, is of later origin. In Sozomen (Church history VII, 27) St. Gregory is already called the Wonderworker, as is the usual name for him; also in Deacon Liberatus, in Facundus of Hermian, in Leontius of Byzantium, in the acts of the fifth and sixth council, etc. In a word, we can say that since the 5th century this name of St. Gregory turns out to be widespread and established.