St. John Chrysostom and theatrical performances of his time

Passion for spectacle in the Ancient World and the struggle of the Universal Teacher with it ONE of the most striking signs of the decomposition of the ancient world was that it lived not so much a real life, which had already lost its charm for it, but an artificial, imaginary life, the life of a theatrical stage, where events were carried out or performed that could, with their unusualness or fantasticness, amuse or at least irritate the dulled nerves of mankind wallowing in sensuality. And the more the ancient world decomposed in its reality, the stronger the passion for theatrical or circus shows developed, which finally became as urgent a need for the people as bread. It is not without reason that the idle crowds, in their demands on the government, combined these two needs as equally necessary and filled the squares of the world city with cries of “bread and circuses!” The theater, that is, the world of imaginary life, became an urgent need of the people, or rather, it replaced real life with its hardships and misadventures. But this imaginary life was in fact only a reproduction of the same life that the people led in reality, but only it was reproduced to such an intensified degree, in such extraordinary combinations that were capable of irritating sensuality and igniting passion even in jaded natures, and therefore if real life was filled with all sorts of abomination, which is too much to say, then there is nothing to say about theatrical life, which, as calculated to excite the extinguishing passions, acted with enhanced means and depicted vice itself on stage, so to speak, in heroic forms. It is not surprising, therefore, if the fathers and teachers of the church rebelled with all their energy against this school of moral corruption and did not cease to thunder with threats of the Last Judgment against those Christians who, even having washed themselves in the bath of revival, continued to visit these dens of moral abomination. One of the strongest denouncers of the passion for theatrical spectacles of his time was St. John Chrysostom, and a brief sketch of his relationship to this subject will present a very interesting picture of the morals of the society contemporary to the great saint. It is difficult to say how John felt about the theater even before his conversion to Christianity. But that by the very position of his noble family he could not help but be in one or another proximity to the theater, this can be seen from the fact that his pious mother, who after her widowhood devoted herself entirely to the upbringing of her orphan son, in her youth was undoubtedly familiar with theatrical performances, so that even her very language in her famous speech to her son 1 is partly imbued with theatrical terms. Then, while studying with Livaniya, this enthusiastic admirer of classical customs, he himself, of course, could not help but visit theaters; and later, when he became a lawyer, his very position in the world certainly required him to go where all the flower of the golden youth of Antioch gathered. And indeed, in one place of his treatise “on the priesthood,” he directly says about himself that he “chased after stage amusements,” 2 like all his comrades in position. Therefore, even if we do not assume that he became acquainted with the theatrical world through reading classical works of ancient drama at the school of such a teacher as Livanius, he still had a full opportunity to become acquainted with this world during the period of his youthful hobbies, until that great revolution took place in his life, which made him from a slave of passions to a slave of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is interesting now to look at this theatrical world, which was capable of captivating even the best sons of ancient humanity. Theatrical spectacles, as well as popular entertainment in general in all their forms, were given in Antioch for the most part, as in Rome, at the expense of the main members of the Senate while they held this important government position. The performances themselves bore the name “liturgies,” apparently borrowed from the ancient political system of the Athenians. They are often mentioned in the works of Livanius, whose uncles themselves performed this kind of public duty in relation to their fellow citizens. And the duty was quite difficult and unprofitable, because the Syrians, having long been accustomed to grandiose spectacles, were very demanding and picky about the entertainment offered to them, which therefore was always very expensive. The great demand for entertainment naturally caused the same supply, and the city swarmed with all kinds of actors, jesters, musicians and horsemen, who fed from the theater and among whom often appeared “celebrities”, deliberately signed from Greece or Rome. In Rome itself, the popularity of various ambubajae 3 had long been established, and from the rich Roman reserve of them, Lucius Verus transported a party to Antioch, where it acclimatized with extraordinary success 4 . The spectacles given to the Antiochians by their authorities were of various kinds. At first it was a theater in the proper sense of the word, although it no longer presented the ancient tragedy and comedy of classical times. In their place were pantomimic performances, which enjoyed particular success, and judging by some descriptions made in the works of Chrysostom with undoubted accuracy, the Greek theater in his time was in almost the same position as the Latin theater, as it was during the empire, in the era of Juvenal or Martial. The subject of the performances was usually a cleverly staged adultery, 5 as in the famous pantomime described by Juvenal, in which the perpetrator of the adultery, portrayed by the famous actor Latinus, must hide from the wrath of the offended spouse in a chest. The personality of Stupidas is also often depicted as being subjected to all kinds of mockery and beatings 6: these slaps were a common feature of pantomimic performances already in the time of Cicero. Very often, Chrysostom also speaks of music and songs as components of performances, and these songs were filled with direct allusions to the amorous abductions of mythical heroes and gods of antiquity 7 . Female roles in this kind of performances were most often performed by actresses, whom Chrysostom often stigmatizes with all the mercilessness of his strong language, depicting their too loose costume, waxed faces, impudent wigs 8 , and sometimes by men, which the great preacher seemed even more seductive in view of the fact that these depraved men performed their female roles with shameful verisimilitude 9 . In addition to this kind of performances, all kinds of light divertissements were also in use, in which a mass of jesters, jugglers, tightrope walkers and clowns of all kinds, with their antics and jokes, always of a dirty nature, designed for the coarse sensuality of the crowd, amused its wild passions and intensified the process of the ongoing decomposition of the ancient world. – Circuses were no less popular, and horse tracks in them were one of the main entertainments for the people both in Antioch and throughout Syria. The circuses in the cities of Laodicea, Beritus, Tire, and Caesarea in Palestine were especially famous for such lists, and the most famous riders came from Laodicea, as well as the best actors from Tire and Beritus, and the best dancers from Caesarea 10. Not content with what could be obtained in Syria itself, the organizers of the lists in such a rich city as Antioch sometimes ordered supplies for the lists from the most remote countries of the empire, and for example. special kinds of chariots (quadrigas) were brought even from Spain 11. Along with this kind of performances, sometimes gymnastic games were given, like the ancient Olympic games, and this kind of entertainment was also offered by Livania’s uncles. On the other hand, despite the opposition of public opinion among its best representatives, more cruel ideas, such as the fighting of wild animals and even gladiator fights, were not completely abandoned. This kind of entertainment was usually given at the end of performances, and residents of seventeen cities in Syria were invited to them 12 . In this regard, Constantinople did not lag behind Antioch, and to characterize the theatrical entertainment in the capital, perhaps one more detail can be added, reported by the biography of St. I. Chrysostom by Palladium of Elenopol. It turns out that the theaters there did not remain indifferent to the theological disputes of that time, and in them “the temptations of Severian of Haval and Antiochus of Ascalon were heard” 13. The ardent Syrians, with their characteristic enthusiasm, brought extreme passion to these various performances, in which the inhabitants of Constantinople probably did not lag behind them. This, however, was the case throughout the entire empire, both in the east and in the west, and the scenes so vividly described by Chrysostom are described in almost identical terms in the works of the Latin fathers. In Antioch, the days of performances were days of general excitement, and not only were all the seats in the circus itself overflowing, but fans of the spectacle also climbed onto the roofs of neighboring houses in order to enjoy from there, at least from afar, the all-thrilling spectacle of the lists. And these lovers were essentially all the inhabitants of the city: rich and poor, not only the healthy, but also the weak and sick 14 . Even the elderly flocked there with no less enthusiasm, as did the young people 15. Whatever the weather, everyone rushed to the lists with uncontrollable zeal, and sat on them with amazing patience, despite the fact that the lists sometimes lasted not an hour or two, but almost a whole day. Neither the rain, nor the winter cold and wind, nor the summer heat stopped the lovers of this kind of entertainment, and the unfortunate slaves of their passion were more likely to be exposed to all the troubles of bad weather than to seek refuge, as Chrysostom put it in his picturesque language, “under the beautiful roof of a gilded church, equally cool in summer as in warm winter” 16. And in this unreasonable idleness, not only the day on which the performances took place perished; already the day before, all the talk in the whole city was about the upcoming lists tomorrow, with which all minds were occupied. Friends and acquaintances, members of societies, participants in the same enterprises were already conspiring in the evening about how they would go to the lists and where they would sit, and the next day, from the very early morning, they hurried in crowds towards the circus, and at the same time they had the most lively, one might say enthusiastic conversations and debates about those horses and riders who would participate in the lists, about actors and actresses, about dancers and dancers, whose names were known to everyone and were pronounced with a tone of special reverence. Visitors to the lists knew in detail, as it happens now with horse racing fans, the pedigree of the competing horses, and based on it they built their chances of winning 17 . Of course, no less famous was the pedigree, life and behavior of the actresses, whose dubious adventures were almost whispered out loud by neighbors who enjoyed their performances 18 . The athletes who took part in the Olympic Games were also very popular, and public opinion treated them even more respectfully than ordinary actors, whose occupation was always considered humiliating. Before the opening of the game, a certain kind of ceremony was observed, inherited from classical Greece. Before the start of the gymnastic competitions, the herald announced the names of the competitors and asked the people if anyone had anything to say against any of them. The supporters of each fighter exercised the most unremitting supervision over him during the night preceding the fight in order to prevent him from indulging in any excess that could weaken the chances of success, and for this purpose they spent the entire immediately preceding time near him. These Olympic Games took place every four years, in the suburbs of Daphne, and Palladius preserved a story testifying to what masses of people flocked to them. During the imprisonment of St. John Chrysostom, the elderly Bishop Flavian died, and Chrysostom’s opponents, some of whom managed to spread throughout all the large cities of the east, decided to elect in his place a certain Porphyry, who enjoyed a rather bad reputation. But the majority of the people were against this choice. Then they decided to do without the people, unexpectedly took their candidate and freely proclaimed him the bishop of their city, since they chose the very day of the Olympic Games for this, so that all the people went to the games and the city was almost completely empty 19 . The extraordinary popularity enjoyed by individuals who worked in circuses and theaters serves as the best proof of the extreme importance that games and spectacles had in the life of that time. Being the darlings of society, actors and all kinds of clowns and riders were not averse to abusing the benefits of their position. For the most part, they were distinguished by extreme impudence and shamelessness, they led the most free and unconstrained lives, often deliberately mocking the laws that were intended to limit their immoral antics. Actresses and dancers then, as now, were the object of passion for the noblest representatives of the city, and it was from them that the most famous courtesans emerged, so in the language of Chrysostom, an actress and a courtesan were one and the same. All of them set themselves the broadest views and claims, and if not all managed, as Theodora managed a little later, to even reach the imperial throne, then many freely penetrated into noble houses through marriages, which the civil law fought in vain and which Chrysostom branded with extreme indignation. The morals of the actors were no better, and from among them came those numerous youths, μαλακοί, who were no less popular with the sensualists, like the women, and were a true disgrace to Antiochian society. Dancers and dancers, comedians and comediennes, invited to the table of the rich, were present at the feasts and at the same time behaved, like all parasites, with extreme importunity. The houses of the most famous actors were distinguished by their magnificent decoration 20; they themselves pretended to be important people; They appeared along the agora only on horseback, preceded by a servant. The riders were also distinguished by extreme vanity 21 and they were allowed all sorts of shamelessness. If any misfortune happened to anyone, everyone plunged into inconsolable grief. So everyone mourned the fate of one rider, who was crushed by chariots in Constantinople during the first time of I. Chrysostom’s ministry there, on which occasion he delivered one of his most beautiful conversations in 399. The rider, who became the victim of this misfortune, was going to get married the next day, and this circumstance shocked the extremely sensitive Byzantines to the core 22. Around the staff of actors and riders, whose morals were so loose, grouped a crowd of even more pitiful and more depraved creatures, namely their parasites, who, like the parasites that groveling among the rich, were completely dependent on the success of their patrons and were zealous distributors of their vain popularity. They constituted, both in the circus and in the theater, a fully organized party (claque), always ready for any kind of disorder, and thanks to them, passionate party divisions took place on stage, sometimes leading directly to bloody massacres. Having nothing to lose, these shameless and ready-to-do-anything scoundrels, most of them arriving from unknown places and completely alien to the city, were the most rebellious element among the inhabitants of Antioch, the most rebellious of the cities of the world at that time. They were the first instigators of all kinds of unrest and rebellion, and according to the testimony of St. John Chrysostom were the true culprits of the famous Antiochian rebellion of 387: they were at the head of the street mob, which first rushed into the church to ask for the intercession of Bishop Flavian, and then overthrew the statues of the imperial family, set fire to the house of one senator, but quickly dispersed at the first attempt by the authorities to pacify. And this evidence is confirmed by what Livanius also says in his speech against Timocrates: “All these are people, he says, consisting of foreigners who were expelled from their fatherland because of their bad behavior and did not want to engage in the craft to which they were intended by their parents. They do not want and cannot live otherwise than in laziness. Some of them gave themselves up, soul and body, to pantomimists, most to dancers, and their whole life consists of servility and caressing them, and the latter give them one or another handout, depending on their zeal in applauding.” Livanius estimates their number at four hundred or so people, and Chrysostom speaks about them in the same way again in one subsequent conversation 23 . Ammianus describes exactly the same crowd of desperate loafers in Rome, saying that they spent all their days in laziness, and at night they slept under the awnings of theaters. It is not surprising if the theater, with all its such pitiful servants, who spread the poison of moral decay throughout society, aroused the indignation of the great teachers of Christianity against itself. But no one has ever waged such a decisive and tireless struggle against this nationwide evil in the 4th century as St. John Chrysostom. Already from the very first years of his ministry in Antioch, he menacingly began to denounce this social ulcer, and in Constantinople, this great capital of the East, perhaps even more depraved than the capital of Syria, he even more intensified his fight against this evil, although the evil had already taken root so much that even the fiery words of Chrysostom did not produce the desired effect. The strength of his indignation can be judged by the fact that although he did not like to resort to violent measures at all and strove to conquer everything with love and correct everything with condescension, when it came to theatrical performances, his voice rose to peals of righteous anger and he used all his authority, supporting it with threats of the Last Judgment of God. While still a simple presbyter, he announced that he would not fail to resort to the laws of church discipline: “I would like to know the names of those who left the church for the sake of the theater; I would excommunicate them for a while” 24. And having become a bishop, he actually once pronounced a solemn excommunication over some incorrigible theatergoers, fulfilling his repeatedly expressed threats in this regard. But if in general it is difficult to fight human passions, then it is even more difficult with such an inveterate passion as the passion for theatrical entertainment, which during the period of decay of the ancient world constituted the only consolation for morally corrupt and livingly decaying humanity. Therefore, the struggle of St. John Chrysostom was not successful with this inveterate evil; it caused him a lot of trouble and grief. His most enthusiastic conversations against theatrical performances remained powerless to awaken a feeling of repentance among theatergoers, and the latter not only did not come to their senses and did not bow to the admonitions of their shepherd, but often, both in Antioch and Constantinople, they dared to object to the golden-talking teacher and subject his anti-theatrical conversations to mocking criticism. When the preacher denounced his listeners of other vices and weaknesses, they often humbled themselves, hung their heads, tears appeared in their eyes and they beat their chests with the look of praying sinners - while, however, they were still in church, upon leaving which, with the same frivolity, they plunged into the same vanity and depravity, and at cheerful dinners with courtesans they forgot about the repentance they had just brought. But accusatory conversations against the passion for spectacles obviously touched their most chronic wound and therefore they did not even repent, but boldly entered into an argument with the preacher, and responded to his most ardent and eloquent admonitions either with inattention or even with mocking remarks, like: “What’s the harm in watching horses gallop? Is it possible to believe that such spectacles could be subjected to terrible condemnation” 25? Of course, dramatic performances were more morally seductive, because at the heart of all these pantomimic spectacles lay some kind of adultery or criminal love. But the harm, continued the inveterate theatergoers, is not caused by the drama or pantomime itself: it is enough for a person with a strong soul, and all these spectacles will sweep across the surface of his feelings, without penetrating into the depths of his being 26 . True, the dress of actresses and dancers is a little modest: if they are not completely naked, they are almost so, and of course these unfortunate women had to struggle a lot to put an end to all modesty and reach such a position. One cannot help but regret this, and yet, in the end, these are nothing more than courtesans. What do we care about courtesans and slaves 27? Finally, to say everything, these spectacles are recognized by law; they are placed on the account of the state or at least of persons vested with government power; the very buildings in which they occur constitute public property; government dignitaries are in charge of the performances and they are the ones who give the signals for the opening of the performances; Yes, the audience is often led by the emperors themselves with their entire court! Thus, theatrical performances are approved by the state itself, and the state knows what it is doing, and, supporting the spectacles, does not cease to be Christian, and not just Christian, but since the time of Theodosius, Orthodox in the strictest sense of the word. Such half-ironic, half-serious objections were often made by St. John Chrysostom to his denunciations, and he responded to them with arguments in which he fully expressed his view of theatrical performances in general and of those contemporary to him with their immoral licentiousness in particular. And when he reasons in general, he reveals that sound realism that distinguished the famous Antiochian school. He is an enemy of all fiction in general and prefers to it real life, which for a normal person represents an inexhaustible source of both pleasure and edification. To leave this real life with its tangible and healthy joys and indulge in the fictions of theatrical life means to exchange real good for a ghost, and if his contemporaries were so carried away by ghosts, then this alone already served as striking evidence of the decline in their common understanding of things, the distortion of their meaning, which became a slave to blind passions. But rebelling in general against the preference of reality to ghosts and theatrical fictions, Chrysostom was especially armed against the passion for theater precisely in view of the extreme decline of theatrical performances themselves, which had become a school of all immorality and indecency. And he described with astonishing clarity the almost inevitable consequences that a blind passion for theatrical performances led to. Among these consequences, the two main ones, in his opinion, were: boredom and debauchery. After the audience has spent several hours in the realm of fantastic fiction, it is not surprising if, upon returning to the real world, they feel languid boredom. And how can this real world excite any pleasure for feelings spoiled and spoiled by the pleasure of extraordinary, artificially created spectacles of a fantastic, effect-driven world? It is clear that when inveterate theatergoers return from shows to their home, it seems gloomy and boring to them - although, in reality, there is no sufficient reason for this 28. “Your home seems too simple to please you, because in your spirit you still live among the splendor of the theater stage; You no longer like your wife because she is not beautiful and not as luxuriously dressed as the actress or dancer whom you just applauded. And on the one who does not accompany you to the theater, you are ready to pour out all the frustration that has boiled in your heart - on her and on your slaves” 29. It is impossible not to notice that, according to the assumption of St. John Chrysostom, his listeners were more captivated by the appearance of the performers and the splendor of the decoration than by the content of the performances themselves, and this is fully explained by the extreme decline of the dramatic art of that time. It also follows that the first of the two disastrous consequences indicated by Chrysostom is in direct connection with the second: boredom and debauchery are inseparable from each other. “You bring seductive images from the theater - the image of an actress, almost naked, remains deeply imprinted in your soul. You even carry within you a courtesan, though not visible and real, but in the imagination; but it would be even better for you if you actually brought a courtesan with you: the danger would be less, for your wife would quickly order her to be escorted out the door; but this image hidden in your memory, inaccessible and indestructible, cannot be expelled by either you or your wife, and that is why you no longer like it at home, why you do not find any pleasure at your hearth, with your own children, why you worry and get irritated for no apparent reason and burn from the inner fever of excited feelings” 30. It is clear that the theater, which serves as a source of such evils, evokes strong reproaches and denunciations from the great saint, and he compares it with the feast at which the malevolent Herodias shone. “The theater is a constant feast for Herodias. Even if John is not killed there, then the members of Christ suffer all kinds of humiliation there... And you suffer this shame: the members of Christ become like members of a courtesan. Although Herodias’ daughter is no longer there, there is a demon there who performs his dances there. It is he who leads the choirs there, and he takes captive the souls of all those present there” 31. These fiery, accusatory speeches, in which images were borrowed directly from well-known spectacles, despite their harshness, could not make an impression on the inhabitants of Antioch. They undoubtedly rewarded the preacher more than once with enthusiastic and noisy applause, but unfortunately that was all the matter was limited to. The social evil was so great that the stubborn theater-goers were not able to recover from it and, even realizing the whole truth of the preacher’s words, upon leaving the church they again indulged in their passion and in the theater applauded their favorites - from the riders and actors - even hotter and noisier. Moreover, having returned from the theater to church, they again began to laugh at the efforts of the accuser and mockingly said that his sermons were an old song. Even if the theater itself is worthless, there is a huge difference between the theater and its visitors, they reasoned. They present scenes of adultery, but this does not mean that those who attend the theater are themselves adulterers. But the great preacher of morality did not stop talking and, in support of his words, could cite a number of examples of the immoral influence of spectacles on well-known persons. However, he refrained from indicating personalities, as he avoided scandals in every possible way. In Antioch especially, he was extremely restrained in this regard, since he knew that excessive personal denunciations could do more harm than good. In this respect, he sharply diverges from the classical satirists, with whom he, in other respects, has much in common, namely in the very picturesqueness of the depiction of social evils. But without naming anyone personally, the great church orator sometimes simply threw his lightning-fast glances point-blank into the faces of those obdurate theatergoers who applauded him with no less enthusiasm than I did at the spectacles; but when the golden-tongued preacher, casting his lightning glances at these frivolous people, exclaimed: “How I wish I could call them by name!” then, without a doubt, their hearts sank and the shameless ones involuntarily lowered their heads, hiding their faces, flushed with shame. Meanwhile, of course, there remained those on whom both these all-penetrating words and St. Chrysostom read their stubbornness both on their lips distorted by a smile and in their eyes glowing with irony. Then, reaching the extreme limits of possible concessions, he said: “Let’s even assume that you leave the theater without experiencing any carnal lust; Let's assume that you have enough self-control not to be afraid of anything like that. But can you vouch for your neighbor? And if you cannot, then are you not guilty of even supporting what causes the destruction of so many souls” 32? But this concession was made to him only once, and more in form than in reality. He fully knew the infirmities of the flesh. Therefore, he usually directly stated that those who objected to him in this way acted insincerely, that they themselves, like others, felt the sting of carnal desires and only tried to appear indifferent. One day, a great preacher, with his characteristic directness and irresistible insight, sharply and boldly exposed this self-concealing hypocrisy. Speaking about theatrical performances, he began to describe in detail and with extraordinary vividness the indecent dressing of the actresses, all their characteristic behavior, all their tricks and intrigues, which generally distinguished the courtesans of that time. He went so far in the details of the description that the listeners were greatly confused: it seemed to them that it was not the priest preaching to them, but some Juvenal scourging social vices in his 6th satire, or rather Lucian, popular in Syria, in his “Dialogues on Courtesans.” But in reality, it was still the same golden-talented teacher who did not speak a single word without the closest moral application and did not give free rein to his tongue to be carried away by fruitless imagination. The very boldness of his descriptions had a definite purpose, so to speak, to capture listeners at the very scene of the crime. And so, when his listeners, surprised by the unusual directness and brightness of the depiction of theatrical scenes too familiar to them, some with embarrassment, and others not without inner pleasure at these sensual pictures, all turned their ears and greedily grabbed every word and every thought, Chrysostom immediately interrupted his description and exclaimed: “Didn’t you feel anything when I spoke like that? “But blush and do not be ashamed of her, because this is required by the necessity of nature.” But if you, even listening to me, the priest, here in church, could not control yourself, is this possible in the theater? Do you now dare to tell me that you remain there as cold as marble” 33? Hardly ever has any preacher resorted to such bold turns of phrase as St. John Chrysostom. And here is an example showing how much Chrysostom in his speeches was often likened to the enthusiastic and fiery eloquence of the ancient prophets. It was in their school that he learned that freedom and unconstrained language, which found its limitation only in the sublimity of the purpose of the sermon, which gave sublimity and nobility to the very speeches, no matter what subject was treated in them. His tongue, like a double-edged sword, cut through all the armor of hypocrisy with which they wanted to hide from the denunciations of the preacher, and under his irresistible blows the most stubborn finally could not stand it but confessed their weakness, at least before their conscience, which lit up the blush of shame on their faces exhausted by excesses. But having been defeated in defending their own innocence of theatrical spectacles, Chrysostom’s opponents thought of standing on a different ground, namely in defending the horse lists in the circus and the Olympic Games. And in fact, weren’t these entertainments completely innocent compared to theatrical ones? Meanwhile, the inspired preacher spoke out with equal severity against circus entertainment, although he had little to do with the Olympic Games, which obviously, and in his opinion, did not represent anything particularly reprehensible 34 . But what motives guided him in rebelling against the circus lists? There were quite a few incentives. First of all, he followed in this regard the relatively long-standing tradition of the church, which, in its desire to completely revive the world, tried to separate its followers from any complicity with the pagan world and therefore generally prohibited all spectacles, as having pagan origin and therefore smack of a kind of idolatry. Then he took into account those constant unrest, the cause of which every now and then was the lists, since riders and spectators were divided into parties, and although these parties did not yet play such a political role as later, they were no longer safe even then. Finally, he saw very well that in these gatherings, either in the circus or in the theater, those temptations that characterized, for example, the time of Ovid, increased. After all, it is completely harmless, the defenders of circuses told him, to watch horses gallop; therefore it would be unwise to make a crime out of it. “So be it,” he answered these rather hypocritical remarks from the circus regulars; but the circus is usually crowded with public women, young harlots, and therefore it is the same place of moral corruption as the theater. And indeed, it was a completely inevitable phenomenon that circuses became a common meeting place for all those who had no other business than the self-gratification of the flesh, and from other evidence it is known that in ancient cities those quarters in which circuses were located were distinguished by the worst reputation. So in Rome, all the most morally dubious population lived around the Circus Maximus, and it is very possible that in Antioch it was exactly the same as in Rome, especially since in the very capital of the Western world, as can be seen from the testimonies of Juvenal and Martial, most of the most famous courtesans - horsewomen - ambubajae - were from Syria. Finally, Chrysostom had another very important motivation to mercilessly and strictly rebel against all kinds of shows in general - either in the circus or in the theater, and this motivation consisted in observing the undoubted fact that these amusements distracted the people from the church, forced them to forget about the salvation of their souls and indulge only in pleasing the flesh, darkened in their souls the very consciousness of their Christian duties and returned them, in a sense, to paganism. The evil was so great that the pastors of the church had long been taking measures to limit it and even found it necessary to resort to the assistance of civil authorities. They wanted to at least save Sunday from desecration by such spectacles and lists, and in 386 a law was actually passed that read: “Let no one violate our law that was once given to us, let no one offer the people spectacles on the day of the sun and let no one confuse divine worship with the arranged festival” 35 . From the text itself it is clear that this was not the first law on this subject (the very expression once - dudum indicates this), and perhaps the initiative in this regard already belonged to Constantine the Great 36. But it must be said that these regulations, as was the case with other laws of the 4th century, were observed rather poorly, and even by some fatal accident, games and the largest theatrical and circus performances usually coincided with the most important church festivals and meetings. Games were held not only on Sundays, but also at such important church moments as Lent or Easter 37 . Chrysostom had to experience this at the very beginning of his preaching work in Antioch. He began a series of conversations against the then heretics Anomeans, followers of Arius, and the conversations were a great success, when suddenly, when he came out to deliver the seventh conversation, he noticed that the number of his listeners somehow immediately decreased greatly. "Horse racing again"! - involuntarily burst out of his chest at the very beginning of the conversation 38 . Somewhat later, in the same Antioch, at the beginning of Lent, he began interpretative conversations on the book of Genesis and, as always, there were a lot of people at the first conversations. During every conversation, he expressed pleasure at seeing such zeal for his teachings on the part of his listeners, and in the fifth conversation, he even with particular expressiveness expressed his joy about the spiritual success of his listeners. But when he appeared with the sixth conversation, an unexpected disappointment set in: just at that time, magnificent horse races were organized, and frivolous people rushed to them in masses, forgetting about their golden preacher. Then Chrysostom poured out his righteous indignation in the most angry words against the wicked who preferred horse races to spiritual enlightenment and salvation; but in the next seventh conversation, the kind-hearted shepherd, as if he himself was ashamed of his excessive severity, tried to smooth out his harshness and heal the wounds he inflicted on his frivolous listeners with the balm of mercy and affection. There were many such examples, but it is enough to cite one more, but very important one. We take it from that conversation of St. John, where he presents especially clear evidence of how captivated the people were by theatrical spectacles and with what zeal the great preacher tried to fight this destructive passion. This conversation was delivered in 399 in Constantinople under the following circumstances. St. I. Chrysostom had already occupied the archbishop's see in the capital of the empire for a year (from February 26, 398) and, as usual, continued his preaching work, as he did in Antioch, only further intensifying his zeal in this regard - under the influence of a sense of his highest authority and the great responsibility associated with it. At that time, a disaster befell the country: a rain storm began to rage, which threatened to completely destroy the harvest, and in order to prevent the threatening disaster, it was necessary to hold religious processions in honor of St. App. Andrew and Peter and the solemn service in the Church of the Apostles. Then a pilgrimage was made to the Church of St. apostles Peter and Paul. This was on Wednesday, and on Thursday the thunderstorm subsided and thus the prayers of the archbishop and the people were heard. But the very next day, Friday, there was a horse race, and everyone rushed to it. On Saturday theatrical performances were given, and the people rushed to this entertainment without the slightest embarrassment. One can imagine how the great saint must have felt at the sight of such boundless frivolity of his flock, which they discovered during these days. Forced to conceal his righteous indignation in his chest for forty-eight hours, which of course must have seemed like centuries to him, he appears on the pulpit on Sunday and menacingly exclaims: “Can this be endured, can this be endured! After so many speeches, after so much edification, there were among us such believers who could leave us and ran to look at the horse lists! And they caused such disturbances that their screams were heard throughout the city, their funny, or rather deplorable, confusion was heard! And I myself was at home and heard these piercing voices! And I suffered more than a sailor tossed by a storm! Then he explains to them how insignificant and useless such a thing as contemplating horse racing is, shows those fatal temptations that are inseparable from theatrical performances, and his speech receives the extraordinary courage and enthusiastic menace of a prophet. Under the irresistible blows of this formidable eloquence (and it must be said that this conversation is one of the most beautiful and enthusiastic conversations of Chrysostom), the listeners were moved to the depths of their souls and humbly repented. Usually, Chrysostom in such cases softened his anger, felt sorry for the unfortunate sinners and found consolation in their repentance. This was no longer the case. “Now,” he said, not without an admixture of caustic irony, during my conversation, some of you, as I see, are beating your chest, and I thank them for being a people so easily susceptible to feeling. But unfortunately, it seems to me that many of those who do this are not at all from among the guilty, but are simply people of a good soul, mourning the sins of their fellow men.” And he really encourages godly people to use all their influence over their friends and acquaintances to bring them to repentance. He ends his conversation with the same terrible threats as he began: he threatened with excommunication anyone who would again decide to exchange a church meeting for a theatrical spectacle. He even uttered the very formula of excommunication: “Let these people be expelled from here!”, but noting that this exclamation made an extremely strong impression, he continued: “If you trembled at this sentence (for I see that you sigh and are filled with contrition), then let the guilty repent and the sentence be canceled. If not, then do not visit the culprits. Do not associate with them (2 Thess. 3:14). Don’t talk to them, don’t accept them at your table, avoid them in the market square, and then we will correct them” 39. It would be interesting to resolve the question of how far the negative attitude of St. went. John to spectacles in general. Although this terrible passion for theatrical and circus shows, which characterized his time, was a clear sign of the decay of the ancient world, which was looking for a replacement for the unsightly reality in the field of fantasy and excited imagination, it cannot be denied at the same time that the imagination also has its rights and man, by his very mental nature, inevitably seeks the opportunity to find peace and even elevation above the gray reality in the field of the ideal, which the imagination creates for him. Therefore, it would be impossible to suppose that a discerning moral teacher would not assign any place to the rights of the imagination in human life. And indeed, many fathers and teachers of the church recognized these rights for him, and this led to the fact that the church itself allowed the widespread use of art in its worship - in the sense of artistic reproduction of unearthly objects and the embodiment of its prayers and praises in poetic forms of chants. The liturgies themselves, already completely formed by the 4th century, were, from the outside, a kind of artistic work in the sense of embodying a deep thought or the mystery of piety in a correctly carried out form of action, and in the West there were direct attempts to counteract theatrical hobbies by transferring theatricality into the church itself, with, of course, giving these spectacles a corresponding ecclesiastical content. The germ of this idea can be found even in Tertullian. Although in his “discussion on spectacles”, with his characteristic rigorism, he becomes completely on the basis of denial in relation to spectacles, he could not help but recognize some rights for the imagination, as one of the ineradicable abilities of the human soul, and therefore, as if admitting the impossibility of finally overcoming this inclination, he advised Christians who loved to enjoy theatrical performances and spectacles to better direct their thoughts towards that terrible spectacle, what will be the Last Judgment, which is vividly described by Tertullian. Likewise, he advises those who like to watch gladiator fights to take a closer look inside themselves and contemplate the terrible struggle of passions that takes place within us. And these tips were not without practical results and found further development. It is not without probability that it was in the “discourse on spectacles” that the poet Prudentius drew the first idea for composing his “Psychomachy,” a poem rather mediocre in concept, although written with talent, but of deep historical importance, since it served as a fruitful seed for a whole kind of medieval allegorical poetry and had a strong influence on the art of its time. It is interesting to note that St. Chrysostom, a contemporary of Prudentius, gives almost the same advice as Tertullian. He also wants the spectacle of the circus to be replaced by inner contemplation of the struggle of the soul. “If you want to see the lists,” he says to the residents of the capital in the above conversation, then why don’t you put your passions under the yoke of wisdom and try to control them with reason” 40? But at the same time, St. John gives very serious and practical advice regarding spectacles. Thus, he sometimes liked to cite for edification the well-known example of the barbarians, which Salvian later used with such force, but which was still rarely used by the fathers and teachers of the church of the 4th century. The barbarians did not have public games. “What excuse will we have when, being Christians, that is, citizens of heaven and associates of angels and cherubim, we are not so much subject to the rules in this respect as pagans and infidels?” In confirmation of the abnormality of this, he then cites the remark of a certain barbarian leader, who showed himself to be a true philosopher. Hearing that the Romans only talked about theater and circus stages, he seriously remarked: “It seems that the Romans have neither wives nor children, and they are forced to look for entertainment outside their homes.” And the great saint also, in turn, advised his listeners to seek peaceful and pleasant entertainment at their home. “Truly, what could be nicer than children? What could be sweeter than a chaste wife for a chaste husband? In addition, he advised adding to these joys and pleasures friendship, which he often praised in the warmest and most grateful words. An inexhaustible source of joy is also the beauty of nature, which he, as can be judged from the few comments he made, loved with all the fullness of his deeply feeling heart. “If you want to calm your spirit,” he said, go to the garden, walk along the bank of a river or pond. Go to a place with a beautiful view, listen to the birds singing, or, for even more pious entertainment, go to the tombs of the martyrs.” Obviously, for the feeling of a great Christian, the whole world, as a creation of God, can be a source of true peace and pleasure, and he equally found himself deep satisfaction - whether he listened to the cheerful chirping of birds, or reflected on the tombs of the martyrs, who for his spirit were not dead, but lived in the ineffable glory that constitutes the goal of life and all people. But evil had already penetrated so deeply into the nature of the society of that time that it was difficult to imagine that even the fiery speeches of Chrysostom would be able to burn out this ulcer and completely heal it. What could be done with a city like Antioch, whose population lived only on theatrical shows and circus stages, so that, as they say, the very invasion of the Parthians found the Antiochans on the steps of the theater? Antioch obviously aimed at complete degeneration and destruction. Constantinople was no more correctable, in which the very wealth was conducive to pomp and debauchery, and indeed theatrical life in it developed more and more, until the circus parties became the deciders of the fate of the capital and the empire itself, since actresses even ascended to the imperial throne. But if the great saint did not manage to completely overcome the evil with which he so tirelessly fought both in Antioch and Constantinople, his work did not remain fruitless. He made great conquests in the souls of individual and, moreover, numerous individuals who forever renounced their previous hobbies, and in his immortal creations he left for all subsequent times an inexhaustible source of edification for all those who are able to perceive the advice of an enlightened mind. And you can be sure that, reading his works, thousands and thousands of thoughtful people found in them a strong weapon to fight their passions and hobbies and learned to understand that theatrical spectacles, to which sensual human nature is always so inclined, are a pitiful counterfeit of true life and are carried away only by those who, in their spiritual emptiness, have already lost the meaning of true life and are looking for a replacement for it in the fictions of the imagination. About the priesthood, new Russian. ed. creativity St. I. Chrysostom vol. I p. 397 et seq. On the priesthood, ibid. p. 396. Syrian bayaderes who earned their living in Rome by singing and dancing. Mommsen, Roemische Geschichte V, p. 461. In Math. VI. – Quem toties texit perituri cista Latini. Juvenal. VI 44. Chrysostom states that they were sometimes completely naked, or at least almost naked, which for the warm East was almost the same thing. About David and Saul III et seq. But there were also completely naked performances of the so-called “swimmers” who, in complete nudity, showed their art of swimming in huge theatrical pools, irritating with their naked charms thousands of crazy theatergoers who went berserk at the particularly successful performances of the swimmers. Among these swimmers was the famous Theodora, who later became an empress, who depicted unimaginable scenes of carnal vileness in theater pools in front of thousands of spectators. Procop. Histor. sacr. c. IX, ed. Isambert. By the way, Symmachus testifies to this in Summates Antiochiensium, Ep. IV, 62–3. On 1st last. to Corinth. XII; Sievers, Leben des Libanius, p. 5. Biography. VIII. It is not clear, however, whether the audience themselves were inclined to find hints of these temptations in the plays presented, or whether controversial issues were interpreted in the plays themselves. Both, however, would have been in the spirit of the time. In Gaza, according to Blessed. Jerome, the people also mixed religious passions with their passion for horse racing. The horses of one rich pagan competed with the horses of one Christian, and since the victory remained with the latter, the superstitious people even saw in this the triumph of Christ over the Marne and many converted to Christianity! On Matt. XXXVII. We must not forget that both Chrysostom and Livanius were interested in justifying the citizens of Antioch and reducing their responsibility for allowing this terrible rebellion. About David and Saul III; on the book Genesis VI et seq. ἀηδίαι λόγον οὐκ ἔχουσαι. His reasoning is found in a discourse on spectacles, delivered in 399 under circumstances which will be discussed below. Ἆρα οὐκ ἐπάθετέ τι καὶ ἐµοῦ ταῦτα διηγουµένου; Ἀλλὰ µὴ αἰσχυνθῆτε, µηδὲ ἐρυθριάσητε· ἡ γὰρ τῆς φύσεως ἀνάγκη τοῦτο ἀπαιτεῖ... etc. on John XVIII Only once does he speak (precisely in the XII conversation on 1 Cor.) about the fight of wild animals, perhaps because such spectacles were not particularly popular in Antioch and, on the contrary, were especially developed in Rome. Ne quis in legem nostrum, quam dudum tulimus committat, nullus solis die populo spectaculum praebeat, nec divinam venerationem confecta solemnitate counfundat. The laws of Arcadius and Honorius, issued in Ravenna at the beginning of 400, prohibited spectacles during the Holy Week preceding Easter as well as the week following the Feast of Christmas and Epiphany. The same emperors in 399 limited the same prohibition only to Sundays, moreover, excluding even those Sundays with which the anniversaries of the reigns of the emperors could coincide (C. Theodos. II, VII, 23–24). Against the Anomeans VII, in new. Russian edition vol. I, p. 545. There is some ambiguity associated with one point in this case. Judging by some details of the conversation, one might think that it was said during Passion Week; therefore, circus and theatrical performances, according to this assumption, were supposed to take place on Friday and Saturday during Holy Week, and from here it is clear how serious the crime of those Christians who went to these performances was. But Montfaucon sees some difficulties in this explanation, the main one of which is that St. John, in his conversation, delivered, so to speak, on the brightest Resurrection (on the first day of Easter), does not make any hint of the solemnity of such a great day. However, this argument is not irresistible, and in any case the hints in the Good Friday conversation are quite clear. To this, however, we can add that, as far as we know about the morals of that time, we can think that many Christians were not averse to going to the theater and circus even on Good Friday, the day of the Lord’s Passion. See Conversation XXXVII on ev. Matthew.