28) D: Otto Zöckler.

Askese und Mönchtum. Zweite, gänzlich neu bearbeitete und stark vermehrte Auflage der “Kritischen Geschichte der Askese”. Erster Baud. 1608 Frankfurt a M. 1897. Having indicated the basic meaning of the word ασκησις (exercise, preparation for activity), the author, from a brief review of cases of use of the named term, makes the general conclusion that ασκησί means in the language of both classical and early Christian writings both “bodily and spiritual self-exercise.” 1609 Asceticism is a common property of pagan antiquity and early Christianity. 1610 However, the reason for such commonality does not lie at all in the borrowing by early Christianity of the main ascetic principles and customs from the Greek world. 1611 Some ascetic principles were already communicated to Judaism. 1612 Their presence is undeniable not only among the prophets, but also among the legislator. This fact excludes their borrowing from the Greeks through Alexandrian mediation. 1613 Rather, it should be recognized that the use of ascetic means is inherent in paganism, Judaism and Christianity because the basis of asceticism is rooted in a common tradition. Asceticism is a universal phenomenon; it penetrates all religions and all kinds of religious cultures, appearing in each of them, sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker. And this is because humanity, having become sinful, but has not ceased to seek God, can strive again to achieve communion with God only through asceticism. Asceticism, if not always, then for the most part, is a companion to a person’s bad conscience (vom bösen Gewissen). 1614 Conscience testifies to humanity that the actual state of its falling away from God was accomplished through its own fault, as a result of sin; hence his desire to make amends for such guilt through strict self-discipline. 1615 This is why no religion worthy of the name can do without an ascetic element. Asceticism belongs, in a certain sense, to the constant values ​​of human history. 1616 The religious and moral development of mankind has developed many ways of improvement and, in particular, many ascetic means. For a complete and orderly presentation of them, several experiments of their classification are used. The author believes that the most appropriate way of consistently presenting ascetic means is as follows. Since the subject striving for the ascetic realization of virtue can be either one individual or an entire society, then, accordingly, there are two series of ascetic exercises: the exercise of individual asceticism and ascetic social actions. In other words, ascetically living individuals can achieve their goal either in the form of hermits (Eremits, anchorites) or by uniting in monastic brotherhoods (Cenobites, monks): However, both methods are closely intertwined with each other, since “hermits are always again seized by the desire for society, and from ascetic societies individuals strive for anchorism.” 1617 The ascetic striving, carried out both individually and in society, can be activated either negatively, in acts of renunciation of the world, abstinence from the more or less necessary necessities of life, 1618 or positively, in the pursuit of divine things, in elevation to God. A number of diverse negative ascetic actions can be briefly designated as a set of acts of sensual asceticism. 1619 In particular, this asceticism manifests itself: a) in the field of dietary life (asceticism of fasting), c) in sexual life (asceticism of virginity); c) in home life (asceticism of home, dress, bed); in the form of cruel treatment of the body (asceticism of bodily suffering). 1620 Positive asceticism can also be called “spiritual and asceticism.” His goal is to rise above the sensory to the spiritual, above the earthly - to God, "above the world - to the Creator." 1621 It breaks down into two series of gradually ascending acts, of which the first, if possible, strives to free itself from the help of all sensory factors, while for the other, sensory mediation is the main fact, the only aid in the matter of elevation to the Divine. 1622 This includes, in particular: a) actions of prayerful, or contemplative, asceticism. At the lowest level, asceticism embraces some more methods of prayer, supported by sensory aids (prayer with the rosary, contemplation of a dead skull, etc.); however, he does not stop at such an elementary feat and strives for complete elevation into the supersensible world - to achieve direct union with God. Above the level of verbal prayer, contemplative asceticism elevates the ascetic to inner, heartfelt prayer, then he moves on to an even higher level of purely contemplative prayer, which finds its completion in a state of admiration, blissful contemplation (of heavenly light, etc.) and, finally, in a state of disembodiment (“Entcörperung”) or the destruction of the earthly self (Vernichtung des irdischen). Selbst 1623 In other words, this feat embraces the desire for private prayer. 1624 Liturgical asceticism (which refers to the ascetic use of public worship as a means of sanctification), in particular, includes: ascetic regulated reading of sacred books, ascetic singing of sacred songs, ascetic use of sacraments, night services (all-night vigil), sacred processions set out to contemplate the shrine (especially relics), pilgrimages to famous places of manifestation of grace. 1625 “Social asceticism, or socially performed asceticism of labor, contains partly negative, partly positive ascetic actions: a) withdrawal from communication with the world; c) renunciation of the possession of private property - the monastic practice of poverty. c) mortification of one’s will, a monastic practice of obedience. The author, further, briefly cites and examines “early attempts to group various kinds or forms of ascetic behavior,” 1626 and finds that they suffer either from introducing an alien point of view into the experience of separation, or from uncertainty, so that they “do not exhaust the material.” As for the above division adopted by Zöckler, in general, in our opinion, it is correct and expedient, with the exception, it seems, of attributing monastic isolation from the world to the area of ​​“social asceticism”, “ascetic labor”. 1627 However, for our actual purpose, an attempt to systematically generalize various types of historical asceticism is not important, since we are dealing with the Orthodox Christian system of asceticism, with an ascetic fundamental worldview, we establish - naturally - our own special point of view, where each type of asceticism receives its proper place and evaluation in the process of Christian religious and moral improvement. “Asceticism, as an integral part of pre-Christian religious systems, does not have that consistent development that would give the basis and right to arrange it in a certain way according to periods and eras.” 1628 “To make the ascetic exercises and rules of humanity the subject of historical depiction is hardly a feasible task if we limit ourselves to the pre-Christian world, and especially to its more ancient times.” 1629 If the asceticism of pre-Christian religions is not completely devoid of historical progressive development, then individual moments of this development are hidden for the most part in darkness, 1630 elude observation and cannot be systematized. The news concerning asceticism of that time represents, at the same time, a lot of incorrect and insufficient things. 1631 The entry of Christianity into the general development of asceticism marks an enormous historical success. 1632 True, Christianity did not produce significantly new forms or methods of ascetic work. His attitude even towards the not very rich apparatus of ascetic forms of Judaism was rather limiting than favorable to their multiplication and further development. The new and world-historical greatness of Christian asceticism lies in the fact that in it every ascetic aspiration and action is directed and related to Christ, who is always invisibly present in his community; On the basis of this desire for Christ, the improvement, purification and strengthening of a person’s personality takes place in Christianity through ascetic work. 1633 However, these properties of purity, humility, zealous striving for holiness, for spiritual renewal through Christ - properties by which Christian asceticism surpasses all others - both previous and contemporary to it - still do not express the full greatness and all the power of Christian asceticism itself. The secret of this superiority lies in the action of the individual for the whole, which is why both the positive and negative sides of Christian asceticism are aimed at serving the good of Christian society. This superiority of Christian asceticism lies in the subordination of all acts and manifestations of asceticism to the cause of the kingdom of Christ, in short - “in the fruitfulness of all for all in the spirit of love.” Therefore, the greatness of the ascetic aspiration, rooted in the area of ​​​​primitive Christianity, is found primarily in a number of actions of social ethics. Christian asceticism is only social asceticism, a socially organized asceticism of common labor, in which all previous phenomena of this kind found a higher, far superior, model. Christian monasticism of the Middle Ages quickly developed into a cultural force of the first rank creatively forming and educating peoples. 1634 For almost a thousand years it retains the character of a predominantly blessed cultural factor. 1635 Only at the beginning of modern times it was damaged; 1636 The fundamental rejection of asceticism by the Reformed Church is the result of its own degeneration. 1637 There are three main periods and eras in the history of asceticism: 1) pre-Christian asceticism; 2) Christian asceticism of pre-Reformation times; 3) new time. 1638 The above view of Zöckler on the significance of monasticism as a beneficial historical cultural factor is essentially correct. As for the professor’s view of Christian asceticism, as asceticism is almost exclusively social, it is true that it has sufficient and fundamental theoretical foundations and numerous facts from the history of monasticism. However, taken in its exclusivity and unconditional categoricalness, the author’s conclusion turns out to be somewhat one-sided and hasty. The history of Christian monasticism, especially Eastern monasticism, is rich in facts of solitary asceticism, detached from society, which in ascetic writings is often proclaimed to be the highest, most perfect form of life, and life in society, even a monastic one, from this point of view is only a lower, preparatory stage for it. It was necessary to take into account and appreciate both of these indicated directions of Christian asceticism, but for this it was necessary to first understand the fundamental views of Christianity on asceticism, in connection with issues related to it. The author's view of the miraculous in the history of asceticism is worthy of attention. Without denying the possibility and reality of miracles not only in biblical times, but also in the post-biblical era, in the history of the Church of Christ, although believing there is a significant difference between the first and second, denying their equal dignity and significance, the author, however, adheres to a skeptical view of miracles in the vulgar Catholic sense, of the miracles of legends and the cult of saints and relics. 1639 He finds it almost impossible to isolate the grain of a true incident from the legendary stories about the fruits of the “ascetic perfection of saints.” 1640 As for the skeptical attitude of all Protestants in general towards the extraordinary manifestations and results of Christian ascetic work, it is completely a priori and tendentious. Such an attitude is not at all based on proper experience and research of the very facts about which one decides to pronounce such a categorical and harsh judgment. In this case, the rebuke of John Cassian, referring to the latter’s contemporary skeptics, fully applies to representatives of this view. “Those who settled in the wild desert, separated from the society of all people and through this achieved enlightenment of the senses (Egyptian desert dwellers) contemplate and speak about such things that may seem impossible to the inexperienced and unlearned due to the lack of their experience. If anyone wants to express a true opinion about them and wants to test (experiri) whether all this can be fulfilled, accomplished, let him first hasten to undertake (realization) their intention (eorum propositum) with the same zeal and the same way of life as those ascetics - and then he will understand not only as possible, but also as very close to what previously seemed beyond the ability of man.” 1641 It is absolutely true that in the legends about the miraculous events and circumstances of the life of Eastern ascetics there is a lot of incredible and even implausible information and incorrect messages. It is also difficult to argue against the position that separating in these legends the actual facts and later layers, the real and the fantastic, is a very difficult and hardly feasible task. However, if in ascetic literature there are reports of such facts and phenomena that run like a red thread through almost all legends and news about ascetics of different times and nations, then an attempt to put an end to them easily by simply unfoundedly denying them, recognizing them unconditionally and without exception as the creation of an ignorant or unscrupulous (“pious deception”) fantasy is the height of anti-scientific tendentiousness. Pre-Christian asceticism appears everywhere only in national-religious isolation. 1642 Thus, “the ancient Indian religion produced an amazing wealth and variety of ascetic aspirations and customs before all others.” 1643 In pre-Buddhist times 1644, individual asceticism dominated almost everywhere among Indians (with the exception of the northern ones), 1645 and in Buddhist India (about the 5th century BC) social-ascetic aspirations were already noticeably appearing, which, however, for integral human cultural development passed without a trace, remained fruitless. 1646 If in the early days of the religious and cultural life of the Greeks and Romans there was no shortage of certain elements of asceticism, 1647 then with the advent of Pythagoreanism, a significant part of the spiritual leaders of the Greek people began to apply ascetic practice; 1648 and towards the end of ancient spiritual development, the system of asceticism among the Hellenistic-Roman educated world achieved powerful influence; 1649 By the end of the pre-Christian era, ascetic phenomena appeared here with very significant force and in a noticeable form, so that the Greek people, at the beginning of their history almost not ascetic, now became the main focus of ascetic aspirations. 1650 The Old Testament people of God, already in the Jewish-canonical period, manifest in their moral behavior some features of ascetic aspirations. These latter belong partly to the dietary, partly to the sexual area, and already in the (pre-captivity) time it manifests itself in a significant number of examples. 1651 Fasting belongs to the general folk customs observed by both the presbytery class and the people. They are used here either as posts of mourning to express sadness due to heavy losses, or to express repentant grief, or in connection with difficult incidents with individuals, or, finally, as the feat of an entire nation under the impression of a strict visit from the punishing right hand of God. 1652 It was not the whole people who were obliged to practice sexual asceticism, but only the presbytery class, and then only in certain relationships and in specific cases - in certain, certain liturgical times, a person was not supposed to approach a woman. 1653 The Old Testament does not know the asceticism of poverty, but it commands the duty of work. 1654 The question whether Jewish antiquity also knew the social manifestation, the special implementation of asceticism and whether it favored it, is decided negatively by Zöckler. 1655 Facts that are usually cited to prove the contrary receive a different meaning in his coverage than what is usually given to it. The common life of the “sons of the prophets” does not have the character of an ascetic society. These societies did not have any specific rules, any strict external restrictions. The so-called “sons of the prophets” lived in society, they treated the world as they wanted. – As a model of ancient Christian monasticism, they also point out, starting with Jerome (Gregory the Theologian?), the descendants of Jonadab, who were obliged to avoid wine, cultivation of fields and vineyards, building houses, but had to lead a strictly nomadic lifestyle. 1656 According to Zöckler, this was not an ascetic society, but simply a family that faithfully adhered to the ancient traditions of their home. The main idea and purpose of this rule were determined not by ascetic penitential discipline, but rather by a rough and gloomy opposition against the corruption and relaxation of morals that deviated from the simplicity of the shepherd life of ancient times. 1657 Zöckler denies the possibility of seeing in the episode with Jeuthaeus an indication of the existence of the institution of “holy wives,” or celibate girls who lived at the church. This opinion, as explained by Zöckler, is in conflict with the exact description of the church and the officials that the Bible gives. Only the final era of pre-Christian Jewish history provides truly historical parallels and examples of monasticism. 1658 The development of the religion of the Jewish people since the time of Ezra did not bring anything particularly new regarding the essence of deprivation and abstinence of individuals. However, in many respects there is a noticeable aggravation of the laws relating to this area and the practice of life itself. This greater severity of the law is carried out by the party of the Pharisees, formed from the faithful and pious grain of the people. 1659 The strengthening of ascetic severity affected the practice of fasting itself, mainly in terms of quantity, 1660 almost without affecting sexual asceticism. 1661 In later post-exilic Judaism, principles hostile to marriage actually appear, namely in Esseneism. As for the connection of this latter sect with Christian monasticism, asserted by some scientists, although it is indeed possible to observe some similarities between Esseneism and Christian monasticism, however, despite this similarity, Esseneism has a significant number of features that indicate its specifically Jewish character. 1662 In the same way, it must be said about the Ferapevts that this sect is an essentially Jewish phenomenon, growing on the soil of the Old Testament tradition. 1663 The author points out one characteristic feature of Judaism, in comparison with the general register of pagan ascetic traditions: this is the constant and strict removal of Jewish asceticism from harsh manifestations of cruelty to the body, through wounding, self-mutilation, etc. Indeed, this feature is very important, characteristic and significant. Moving on to a consideration of Christian asceticism before the Reformed time, Zöckler makes a general observation that Christianity is not a religion of asceticism, but of faith and love. However, this religion of inner mood and surrender of the heart to God represents a more powerfully active force of asceticism, especially socially organized, than all early religions. Asceticism in general only on the basis of Christian history becomes a force of historical global significance. Everything that was early was prehistoric. 1664 In the teaching and work of Christ, love is in the foreground. The love with which He loved His own to the end should also be their distinguishing disposition (John 8:20, 15; 15:9). From the point of view of this main and fundamental commandment of love, everything that the Lord has ever expressed regarding the ascetic element in the Christian religion must be defined and understood. 1665 Some of his sayings, indeed, state the relative right and a certain moral dignity of ascetic actions. 1666 This includes recognition of the ascetic significance of fasting. As for the well-known saying about those “who have emasculated themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:12), the author resolutely rejects its ascetic meaning. According to his interpretation, this saying cannot be understood either as an evangelical adviser, or as a commandment to remain in a celibate state, but solely as an expression of thought through example (Exemlification), as an exemplary turn of phrase. Using the example of those who, for the sake of the kingdom of God, imposed on themselves the feat of celibacy, the Lord wants to indicate the degree of strength to which devotion to the holy cause of the kingdom of God can, and in some cases should, extend. 1667 We cannot agree with the given interpretation of Zöekler. Despite its obvious tendentiousness, it also suffers from remarkable artificiality, neglecting the direct and clear meaning of a given passage taken in context. After all, the question of Christ’s disciples specifically concerned the advantages of celibacy over marriage (“if such is a man’s duty to his wife, then it is better not to marry”). Obviously, the whole answer tended towards an explanation of this subject. This answer also contains the categorical command of the Lord about celibacy, which applies to persons gifted with a special, rare ability to renounce family ties. As for the general coverage of the matter proposed by Zöckler - the relationship of the teachings on the life of Christ to asceticism, then, generally speaking, it is correct, although it requires some clarifications and limitations. In the teachings of Christ, the ascetic principle is, indeed, derivative and secondary in relation to the primary commandment, which, undoubtedly, is love for God and neighbors. But the author, apparently, seeks to somewhat obscure the first side of the commandment - love for God, and tries to highlight love for people. Although these commandments are psychologically and religiously-ethically inseparable, it is love for God, and not love for people, that gives the basic tone and specific character to Christian teaching and life. The example of the life of Christ for His followers in relation to asceticism is also not completely important, but only partially. 1668 The moral life of the God-man Christ had only the positive direction of unceasing growth in goodness, while every person must inevitably not only grow in goodness, but also free himself from the elements of evil that dominate his nature and, therefore, has a need for such ascetic means of moral development and prosperity, which Christ had absolutely no need for. Evil attacked Christ only from the outside, but in man it constitutes the natural law of the spontaneously unregenerate life of his very nature. This difference seems quite ready to be ignored by Zöckler, like many other Protestants. The continuers of Christ's work - His disciples and Apostles - did not deviate in the least, in Zökler's opinion, from the gospel spirit in relation to the teaching of asceticism. Zöckler, in particular, disputes Wellhausen’s opinion that “mortification is stronger in the Apostle Paul than in Jesus.” 1669 Zöckler, on the contrary, quite rightly finds that the Apostle Paul, from Stoic or Pythagorean asceticism, did not introduce even the most insignificant feature into the Gospel, Christ’s teaching on this subject; he remained completely and completely faithful to the spirit and covenants of his Lord. 1670 The Apostle’s attitude to the problem that occupies us completely coincides with the teaching of Christ, 1671 essentially without deviating from it one iota. As for the further history of Christian asceticism, the question of the relationship of subsequent asceticism to the fundamental ascetic principles of Christianity, the fidelity of its direction to the covenants and spirit of the teachings of Christ and His Apostles, then, when resolving this issue, one should strictly distinguish between those manifestations of renunciation and crucifixion of the flesh that actually arose from the spirit of the Christian faith - from phenomena that arose from alien influences. The history of Christian asceticism is not a simple phenomenon, but a complex one. To that voluntary following of Christ along the path of the Cross, which His disciples accomplished by virtue of a truly Christian faith, to that “pacification and enslavement of the body” in which St. Paul, to the apostolic “struggle and battle” against sin “to the point of blood,” an alien element very early came to these truly Christian foundations of asceticism, which modified the pure ascetic principles of Christianity. Having presented a very brief and cursory outline of the history of Christian asceticism, 1672, starting with the fathers of monasticism - Anthony and Pachomius, with a primary focus on the history of Western monasticism itself, Zöckler makes a general conclusion about the nature of historical Christian asceticism. Paying attention to both the earlier and the subsequent, up to modern times inclusive, development of ascetic life in the church, one should, according to Zöckler, generally draw the conclusion that in this development elements of a two kind found their place: on the one hand, truly Christian, rooted in the original teachings of Christianity, and on the other, penetrated from the outside - products of the influence of Hellenism, Judaism, and religious traditions of the East. 1673 On the foundation laid by Christianity, a building was erected from various materials: along with gold, silver and precious stones of truly Christian truth, firewood, hay, straw were used for construction - that is, elements of alien origin. 1674 Even if this general conclusion proposed by Zöckler is true, then the question arises: where is the true criterion for the unmistakable recognition and accurate determination of these types of completely different, positively incommensurable elements in the history of the development of Christian asceticism. The general outline of the teaching on this subject of Christ and His Apostles given by Zöckler cannot serve as such a criterion. The solution to this important fundamental question can be successfully undertaken only on the basis of a firmly established genuine teaching about asceticism in connection with the general principles of Christianity. Otherwise, each researcher risks coming to false or one-sided conclusions, and even in the best case, the research results will lack the necessary reliability and accuracy. Moving on to the consideration of the main forms of individual asceticism in the church, Zöckler notes that the area of ​​individual asceticism, abstinence, essentially manifests itself only in the experiences of mortification of the flesh, on the one hand, in dietary, and on the other, in sexual relations, and, in connection with the latter, in the asceticism of clothing, i.e. in the desire to avoid luxurious clothes and unnecessary jewelry. 1675 In relation to the actions of positive asceticism in this era, one can also find very little: news about them is scanty. Among the liturgical actions of early Christianity, there is not a single one that has the meaning of a penitential exercise. Neither the reading of the Bible nor the singing of psalms and hymns is used as a means of penitential discipline or strict exercise in virtue. Likewise, the area of ​​prayer, both for individual Christians and for the entire community, does not have ascetic devices (Zuthaten) that appear in connection with prayer subsequently. The asceticism of fasting forms the only main feature of Christianity during the period under review. 1676 It should be recognized that Zöckler’s reasoning given by us contains a significant amount of truth, although there are quite a few unfounded statements and conclusions that are not based on solid data. Some of the author's provisions find limitations and amendments in unshakable historical data. Zöckler’s observation is correct that the main background of the life of the early Christian community was a joyful, enthusiastic mood, expressed mainly in hymns of praise and thanksgiving to the Lord God (Acts 2:45–47. Compare Col 4:2). In this fresh community, fragrant with purity and holiness, it really prevailed, dominated almost completely, leaving an indelible specific imprint. for the entire life of the first followers of the Lord, asceticism, in Zöckler’s terminology, is positive - attraction and elevation to the Divine. “All the Christians continued with one accord in prayer and supplication” (Acts 1:14); they met together every day in the church with one accord (2:46); all with one accord remained in Solomon's porch (5:12; cf. v. 42; 6:4), constantly continued in the teaching of the Apostles, in fellowship and in the breaking of bread and in prayer (2:42). The author himself would hardly disagree that such an intense, constant, prayerful feat should be called asceticism in the best, highest and most perfect sense of this term. Already from the above quotes from the book. It is also clear from the Acts of the Apostles that the reading of St. The Scriptures in the apostolic (and therefore post-apostolic) Christian community had an important liturgical significance, which at the same time was not devoid of instructive ascetic significance. At first, Christian worship was undoubtedly closely related to the Old Testament, since at the very beginning of the community, after the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles, these latter did not even abandon the custom of going to the Jewish Old Testament church (Acts 3:1). This circumstance alone should have been the reason that the Holy Scripture retained its important, primary liturgical significance in the New Testament Church. When the New Testament writings appeared, they undoubtedly immediately received liturgical use (Col 4:16). No less doubtful is the actual ascetic significance of reading the Holy Scriptures. The Apostle Paul writes to Timothy about the significance of Holy Scripture in the matter of arranging salvation for every Christian: “from childhood you have known the sacred scriptures, which can make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:15)... According to the words of St. Apostle Peter, “we have the most sure word of prophecy; and you do well to look to him as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts” (2 Peter 1:19). The evidence given does not exhaust all the available data, but what has already been said, we hope, is enough to confirm our idea that the ascetic use of Holy Scripture is a primordial fact in the history of the Christian Church. How does Zöckler dare to categorically assert that reading Holy Scripture during worship at that time was not yet presented as a means of instilling virtue and repentance? 1677 It was in vain that Zöckler passed over in silence the indisputable fact of the obvious existence in the time he was interpreting of asceticism, in his terminology, property. It is said about the believers of the early Christian community that they all “were together and had everything in common; They sold their estates and all property, and distributed it to everyone, according to each person’s need” (Acts 2:44–45; cf. 4:34–35). Thus, other types and manifestations of asceticism, and not just fasting, were important in the early Christian community. Regarding the sexual asceticism of the two centuries closest to the apostolic time, the author’s general conclusion is that among the fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, explanations in the spirit of evangelical freedom prevail. 1678 Actually, we would express this thought more precisely in such a way that in subsequent centuries, indeed, the doctrine of the superiority of celibacy over marriage is expressed with incomparably greater certainty and exclusivity. This idea, if possible, will be thoroughly and documented by us in Chapter V (in the 1st Chapter of Volume II) of our work. Moving on to the study of “the earliest beginnings of monasticism,” the 1679 author expresses the following main thoughts. Already in the times closest to the Apostles, there were ascetics of both sexes in the church. But there have not yet been any more definite boundaries in the position and behavior of these ascetics and ascetic Christians. Christian ascetics undoubtedly existed, but not in the form of organized communities. There was a lack of connection between individual directions of ascetic striving into a single whole, the ordering of different forms of renunciation - there was a lack of a unifying organization in general. The asceticism of pre-monastic times was particularly different from the monastic and monastic asceticism in that until the 4th century, ascetics did not retire to the solitude of the desert and did not refuse to participate in earthly possessions and in the use of earthly gifts for the good of society, meaning to serve its interests. Tertullian, despite his strictly ascetic inclinations, testifies: “we are not Brahmins or Indian gymnosophists, not forest dwellers who have not renounced life; we remember the gratitude we owe to the Creator and do not despise the use of His creation” (Apolog. 42). Around the middle of the third century, some approximation to the way of life of the next period is noticeable. Here we mean mainly the following four phenomena in the development of Greek-Christian literature and culture of this era, which can be considered as preludes to later monasticism, which flourished in full force during the times of Constantine. 1680 I. Origen's ascetic school; Pierius and Gierak - students of Origen. The first sought to realize the ideal of a learned philosopher, with complete detachment from property; the second, thanks to his teaching, gathered around him many ascetic-living individuals of both sexes in a close, closed circle. The followers of Gierak went even further than their teacher in ascetic rigorism, strictly adhering to the rule of abstinence from wine and celibacy. Having adopted into their dogmatic views the specific features of Origen’s unthinking, this community naturally left the soil of catholic churchism and formed its own “sect,” and no longer a monastic community. After such reasoning of the venerable author, it seems, in our opinion, an obvious inconsistency in his further assertion that this community, representing the earliest attempt at the social organization of ascetic aspiration, has historical interest in the sense that it can be considered as an intermediary link between the asceticism of pre-Nicene times, which had not yet developed to the point of organization into a society, and monasticism in the proper sense. 1681 Without a doubt, no historical connection or actual dependence can be established between these two completely independent phenomena. II. Wandering ascetics at Pseudoclement. 1682 Monument: “De virginitate”, attributed to St. Clement of Rome, but which did not appear earlier than the beginning of the 3rd century, 1683 indicates that virgins are already forming special communities among Christians, whose life has even managed to take shape in some specific forms, and abuses of normal orders have already been observed to a strong extent, especially when ascetics travel for the purpose, and sometimes simply under the pretext of preaching. The monument is intended to eliminate abuses that have arisen, especially in the form of seductive relationships between ascetics of both sexes. The societies of virgins depicted in general terms are, in Zocklera's opinion, of no little interest as an intermediary type between the asceticism of early Christian times, inappropriate for its title, and the asceticism of the 4th and 5th centuries, which became a closed state, with the monks living either in cells or in laurels, and sometimes wandering idly in crowds. III. Monks by Eusebius and brothers of the union (Bandesbruder) by Aphraates. 1684 Eusebius of Caesarea several times calls ascetics by the name μοναχοί (in two places his commentary on the psalms). Consequently, already at the beginning of the fourth century, that is, some time before Pachomius and at the same time as Anthony’s activity, the name “monk” was used as a synonymous designation for “ascetics.” The Syrian church writer Aphraates, in two of his homilies (written around 337), which have the theme of virginal life in Christianity, calls those who are in the celibate state “brothers” or “sons” of the “union.” These persons, while maintaining this object of celibacy, nevertheless live within the Christian community and enter into various relationships with its members. If they are called monks (ichidäjä), it is only because they live alone, and not with the daughters of “Eve,” that is, they observe celibacy. Paul of Thebes and Anthony carried out monasticism (μοναχισμός) already in the sense of complete flight from human society, removal into the desert. 1685 Anthony the Great did not set out to found a monastery. “Anthony can be called the father of monks only if the name “monk” is understood in a narrow and specific sense, as in Eusebius. The ascetics he gathered and united always remained hermits. Therefore, in the Life of Anthony the seat of his monks is called μοναστηριον (p. 44), but not κοινόβιον or λαυρα; the latter designation is found only when applied to meetings of representatives of Pachomievian and post-Pachomievian asceticism. 1686 Anthony became the father and head of the anchorites of Egypt, but the transformation of these anchorites into Cenobites is due not to him, but to his contemporary Pachomius. 1687 In the section dedicated to “Pachomius, the founder of the monastic community” 1688, Zöckler quite fully, although not always correctly, commenting on individual facts from the life of the ascetic, treats the personality of St. Pachomius, touching on his life, activities, as well as the “Rules” that formed the basis of the film; In conclusion, the significance of the hostel he founded in the history of Christian monasticism is briefly indicated. This department was noticeably influenced by the works of Grützmacher “Pachomius und das älteste Klosterleben. Ein Beitrag zur Mönchsgeschichte.” Freiburg und Leipzig. 1896, 1689 as well as Weingarten’s “Der Ursprung des Mönchtums im nachkonstantinischen Zeitalter”. Gotha. 1877. 1690 Outlining the circumstances of the life of St. Pachomius, Zöckler especially emphasizes the fact that St. The ascetic lived for some time even before being baptized in the church of Serapis near the village of Shenesit. Following the view of the two cited writers, our author comments on this fact in such a way that St. Pachomius lived here in the company of hermits, servants of Serapis, and actually belonged to this society, as its member, praying to the pagan deity in a dilapidated temple. 1691 After baptism, the ascetic was under the guidance of Palemon, who “also (gleichfalls) may be considered as a Christian imitator of some of the customs of the neighboring ascetics of Serapis.” 1692 When presenting and discussing the prescriptions of the “Rules” of St. Pachomius Zöckler tries to indicate twice in 1693 some specific features of the actual dependence of St. Pachomius from representatives of the cult of Serapis. In view of the certain fundamental significance of this provision, we consider it our duty to express our best judgment about it. The author does not dare to speak out on this issue as categorically and categorically as other representatives (for example, the two above) of Protestant science, especially Grutzmacher, do. This does honor to the author under consideration, and on the other hand, this circumstance is important for us as self-evidence of Protestant science about the difficulty of resolutely supporting this bold, but essentially groundless view. Starting to analyze Zöckler's opinion, we note first of all that, according to Archimandrite (now bishop) Palladius, in 1694 the fact of the settlement of Pachomius in the church of Serapis dates back to the time after St. baptism of an ascetic. 1695 “He settled here in the ancient, then already empty, church of Serapis.” 1696 But, even if we leave aside the indicated circumstances of the event in question and admit that St. Pachomius actually lived among the servants of Serapis, then even with such a concession on our part, Zöckler and his predecessors would gain little. Dr. Julius Mayer on this issue provides a number of the most compelling and thorough data, from which it is obvious that the statements of Weingarten, Zöckler, etc. are based on a misunderstanding. Using the description of papyri located in Paris and other libraries in France and relating to the history and life of the servants of the cult of Serapis, 1697, based on these sources, Mayer draws the state of the servants of Serapis around the time of interest to us as follows. These were not ascetics or hermits, but in the proper sense priests (λειτουρουσαι, ποιούμεναι μεγάλας λειτουργίας τω θεω). 1698 Their number was very small. So, at the church of Serapis in Memphis there were only seven of them, and this church was considered the most important. 1699 As for the church at the secluded village of Shenesit, then, as Zöckler himself says, it was half collapsed. Consequently, this church could not be distinguished by the number of its servants. Probably St. Pachomius settled in it because the building was abandoned; and settled not for any other reason, but solely because, due to poverty, he had nowhere to live. The priests who served at the church of Serapis were not in complete separation from the outside world; in 1700 their life was not solitary. So, for example, according to the testimony of the priest Ptolemy, there was even a vegetable market inside the church in Memphis; The priests visited this market completely freely and sometimes even started a fight with the traders. 1701 For managing the church, the priests received a certain allowance. If they were not given the agreed upon salary on time, they turned to the strategist or even to the king himself with requests and complaints, and sometimes threatened to abandon the church. 1702 This is the main feature of the life of the priests of Serapis. Only preconceived thoughts could prompt the above-mentioned scientists to connect the origin of the Christian monastic kin with the priestly institution of Serapis, using all sorts of random historical hints, arbitrarily juggling facts, exaggerating to unprecedented proportions the significance of some details and completely hushing up and obscuring other news that directly kills their fantastic constructions. Analyzing the various prescriptions of the “Rule” of St. Pachomius, Zöckler indicates the reflection of the discipline of the ascetics of Serapis in only two of them (and even then with great reservations and extremely hesitantly). Discussing that rule of St. Pachomius, according to which the monks should be divided into twenty-four ranks, with each rank receiving the name of one of the letters of the Greek alphabet in order, Zöckler, noting in general that this rule, in the series of ancient Christian legalizations of the Cenobites, does not have a parallel and analogous one, 1703 makes a conjectural assumption that here, perhaps, we have an imitation of the Egyptian structure of the ascetics of Serapis; in any case, this feature is specifically Egyptian, which is why it remained without imitation in other cenobites and in subsequent times in the history of monasticism. 1704 However, he immediately stipulates that for a categorical statement we do not yet have solid evidence from Egyptology. And other researchers express bewilderment about the rule being analyzed, without being able to accurately and definitely explain its origin and meaning. 1705 But, if what we said earlier about the number of ascetics of Serapis is true, then the assumption that this detail was borrowed from the life of the servants of Serapis falls by itself. Moreover, the division is based on 24 letters of the Coptic alphabet, out of 31. Of the 31 letters of the Coptic alphabet, “the first 24 are taken from the Greek alphabet, and the last 7 are borrowed from the demotic alphabet.” 1706 And this circumstance does not favor Zöckler's assumption. According to Zöckler, in the requirement of Pachomius’s rule to eat food with the mouth closed, so that one cannot see the brother eating, the national Egyptian element again appears, perhaps also in connection with the discipline of asceticism of Serapis. But this detail is so devoid of fundamental character and any important significance that it is not worth talking about it much. It could have been borrowed from a practice that previously existed somewhere, but it could very easily have been invented completely independently by St. Pachomius. The least plausible guess is that it was borrowed in this case from the Egyptian cult, for the reasons expressed earlier. Zöckler's general attitude towards St. Pachomius is very respectful. For example, he speaks with admiration about the social organization of labor in his community, as a happy invention of a brilliant legislator, which, rightfully, made his organization a subject of surprise and imitation in the subsequent centuries of monastic Christian life. 1707 Egypt remained the main place of residence and center of monastic life and aspiration in this period. It was famous far and wide as a classical country of asceticism, as its fertile soil, a nursery of monasticism, where they learned true philosophy, the life of true friends of God. 1708 Community monasticism, even during the life of St. Antony and Pachomius and under their influence, spread not only in the countries of the upper and middle reaches of the Nile, but penetrated and took strong roots also in Lower Egypt. With the introduction of the Cenobite principle, a distinction emerged everywhere between more or less strict asceticism. The asceticism of the Cenobites is more moderate, while the asceticism of the hermits is more strict, rigoristic, often reaching to the extreme. For the Cenobites, the meaning of the norms of life was in general provisions similar to those given in the “Rule” of Pachomius. Accordingly, the Eastern monk abstained from eating meat, drinking wine, as well as from any kind of treatment of women. His clothing was limited to 4–5 things (caftan with a belt, cloak (mantle), cap, sandals). His daily occupation was divided between handicrafts or work in the kitchen and garden, on the one hand, and worship, of which there were at least 7 during the day (four during the day and three at night), on the other hand. For Pentecost and other deliberate periods of fasting, the monk was prescribed a stricter fast than other Christians in general. The monks' dwellings were extremely simple and poor; they were designed more to achieve strict isolation from communication with the world than to provide any convenience. But at the same time, in this case, either the establishment of St. Pachomius about the joint life of two or three monks, or in other monasteries a special cell or hut (κελλίον, cellula, tugurium) was indicated for each brother; In any case, a canopy with a bed for night rest protected from the sun's heat and rain. 1709 A completely different thing has to be said about hermits (eremites) or “monks” - in the original and narrow sense of the word. According to their way of life, they fall into two categories: those belonging to the monastery or monastic district (έγκλειστοι, reclusi) and those living in deserted places remote from the monasteries, in the proper sense, eremites, or anchorites. 1710 The life of both was unusually harsh, full of severe hardships. Therefore, they attracted special attention from those travelers to the monasteries, who told us valuable news about them. 1711 As for specific examples of the extreme ascetic severity of hermits, then: A) In the point of dietary asceticism, Zöckler points especially to striking examples of contempt for cooked food and the consumption for a long time or throughout life only of grass, roots, tree fruits, etc. (the so-called “omophages” and “cryophages”), as well as outstanding examples of surprisingly long fasting and exhaustion by hunger. 1712 B) No less severe methods were used in sexual asceticism, that is, in the fight against the excitement of sexual lust. In these types, sometimes ascetics even avoided drinking water, exhausted and exhausted their bodies in every possible way: they either burned themselves with fire, or allowed insects to sting their bodies, etc.; they avoided meeting women by all means, no matter who they were, even sister, mother... In the latter case, there are thoughts and examples that reach amazing extremes. It is told about the chaste Abbot Thomas, for example, that his bones, even in the coffin, did not tolerate a female body around them. 1713 C) The asceticism of home life was no less carefully cultivated and expressed itself in various forms, especially: a) how to combat the needs of sleep by various means. This also includes sleeping in an awkward position or on bare ground (χαμαιευνία). The means of ascetic victory over sleep were reading St. Scriptures or edifying books, standing prayer, soul-saving conversations, etc. 1714 ß) homelessness or staying in a miserable shelter, if possible. The classical soil of the first practice is Northern Syria, more precisely the diocese of Theodoret. 1715 The second kind of asceticism consisted of staying, for example, in cramped huts, in caves, and this type of asceticism was also manifested in the fact that the ascetic’s habitat was surrounded by bars, walls, completely isolating them from the outside world, etc. 1716 γ ) moving on to the forms and manifestations of asceticism in clothing, Zöckler states the truly interesting fact that the asceticism of deprivation of clothing and complete nudity remained completely alien to ancient Christian monasticism: This phenomenon is associated with the severity of the rules prevailing in this monasticism regarding things that have contact with the genital area, and at this point an important contrast is indicated between Christian and pagan asceticism (actually Indian). Individual examples of complete nudity are still reported in monuments to the history of asceticism. But in general, some, at least minimal, attire remains even among ancient Christian ascetics living as hermits. 1717 Zöckler also includes in this category the imposition of iron chains, heavy iron rings cutting into the body by ascetics of both sexes, carrying on oneself various enormous weights, patiently enduring the bites of animals, the stings of poisonous snakes, scorpions, especially during prayer and worship, and, in the latter cases, ascetics sometimes refused to use any pain-relieving healing agents. 1718 D) In the area of liturgical asceticism, it is noted above all: a) the point of actual prayer asceticism. This includes, first of all, data on such zealous prayer books who performed a certain, possibly larger, number of prayers in a short time. So, for example, Abba Paul on Mount Ferma (Φέρμη) in the hermitage desert extended the number of such prayers to 300. In order not to forget any of these firmly formulated prayers (ευχαί τετο - πομεναι), he carried 300 pebbles on his chest, which he gradually threw out one by one, and thus counting the amount of prayers. This exercise can be considered as the oldest example of praying the rosary, which is why we do not mention it here. 1719 β) prayerful reading or singing of psalms forms the second main method of ascetic prayer exercise. Since it represents an outstanding point already in the “Rule” of Pachomius, it naturally passed into the practice of all groups of Egyptian and extra-Egyptian Cenobites and hermits. 1720 However, there was no uniformity regarding the number and method of liturgical singing of psalms; here, according to Kaccian, there were as many different rules as there were monasteries and cells (Inst. coen. II, 2). But usually 12 or 15 psalms were sung. The psalms were said while standing. This was the rule. The meaning of this rule is associated either with the act of prayer, or with the customs of repentance or kneeling. 1721 γ) asceticism of silent contemplation. This method of prayerful asceticism, which is essentially identical with the so-called heartfelt prayer (oratio mentalis, supranaturalis), was practiced mainly by those ascetics of the mystical direction who were not satisfied with the use of external, often spoken prayers (oratio verbalis, vocalis). Virtuosos in this practice can only be found in the circle of hermit monks and monks who lived, although in monasteries, but in solitude, but not among the Cenobites, subject to the need to participate in seven daily prayer meetings and systematically engage in work. A representative of such prayerful asceticism was already St. Anthony, who is glorified by monastic tradition as a teacher in this art. 1722 The pious Isidore of Thebes ruled an entire monastery, consisting of such contemplatives and tireless prayer books. 1723 The facilitating conditions for acquiring and maintaining the ability to the indicated state, in turn, were the feat of silence and the maintenance of constant repentant sorrow. δ) remaining in constant silence or absolute calm - ησυχία - is glorified as a special virtue by many fathers of monasticism, especially Egyptian. This ascetic exercise, in connection with being in deep contemplation, was recognized as such an important feature in the behavior of a monk that already in the laws of Justinian the names φροντιστήρια or ησυχαστήρια were used as equivalent to the name “monastery”. ε) finally, some ascetics practiced being in constant repentant sorrow, or repentant tears about sins, that is, about their previous sinful life or about the sinfulness of the world in general. However, this type of asceticism manifested itself more widely and more noticeably only in a later era. 1724 Touching upon the asceticism of practical social life, the German scientist speaks with undisguised sympathy about the manifestation and implementation in monastic life of the Christian principle of love for others, and cites some facts of self-denial, self-restraint and selfless labor, which were based on serving the cause of Christian love. In particular, he points, for example, to Christian hospitality as an attractive trait that belonged to almost all Cenobites without exception; dwells with admiration on the explanation of the mutual relationship in the monastic life of work and prayer, which belongs to the ascetic Lucius. Bearing in mind the arrogant dreaminess of some monks who denied manual labor for the sake of the imaginary need for constant prayer (referring to (1 Thessalonians 5:17), the named ascetic states that work and prayer are not mutually exclusive, but must exist together; that work sanctified by prayer turns out to be fruitful in the sense that if the excess proceeds are used for the poor, then through this the benefactor acquires intercessors before God who continue to pray for him when he eats and sleeps. Sections: “Asceticism of unconditional obedience and “asceticism of excessive humility,” as is clearly evident from their very name, contain facts related to the manifestation of excessive, sometimes, in Zöckler’s judgment, downright unreasonable and senseless obedience and false humility, including cases that sometimes occurred when ascetics pretended to be stupid and mentally ill, mainly for the purpose of avoiding the honor of being ordained bishop and presbyter. However, facts of both kinds, according to Zöckler himself, in the era depicted were still quite rare and exceptional. 1725 When reading the presented section, one constantly feels the author’s lack of positive data and a certain criterion for an unmistakable assessment of the moral significance of certain ascetic phenomena and actions of ascetics. The need for such a solid ground of principle, the extreme importance of studying the genuine and integral worldview of Christian ascetics especially persistently declares itself in those cases when the author leaves the objective and neutral ground of facts and expresses his personal (actually general Protestant) views and subjective feelings and impressions. 1726 If the author considers some manifestations of prayerful asceticism to be moderate and cautious, and recognizes others as unhealthy and fantastic extremes; 1727 if, according to Zöckler’s judgment, both in positive and negative asceticism one can find examples and facts on which the spirit of a sick denial of the world and a hostile attitude towards nature was imprinted in various forms; 1728 if in the actions of asceticism of silent contemplation the professor finds a close analogy with the phenomena of Buddhism, Neoplatonism, etc.; 1729 if in some facts of ascetic obedience the same author sees even absurd phenomena, then don’t all these reviews and judgments seem to be unproven, unverified, hasty and hasty conclusion of incomplete and unscientific ignorance; Are these provisions not the result of a one-sided and shallow superficial general point of view, observing the visible, the phenomenal, but often omitting the essential and fundamental? After all, ascetics not only systematically and consciously performed known facts, but also definitely expressed why they acted this way and used certain auxiliary methods and techniques rather than others. Therefore, we are obliged, before expressing our definite opinion about their actions and actions, to listen to their own explanation of their behavior. In other words, one must know, thoroughly inherit and firmly establish not only the external facts of ascetic practice, but also correctly understand the fundamentals of the theory of asceticism, the essence of the Christian teaching about asceticism. It is, in fact, impossible, without thoroughly and thoroughly delving into ascetic teaching, to discuss the incomprehensible facts of ascetic life from the point of view of “average” morality, as Zöckler sometimes does, however. The importance of our chosen topic is also illuminated from this side. In general, the author, having limited himself to the historical side of the manifestation of Christian asceticism, apparently did not become thoroughly acquainted with the essence of ascetic Christian teaching. Otherwise, he would not have said, for example, that silent contemplation is essentially the same as heartfelt prayer. 1730 No. As we will see below, according to the teachings of most ascetics, heartfelt prayer is the second stage of prayerful achievement, and the so-called mental or, what is the same, spiritual prayer is the third and highest possible stage of progressive prayer improvement. 1731 "St. The Fathers distinguish mental-heart prayer from spiritual prayer. The first is created by the conscious initiative of the person praying; and the second, although it is recognized, moves on its own without the efforts of the person praying. This is a spiritually moving prayer. The latter cannot be prescribed, for it is not in our power; it can be desired, sought and gratefully accepted, and not performed whenever you want.” 1732 All these judgments are only an extract of the teachings of the teacher. Isaac the Syrian on this issue. The ascetic aspirations of young monasticism, as can be seen from the previous one, manifested themselves with fullness and freshness of strength in all possible areas. However, the feats of ascetics were performed and passed not without struggle and danger. There were a lot of these dangers that both the Cenobites and hermits fought against and to which, despite this, they still often fell, just as there were many different areas of application of their tireless striving for virtue. The essence and concrete content of this struggle and this danger are expressed in a clearly formulated ascetic teaching about eight “evil spirits”, or about eight “vicious thoughts”. 1733 Evagrius of Pontus, Nilus of Sinai and Cassian, in surprisingly precise agreement, depict a picture of these eight “vicious thoughts”, which, being obtained from direct life experience and confirmed by the testimony of many thousands, makes us understand that each specific area of \u200b\u200bthe implementation of ascetic striving is opposed by a certain, constantly manifesting type of threatening temptations. The main area of ​​ascetic struggle and aspirations can be exhausted by eight main feats, starting with fasting as a universal, basic ascetic assumption and ending with the pinnacle of asceticism - humility. This gradually rising ladder contains the following eight steps: 1. fasting, 2. chastity (virginity), 3. poverty (in relation to housing, clothing, etc.), 4. wakefulness (suppression of sleep), 5. constancy in prayer, 6. prayerful elevation to God (through heartfelt, so-called mental prayer), 7. obedience in work, 8. humble self-denial. This staircase, gradually rising from the material to the spiritual, almost exactly corresponds to the rock, which, on the contrary, represents the diagram of eight vicious thoughts, or eight unclean spirits. This rock, which listed the hostile attacks opposing the ascetics’ desire for perfection, in the form of eight demonic temptations (or otherwise, eight demons) contains, according to Evagrius, the following steps: 1. gluttony ( γαστριμαργία, gula), 2. fornication (πορνεία, luxuria), 3. love of money (φιλαργυρία, avaritia), 4. sadness (λ y πη, tristitia), 5. anger ( οργή, ira), 6. drowsiness or laziness (άκηδία, pigritia), 7. vanity (κενοδοξία, Vanitas), 8. arrogance (υπερηφανία, superbia). The parallelism of both series is remarkable. The exercises in fasting that underlie all further ascetic development are opposed by the demon of gluttony, the desire to overcome sexual lust - the spirit of fornication, the renunciation of possessions, jewelry and a quiet life - the spirit of love of money, etc. 1734 For our modern way of thinking and way of life, completely removed from religious experience, such and similar images sound something alien; however, they contain astonishing psychological truth. They give us the opportunity to glance into that deep area of ​​​​internal experiences and struggles of monks and anchorites, from which the above diagram grew. They help us to understand the extreme severity of this struggle in terms of its deep historical significance and to evaluate from the correct point of view some of the shortcomings, errors and excesses that were often associated with this struggle. 1735 After these reasonings, which are generally completely correct, Zöckler points out some outstanding examples of gross deviation from the true path, both by individual ascetics 1736 and by entire monastic groups or societies, and in some cases these errors were of the nature of a directly immoral or anti-ascetic direction, sometimes even combined with a falling away from the faith, in a nihilistic fundamental denial of the moral order, etc. In particular, the German scientist further reports information about the Saraboites, Remobots, 1737 Eustathines, Valesians: 1738 about cases of self-castration and self-mutilation in the image of Origen, 1739 about the sect of Euchites or Messalians, 1740 - about the order of the so-called Unsleeping Ones. 1741 The reports about the representatives of the Christian pillars of 1742 should be examined by us somewhat more thoroughly and in more detail, in view of not only the historical interest of the ascetic phenomenon under consideration, but also due to the obscurity, incomprehensibility of its fundamental significance and the denials existing in science of the strictly Christian nature of this phenomenon. The beginning of this phenomenon in the history of Christian asceticism was laid by the Eremite Simeon, who labored in Northern Syria in 1743. Meanwhile, science accepts that it was in this country, “perhaps only in the times of the Seleucids and in imitation of the Indian penitential customs” among the Syrophoenicians, “that the institution of “pillars” (φαλλοβάται) came into use, which was associated with the cult of Astarte, which took place in the great church of Hieropolis on the Euphrates. 1744 Protestant scientists, of course, seized on this fact and eagerly exploited it to explain the source of the origin of Christian Styliteism, entirely trying to establish the genetic affinity of the latter with the former. Catholic writers, on the contrary, deny any knowledge, even by hearsay, of this phenomenon to Simeon. 1745 Of course, we do not have definite, positive data either for a categorical statement or for a decisive denial. Zöckler finds it incredible that this form of asceticism was completely unknown to Simeon. 1746 However, he does not dare to defend the position that Simeon, in the form of asceticism he chose, new to Christianity, was only a simple imitator of previous pagan models. 1747 In general, Zöckler’s attitude to this issue is uncertain; His judgment on this point is indecisive. This is understandable. Due to the lack of solid ground of objective facts, judgments can only be of a hypothetical nature. In our opinion, already some of the details reported about Simeon’s exploits on the pillar suggest that from the pagan ascetics he could, at most, borrow only the most general idea of ​​​​this ascetic form, but not the detailed details of even this, the external side of the feat. So, at first he builds a pillar only 6 cubits high, then 12, later 18, and finally 40. 1748 Consequently, he initially only had a general idea, but in detail he implemented it gradually and, obviously, independently. There is no need to say that the essence of the feat, the inner side of ascetic work, was completely different for Simeon than for the servants of Astarte. It is natural to assume that the pillars in the religion of Astarte, the goddess of the sky and stars, had the meaning, so to speak, of a physical and concrete indication of the deity revered in this religion, which his admirers sought to observe as closely as possible. Meanwhile, Simeon’s desire to rise higher and higher was a psychological consequence of his prayerful elevated mood, detached from the earth with its vanity and entirely directed towards God, specifically towards heaven, upward. 1749 Bl. categorically gives this meaning to the feat. Theodoret, when he says about Simeon, that he, rising higher and higher on the pillar, “gradually rose in this way to the sky and moved away from earthly vanity” (άναπτήναι γάρ εις συρανον έφίεται, και τής επιγείου ταυτης άπαλλαγήναι διατριβής 1750. Zöckler seems to rightly link the stylites genetically with the “non-sleeping ones.” 1751 And from this side, naturally, the external side of the feat of pillarism is to be explained from the indicated internal content, without looking for external historical predecessors and precedents at all costs. And the external form itself is not so complex, intricate and does not contain any characteristic specific features for the sake of which it would be necessary to allow the indicated identification. It could have arisen for Simeon on his own, as Bl imagines. Theodorite. 1752 Psychologically this is natural and quite acceptable. In addition, if pillarism arose from imitation of a local pagan model, then it would not have become quite widespread in other Christian countries (Egypt, the Sinai Peninsula, Mount Athos and, finally, Russia. 1753 The main thing, obviously, was in internal psychological motives, and not in external, extraneous, essentially alien and disgusting pagan influences to Christianity. Moreover, Simeon was a commoner, a shepherd. It is natural to assume that he could rather avoid in every possible way, even excessively shun, everything reminiscent of the pagan cult, which was in any way closely associated with him. Zöckler's reasoning about the enormous influence of the unusually difficult and special feat of pillar-building on his contemporaries should in general be accepted as consistent with historical, reliable evidence. According to Bl. Theodoret, “the standing of the Monk Simeon on the pillar enlightened many thousands of Ishmaelites who had hitherto been in the darkness of wickedness.” 1754 According to our author, after the extraordinary phenomenon of Christian pillarism attracted the attention of contemporaries, it naturally should have become the subject of closer comparison with its more ancient example in the pagan cult (if only, of course, we accept Zöckler’s assumption). Small statues of the saint spread to other countries and were known even in Rome. 1755 The desire to defeat and shame the pagan servants further strengthened and inspired the Christian ascetic in his amazing energy and extraordinary patience. All this is partly, perhaps, fair. But what kind of talk can we talk about borrowing if the imitator wants to defeat and disgrace his models by what he borrows from them?... Based on everything that has been said, historically and psychologically much more plausible is the presentation of the matter that we find in Bl. Theodoret and from which follows the complete independence of Simeon’s feat on the pillar from any problematic precedents. Theodoret resolutely, and without any doubt or hesitation, affirms the complete extraordinaryness and complete originality of Simeon's feat. It was these latter properties that, according to Theodoret, ensured the special influence of the ascetic on both Christians and pagans. Here are the words of the most authoritative 1756 church historian: The Lord established this new and extraordinary spectacle (i.e. standing on Simeon’s pillar), in order to attract the contemplation of it with the novelty of the feat, and for those who come to make the proposed exhortation more convincing....", 1757 For the news of the spectacle (καινόν τοΰ θεάματος) is a reliable conductor of teaching, and whoever comes (to look) at the spectacle returns instructed in the divine ( τα θεία παιδευθείς ). 1758 God, who reigns over all, imposes, as it were, new (τάς καινά;) features on the work of piety, offering different ways of life (παντοδαπάς πολιτείας). 1759 Styliteism disappeared from history only with the beginning of modern times. 1760 The first and most famous bishop who influenced the further development of monasticism was Basil the Great, Metropolitan of Kecapia of Cappadocia. He always enjoyed, with some right, the glory of the main reformer of the life of Eastern monasticism, and even became, in some way, the only patron of the order. 1761 However, the monastic rules undoubtedly belonging to Vasily V. - “Οροι κατά πλάτος And “Οροι κατ ’ επιτομήν” do not have the character of a systematically arranged monastic rule in the proper sense. Rather, they prevail everywhere general Christian moral principles and life regulations that determine mutual relations; specifically monastic regulations relating to the correct structure and ordering of monastic life are scattered among other rules, without a clearly visible order in the arrangement of the material, according to Zöckler, the most correct designation for both collections of these questions and answers is, perhaps, “catechistic teaching on monastic virtues and responsibilities. They do not contain the laws of monastic life, but instructions and warnings about the blameless behavior of monastic ascetics. 1762 In particular, Zöckler notes the following most significant and characteristic points of the ascetic teaching of St. Vasily V. 1. The Cenobite way of life is far superior to the hermit's, because it is more consistent with the spirit of Christ and the precepts of Holy Scripture than the second, and also poses, in comparison, less danger. If a brother wants to move to a hermit’s life, he must do so not without permission, but with the blessing of the primate. 2. The loving mutual disposition of the brothers and obedient submission to the commands of the abbot belong to the main constant virtues of the monk. 3. The life of a monk should strive towards complete self-control and the extermination of all passions. 4. The daily life of a monk should be properly divided between diligent work and worship. Namely, in addition to fulfilling the duty of unceasing prayer (Thess. 5:17), according to monastic tradition, there should be seven daily hours of prayer. 5. Diligent reading of the Bible and memorization of the Holy Scriptures are among the duties of a monk. On the contrary, a monk should avoid a one-sided attachment to worldly science and art, which is not closely related to the goals of monastic life. The most suitable of all occupations for a monk is cultivation of the field. 6. In the matter of fasting - always according to the guidance and advice of the primate - reasonable moderation must be observed. Deprivation in respect of food and drink should not exceed limits to the detriment of physical and spiritual well-being. 7. Also, with regard to clothing, a monk should behave decently and avoid everything unusual and inappropriate. Apostolic poverty and simplicity, distance from vain worldly pomp, should be the highest rule. 8. Living together and communicating with women, specifically with monastery sisters, is limited if possible, but is not unconditionally prohibited. Especially presbytery - pastoral treatment of nuns is allowed, although in the presence of the abbess. This last point seems especially remarkable to Zöckler. A German professor finds the teaching of St. Basil V. on this subject is much more lenient and moderate than the teaching of St. Pachomia. 1763 Zöckler is inclined from this position of St. Basil deduces the origin in the east of the so-called double monasteries, that is, male and female, located in close proximity. However, in the east, these monasteries did not become widespread and had no future, having been decisively prohibited by the VII Ecumenical Council. But in Western and Northern European countries, these monasteries existed throughout the Middle Ages. As for the attitude of monasteries to the episcopate, Vasily V. strengthened the influence of the bishop on the monks. Some of the monastic institutions of Vasily V. spread far beyond the borders of Cappadocia, which was especially facilitated by the outstanding glory of St. Basil, as a pillar of Nicene Orthodoxy. 1764 Church and state legislation of subsequent times, through strict definitions, sought to implement what Vasily V. was only striving for. The ascetic principles and advice of Theodore the Studite seek to determine the moral, social, dietary and liturgical guidance of the monks down to the smallest detail. 1765 Theodore the Studite can rightfully be called the legislator of Eastern monastic life. Numerous monasteries that arose starting in the 15th century - both in the Eastern Roman state and in other countries of the East (Russia) - put the Studite rules as the basis for their structure and life order. The most famous monasteries of Athos also belong here. 1766 Currently, the life of an Eastern monk who strictly adheres to monastic rules is unusually harsh. Already from the outside, by his extremely unusual clothing, he stands in decisive opposition to all worldly life. A full monk or great monk (μεγαλόσχημος - who has received the highest monastic initiation and therefore is a representative of the highest level of ascetic life for any observer, even at first glance, appears to be literally a crusader (σταυροφόρος). This is because there are many images sewn on his clothes cross. 1767 In full accordance with this, his entire life has the character of special severity, so that he is, as it were, truly “crucified with Christ” due to the extraordinary nature of his harsh rules of life, exploits and the severity of unremitting deprivations in all respects. Strict hermits, refusing even the fish table, eat exclusively plant food and, usually, once a day. This is in ordinary times, but on certain church fast days they often refuse even this minimum of daily food. To the two permanent weekly days of fasting, many strict zealots also add Monday. With regard to prayer asceticism, the Great Skhemniki are subject to the strict requirements of intense and numerous kneeling and prostrations; They are prescribed, in comparison with lower-ranking monks, to recite prayers on the rosary more frequently. The performer of these external prayer duties, of course, cannot be limited to the great schema-monk striving for the highest perfection. The ancient tradition of inner prayer, or higher contemplation, has not ceased, and it, together with the accompanying state of complete silence or tranquility (ησυχία), and in some cases with the state of grace-filled admiration (vision, contemplation of heavenly light), must continue to be cultivated in the cell of the Eastern monk. 1768 The question naturally arises: do these ascetics by vocation, ascetics in the special and narrow sense of the word, with their penitential deprivations stand completely apart from all other Orthodox Christians, or not? Perhaps other Christians follow these strict ascetics, although from afar, and walk with them at least part of their lists? Yes, that's right. All Eastern Christianity, insofar as it faithfully follows the decrees of its church, is ascetic, bowing under the uneasy yoke of ascetic customs. This is where posts primarily belong. If we take into account that about half of the Greek church year consists of fasting days, on which it is forbidden to eat meat, then the eastern half of Christianity can rightfully be called the church of fasts. In any case, the severity of its instructions surpasses even Western Catholicism. 1769 Zöckler then provides a whole comprehensive and detailed account of the fasts of the Eastern Orthodox Church. 1770 He is amazed and amazed by the fact that the days on which a conscientious Eastern Christian, acting in accordance with the rules of his church, must refuse at least meat - in general, it turns out to be at least 180 days a year, while in the vast majority of cases (about 140) the severity of abstinence extends to fish. 1771 Zöckler admits that the practice of the fasts of the Eastern Church, with all its surprising severity for a Protestant and external, as if legalistic compulsion, is still not without a certain pedagogical merit, as a somewhat useful disciplinary means. However, in general, the scientist strongly speaks out against the practice of fasting established by the Orthodox Church, fundamentally finding it inconsistent with the spirit of evangelical and apostolic freedom, 1772 in fact, in its consequences, recognizing the influence of prolonged and strict fasting in some cases as decisively harmful in hygienic and even moral terms. The Protestant scientist agrees to recognize the interpreted practice of fasting as the cause of even some shameful phenomena in people's life and considers it fair to observe that at the end of periodic fasting, the people are seen falling into shameful excesses of gluttony and drunkenness, accompanied by a large and increased mortality rate of the (Russian) population. All this may be partly true, but it rather indicates a low level of mental rather than moral development of the people - and that’s all. Recently, even among the people, frequent cases of non-observance of fasts have been noticed, but the hygienic and moral state of the masses, thanks to this, has not improved. As for the supposedly harmful influence of fasting on the people in terms of hygiene itself, this hypothesis is decisively shattered by the indisputable observation, attested even by statistics, that not only priests, who in general, of course, observe fasts quite strictly, but also monks, who - in the vast majority - do not eat meat, live on average longer than Russian people of other ranks and statuses. In this case, we have to speak very carefully about the lower classes of the Russian people, bearing in mind their special economic and everyday situation. The vast majority, for example, of the Great Russian peasantry, even on “fast days” do not have the opportunity to eat not only meat (a meat dish is generally a rarity on their table) and fish, and even, often, milk and eggs. Here the influence of coercion and severity of church regulations has nothing to do with it, but the action of a factor of a completely different order takes place. If we keep in mind a discussion of the fundamental side of the issue, then in order to correctly clarify it, it is necessary to firmly establish both the apostolic teaching on Christian freedom, which the author does not do, and, on the other hand, the teaching of the Orthodox Church on fasting. And here we see in the author, therefore, as in several earlier cases, a lack of solid fundamental ground, a thorough acquaintance with the Orthodox teaching on asceticism. Then, without a doubt, he would have seen that this teaching in its true purity is far from the external legalistic compulsion imposed on it by the Protestants, pursuing the ascetic principle consistently, but assimilating to it only a secondary, auxiliary and auxiliary meaning and spiritualizing it with a higher meaning. Zockler’s observation that in the Orthodox Church the principle of asceticism concerns all Christians, and not just ascetics by vocation (as is the case in Catholicism), is essentially correct, although it needs to be clarified in its essence. According to Orthodox teaching, asceticism is indeed a general Christian, necessary requirement, so in the Orthodox Church there can be no fundamental difference between monks and non-monks. If there is a difference between them, it is not in principle, in essence, but in the degree, method and form of manifestation and implementation of the obligatory for all Christians and essentially identical ideal of Christian moral perfection. D. Otto Zöckler. Askese und Mönchtum. Zweite, gänzlich neu bearbeitete und stark vermehrte Auflage der “Kritischen Geschichte der Askese”. Zweiter Band (Schluss). Frankfurt a M. 1897. 1773 In this - the second - part of his solid work, the named German scientist presents the history and characteristics of Western European asceticism itself and Catholic monastic orders. With the exception of an episodic remark about the phenomenon of complete renunciation of all property in the Constantinople monastery of St. Peter, - a phenomenon associated with the name of John the Faster, 1774, as well as a whole paragraph entitled “Greek Catholicism of modern times and its sects,” the general content of which is clear already from the title given, the rest of the content of the book almost does not leave Western European soil. Along with his outstanding erudition and remarkable knowledge of literature, the author’s special interest in depicting and reproducing one of the outstanding phenomena, obviously dear and close not only to his mind, but also to the heart of Western culture, stands out here. This, of course, explains the greater thoroughness of the second part of his research compared to the first, i.e. not only great detail and accuracy in the depiction of the underlying phenomena, but also incomparably greater strength and reliability of the conclusions, thanks to the use of enormous and valuable scientific material, along with primary sources, which, unfortunately, we very often do not see in the first part of his work. Of the entire contents of this book, we will consider separately, if possible, in detail, only two paragraphs - The attitude of the reformers to asceticism and monasticism" and "Greek Catholicism of modern times and its sects, as having the closest and most direct relationship to our subject: the first paragraph, as setting out the fundamental view of the Reformation on asceticism and monasticism, and the second, as containing general Protestant views on our Orthodox monasticism. We will try to present and reveal the rest of the book’s contents only in general terms, noting only the most characteristic and essential, since the facts and views of Western asceticism, according to the well-known psychological law of our knowledge, can and should more clearly highlight the specific features of Eastern asceticism and, thus, describe it more clearly. Avoiding the presentation of unnecessary details and external history, the author actually presents the history of the 1775 emergence and structure of all the most famous Western monastic orders, the characteristics and biography of the founders of these orders and other prominent and otherwise famous representatives of monasticism in the West. Thus, the external history of Western monasticism is presented by the author in its main phenomena quite thoroughly and in detail, although the author, obviously trying to accurately depict only the general, so to speak, appearance of each order, focuses mainly on the moment of its emergence and initial structure and only outlines in general terms its further historical destinies and the changes it experienced in its subsequent life. This was quite appropriate from the point of view of the author's intentions, and for our purpose only a general characteristic may have some significance, while detailed details are unnecessary. As for the actual statutes, rules, and principles of Western monasticism, the author sets them out in great detail, noting their features, their differences from each other, and sometimes their features in comparison with the principles of Eastern asceticism, highlighting their main provisions and essential points. If we keep in mind the main tendency of Western monasticism in comparison with Eastern, then Zöcklera’s sympathies are entirely on the side of the former, because in general, according to his image, it is alien to exclusive contemplation and does not in the least degrade active life. Already at the earliest time in the historical life of Western monasticism, a red thread running through the monastic rules was the desire to elevate the active life over the contemplative one. 1776 Even one who lives in solitude for the sake of realizing the ideal of a contemplative life should not despise and forget the active life. 1777 If we distinguish three main trends in Catholic monasticism after the Reformation, meaning the basic principles penetrating each of them - either contemplation, or practical charitable activity, or, finally, scientific or pedagogical, public education, activity - then only a few, very few orders will fit under the first heading. 1778 There was and is a much greater number of such orders or brotherhoods that devoted themselves to caring for the sick and other deeds of love. 1779 Quite a significant number of orders with scientific and pedagogical directions. 1780 This feature of Western monasticism is very attractive to the author, and he does not miss the opportunity to emphasize it with special love. The second feature of Western monasticism, which is attractive to the author, in comparison with Eastern monasticism, is the greater softness and consistency of its rules and regulations regarding the external way of life (home, food, clothing, etc.) with natural climatic conditions and the Western European environment. 1781 Relative gentleness, sometimes in direct contrast to the traditions of the East, is especially evident in the ruling on the type of food. Thus, Benedict of Nursia 1782 prohibits only the meat of four-legged animals, however, allowing this too for the sick and weak. It is allowed to eat the meat of not only fish, but also birds. 1783 The third outstanding feature of Western monasticism, according to Zöckler, is its noticeable desire for literary pursuits and pedagogical activity. 1784 Even from hermits a certain amount of theological knowledge was required. 1785 Exceptions in this regard, however, do occur, but relatively very rarely, namely only as an exception (cf., for example, the Statute of Aachen) 1786 and about the Trappists. 1787 As for the various external manifestations of the ascetic principle in Western Christianity, the various ascetic techniques and methods practiced there, then, based on their depiction in Zöckler, one gets the impression that in quantitative terms, so to speak, asceticism was developed to a much greater extent in the West than in the East. 1788 Equally, it is not difficult to notice here the decisive predominance and clear predominance on the side of the actual external ascetic techniques and actions in comparison with the internal, psychological, more intimate and deep, ascetic techniques and methods. And this impression is not illusory, but quite accurate, justified by a logical analysis of the facts. We do not find many ascetic techniques that had or even now take place in Catholicism in the practice of the Eastern Church (for example, drawing a cross on the forehead with a sharp nail of the thumb, the custom of taking the form of a cross with one’s very figure by stretching one’s arms horizontally, remaining in this position for a long time; 1789 self-flagellation, “unknown to the Egyptian-Syrian and Greek East”; 1790 mass phenomena of processions accompanied by self-flagellation, 1791 and their participants, chanting repentant psalms, struck themselves in rhythm with whips and marked their path with bloody footprints 1792 to glorify the suffering of Christ and to obtain forgiveness of sins 1793 The abundance of external techniques and mechanical means reaches its culmination in the Jesuit Order, 1794 and this phenomenon is aimed at training. will in unquestioning obedience. 1795 And all other Catholic orders were influenced in this case by Jesuitism. This conclusion is fully confirmed by the observation of those numerous and varied methods of self-exhaustion and self-torture, which for the most part preceded and very often accompanied the remarkable phenomenon of so-called stigmatization. This also includes inflicting wounds on oneself with nails, or thumbnails, “in remembrance of the sufferings of the Lord, in order to bear the wounds of the Lord on one’s body” 1797 wearing sharp stones on the chest, 1798 periodically inscribing the initials of the name of Jesus Christ in the area of the heart with a sharp stylus, 1799 wearing on the bare back between the shoulders a wooden cross with sharp nails and needles, 1800 from which blood streams flowed down the back, 1801 flagellation 1802, etc. Both ascetic societies and the methods of deprivation they practiced survived the Reformation and remain in the practice of the Catholic Church. 1803 However, the spirit of the new time gradually affected them too: some of them suffered important changes, lost their former extraordinary severity and harshness, or, at least, began to be used less frequently, retreating to more distant places, not affected by modern culture, and are not practiced as clearly as before. The strictly solitary monastic life little by little disappears under the breath of modern cultural life, like snow under the rays of the spring sun. 1804 The posts decreased quantitatively and weakened qualitatively. 1805 Restrictions and relaxations were made regarding rigid and severe penitential clothing in order to protect health from harm and damage. 1806 The practice of flagellation almost completely lost its former severity, remaining in some monasteries only as a relic of antiquity, almost as one form. 1807 However, the complete destruction of extraordinary methods of self-destruction is still far away. 1808 For example, Catholic missionaries transplanted the custom of processions accompanied by flagellations to eastern India and practiced them there quite recently. 1809 In the Azores, also in modern times, there was a brotherhood of flagellants who organized open processions. 1810 And in Sicily, a phenomenon of this kind took place, for example, back in 1891. 1811 Among the pathological phenomena of Catholic piety, even in very recent times, cases of crucifixion are sometimes encountered. Thus, the Paraguayan Jesuits, according to an eyewitness, on Good Friday staged the crucifixion of the Lord with the most cruel precision. The native who surrendered to perform this ceremony was first scourged until he bled, wearing a crown of thorns, then tied to a cross, and finally he was pierced with a spear five times in certain places (apparently in accordance with the five plagues of the Lord), while avoiding only mortal harm. 1812 A similar incident also recently occurred in New Mexico. 1813 Noting the still occurring facts of bodily exhaustion and the desire for contemplation in Western asceticism, our author values ​​them very low and treats them with obvious unsympathy and decisive dislike. 1814 In some cases, the author points out the similarity of the prescriptions of Western monastic statutes and rules with the ideals and forms of manifestation of eastern, mainly hermit, asceticism. The author sees such similarities, for example, in the rules of Columbanus 1815 (Regula monachorum and Regula coenobialis); Carthusians, 1816 as well as in individual ascetic actions, for example, wearing iron rings on the body, 1817 in cases of self-imprisonment 1818, etc. However, there is no doubt that between one and the other asceticism in their main direction and characteristic manifestation there are more differences than similarities. Zöckler admits this. This is how things really are. The general conclusion from a comparison of the ideal of ascetic aspirations of characteristic, strict and outstanding representatives of Eastern asceticism, on the one hand, and Western, on the other, in our opinion, is that while the first sets as its goal the achievement of spiritual contemplation of God, the organ of which is the “mind” (νοΰς) or “heart” - in general the spirit, the highest and most refined spiritual ability - the second strives to make its followers “visible participants in the sufferings of Christ”, 1819 to realize, so to speak, a literal and physical, as if external, visible, assimilation of them to Christ. Let us now move on to the section that explains “the attitude of the reformers to asceticism and monasticism - “A Christian man is a free master of all things and is not subordinate to anyone” - “A Christian man is a helpful slave and is subordinate to everyone.” In these two theses, Luther described, Zöckler comments, the anti-ascetic, but not self-willed, but bound by the royal law of love behavior of an evangelical Christian. Without submitting to external ascetic positions, without striving for a false (supermundane, angelic) ideal of life, despite this, the Evangelical Christian, however, walks in the footsteps of his Lord. He voluntarily takes upon himself the daily cross that the Lord places on him, for the sake of his neighbor he endures all heaviness and labor, but he remains alien to useless arbitrary suffering, rejecting it consciously and fundamentally irrevocably. He does not know any dreamy escape from the world, abandonment of the duties of an earthly calling, no preferential ascetic state, which would be one or no degrees closer to heaven than the ordinary worldly state. 1820 The view of the Reformed societies, their theoretical attitude to the issue now being treated does not differ significantly from the Lutheran view briefly outlined, in principle, in its main provisions, completely coinciding with it. 1821 Therefore, there is no need to treat it separately: it is enough to determine the relationship of our point of view to Lutheranism alone. The above two sayings of Luther are indeed very characteristic. They suggest that Luther does not seem to recognize at all the importance and significance of external conditions and restrictions in the matter of moral improvement of a Christian. Luther's first thesis obviously refers to the teaching of St. Apostle. Paul about Christian freedom and mainly his saying: “everything is permissible for me.” (I Cor 6:12); however, this saying cannot be taken out of context, and in this case the absolutism of the categorical statement of the Protestants is found in the writings of Ap. Paul is not a defense, but a significant restriction: “everything is permissible for me, but not everything is useful; everything is permissible to me, but nothing should possess me” (ibid). Lutheranism denies the fundamental necessity and essential importance of a Christian's radical processing of his psychophysical nature. And this circumstance, in turn, is explained by the specific features of the Lutheran teaching on human salvation: having appeared as a reaction to Catholic jurisprudence, it itself did not escape it, but only went from one extreme to another, diametrically opposed to it. This nature of the teaching of Lutheranism about the assimilation by each individual of the salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ fully explains its negative, theoretical and practical attitude, in particular, towards asceticism. Indeed, there could be no other attitude to this latter given the stated fundamental point of view. Already from the brief, but very characteristic, theses of Luther, it is clear that the implementation of the principle of Christian love is recognized as quite possible without preliminary processing of the psychophysical nature of a Christian. Protestantism allows and proclaims, therefore, the transition of a Christian from a state of the deepest fall, religious and moral unregeneration into the realm of pure and sublime, selfless-patient love for God and neighbors. The free-moral nature of the rebirth and illumination of a Christian, the need for the subjective participation of the person himself in it, the combination of grace with his own intense efforts and labors and - hence - the procedural nature of each individual person’s accomplishment of his salvation - features on which Orthodoxy insists with particular force (see Chapter 1 of our work), are overlooked and even completely denied in Lutheranism. And from here, with logical compulsion, there is the disappearance from the doctrine and life of Lutheranism of the intermediary, so to speak, stage between the two extreme states of man - sinful unregeneration, on the one hand, and Christian holiness, on the other, the denial of all means and methods by which the moral perfection of man is gradually achieved - in short, the denial of asceticism. These thoughts are expressed by Zöckler elsewhere very sharply. According to him, the evangelical Christian does not need at all for his ethics what is called asceticism. To denote deeds of selfless love and Christian zeal for salvation, which, in any case, the Protestant ethic requires, there is a better name than “asceticism”, “ascetic.” There is no difference between the highest and the lowest exercise of Christian virtue, there are no works of Christian sanctification, separated and detached from works of love. 1822 However, only with the formal-legal nature of the moral understanding of life can this direct transition from one extreme state to another, its direct opposite, be logically allowed. Such a transition is completely incomprehensible from a real, practical point of view, and we never observe it in reality, on a living, concrete, and not fictitious person. Hence, Mr. Gr-tsky’s remark is quite fair: ... “having rejected the significance of deeds, moral feats in the matter of man’s salvation and his moral perfection, Luther thereby left an empty gap between morality and piety. 1823 The fallacy of the main position of Lutheranism frees us from the need to expound in detail and analyze the relationship of Lutheranism to various particular types and forms of asceticism and allows us to limit ourselves to only the briefest possible analysis of the material proposed by Zöckler. And - above all - we observe obvious inconsistency among Lutherans and Reformed people. Both of them have a noticeable difference in their attitude to the regulations concerning, on the one hand, dietary life, and on the other, practical-social and liturgical life. If from the first area some, not to say many, were left in both churches - both Lutheran and Reformed - then in relation to the restrictions of Christian freedom in the area of ​​​​domestic, state and liturgical life, they were more consistent, that is, they mercilessly strove to expel everything that came into contact with asceticism. But the instability and uncertainty of positions is also reflected in the area of ​​even dietary asceticism, although Zöckler states that in this respect the Protestants and Reformed were based on biblical soil. 1825 According to Luther, “fasting and bodily preparation are praiseworthy and good.” According to his explanation, he did not reject fasting, but their obligatory timing on certain days, as a result of which food becomes a reason for confusion of conscience. 1826 Luther even spoke out definitely for maintaining the early Christian custom of fasting on Friday, as well as the ancient Christian custom of preparing oneself by fasting for the great annual holidays - Easter, Pentecost, Christmastide. 1827 He approved of the “secular or civil posts” that secular authorities prescribed in response to public disasters. Luther saw in them a means to humiliation and humility, both external and internal. 1828 In these views of Luther, 1829, in addition to a noticeable fear of Catholic formalism, there is undoubtedly also a loss of the true concept of the church in general, as a theanthropic organization that combines law and freedom in itself and in its actions, guiding its members to moral perfection, prescribing for them certain moral actions and pious exercises, and requiring obedience, but at the same time not overwhelming the initiative of a Christian, and taking into account individual characteristics and various circumstances the lives of its members. Only this can explain the fact that Luther had a very favorable attitude toward the orders of the secular authorities regarding fasts, while he fundamentally and resolutely rejected all external compulsory decrees in the religious and moral sphere. In the religious sphere, he did not allow external mandatory regulations on fasting, but he obviously recognized the benefit and need for external discipline, and thought to avoid contradictions in the event that external regulations and restrictions would come not from church, but from secular authorities. However, an unsuccessful way out of this contradiction was found. After all, secular power can only issue external orders and does not, by its very essence, have the ability and means to reconcile law and freedom. This is only achievable in a true church organization, which Luther and the other reformers did not find. Both the Lutheran and Reformed churches spoke out with equal decisiveness against monasticism, proclaiming it a form of life not commanded in St. Scripture containing contempt and violation of the duties of the civil rank. 1830 Monastic vows with their claims to lead to special holiness - “wrong, false, and therefore illegal service to God,” in the words of the Augsburg Confession. According to Luther, these objects are a sin not only against faith, but also against love. Although Luther sometimes expressed that he was ready to allow the existence of monastic societies, but only solely and exclusively in the form of educational, pedagogical institutions; 1831, although he declared himself an opponent only of the idle life of the monks and their desire for false spirituality, this did not essentially change the matter: “he demanded the complete elimination of all orders with their vows and allowed only that minimum of ascetic actions for which he found evidence in the Gospel.” 1832 If Luther still sometimes allowed some softening and limitation of his extreme views, then the Reformed people were more consistent in this regard. 1833 When discussing the views of Protestants on the falsity of monasticism in its very essence, in its very idea, together with the admission of only some ascetic actions directly indicated in the Gospel, it is important that Zöckler states the indication of history to the constant, one might say, continuous manifestation and detection in the environment of Protestantism itself of sharp ascetic tendencies in one form or another, especially in the form of fasting. 1834 It is impossible, like Zöckler, to end the matter by pointing out that this manifestation of asceticism on Protestant soil was the result of the transfer of “Catholic-ascetic views and principles to the Gospel soil.” 1835 It is more natural and much more plausible to explain this phenomenon of psychological reaction against the weakening of the ascetic principle in Protestantism, its humiliation, neglect, pushing completely into the background, which the author himself partly admits. 1836 In response to the demand to completely eliminate monasticism from the church as a special state, “pop possumus” was heard not only from the Catholic camp, 1837 but also among Protestantism itself a noticeable reaction to this extreme aspiration appeared. The emergence, in Zöckler’s words, of “sects of monks and nuns” in 1838 on the basis of Protestantism, the appearance of “Lutheran monks” proper, 1839 - this fact is significant and important from a fundamental point of view, since it testifies, in our opinion, to the ineradicable desire of some people for a solitary and contemplative life. We see a similar phenomenon in the Mohammedan religion. “There is no monasticism in Islam,” said Mohammed, and thus put an apparently decisive rebuke, cutting off any possibility of the emergence among his followers of a special class of ascetics by vocation. However, in fact, about 30 years later, eremitic life arose in southern Arabia, and monasticism soon became a significant phenomenon in Islam. 1840 These and similar facts confirm the psychological and natural need of people to choose a special, monastic way of life. That is why the words of Rev. Theophan: “monasticism is natural, for it is directly required by our spirit awakened in us; The essence of the faith of Christ gives him real structure and guides his spirit.” 1841 It is known that the largest phenomenon similar to the Christian one in Buddhism is asceticism, which has long puzzled Christian theologians. Catholic missionaries, having encountered this phenomenon, came to the conclusion that the devil wanted to play ape by establishing among the pagans an institution that in Christianity is considered the highest calling for the chosen few. 1842 And this phenomenon - to a large extent - is explained by the fact that very often only in the area of ​​individual life can freedom be realized by a person, since the actual structure of social life bears too obvious and sharp traces of the dominance of coercive - economic and other factors. In characterizing Eastern monasticism in comparison with Western monasticism, Zöckler finds that the spirit of Greco-Eastern monastic life is in greater opposition to the life of the present civilized world, in comparison with the direction of most of the Roman orders in their present stage of development. In addition to the greater severity of requirements in relation to bodily asceticism, mainly in the form of fasting, this contrast is especially aggravated by the fact that a significant part of Eastern monks are obliged to lead an anchorite lifestyle (in monasteries or colleges). The basic, original Eremitic character and of monasticism in general remained in the east incomparably more than in the west. And this feature, in turn, has its own reason and finds an explanation in the fact that in Eastern monasticism, to a large extent, the ancient Christian and medieval feature has been preserved - the desire to immerse in the depth of contemplation, or hesychasm. Recently, this feature in Eastern monasticism has even come to life with renewed vigor, according to Zöckler. Meanwhile, Western monasticism retains its practical character until recently. 1843 But the Eastern monk, thanks to his contemplative life, enjoys much greater influence on the people than the Western one. As one who has completely and completely devoted himself to contemplation and the strictest asceticism, he realizes the highest ideal of perfection, which for the worldly clergy, especially for the lower ones living in marriage, is in itself unattainable. Living “in calm contemplation and blissful ignorance,” tormenting himself in the most cruel way, completely abandoning, according to the rule, all work useful for earthly life, and in such a state awaiting the appearance of the radiance of light, the perfect monk (Great Schemaman) seems to be a more or less exact follower of his predecessors of the 14th and 15th centuries. 1844 The aspiration of Eastern monasticism is directed towards theological learning only to a very insignificant extent. Since the great schema-monk should live, as far as possible, detached from earthly life, he actually does not even need this scholarship, even if it were a purely ecclesiastical science. Only occasionally do valuable contributions to theological science come out of Orthodox monasteries. And in this regard, Catholic monks should be awarded the palm. 1845 If the author correctly - in general - grasps and defines the specific feature of Eastern monasticism - contemplation, then he exaggerates it too much, tendentiously exaggerating the colors and not always coping with the facts of living reality, in order to achieve greater effect and justify his tendentious, too general and decisive statement. “If we are not mistaken, speaking about special monasteries, our famous historian prof. E.E. Golubinsky, we, in Russia, currently do not have special monasteries (until recently there were special monasteries for women, but now, it seems, they no longer exist). But these special monasteries still exist in Greece, they still exist on Athos - of the 20 Athonite monasteries, 12 are currently communal and special (their Greek name is idiorhythms - ιδιόρρυθμοι, μοναστήρια, ιδιόρρυθμα, and the Russians living on Athos learn the name of regular monasteries). These monasteries present a truly sad sight.” 1846 With this we end our feasible analysis of Zöckler’s work. We dwelled on this work with such special attention, presented and, as far as possible, characterized its content in some detail, sometimes accompanying this presentation with our comments, guided, in our opinion, by quite weighty and solid considerations. True, the nature of our dissertation is not historical, but theologically systematic - fundamental, while the content of Zöckler's venerable work is predominantly (though not exclusively) of a historical nature, containing mainly the factual side of the phenomenon of asceticism. However, this presentation of facts in Zöckler’s work is not at all without ideas - the material is sanctified from a certain point of view (which we saw during the analysis itself), and this point of view is far from individual; being general Protestant, it is characteristic of the rationalistic understanding of Christianity in general, having undoubtedly some natural-psychological and historical data behind it, only one-sidedly understood and interpreted. In Zöckler she appears fully armed with Western European scholarship, since Zöckler can, without any exaggeration, be recognized as the best, most competent specialist in this field among Western European scientists. In his work, he can be said to offer a compendium of Western European science on this subject, an entire encyclopedia, having managed to concentrate everything that is most significant and important both in theoretical, fundamental and historical terms. This dignity of a specialist is unanimously recognized by all Western European science. Therefore, to consider Zöckler’s work means to get acquainted, in a sense, with the data of all Western European Protestant science, to discuss an entire authoritative, reasoned and stable point of view. Hence our analysis - naturally - acquired a partly apologetic character, which in itself, I think, is not without some importance and scientific value for Russian theological science. The analysis of the purely historical side of Zöckler’s work is also not uninteresting and far from fruitless. If history is a “teacher of people,” if it is a concrete manifestation and implementation, and therefore a justification or refutation of various theoretical ideas, principles and norms of life and activity, then even for a fundamentally theoretical understanding of the phenomena of Christian asceticism, it is not only not useless, but directly necessary to study the history of asceticism. That is why we can only be grateful to Zöckler for his detailed work, rich in factual data, although this data is not always correctly understood and illuminated by him. Therefore, the analysis of Zöckler’s work represents, in our opinion, an appropriate preliminary to the positive part of our work, serving as an introduction to it, clearing the way for it, and partly clarifying and even indicating the tasks of our research on some particular points, obliging us to highlight some of their aspects more clearly. However, the significance of a detailed consideration of Zöekler’s work is not limited to these particular parties, but also has a more general and significant significance. The historical presentation of the manifestations of asceticism postulates the need for a fundamental, theoretical understanding of the essence of Christian asceticism, possibly a thorough and accurate disclosure of the Orthodox teaching on asceticism. This position can be considered an indisputable conclusion from the content of Zöckler’s extensive and serious work that we analyzed. From this side, the deed itself, and not verbal arguments, determines the meaning and importance of the subject we have chosen for research, since it becomes undeniable that a purely historical consideration of the subject cannot do without a fundamental element, presupposing it necessarily as an essential, fundamental basis. Of the works of Catholic scholars, we will focus in this case on considering only the works of Schiwietz’a and Maure’a. John Cassian. Preface to the first ten interviews of the Egyptian ascetics, col. 481–482. Wed. Simeon N. Bogosl. Capit. pract. et theolog. § 57. MSG. t. CXX, col. 628C-629A. Cp. Blazh. Theodorite. Hisroria Religiosa. Praefatio. MSG. LXXXII col. 1292B-C. According to the teachings, for example, St. Gregory the Theologian, “Christ’s deeds are handed over to us so that they serve as some model for our actions, but there is no complete rapprochement between them.” Or. XL, col. 401 C: ... παραπλησιον οιαπέφεογεν. The exact opposite of this is stated, for example, by Dr. Iulius Mayer: “Antony became the father and head of the anchorites, who, thanks to him and under his leadership, turned into Cenobites - a public life took the place of a solitary life” (Die chirstliche Ascese. Freiburg. 1894. S. 17); however, according to the author, the forms of new life were given only in general outline; they had not yet been definitely worked out (SS. 18–19). “Saint Pachomius the Great and the first monastic community. Based on newly discovered Coptic documents. Kazan. 1899. Brunet de Presle. Memoire sur le Serapéum de Memphis, in memoire presentös par divers savant ä 1’ Asdemie des Inscription et Belles-Lettres d’ institut national de France (Paris. 1852) and Notices et Extrait des Manuscripts de la Bibliotheque Imperiale et autres Bibliotheques, publies par I Institut Imperiale de France (Paris. 1865.XV11I). Arch. Palladium. Op. cit., pp. 59–60. Steindorff. “Koptische Grammatik mit Chrestomathie, Wörterverzeichnis und Litteratur.” Berlin. 1894. S. 4. E.g. SS. 234, 244, 248, 249. See, for example, E. Feofan. Inscription of the Chronicle. Mor., pp. 109–410. En. Feofan. Tolkov. Last Ephesus (V1 ch., 18 art.), p. 437; Wed Damn it. Chr. Moral, p. 307. Zöckler's view on the meaning and origin of the scheme of eight “vicious thoughts”, expressed both in the work under consideration (SS. 253–257), and in another, specifically devoted to this issue, “Das Lehrstück von den sieben Hauptsünden”. Munich. 1893, – we consider it in the appendix to Chapter ΙΙ. our essay, and therefore does not understand this essay. Hanp., Hippol. Delehaye. Les stylites. Brussels. 1895. p. 4. At Bl. Theodoret says about the size of the pillar: first he erected a pillar of six cubits (εξ πήχεων), then twelve (δύο καί δέκα), then twenty-two (δοο κοκ είκοσι), and now, i.e. when he wrote, thirty-six (εξ καί τριάκοντα). Religiosa Historia, cap. XXVI, col. 1473 A. At Bl. Theodoret about Simeon's decision to labor on a pillar: when the number of those who came to Simeon (who was laboring at that time on the top of the mountain, inside the wall) increased too much, and everyone tried to touch him and receive a blessing from him in the form of a piece of his leather clothes, he, on the one hand, considering the excessive honor shown to him inappropriate, and on the other, burdened by the difficulty of the feat ( τρυ πράγματος το επίπονον), came up with standing on a pole (τήν επί του κίονος έμηχανήσατο στάσιν ). Ibid., col. 1473 Α . o ας ή επί του κίονυς έφώτισε στάσις, veodorite. Relig. Hist., Cap. XXVI, col. 1476A. According to the review of a special researcher of life in the literary activity of Theodoret, prof. E. E. Glubokovsky, “Theodorit’s Historia religiosa has invariably been considered a rich and authoritative source of historical information about the saints and in this regard represents an outstanding monument of eastern ariography. Cited cit., p. 434. …. ελκων εις θεωριαν και πιθανήν τοιάφικνουμένοις παρασκευκζων τήν προσφερομένην παραίνεσιν. Quote. (Gal 5:1; Acts 15:10,19; 1 Peter 2:5; James 2:8.) Thus, in the rules: “De opere monachorum” (about 400) the predominant goal is to instill the duty of work, as opposed to a one-sided contemplative and dreamily inactive way of life, the danger of which the author of the “Rules” convincingly warns (S. 348, cf. Rules of Benedict of Nurai (S. 370) cp. SS. 473,474). Francis of Assisi at the beginning did not lead a hermit’s life at all (SS. 475–476, cf. S. 479). S. 467. The rules of the minorities emphasize the duty of labor associated with the prohibition of accepting monetary payment for work performed, while at the same time it was allowed, in case of need, to ask for another kind of alms (S. 481, cf. 484). The Order of the Cellites (S. 512) took upon themselves the responsibility of burying the dead, especially during epidemics (S. 511), and the Jesuates (S. 512), also Elizabethans (S. 514), the Italian order Oblate di Torde’ Specchi (S. 517), cp. generally SS. 516–516. See, for example, SS. 336,338 (“Eastern Rules”), 311, 345 (in John Kaccian), 358–359 (in Benedict of Nurai). Cp. also in the rules of the “Third Order of Francis” (S. 492), also of the Order of Dominic (S. 498). This, for example, is clearly manifested in the rules of Benedict of Nursia, Aurelian, Ferreola and Cassiodor (S. 368, cp. S.S.. 368, 371, 373). According to the rules, for example, Ferreol, no monk can be illiterate; he must know all the psalms by heart (S. 376); Wed also the rules of Isidore of Seville (S. 377), Master (S..484); the same can be said about the order Fratres de vita communi (S. 544) and others like that; The author’s general judgment in comparison with Eastern monasticism, see S. 623. This is in complete harmony with the general character of the West, its practical and non-theoretical direction in all spheres and branches of life. Wed. especially S.S. 599–600. Ibid. This kind of asceticism, although rare, has been practiced until recently. SS. 612, 617. Thus, for example, see regarding the rules known under the name Fructuosa (S. 378), Benedict of Anyapes (SS. 386–388); facts of excessive exhaustion by fasting (SS. 443–446; cp. S. 469); the severity of fasts among the “poor Heremites of Jerome” (SS. 504–505); also in the order of the “lesser” (minimi) (SS. 507–508), in the order of Fratres be vita communi (S. 544), etc. The doctrine of morality and moral life in Catholicism and Protestantism. Wanderer. 1890, Φ heb., p. 226. The teaching of Calvin generally agrees with him. Cp. S. 565. Letters to various persons and on various subjects of faith and life, p. 291. See Ruffner. The Fathers of the Desert. New-York. 1850. Prof. Grenkov. Pioneer of the science of Christian morality (Bibliographer's note). Orthodox Social security 1875. Jan., p. 40. E. E. Golubinsky. A speech about the significance of St. Sergius of Radonezh in the history of our monasticism, delivered at the solemn meeting of the Moscow Theological Academy, which took place on September 26, 1892, pp. 5–6. Sergiev Posad. 1892 See about the rather high state of spiritual life on Athos in the communal monasteries and, conversely, about the low state in terms of morality and ascetic success - in the communal monasteries in E. Porfiry, History of Athos, part III, department. 2, pp. 552–555.