Biography of Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria

Contents Works of Blessed Theophylact Expository works Accusatory works Instructive works Historical works Letters of Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria About the Four Gospels Blessed Theophylact 1 was from Euripus 2 or, more precisely, from the city of Chalkis, which lies near Euripus. In a letter to the brother of Empress Maria 3, he himself mentions his relatives in Euripus, and in one ancient list of Bulgarian archbishops 4 he is directly called Theophylact of Euripus. But it seems that he spent most of his life in Constantinople, for in one of his letters 5 he calls himself a true Constantinople and, both in this and in other letters, he expresses such affection for Constantinople, which could only be acquired by a long stay in it. Blessed Theophylact began his ministry in Constantinople in the rank of deacon of the Great Church. The title of deacons of the Great Church was very revered at that time. As the patriarch's closest assistants, they shared with him almost all the works of his ministry: some helped him in governing the patriarchate, others replaced him in the work of preaching. Blessed Theophylact was one of the latter and bore the title of rhetorician of the Great Church. His duty was to explain the Holy Scriptures and write instructive words on behalf of the patriarch. In one ancient monument 6, Blessed Theophylact is called a teacher of rhetoricians. But this does not mean that he was in the literal sense of the word a teacher of eloquence for those preparing for the position of rhetorician. This was the name given to those rhetoricians who were especially distinguished by the gift of preaching and therefore could serve as an example for other less capable and experienced preachers. That Blessed Theophylact was rightly called the teacher of rhetoricians, this is best evidenced by his works. From them we see that he generally had extensive theological knowledge and was very knowledgeable in the Holy Scriptures, which, due to the title of rhetorician, he was obliged to explain to the people. His works also show that he possessed to a certain extent secular learning; knew ancient classical literature especially well. Understanding the importance of secular learning in pastoral ministry, he not only studied secular sciences himself, but also advised other teachers of the Church not to neglect them, but to take at least some interest in them. The preaching talents of Blessed Theophylact made him famous to the imperial court. Not only did the highest court dignitaries respect him, but the pious Empress Maria herself showed him her patronage. Blessed Theophylact seems to have held the position of deacon of the Great Church and rhetorician (or teacher of rhetoricians) for a very long time; in a letter written a little later after he left this position 7, he calls himself an old man. Probably his preaching talents were the reason why the patriarch kept him in this low but very important position for as long as possible. However, the hope that with his high talents he could be even more useful in another place, forced the patriarch and emperor to show him another, more extensive field of activity - in the rank of archbishop of the Bulgarian Church. The time of Blessed Theophylact's accession to the archbishopric see of Bulgaria cannot be determined with accuracy. We can only say with certainty that it happened before 1081. Already in the rank of archbishop, he wrote a letter to the philosopher John the Italian 8 with a request to be an intercessor for him before the emperor. But John enjoyed the trust of only two emperors: Michael Ducas, who was removed from the throne in 1078, and Nikephoros Votaniot, who reigned until 1081. However, since Theophylact writes to John that he has not seen him for a long time, it can be assumed that the movement of the saint from Constantinople to Bulgaria happened during the reign of Michael, that is, before 1078. The church district, entrusted to the management of Blessed Theophylact, has been freed from subordination to the patriarch since the time of Emperor Justinian I. Out of respect for his homeland, First Justiniana 9, the emperor elevated the local bishop to the rank of archbishop 10 and, giving him the right of independence, subordinated to him all the regions that later became part of Bulgaria and Serbia. With the conversion of the Bulgarians to Christianity, these areas were subordinated to the Patriarch of Constantinople on the basis of the 28th rule of the IV Ecumenical Council. But disputes between popes and patriarchs about the governance of the Bulgarian Church, as well as frequent wars between the Bulgarians and Greeks, gave the Bulgarian kings a reason to take advantage of Justinian’s decree to return the ancient rights of their Church. The reign of Simeon the Booklover can most likely be considered the time of liberation of the Bulgarian Church from subordination to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The chair of the Bulgarian archbishop, which was moved from place to place several times, finally established itself in Ohrid, the capital of Bulgaria, which was given the name of the First Justiniana. The Bulgarian Church retained its rights even after the Greek Emperor Basil Volgarokton, having defeated the Bulgarians, forced them to submit to the Byzantine Empire (from 1018). Only from the middle of the 11th century did Bulgarian archbishops begin to be sent from Constantinople and appointed not from natural Bulgarians, but from Greeks 11 . Blessed Theophylact was the fifth Bulgarian archbishop from the Greeks. He took the archbishop's see after John Ainos. Great sorrows awaited Blessed Theophylact in Bulgaria. In addition to the crude simplicity of the Bulgarians, which at first could not help but make an unpleasant impression on him, he met here many things that should have greatly crushed any zealous archpastor. The Bulgarian Church suffered from a large number of heretics. The Paulicians, and then the Bogomils, everywhere sowed confusion among the people and, reinforced by their numbers, openly attacked the defenders of Orthodoxy. In external terms, it suffered a lot from the secular rulers of Bulgaria and, moreover, was subjected to frequent devastation from external enemies. Moreover, the Bulgarians themselves constantly grumbled about their political humiliation. During the reign of Michael Duca, they even rebelled against the Greeks, and although they were pacified by force of arms, they did not abandon the idea of ​​regaining their freedom by an armed uprising at the right opportunity. Therefore, in the letters of the first years of his archbishopric, Blessed Theophylact complains a lot about his situation in Bulgaria. Life among the Bulgarians seemed like imprisonment to him, and he even asked to be spared this difficult fate. He wrote about his situation in Bulgaria to the Empress Maria and the Great Domestic 12, but, not hoping to be dismissed, he prayed to the Lord to deliver him from these sorrows or to alleviate them with His consolation. The Lord eased the saint's grief. Little by little he got used to his position in Bulgaria, fell in love with the Bulgarians for their simple but sincere piety and, despite any opposition, devoted himself with fatherly care to the structure of his Church. Obstacles from enemies, apparently, only intensified his zeal for the good. In the administration of the Bulgarian Church, Blessed Theophylact showed himself to be an archpastor as wise in his plans as he was firm in fulfilling them. Understanding well that for the spiritual enlightenment of the people he most needed capable helpers, he paid the strictest attention to the election of worthy shepherds, especially bishops. Of the Bulgarian bishops he elected, some, as he himself says, gained approval for their prudence and piety, others became famous for their eloquence and learning, and others received episcopal dignity, becoming famous for the severity of their monastic life. Not finding sufficiently enlightened shepherds among the Bulgarians, he elected bishops from the Greeks, if any of them deserved recognition for their enlightenment in Constantinople. Since the inability to adapt to the external needs of the people can harm the pastor in his ministry, he paid attention to these qualities in those elected and for some places he looked for bishops who would be “wise in matters not only spiritual, but also in temporal ones.” The desire to see in the bishop a true archpastor destroyed all other motives in him. Neither kinship, nor friendship, nor requests could force him to choose someone unworthy or unknown to him. He faced even the obvious danger of being persecuted for not satisfying a request with the courage and firmness of a confessor. Thus, one day the Duke of Skopia asked him to make one person a bishop, and Blessed Theophylact answered him with dignity and strength: “Neither you, my lord, should interfere in this great work, which must be done with fear, nor should I so frivolously decide to impart Divine grace.” The ruler promised to thank the saint for fulfilling his request, but blessed Theophylact responded to this: “My lord! If the one for whom you are interceding is the same (like the other chosen ones), then it is not you who should thank me, but I who should thank you. If he is unknown to our Church and has not earned special approval in Constantinople for his piety and enlightenment, then do not offend God and do not order us, for we must obey God more than men 14." But the wise choice of shepherds alone was not enough to strengthen the welfare of the Church. It was still necessary to carry out constant supervision over their actions. Blessed Theophylact understood this and watched their every action with all vigilance. He tried, if possible, to prevent any deviation from the specified goal or correct it if it had already occurred. For he, in his own words, “did not know any other consolation than to correct the evil that had been done” 15. He constantly and patiently strove for this goal, using everything to admonish the guilty: both severity and leniency. In such cases, his actions in relation to the Triadic bishop can serve as an instructive example. This bishop, for some unknown reason, became a persecutor of the elderly abbot of the monastery, John, forbade him to perform sacred acts, expelled him from the monastery and subjected him to severe penance. When the persecuted man first turned to the archbishop with a request, Blessed Theophylact convinced the bishop to stop being angry with the elder, and he gave him his word. But after a little time he began to persecute the elder again, so that the elder found it necessary to send his request to the emperor himself. The emperor, it seems, referred the matter to the court of the archbishop, because the persecuted man again resorted to Blessed Theophylact with a request for protection. The saint was greatly upset by the behavior of the bishop, who did not want to give rest to the elder, who was already almost dying. However, he again wrote to him with condescension, urging him to stop the persecution and inviting him to give an account of his behavior at the next Council. The bishop, however, did not give the elder any rest, nor did he himself appear at the Council, before which he could not justify himself. When Blessed Theophylact saw that to endure this further would be contrary to the laws of justice, he, together with the Council, forbade the disobedient bishop from performing sacred acts. But he, without coming to his senses, went to Constantinople and, having invented many slander against the archbishop, distributed them among his patrons. Blessed Theophylact soon learned about all his intrigues; despite this, when the banned bishop began to ask him for forgiveness, the saint generously forgave him and gave him permission. “Just pray for me,” he wrote to the bishop, “and bless, and do not curse, the one who loves you” 16. In order to see more closely the needs of each church, Blessed Theophylact convened bishops to Councils and here considered all problems. Here he subjected to general discussion those matters for which mutual consultation was necessary. Local Councils, according to church rules, must meet at certain, specific times, and Blessed Theophylact was so faithful to these sacred rules that no obstacles could keep him from fulfilling them. “I had not yet freed myself from a serious illness,” he wrote once, while preparing for the Council, “when the sacred voice of church rules prompted me to convene the sacred Council. The voice of Christ truly awakens from the bed, gives strength to free movement and travel, and commands to carry the very bed” 17 . As the head of the Bulgarian Church, Blessed Theophylact considered it his duty to also protect its rights and property from the encroachments of outsiders. In this case, he forgot all personal benefits, just to prevent the Church entrusted to his care from being taken away from what had belonged to it since ancient times. At this time, the patriarchs themselves often renounced some of the rights of their Churches in order to alleviate their distressed state through the patronage of the strong Patriarch of Constantinople. Blessed Theophylact also saw that he, too, could have avoided most of the sorrows that befell the Bulgarian Church if he had placed it under the protection of the capital’s patriarch. Despite this, he did not want to sacrifice the sacred rights of the Bulgarian Church for the sake of temporary benefits. One day, an unknown monk decided, without the knowledge of the saint, to found a Church in one place (Kichava) in his district and, to justify his undertaking, he referred to the permission allegedly given to him by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Whether his testimony was fair or not is unknown, but, in any case, Blessed Theophylact considered it his duty to prohibit a case that “did not agree with either the sacred rules or state laws. Despite the fact that the monk claimed to have started the business on the basis of the patriarchal right of stauropegia, I, says the saint, forbade him... For what is the relationship between the Bulgarians and the Patriarch of Constantinople, who has neither the right of ordination nor other advantages in Bulgaria? Bulgaria recognizes the archbishop as its head” 18. Blessed Theophylact did a lot to protect the property of the Church, which was plundered by the secular rulers of Bulgaria, the collectors of royal taxes. During the internal and external decline of the Byzantine Empire, the Greek Church often bore the burden of state taxes along with the people. But the Bulgarian Church had to bear the burden of double taxes - in favor of the state and to satisfy the greed of the collectors themselves. Being far from the capital, these officials, without any fear, plundered church property under the pretext of legal collection. Blessed Theophylact often received written reports about this from bishops who were not able to protect their Churches themselves 19 . He saw the same thing in his diocese. But his opposition to the illegal actions of the collectors turned them against him. Having been enemies of the Church until now, they now became his personal enemies. In addition, some of them seemed to have other, more compelling reasons to hate him and attack the Church of God. In a letter to the Bishop of Kerkyra 20, Blessed Theophylact generally calls them “enemies of the Gospel confession”; in another letter to the same person 21, he apparently describes one of them as a person who “does not honor the Mother of God, approves of everyone who does evil to the Church and slanderes those who honor holidays, go to church and listen to the conversations of the archbishop.” Obviously, these were Paulician heretics or Bogomils, of whom there were very many in Bulgaria at that time 22. These enemies were the more dangerous for the Church and Blessed Theophylact himself, the more they hated Orthodoxy. They spread rumors about the saint in Constantinople that he was illegally enriching himself at the expense of the poor Bulgarians, and reported this to the emperor himself, assuring him that the Bulgarian archbishop was too strong and enjoyed power that exceeded his rank 23 . In Bulgaria itself they armed a church minister named Lazar against him. This Lazarus walked around Bulgaria and incited against the archbishop all those excommunicated from the Church for heresies or for any crimes against the rules of the Church 24. Despite all the sorrows that Blessed Theophylact encountered while defending the rights and property of the Church, he did not diminish his zeal for its good. He wanted to be a father for his flock and did for them not only what he was obliged to do by his title, but also what his Christian love prompted him to do. His fatherly concern for the good of the Bulgarian Church was especially evident in cases of enemy attacks to which Bulgaria was subjected from neighboring peoples. The barbarians, devastating the country, robbed and burned churches, plundered church property, which forced the clergy to hide in forests and deserts. Blessed Theophylact, paternally worried about the fate of the Bulgarian Church, used all means to alleviate its disasters; when he couldn’t find them, he asked others for help. Thus, he asked in writing the son of Sebastokrator 25 to help one church, in which, after devastation by the enemy, there was neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, and those who were entrusted with guarding fled, leaving it without protection. “I ask you,” Theophylact wrote to him, “take pity on the once famous church, which the most pious Bulgarian Tsar Boris erected along with other seven churches. He built it, and you renew it, so that the Lord may renew the right spirit in your womb.” During the devastation of the city, one bishop’s cathedral church was burned. Blessed Theophylact wanted to console his brother, at least with a letter, that he felt the greatest sorrow over the misfortune of his church. His grief intensified, for in his humility he thought that the cause of the disasters of the church were his sins. “Woe is me,” he cried with the prophet, “for my sins have set the sanctuary [of God] on fire! Who will give my head water and my eyes a source of tears! I would cry day and night for the stricken daughters of my people 26, for that unfortunate town, like Jonah’s gourd, which withered, just appeared 27. What is more worthy than the mother of my people, the Church of God?” 28 But during the attack on Bulgaria by the Apulians under the leadership of Bohemond (1107), Blessed Theophylact himself had to flee from Ohrid to Thessaloniki 29. Concerns for the good of the Bulgarian Church often prompted Blessed Theophylact to travel to Constantinople to personally intercede there on her behalf. In many letters he talks about these trips to the capital. The patronage of the pious Empress Maria did not stop for him when he retired to Bulgaria, and he did not cease to have respect for his patroness not only when she sat on the imperial throne, but also after, when she lived in solitude in the company of ascetics. He also had many other friends and patrons. Therefore, it was always comforting for him to be in Constantinople in their company. Some of them very significantly helped him in caring for the good of the Bulgarian Church - they interceded on his affairs before the emperor, or helped poor Bulgarian churches and monasteries with their property. The education of Mary's son, Constantine the Porphyrogenitus, by Blessed Theophylact must be dated back to the time of these visits. At the very least, it cannot in any way be attributed to the time when Theophylact was a rhetorician and deacon of the Great Church. Constantine was born in 1074, therefore, when the saint left Constantinople, he was hardly more than three years old. Blessed Theophylact speaks about the upbringing of Constantine in his essay “On Royal Education.” Here he says that he had many other mentors, of whom “some developed in him the gift of speech, others instilled rules of good behavior, others taught history lessons.” Therefore, one can think that his education of Constantine was limited only to a few lessons that he could give him during short visits to the capital. The pious empress, who revered the Bulgarian archpastor, of course, hoped that with a few instructions he could develop a sense of piety in her son better than others and give the right direction to his entire education. Bohemond's invasion of Bulgaria took place in 1107. If we consider the last years of the reign of Michael Duka to be the time of Blessed Theophylact’s accession to the archbishop’s throne, then even then it turns out that before that time he ruled the Bulgarian Church for at least thirty years. Thus, if we do not strictly accept calling himself an old man at the beginning of his archbishopric, then, in any case, we can undoubtedly assume that in 1107 he was already a very old man. In his letters dating back to this year, he also complains of serious illnesses. So, since none of his known letters can be reliably dated later than this year, we can rightly assume that he ended his difficult life in the same year 1107 or shortly after that. Blessed Theophylact is not one of the saints whose memory is celebrated by the Orthodox Church. But from ancient times he enjoyed the glory of a holy father and teacher of the Church 30. This name is assigned to him in some ancient lists of his creations, as well as in early printed Slavic editions of his “Blagovestnik”. And Greek writers sometimes call him a saint and refer to his works as the works of a saint, whose thoughts should be respected as the thoughts of a father and teacher of the Church 31 . Thus, if Blessed Theophylact is not included in the number of saints honored by the Orthodox Church, nevertheless, due to his creations, he was always respected as the father and teacher of the Church. Works of Blessed Theophylact The works of Blessed Theophylact are divided into interpretative, accusatory, instructive, historical and letters. Interpretive writings Interpretations of the Holy Scriptures constitute the largest part of the works of Blessed Theophylact. Of these, the following are recognized as authentic: 1. Interpretation of the five minor prophets: Hosea, Habakkuk, Jonah, Nahum and Micah. 2. Interpretation of the Four Gospels - "The Good News". 3. Interpretation of the Acts of the Holy Apostles. 4. Interpretation of the Council Epistles. 5. Interpretation of the Epistles of the Holy Apostle Paul 32. Blessed Theophylact could have acquired a special love and skill for explaining the Holy Scriptures even at a time when, with the title of rhetorician of the Great Church, he was engaged in this for the instruction of the people. But he set out his explanations in writing mostly at the request of his pious patroness, the Greek Empress Maria 33 . In the preface to his interpretation of the prophets, Blessed Theophylact says that he undertakes this work solely “at the request of the God-loving and inquisitive empress.” Her desire for Blessed Theophylact to write an interpretation of other books of Holy Scripture is evidenced by the inscriptions on the ancient copies of some of them. In his interpretations, Blessed Theophylact for the most part presents only an abbreviation of the extensive interpretations of the ancient fathers of the Church, from which he takes only what is necessary for an accurate understanding of the passage being explained. He himself testifies to this in the same preface to the interpretation of the books of the prophets. But the main interpreter, whose words are conveyed by Blessed Theophylact, was St. John Chrysostom, whom later Greek interpreters especially liked to abbreviate. In his interpretation of the Four Gospels from other fathers, he borrowed for the most part only allegorical explanations, which are rarely found in Chrysostom. However, blessed Theophylact was not only a clever abbreviation of what was written before; in places where it was necessary, he makes his own explanations, but it is not always possible to firmly indicate which explanations belong to him, because, like other modern interpreters, he does not show what he takes from others. But there is no doubt that only he owns those explanations that are opposed to the teachings of heretics, especially later ones, or relate to subjects of dispute with the Latins. In addition to brief discussions against heresies that are found in the interpretive works of Blessed Theophylact, he also wrote with deliberate purpose an accusatory essay “Discourse on what the Latins are accused of.” Blessed Theophylact wrote it at the request of a deacon and canstrius he knew 34. In the preface to this work, he shows how difficult it is for him to enter into disputes about subjects, the difference in which could be covered by Christian love. Zeal for Orthodoxy and the ability to theologize do not consist in seeking out heresies and errors in others. Various customs may be pure and may arise from piety, or at least from prudent indulgence towards the weak. Therefore, “not every difference in customs should lead to division of the Churches, but only that which concerns dogmas.” Thus, although he recognizes all the innovations of the Latins as unjust, he decides to refute only the addition to the Creed - “and from the Son.” “In this regard,” he says, “we must not retreat, no matter how high the tone the Latins speak from the height of the high priestly throne, no matter how they rattle before us the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, etc.... In this regard, everyone should arm themselves with the sword of the spiritual, the word of God, no matter how meek one neither was." From the instructive works of Blessed Theophylact the following are known: 1. Word for the Week of the Worship of the Cross. 2. Homily on the Day of the Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos into the Church. 3. A word of praise to Emperor Alexius Komnenos. 4. About royal education. “A word of praise to Emperor Alexius Komnenos” was written by Blessed Theophylact after the Scythian war, in which the emperor won many victories over the barbarians. These events date back to 1089, when, according to the testimony of Anna Comnena, the emperor’s entry into the royal city was celebrated with glory. Perhaps in honor of this event, a word of praise was spoken by Blessed Theophylact, who always took a very active part in the destinies of the fatherland 35. Blessed Theophylact wrote the essay “On Royal Education” for his pupil Constantine Porphyrogenitus. It was written during the reign of Alexius Komnenos, when Constantine, as Anna Komnena testifies, “wore scarlet-colored shoes 36, used the Augustan crown and, as a king, was named together with Emperor Alexius.” This work is divided into two parts: the first contains praise for the pupil himself and his parents, and the second gives royal instructions. In the preface to this work, the saint says: “I will not flatter you or delight your ears with false words and sophisms. Otherwise, I would have changed the rules of my life, obscured the importance of my dignity and would have harmed you.” In accordance with this promise, he gives instructions to the royal pupil, which testify both to his wise understanding of the high title of the king, and to his zeal for the truth of God. According to Blessed Theophylact, no one is as happy as a king who glorifies his power with virtues, and no one is as pathetic as a king who humiliates himself with shameful deeds. The main principle of royal government should be the Law of God. The authenticity of only one historical work by Blessed Theophylact is undoubted - “Tales on the Martyrdom of the Tiberiupol Martyrs.” In it, Blessed Theophylact speaks about the suffering of the martyrs during the reign of the apostate Julian, about the transfer of their relics from Tiberiupol (Strumitsa) to Vragalinitsa during the reign of the Bulgarian Tsar Boris and about the miracles performed from these relics. To this he adds a story about the triumph of the Christian faith under the holy king Constantine the Porphyrogenitus, and his children, and about the suffering of Christians under Julian with a rather lengthy tale about how the Greek Kinamon, captured by the Bulgarians, converted the brother of the Bulgarian king Enravota to the faith and how the latter suffered martyrdom from his brother Malomir. More than one hundred and thirty letters of Blessed Theophylact are known 37 . All of them were written during his archbishopric, and some relate to contemporary events unknown from any other sources. Apart from interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, Blessed Theophylact wrote all other works independently, without any borrowing from other fathers and teachers of the Church. Therefore, they are sharply different from his interpretative works by the very nature of their presentation. In his interpretations of Scripture one can see the language of his models (that is, the quoted authors - Ed.), clear and simple, with all the perfections of ancient fatherly word-creation. In his own writings, on the contrary, one can see a language peculiar to him, very close to the way in which all his contemporaries wrote. In them we constantly encounter figurative figures of speech, similarities and other features of style 38 . Of all the works of Blessed Theophylact in the Church Slavonic translation, the most famous is his interpretation of the Four Gospels under the title “The Good News.” This translation, according to the preface to ancient editions, was made in Bulgaria. This evidence is confirmed by ancient copies of the Blagovestnik found in Russia, in which the spelling, although Russian, is mixed with a Bulgarian or South Slavic dialect. It is impossible to determine when the “Blagovestnik” first appeared, but from the inventories of famous Russian libraries it is clear that the existing ancient lists of it go back to the beginning of the 16th century. The first printed edition of the Blagovestnik based on ancient manuscripts was made in 1648 in Moscow, after which the previous translation was slightly corrected and published there in 1698. Then, over the course of the last century (meaning the 18th century - Ed.), this translation was published several more times. Frequent church editions or those made for church use of the “Blagovestnik” clearly show that in the Russian Church from ancient times it was revered as a truly paternal and Orthodox creation, faithfully conveying the true meaning of the Gospel sayings. Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria Those Divine men who lived before the law did not learn on the basis of scriptures and books, but, having a pure mind, were enlightened by the illumination of the All-Holy Spirit and, thus, recognized the commandments of God, for God Himself spoke with them mouth to mouth. Such were Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job and Moses. When people became vicious and unworthy of being enlightened and taught by the Holy Spirit, the man-loving God gave the scriptures so that, although thanks to them, they would remember the commandments of God. So Christ Himself personally spoke with the apostles and sent them the grace of the Holy Spirit as a teacher. But since heresies were to grow after that and our morals were to deteriorate, it was pleasing to the Lord that the Gospels were written so that we would learn the truth on the basis of them, not be carried away by the lies of heresies, and so that our morals would not deteriorate completely. The Lord gave us the four Gospels, perhaps because on the basis of them we learn the four main virtues - courage, wisdom, justice and chastity. Courage when the Lord says: Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul (Matthew 10:28); wisdom when he says: Be wise as serpents (Matthew 10:16); justice when he teaches: And as you want people to do to you, do so to them (Luke 6:31); chastity when he says: Whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Moreover, the four Gospels exist because they are the pillars of the world. But since the world has four sides - east, west, north and south, there must be four pillars. Then, the four Gospels also exist because they contain objects of four kinds, namely: dogmas and commandments, threats and promises. Those who believe in the dogmas and keep the commandments are promised future benefits. Those who do not believe in the dogmas and do not keep the commandments are threatened with future punishment. The Gospel received this name because it tells us about good and joyful things for us, that is, about blessings, such as: remission of sins, justification, ascension to heaven, adoption by God. It also proclaims that we receive these benefits easily, for we did not work to acquire them and did not receive them for our good deeds, but by the grace and love of God we were rewarded with such great benefits. There are four evangelists. Of these, two—Matthew and John—were among the twelve, while the other two—I mean Mark and Luke—were among the seventy. Mark was Peter's companion and disciple, and Luke was Paul's. So, Matthew, the first of all the evangelists, wrote, eight years after the Ascension of Christ, the Gospel in Hebrew for the Jewish believers. John is said to have translated it from Hebrew into Greek. Mark, taught by Peter, wrote the Gospel ten years after the Ascension, Luke after fifteen, and John the Theologian thirty-two years later. For they say that after the death of the three evangelists, three Gospels were brought to him at his request in order to examine them and discuss whether they were written correctly. John, having looked through them and received the abundant grace of truth, himself completed what they omitted, and expanded what they said briefly in his Gospel. Therefore, he began with the doctrine of God the Word. For, while others did not mention the eternal existence of God the Word, he theologized about this, so that they would not think that the Word of God is simply a man, that is, alien to the Divinity. Matthew speaks only of the life of Christ in the flesh, because he wrote for the Jews, for whom it was enough to know that Christ was born of Abraham and David. For the Jewish believer calms down as soon as he is convinced that Christ came from David. But you say to me, “Wasn’t one evangelist enough?” So, listen: one was enough, but in order for the truth to appear more clearly, for this purpose four received permission to write them. And when you see that these four, although they did not converge and did not sit in one place, were each apart, and, meanwhile, wrote about the same thing as if with the same lips, then don’t you marvel at the truth of the Gospel and say that the evangelists spoke by the Holy Spirit? Don't tell me they don't agree on everything, but look at what they disagree on. Did one of them say that Christ was born and the other that he was not, or did one say that Christ was resurrected and the other not? It won't happen! They agree on what is more necessary and more important. So, if they do not disagree on the most important things, why are you surprised if they seem to disagree on the unimportant? Their truth is reflected most of all in the fact that they do not agree on everything. Otherwise they would have been thought to have written while seeing each other and consulting. Now what one omitted was written by another, which is why it seems that they sometimes contradict. And so it is. Let us begin the interpretation. The life of Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria is not described by any of his contemporary or later writers. Therefore, those who wanted to have information about him for a long time could not determine the very time of his life. The first time his life became somewhat famous was when Baronius (Chronicles for 1071 and 1073) published some of his letters. The publication of the remaining letters that have reached us may add to the information about his life. But since it is impossible to determine either the time when each of them was written, or the meaning and completeness of the events in the life of Blessed Theophylact described in them, only a few fragmentary information can be extracted from them. Euripomus (Egribos), in fact, is the name of the bridge connecting the island of Euboea (Negropont) with ancient Achaia. But sometimes this name is also adopted by the city of Chalkis, which lies near Euripus. See Lyabbey and Hardwin for a geographical index of episcopal sees. Letter 2 according to Finetti's edition. Empress Maria was the wife first of Michael Parapinax Ducas, and then of his successor Nikephoros Votaniot. This list of Bulgarian archbishops with brief remarks about their lives is placed in Ducange's "Byzantine Surnames", p. 146, Venetian edition. Letter 1 according to Lamy's edition. See the handwritten life of St. Clement of Bulgaria. This manuscript was found in Ohrid by V.I. Grigorovich, who dates it back to the 15th century. He is also named in the printed life of St. Clement, published in 1802 by Hieromonk Ambrose Pamperevs. Letter 45 according to the Meursia edition. It is named after the emperor; but what kind of city it was before cannot be determined with accuracy. The title of archbishop gave higher rights than the metropolitans themselves had, for that was the name of the patriarchs at that time. And Justinian himself, in his short story (XI), in which these rights were granted to the archbishop of the First Justiniana, says: “We want him to be not only a metropolitan, but also an archbishop.” In the above list of Bulgarian archbishops, the first Greek Bulgarian archbishop is Leo (1056), a famous collaborator of Patriarch Michael Cerullarius in the fight against the Latins. Letters 1 and 2 according to Lamy's edition. The rulers of Bulgaria were called Duks (dux). See: History of various Slavic peoples. Archim. John Rajic. Book II. Ch. 8, § 21. Acts 5, 29 .– Approx. ed. Letter 27 according to the Meursia edition. These circumstances are set out in four letters that Blessed Theophylact wrote to the bishop, convincing him to abandon his stubbornness. See: letters 17, 18 and 19 according to the Finetti edition, and 32 according to the Meurcia edition. Letter 53 according to the Meursia edition. Letter 23 according to the Meursia edition. Letter 22 according to the Meursia edition. Both the Paulicians and the Bogomils, jealous of supposed spiritual service, rejected the honoring of saints, relics and icons, as well as all the decrees of the Church relating to external worship. Letter 43 according to the Meursia edition. Letter 41 according to the Meursia edition. Letter 16 according to Lamy's edition. See Jonah 4, 6–10.– Note. ed. Letter 12 according to Finetti's edition. Letter 65 according to the Meursia edition. See Meletius of Athens. Church history. Century XI. Ch. 14. See Dositheus. History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem. P. 750. These interpretations of Blessed Theophylact are also supplemented by conversations on the Sunday Gospels, but they are no different from his interpretations on the Gospels themselves, and only in the last conversation there is an addition made by an unknown writer. In the preface to the Slavic translation of the “Blagovestnik” (Commentary on the Four Gospels) she is called the Queen of Bulgaria. When the time of life of Blessed Theophylact was unknown, such a mistake could easily be made on the grounds that Theophylact himself was the Archbishop of Bulgaria. But at the time he lived in Bulgaria, there were no kings there. Kanstrisy is the head of the sacristy, who also serves the patriarch when changing clothes. See his letter in Baronius under 1073. Wearing scarlet shoes was an advantage of the royal family. Nikephoros Votaniot, having deprived Constantine's father of the throne, also took away the advantage of the king's rank from Constantine himself. But Alexius Comnenus returned them to him again and learned some new advantages. In addition to those published in 1758 in Venice, in the collection of his works there are some letters from Baronius under the years 1071 and 1073 that have not yet been included in their number. Under the famous name of Blessed Theophylact, several other creations of different content are known. Thus, the following are attributed to him: Interpretations on the twelve minor prophets (but from a comparison of them with the well-known interpretations on these prophets by Blessed Theodoret, it is revealed that they cannot belong to Blessed Theophylact); two Interpretations of the Acts of the Apostles, completely different from one another and from the original interpretation (it is difficult to imagine that Blessed Theophylact composed three different interpretations for one book); Biography of St. Clement of Bulgaria (but in it the author himself presents himself as a contemporary of the described saint, who died in 916); Biography of the Bulgarian Tsar Peter (but Peter also lived long before Blessed Theophylact); The Life of Saints Cyril and Methodius, the first Slavic teachers (but it exists only in the Slavic-Serbian language and clearly exposes its inauthenticity).