Anniversary collection of articles dedicated to the blessed memory of St. John Chrysostom

Contents Section One. Solemn commemoration of St. John Chrysostom in Kazan and the Kazan Diocese September 14 - the day of the death of St. John Chrysostom Speech delivered by His Eminence Archbishop Demetrius at the annual meeting of the Church Historical and Archaeological Society of the Kazan Diocese on September 14, 1907 St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop Constantinople November 13 - the day of remembrance of St. John Chrysostom Solemn commemoration of St. John Chrysostom in Kazan and the Kazan diocese Teaching on the day of remembrance of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the occasion of the 1500th anniversary of his blessed death) Chrysostom Days in Kazan Department second. Articles dedicated to the memory of St. John Chrysostom St. John Chrysostom and his pastoral activity in Antioch. Archpriest M. Bazhanov St. John Chrysostom and his time. L. Pisareva Saint John Chrysostom To the history of literature about St. John Chrysostom (Extracts from bibliographic works) Works of St. John Chrysostom Articles about St. I. Zlatoust Dedicated to the memory of Archbishop Dimitry (Sambikin) of Kazan, founder of the Church Historical and Archaeological Society of the Kazan Diocese, († 1908 March 17) September 14 is the day of the death of St. John Chrysostom. Section one. Solemn commemoration of St. John Chrysostom in Kazan and the Kazan diocese September 14 is the day of the death of St. John Chrysostom Speech delivered by His Eminence Archbishop Dimitri at the annual meeting of the Church Historical and Archaeological Society of the Kazan Diocese on September 14, 1907. Saint John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople. Brief information about his veneration in Russia. (By order of His Eminence Archbishop Demetrius, this article was distributed throughout the Kazan diocese before the day of celebration of the memory of St. John Chrysostom on November 13). Today we have gathered here to listen to the first report on the activities of the Church Historical and Archaeological Society. Thank God, the activities of this young institution in Kazan were not fruitless, as you will hear from the report that will be brought to your attention. I consider it necessary to provide one church-historical information: on September 14, 407, within the borders of our fatherland, the great teacher of the universal church, St. John Chrysostom. 1500 years have passed since the day of his death, but his glory not only has not diminished or faded, but is spreading and increasing more and more; he is revered not only in the Orthodox East, as their hierarch, but also in the West - in the Catholic world. A detailed account of his life and glorious activities would require a lot of time; I will limit myself to only pointing out the respect and reverence that was felt for St. I. Chrysostom in ancient times, in his fatherland, in the Orthodox East, what wonderful legends adorned his preaching activities, his works on the interpretation of Holy Scripture. By the wondrous power of his oratorical and preaching talent, St. I. Chrysostom is higher than all speakers and preachers in the entire Christian universe; There was no church teacher like him, and will there ever be?.. There were many church preachers who at one time were considered Chrysostom, but their glory fades before St. John. For 1,500 years, he has worthily worn this honorary name and, of all the famous orators and church preachers, he is the only Chrysostom. Even his contemporaries were convinced that the wondrous gift of teaching of St. Chrysostom received from God Himself, like the greatest of the prophets of the Old Testament - Isaiah and the New Testament's deepest contemplator of the Divine mysteries - St. John the Theologian. In the life of St. John Chrysostom reports the following story. In one monastery near Antioch, the pious, profound elder Hesychius, gifted by God with the gift of insight, labored. One night, while praying, he was delighted with his mind and was awarded the following vision: Two splendid men, dressed in white clothes shining like the sun, descended from heaven and entered the cell to John, who was awake in prayer. One of the celestials who appeared held a scroll covered in writing, and the other held keys. Seeing them, John was embarrassed and hurried to bow to the ground, but they raised him up and answered John’s question: “Who are you, my Lord?” - they answered: “We were sent to you by the Great Teacher, our Savior I. Christ,” and after this one of those who appeared gave John a scroll, saying: “Take this scroll from my hand.” I am John, who reclined on the Lord’s chest during the Last Supper and received Divine revelation from Him. The Lord will also grant you knowledge of all the depths of wisdom, so that you can feed people with the undying richness of the teachings of Christ.” Another (Apostle Peter) gave John the keys as a sign of his pastoral service in the Church of Christ. (St. Demetrius of Rostov, Chetiy-Minea November 13). Soon after the vision, John was ordained a presbyter and preached the word of God with great zeal and delivered his brilliant teachings. His sermons, according to his contemporaries, were filled with such power that all those listening could not fully enjoy them. Since he spoke not according to the charter, but orally, many cursive writers recorded his sermons. John was such a sweet-tongued speaker and a desirable, dear teacher for everyone that everyone flocked to the church where he preached. City rulers and judges abandoned their studies, merchants their trade, artisans their business, and hastily went to listen to the teachings of John. But at the beginning of his preaching activity, John, as a highly educated man, did not always speak clearly for poorly educated listeners. During one such sermon, one woman, listening and not understanding what was said, raised her voice among the people in the church: “Spiritual teacher, or better yet, I will call it John Chrysostom, the well of your teaching is deep, and the ropes of our mind are short and cannot reach its depth,” and from that time they began to call him Chrysostom, saying that God himself, through the mouth of a woman, gave such a name to John. St. John Chrysostom is undoubtedly the best interpreter of Holy Scripture, which he studied perfectly. His favorite and constant pastime was explaining the books of the Old and especially the New Testament. The saint had a special love for the Apostle Paul; in many of his works he spoke enthusiastically about the apostle, tongues, and the best interpretations from St. Chrysostom specifically on the epistles of St. Pavel. How deeply did St. penetrate? John in the meaning of the apostolic epistles, how correctly, accurately and comprehensively explained his messages, this can be concluded from the fact that the mouth of Chrysostom was called the mouth of St. ap. Paul, i.e. that in the interpretations of his letters to St. Chrysostom was so precise and close to the true meaning, as if the apostle himself was explaining his creations. His student Proclus, later the Patriarch of Constantinople, reports that when interpreting the Apostolic Epistles, St. Paul appeared to Chrysostom and secretly revealed to him the exact meaning of these (epistles). One day, during his academic studies, a man came to St. Chrysostom asking for help. His cell attendant, Proclus, could not report the arrival of his saint. John, because through the hole in the door I saw some respectable visitor from my mentor, although he did not let anyone in to see his teacher. Another time, Proclus, at the request of the petitioner, thought to report to the saint about him and again saw (through the door hole) the same visitor. Finally, Proclus decided to ask the patriarch himself: with whom did he talk yesterday and the evening before yesterday? The saint answered that he had no one. When Proclus told St. John, how through a well he saw an old, respectable man who was telling something in the patriarch’s ear while he was busy writing, and, looking at the icon of St. Paul, who was in the saint’s cell, said: “Here is the one whom I saw with you; he (the visitor) is very similar to the one depicted in the icon,” then St. Chrysostom realized that Proclus saw the ap himself. Paul, and made sure that his work was pleasing to the Lord, as inspired by the apostle himself, whose messages he was interpreting. This story of St. Proclus testifies to the view of his contemporaries on the exegetical works of St. John Chrysostom. And indeed in the patristic literature there are no better interpretations of the Holy Scriptures. Scripture, exactly as he has it. All subsequent interpreters of the priest. books constantly used the exegetical works of St. Chrysostom both in the Greek Church (such as Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Theophylact of Bulgaria, etc.), and here in Russia (St. Demetrius of Rostov, Bishop Theophan, etc.), and is still considered the most authoritative exegete by everyone involved in the explanation of Holy Scripture. – St. I. Zlatoust. But the even greater glory of St. Chrysostom was honored by the Lord after his death, which can be seen from the story of Bishop Adelphius, who with honor received the saint, who was in exile, in Kukuza. Having heard about the death of St. I. Chrysostom in prison, he fell into great sadness and with tears begged God to show him (Adelphia) in what rank of saints John was. One day, while praying about this, Adelphius came into an ecstatic state and saw a bright young man who, taking the bishop by the hand, led him to a beautiful paradise. Adelphius saw many church teachers and saints here, but among them he did not see John Chrysostom, which made him sad. The youth (angel) then led Adelphius out of the bright place (paradise). When leaving it, someone standing at the door held the bishop’s hand and said: “Why are you leaving here with such sorrow?” Even if someone enters here sad, he returns from here joyful.” Adelphius answered: “Because I grieve that I did not see my beloved John among the church teachers.” - “Do you understand, he asked John, the preacher of repentance?” - “Yes,” Adelphius answered him. Then the one standing at the door of heaven said: “A person who is in the body cannot see him, since he stands before the Throne of God, which is surrounded only by cherubim and seraphim.” - Thus, St. Chrysostom, according to this legend, was glorified by God in the kingdom of heaven above all the saints and numbered to the face of the highest angels. The name of St. John Chrysostom should also be ever-memorable for our Society, which was approved by the Holy Synod on September 14, 1906, and the first solemn meeting to hear a report on its activities is brought to your attention on September 14 - the day when the great saint of the universal church of St. John Chrysostom; may he be the patron of our still young Society. Saint John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (Brief information about his veneration in Russia) 1 “Thy lips, like the light of fire, shining with grace, enlighten the universe: do not gain the treasures of the world through the love of money; the height of humility shown to us. Not punishing with your words, Father John Chrysostom, pray to the Word of Christ God, that our souls will be saved” (Troparion to St. John Chrysostom, November 13). In 407, on the feast of the Exaltation of the Honest Life-Giving Cross of the Lord, within our fatherland, in Komany, (Pitium, on the northern shore of the Black Sea, near present-day Sukhum), the great teacher, the universal saint of the Church of Christ, St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople. This year, 1907, thus marks 1,500 years since his death. Not only the Eastern Orthodox Church, but also the Western Church, postponed the solemn celebration of the memory of this famous hierarch, for the sake of the great holiday of the Exaltation of the Precious Cross of the Lord, to November 13th 2. On this day, Catholics, by order of the Pope (Pius X), decided to brightly celebrate the 1500th anniversary in honor of St. John Chrysostom, but this great saint belonged to the place of his birth and glorious pastoral activity - the Eastern Church, therefore we Orthodox should worthily honor, although with a church solemn celebration, the memory of the ecumenical saint, St. John Chrysostom, especially since during his life he cared a lot about the enlightenment of St. the faith of our ancestors - various Slavic tribes who lived along the northern and eastern shores of the Black Sea. To attract to the Church of Christ and enlighten with the light of the Gospel, St. I. Chrysostom in Constantinople started a school for the children of foreigners - Goths, Scythians - Slavs, opened churches for worship in their language, with particular pleasure he visited these churches and preached the word of God in them. About the pastoral labors of St. I. Chrysostom among our Slavic ancestors is testified by Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus: “And you (that is, St. I. Chrysostom) have another affinity with the apostles. You were the first to erect altars among the Scythians - the Amaxobs; - and the one who barely got off his horse learned to kneel and began to throw himself (in prayer to the True God) to the ground; not touched by the tears of captives, he learned to mourn his sins.” (From book 5 of Theodorit, at n. Photius, Biblioth. 273, p. 1518). St. himself Chrysostom said that altars to the True God were erected everywhere - in the Roman country, in Persia, in Scythia, in Mauritania, in India" (Creations of St. I. Chrysostom, St. Petersburg 1895, vol. I, p. 621). None of the ecumenical teachers and fathers of the Church, with the exception of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, enjoys such reverent respect in Russia as St. St. John Chrysostom... His inspired conversations, his excellent interpretations of St. Since the beginning of the spread of Christianity in our fatherland, the Scriptures have been favorite reading both in the home and in the church of our ancestors. As soon as soul-saving books appeared in Russia - in the libraries of Russian princes and in schools - the creations of the golden-tongued preacher were the first after the books of St. Scriptures. The first of the great princes in Russia, the Wise Yaroslav I, according to the review of the Monk Nestor, loved books, read diligently day and night, gathered many scribes and ordered the books to be translated from Greek into the Slavic language. According to the research of scientists, it turns out that most of the works of St. were translated under Yaroslavl Vladimirovich. Chrysostom. Thus, out of the 22 words mentioned by the Most Reverend Philaret, as translated by this Grand Duke, 20 words belong to St. Chrysostom. (Review of spiritual literature, vol. I, p. 14). To copy the inspired writings of St. John, it was not uncommon in ancient times for the abbots of Russian monasteries to go to Constantinople and live there for several years, working on copying his creations, for example. Rev. Athanasius, Abbot of Vysotsky (Sept. 12. Description of the Rumyants. Museum, p. 516). Summoned from Athos by the Grand Duke John III, the Monk Maxim the Greek, on his instructions and at the request of the Metropolitan, worked most of all on the translation of the interpretations of St. Chrysostom on the books of St. Scriptures. – How highly the works of St. were revered. Chrysostom in ancient Russia, this is evident from the fact that they (that is, the words of Chrysostom) were prescribed to be read in church and at meals in monasteries. (Historical Acts, vol. I, 478 pp.), Filled with all-encompassing love for everyone, the word of Chrysostom on Easter is prescribed by the church charter to be read at Matins on St. Easter and it would be sacrilege for gifted church preachers to pronounce their own on this day instead of the inimitable word of Chrysostom. Due to deep respect for the saint in Russia, it has become a custom for Russian preachers to pronounce their words at Vespers on the first day of Easter. Moscow Metropolitan Platon, a famous preacher in his time, was so carried away by the conversations of St. John Chrysostom, who said that “because of this saint alone one should learn the Hellenic language” (Snegir. 8th Art.). Russia owed its literary enlightenment to our fellow Slavs (Bulgarians, Serbs); From them, like a dear heritage, came the works of St. fathers in Church Slavonic, and among these books the first place was occupied by the works of St. Chrysostom. So from Bulgaria to Russia, soon after the baptism of Russians under St. Vladimir, collections compiled exclusively from the works of St. Chrysostom, for example; Zlatostruy - the work of the first Bulgarian king Simeon (+ 927); Six Days from the Works of St. Basil and Chrysostom, compiled by the Bulgarian exarch John; The Evangelist - an interpretation of the four Gospels, compiled from the conversations of St. Chrysostom on the Gospels by the Bulgarian Archbishop Theophylact. Weekly and holiday teachings, selected from Chrysostom by Patriarchs Callistus and Philotheus and translated into Slavic, were published several times in Russia (1343, 1407, 1569, 1652, etc.). Not content with collections of the works of St. Chrysostom, borrowed from Bulgaria, the pastors of the Russian Church and book people in Russia compiled new collections from the conversations of the same saint, under various names, such as: Margarit, Izmaragd, Chrysostom, Zlatostruy, and New Margaret, (by Kurbsky), etc. Works of St. Chrysostom, from the beginning of the spread of Christianity and until now in Russia, has served as an inexhaustible source for compiling collections for pious reading, for example. Holy Spirit Chrysostom - extracts from his works, compiled for every day by Moscow Metropolitan Plato; Teachings for every day - compiled from the writings of St. Chrysostom. In the collection of sermons published by the Holy Synod in the sixties of the last century, on Sundays and holidays - most of the words - and at the head of all others and, of course, the best - belong to St. Chrysostom. During the period of the revival of enlightenment in Russia (in the 16th and 17th centuries): the most learned men, such as: Konstantin Konstantinovich Ostrozhsky, Pamva, Berynda, Epifaniy, Slavinetsky, Lavrenty, Zizaniy and others worked on the translation of the works of St. Chrysostom, or over their publication, or, finally, over their correction. The authority of St. Chrysostom, as a most famous preacher, as an excellent Theologian, as a divinely inspired interpreter of St. Scripture was so great that many of the Russian scribes of the 14th–17th centuries. they published their meager writings under his name in order to attract the attention of readers and, if possible, distribute them among the people; as a result of which apocrypha began to appear in Russia with the name of this saint; like for example the word about wives, known back in the 12th century (Review of spiritual literature, vol. I. § 35), conversations of three saints (in “Ancient monuments of literature”, published by Kostomarov), the word of the prophet Isaiah, interpreted by Chrysostom against clans and women in labor (see Kalachev Archive, book II, part I, p.) and many others. St. Chrysostom in Russia enjoyed such fame as a famous church speaker that the name of one of the domestic preachers Chrysostom was considered the highest praise. We began to have our own Chrysostoms early. So in the 12th century. Chrysostom was named St. Kirill of Turov, in the 13th century. – Kirill, Bishop of Rostov, in the 15th century. Leonty Karpovich, similar to Chrysostom in orbit (Review of spiritual literature, vol. I, p. 240), in the 17th century. St. Demetrius of Rostov, in the 18th century. St. Tikhon Zadonsky, in the 19th century. Augustine of Moscow Archbishop (Chrysostom 1812), Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson, and others. The halo of glory as a preacher and bold denouncer of vices in his contemporaries (even kings) surrounded St. Chrysostom seemed so charming to the Russians that often bold denouncers of falsehoods seen in high places were compared with Chrysostom and called them Chrysostom. Thus, Serapion, Archbishop of Novgorod (1516), who argued with the Grand Duke John III, on the occasion of the unauthorized act of the Monk Joseph of Volotsk, who transferred with his monastery from the Novgorod region to the region of the Grand Duke, was called Chrysostom (Ternovsky, Study. Byzantine history in ancient Rus' I, 53). The Annunciation archpriest Sylvester, regarding his unfair removal by Ivan the Terrible from the royal court, was compared by his supporters with Chrysostom (Kostomarov, Russian history in biographies, I–II, 442). A. M. Kurbsky compares the conviction in absentia of Sylvester in his history of Ivan the Terrible with the trial in absentia of John Chrysostom (The Legend of Kurbsky, 1833, I, 101). The Russian Chrysostom appeared to us in the person of St. Philip, 2nd Metropolitan of Moscow (Filaret, Russian Saints, I, 39). Patriarch Nikon loved to compare himself with Chrysostom and considered him his prototype: “We have many prototypes,” he wrote, here is their register: John Chrysostom “... (Soloviev, History of Russia, IX, 310). Nikon's admirers also compared him to Chrysostom. Thus, the Polotsk abbot, casting his voice in defense of Nikon at the council of 1660, compares Nikon with St. Chrysostom. (Novikova, Ros. Vivliof., III, 376). Rostov Metropolitan Arseny Matsievich compared himself with St. Chrysostom in the famous case of confiscation of church property. Due to deep respect for the great saint, in Rus', since the time of the first Christian princes, we have tried to acquire particles of the relics of St. John Chrysostom. This shrine is located in many Orthodox monasteries and churches in our fatherland. It is remarkable that particles of the relics of St. In our country (in the 11th and 12th centuries), Chrysostom was considered the foundation (foundation) of ancient churches. Thus, particles of the relics of St. were placed in the foundation of the great Kiev-Pechersk Assumption Church. Chrysostom. In the 11th century there was a dispute between Christians in Constantinople: which of the three saints is higher, more glorious, and closer to God: Basil the Great, or Gregory the Theologian, or John Chrysostom? To put an end to this useless dispute, which threatened to divide the Orthodox into the Basilian, Gregorian and Ioannitic parties, these saints appeared to John, Bishop of Euchaitis, and declared to him that they were all equal before God, and in memory of their equality a common holiday was established for them - January 30 (the Council of Three Hierarchs: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom). But despite this, in Russia in the old days they celebrated St. St. John Chrysostom several days (November 13, January 27, February, etc.). Not only that, the feast of St. St. John Chrysostom - November 13 was furnished, like the great twelfth holiday, with a pre-celebration, post-celebration and giving, an honor that the Russians did not even show to St. Nicholas. So: November 11 - the vigil (πανν υ χς) for Chrysostom took place, November 12 - the forefeast of St. AND. Chrysostom, November 13 is a solemn celebration for him, instead of September 14, November 14 is the commemoration of his installation as a presbyter, November 15 is his restoration to Patriarch, and then the celebration of the holiday. In addition to these days, he was celebrated on February 26th with his decision to become a presbyter (or rather, patriarch), on January 26th the return of his relics, on January 27th (and to this day the remembrance) of the transfer of the relics to Constantinople. In the ancient editions of the Colored Triodion, before the word of St. Chrysostom on the holiday of Easter, his lips (inspired words) are likened to the lips of Christ: Christ's mouth - Paul's mouth: Paul's mouth - Chrysostom's mouth: Chrysostom's mouth - Christ's and Paul's mouth (see Teachings of St. Demetrius of Rostov in memory of St. I. Chrysostom, Kyiv, 1877, part 3, p. 334). So highly in the old days we revered St. I. Chrysostom for his inspired conversations. Rev. Isidore Pelusiot speaks of his golden-verbed works in the following way: “Not knowing such beautiful creations is the same as not seeing the sun at noon”... and in another place in his letters to St. the father says: “Is there such an insensitive person who will not thank Providence, which bestowed (in the person of St. I. Chrysostom) such a brilliant luminary!” The Divine Church rejoices, and the whole universe celebrates with all light the transference of your venerable relics, Reverend Saint John Chrysostom, who lived piously among the saints, and was a martyr by will. Thus we cry to you: O sufferer, and passion-bearer, and co-throne with the Holy Hierarch, pray to Christ God to save our souls.” (Troparion to St. John Chrysostom January 27). November 13 is the day of remembrance of St. John November 13 is the day of remembrance of St. John Chrysostom Solemn commemoration of St. John Chrysostom in Kazan and the Kazan diocese According to the definition of the Holy Synod of October 6, 1907. for No. 6321, in all Orthodox churches of the Kazan diocese, on November 12, 1907, a solemn all-night vigil was held, and a liturgy was celebrated on the 13th, and students in religious educational institutions and church schools were exempted from studying on that day. In Kazan, the commemoration of the great merits of St. John Chrysostom for the Orthodox Church began on November 11 and was celebrated very solemnly. November 11th. Resurrection. 22nd Sunday after Pentecost. On the occasion of the solemn celebration of the memory of the great teacher, the ecumenical saint St. John Chrysostom, the Archbishop of Constantinople in the Cathedral of the Annunciation, the liturgy was celebrated in Greek, by the Right Reverends - Archbishop Dimitri, Bishops - Alexy, Bishop of Chistopol, Mikhail, Bishop of Cherboksary, and Andrey, Bishop Mamadyshsky, co-served by numerous clergy. The hours (in Greek) were read by the academy teacher Panteleimon Kr. Zhuze. Instead of a sermon, Nick. Alex. Ipatov read the conversation of St. John Chrysostom for a week about the Rich Man and Lazarus. After the liturgy, a prayer service was served to St. John Chrysostom. On the same day in the evening in the Manege of the Kazan Infantry Junker School, on the occasion of the solemn celebration of the 1500th anniversary of the death of the saint of the Church of St. John Chrysostom, the Brotherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the cathedral organized a public reading about St. John Chrysostom with the participation of the choir of singers I. S. Morev. By 7 o'clock in the hall at the regimental church of the Junker School, the Fraternal Banner with the image of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary was brought from the Cathedral, and from the Mother of God Kazan Women's Monastery (large size) an icon of St. John Chrysostom in a procession of the cross, during which a prayer service was sent to St. John. In the arena of the school, the comrade of the chairman of the Fraternal Council, professor of the Kazan Theological Academy, Alexei Alexandrovich Tsarevsky, read the life of St. John Chrysostom (the reading was divided into two parts). The singers sang - To the Heavenly King.... Troparion of St. John Chrysostom: The Divine Church rejoices, the doors of Mercy... I believe (Creed), The Greatness of St. John Chrysostom, We praise God to You... At the end of the reading by the pious listeners, the icon of St. John Chrysostom and the Fraternal Banner in the procession led by the cathedral clergy, while singing the prayer service of St. John Chrysostom, were transferred to the cathedral. November 13th. Tuesday. Like our father John, Archbishop of Constantinople Chrysostom. In the Cathedral of the Annunciation, the all-night service was celebrated by Archbishop Demetrius, co-served by numerous clergy with a large crowd of worshipers. After the 1st kathisma Fr. the keymaster read a short story about the veneration of John Chrysostom in the Orthodox Church; After the polyeleos, the Archbishop read an akathist to St. John Chrysostom. The canons were read by the keymaster, priest V. Bogoyavlensky. The choir of Mr. I.S. Morev and students of the theological seminary sang. The liturgy in the cathedral was celebrated by His Grace Andrei Bishop of Mamadysh. They sang: the bishop's choir in Greek and Slavonic, and two choirs - male and female students and students of the Baptized Tatar school in the Tatar language. The sermon was delivered by priest Peter Rozhdestvensky. After the liturgy, a prayer service was served to St. John Chrysostom, completed by the usual many years. At the end of the service, the icon of St. St. John Chrysostom with a procession of the cross from the cathedral was transferred to the Kazan Mother of God Monastery; - during the procession a prayer service was served to the saint. On the same day, in the Archangel Michael Church of the Theological Academy, the liturgy was celebrated by Archbishop Demetrius and His Eminences - Alexy, Bishop of Chistopol (rector of the Theological Academy) and Mikhail, Bishop of Cheboksary, co-served by the academic clergy. The sermon was delivered by the academy professor, priest Alexy Druzhinin. After the liturgy, a prayer service was served to St. John Chrysostom; some of the city archpriests, priests and all the student priests of the academy took part in the service of the prayer service. The liturgy was performed in Greek, and the prayer service in Slavic. At one o'clock in the afternoon in the academic hall there was a solemn meeting of the academic corporation, the city clergy, students of the academy and the public, at which, after the choir of students sang the prayers of St. John Chrysostom, professor Leonid Iv. Pisarev read a speech (St. John Chrysostom and his time). By singing It is worthy to eat... the act was completed. Sermon on the day of remembrance of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the occasion of the 1500th anniversary of his blessed death 3) In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. With reverent amazement the entire Christian world now bows before the great universal teacher and saint of the Church of Christ; East and West compete with each other in their efforts to honor the memory of the great hierarch in a worthy manner on the occasion of the fifteenth anniversary of his blessed death. The Russian Church is now brightly triumphant, performing a solemn nationwide celebration of the great hierarchical and pastoral exploits of St. John Chrysostom, whose memory has always been revered throughout the entire face of the Russian land with such attention, with such reverent gratitude, as perhaps nowhere else in the whole world; Our theological schools also triumph, glorifying the greatest preacher and famous teacher of the universal church. On the day of this universal admiration for the immortal greatness of a man who enlightened and is still enlightening the entire universe with his truly golden words, we, the pious listeners, will ask ourselves what our feasible participation in the great spiritual triumph of the church, glorifying one of its greatest decorations, could be expressed in, what we can bring to the altar of this universal glorification. Reverent reflection on the life and works of the great saint, of course, would be the most natural expression of the feelings of joyful animation and sacred delight experienced today by the Christian world, but is it possible in a short word not only to depict, but even to list everything that Saint John Chrysostom experienced and did, what the Church of Christ owned and owns in his creations, in this truly inexhaustible treasury precious pearls of sacred eloquence, bearing the indelible stamp of the immortal spirit that gave birth to them? Fifteen centuries have passed since the golden lips closed, and the words once spoken by these holy lips do not cease and, of course, will never cease to resound in the souls of believers, calling them to a new grace-filled life in Christ, arousing in them holy Christian feelings, helping them to eradicate everything unclean and sinful in themselves and to grow from strength to strength, according to the age of the fulfillment of Christ ( Eph.4:13). Fifteen centuries have passed since the great saint reposed, and his life and works still serve as objects of reverent amazement, edification, inspiration and consolation for all workers in the field of Christ, and his image still shines with an unearthly light in the consciousness of Christians, showing us to what height of moral greatness and dignity a person reborn by the grace of Christ can rise, striving to implement the great Gospel commandments about Christian perfection. To portray this wondrous life, to describe the great labors and illnesses of the saint of Christ, now blessed by the church, which he suffered from the moment he came to the conviction that a person does not yet do anything important while he works for himself, even for the purpose of his spiritual improvement, to draw a bright image of the great archpastor, to reveal the significance of his creations for the Christian world - all these are tasks that far exceed our weak strength and require so much time and labor that we do not have the opportunity to devote to this matter at the present moment. Let us use them to reflect on that unpaid debt, of which this bright celebration in memory of the great universal teacher should remind all students of the highest theological school, as representatives of Orthodox theological science and higher spiritual enlightenment, for whom the great saint, now honored by the Church, worked so hard, as future shepherds of the Church of Christ and mentors of young men preparing for pastoral service, the ideal of which is so complete and was portrayed with perfection in his creations and carried out in his pastoral activities by the great archpastor. Great and varied are the spiritual treasures contained in the rich heritage that we received from St. John Chrysostom. Among these treasures there are those which are offered almost daily throughout the year by the Holy Church for the spiritual enjoyment of the faithful. Constantly feeding on that spiritual food, which lies in the divine liturgy and prayers compiled by St. John Chrysostom, we, by virtue of simple habit, are in danger of becoming little sensitive to the great good that we so often use, just as we are not always aware of the enormous importance of the clean air around us or the healthy bodily food we take daily for our physical well-being. But just as none of us would voluntarily decide to place ourselves, even for the shortest time, outside these elementary conditions of bodily health for fear of being exposed to the most serious, even life-threatening, diseases, so it would be unwise and harmful for our spiritual well-being to neglect that truly divine spiritual food, which we all have the opportunity to enjoy daily, attending the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or even just pouring out our prayerful feelings in the words composed by him wondrous prayers. To cultivate in ourselves a stable habit of attending the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as often as possible, to become so imbued with the thought of the importance of such a visit that it becomes an urgent need of our spirit, to promote the development and strengthening of a similar skill both by word and especially by example among all those around us, especially among our pets - this is our first duty to the great saint, far from unimportant in our sad times, when the love for the church and worship is becoming scarce not only among secular society, but also among the common people and even among students of theological school. But you, pious listeners, are, without a doubt, well aware that the immortal spiritual food contained in the works of St. John Chrysostom is not limited to those of his creations that are daily offered by the Holy Church for the spiritual nourishment of believers, but also contains many other writings of the most diverse nature and content, the use of which at the present time is, as it were, already provided by the church to the good will of those who wish. Perhaps it would not be superfluous to recall that each of the students of not only the highest, but also the secondary theological school should consider it his indispensable duty to take care that this common, now already accessible, spiritual heritage left by St. John Chrysostom does not remain dead capital for him. Is it necessary to prove that each of us, in the interests of not only our own spiritual and moral development, but also general intellectual and aesthetic education, should become acquainted with the works of the great saint, at least with the same detail, with the same attention with which each of us considers it obligatory for ourselves to become acquainted with the classic works of world or domestic literature? Isn’t it strange, in fact, that we sometimes consider it necessary to study the secular classics of pagan and Christian peoples even in the original text, we try, as far as possible, to acquire complete editions of them as personal property for permanent use, but we do not always consider it necessary to get acquainted with representatives of the golden age of Christian patristic literature in more or less detail, at least in translations? Isn’t it strange that in Christian schools, where the teaching of ancient classical languages ​​is still preserved, less time and attention is devoted to reading the best church writers in the original than to reading pagan authors, which in theory should only serve as preparation for studying the sacred books of the New Testament and the best works of patristic writing in the original text. To restore the disturbed balance between means and ends, to arouse and revive interest in the study of patristic writing in general and the works of St. John Chrysostom in particular, this is another important duty, of which this bright celebration should remind everyone whom Providence will be pleased to place in a close relationship with the secondary classical, especially theological, school. But, as representatives of Orthodox theological science and higher theological education, we would not have fulfilled our duty to the great universal teacher if we limited ourselves to just a simple acquaintance with his works or just a school study of his life and works. Comprehensive scientific research and coverage of all information that has survived to our time about the life and work of the great archpastor and the rich literary heritage that we received from him is a new responsibility that Orthodox theological academies and their students must take upon themselves. This is their duty not only to the great saint who is now blessed by the church, but also to Orthodox theological science, to the Russian Orthodox Church and to the Russian Orthodox people, for whose spiritual education the works of St. John Chrysostom were of such enormous importance. What has already been done in this direction, and how much remains to be done, there is no need to talk about this in detail here, it is enough to just point out that this work has only just begun, and that we do not yet have a single work in Russian that satisfies modern scientific requirements in any way, dedicated to St. John Chrysostom, except for translated works. Meanwhile, how many of the most rewarding tasks for scientific research, promising the most productive and interesting work for learned theologians of various specialties, are the life, works, teachings and creations of St. John Chrysostom, with the very instructive fate of the latter in the history of the Western and Eastern, especially the Russian Orthodox, churches! Let us also note that the implementation of tasks of this kind would be a continuation of similar scientific works already completed by students of our academy and would support the scientific tradition that had begun to be created in it, thanks to which the name of our academy is already associated with many special scientific monographs about the fathers and teachers of the church. On whom, if not on you, my young listeners, does the moral obligation lie to take care of the maintenance and further development of this tradition, and on whom, if not on St. John Chrysostom, should your attention now focus when choosing subjects for your special scientific research? There is no doubt that the fulfillment of the last of the above-mentioned duties, of which this bright celebration reminds us - the duty of studying the life, teaching and works of the great saint, cannot remain without a deep and very beneficial influence on the worldview and life understanding of anyone who would be more or less attentive to the implementation of such (?) work. And in fact, is it possible to imagine that the wondrous ascetic life of the great saint of the church would not make a deep, stunning impression on the soul, which retained within itself receptivity to everything beautiful, sublime and noble, with which the life of the great saint of the church is so rich? Can one imagine that the fire of inspiration, warming every word that came from the mouth or from the pen of the great teacher of the church and igniting the hearts of so many generations of Christians over 15 centuries, would be powerless to plant in the heart of a modern Christian, at least, a spark of that spiritual grace-filled life to which St. Chrysostom never ceased to call his listeners in deed and word. Is it possible to allow that the Christian worldview and understanding of life, which illuminates with unearthly light all questions of existence and life, in the classical artistic form that it received in the works of St. Chrysostom, does not, with its inner truth and beauty, defeat those false ideas about Christianity that many of the unrecognized false teachers of our time are increasingly spreading among Christians? To be imbued with this “Zlatoust” understanding of Christian doctrine, to assimilate it as the most reliable criterion for assessing the continuously successive views of Christianity, which are diverse to the point of opposition and its relationship to various aspects of individual and social life, is still a highly important task, especially in our time, the implementation of which is especially necessary for representatives and students of the highest Orthodox theological school, called to the spread and establishment of Christianity in its patristic Orthodoxy understanding, one of the best exponents of which was Saint Chrysostom. Implementation of this tasks would be very important also because it could contribute to at least the gradual restoration of the long-lost connection between the educated classes and our people, who from the first days of the existence of Christianity in Russia were brought up on the works of St. John Chrysostom. That is why the scientific development, defense and dissemination of the views of St. Chrysostom on the most diverse issues that concern modern intelligent society would, without a doubt, contribute to the rapprochement and mutual understanding of various classes and estates and together - the end of that sad discord, which in our country has recently assumed such terrifying proportions. But, just as during the life of Saint John Chrysostom, those of the listeners who only admired his eloquent words and with stormy delight expressed their agreement with him, but continued their former sinful life, were not satisfied, so we will not fulfill our duty to the saint of Christ, who is now blessed by the church, if we do not make efforts to take advantage in our life of the great example that the saint gave to his disciples for all centuries. Chrysostom with his life. For no one does the apostle’s instruction about imitation of the mentors who spoke the Word of God to us have such important meaning as for those who are preparing to be shepherds or educators and teachers of future shepherds. For them, it is no longer enough just to admire the works of St. Chrysostom, it is not enough even to be imbued with his worldview and understanding of life, but it is also necessary to draw a practical conclusion from them and apply it to their own life purpose, paying special attention to those aspects in the upbringing, spiritual development, life and works of St. John Chrysostom, by virtue of which he is one of the greatest church shepherds and an eternal example of a true shepherd who realized in his face the ideal of Christian shepherding according to the covenants of Christ and the apostles. Those passions of youth that Saint John experienced, his hesitation in choosing a vocation, which was finally resolved by accepting the pastoral ministry, that sacred trepidation that the future great saint experienced at the thought of the great responsibility he assumed along with the shepherding, despite his outstanding talents - in general, that internal struggle that Saint Chrysostom experienced before becoming a shepherd, and the echo of which is his famous words about “priesthood”, with their deep reflections on the incomparable height, importance and difficulty of pastoral service, on the sorrows and dangers associated with this service - all this is necessary for every candidate for the priesthood to know in order to form a correct understanding of the essence of pastoral service, to cultivate in oneself a high respect for this service and the idea of ​​the need for the most thorough, not only mental, but, even more, moral preparation for this service. It might even seem that the example of Saint Chrysostom and especially the idea expressed by him that only a few of those who have accepted the responsibilities of the pastoral title can hope to achieve a blessed fate in heaven, can not only dispose, but sometimes even reject those preparing for it from pastoral service... But just as reflections and hesitations of this kind in the life of Saint Chrysostom himself ended, however, in his submission to the will of the Archbishop of Antioch, who wanted to see him among the members of his clergy, just as his high opinion of the dignity and importance of this ministry, no doubt, supported in him a sacred zeal in fulfilling the duties of his title to the determination, like the Chief Shepherd, to lay down his soul for the sheep of his flock, so will the reverent and the humble soul of a person, placed by the Providence of God in the position of preparing for pastoral service, will find in the terrifying words of Chrysostom about the enormous responsibility assumed by those seeking pastoral dignity, not so much a reason for a decisive evasion from taking on the pastoral title - when this acceptance is indicated by the Providence of God who directs the paths of man, as the most natural completion of the entire previous life and upbringing, and by the voice archpastors placed at the head of the Church of Christ, how much is the basis for constant admiration for the height and holiness of this ministry, for constant gratitude to Divine Providence, which has put us on the path leading us to accept this highest of earthly ministries, and for humble submission to the will of God, if it calls us to truly accept this ministry. As for those who have already taken upon themselves this ministry or are preparing to be educators of future shepherds, in Saint Chrysostom’s reflections on the priesthood and his pastoral activity, they cannot help but see an eternal urge to strive, as far as possible, to approach that perfection in the performance of the complex duties of a shepherd and mentor of shepherds, which Saint Chrysostom achieved, a constant indication that this service must be carried out with fear and trembling, with a constant thought of one’s unworthiness and the need for Divine mercy and help for the proper fulfillment of that holy work, which lies with every shepherd of Christ’s Church and with every mentor of those preparing for shepherdhood. To cultivate this desire in ourselves, to achieve such perfection in fulfilling the duties of a shepherd and mentor of shepherds, following the example of the great saint of Christ, who is now blessed by the church, is the last, most difficult, but for that, our highest and most holy duty to the saint of Christ, the duty, greatness and severity of which, of course, exceed our weak strength, but should not frighten those who know about the words of the great apostle of languages, who said in one of his messages: “I can do all things through Jesus Christ who strengthens me” (Phil. 4:13), and who invited all his disciples to work out their salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), imitating him, just as he himself imitated Christ (1 Cor. 4:16). Once the Divine Shepherd, our Lord Jesus Christ, seeing crowds of people, exhausted and scattered, like sheep without a shepherd, said to his disciples: The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; pray therefore to the Lord of the harvest, that he may bring forth the laborers into his harvest” (Matthew 9:36–38). Let us also end this bright celebration in memory of one of the greatest workers in the field of the Lord with a prayer before him, so that he will help each of us praying in this church to become worthy of the great title to which every mentor and student of a theological school is called, to work shamelessly in this title and thereby fulfill our life duty before the Divine Shepherd. Amen. Zlatoust bottoms in Kazan It has been 1500 years since the blessed death of the great saint of the Church of Christ John Chrysostom. How much this dear name speaks to the heart of a Christian! Marvelous among the saints, he shines as a bright star in the host of church luminaries. And so far this light has not only not dimmed, but, it seems, flares up even brighter and continues to illuminate the thorny path of church life. Reverence for the great memory of the saint prompted the leaders of the Kazan Church to mark the one thousand five hundredth anniversary of his death with appropriate celebrations. Without falling into exaggeration, we can say that Kazan managed to honor the ecclesiastical luminary. The days we experienced (from and to November 13, 1907) can safely be called Zlatoust days. The initiative to organize anniversary Zlatoust celebrations belongs to the Kazan Church Historical and Archaeological Society. Almost at the beginning of 1907, His Eminence Demetrius drew the attention of the said Society to this great event and repeatedly expressed at the Society’s meetings that this event should be commemorated with a bright festival in honor of the Great Saint. – In September, the Council of the Kazan Theological Academy submitted to His Eminence for approval its journal resolution on the Academy’s celebration of the 1500th anniversary of the death of St. John Chrysostom. His Eminence Demetrius, agreeing with the resolution of the Council, made a presentation about this to the Holy Synod, including a petition for the release on November 13 of all students in theological educational institutions and church schools of the diocese from classes. A joint meeting of the Church Historical and Archaeological Society and the Council of the Brotherhood in the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Kazan Cathedral was scheduled for October 28. At this meeting, in addition to all the bishops of Kazan, there were: Commander of the Kazan Military District, Lieutenant General Sandetsky; I.D. of the Kazan Governor, Vice-Governor Baron Grevenitz, Governor of the Kazan educational district, Assistant to the District Trustee A. A. Ostroumov, professors of the Academy and other honorary persons. The meeting was devoted to a detailed discussion of the organization of the celebration of the 1500th anniversary of the death of St. John Chrysostom. After discussion, the Assembly decided to mark the 1500th anniversary with the following celebrations: November 11, Sunday, in the cathedral, a liturgy in Greek and a prayer service to St. John Chrysostom; the same on November 11 at 7 o'clock. evenings in the arena of the Junker School reading by prof. A. A. Tsarevsky about St. John Chrysostom and the spiritual concert of the choir J.S. Moreva; On November 12th, a solemn all-night vigil in the cathedral; on the 13th, a Greek liturgy in the academic church and at 1 o'clock in the afternoon in the assembly hall of the Academy a solemn meeting at which prof. L.I. Pisarev will offer reading: “John Chrysostom, as a teacher of Christian life”; in the cathedral there is a liturgy and prayer service to St. John Chrysostom served by Bishop Andrei. The executive side of the matter in organizing the reading and concert in the arena was taken over by the Brotherhood in the name of the Most Holy Theotokos at the cathedral. The commander of the troops of the Kazan military district, the acting governor of the Kazan district and the manager of the Kazan educational district expressed their full readiness to take part in these celebrations and do everything necessary for this. At the same time, His Eminence made the following order for the diocese: ״For a preliminary acquaintance with the merits for the Orthodox Church of St. John Chrysostom, at my suggestion, the Brotherhood of St. The Mother of God at the Cathedral printed a brochure (about St. John Chrysostom) for distribution throughout the diocese and distribution to the people... It is suggested that the rectors of churches in the Kazan diocese should previously (before November 13) in church teachings, in extra-liturgical interviews and in schools, acquaint their parishioners with the life, works and merits of St. John Chrysostom for the Orthodox Church; It is highly desirable to organize readings and public lectures about it. November 13th, on the very feast of St. John Chrysostom, in all churches, hold an all-night vigil, a liturgy, at which a sermon is preached, and after the liturgy a prayer service to this saint.” Brotherhood in the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Kazan Cathedral during the celebrations in honor of St. I. Chrysostom, the following brochures were published: 1) St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, - from the patron of the Brotherhood, His Eminence Demetrius, Archbishop of Kazan and Sviyazhsk; 2) Speech delivered by His Eminence Demetrius at the annual meeting of the Church Historical and Archaeological Society of the Kazan Diocese on September 14, 1907 (the day of the death of St. John), dedicated to the memory of St. Chrysostom; 3) The Life of St. John Chrysostom, compiled by the fellow chairman of the Brotherhood, Prof. A. Tsarevsky) 4. These brochures were distributed in all educational institutions of the city of Kazan, in addition to the fact that on the day of November 13, prayers were performed in all educational institutions and teachers of the law (in secular educational institutions) held conversations about St. Zlatoust. By order of the authorities, there were no exercises that day. As an introduction to the Chrysostom celebrations, a reading about St. Chrysostom, teacher of the law at the Teachers' Institute, Fr. V. Sokolsky in the Vladimir reading room. The reading was attended by His Grace Alexy, Bishop of Chistopol. The choir of students from the Theological Academy sang. There was quite a lot of audience. On November 11, the Liturgy of St. was celebrated in the Cathedral. John Chrysostom in Greek. The Liturgy was celebrated by His Eminence Demetrius, co-served by His Eminence Bishops: Alexy Bishop of Chistopol, Mikhail Bishop of Cheboksary and Andrey Bishop of Mamadysh. A whole host of saints of the Church of Christ in the concelebration of archimandrites, archpriests and priests. A service of rare solemnity. So many people came to honor the rare celebration that the cathedral could barely accommodate the worshipers. With deep tension and attention those present listened to the Divine Liturgy in the language of St. Chrysostom. Involuntarily the thought was transported to the dear times of the golden fourth century. All our Orthodox Christian literature was created in this language, all sacred prayers and chants were translated from this language. In this language, 1500 years ago, the words of the Divine Liturgy poured out from the lips of Chrysostom himself; in these very sounds of the harmonious Greek language St. poured out. John his prayerful delight before God; in these sounds one could hear the trembling of his great spirit before the terrible mystery of the Eucharist, the service of which he considered higher, more daring than the service of angels. With what insight, one thought, the words of the Greek liturgy were heard from his golden lips! Here, in front of the holy throne, stands a short man with a thin, emaciated body and reverently and with inspiration calls on the faithful to partake of the supper of love. They answer his call. He knows how to ignite a divine spark in the soul, often drowned out by sin. These calls were in his native language and were dear at the moment. It seemed as if those present had been transported to Byzantium. Not a single sound of Slavic speech. The clock was read by the academy teacher P. K. Zhuze. This is where the liturgy itself begins. The protodeacon loudly begins: ״εὐλόγησον Δέσποτα "(bless, lord). And the sounds of the language, sanctified by the history of the entire Christian church, poured out. At important moments of the liturgy, I somehow wanted to imagine Chrysostom: how he would pronounce this or that exclamation, what impression it made on his listeners. A touching moment of the bishop blessing the flock - the grapes of God. With a dikiri and a cross, the bishop comes out to the flock and says: και ἐπίσκεψε τήν ἄμπελον ταύταν (look down from heaven, O God, and see and visit these grapes). sick with her illnesses, rejoicing in her joys, holding her in his heart. - The gospel is read - the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (weekly gospel reading). The fascinating content of the parable, of course, evokes a number of deep thoughts in the great preacher; artistic images of speech are already being created. The reading does not remain without eloquent interpretation. During communion, the words of John Chrysostom about alms based on the text of the parable were read to the listeners. The word was read by the Secretary of the Archbishop, candidate of blessing N.A. Ipatov. Amazing richness and variety of thoughts, picturesqueness and expressiveness of speech! ״There was a certain poor man named Lazarus, who was lying in front of the rich man’s gate and wanted to be satisfied with the grains that fell from the rich man’s meal, and no one gave it to him. The rich man saw him and turned away, disdained him, spat on him, walked past him, and even treated him with hostility. This unfortunate man did not say (about the poor man) that he was the same person as me, that the same hand created us both, that he was of the same tribe and clan as me. (And the rich man) did not think of this; no compassion awoke in him, he did not feel sorry for someone abandoned in such helplessness at his gates. Seeing him in this position and the pus flowing out of the members of his body, the dogs showed great compassion; running up, they cleaned this pus with their tongue, as if with a sponge, licking the wounds like skilled doctors and carefully opening their mouths so that the poison did not escape from the teeth and harm the righteous. Dogs, who do not know God and do not expect the resurrection, used the art of medicine, wanting to help the suffering poor man. And the rich man, who expected that he would appear at the Last Judgment, did not spare the poor man.” ״Now let's look at the fate of both in the next world. It happened, it is said, that the rich man died and was carried away to eternal torment. Lazarus also died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. While on fire, the rich man saw Lazarus resting in Abraham's bosom and recognized him. And he exclaimed, saying: Father Abraham, have mercy on me and eat Lazarus, so that you may water my lips with a small finger, as I suffer in this flame. Where is the wealth, where is the gold, where is the silver? Where is the silver roof? Where are the many servants? Where is the spilled wine (if) it seeks and desires a drop of water? Have mercy on me, Father Abraham. Oh, poor rich man! When Lazarus lay at your gates, you did not want to know him, and now you call on Lazarus for help? Have mercy on me. Your request is useless. The time for mercy has passed. There is no mercy there. Judgment is for one who has shown no mercy without mercy (James 2:13). Why are you asking for mercy that you yourself did not show on earth?” ״Then you didn’t want to think about hands, you abhorred (them), and now you ask me to touch your tongue? What finger, rich man? - “Think about it, man, if you want to have lasting wealth.” Give it into the hands of the poor and you will find a warm welcome there.” In the depiction of the luxury of the rich man, the contemporary life of the wealthy classes is visible to the preacher. ״This rich man, when he lived on earth, dressed in purple and fine linen and silk; rode a chariot; His horses were beautiful, decorated with gold and silver; their feet are fortified with gold; slaves ran ahead and behind. He put on gold necklaces, wrists and (various) jewelry; generally surrounded himself with great luxury. His dining table shone with a lot of gold and countless silver; there was expensive wine, pheasants, geese, waders, partridges, pigeons, chickens, hares, lambs, kids; There were a lot of cooks bustling around. Some waved fans so that not a single speck of dust would fall on his head, others held silver basins and clean towels to wash the ends of his fingers as he reclined. But look at the inhumanity and shame. Everyone worked; so much hard work, so much trouble to satiate the belly of this one rich man. When it is filled with exquisite dishes, ivory beds, down jackets, and clean and luxurious linens are prepared for it. And if he cannot sleep due to pain in his head, some scratch his feet, others take care of the house, guard the gates and doors so that no one’s voice, noise, or anything like that wakes him up. Such was the luxury of this rich man.” It is difficult to choose the most striking, artistic passages from Chrysostom’s teaching; it all begs to be written down on paper. The impression he made was quite strong. Many became interested in Chrysostom’s creations and asked where they could get them. Some suggested printing the teaching read separately. But let us return to the liturgy itself. End of the Liturgy of the Catechumens: ὃσοι κατοιχούμενοι προέλθετε (depart from the catechumen) - proclaims the deacon. These words had vital significance for Zlatoust’s time. At St. Chrysostom had many catechumens. He is known in the history of the Church as a great missionary and organizer of missionary work. In Antioch, when he was still a presbyter, many pagans, amazed by his amazing eloquence, accepted Christianity, especially after the Antioch riot and Chrysostom's request for forgiveness to the inhabitants of the city. And at the time of the exile of St. John from Constantinople on Holy Saturday in the vestibule of the Church of St. Sophia Chrysostom was preparing to baptize up to 3,000 catechumens, many of whom sealed their loyalty to the teacher with their blood. “You were the first to erect altars among the Scythians of the Amaksobs,” says blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus in his eulogy to Chrysostom. St. himself John says that altars to the True God have been erected everywhere - in the Roman country, in Persia, in Scythia, in Mauritania, in India." The final σοφία (wisdom), and the harmonious sounds of the Greek Cherubim are heard, performed by the choir in a remarkably harmonious manner under the direction of the priest. O. A. Berezina. The Great Entrance, the litany of petition, and the call of Christian love is heard: (let us love one another, that we may be like-minded). The imagination paints a picture of ancient Christian fraternal mutual kissing at this moment. All those praying with one mind and with brotherly love are ready to confess the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, Consubstantial and Indivisible. - And here is the confession of faith itself. The sounds of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed echo loudly and clearly throughout the cathedral. According to the custom of the ancient church, preserved to this day in the Orthodox East, the creed is not sung, but read. It was read by the cathedral priest, Fr. P. Rozhdestvensky with his characteristic skill. Again a whole series of experiences. The turbulent fourth century. The Church, without being persecuted from the outside, directs its forces towards internal self-determination. Thought is working hard to clarify and correctly formulate the main provisions of Christian doctrine. The Church is concerned about heretical movements. Arianism at times triumphantly persecutes and persecutes the Orthodox faith. Macedonianism appears as a logical conclusion from it. During Chrysostom, these two heresies were not a historical memory, but a living force of modernity, with which one had to fight and from which one had to defend one’s Orthodox banner. The Creed carries within itself the just completed profound work of theological thought of the fathers of the first and second ecumenical councils. In it, Christians of that time saw the firm, victorious banner of Orthodoxy. With what force, I think, was every word of the symbol pronounced in Zlatoust’s time! With what attention the clergy and those present listened to the symbol during the liturgy. The most important moment of the liturgy comes - the transubstantiation of St. gifts. The pure spirit of St. especially trembled before this great moment. John. At this time, the priest boldly becomes close to God. What was heard in John's voice during these sacred moments? Horror and awe before the greatness of the mystery, joy and tenderness from the consciousness of the extreme closeness of the endless love of the Divine. Λάβετε, φάγετε... πίετε εξ αὐτοῦ... (take eat... drink from her...). These sounds of Greek speech expressed the delight of John’s soul; they poured out the highest aspiration of the soul towards God that is possible on earth. I would like to at least partially imagine John Chrysostom at that moment, and imagine the mood of those praying under the influence of his prayerful inspiration. What was its mental effect on those praying, what was that mystical transfer of mood that undoubtedly occurs during prayer? – The moment of eating the immortal Meal is approaching. The soul trembles. The consciousness of one's sinfulness, one's unworthiness torments a person. The believer needs to be encouraged. Be brave, man, you are not under the wrath of God, you are a child of Divine love. Jesus Christ gave us the space to be a child of God. And now, as if in order to completely banish doubt about this, the exclamation of the saint is heard: καί καταξίωσον ἡμᾶς, Δέσποτα, μετά παρρησίας ... (and vouchsafe us, Master, with boldness and without condemnation dare to call upon You the Heavenly God the Father and speak). Here, I think, one could hear in the voice of Chrysostom the boldness of holiness that had ascended to the heights of communion with God, filial courage before the Heavenly Father. The Lord's Prayer - Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς - just like the Creed is not sung but read, and this time by the protodeacon. I don’t know whether this was accidental or done deliberately, but it was the protodeacon with loud boldness in his voice who should have been entrusted with reading the Lord’s Prayer. There, in the symbol, there is a calm confidence in the correctness of the faith, here in the Lord’s Prayer – a loud, faith-based appeal, filled with firm confidence, to God the Father. Εἰρήνη πᾶσι - (peace to all) the exclamation of the saint is heard - this is the last parting word before communion, a reminder of peace; loud deacon's πρόσχωμεν (let's remember). Be reconciled, Christians, and be careful: only saints can receive the holy gifts: τα ἂγια τοῖς ἁγίοις (holy to saints). The Royal Doors are closing. The clergy take communion. At this moment, Chrysostom was experiencing, I think, the Easter celebration, the joy of the resurrection: the New Jerusalem is shining. With what radiant gaze he then appeared to give communion to the laity, what those who partook of the one bread and one cup experienced - these were undoubtedly great touching moments of the liturgy in the service of Chrysostom. When the liturgy was over, and the Slavic speech was heard at the prayer service, we had to make an effort to renounce a whole series of historical memories and images of ancient Christian life. It became clear that the service in Greek, perhaps unnoticed by ourselves, distracted us from the present and resurrected the dear long-past. Yes, the elderly archpriest, who was present at this service, was right when he declared to the Archbishop: “You, Vladyka, transferred us to the church of St. Sophia, in the service of Chrysostom himself." During the prayer service to St. Archbishop Demetrius read to John Chrysostom a very meaningful prayer to Saint John that sank into his soul. The following words of the prayer especially attracted attention, corresponding to the modern mood: “we are sinners, each having one gift of our own, unity of spirit in the union of peace are not imams, we are vain, irritating each other, envious of each other; For the sake of this gift, we are divided not into peace and salvation, but into enmity and condemnation. To you, the saint of God, we fall, overcome by discord, and in contrition of heart we ask: with your prayers drive away from our hearts all pride and envy that divides us, so that in many places we will be one church body, so that, according to your prayerful words, we will love each other and with one mind confess the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit of the Trinity Consubstantial and Indivisible, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen. On the evening of November 11, a reading was scheduled in the arena of the Junker School by the professor of the Kazan Theological Academy A. A. Tsarevsky about St. John Chrysostom with the participation of the well-known Kazan choir I. S. Morev. At 3 o'clock in the afternoon, a large icon of St. John Chrysostom, placed on a dais and decorated with fir. The religious procession was performed by the priest of the cathedral, Fr. P. Rozhdestvensky with the participation of the monastery nuns and pilgrims. The banner of the Brotherhood in the name of the Most Holy Theotokos, which organized this reading, was also brought into the arena from the cathedral. By 7 o'clock in the evening the huge building of the arena began to fill with people. The brotherhood sent out up to 1000 tickets for numbered seats. In total there were up to 2000 people gathered. Many who wanted to attend the reading could not get there due to lack of space. The arena was literally crowded with people. All Kazan bishops, led by Archbishop Dimitri, were present at the reading. There were many representatives of the Kazan generals. Among those present was the assistant trustee of the Kazan educational district A. A. Ostroumov. Further, the audience is very diverse from intellectuals to commoners: professors of the Academy, University, heads and heads of educational institutions, many clergy, merchants, cadets, soldiers, women, from the rich to the poorest. Upon the arrival of Archbishop Demetrius, the choir harmoniously sang the Heavenly King and the troparion of St. To John Chrysostom: “The divine church rejoices, and the whole universe celebrates your entire bright memory, reverence of Saint John Chrysostom, who lived piously among the saints, and was a martyr by will. Thus we cry to you: O sufferer and passion-bearer, and co-throne with the saint, pray to Christ God to save our souls.” This troparion was sung at all Zlatoust services. It was extracted from the ancient southwestern mines by Archbishop Demetrius. It makes a stronger impression than the usual troparion to Chrysostom: “Thy lips.” After the troparion, the singers sang τόν δεσπότην. Those gathered take their places. Prof. appears at the department. A. A. Tsarevsky. Professor Tsarevsky enjoys a well-deserved reputation as an artist of words, so a better choice for reading about Chrysostom could not have been made. He imperiously led the audience with him, capturing the attention of both the expressiveness of his reading and, especially, the artistry of his presentation and the spirit of reverent admiration for the person of the Great Saint. One after another, vivid pictures from the life of St. flashed before the eyes of those gathered. John Chrysostom. During the reading break, the choir sang: “God inspire my prayer” - Archangelsky, “I Believe” - Grechaninov and several hymns in addition to the program. And at the end of the reading, the choir performed the magnification of St. John Chrysostom - (harmonization by D. M. Yaichkov) and “We praise God to you.” The final words of the saint’s earthly life “Glory to God for everything” found beautiful expression in this victory anthem. The meeting ended around 10 o'clock. evenings. After this, in a procession of the cross, while singing a prayer service to St. John, his icon was transferred to the cathedral for the upcoming honoring of the saint on the day of his memory. and this night procession of the cross with the solemn ringing was in perfect harmony with the Zlatoust celebrations. St. John worked a lot in arranging public prayers (litiya) and religious processions in contrast to the Arians, who attracted the Orthodox with their processions. A prayer service to St. John was performed in the cathedral. On Monday, November 12th, the eve of St. John Chrysostom, all-night vigils were held in all churches of Kazan. At half past five, a festive ringing rang out throughout the city, following the sounds of the largest cathedral bell. These bell sounds alone, spreading in the frosty evening air throughout the city, were majestic. The cathedral bell tower is illuminated. Just like Easter! The triumph of faith in the undying, eternal meaning of holiness. The huge cathedral could not accommodate everyone who wanted to pray. We were told that many who came later could no longer get into the cathedral. The creator and organizer of these nightly public prayers was so worthily honored! The choir of I. S. Morev sang in full force. The harmonious singing, the full illumination, the crowd of worshipers filling the cathedral, the greater than usual enthusiasm of the clergy - all this made a strong impression. Something Easter solemn was felt in this service. A whole host of clergy (about 20), led by the venerable Archbishop, came out to the litiya. Hemmed in by the living wall of worshipers, the clergy seemed to be lost in the mass of the people. A real litiya, a people's prayer! The usually cheerful voice of the Archbishop seems even firmer. The sounds of prayer are clearly heard throughout the cathedral. “Through the prayers of our holy father John Chrysostom, grant us forgiveness of our sins, cover us with the shelter of your wing, drive away every enemy and adversary from us, pacify our lives, Lord, have mercy on us and Your peace and save our souls, for you are good and a lover of mankind.” Amen. The usual blessing of the loaves. The bishop's blessing is given to all those present, and the clergy go to the altar. The solemn sounds of prayer are replaced by the words of the Six Psalms, full of contrition, which were read by the priest. P. Rozhdestvensky. Great litany, God the Lord and appeared to us, troparion to St. John, “The Divine Church rejoices,” reading kathismas. After the kathismas, the cleric of the cathedral, Fr. O. IN. Epiphany read from the brochure of His Eminence Demetrius legends testifying to the extraordinary respect with which contemporaries treated John Chrysostom. “His contemporaries were convinced that the wondrous gift of teaching of St. Chrysostom received from God Himself, like the greatest of the prophets of the Old Testament - Isaiah and the New Testament's deepest contemplator of the Divine mysteries - St. John the Theologian." Elder Hesychius, gifted by God with the gift of insight, once saw St. John appear. apostles Peter and John the Theologian. John handed the scroll to Chrysostom, saying: “Take this scroll from my hand.” The Lord will grant you knowledge of all the depths of wisdom, so that you can feed people with the undying breadth of the teachings of Christ.” Peter handed over the keys to Chrysostom as a sign of his pastoral service in the Church of Christ. Chrysostom's disciple Proclus, later the Patriarch of Constantinople, reports that when interpreting the Apostolic Epistles, St. Paul appeared to Chrysostom and secretly explained to him the exact meaning of the messages. Bishop Adelphius of the city of Kukuz, who honorably hosted the exiled saint in Kukuz, once after the death of Chrysostom saw a bright young man who led him to heaven. Among many church teachers and saints, Adelphius did not see John Chrysostom and was saddened. Then the one standing at the door of paradise said: “A person who is in the body cannot see it, since she stands before the throne of God, which is surrounded only by cherubim and seraphim.” Thus St. Chrysostom, according to this legend, was glorified by God in the kingdom of heaven above all the saints and ranked among the highest angels. Again it is light - the solemn exit of numerous clergy into the middle of the church to the image of the saint to the sounds of the majestic polyeleos and in the full illumination of the cathedral. The priests rallied in close rows with lit candles around a large, human-sized image of the universal teacher, rising on a special stand. “We magnify, we magnify you, Holy Hierarch Father John,” is heard from the lips of the clergy. These are the successors and continuers of the ministry of St. John glorifying their teacher and inspirer. The moment is deeply moving. Then the reading of the akathist began. The entire akathist was read clearly and distinctly by Archbishop Demetrius. The leaders and leaders of the militant church, together with their flock, weave a crown of praise for their leader. Chosen to be the leader of the Church of Christ, adored by the teacher John, adorned with virtues from youth, you labored well, and having endured persecution for the name of Christ, you died in exile. For this reason, you are highly glorified in heaven, the wise organizer of the church order. In the same way, we tenderly honor you, calling: Rejoice, great saint John Chrysostom! With deep attention, the worshipers followed the change of songs of praise in honor of St. John Chrysostom. The entire diverse and long-suffering life of the church luminary passed before the prayerful gaze of those gathered in the form of brief figurative praises. The repeated repetition of “Hail, great saint John Chrysostom” contributed to the general mood of glorification. Here the last kontakion is heard: “Oh, great saint John Chrysostom!” Look down from the heavenly heights on us, prostrate to the ground, and this reception, praise brought to you from our love, beg the Lord God to pour out his grace upon us, the weak healing one, to strengthen those who are in Orthodoxy, and bring those who have fallen away from the church back into her bosom, replenishing those who are impoverished with his compassion, and make everyone worthy with you and all the saints sing to Him forever: Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia! After reading the Gospel, the clergy kneel before the image of the saint, kiss it and receive anointing from their Archpastor. Then the masses of people flowed to the image. Bowing, the sign of the cross, kissing the holy icon - this continued until the very end of the all-night vigil. The canon was read by the sacristan of the cathedral, priest. O. V. Bogoyavlensky. The all-night vigil dragged on for a long, long time, but I didn’t feel tired. The inspiration of prayer, as well as beautiful singing, maintained a cheerful state. On the very day of November 13, the center of the Zlatoust celebrations was moved to the theological academy. The representative of the highest theological science could not remain indifferent to the memory of St. John Chrysostom and not commemorate such an exceptional day with a celebration. Our Kazan Academy did this all the more readily because a patrolological tradition had long been established in it. Many of the academy’s professors have academic degrees for patrolological research and, in addition, a number of educational works of the Kazan Academy of a patrolological nature. On this day, a liturgy in Greek was scheduled in the academic church, and after it, in the assembly hall, a reading by Prof. L.I. Pisareva about St. John Chrysostom. The Liturgy was celebrated by His Eminence Archbishop Dimitry, co-served by the rector of the Academy, Bishop Alexy, Bishop Mikhail of Cheboksary, prof. Academy Archpriest E. A. Malov, Academy Inspector N. P. Vinogradov, prof. priest I.V. Popov and some priests of the academy students. The clock was read by the teacher of the Academy Juse, the creed and the Lord's prayer by prof. Preobrazhensky, Psalm 33 Greek student. The audience attending the Greek liturgy in the Academic Church was of a different kind than in the Cathedral. The predominance of the intelligentsia was noticeable. The academy students sang in two clergy. The powerful sounds of a homogeneous male student choir - the general tone of a particularly meaningful attitude towards what was happening, the whole atmosphere of the academy, so to speak, where the name and works of Chrysostom are often repeated and studied - all this added some new touches to the experience of November 11th in the cathedral. The consciousness that one is in an environment of constant work of an inquisitive young thought involuntarily evoked the image of Chrysostom as a student and teacher. During this time, prof. priest A.I. Druzhinin spoke a word about St. Zlatoust. Pointing to his merits as a profound interpreter of the Holy Scriptures, the preacher called on students at the academy to study his works. He noted, among other things, that with all the admiration for Chrysostom, Russian theological science does not yet have a thorough, exhaustive study of him. The preacher also called upon his student listeners, in imitation of Chrysostom, to serve the Church of God in the rank of priest. At the end of the liturgy, a prayer service was offered to St. John Chrysostom. All student priests took part in the prayer service, so there were up to 30 participants in total. At 1 o'clock in the afternoon in the assembly hall of the academy there was a solemn meeting dedicated to the memory of the saint. Present: Archbishop Dimitry, bishops - Alexy Bishop of Chistopol, Mikhail Bishop of Cheboksary, Andrey Bishop Mamadyshsky, academy professors, students and a lot of outside audience. Before the reading, the student choir performed a concert: Thou art in every way sorrowful to my soul. The reading by Professor L.I. Pisarev was devoted to a discussion of the life of St. I. Zl. in connection with the history of his time. – The academic meeting ended with prayer and a bishop’s blessing to those gathered. Simultaneously with the honoring of John Chrysostom at the Academy on November 13, in the cathedral, the figures of the Kazan mission, led by Bishop Andrei, paid tribute of reverent respect to the memory of the great missionary - John Chrysostom. Here the liturgy was celebrated in Tatar, Greek and Slavic languages. John Chrysostom cared about the spread of Christianity in the country of the Scythians, and now, 1500 years after his blessed death, the inhabitants of these Scythian countries bring him the gift of love and gratitude in different languages, and prayerfully remember their missionary. And mission leaders are still looking in his memory for inspiration and reinforcement in their difficult task of serving the spread and strengthening of the faith of Christ among the diverse inhabitants of the Kazan region. Somehow I didn’t want to think that this was the end of the Zlatoust celebrations. I had to experience so many good, bright moments these days. Everyone who worked hard these days and brought great satisfaction to all lovers of churchliness deserves sincere and deep gratitude. Section two. Articles dedicated to the memory of St. John Chrysostom St. John Chrysostom and his pastoral activity in Antioch. Archpriest M. Bazhanov Activities of St. John Chrysostom, as a shepherd, is remarkable in its character, different from the nature of the activities of other shepherds of the era in which he lived. It is known that the fourth century of Christianity, to the second half of which most of the life and work of St. John Chrysostom, was a time of great theological debate, a time when not only every theologically educated person, but also people completely alien to both theological and even secular education, considered it their favorite thing to practice resolving controversial dogmatic issues. As for the people whose very position in the church was called to defend and explain the Christian doctrine, that is, the pastors of the church, their attention, as is known, was almost entirely absorbed in controversial dogmatic truths, since the main goal of their activity was in solving some dogmatic issues of their time. But St. John Chrysostom chose for himself an activity of a completely different nature, namely the preaching of moral teaching. The preaching of moral teaching at that time was just as necessary as the preaching of dogmatic teaching, because the Christian world of that time, as we will later see in the example of the Antiochian society, completely neglected the moral principles and rules of the Christian religion and wallowed in moral debauchery. The internal everyday life of Christians of the fourth century was similar to the life of pagans, so that, according to Chrysostom, “it was difficult to find true Christians in Christian society.” The morals, customs and moral concepts of Christians - all this needed the most radical reform. But before Chrysostom, none of the shepherds devoted themselves entirely to this activity. True, St. Basil the Great and especially Gregory the Theologian in their sermons often drew the attention of Christians to the inconsistency of their lives with the requirements of the Christian religion, but, attaching the main importance to preaching the dogmatic teachings of Christianity and being prone to abstract speculation, they could not successfully combat the moral shortcomings of society. An influential preacher of moral teaching could only be a person like Chrysostom, who was most interested in the life of modern Christians, their inner life and mutual relationships. Chrysostom, as a shepherd, by his own admission, had one concern - about the moral success of his flock.” He devoted his entire life and work to serving the moral improvement of his flock and, before all the pastors of the church, should be called a preacher of Christian moral teaching. The only task that Chrysostom devoted to his pastoral ministry was the moral re-education and transformation of modern Christian society. He dedicated himself to the goal of changing the previous way of life of his flock, which was not in accordance with the spirit of Christianity, and building their lives on new principles of evangelical moral teaching. Chrysostom never deviated from this goal and did not want any other activity for himself other than that of a preacher of moral teaching. Why St. John Chrysostom did not follow the general example of modern shepherds who studied dogmatic teaching, but chose practical activity for himself, we will see this when presenting his biography. St. John Chrysostom was born in the year 347 A.D. Nature rewarded him with the most brilliant mental gifts, and precisely those that are most required for practical activity and especially for the activity of a preacher of moral teaching. Deep insight, unusually quick resourcefulness, constant observation of everything around him, a happy memory and all other properties necessary for a preacher of moral teaching were the properties of Chrysostom’s natural mind. At the same time, Chrysostom was naturally distinguished by an enviable ability to express his thoughts eloquently. The gift of speech was one of his most remarkable virtues. But, possessing this gift, Chrysostom, however, was not naturally inclined to preach dogmatic teaching. The latter, as a necessary condition, always requires the ability for abstract thinking, and Chrysostom was awarded a mind capable only of concrete thinking. He could not delve into himself and live only within himself and for himself, since his nature was inclined towards purely external life and activity among others and for others. This is where Chrysostom had his uncontrollable need to serve for the benefit of society and in society itself, for which he was always distinguished; hence his complete oblivion of himself and his interests, so beautifully expressed by him in the following words to his flock: “For me there is no other life except you and concern for your salvation.” Finally, from here comes that sociability and penchant for friendship, as a result of which Chrysostom, neither in his youth nor especially in his mature age, never lacked sincere friends. All the properties of Chrysostom’s natural mind and character later developed under the most favorable conditions. The environment in which he grew up, the upbringing he was given, the society in which he lived - everything could develop in him in the most perfect way his natural abilities and inclinations precisely in the direction that was characteristic of his very nature, that is, in the practical direction. Chrysostom's homeland, as well as the place of his pastoral activity in the rank of presbyter, was Antioch, the capital city of Syria, a city in which the inhabitants, both by origin and by wealth, were at first divided into only two classes. One of these classes consisted of the newly arrived Macedonian Greeks, who, by right of the victors and founders of the city, formed an aristocracy that took advantage of all the local wealth, and the other of the defeated native Syrians, who made up the poor working population of the city. Both of these classes, until the very days of Chrysostom, maintained the sharpest opposition, and each of them, even in the fourth century, as before, differed from the other mainly in origin: the privileged and rich people were for the most part natural Greeks, and the poor were Syrians, many of whom, even under Chrysostom, still spoke to each other in their native dialect, although at the same time everyone knew the Greek language perfectly. The distinctive qualities of these latter have always been: good nature, gullibility, complete irresponsibility and love for work, even the most dishonorable and unprofitable. Meanwhile, the Macedonian newcomers, despite their lively and active character, were not at all inclined to activity and were distinguished by extreme frivolity. This was a people who quite liked Asian luxury and delicacy and who, without any measure, took advantage of the irresponsibility and love for the activities of the local Syrians and began to live off their labor, constantly indulging in some kind of selfless fun and all kinds of pleasures. Several decades after the founding of the city, it was under the second successor of Antiochus Epiphanes that the resettlement of Palestinian Jews to Antioch marked the beginning of the formation of a third, industrial and commercial class of inhabitants here. Little by little, this class was increasingly enlarged by people who came and visited from different countries and parts of the world, the so-called entrepreneurs who wanted to enrich themselves at the expense of the luxury of the rich and pampered residents of the city. Having soon become the eastern capital, Antioch at the same time became a place of an even greater influx of new elements of the population. Here, in addition to industrial and commercial people, people of all kinds of social status and for all kinds of reasons flocked from different places, both for temporary stay and for permanent residence. Some were attracted to Antioch by a thirst for pleasure, which could be satisfied incomparably more in the capital than in the provinces; others flocked here to engage in the sciences and arts, which have always flourished here; still others for practicing crafts or service, and so on. As a result of all this, in Antioch one could always meet people of all kinds of localities, all kinds of ranks, conditions, occupations, characters, and the like. As a result of the same, the city was constantly filled with both idle noise and vigorous activity. To be born and grow up in such a city was extremely important for Chrysostom, as a future preacher of Christian moral teaching. He had no reason to travel around the world in order to fully study people and modern life: in his native city, as if in a focal point, all modern activity with all its manifestations was gathered and, so to speak, in full swing. It goes without saying that, under such conditions, even a person not as attentive and inquisitive as Chrysostom, encountering at every time and at every step people of various titles, positions, views and characters and all kinds of life manifestations, could become well acquainted with modern reality. Chrysostom, with his lively, observant and insightful mind, capable of extremely quickly noticing even the smallest and most elusive details in phenomena, could not have studied modern life and modern people, with all their interests, needs, vices, mutual relationships and in general with everything that he needed to know as a preacher of moral teaching, and under the influence of which only he could come to the very idea of ​​​​the meaning of this activity. By origin, Chrysostom belonged to the upper class of Antiochian society. His father, named Secundus, was the chief assistant to the commander of the Syrian troops. But he died just two years after the birth of his son. Therefore, the future great preacher of Christian morality had to receive his initial education under the guidance of only his mother, Anfisa. For the first 20 years, Chrysostom was inseparably with her and owed her influence the development of all his best moral qualities. Remaining unbaptized throughout this time, despite the fact that, thanks to his mother, a strict Christian, he was in fact a zealous Christian, both in his convictions and in his strict moral life. From an early age, Anfisa encouraged her son to read the Holy Scriptures, and this latter was in her hands the main educational means, a bulwark against all the temptations that lay ahead in the future for Chrysostom, as a rich heir and a man of genius, and a guarantee for his better future. In addition, Anfisa was the first and perhaps even the main person who developed his practical direction in Chrysostom. Despite her meek disposition, she was an extremely practical woman, the kind of woman who, having left her husband at a young age, could, on her own, manage all the affairs of the rich house and estate left by Secundus, matters that required a lot of trouble, intelligence and energy. This was a woman, by her own admission, who managed not only to be a real mistress in a huge house, among many willful servants, but also to triumph both over the selfish intentions of the relatives of her late husband, who wanted to profit from the property left by Sekund, and over various attacks and oppression from the civil authorities. It is clear that under the guidance of such a wise, experienced and tactful mother, Chrysostom, with the practical inclinations of his own nature, could have formed nothing other than a practical figure. As we will see below, Anfisa really prepared her son for useful practical activities in society. At the age of twenty, Chrysostom began studying secular sciences. It was only from this period that personalities other than Anfisa began to influence him, although even now the influence of his mother still remained predominant. At that time, by order of Emperor Julian, all Christian schools were closed, and therefore Christians had to send their children for secular education to schools run by pagan teachers. Prudent Christian parents, fearing that their children, under the influence of pagan teachers, would become pagans themselves, did not dare to send them to pagan schools before the age of twenty. As a result of the same fear, probably Anfisa kept her son with her until normal adulthood, and only when he consciously assimilated the principles of the Christian religion, she decided to give him into the hands of pagan teachers. The best of the pagan schools was then in Antioch the school of Libania; Chrysostom entered it. The main leader and mentor in this school was Livanius himself, one of the most remarkable and influential pagans of that time. He, as you know, was on close and even friendly terms with Emperor Julian and together with him dreamed of restoring paganism. The school itself was founded by him most of all, it seems, in order to educate the younger generation in the pagan spirit. However, being one of the most honest and truthful people among the pagans, he did not want to intentionally hide the shortcomings of the pagan religion from his listeners, and if he zealously defended paganism before them, it was not at all because he blindly shared all the errors of the pagans. He was an ardent admirer of paganism, not so much for its religious and moral views, but for the sake of the great past that was associated with it, and especially for the sake of the sciences and arts that grew on its soil and developed under its patronage. It was from this side that Livanius tried in his eloquent lessons to present paganism to his listeners in an attractive form, but, as we know, the success was not particularly great. Despite the fact that until his death he did not stop working in this direction with ardor. He always carefully studied his students in order to find among them good assistants to his work, and did not let a single gifted person pass without taking special care to prepare her for the restoration of paganism he planned. Of all such personalities, among the students, Chrysostom especially attracted the attention of Livanius. The latter saw in his new pet not only a good assistant for himself, but also a worthy successor. Having noticed in Chrysostom an extraordinary gift of speech, Livanius applied all his rhetorical skill to developing this gift to the highest degree, and indeed, he was more successful in this, because Chrysostom, for his part, seeing in Livanius an experienced mentor, used his lessons in eloquence with full attention. From under the leadership of Livan, he emerged as such an orator that he could, according to his teacher, be a source of pride for that time. The words of Livanius are known, spoken about one speech of Chrysostom, composed in praise of Emperor Valentinian the 1st: “Happy is the writer who knows how to glorify emperors in this way!” But the emperors are also happy that they reign at a time when the world has such an amazing writer! But having developed an amazing ability of eloquence in Chrysostom, Livanius did not have time in his main desire - to make him a successor in his school and instill in him his pagan beliefs. Chrysostom still remained a Christian in his soul. The influence of the mother thus turned out to be stronger than the influence of the teacher. Livanius himself admitted that he was defeated by her when he said that “Christians kidnapped Chrysostom” from him: the first initiative in this abduction, without a doubt, belonged to Anfisa, or, better to say, she did not kidnap Chrysostom, but only did not let him out of her hands and did not allow Livania himself to kidnap him. It’s not for nothing that the latter called Anfisa an “amazing woman.” She truly was an extraordinary woman, not only for her chaste life, which Livanius was especially surprised by, but also for the tact with which she raised her son, as well as for her influence on him. If Anfisa had not been confident in her influence on her son, she probably would not have allowed him to enter the Livaniya School as a person whose aspirations were well known to her and to all his contemporaries in general. The significance of Livanius for Chrysostom and his future preaching activity is too significant to say much about it: Livanius perfected to the highest degree the very instrument through which Chrysostom was to carry out the moral transformation of society. Of the other secular teachers of Chrysostom, biographers mention only the philosopher Andragathia, but do not provide any information about the personality of this philosopher, nor whether this Andragathia was a philosophy teacher at the Livaniya school, or had his own school. The original biographers also say nothing about the influence of this teacher on Chrysostom. Only some of the later describers of Chrysostom’s life attribute to Andragathia the development in Chrysostom of “the ability to clearly imagine and understand things, to rigor in judgment, to clearly present thoughts,” etc., but it seems that the development of all these qualities in Chrysostom is best attributed to Livanius, as a teacher of eloquence. Livanius himself, as is known, was distinguished by all the above-mentioned virtues and, of course, did not fail to develop them in Chrysostom when he wanted to make him his successor in teaching rhetoric. From the lessons of Andragathius, as a man who failed to instill in his student any respect for philosophy and its best representatives, Chrysostom could hardly learn anything other than the most ordinary information on philosophy. He probably wanted to listen to Andragathius not so much in order to thoroughly study philosophy, but in order not to remain completely ignorant of such a subject, which was then universally respected by educated people. Or, if Andragathy was a teacher at the Livaniya school, then Chrysostom had to listen to philosophy only because it was required by the general program of the school, but in this case, there can be no talk of Andraghafy’s influence on Chrysostom, just as there is no speech among Chrysostom’s original biographers. After completing his secular education, Chrysostom entered the civil service as a lawyer. Occupying this position had extremely important consequences for the future preaching activities of Chrysostom. This position brought him face to face with modern life and inevitably introduced him to all the aspirations, needs, vices and untruths of society, and even to the needs and untruths of those known only in the city. Moreover, she taught him to be a defender of the oppressed and the poor against the unjust oppression of the strong and rich, and served as the best exercise for his eloquence. But at the same time, this position almost damaged Chrysostom’s morality. New acquaintances and connections with representatives of the highest circles, acquaintances that were necessary when taking up the position of a lawyer, accustomed him to an absent-minded social life. He began to visit the theater and other places of entertainment and almost completely abandoned the reading of Holy Scripture. True, later all this was useful to Chrysostom in that it gave him the opportunity to learn from his own experience how difficult it is for a person to resist worldly temptations, and personally introduced him to those places where the very sources of moral corruption in society lay. Nevertheless, Chrysostom’s morality at that time was still in serious danger, which passed only thanks to happy circumstances, and under other conditions could have completely delayed him on a slippery slope. Chrysostom left this path only because he had sincere friends, distinguished by strict morality, whose persistent convictions and requests forced him to change his mind. It is remarkable that while attributing to Chrysostom’s friends his conversion to the true path, the biographers say nothing about Anfisa’s protest against her son’s distracted life. Anfisa probably understood that with the end of this life, her son’s ties with those persons of the highest circle who drew Chrysostom into absent-mindedness and on whom, it seems, his career depended, would have to be severed. An absent-minded life must have been an inevitable necessity for people in the upper circle at that spoiled time, so leaving it meant completely leaving the aristocratic environment, losing all self-respect in it, and even, perhaps, losing the position occupied in the service. All this, as is known, happened to Chrysostom. Having abandoned his distracted life, he had to completely leave the position of lawyer. For Anfisa, this last circumstance, of course, was the least desirable. As a result, she, although she was a pious Christian and a caring mother, probably did not protest against the absent-minded life of Chrysostom, putting up with inevitable evil for the sake of the benefit that her son began to bring to society, and for the sake of the consolation that he gave her herself, occupying a prominent and useful position. For Chrysostom's friends, such considerations could not matter. They saw that, given Chrysostom’s talents, losing his position as a lawyer did not mean much, that for his abilities the circle of activity of a judicial defender was still very small, and therefore they were not afraid to keep him from an absent-minded life, although they, no less than Anfisa, could know that with the correction of his life, Chrysostom had to become completely alien to the highest circle and lose everything in it for his secular career. As it turns out from the testimony of biographers, Chrysostom’s friends even tried not only for him to give up his distracted life, but also for him to completely leave secular service. They understood that Chrysostom, with his extraordinary talents, could bring much more benefit to society when he changed his secular rank to a spiritual one, and they advised him either to enter the clergy of the Antiochian church or to become a monk. Chrysostom’s best friend Vasily was especially concerned about the latter. But Anfisa opposed Chrysostom’s entry into monasticism. Anfisa, apparently, did not even want Chrysostom to become a monk even after her death. Asking him to stay in his home, she says: “When you commit my body to the earth, then take long journeys, cross the seas you want,” and yet she does not dare say directly: then go to the monastery. It is clear that it was hard for Anfisa to even think about her son becoming a monk. Chrysostom did not want to upset his mother and stayed in her house. In addition to the requests of his mother, Chrysostom in this case, it seems, was greatly influenced by the Bishop of Antioch Meletius, with whom Chrysostom, shortly after leaving his secular position, became very close, received baptism at his hands and was his constant visitor. Meletius, as Palladius noted, “with a prophetic spirit foresaw the subsequent ministry of Chrysostom” and wanted in his clergy to prepare him for future pastoral activity. Although it was not easy and not soon, the bishop still managed to convince Chrysostom to become a cleric of the Antiochian church, as a reader. During his entry into the clergy, Chrysostom began his theological education. It is known that at that time there were no specifically theological schools, just as there was no theological science in its present form. But life in the clergy was a good school both for receiving theological education and generally for preparing for pastoral work. “Here young men who dedicated themselves to the clergy,” under the guidance of experienced clerics, “educated themselves and learned to educate others in the spirit of Christian piety and enlightenment.” In the time of Chrysostom, the clergy of the Antiochian church was distinguished by its special prosperity and had in its midst many highly educated and highly moral clergy. In the latter respect, Meletius himself was especially remarkable, belonging to the number of those shepherds who loved deeds more than words, more piety than wisdom.” According to Chrysostom, “he was a man of high virtue.” For the holiness of life, the Antiochian citizens respected Meletius so much that “at his name alone they were delighted and everyone wanted to give their son the name Meletius, considering this name an adornment of kinship, a guarantee of prosperity, joy and salvation for those who bore it.” On rings, seals, cups and on the walls of dwellings one could constantly find the name of this respected bishop carved. How strong the influence of Meletius was on Antiochian society can be seen from the fact that many of the citizens converted from Arianism to Orthodoxy only because Meletius was on the side of Orthodoxy. All right-thinking people were so accustomed to considering their beloved archpastor as a defender of truth and Orthodoxy that it was enough for Meletius to simply state his view so that the citizens, having learned his opinion, would refrain from deviating into heresy. Meletius was not distinguished by a special gift of eloquence, although at the same time, according to Chrysostom’s remark, “he was very experienced in teaching,” that is, he knew how to take up the task of teaching, as befits an experienced shepherd, and speak specifically for useful teaching. From the pastoral practice of Meletius, one fact was recorded by historians, which clearly shows that Meletius, as a highly moral man who valued most of all a virtuous life, from the very beginning of his pastoral activity decided to act on his flock most of all through moral influence and only through moral teaching thought to persuade his flock to the true doctrine. Theodoret and Sozomen say that on the very day of his consecration to the Antiochian see, Meletius, by order of the emperor, together with other shepherds, had to give an impromptu conversation on one of the most controversial places in Holy Scripture between the Orthodox and the Arians, precisely on that place from the book of Proverbs, which speaks of the creation of Wisdom (Proverbs 8, 20 and 23 vv.). Although the subject assigned for the interview was of a purely dogmatic nature and was proposed by the emperor in the interests of dogmatic ones, despite the fact that “Meletius began his speech with moral reflections on internal communication with Christ as the basis of moral Christian life,” and only when he captured both the attention and heart of the listeners, he moved on to dogmatic reasoning, but even here he limited himself to the simplest presentation of his view, and did not try so hard to solve the proposed question, how many “convinced listeners not to experience what is not perceptible by testing.” If Meletius did this on the first day of his bishopric, when the wishes of the emperor, and the expectations of the listeners, and the example of other shepherds who spoke before him on the same text, and, finally, the very essence of the proposed question, demanded dogmatic reasoning from him, then his subsequent teaching activity was almost exclusively aimed at keeping his flock from dogmatic disputes and instilling in everyone that without virtue even the right hand will not save a person. In one of the biographies of Chrysostom, the personality of Meletius and his pastoral activity are characterized by the following features. “God-fearing Meletius, both in life and in teaching, always testified to the truth that without love for God the Divine commandments cannot be kept, that enlightenment of the mind and heart is not possible where the law of the Lord does not shine, and that only he is able to understand and proclaim the word of truth who through a good life has made his soul the church of Christ.” It is clear after all this what the influence of Meletius on Chrysostom should have been. All biographers and scientific researchers of the life of this latter agree that Meletius, with his instructions and example of a holy life, developed and strengthened the moral convictions of Chrysostom, and aroused in him that ardent zeal for the moral correction of the life of Christian society, with which Chrysostom was distinguished later, when he came out to preach Christian teaching. At the time when Meletius had such a beneficial influence on Chrysostom’s moral convictions, on his character and the direction of his future pastoral activity, another of the Antioch clergy, Presbyter Diodorus, later Bishop of Tarsus, rendered Chrysostom an extremely important service by enriching his mind with knowledge of various theological sciences and especially knowledge of Holy Scripture. Bishop Diodorus of Tarsus is known in history as one of the most educated theologians of his time and the best experts on the Holy Scriptures. He is considered the founder of the Antiochian school of interpretation of Holy Scripture - a school not in the sense of any separate school for teaching Holy Scripture, but in the sense of a separate direction in interpretation. They say that Diodorus not only did not have a permanent school, but even a permanent refuge for himself. He lived wherever he happened to and taught, like the philosopher Socrates, mostly where he could meet more listeners. Thanks to such transitions from place to place, Diodorus’s teaching was alien to any school rules and techniques. In view of the constantly changing audience, differing in different degrees of understanding, Diodorus could not present his lessons either in a strictly scientific system, or even in a sequential order. His interpretations according to Holy Scripture were nothing more than improvisations spoken on a well-known text in one place or another, on different occasions and under different circumstances. Wanting to be understandable and useful to all his listeners, Diodorus tried to avoid those allegorical and speculative explanations that were characteristic of the Alexandrian school. In contrast to the teachers of this latter, he paid attention mainly to the literal and moral meaning of Holy Scripture and, explaining it partly philologically, partly historically, constantly made practical applications of his lessons to the lives of his listeners. In general, Diodorus’s lessons, so to speak, merged with his life itself, as well as with the life and interests of his listeners, and therefore were distinguished by a completely vital and practical character, they were simple, clear and alien to any abstractions. All these properties, together with extensive information on various theological sciences, passed from Diodorus to Chrysostom. He also adhered for the most part to the literal meaning of Scripture, also resorted to philological and historical explanations of the text, was also simple and publicly accessible in his interpretations, and, finally, with the same constancy as Diodorus, took advantage of every opportunity to introduce the Scriptures to his flock and derive from it an edifying lesson for them. At the same time, some similarities are noticeable in the characters of these two shepherds of the church, so one can think that Diodorus partly shared with Meletius the moral influence on Chrysostom. According to historians, Diodorus had an extremely firm and unshakable character, always stood for the truth, like a rock, and was undaunted even in those moments when others were seized with panic. This was the case, for example, during the persecution of the Orthodox under Valens, when the whole city trembled with horror, while Diodorus did not lose his presence of mind at all, went from house to house to strengthen the citizens and convinced everyone to courageously stand for the faith. Chrysostom was distinguished by exactly the same powerful and undaunted character, never losing heart and not at all afraid to speak the truth to his strongest and most fierce enemies. Chrysostom spent four whole years (370–374) in the clergy of the Antiochian church, as a reader. During this time, Anfisa died, and in the end Meletius was exiled, and no one stopped Chrysostom from going through the most recent and difficult educational school, namely the school of monastic life, first in a monastery - under the guidance of experienced elders, and then completely independently - in a secluded cave in the desert. Although monastic and especially desert life were not the nature of Chrysostom, who loved activities in society more than contemplative life, nevertheless he decided to become a monk in order to better prepare himself for future service. At that time, it was the custom among people preparing themselves for pastoral work, before initiation, to retire for several years to the desert, which was considered the best preliminary school for the pastor of the church. As is known, all the famous church fathers of the 4th century lived in the desert for a significant time before becoming bishops. It may be that Chrysostom also left society, partly yielding to the general custom. But there were other reasons that forced him to retire from the world. “He,” says Paul Albert, “hurried to move away from the sad spectacle that the world presented. There was anarchy, riots and disturbances everywhere. The barbarians, like waves, rushed towards the empire from all sides... The Huns, having crossed the sea, flooded the east. At the same time, the church was torn apart by an internecine religious war... Arianism, condemned in Nicaea, but now protected by the emperors Constantius and Valens, fought with energy against Orthodoxy, convened councils, removed Orthodox bishops from their posts, appointed successors for them, produced constant, often bloody, unrest, etc. In Antioch itself, Meletius was deposed... Amid such unrest, it is very natural that souls thirsting for peace joyfully retired into the desert.” The most powerful urge that forced Chrysostom to hide in a monastery was the following circumstance. Due to the persecution of the Orthodox by the Arians, which Paul Albert mentioned in the above passage, many churches lost their pastors. Some died under the yoke of various oppressions and insults in their pulpits, others were imprisoned, and most died in places of captivity. The Orthodox bishops who survived when the persecution began to subside began to replace the empty episcopal sees with new worthy persons. Rumor spread among the people that Chrysostom, together with his friend Vasily, wanted to be installed as bishops. The rumor turned out to be true indeed. Soon a bishop arrived in the city, who was assigned to ordain Chrysostom and Basil. Neither one nor the other, however, considered themselves worthy of such a high service and decided to refuse the offered honor. As for Vasily, the arriving bishop managed to force his consent to the ordination, and he was immediately ordained. Fearing the same fate for himself or, even worse, forced initiation, Chrysostom decided to flee the city and took refuge in a monastery neighboring Antioch, located on the banks of the Orontes River. He remained in this monastery for four whole years (375–378), and then for the highest ascetic deeds he retired to a secluded cave. Staying in the monastery and in the cave was important for Chrysostom in that here, in severe ascetic deeds, he finally developed that firmness and steadfastness of character, which he could previously see some semblance of only in his teacher Diodorus and which he himself still did not have. Here, through his own experience and various temptations, he became acquainted with all the weaknesses of the human heart and thoroughly studied human nature. Finally, here, thanks to various kinds of hardships and constant vigilance over himself, he won complete victory over his passions and with full right could subsequently say about himself that “there is no evil greater than the evil that he defeated.” One might think that the ascetic deeds that Chrysostom underwent in the desert, no less than brilliant eloquence, imparted to his activities that significance and authority, which was subsequently revered by entire masses of people, who, as is known, have always been distinguished by their special love for hermits. But the same ascetic deeds, for all their significance for Chrysostom’s moral self-improvement, had an extremely harmful effect on his health and forced him to return to the city. Meletius, who had just returned from exile at that time, ordained Chrysostom to the rank of deacon, in which he remained for five whole years (380–385), and also not without benefit for his future activities. “It is known,” says Paul Albert: “how important the office of deacon was in the ancient church. He was a servant of the poor, a giver of alms, an overseer and a guard at the doors of the church. The bishop often entrusted him with various tasks. The position was difficult, requiring unaccountable obedience at all times, but for that it represented the best preparation for the position of shepherd (priest and bishop) and at the same time the most tireless exercise in the duties of love. To be the natural support of the poor, to study their misfortunes, to see with one's own eyes the extremity of their needs, to find the causes of this often in the greed and cruelty of the rich, in the merciless and unjust oppressions of the government, to appear to the poor and weak as a visible instrument of the church, to receive general gratitude - to be loved and blessed by those who suffer - there could be no better such service for a person whose heart was so loving and who so passionately hated untruth! – Chrysostom’s preparation for pastoral service ended with the diaconate. In the year 386, almost forty years old, he was ordained to the rank of presbyter of the Antiochian church by Flavian, successor of Meletius. After all that has been said, Chrysostom’s preparation for pastoral activity to implement the high principles of Christ in the life of society. morality is generally presented in this form. In his hometown, Chrysostom had a complete opportunity to get acquainted with all kinds of life and with the most diverse characters of people. In particular, in the house of his mother, a woman who belonged to the highest circle of society, he constantly had to be among people of the highest circle, Anfisa’s relatives and friends, and could study their habits, way of thinking, etc. He had even more opportunities to study this circle when he himself entered it with the rank of trial lawyer and began to lead the life of a secular man. In the same rank, he could become closely acquainted with the life and needs of other classes of society, as a defender of innocent and oppressed people, who, of course, could belong to different social classes. At the end of his preparation for pastoral activity, precisely in the rank of deacon, his acquaintance with people of all social positions and conditions should have increased even more. – About 12 years earlier, while in the school of the pagan Libanius, among his comrades, also mostly pagans, Chrysostom could directly see the life, customs and habits of the pagans, as well as acquire information about their beliefs and learning. – Among the clergy, he studied well the life of the white clergy. – In the company of monks, I learned about monastic life, along with the aspirations and ideals of monks. Moreover, Chrysostom not only could see and know people well in their most diverse ranks and positions, but he himself experienced all kinds of life - from an absent-minded secular person to a strict ascetic and a solitary recluse, from a reader to a presbyter (and then a bishop), from one of the richest people in Antioch, to the poorest beggar, which he became when, before leaving for the monastery, he gave all his wealth to the poor. As for Chrysostom’s upbringing, it also took place under the best conditions. Practical, but at the same time tender and loving mother, meek and sincerely attached friend Vasily undoubtedly had the most beneficial influence on Chrysostom’s tender heart. The intelligent and eloquent teacher Livanius developed a natural mind and gift of speech in the future preacher; Diodorus enriched Chrysostom with various theological knowledge, while Meletius had one of the best influences on the moral beliefs of his cleric and on the direction of his future activities. Finally, the deprivations of the desert and the struggle with himself strengthened Chrysostom’s will in the most possible way, made him a deeply experienced psychologist and almost completely freed him from passions. With such rare qualities of mind, heart and will, with such complete knowledge of life and people, Chrysostom entered the field of pastoral activity. It can be said that the people, circumstances and various situations seen and experienced by Chrysostom - everything seemed to be deliberately selected in order to form and prepare in him the best, most powerful and influential preacher of Christian moral teaching, a preacher who set out on his work fully armed with the necessary means, knowledge and personal merits. His extraordinary intelligence, brilliant eloquence and remarkable practical talent were not slow in promoting Chrysostom from the ranks of other presbyters of the Antiochian Church and “making him the right hand of Archbishop Flavian.” While other priests were busy conducting divine services and performing religious services, the elderly Flavian instructed Chrysostom to do the preaching in his place. But for the new shepherd, preaching was not just an assigned duty, but also the most dear and close to the heart activity. She was Chrysostom’s natural calling, which the latter not only could not resist, but always devoted himself to with all the ardor and love. Chrysostom passionately loved his fellow citizens and concern for their welfare irresistibly prompted him to constantly talk to them and teach them. It happened that he preached several sermons in one day. No failures in the matter of moral correction of his flock could force him, during his entire twelve-year presbytery in Antioch, to abandon preaching. Chrysostom was often told: “Stop advising, stop admonishing: they don’t want to listen to you”; but he did not pay attention to this and was still, if not more, engaged in preaching. It seemed incredible to him that his sermon would be completely unsuccessful and that none of his listeners would heed his word. In those cases when they asked him to stop talking, he usually said: “It is incredible that a seed cast down in such a multitude would not bear fruit for me.” If not everyone will listen, then at least some, or at least one, and that is enough for my consolation.” In general, for the moral education and correction of his flock, Chrysostom spared neither time, nor strength, nor health, and life itself, in his own words, had value for him only because it was useful for the moral improvement of his fellow citizens. Let us now get acquainted with the life and views of Chrysostom’s Antiochian contemporaries, that is, with their state that caused Chrysostom to resist; we will point out all, especially the outstanding, shortcomings, vices and errors of Antiochian society; Let us describe each vice separately with the same features that are found in the works of Chrysostom, and see what measures he used in order to destroy this or that passion, this or that delusion in the flock, and replace it with pure Christian virtue. Among the vices and errors widespread in the society of Antiochian Christians of the second half of the 4th century, if not most of all, then first and most inevitably, Chrysostom had to encounter adherence to old, partly pagan, partly Jewish religious beliefs and superstitious customs, especially adherence to religious pagan holidays, beliefs, omens, omens and similar remnants of antiquity. All these accessories of Judeo-pagan antiquity still dominated in full force among the then Christians of Antioch due to various reasons. The most important of them was, without a doubt, that from the time the Christian religion acquired the rights of citizenship, approved by the famous decree of Constantine the Great, until Chrysostom entered the field of pastoral activity, only a few decades passed - a period too insufficient for the true spirit of Christianity to properly penetrate the consciousness and life of the majority of newly enlightened Christians. Moreover, this could not be because as soon as Christianity was declared the dominant religion and the emperors themselves took its side, pagans and even Jews began to accept Christianity in large numbers, but only a few of them out of sincere conviction, most of them for various practical calculations and considerations. Some became Christians because they were afraid of falling out of favor with the government and losing their position, others out of a desire to attract the attention of higher officials and achieve promotion in the service, others out of fear of being branded as backward people for professing the religion that had long been called “the faith of rude villagers,” and others simply out of curiosity, or following the example of others. It goes without saying that such Christians only decorated themselves and covered themselves with the names of Christians, but thought and lived according to their former customs and rules, pagan or Jewish, depending on what religion they belonged to before accepting the new faith, paganism or Judaism; in Christianity they were content with observing only appearances, but many sincerely despised even that in their souls and only out of fear and calculation did not dare to openly reveal their contempt. As a result of all this, it took a lot of time to force some to change their view of the new faith, and others to part with their previous habitual way of life. Further, in order to properly re-educate society and replace its former beliefs and ancient customs with new Christian ones, intensified preaching activity was needed precisely in this direction, and this activity was lacking among the preachers of that time, due to the fact that almost all of them were more busy with dogmatic disputes than with the needs of modern social life. Moreover, it was all the more difficult for Christianity to defeat and displace the deep-rooted pagan and Jewish antiquity from among its new proselytes, since both had living representatives in the person of pagans and Jews, who together made up more than half of the entire Antiochian population and with their living example had an infectious effect on Christians and not only did not allow them to forget their recent and, one might say, beloved past, but also tried in every possible way to support in Christians the memory of what they had left behind. old times. To all this we must finally add that just a few years before the presbytery of Chrysostom, in the person of Julian, the crowned defender and restorer of paganism appeared, giving many of the pretended Christians a reason to think and hope that the pagan religion would eventually prevail over Christianity again, especially since paganism of that time, thanks to the efforts of some of its learned adherents, apparently began a period of its renewal, although, as it turned out in reality, this renewal was the last intensified sigh a religion that has outlived its happy days, with a sigh similar to the last deep breath of a dying person. For all the reasons indicated, but not yet fully calculated, in the society of Christians of the second half of the 4th century, in particular in the society of Christians of the Church of Antioch, it was rarely possible to meet people with a truly Christian way of thinking and, as we will see below, even more rarely - with a truly Christian way of life. We can say that the 4th century of Christianity - the golden age of the triumph of Orthodoxy and the development of Christian enlightenment - was famous for the activities of St. church fathers, but could not be called the golden age of Christianity based on the moral life of the vast majority of Christians. Some of them, considered Christians, still continued to take part in pagan religious celebrations, were present at the performance of rites of pagan worship, shared with the pagans the amusements that accompanied the celebration of one or another pagan holiday, and in general were still in many ways fascinated by pagan antiquity. Others did the same with regard to the Jewish religion. Chrysostom's sermons to the people of Antioch serve as the clearest and most visual evidence of how strong the attachment of the Christians of his time to the pagan-Jewish antiquity was. Thus, many of Chrysostom’s contemporary Christians of pagan origin not only had respect for the pagan temples that still existed, but could not refuse respect even for the long-burned temple of Apollo, located in the Antiochian suburb of Daphne, a temple from which only bare walls and charred columns remained and in which there was no longer the famous oracle or idol. In ordinary times, many Christians gathered here along with the pagans, out of old, but still fresh, memory, in order to indulge in carnal pleasures in the luxurious cypress grove that then surrounded the temple in honor of the burnt idol. True, the presence in Daphne of the church of the martyr Babyla and the memory of the miraculous burning of the church forced many to behave more decently, but the very fact that Christians, as Chrysostom testifies, still gathered to the church, clearly shows that their sympathies were still returning to their former religion. Irrefutable confirmation of this can be seen in the famous sermon of Chrysostom for the New Year. Of the many details of the meeting and celebration of the New Year, taken directly from paganism, we point out first of all the custom of Christians, mentioned by Chrysostom, to decorate the doors of their houses with wreaths and garlands of flowers. It is known that the first month of the year, January, and especially the first day of this month, or Kalends, the Roman pagans, and then all the pagan subjects of the Romans, which were the Antiochians, were dedicated to Janus, the deity who, according to pagan beliefs, stood at the door of heaven and held the office of the heavenly gatekeeper, or, according to the literal meaning of the Latin word, janua, - door, - "door attendant". In honor of this Janus, the pagans crowned the doors of their houses, thinking in this way to appease the heavenly gatekeeper in case he decided to prevent their prayers from ascending to the heavenly abode of the gods. Thus, the custom of hanging wreaths on doors on New Year's Day is a purely pagan custom, and if the Antiochian Christians of the time of Chrysostom crowned the doors of their houses on the Kalends of January, this circumstance clearly shows that they still had a disposition towards the pagan cult and, like the pagans, shared their religious errors. It is impossible to think that the act of the Antiochian Christians in question was a simple custom that had lost its real meaning, like, for example, many customs left over from the times of paganism in our people - it is impossible because most of the Antiochian Christians were barely converted to Christianity and, therefore, could well remember that hanging wreaths on the door is nothing more than a sacrifice to a well-known pagan deity. – In addition to hanging wreaths and garlands on the doors, other details of the New Year’s celebration, as Chrysostom depicts these details, had a purely pagan character among the Antiochian Christians. Thus, the pagans, as is known, tried to spend the first day of the new year as cheerfully and solemnly as possible, in the confidence that Janus, disposed in their favor by the celebration held in his honor, would throughout the whole year open the doors of heaven to send down to them all kinds of benefits and mercies from the gods, of which not one, not even excluding the supreme Jupiter, could either descend from heaven to earth or send down from himself any benefiting people without the knowledge of the heavenly gatekeeper. “Ipse Jupiter it et rediit meo officio,” Janus himself once spoke to the poet Ovid about his advantages. Following the example of the pagans and together with them, both Christians, men and women, indulged, as Chrysostom described, on this day in complete revelry in houses, in the city square and even more in hotels, where the most immoderate drinking sessions took place all night until dawn, with all their vile and disgusting consequences. At the same time, on New Year's Day, Christians staged various kinds of games and made fortune-telling about future happiness, just as the pagans did. It is not for nothing that Chrysostom calls the entire celebration of the New Year “a devilish vigil, a satanic dance, a demonic festivities” - and similar harsh words: in the language of Chrysostom, these epithets are diabolical, demonic, satanic, etc. They also mean that pagan, since he, following the example of other fathers, considered everything pagan to be nothing more than service to Satan and demons. The two examples given, i.e., the participation of Christians in the festival in honor of Apollo and their celebration of the January Kalends, are enough to see how few Antiochian Christians were pagans in the second half of the 4th century. They were still freed from the influence of their former cult. The sermons of Chrysostom testify to the same thing regarding Christians of Jewish origin. And these latter still could not forget their old religious beliefs and customs: they went to Jewish synagogues, took part in Jewish holidays and fasts and observed many other Jewish customs, while at the same time despising Christian holidays, fasts and customs, and rarely looking into Christian churches. The extent to which Christians respected Jewish synagogues extended to the detriment of respect for Christian temples is shown by one incident seen by Chrysostom himself, probably during his judicial practice, and told by him in a word against the Jews. According to Chrysostom, one respectable Christian woman had some kind of controversial matter with a man, also a Christian, which was difficult to resolve by ordinary judicial procedure through impartial proceedings, and it was necessary to turn to a religious oath. Instead of mutually swearing in a Christian temple, the Christian began to force the other party to swear without fail in a Jewish synagogue - a sign that, in his opinion, the latter was better and more sacred than the Christian temple. – In the same word against the Jews, Chrysostom speaks of preferring Jewish holidays and fasts to Christian holidays and fasts. But according to his testimony, in one year, some of the Christians, during the holiday of Christian Easter, observed strict fasting and walked in sackcloth, because at that time the Jewish fast had not yet ended, and only then took off their sackcloth, when the Easter holiday among the Jews came. Thus, from the sermons of Chrysostom it is clear that the society of Antiochian Christians of his time was still far from being a real Christian society, since the beliefs of the Christians of that time were dominated by some mixture of Jewish, pagan and Christian beliefs. But the admixture of Jewish and pagan religious beliefs with Christian beliefs was not the only legacy inherited by the Antioch Christians from paganism and Judaism. Purely religious beliefs and customs were joined by many other remnants of Judaism and paganism, which related not so much to religion as to the customs of everyday life, although, however, they had no small connection with religion itself, especially with paganism. We mean here, on the one hand, the existence among the Antiochian Christians of many beliefs, signs and omens borrowed from the pagans, and on the other, a passion for divination, which, although the pagans were also engaged in, but which among the Antiochian Christians, as can be seen from the sermons of Chrysostom, was supported more by the Jews. Let us first turn to a consideration of the beliefs, signs and omens in which Chrysostom denounced his fellow citizens. In one of his sermons, Chrysostom says that every day his superstitious contemporaries, as they left the house, noticed who they would meet for the first time - a healthy or sick person, a rich man or a poor man, a chaste maiden or a harlot, and the like, and from this meeting they determined whether the coming day would be good or bad. Meeting a crooked or lame person, or generally a sick person, was considered a bad omen, just as meeting a girl of good behavior was considered a sign of the futility of the day; on the contrary, a meeting with a harlot or a healthy person, especially a rich man, was considered, according to superstitions, an omen of a happy day. Thus, here we simultaneously encounter both the belief in happy and unlucky days and meetings, and together with the custom of noticing various signs or omens, that is, with all three of these types of superstitions. – In addition, in Chrysostom we also find evidence that his contemporaries believed in the evil eye and used various protective measures against it, which they considered valid in one case or another. So, for example, in order to protect a newborn baby from the evil eye, a grandmother, nanny or nurse, in general whoever was present for one or another duty at the birth of a child, took some dirt from the floor in the bathhouse where the birth took place and smeared it on the baby’s forehead, drawing some symbolic signs on it. Some, for the same purpose, that is, to protect against the evil eye, tied a purple bandage around the newborn’s head, hung medallions and small bells from his neck, and tied copper coins with the image of Alexander the Great to his feet. In general, from birth and the cradle, the baby was surrounded by a whole mass of all kinds of superstitions. Even naming a child by one name or another was given on the basis of superstitious signs and omens. Attributing to the name some kind of magical effect on the human body, Chrysostom’s superstitious contemporaries, before naming the baby one way or another, lit many candles and gave each of them a special name, so that they could then name the baby after the candle that burned out the farthest, which was, in their opinion, an omen of a long life. And then, throughout his entire life, the Antiochian adhered to superstitions and thus entangled himself and others with superstitions at every step. Especially on important occasions in his own and others’ lives, he “mixed superstitions into all those circumstances where the blessing of the church and religious rituals should have been in the foreground.” Marriages, seeing off the dead, etc. important events in human life - all were accompanied by Chrysostom's contemporaries with the observation of one or another superstitious signs. The passion for divination was just as strong, if not more widespread, among the Antiochian Christians. “Antioch, according to Tacitus, “has always been a gathering of sorcerers, fortune-tellers, magicians, wonder-makers and sorcerers.” The geographical position of Antioch, in the vicinity of Persia, the homeland of magicians, was, it seems, the main reason for the development of magic in such a city, to which people of all kinds of countries, ranks and occupations constantly flocked, in a city that was highly superstitious and, therefore, represented the most convenient and grateful soil for anyone, no matter what seeds of superstition they thought of sowing here, just to receive a good reward for their work. In the days of Chrysostom, according to Sozomen, even people who adorned themselves with the philosophical mantle, that is, philosophers, due to the lack of students, and at the same time due to the lack of means of support, traded in witchcraft and fortune telling in Antioch, so that some of them, due to the careless prediction of the successor Valens, subjected themselves and their other brothers in clothing and craft to terrible persecution, of which they were hardly victims Neither did Chrysostom, who accidentally fell into his hands with a book called magic. But much more than the pagan philosophers, the Jews tried to assimilate the secrets of the magical art. Magic, cabalism, astrology, theurgy and other forbidden sciences were studied by the Jews in the most careful way, because they gained the reputation of experts in the hidden secrets and forces of nature and through this attracted to them the attention and generosity of gullible superstitions who had suffered one or another misfortune or wanted to know their future fate. The Jews especially ascribed to themselves the knowledge of the secrets of the medical art, as the most profitable, and not only men, but also women traded in this knowledge, who, probably, did not study the very sciences of magic at all, but only learned external techniques of sorcery from their husbands. According to Chrysostom, Jewish women, with their magical spells, magical spells and conspiracies, had such an effect on the superstitious minds of Antiochian Christians and especially Christian women that one could recognize the act of a woman who, in view of the dangerous illness of her son, would not turn to the help of the conspiracies of these talkative old women as a moral feat. Even after converting to Christianity, cunning deceivers did not abandon the art of sorcery and, according to the testimony of Chrysostom, they included the very name of Christ in a number of their incantatory words, in order to thus show the appearance that they were acting in the name of God and that, therefore, there was nothing reprehensible in their sorcery. Often, Jewish women adopted Christianity in order to more easily lure Christians into their networks, and they were so successful in this that many of the Antioch flock, before Chrysostom himself, excused their turn to conspiracies by the fact that Christian women were casting spells on them and using the name of God. Moreover, some of the Jews and Jewish women, not content with this deception, used techniques and means to heal Christians that were directly designed to arouse in Christians respect for the synagogue and, in general, for the rituals and beliefs of the Jews. In one of his words against the Jews, Chrysostom says that Jewish healers, who specialized in curing diseases, inspired Christians who turned to them for treatment that the Jewish synagogue, located in Daphne, was under the special protection of higher powers and that the patient only had to go to this synagogue and spend only one night on its threshold in order to learn in a sleepy revelation the means to cure the disease. It goes without saying that a sick person who succumbed to such deception could easily get from the vestibule of the synagogue into the synagogue itself, especially if the magical trick on him was somehow successful, to which, of course, the cunning deceivers made every effort, and then, not only the one who received the revelation himself, but also everyone who could know and hear about it, became open or secret admirers of this and other synagogues. In the same way, pagan healers and sorcerers often used their art to attract Christian sympathy for the pagan religion. So, when it was noticed that many of the Christians began to leave pagan gatherings in honor of the Daphnian Apollo, the pagan sorcerers and healers wanted to force Christians in another way to go to the ruins of Apollo’s temple. Having performed one or another divination on a Christian, they would conclude by invariably advising him to go and drink water from the lake located near the ruins of the mentioned church, instilling at the same time that the divination or conspiracy would only work if the last condition was fulfilled and that otherwise the whole matter would be ruined. Thus, both their own memory of the former antiquity with all its superstitious customs, and the efforts on the part of the pagans and Jews, who tried indirectly, in a roundabout way, to act in the interests of their religions - all this, taken together, made the situation of the Antiochian Christians the most hopeless and of itself called Chrysostom to an open and decisive struggle. His first task in this regard was to refute pagan and Jewish errors, for which the preacher collected all the more or less strong arguments given by former defenders of Christianity against pagans and Jews, and, presenting these arguments in a strong, understandable and accessible language, spoke from the church pulpit. In this case, although he did not say anything new, he made thoughts and evidence, previously accessible only to a few, the property of all Antiochian Christians and thus gave society the opportunity to see for themselves, on the one hand, all the absurdity and all the ridiculous sides of paganism with its immoral rituals, on the other, the complete inappropriateness of Judaism in the existence of Christianity, which itself abolished the law of the synagogue. But, if Chrysostom was not independent in refuting pagan and Jewish errors and took arguments from other shepherds and apologists, then in measures against superstition and divination he had to be completely independent, already because there was no one to borrow from. The question of superstition and divination was not particularly of interest to the shepherds of the Eastern Church who preceded Chrysostom, and all their activities in this regard, with the possible exception of Cyril of Jerusalem, were limited to simple prohibitions. Chrysostom was the first to treat this issue with due attention. “He saw,” says Neander, “that in most cases the spread of omens and the use of various protective measures is guided not only by habit and blind imitation of an already established custom, but much more than this by anti-Christian concepts of fate, pagan belief in fatalism and in the indefinable power of demonic influence.” This belief gave rise to Chrysostom’s famous doctrine of free will in connection with the doctrine of Divine Providence, which Chrysostom contrasted with all superstitions in general. In addition to this general measure, Chrysostom examined and refuted each of the superstitions separately, showing how one or another of them is incompatible with the concepts of Christianity, or how one or the other is harmful in the everyday attitude of Christians. Chrysostom always paid special attention to the latter circumstance, i.e., to the harm from superstitions to the life and work of Christians, because superstitions were truly a huge hindrance in actions and the greatest evil in the everyday life of Christians. Here is what, for example, the preacher says about observing happy and unhappy days: “Whoever is convinced that a day can be bad or good, will not engage in work on a bad day, thinking that then he would do everything in vain and would not benefit from anything due to the necessary property of the day, nor on a good day will he engage again, thinking that his own negligence will not harm him in the least, due to the happy property of the day; and thus considering his labors either useless or unnecessary, he will live constantly in inaction.” Chrysostom also spoke accurately about the belief in happy and unhappy meetings, adding that belief in meetings serves as an even greater evil in the life and relationships of Christians with each other, since it is often the cause of completely unnecessary displeasure between neighbors, forcing them to look at each other with hostility just because, according to a sign, they met at the wrong time. – Sometimes Chrysostom acted against superstitions by showing the real reason for their origin - namely, he pointed out the various hidden motives that guided superstitions, considering this or that sign to be good or bad. For example, the fact that people who adhere to superstitions recognized a meeting with a beggar as a bad omen, he explained by a heartless reluctance to help a poor man, and in seeking a meeting with a harlot he saw the internal depravity of citizens who, not wanting to clearly disgrace themselves by having a direct relationship with depraved women, are looking for at least an opportunity to admire them. Often a preacher, seeing one or another funny side of superstition, deliberately exaggerated it. So, for example, to those who believed in the protective power of dirt against the evil eye, he advised covering not only the forehead, but also the entire baby with mud and even using this remedy in relation to adults, adding that dirt would then be more effective and would at the same time excite “more laughter and fun.” - Against the belief in the healing power of witchcraft and conspiracies, Chrysostom usually said that this faith is characteristic only of pagans, who, in cases of a dangerous illness incurable by any medical means, have no other hope than the hope for the higher power of demonic help, while Christians, in the sacraments of Anointing and Communion, have means that can heal all sorts of diseases. But the preacher especially loved to suggest that Christians, instead of conspiracies, resort to the sign of the cross, as the easiest means, and one for which they do not need to turn to anyone else. Chrysostom often contains very extensive, detailed descriptions of the great actions that the cross of Christ produced in the world - descriptions made for the very purpose of instilling in the minds of Christians the conviction of the power of the sign of the cross and showing the complete insignificance in comparison with this means of “whispering and women’s fables,” as Chrysostom usually called conspiracies. As is known, when proposing to replace conspiracies with the sign of the cross, the preacher met with the objection that many healers also use the same remedy in their whisperings. But Chrysostom refuted this objection with full force, proving that healers in this case want to combine the incompatible - the power of God with the power of the devil, and advised to flee from such healers even more than from those who simply act with demonic power, because the latter only harm Christians themselves, while those who hide behind the name of God or the power of the sign of the cross use the very shrine of Christians for evil, acting in this case, by the secret inspiration of the devil, who, seeing that the Christians had left the pagan temples, wanted to force the Christians to do pagan deeds in another way - with bandages and women’s fables.” Another evil, after superstition, that provoked Chrysostom to even stronger opposition to himself, was the passion of the Antioch citizens for theatrical shows and horse racing. Let us first talk about the spectacles of the first kind. Under Chrysostom, theatrical spectacles were far from what they were in earlier times. Having originally been established in honor of Dionysus or Bacchus - the god of wine and fun, and Aphrodite - the goddess of carnal pleasures, they, as is known, for a long time were in the closest connection with the worship of these two deities and thus formed part of the pagan religion itself, so that they were often presented even in the temples of the mentioned deities, or at least after performing various kinds of incense and sacrifices to Dionysus and Aphrodite. In the first three centuries of Christianity, as can be seen from the writings of Tertullian, Cyprian, Tatian and others, stage performances were still in the closest relationship to the religious beliefs and ideas of the pagan world, and the connection between the theater and the ancient cult hardly weakened. As a result, the preachers and defenders of Christianity of the first three centuries looked at the theater mainly from a religious point of view, that is, they mainly took up arms against it as an institution through which faith in pagan gods was maintained and the successes of Christianity were delayed. But from the time when people who converted to Christianity and therefore ceased to see the support of the state in pagan religion became the head of the empire, the connection between the theater and the ancient cult quickly broke and theatrical performances ceased to be harmful to Christianity in a religious sense. Unfortunately, from that same time, under the influence of the then dominant passion for sensual pleasures in the Greco-Roman world, society began to demand that theatrical art be a means of sensual pleasure. And so, the theater, instead of the previous religious harm to Christianity, begins to harm it morally. The original theater, as we know, was much less morally harmful due to the fact that it rarely allowed women to play on stage. At the same time, the dramatic performances of the former stage were distinguished by a more serious character. So, in addition to purely mythological performances, in the old theater, before the eyes of the audience, for the most part, either primitive legends of the motherland with more or less plausible incidents from the life of its ancient heroes and rulers, or remarkable historical events with certain outstanding political and public figures, etc. were reproduced before the eyes of the audience. It is clear that under such conditions the theater could bring direct benefits to society, if not morally, then at least in the sense that it introduced viewers to the history of their fatherland and aroused patriotic feelings in them. But even before Chrysostom’s pastorate, the nature of theatrical spectacles changed significantly; Many women appear on the stage as actresses and dancers, and “serious drama is replaced by voluptuous scenes and seductive pantomimes,” and even more so by voluptuous dances. Under Chrysostom, the theater became in the full sense a “school of debauchery” and a place where everything dear and sacred to a decent person was trampled into the dirt: religion, virtue, family ties - all this was subject to ridicule and desecration on the stage, and there was no mention of public duty. In the dramatic works of this time played out on stage, not only was there nothing aesthetic or in any way instructive, but, as Chrysostom testifies, “they spoke only of adultery,” and sometimes it came to the point that disgusting scenes from the life of brothels, with all the detail of their furnishings, were presented to the eyes of the audience. At that time, no better than dramatic performances were such “spectacles of shamelessness” as dances and pantomimes, from which everything artistic and beautiful was expelled and replaced by “immodesty, lack of chastity and all decency” not only in the movements, facial expressions and positions of the characters, but also in costume. Chrysostom testifies that women often appeared on stage almost completely naked. As for the persons who performed the duties of actors, actresses, dancers, dancers, etc., then from the fact that in their opinion it was not reprehensible to appear on stage in almost completely uncovered nudity, to perform the most shameful and disgusting roles and without a hint of shame in their faces to allow the most outrageous movements - from this it is already obvious that they were all people of the lowest morality, “lost people,” as expressed by them Chrysostom. Thus, the nature of theatrical performances - we repeat - by the time of Chrysostom had changed significantly: almost harmless in religious terms, theater now became extremely harmful in its demoralizing influence on society. This change in the nature of theatrical spectacles explains the fact that Chrysostom no longer looks at theater from a religious perspective, like the former moralists, but from a purely moral point of view; he sees in spectacles the main and significant source of moral corruption in society. When considering those parts of Chrysostom’s works (of the Antiochian period) that are directed against theatrical spectacles, it turns out that these spectacles brought moral harm to society mainly in two respects: on the one hand, they were harmful in themselves directly, that is, in that with the immorality of their performances they corrupted citizens, and with them their family and social life, especially the young and still unspoiled lives of young men; on the other hand, according to Chrysostom, the spectacles caused enormous harm to society by distracting citizens from the school and the source of pure morality, that is, from the church. Chrysostom, who was personally familiar with them, was so convinced of the corrupting effect of theatrical spectacles that he did not want to believe that anyone, having been to the theater, would remain free from sin. “Is your body a stone?” Is it iron? - he usually said in those cases when it came to the harm of theatrical performances for visitors, showing with such questions that no spectator by his very nature is protected from the bad influence of shows, because his nature is not stone or iron, but ordinary human nature, which cannot but be susceptible to external impressions, especially such infectious ones as theatrical ones. To prove this thought, Chrysostom usually pointed to ascetics who, with all their moral heights and constant strict vigilance over their thoughts and desires, often instantly fell into the very abyss of depravity from just one glance of a “half-dressed woman” they accidentally met.” Meanwhile, an absent-minded spectator comes to the theater, and precisely in order to get an impression, admire and enjoy the seductive scenes. In addition, the furnishings and everything else in the theater are calculated and aimed precisely at frustrating the imagination of idle spectators and, through various kinds of lures and seductions, making their hearts easily susceptible to temptation.” “There,” said Chrysostom, “there are dishonest women, and depraved speeches, and lascivious songs, and a lustful voice, and tinted eyebrows and rouged cheeks, there are outfits chosen with special art, a gait full of charm, and much more” that is much worse than this, so that Chrysostom did not even dare to continue his description of the theatrical atmosphere, finding that “You must either be shameless, talking about everything that is there and happening there, or remain silent, blushing with shame.” Under the influence of such an enchanting environment, the viewer, according to Chrysostom, naturally and inevitably “should be ignited by the fire of impure love, burning not the body, but - what is much worse - destroying the well-being of the soul and, moreover, completely unnoticed by the infected, without a feeling of pain and even with cries of joy” - Chrysostom especially pointed out the moral harm from theatrical performances for young boys, “whose age,” he said, “is capable of to inflammation, but for feats of chastity it is very weak.” If in the old days, when theatrical performances had a more serious character, Cyprian could say that “by attending theatrical performances, some (adults) repeat the vices that they know from their home life, while others (young men) learn how to be vicious,” then Chrysostom had to fear all the more for the young men, who, as we have seen, found the theater in its most depraved form. He, with greater right than other moralists, could say that young men ruined their youth in the theater, fathers corrupted their children, mothers threw their daughters into the abyss of depravity,” and not without reason calls those parents who took their children to the theater, especially at the very beginning of their innocent age, child killers. On young people, the immoral atmosphere of the shows must have had the most powerful and irresistible effect: being not yet morally corrupted, they became acquainted in the theater with vice, which was deliberately presented here not so much in a harmful, but in an enchanting form, and thus they had a desire to experience with their own experience what they saw on stage. That in young men, due to the liveliness of the image and the ardor of nature, after a seductive theatrical performance, “an irresistible lustful passion should flare up,” Chrysostom usually proved this by the fact that even an experienced and prudent spectator does not leave his impression in the theater, but goes home captivated and wounded” to such an extent that here, at his native hearth, in the circle of his wife and children, cannot get rid of all the prodigal images inspired by the theater. “As soon as the harlot,” says Chrysostom: “presents to the audience both clothes, and gaze, and voice, and step, and everything that can arouse lust, they leave the theater, inflamed with passion, and return home as captives.” - This is the last circumstance, - that is, that the impression of the spectacle does not stop with the end of the performance, but sinks so deeply into the soul of the viewer that with all its strength it continues to possess it even when he will return home,” usually served as a reason for Chrysostom to expand in detail on how visiting the theater adversely affects the home life of citizens, introducing “a thousand evils” into their family and economic relations.” Chrysostom attributed most of the unpleasant domestic scenes between spouses to the harmful influence of the theater, as well as their careless attitude towards raising children and poor management of the home and household. “Isn’t it from here” (that is, from visiting the theater), Chrysostom often asked, “that houses are going bankrupt?” Is this where the loss of chastity comes from? Isn't this where divorces come from? Isn’t this where the enmity and quarrels come from? Isn’t this where the displeasure for no reason comes from? Because when you return home, being filled with thoughts about her (i.e., about the actress), then your wife no longer seems so good to you, and your children are not nice, and the servants are unbearable, and the house is boring, and ordinary worries about the household are annoying: everyone who comes is boring and unbearable for you. And the reason for this is that you do not come home alone, but bring a harlot with you, not openly, not openly, which would be better, because the wife would immediately throw her out; but it is in your thoughts and heart, and ignites the Babylonian, or even stronger, fire inside.” – Chrysostom attributed a lot of unrest and disorder in public life to the harmful effects of the theater. Not to mention the fact that the theater morally spoiled the composition of society, it was harmful, in Chrysostom’s opinion, because it forced huge sums of public income to be spent on performances, distracted public figures from serving and performing their duties, deprived workers and artisans of time to engage in crafts useful to society, drained them of their last penny of labor, and with all this both slowed down the flow of public affairs and equally upset the material well-being of society.” In addition, Chrysostom rebelled against the theater, as we said above, also because it distracted Christians from visiting the church - this educational school, where not only adults could take lessons in pure morality, but, what was especially important for Chrysostom, also children. Chrysostom, as we said before, wanted to make a radical change in the moral life of the entire society and therefore did not think of limiting himself to just denouncing adults, but also set himself the goal of raising on completely new principles the young generation of children who had not yet had time to fully become infected with the customs and habits of the old life, and for this purpose, teaching from the church pulpit seemed to Chrysostom not only the best and most faithful, but almost the only one at that time, a means, because neither the schools of that time, imbued with ancient traditions, neither the home life of citizens, extremely rude and superstitious, could be a good educational environment for the younger generation. Only the church could be such an environment. In it, through preaching, Chrysostom wanted, as far as possible, to re-educate the old and form a new generation. Meanwhile, the theater was precisely on the road to the plan conceived by Chrysostom: “This school of debauchery” also wanted to be the center of public education, completely opposite to what Chrysostom wanted. The theater at its very core destroyed what it created with all its persistence and energy. “I teach,” he said, “and the theater corrupts, I apply medicine to the disease, and he poisons it even more.” To the great chagrin of Chrysostom, the theater very often took a decisive advantage over all his efforts, so that it happened that when citizens were faced with a choice between the church and the theater, they were mostly inclined in favor of the latter. On the days of theatrical performances, according to Chrysostom, all the inhabitants of the city, both young and old, and even old people, white-haired, without feeling the infirmity of old age and pain in their legs, for a break in front of each other, rushed to the theater, so that there was almost no one in the church. “The theater and porticos are full, but the house of God is empty,” - this is an expression that was heard not once, not twice, but many times in the mouth of Chrysostom in the church pulpit of Antioch. – How strong the competition between the theater and the church was in influencing society and how much it had an advantage in this influence, can be seen from the fact that when theater visitors visited the church, they behaved here exactly as if they were at a spectacle. Chrysostom noticed in the listeners not only the absent-mindedness and lack of reverence in the church, but also constantly heard loud laughter and conversations, often even conversations about what was happening at the spectacles. Moreover, he saw that most of the listeners go to church out of the sheer aesthetic pleasure of listening to an eloquent preacher, that is, in church he sees the same place for entertainment as in the theater, and even expresses his admiration for eloquent preachers with the same signs of approval that are used in the theater, that is, through applause, in no way regardless of the holiness of the place, or the strict denunciations of the preacher, so that he even applauds to the very prohibition of applause. Thus, theatrical performances not only attracted people from the church, but also rewarded the latter with the customs of the theater. After this, it is clear why Chrysostom, often speaking about reverent standing in the church, each time contrasted the church with the theater: he saw that the theater, teaching citizens to reveal their wild and rude inclinations without any embarrassment even in the church, at the same time dulls in them any receptivity and disposition to the sublime influences of church preaching, through which alone it was possible to transform society. “Returning from the spectacles,” Chrysostom once said: “You look at the church unpleasantly and are reluctant to listen to the preacher’s words about chastity, because these words serve as condemnation for you.” – In order to weaken the bad influence of theatrical performances on the success of his preaching work and generally cool the passion for theater among citizens, Chrysostom decided to show them the true meaning of theater. Without rejecting the fact that theatrical performances can and do give pleasure to the depraved taste of the audience, he tried to show that this pleasure is not only dissolved along with terrible moral harm, but also contains various kinds of poison followed by sad consequences that do not give the theater viewer “night or day of rest” and are “a real executioner for his peace of mind.” At the same time, the preacher pointed out the complete insignificance, fleetingness and futility of theatrical pleasures in comparison with those pure, sublime and saving influences that a Christian can receive in church. As for another kind of spectacle, that is, horse lists, then they could not help but arouse Chrysostom against himself. True, these spectacles were more innocent in comparison with the spectacles of the theater, because they could not have such objects of temptation as were on the theater stage; nevertheless, from the point of view of higher morality, they too should have seemed far from flawless. “They not only led to idle talk and idleness and instilled absent-mindedness in the soul, but also very often served as the cause of quarrels, fights and even murders.” The leaders of the horse lists were divided into parties, sought primacy over other parties, used intrigue, tried in every possible way to harm the opposing party, aroused constant unrest among the people and with all this, if not directly, then at least indirectly, morally corrupted society. Moreover, the horse races, no less than the theatrical performances, distracted the people from the church. It was for this last circumstance that Chrysostom most of all armed himself against them, often making the same exact comparisons between the pleasures of the church and horse racing that he made when he rebelled against theatrical spectacles. “There” (i.e., on the lists) he once said: “the devil’s triumph,” and in the church there is a Christian holiday; there the demons rejoice, and here the angels rejoice; there is the destruction of souls, and here is salvation. And there is some pleasure there, but not as much as here. What pleasure is it to look at horses running in vain and in vain? Along with the passion for spectacles in the life of Antiochian society, another vice was widely developed, which met in Chrysostom the same inexorable accuser and stood, in the latter’s opinion, in close connection with spectacles - this is precisely the passion for flaunting fashionable and expensive clothes and, in general, for everything that Chrysostom usually called “purchased beauty.” As always happens, and so it was in the 4th century, this vice prevailed among women. However, according to the testimony of Chrysostom, many men also carefully took care of the cut, elegance and high cost of dress and shoes, the beauty of the face, the hairstyle and the like, and “they were more proud of all this than any military leader of victories.” Among some of the men, this passion developed to the point that for the sake of it they resorted to various dishonest and humiliating means: they sold themselves, became jesters for the rich, and took upon themselves the performance of other, even lower duties.” If this is how a passion for dandy could develop among men, then among women, especially among those for whom facial beauty and outfits were the only means of seducing men, this passion seemed to have no boundaries. The flaunting of Antiochian women with luxurious and expensive outfits reached, according to Chrysostom, simply “to the point of madness” and ultimately ruined the richest husbands. Noble and wealthy citizens of Antioch dressed in the most expensive silk and gold-woven clothes, certainly exported from distant countries, dotted, as usual, with the most whimsical designs and strewn, as far as possible, with pearls, diamonds and other precious stones. The necks, arms and even the legs of these women were hung and trimmed with gold so that it served as a barely bearable burden for them, and earrings were put into their ears so expensive that two earrings taken from the ears of one rich woman would be enough, according to Chrysostom, to feed several thousand poor people.” At the same time, Chrysostom’s Antiochian contemporaries squandered enormous amounts of money on the purchase of expensive rubs, rouge, whitewash, etc. and they loved to show off their wigs with fashionable hairstyles and hair curls, which also cost a lot of money, because just as the wigs themselves were expensive to buy, their hairstyle was not cheap. By denouncing such excessive luxury and panache, Chrysostom has in mind the motives that guide (in general) women when embellishing and dressing up - this is precisely: to surprise some and seduce others. Guided by the first impulse, women, according to Chrysostom, are cruelly mistaken in their calculations, because they have to surprise not those whom they would like, that is, not rich and noble people, for whom luxurious and dandy outfits are the most ordinary things, but only poor people, “some masons, porters, small shopkeepers,” etc., on whom dressed up women, of course, they count least of all and for the most part do not even want to look at. Obviously, this time Chrysostom wanted to shame the luxurious women and use their proud exaltation over the poor people - over these “masons and porters” - as a means to wean them from luxury. But Chrysostom especially hoped to touch the pride of these women when he examined the second impulse. He pointed out that they are like harlots when they try to win as many admirers as possible with their outfits and make-up, because only harlots tend to want to please many men, while chaste wives always try to please only their husbands. And at the same time, by completely different means, namely: good care of the home and raising children, piety, modesty, chastity and in general spiritual beauty, which captivates and never stops, which neither old age destroys nor illness destroys.” This last beauty “makes an ugly woman beautiful,” while purchased beauty makes every woman “ugly, shameful and shameful.” In view of the fact that panache forces a person to focus all his attention only on himself, Chrysostom considered this vice not only the greatest moral, but also religious evil.” In his opinion, a person devoted to dandy looks at religious matters, for example, church prayer, only as a means to “show off himself and his appearance.” In the prayer of such people, Chrysostom saw only hypocrisy and pretense. “They come to church,” he said, “to ask, to pray for their sins, to beg the Lord in order to incline Him to mercy. How can you (the dressed-up woman) sigh? How to cry? How can you pray intensely while dressed in such an outfit? Even if you cry, your tears will seem worthy of laughter to the one who sees them; because a woman who weeps should not wear gold. For this is hypocrisy and pretense. And in fact, how is this not hypocrisy, when the same soul from which this splendor and vanity was born is the same soul, I say, that sheds tears? – At the same time, Chrysostom saw panache as the greatest evil for family life. In this regard, he pointed out, first of all, that panache undermines the material well-being of the family, since it causes completely unnecessary and often not even timely expenses.” Then, as an inevitable consequence of excessive extravagance, the preacher pointed to frequent quarrels between spouses, sometimes reaching complete family discord. “A wife,” he said: “who constantly worries about jewelry, becomes unpleasant and even hateful for her husband, both because, requiring great expenses, she brings his estate into a cramped position, and because she causes her husband a lot of trouble. When she constantly demands clothes and gold from him, he will run away from her, as from a person pestering him with demands in the marketplace.” In addition, Chrysostom also exposed suspicion on the part of the spouse when his wife dresses up in order to seduce others, suspicions that generate jealousy and destroy one of the most essential and necessary conditions for the happiness of spouses, namely mutual trust. Finally, as the most important harm that comes from panache for family life, Chrysostom points out that at the sight of the mother’s outfits and her efforts by various artificial means to please others, the younger members of the family are accustomed to vanity and are corrupted, “who love to imitate the character of adults, and especially daughters, for whom it is closest and most natural to take an example in their behavior from their mother.” In general, Chrysostom tried to assure his flock that happiness between spouses would be stronger, their children would be better brought up and their incomes would be more abundant, if gold did not lie around the bodies of women and did not tie their hands, but were used for necessary needs: for the maintenance of servants, for the care of children,” etc. In the same way, the preacher argued that public life, if panache was removed from family life, could be incomparably better, since panache very often leads public figures to injustice and serves as one of their strongest reasons for covetousness. At the same time, Chrysostom usually cited the example of judges who, in pursuit of money for the sake of luxury, often accuse a poor man dressed in rags, even if he is completely right, and at the same time cover up an obvious scoundrel only because he has his appearance and his wealth in his favor, at the expense of which the judge can profit and dress himself, his wife and children. Flaunting fashionable and sophisticated attire was not the only luxury of the Antiochian citizens. Next to this panache, and just as strongly as the latter, there was also a passion for constructing luxurious buildings and for their magnificent furnishings that was developed among the noble and wealthy classes of the inhabitants of Antioch. For different times of the year, the nobles and rich of the city had special “palaces”, arranged both on the outside and on the inside in the most magnificent and elegant way. Many houses on the main street of the city, called by the name λεοφόϱοϛ, had gilded roofs, with cornices of the most elegant and bizarre architecture, and amazed the viewer with the number and, even more so, the majesty of their columns, which formed vast galleries on both sides of the street and were not interrupted throughout its entire length, which was equal to 36 stages. Inside the houses, the brilliance and splendor were even more amazing. One has only to point out the golden ceilings, mosaic walls, marble floors mentioned by Chrysostom, the many marble statues placed everywhere, the gilded furniture, the ivory beds, the golden bowls for food and drink, and, finally, the fact that there were vessels made of silver for one of the lowest uses, to imagine how strong the passion for luxury was in Chrysostom’s fellow citizens. environment. “But the rich and noble inhabitants of Antioch were not yet limited to furnishing their “palaces” with all sorts of expensive items. The passion for luxury prompted them to surround themselves with a large crowd of servants, eunuchs, jesters, flatterers, hangers-on and hangers-on of various kinds, the maintenance of which in as many as possible was considered some kind of necessity and cost enormous expenses, because vanity forced both servants and residents to wear silk and gold. Moreover, even on the horses, during the ceremonial rides of the gentleman or lady, golden harness, decorated with expensive stones, was put on. – In Chrysostom, this type of luxury met with the same strong denouncer as luxury in clothing. Often depicting in one or another of his sermons the luxurious surroundings of the rich, their efforts to build large and elegant houses, their ceremonial exits and departures, accompanied by a crowd of servants, Chrysostom asked: “What is all this for?” and reduced the solution to this issue to the fact that “all this is unnecessary and useless, and that the rich cannot provide absolutely no reasonable basis or justification for such insane luxury.” Thus, he once said: “Each of the people has some goal and basis for his activity: a farmer, if you demand an account from him, will say why he harnessed the oxen, made furrows, pulled the plow; the merchant will tell you why he sailed the ship on the sea, hired workers, spent money;... and you, decorating your bed with silver, gilding your horse and stone, what reason can you imagine? What excuse do you have? Is it possible to sleep more pleasantly on such a bed? You can't say it. Is the building made safer from gold? No. Is a horse any better with such a bridle? or a servant from such clothes? In this case, the opposite happens... Why all this trouble?” The only reason that, according to Chrysostom, people who surround themselves with splendor can justify themselves is that the splendor of their houses and furnishings gives them fame and praise from people. But “this foundation is empty and false,” because the splendor of a house is the glory of the house itself and the architect, and not the owner; the splendor of gold things is also a praise to the goldsmith, and not to the one who has these things” and so on. True, Chrysostom agreed that through the pomp of their surroundings, rich people can gain fame among people, but only fame, in his opinion, very bad. “These magnificent and extensive houses,” he said, “even after the death of the owners they speak loudly against them, like the most evil accusers. Their body was buried, but the appearance of the buildings does not allow the memory of their covetousness to be buried along with the body; everyone passing by, looking at the height and grandeur of the vast and magnificent house, will say to himself or his neighbor: how many tears did it cost to build this house? How many orphans have been robbed? how many widows are offended? how many people are deprived of payment? Thus, even at the end of your life, you will not get rid of your accusers: like a copper column, this house will transmit your name from posterity to posterity and force even those who did not see you during your lifetime to shower you with countless reproaches. Due to the fact that the rich and nobles of Antioch surrounded themselves with a huge crowd of servants, bailiffs and bailiffs of various kinds, who performed whatever they could for their masters perhaps duties - the latter, that is, the gentlemen, naturally had too much free, unoccupied time, which had to be killed one way or another in order to get rid of the inevitable companions of idleness - boredom and melancholy. Theatrical shows and horse races were too few to fill the emptiness of free time, especially since shows, as we know, were not presented every day. It was necessary, therefore, to resort to some new kind of pleasure and entertainment. And so, thanks to this necessity, a passion for a third type of luxury arises and is widely developed in society, namely luxurious feasts. According to Chrysostom’s description, the whole life of the rich and noble citizens of Antioch was some kind of cheerful and noisy feast, which continued day after day almost without any interruptions. Quite a few of the citizens were so devoted to voluptuousness that every day, from early morning until late at night, all they knew was that they drank well and ate sweetly, and in the intervals they either rested or made preparations for the next day, exhausting all the strength of their inventive mind and the reserves of their wallet to organize new, even more refined feasts, with new, much better dishes and drinks. Condemning in general such an insane waste of time among citizens, Chrysostom especially rebelled against the two most extreme manifestations of a voluptuous life - namely, against excessive satiety and excessive drunkenness. Chrysostom tried, first of all, to show his listeners that satiety and excessive drunkenness do not give a person pleasure at all. “Food,” he said, “is pleasant only when there is a need for it, and wine consumed in excess cannot be pleasant because in a state of intoxication a person loses not only taste, but also consciousness, and thus simultaneously loses both the ability to enjoy and the ability to distinguish what is pleasant for him and what is not.” Moreover, satiety and drunkenness, according to Chrysostom, instead of pleasure, cause a person great grief both in themselves, as an unnecessary burden, and due to their bad consequences for health. He directly attributes to satiety some of the diseases that citizens suffered, for example: pain in the legs, head, eyes, hands, trembling of the whole body, jaundice, prolonged and acute fevers and many other diseases, even stroke.” And he did not even consider it necessary to talk about the dangers of drunkenness for health, because the dangers of wine in this regard are too obvious to everyone from the fact that in a state of intoxication a person loses his balance and when he falls, he receives severe bruises, as a result of which he often becomes crippled and unhappy for the rest of his life, and sometimes the pleasure of drinking is paid for at the cost of life itself.” Speaking about the dangers of satiety for health, Chrysostom usually compared the human stomach with a millstone and at the same time made an original, but completely correct, explanation of why exactly the consumption of excess food has bad consequences for health. “God,” said the preacher: “gave us a belly, like a mill, gave it proportionate strength and appointed a certain measure of how much it should grind each day. Therefore, if someone puts into it more than what is proper, then what remains unadjusted causes harm to the whole body.” Among the measures that Chrysostom used against the vices we are considering, especially remarkable are the living and picturesque images of people in a state of extreme intoxication and satiety - images in which those who are satiated at the same time are also infinitely pitiful people, who do not know peace for themselves, neither day nor night, and at the same time are ridiculous in their clumsiness, and drunkards are presented in such a terrible and dirty form that they involuntarily arouse disgust for their disgrace. “When the luxurious ones rise from the table,” says Chrysostom, depicting the state of people who are satiated, “then follow them, and you will see that they are more like cattle and dumb animals than people. You will see how they suffer from dizziness, relaxation and clumsiness, they need a bed and deep silence; They rush about, as if in times of great excitement, demand the help of others and want to return to the state they were in before they were satisfied. They walk like pregnant women with a heavy womb, barely step, barely see, barely speak, and barely do everything. They spend the whole night insomnia and, despite many tricks, do not enjoy a pleasant sleep. If they happen to fall asleep, they see absurd dreams and meaningless dreams.” “As for the depiction of the state of people who get drunk, in these images Chrysostom usually showed how those who get drunk constantly lose consciousness, forget all shame and decency, loosen their intemperate tongue and indiscriminately spew out of their mouths everything that comes into their crazy heads, not knowing what to save and what to spend”; how then, swaying, they wander from place to place, swearing, gnashing their teeth and throwing themselves with rage at those around them, or they sit like motionless idols who have eyes and do not see, have ears and do not hear,” and how, finally, deprived of support and balance, they, spinning, fall, distort the pupils of the eyes, spew out unclean saliva, turn purple”, etc. In general, when depicting the state of fed-up and drunken people, Chrysostom was not shy about any details. And one must think that this method of reproof was one of the most effective measures to suppress the passion for gluttony and drunkenness, especially if we take into account the character of Chrysostom’s listeners. The latter was well aware of both the natural and borrowed from Asian properties of his fellow Greek citizens, and it seems that he was counting on these properties most of all when he painted gloomy pictures of drunkenness and depicted the pitiful situation of luxurious gluttons. It is known that the Greek, lively and agile by nature, highly valued lightness and grace of movements and always sincerely despised clumsiness and clumsiness. Pointing to the latter as a consequence of satiety, and at the same time using vivid images of the sad state of overeating people, Chrysostom wanted this time to contrast the purely natural inclination of the Greek to lightness and grace of bodily movements with the accidentally developed and essentially not characteristic of the Greek passion for gluttony. – The same, in our opinion, should be said about Chrysostom’s constant indications that excess food, especially refined food, relaxes the body. For the Greek, who in his time invented a whole system of artificial means for developing his physical strength and often brought it, through gymnastic exercises, to the strength of athletes, the strength of the body was always a subject of deep respect. - Chrysostom knew no less well that the Antiochian Greeks of his day, descendants of Macedonian immigrants, had long ago acquired a passion for Eastern Asian bliss, which did not tolerate and avoided everything unpleasant - and so he uses this distinctive property of his fellow citizens in order to wean them from gluttony and depicts to them in vivid and visual terms the painful state of shortness of breath and insomnia - the inevitable consequences of satiety, which disturbs every peace and well-being of a person, even one not as demanding as the Greek of Antioch, pampered by Eastern life. - As for, finally, pictorial images of drunkenness, then, in our opinion, Chrysostom used them in the confidence or at least hope that for a Greek who had a sincere love for beautiful appearance and no less sincere disgust for everything dirty and ugly, such images should be most powerful and irresistible. Among the denunciations directed by Chrysostom against satiety and drunkenness, denunciations against wedding feasts are very often found. In view of the fact that Chrysostom pointed out in these feasts one of the main reasons for the depravity of Antiochian women, it would not be superfluous, on the basis of his creations, to say a few words about the conditions under which marriages took place at that time and how marriage feasts could respond so badly to the morality of the Antiochian women. According to Chrysostom, the girl in the Antiochian family, as was always the case among the Greeks, was imprisoned in a secluded gyneceum and brought up in complete ignorance of real life. Only marriage introduced her into the real circle of life, but, unfortunately, from the very first time it introduced her to everything that was low and vicious in everyday life. On the day of the so-called wedding, the girl, from her quiet seclusion, suddenly found herself in the noisy company of relatives and friends of her future husband, “vainly dressed in luxurious outfits and stupefied from drunkenness,” and if she received the honor of being recognized as a bride by this drunken society, then she was forced to completely cast aside all shame in order to see all the dirty scenes with which the wedding feasts were filled, and to hear the most outrageous songs of hired buffoons. – The most deadly effect on the moral feelings of the bride should have been seeing her off to the groom’s house. She was led to her future husband in the most solemn, but at the same time full of immorality, manner. She was accompanied not only by her relatives and friends, but also by everyone who wanted to “yawn” at the spectacle and make jokes about the beauty of her face and other bodily charms. Flat jokes and allusions to marital relations, immoral songs sung to the sound of trumpets and flutes, seductive dances performed by dancers invited to the feast, who were usually recruited from public women - all this had to be seen and listened to by the bride before crossing the threshold of her groom's house. Thus, along with leaving the mansion and the walls of her father’s house, which shielded “all the vulgarities” of life from her ears, “along with the removal of the maiden veil and, so to speak, with the first glance at the real world of God, the bride became acquainted only with what was bad in life” and which immediately deprived her of her former modesty and innocence, “plunging her into the very abyss of depravity.” “Drunkenness, shamelessness, insolence, extravagance and luxury” - these are the first impressions of the bride at her first entry into the field of real and more or less independent life. “And after this,” said Chrysostom, “you ask: why is there debauchery, why is there adultery, why is there dissolution of marriages? What good lesson of chastity will the bride receive, seeing and hearing all this?... She, who has always been in inner peace and learned modesty from childhood, is suddenly forced to abandon all shame, at the beginning of marriage she learns shamelessness and is brought into the middle among the circle of dishonest and immoral people, fornicators and debauchees. What evil will not be sown in the soul of the bride from that day on? for she will want to spend all future days the same way. That is why there are unthrifty and wasteful wives; that is why they lack modesty; that is why they contain countless evils.” Theatre, expensive clothes, luxurious furnishings, lush and elegant feasts and generally the immoderate satisfaction of the unbridled need for the pleasures of life - all this obviously required a lot of money, which had to be constantly obtained one way or another in order to be able to constantly squander it. And so, as a result of this, among the rich and noble inhabitants of Antioch who were contemporary with Chrysostom, a passion for profit developed to such an extent that many of them, “like wild beasts of prey for prey, greedily rushed for money.” Honor, conscience, beauty, duty, justice, in a word, everything was indiscriminately sold for money and sacrificed to the passion for pleasure. “The virtue of non-covetousness,” says Chrysostom, “has apparently become impossible in our time, and it is even hard to believe that anyone follows it.” He was deeply outraged by this pursuit of profit and constantly provoked the strongest opposition. Most of Chrysostom's Antioch sermons, and especially the famous sermons about the rich man and Lazarus, are filled with the most harsh denunciations of the love of money of the rich and noble classes of society. Chrysostom's straightforward and honest soul prompted him to sometimes even call nobles and rich people to their faces “beasts and robbers,” and his native and beloved city “Babylon,” for the sake of the rapacity of these people. But Chrysostom especially could not tolerate the most extreme manifestation of the passion for profit, namely miserliness. Along with the rich who obtained money for pleasure through all kinds of crooks, in Antioch, according to Chrysostom’s description, there were often such rich people who tried to increase their enormous wealth not at all in order to furnish their lives with greater convenience and be able to satisfy their vicious passions, but solely in order to “count more gold for themselves.” Seeing some kind of shrine in the acquired wealth, they “worshiped it, as pagans worship an idol,” carefully guarded it “like some kind of guards or dogs, behind solid doors and strong locks,” and did not dare to touch it, “living worse than the poor and starving to the point of exhaustion,” while their granaries were bursting with an abundance of bread, and the cellars could barely accommodate the huge number of barrels of wine. Needless to say, such people never helped the poor. According to Chrysostom, they were better off pouring whole barrels of wine onto the ground than giving even one cup to the poor; they were better off pouring whole granaries of bread into the river than giving at least one piece to the hungry; It was better to bury wealth in the ground than to give even one coin to those in need.” From Chrysostom’s sermons it is not clear which of the three tribes that made up the population of Antioch belonged to such misers, who hardly enjoyed the fruits of their acquisitions and did not share them with anyone else. It is difficult to imagine that the frivolous Greeks could be such misers, with their constant and, one might say, universal passion for the pleasures of life. It is even more difficult to see the Syrians in the misers portrayed by Chrysostom, with their constant good nature, especially since the Syrians constituted the poor, laboring class of the population in Antioch. Probably, the misers denounced by Chrysostom belonged to the Christians from the Jewish tribe, which really always loved and loves acquisition for its own sake, and especially money for the sake of money, and not for the convenience that it brings in life. Be that as it may, one thing is known that there were many misers in Antioch, and the most inveterate ones at that. Chrysostom could not find words or comparisons to fully express the predation and love of money of these people. “Wolves and bears,” he said, “no matter how predatory and greedy they are, they still know the limits of their passions, and these money lovers keep wanting more and more: if they acquired a hundred talents, they regret that they did not have a thousand, if they acquired a thousand talents, they regret that they did not have ten thousand,” and so on. – Both against drunkenness and satiety, and in this case, against miserliness, the best remedy in the hands of Chrysostom, along with sharp and strong denunciations, were vivid images of vice. In order to arouse in misers an aversion to the passion of the love of money, Chrysostom often resorted to picturesque descriptions of that painful state that misers constantly experience and which, as they accumulate wealth, intensifies more and more, torments and torments them, like a fierce and predatory beast, or a cruel tyrant, neither day nor night, giving no rest, and either ignites them to greater and greater acquisition, or excites them. fear for the integrity and safety of what has already been accumulated. At the same time, Chrysostom often pointed out the pitiful position of misers among other people, a situation that further increases the cruel internal suffering that every miser experiences in his soul. While the miser himself looks at everyone around him with hostility, seeing in some his prey, and in others predators who are every minute ready to snatch away his stolen wealth, at this time everyone who knows him as an inveterate miser and rich man, in turn, has no less hostile feelings towards him - some because they have been robbed by him, others out of fear of somehow falling into his hands and being robbed, others out of compassion for robbed, the fourth, just as predatory as he, out of envy of his wealth and indignation at the fact that they themselves cannot rob him, and so on. Thus, tormented within by his passion, the miser does not find peace in his environment; he has no friends, no acquaintances, no relatives, and there are only enemies who constantly make him tremble for himself and for his wealth. Thanks to all this, Chrysostom imagined the situation of misers to be so terrible and unbearable that he could only compare it with a hellish state. “These covetous people, he said, suffer incessantly, like the rich man who asked for a drop of water and did not receive it, their soul burns in fire even more than his soul, so that if there were no Gehenna or future punishment, then in this very present life for them the greatest punishment is: to constantly suffer and not see the end of their suffering.” Armed against the passion for profit, no matter in what form this passion manifested itself - whether in the form of aimless miserliness, or in the form of an acquisition aimed at pleasure - Chrysostom always tried not only to wean money lovers from their vicious passion, but also, mainly, to protect the poor people from their predation, at whose expense the profit was usually made. Chrysostom always had an ardent love for the simple poor people, not because these people deserved his love for their moral merits, but more out of compassion for their pitiful situation. In the time of Chrysostom, the common people were terribly burdened with unbearable taxes, while they had the meager earnings, and sometimes they were even forced to sit idle, and therefore without a piece of bread, because most of the work was done by slaves. In addition, he had to endure the most cruel injustices from everyone who could oppress him, from the most important dignitary and large rich man, to the smallest officials. The material distress of the people, who were victims of all kinds of extortion, is what mainly prompted Chrysostom to love this people and be their ardent defender against the higher and richer classes of society. Throughout his pastoral ministry, Chrysostom stood on the side of the unfortunate and poor people and sympathized with them so much that he rarely even accused them of their vices. Chrysostom usually laid the blame for the sins of the people on the upper classes of society, and was ready to forgive everything to the people themselves, for the sake of their oppression. Especially those poor people who had neither clothes, nor shelter, nor a piece of bread and lived on alms attracted participation in it. Under Chrysostom, there were up to 20 thousand poor people of this kind in Antioch. The existence of such a huge number of beggars next to the exquisite luxury of the rich and noble classes of Antiochian society was the most outrageous phenomenon in the life of the latter, especially since the rich and nobles, who somehow brought these people to a helpless state, were so cruel to them that they rejected them even when they asked for just a piece of bread to satisfy their hunger, or a thin piece of worn-out clothing to cover their nakedness, or even one shelter for the night, even if only in the yard. In view of all this, Chrysostom decided to help the poor mendicant people at all costs and, as soon as he became a shepherd, he began to constantly talk about charity, convincing the rich to be merciful to the poor. He often admitted that he would like to talk about one charity, if he were not distracted by the struggle with various vices of society. It happened, therefore, that he would deliver a sermon on some subject that had absolutely nothing to do with poverty, and yet, despite this, imperceptibly for the listeners he inclined the speech to the question of the poor and began to talk about alms - his favorite subject, about which he always spoke so vividly, passionately and captivatingly that of all his sermons and of all the passages in his sermons, the best are those where charity is discussed. As always, in this case, Chrysostom’s help was, first of all, his art of touching listeners with lively and visual images of the subject. But nowhere did such art reach such a high degree and strength in him as in his sermons on charity. None of the Christian preachers who have ever spoken in defense of poverty can find a better or more touching description of the pitiful fate of the poor, which we find in Chrysostom. Indeed, it is difficult to paint a picture of poverty more striking than, for example. next. “You are running to a ready table,” Chrysostom once said, explaining why the poor are especially annoying in the evening and why they sometimes resort to outrageous means in order to arouse compassion: “You are running to a ready table and cannot be patient for a little while, but the poor person stands until the evening, trying and straining to collect their daily bread; and seeing that the day is already over, and the money has not yet been collected as much as is needed for daily bread, he grieves and becomes inflamed and is forced to do what is beyond his strength. That is why the beggars press harder on us in the evening - they swear, they swear, they cry, they sob, they stretch out their hands, and involuntarily do quite a lot of other things without shame. When night falls, the poor fellow wanders through the squares and all the alleys, perplexed and not knowing how to spend the night. And can he sleep when his womb drives away his sleep, tormented by painful hunger, when the cold sets in and the rain falls? Having washed yourself in the bathhouse, you put on soft clothes, return home with joy and cheer, hastening to the luxurious dinner prepared, and he, constantly driven by cold and hunger, walks through all the squares with his head bowed, holding out his hands and not even daring out of fear to remind the well-fed and at rest about the necessary food, and often leaves showered with reproaches.... Like dogs, he walks along the alleys in darkness and dirt and often returns from there not home, not to his wife, not on a bed, but on a pile of hay, like dogs barking all night, and, lying in rags on the hay and in the dirt, he endures a terrible cold.... But all this does not bother us. And so, in order to touch our insensibility, some are forced to blind young children. Since, wandering sighted and naked, they could not attract the attention of the hard-hearted either by the tenderness of age or by misfortune, they added to their misfortunes another most deplorable calamity to satisfy their hunger, finding it easier to lose the general light and the rays of the sun given to everyone, than to constantly fight hunger and be subjected to the most miserable death... There are the poor, frivolous and cowardly who cannot bear hunger and are ready to endure everything else, except this. They, repeatedly approaching you with a pitiful look and pitiful words, but having received no help, finally abandon the request and resort to tricks no worse than magicians: some chew the leather of worn-out shoes, others drive sharp nails into their heads, others lie down on the ice with their naked wombs, and others subject themselves to even more ridiculous tortures in order to present a pitiful spectacle.” Along with similar paintings, designed to arouse in the rich people compassion for the pitiful fate of the poor, Chrysostom tried to show the rich people all kinds of incentives for charity. He was positively inexhaustible in listing these motives, so that he himself admitted that he could list “whole thousands of them.” Every rich man, according to Chrysostom, should do good to others simply because this can be very useful for himself, since he himself may accidentally find himself in a position of such poverty that he will need the help of others, while a beggar can accidentally become a rich man. “Wealth,” says Chrysostom, is a runaway slave who now serves one, and tomorrow runs over to another.” With such changeability of happiness, a rich man who helps others acquires friends in case of poverty, always ready to help him to the best of his ability, while a miser in difficult times can remain completely helpless. Next. Since rich people usually try to gain fame among people, they cannot have a better means for this purpose than charity. Instead of empty and false glory achieved through luxury, which rather dishonors the rich, charity can give them the best fame and the best fame. “Merciful people,” said the preacher: they praise not only those who have benefited from them, but also those who have received nothing from them. Everyone says about a merciful man: May God reward him! What benefit did you receive from him? Not I, but my brother, not I, but my member, the good done to him, I attribute to myself. Moreover, they love and respect not only the merciful people themselves, but also their children. Imagine what an honor it is to see your children loved by so many people, and to hear everyone say, when wealth is used to feed the poor: “This is the son of a beloved man, this is the son of a merciful one.” Thus, quite strong incentives for charity lie in the interests of the rich themselves. But the interests of each person are closely related to the interests of the whole society and are directly dependent on them; therefore, each person must take care not only of his own welfare, but also of the welfare of other members of society, if he wants to ensure the stability of his well-being. Whoever uses everything he has for himself alone, according to Chrysostom, harms himself and society in the same way as the womb would harm itself and the entire human body if it alone used the food that it takes into itself, without devoting it to other parts of the body. On the other hand, society itself, according to the preacher, should care equally about all its members, and not about just a select few. Otherwise, that is, when some of its members prosper while others endure all sorts of hardships, society will be in danger of disintegration, since enmity will inevitably appear between its members, destroying the most important condition for the strength of society, namely the unanimity of the members. Many cities and even entire nations perished, according to Chrysostom, precisely because there was too much inequality in the distribution of wealth between different social classes. ״All people, says Chrysostom, are the same by nature and are endowed by the Creator with the same gifts of happiness, everyone lives on the same earth, for everyone there is one sky and a choir of stars, everyone is illuminated by the same sun without distinction, everyone has the same need for food, clothing, etc. Therefore, if people think that wealth, as a means of satisfying needs, is the property of only a few, then they think so only contrary to their own nature, which everyone needs the same, and contrary to external nature, which offers the same benefits to everyone.” “Even among dumb animals,” said Chrysostom: “everything is common: the earth, and springs, and pastures, and mountains, and forests, and not one of them has more than the other, and you, man, the meekest animal, become fiercer than the beast, confining in one house the food of thousands and even many thousands of the poor.” But most importantly, Chrysostom pursues the idea that none of the people has the right to call anything their own, since everything belongs to God. ״Whoever appropriates wealth for himself and spends it only on his own excesses, he, according to Chrysostom, is a thief of property from God and from all those to whom He commanded to do good, just as the royal treasurer is considered a thief, who was entrusted with property so that he would save it, spend it on his necessary needs and distribute it to whomever was ordered, but who abused the trust of the sovereign and spent everything entrusted to the share. whims." And just as this treasurer is subject to punishment and destruction for embezzlement, so the rich man, who is nothing more than a receiver of money to be distributed, if he spends on himself anything beyond the necessary needs, then he is subject to the most severe punishment and destruction; for his property does not belong to him, but to his fellow servants.” Thus, by giving alms, the rich man, according to Chrysostom, returns to the poor only what belongs to them by right given by God himself. Respecting this right, as a commandment of God, is the direct responsibility of all wealthy Christians. Added to this is the complete and unconditional right of Christ, “who, in the person of the poor, Himself comes to ask for alms,” and thereby imparts to charity the character of the most sacred and immutable duty for those of his followers who have the opportunity to do charity. Whoever denies Christ a piece of bread when He delivered all the blessings to people, and a glass of water when He shed His blood for everyone, in general whoever does not give Christ from what belongs to Him, he, in the opinion of Chrysostom, shows towards Him not only the most severe ingratitude, but also the most blatant injustice, requiring retribution, tantamount to an insult to the very person of Christ the Savior, such retribution for which little and hell. On the contrary, whoever in the person of the poor gives to Christ, who wanders naked, moves from door to door, stands at the crossroads and stretches out his hands, renders the greatest merit to Him and covers with his alms all, even the most serious, sins. “Alms,” said Chrysostom: “has such power that it can save merciful people even if they died without having time to repent of their sins.” Such people will be saved through the intercession of those who have benefited them, and especially through the intercession of Christ, “who attributes all the good deeds done to the poor to himself,” and although he accepts the poor from his own good, nevertheless considers himself “owed” by benefactors and cannot therefore allow them to be left without an eternal reward. Chrysostom spoke about the saving power of alms much more often than about all other motives for charity, since he probably hoped that the thought of forgiveness of sins for mercy could most of all attract the sinful citizens of Antioch to alms, who were not accustomed and did not want to win eternal happiness for themselves through long and strenuous labor. “Alms,” said the preacher, “is the queen of virtues.” Light are her wings, great is the power of her intercession; she reaches all the way to the royal throne and unhinderedly brings her “pets” there, that is, charitable people. Pointing out to the rich the various motives for charity, Chrysostom at the same time tried to refute the various objections that they raised against giving alms. A particularly strong objection from the rich was the reference to the fact that the beggars are almost all deceivers and are infected with the lowest vices and, therefore, are unworthy of merciful treatment towards them. Although the rich, apparently, were right, Chrysostom was able to refute their argument with full force. Recognizing as an undoubted fact that beggars are indeed greatly depraved, he undermined the above-mentioned objection by showing the real reason for the depravity of beggars, accusing the rich themselves of what at first the beggars alone seemed to be guilty of. According to Chrysostom, the rich themselves, with their hard-heartedness and inhumanity, corrupt the poor and cause the development among them of the most terrible vices and even crimes, such as, for example, the blinding of children. If the rich were merciful and did not drive the poor away from them, then the latter would have no need to resort to all sorts of tricks and deceptions, but would only have to ask in order to receive satisfaction. All the vices of the poor are a consequence of their poverty, and it depends on the mercy of the rich to destroy them. The rich have no right to judge the poor and despise them for their vices, both because they themselves lead lives worse than the poor and corrupt them with their bad example, and because the possession of wealth imposes on them the obligation not to judge the poor, but to help them, without paying attention to their merits. “Alms,” said Chrysostom, “is a matter of mercy, not justice, and therefore it is itself called alms, which is given out of mercy, and not according to merit or merit. All the dignity of a beggar is his need. Whoever comes to us with her, we will not ask for anything, because we serve not the character, but the person - we regret him not because of his virtue, but because of his misfortune.” “Another, although less strong, but also often cited objection to giving alms was the reference to the fact that the poor should be benefited by the church, which has at its disposal property designated specifically for charity.” The validity of this excuse was refuted by Chrysostom in the most brilliant way. He did not dispute that the church cannot help but care about the plight of the poor, but explained to the rich that sending the poor for help to the church or to anyone else when they themselves are asked for help means the same thing as refusing to pray because the church prays, or from fasting because others are fasting. Do everything yourself and you will receive a reward." Then Chrysostom exposed to the rich that the main concern of the church is not the material well-being of the flock, but its spiritual prosperity. If the church takes upon itself the concern of improving the financial situation of the poor and has special property for this purpose, it is only because the rich themselves do not want, apart from the church, to pay attention to the poor. In general: the church, according to Chrysostom, does charity out of necessity, and charity rather distracts it from its real work than constitutes its direct responsibility. Finally, the preacher pointed out to the rich that the church does not have at its disposal enough funds to satisfy the needs of all the poor, while the rich have such enormous funds that without much harm to themselves they could relieve all the poor of their city from need. Thus, to protect the poor, Chrysostom did everything that could be done by a person invested with the rank of presbyter. He described in the most vivid terms the unhappy lot of the poor, found out what was its cause, pointed out in private charity a means for alleviating it, presented to the rich all kinds of motives for charity, and tried to refute all their objections to helping the poor. Such widespread and ardent intercession for the poor was in those rough times news not only for Antioch, but for the entire Greco-Roman world. “Since the time of Siurius Cassius,” says Amédée Thierry: “who smashed the usury of the patricians before the Roman plebeians, since the time of the Gracchi, who preached agrarian laws, never before the appearance of Chrysostom such speeches ... struck human ears.” Paul Albert says the same thing in his monograph about Chrysostom. II it must be admitted that both of these writers are absolutely right in that they consider such energetic intercession for the poor, as Chrysostom was distinguished, to be rare. But Thierry and Paul Albert are deeply mistaken in placing Chrysostom along with the mentioned historical figures and seeing in him some kind of demagogue. Siurius Cassius and the Gracchi were political figures and wanted to establish a property balance on political-economic principles, while Chrysostom was a teacher of morality and thought to establish a better order of things on purely moral principles. - Moreover, he only wanted to smooth out the two opposite extremes in relation to the possession of the gifts of happiness, and did not at all strive to make all people equally rich. From the complete destruction of poverty, Chrysostom not only did not expect an improvement in social life, but, on the contrary, saw in this destruction even a disruption to public life and activity. “Abolish poverty,” he said, “and you will destroy the entire order of life: then there will be no shipbuilder, no farmer, no carpenter, no weaver, no shoemaker, no blacksmith, no tanner, and none of the artisans, and without them everything will be upset for us. If everyone were rich, then everyone would live in idleness - and then everything would be upset and perish.” At the same time, Chrysostom also recognized the moral significance of property inequality. He considered the uneven distribution of wealth to be one of the essential conditions for maintaining close ties between people. The rich, in his opinion, exist in order to do good to the poor, and the poor in order to turn to them for help. The former, through charity, acquire friends in the poor, people who are ready to serve them, and the latter see in benefactors the support of their existence. Neither one nor the other can do without each other, and therefore become attached to each other. This is Chrysostom’s view of the existence of differences between people in relation to the possession of wealth. Remaining true to this view, Chrysostom could only desire to improve the life of the poor and be “not a people’s leader,” as Thierry and Paul Albert think, but an intercessor and defender of the people before the rich people of the city. And indeed, Chrysostom, as we have seen, always only stimulated the rich to charity and never forced them to do it. Along with concerns about improving the life of the poor, Chrysostom could not help but pay serious attention to the situation of slaves, whom the Antiochian rich often owned in the thousands, and who were doomed to an even more pitiful fate than the beggars, especially in moral terms. ״In Chrysostom’s contemporary society, there was a widespread opinion of slaves as something between people and animals; they were considered incapable of noble and honest conduct, they were not trusted in anything, and it was believed that only crude corrective measures could stop them from committing all kinds of crimes.” It is clear that with such a view of slaves, various oppressions and moral insults in the relations of masters towards these unfortunate people were the most common thing. True, such inhuman and outrageous manifestations in these relations, which (manifestations) took place in the ancient world, when slaves were looked at even worse than animals, could not have happened under Chrysostom, since from the time of Constantine the Great the Christian government began to issue beneficent decrees in favor of slaves; nevertheless, in the 4th century the fate of the latter was still very difficult. Due to the long existence of slavery, society was so accustomed to this phenomenon that for the most part it did not want to know any imperial decrees and considered intercession for slaves to be depriving slave owners of their natural and legal rights, sanctified by antiquity itself. To improve the lot of slaves, it was not enough for external measures alone, such as decrees, but it was necessary to re-educate the very beliefs of society and, mainly, those members of it, in whose immediate dependence the slaves were and who, more than all other members of society, were convinced of the correctness of their views on slaves, and of the naturalness of rude relations towards them. Chrysostom took upon himself this task: to change society’s view of slaves as “a despicable, powerless and impersonal mass, by their very origin incapable of anything noble and good.” He, first of all, tried to instill in the slave owners that the dignity or nobility of anyone lies not in origin, but in moral qualities, which cannot be completely denied to slaves and which the latter often have even better than the masters. “For nobility,” said the preacher: “it is not the nobility of one’s ancestors that is required, but a virtuous disposition. I will call the slave noble, and the master slave, as soon as I learn their customs. And a noble man for me is not noble if he has a slave soul, for who is a slave if he does not work for sin?... How many masters lie drunk on their beds, and the servants next to them are sober. Which of the two should be called a slave? A slave serving man, or a captive of passions? Thus, by equalizing the moral dignity of slaves and masters and, in some cases, giving preference to the former, Chrysostom brought slave owners to the realization that slaves are people just like them, and therefore should enjoy all human rights on an equal basis with them. At the same time, the preacher reminded that universal human rights were taken away from slaves not by nature and not by God, who did not create slavery, but by the insatiable greed of some ignorant people who took advantage of such random circumstances as “bloody wars” in order to convert defeated opponents into their property, who previously had the same rights and the same freedom as the victors themselves. At the same time, Chrysostom tried to find out the reason for the depravity of slaves, which apparently spoke against their legal capacity for an honest and noble course of action,” and which, as it seemed to the slave owners, served as sufficient grounds for treating slaves in the most rude manner. Just as he blamed the rich for the moral depravity of the poor, he blamed the depravity of the slaves on the slave owners themselves, who, in his opinion, with their bad example and constant insults themselves brought the morality of the slaves to an extremely low level. To keep slaves from vices and crimes, Chrysostom suggested that slave owners use not harsh corrective measures, which could only kill and brutalize slaves, but the same measures that are used for free people. Thus, he advised masters to take care of the moral education of slaves and to set a good example for them with their behavior. Chrysostom considered the best of all means for the correction of slaves to be the granting of freedom to them and often convinced slave owners to set free at least those slaves who served only for luxury and for whom there was absolutely no need - he convinced them to release, however, not to the mercy of fate, but one way or another, having arranged their fate in advance, teaching them, for example, some kind of craft, so that they could get food for themselves and everything else necessary for their life. life, and did not multiply the already numerous class of idle, beggarly people. It is remarkable that Chrysostom, being an ardent defender of slaves, however refrained from preaching about the complete abolition of slavery, probably because he saw a whole mass of prejudices that made it impossible to realize complete freedom at a time when the very preaching about the limitation of slavery and especially about the moral education of slaves was a completely new and unheard of thing for society. The questions we have considered exhaust almost all the main points of Chrysostom’s moralizing conversations to the people of Antioch, and therefore we think that everything we have said is completely sufficient to characterize the preaching activity of St. John Chrysostom, and to get acquainted with the contemporary state of social life, which, with its dark and vicious sides, caused him to confront himself. St. John Chrysostom and his time. L. Pisareva Exactly 1500 years ago, at the very heyday of Christianity, on September 14, in a difficult and unknown exile, in the vicinity of the remote Armenian village of Komana, in the church of St. Basilisk, the famous pillar of Christianity, St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of the capital city of Constantine, a kind, impartial shepherd and a strong fighter for the truth of Christ, a man of extraordinary moral uplift and inspiration, an outstanding spiritual speaker who captivated his listeners with amazing eloquence, in which the external forms of oratory talent were happily combined with the ideological burning of a Christian heart - pure, fiery, inspired by the high ideals of the Gospel of Christ. Now, when we are separated from the moment of the blessed death of Chrysostom by a whole millennium and a half, of course there cannot be two opinions about this famous figure of Christianity. History has long pronounced its impartial judgment on the personality of the Shepherd Chrysostom. The entire Christian world, without distinction of religion, is remarkably unanimous in weaving a magnificent laurel wreath around his head and surrounding his person with an aura of unfading greatness and glory. The Catholic Church dedicates a number of celebrations to him on these anniversary days. The Orthodox Church today also worthily honors his holy name throughout Russia. But if we transport our thoughts into the depths of hoary antiquity and follow the living Chrysostom, in the footsteps of his life, then we will clearly see the thorny path of his long-suffering pastoral activity, which ended, as we know, in the deprivation of the chair and a shameful exile - shameful, of course, not for the personality of Chrysostom himself, but for his powerful enemies. The last moments of Chrysostom’s life generally constitute sorrowful pages in the history of the Church. When the genius of Chrysostom, one might say, reached the apogee of his greatness, when his moral image, as a shepherd and administrator, was especially majestic among the surrounding gloomy reality, when he became literally the ruler of the souls and hearts of the flock entrusted to him, when the pagans themselves, with undisguised surprise, were envious of his personality and expressed their sincere regret that the Christians of his kidnapped from them,” - at this very historical moment of the moral triumph of Christianity, Chrysostom had to experience the entire abyss of misfortunes that befell his head. He fell, struck down by the intrigues of the court aristocracy, supported by the wayward, vindictive Empress Eudoxia, who at that time held the reins of government under the weak, weak-willed Emperor Arcadia. Morally pure, unshakably firm, who did not know any deals with conscience, Chrysostom turned out to be too heavy a moral yoke for the court intriguers to stay in Constantinople, this second Babylon, as the historian puts it. All means were used by his enemies just to get rid of the hated personality of this “new Cato,” who at that time acquired unlimited moral influence among the simple people of Constantinople, among all who held dear the highest ideals of Christian life and morality. And among the higher clergy there were then people like Theophilos, Patr. of Alexandria, Akakios, bishop. Beria, Serapion, bishop. Gavalsky, who, out of personal malice towards Chrysostom, decided to arrange the appearance of a canonical-church condemnation of Chrysostom. This is how the council of Chalcedon was formed in 403, which is known in history under the name “Pridubsky.” A small number of bishops, deliberately brought from Egypt, supported on the one hand by Eudoxia, and on the other by bishops Serapion, Acacius, Cyrinus, under the chairmanship of Theophilus, delivered a guilty verdict to Chrysostom, condemning him to expulsion from the see. Chrysostom was blamed mainly for his disrespect for the personality of the empress, whom he allegedly maliciously insulted in one of his sermons, comparing her to Jezebel and calling her “Adoxia,” that is, inglorious. At the same time, Chrysostom was also exposed to his heretical way of thinking, which, as it were, was clearly revealed by his patronizing attitude towards the Origenists, admirers of the famous theologian Origen, over whom at this time, through the machinations of the same Theophilus, black clouds were already gathering. The council of 39 bishops, with the patronizing attitude of Eudoxia towards it, of course, was not difficult to obtain approval of the indictment by the emperor. Chrysostom was condemned to be overthrown and had to go into exile. However, this time the storm went relatively well for him. When he, under the escort of soldiers, was already on the outskirts of Constantinople - in Prenseta - a strong earthquake that destroyed many buildings in Constantinople forced Eudoxia to repent of his offense against the person of Chrysostom. Eudoxia, for all her flightiness and vindictiveness, was an extremely superstitious woman. She explained the earthquake to herself as a result of God’s wrath for the desecrated honor of Chrysostom. The condemnation from the exile was lifted, and just as hastily as it had been imposed. Justified by a new council of 65 bishops, who in turn condemned the Pridubsky Council, Chrysostom again entered the see of Constantinople amid the general rejoicing of the clergy and people. But not for long. When the first impulses of superstitious fear of God's judgment weakened in the soul of Eudoxia, when Chrysostom again could not resist denouncing Eudoxia in his fiery sermon for the purely pagan festivities that she organized on the occasion of the opening of a silver column, headed by her own bust and erected near the very altar of the Church of St. Sophia and Chrysostom had to again experience a whole series of persecutions. Anger against Chrysostom began to boil again in Eudoxia’s soul. His spiritual judges again appeared on the scene - the same Theophilus, Akakios, Serapion and Kirin. This time they did not consider it necessary to even draw up a special council and looked at the whole matter from the point of view of the decrees of the Pridubsky Cathedral. Chrysostom was blamed for the fact that he supposedly returned to the pulpit incorrectly, despite the condemnation that had once taken place. Although such an accusation was incorrect even from a formal point of view, since the subsequent council of 65 bishops removed the condemnation from Chrysostom and he was again installed on the see at the insistent desire of Eudoxia herself, but, however, the opinion of Theophilus and his like-minded people was sealed by the supreme authority of Emperor Arcadius. Chrysostom, without any trial or investigation, was ordered to immediately leave the department. In vain did Chrysostom appeal at this time to the voice of justice and demand an all-church judgment over himself. His fate was placed in the hands of only one handful of court temporary workers and intriguers who, for obvious reasons, did not want to expand the scope of general church competence, especially since the mood of the masses and the majority of the clergy was not on the side of Chrysostom’s judges. The people of Constantinople and the clergy too unequivocally declared their indignant protest against the untruth that surrounded the person of the persecuted hierarch. Meanwhile, Chrysostom's critical situation worsened more and more. On the feast of the Nativity of Christ, the emperor himself refused to publicly receive St. secrets from his hands. On Holy Saturday in the baptismal chapel of the Church of St. Sophia there was a bloody massacre to which a huge group of three thousand people was subjected, who were preparing to receive St. Chrysostom. baptism. Rude soldiers, undoubtedly acting on special orders, beat up many Christians in the church itself who did not want to give up communion with their beloved bishop; at the same time, even St. gifts of the Eucharist by the rough hands of pagan Thracian soldiers. Attempts were made twice on the life of Chrysostom himself, which was prevented only by the vigilance of his friends. Finally, on June 5, 404, the emperor approved the very act of deposition and expulsion of Chrysostom. The meek shepherd, who was most jealous of the peace of the church, and not of his personal pride, voluntarily yielded to the physical force of his persistent enemies. He secretly, unnoticed by the people, accompanied by several friends close to him, left the patriarchate and on the banks of the Bosphorus surrendered into the hands of the officials who were waiting for him. Thus, the angel of the church departed,” as his biographer, Palladius of Elenopol, put it. In the pulpit of Constantinople, golden lips were forever silenced. Chrysostom surrounded his departure from the patriarchate with such mystery that the people learned about the kidnapping of their shepherd only when the exile, under escort of guards, had already sailed from the shores of the Bosphorus. A terrible explosion of popular indignation was a response to this drama. A whole indignation arose in Constantinople, during which the Senate building was destroyed in the flames of the fire, the buildings of the Patriarchate and part of the Church of St. were damaged. Sofia. This unreasonable act of the crowd further worsened the situation of Chrysostom and his friends, who were quite naturally suspected, if not of active participation, then at least of inciting a riot. Brutal torture and executions began. John himself was assigned the place of exile to the remote, remote city of Kukuza (in Armenia), inhabited by semi-wild tribes of Isaurians. It was impossible to imagine a more severe torture for an old man exhausted by his work life. Far from his friends, outside the sphere of his usual surroundings, he seemed to be buried alive in the Isaurian mountains; the most vital nerve of his existence had been severed. When it turned out that even in semi-wild Kukuzy, Chrysostom was able to show vigorous activity and gain sympathy among the inhabitants, his enemies transferred him to Pitiunt, an even more remote and remote city in Armenia. On the way there the working life of St. ended. martyr. Already strained, Chrysostom’s body finally could not stand it. Near Comana, at the tomb of St. Basilisk, he peacefully ended his life with significant words on his lips: “Glory to God for everything.” This is the final mournful chord of the life of the famous Chrysostom, for whom we are weaving a laurel wreath today. Soon after the death of Chrysostom, his desecrated honor was restored. Even under Patriarch Attica, the second successor of the martyr-patriarch, in 417 (i.e., 10 years after his death), his name was included in the diptychs of the Church of Constantinople. The same was done back in 413 by Alexander of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria. Thus, Chrysostom was glorified as a holy man, an impeccable figure in the church. By decree of Emperor Theodosius the Younger in 438, his remains were transferred from Comana to Constantinople. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) glorified him as a famous preacher, establishing for him the very name of Chrysostom, by which he is now known throughout the Christian world. Thus, the impartial judgment of history was pronounced on him. It is clear that Chrysostom was beyond any suspicion for posterity, and in any case he was not a troublemaker of the people in the bad sense of the word, as it sometimes seemed to the frustrated imagination of his enemies. Why, one might ask, did such a severe punishment befall Chrysostom from his contemporaries - Emperor Arcadius and some representatives of the church? The answer to this question lies in the very nature of the activity of St. Chrysostom, as a church administrator and spiritual writer, and above all in those historical circumstances among which his mighty genius was to unfold. It cannot be denied, of course, that in the tragic fate of the Shepherd of Constantinople, purely random circumstances also played a prominent role - the personal malice of the vengeful Eudoxia, the completely peculiar intrigue of Theophilus, a seeker, malicious, indiscriminate in the means of struggle. But there is no doubt that deeply historical factors were also at work in the fate of Chrysostom; in the very atmosphere of the surrounding reality there was some kind of microbe, which in the 14th century usually destroyed all the best leaders of the church, like Chrysostom. It is known that Athanasius the Great, this universally recognized “father of Orthodoxy,” spent almost half of his long episcopate in Alexandria in exile and exile (only five times - under Constantine, - twice under Constantius, under Valens and Julian). Basil the Great had to work all the time under terrible oppression from Emperor Valens and, if he remained in the department, it was only due to his exceptional administrative talents. Gregory of Nyssa, this best Christian philosopher and theologian, after several years of episcopacy, ended his life in unknown exile. Gregory the Theologian, this beauty of Constantinople, a talented thinker and preacher, himself could not withstand the hardships of the surrounding administrative situation and resigned the title of Bishop of Constantinople, going into the solitude of the monastery retreat. Jerome of Stridonsky, from the very first steps of his church-administrative activity, abandoned any dream of further holding church positions and completely went into science, sequestering himself for a whole 35 years in the Bethlehem monastery. Ambrose of Milan, this Chrysostom of the West, had to use all his diplomacy, all the enormous reserve of his administrative talent, so that in his vigorous activity he would not crash on the underwater reefs of the contemporary state-social situation. Cyril of Alexandria, this most famous figure of Alexandria of the Nestorian era, had to endure all the hardships of imprisonment before he achieved the triumph of truth in his struggle with the Bishop of Constantinople Nestorius and the influence of the court patronizing Nestorius. So... it was with all the figures of Christianity of the 4th century, who are now, in all justice, revered by the pride of the church, glorified as the pillars and affirmation of Christian truth and life. And, on the contrary, all the bishops who sailed in the fragile boat of the traditional foundations of our time, like Nektarios, Chrysostom’s predecessor in the see, who is remarkable in history only because he never raised his pastoral voice and in the pomp and splendor of his patriarchal life competed with the richest magnates of Constantinople, like Theophilus of Alexandria, an outstanding court intriguer, always adjoining the strongest court party, like Arsacius of Constantinople (the successor of Chrysostom), whom even church writers call nothing more than a rotten stump" (Simeon Metaphrast), - all these and other numerous bishops of the 4th century, now completely forgotten, unknown, - until the end of their lives they peacefully carried out their simple ministry and enjoyed the constant firmness of their position. Thus, the facts of historical reality indicate that in the very atmosphere of church and social life of the Chrysostom era, not everything was going well: there were some hidden reasons that usually hampered the activities of the best representatives of Christianity in their struggle for the ideals of Christ’s truth, both in the field of religious metaphysics and in the field of Christian ethics. These reasons are undoubtedly hidden in the dualism of the worldview, which permeates the entire history of ancient Christianity. The first centuries present to us the disgrace of an endless stubborn struggle between two worlds, two worldviews - Christian and pagan. This struggle actually did not stop for the church even from the significant moment when Christianity was declared free in the Roman state (we mean the Edict of Milan by Constantine in 315). From that moment on, the struggle only changed in form, but not in essence. Since 315, the legal persecution of Christians by the pagan state has ceased, the frantic cries of the pagan mob have fallen silent: “ad leones christianos” - to the lions of Christians! But the struggle in the field of ideas did not stop, it did not stop because the Roman state itself and the entire Roman public, having come out under the banner of the cross of Christ, essentially preserved the traditional foundations of the pagan worldview, the entire structure of the traditional pagan practice of life. Christianity, both in its religious metaphysics and in its religious ethics, from beginning to end was imbued with sublime ideals - it sought to elevate the moral image of empirical man and set for him the high ideal of imitation of I. Christ. 5 Paganism, on the contrary, lowered man from the heights of idealism into the vale of narrow materialistic Epicureanism and embodied this ideology of Epicureanism in the fixed forms of a specific, purely pagan, state and social system. The most religious consciousness of the pagan, Greek and Roman, was in complete harmony with their worldview. The majestic gods of heavenly Olympus gradually approached in their consciousness the moral level of ordinary people - the gods became people in the ordinary sense of the word. The centuries-old connection between the religion of polytheism and Roman statehood was undoubtedly of decisive importance in this regard. In the Greco-Roman world, the connection and relationship between religion and statehood, from the very beginning of their historical existence, were so firmly established as nowhere else, as in no other social-state organism. The gods of Olympus, all these countless Zeus, Jupiter, Mercury, Aphrodite, Juno, were at the same time a related family of Greco-Roman kings and emperors. The entire host of Roman priests was headed by the majestic figure of the “High Priest” - the emperor. The religion of polytheism and the Roman state were associated as a result. The life of the Olympian gods and the Roman rulers closely merged even in the forms of their external expression. Olympus, in the minds of the Romans and the Greeks, turned out to be an inhabitant of the same sinful world - with its passions, atrocities, “misanthropy, debauchery. The bacchanalia taking place in the bowels of the royal chambers and near the royal throne were surrounded by an aura of Olympian grandeur, divine holiness and inviolability. And we see that Socrates was declared an atheist, a blasphemer, an insulter to the majesty, simply because in his theological dialogues he dared to openly describe to the people the entire depth of the moral decline of state power, hiding behind the authority of the Olympian gods, relegated to the tribune of shamelessness. Thus, the attitude of Roman statehood to religion, due to the similarity of the ideas of polytheism with pagan statehood that we have indicated, was differentiated in the form of a humiliated and dependent service of religion to the interests of statehood. The religion of pagan polytheism, its entire hierarchical structure, religious decrees, all of this was reduced to the level of ordinary state institutions. Here it was not the will of the gods of heavenly Olympus that dominated, but the personal discretion of the same emperors and high priests, who at their own request were the legislators and inspirers of religious consciousness and the most moral religious conscience. At the first, initial moment of the formal triumph of Christianity, all these traditional foundations of Roman statehood and society, of course, could not be destroyed immediately and replaced by new foundations in the spirit of the principles of Christianity. The Roman state and society had to go through a long path of evolution in order to turn from Christian in form to Christian institutions in spirit and essence. In practice, it turned out that this process of evolution that began for the Roman state at the same time became the arena of a terrible struggle in the depths of the Christian church itself. The Church had, as in the first three centuries, to fight terribly and persistently with the Roman state and society, if not for external legal existence, then for the integrity of the very Christian foundations, which were now in serious danger of drowning in the flow of all kinds of pagan currents from Roman society and the state, which had not yet been established in the principles of Christian faith and life. Among these movements, in the field of religious metaphysics, the first place, of course, is occupied by Arianism with its purely pagan religious and philosophical system of reducing the person of Christ, as God, to the position of a simple creature, the same creature as all other people. True, the seeds of Arianism, as a pagan branch of religious consciousness, are hidden in ancient times. Even the Ebionites (in the 2nd century) and Paul of Samosata (in the 3rd century) preached essentially the same teaching, considering Christ a simple man. But at that time this doctrine was the opinion of individuals of a small group of renegades from orthodox Christianity. Now Arianism appears in the form of a whole movement, which, like a stormy wave, sweeps over a huge part of Christian society and manages to achieve a dominant position in the eyes of the state itself. Arianism, with its ramifications, for some time - a very long time - even became the state faith. Emperor Constantine himself, in general an impartial judge of religious issues of the church, for some time provided patronage to the Arians and all the time had, as spiritual leaders, Arian bishops - Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, from whom he received St. baptism. Emperors Constantius and Valens, and from the West Valentinian and Justin, are now acting as real apostles of Arianism and, at the cost of persecution of the Orthodox Church, elevate it to the position of profession de foi of the state itself. These are the first fruits of what began in the 4th century. accommodation of the foundations of Christianity with the foundations of traditional paganism in the field of traditional metaphysics, with the dominant significance of Roman statehood. In parallel - and in the same spirit - the evolution of Christianity took place in the 4th century in the field of moral and practical life. And here the state position of Christianity undoubtedly had a tremendous impact on lowering the general level of moral self-awareness of church society as a whole. The Roman state and public, having officially become under the banner of the cross of Christ, immediately brought into the bosom of the church many such members who accepted Christianity only in name, but in spirit and in life were still real pagans. In the end, it turned out that under the new form of the Christian state, the same old system of everyday pagan way of life - personal, public, state - took refuge... ״The entire social life of Byzantium remained imbued with the spirit of paganism; with its pagan ideas, with its ceremonial celebrations, with its triumphs, with its pride, with its self-indulgence and with all the gilded rags of the pagan world, which covered all social mores and was legalized by state law. The state naturally could not abandon the traditional pagan view of the very relationship of religion to statehood. Like ancient Olympus, the church eventually found itself subordinate to the state. The all-sanctifying power of the moral influence of the church through its alliance with the dual-faith half-pagan, half-Christian state was paralyzed. Thus, the life of Christian society - at the very dawn of the state position of Christianity in the empire - put on the agenda the resolution of a cardinal issue of paramount importance. The Church was faced with the task of seriously concerned about strengthening Christian teaching, both in the field of metaphysics and in the field of ethics. The task of the struggle was made extremely difficult by the fact that the ideology opposed to Christianity was deeply embedded in the very foundations of traditional Roman statehood and was sanctioned by its entire traditional way of life. On the part of the church, in the very course of things, special heroism was thus required, an extraordinary upsurge of spirit and energy in order to save the foundations of Christianity and to instill evangelical ideals into the self-awareness of modern society. And such heroes of the spirit were found, despite the fact that the general disintegration of moral and religious foundations at this transitional moment fatally affected the mood of the hierarchy itself. Among the hierarchs of the 4th century there were many such persons who, together with society, descended from heaven to earth and adopted the ideology of modern pagan life. All these Acacias of Berry, Theophilos of Alexandria, Kirins, Severians appeared, who showed all their moral impersonality in the sad story of Chrysostom. The heroes of the Christian spirit did not come from this environment, but from a different church fence, which was monasticism from the very beginning of the 4th century. The very appearance of monasticism is significant, precisely at the time of the state position of Christianity in the empire, at the time of the beginning of the decomposition of its moral and religious foundations. Until the 4th century. monasticism, as a strictly organized institution of hermitage, did not exist - it did not exist because in the very life of the church of the first three centuries there was no reason yet for the formation among believers of a special class of people forced to build their moral and spiritual greatness outside the world. The Christian community of the first three centuries was still so strong in moral and religious stability that it was, as it were, one co-organized body, animated by the high burning of the moral and religious spirit. Only from the beginning of the 4th century, when moral and religious decay was discovered among the members of the Christian community itself, did the need become apparent to leave these members for monastic retreats and here, far from the world, to create one’s moral greatness. Thus, life itself brought forward the appearance of monasticism, with its ascetic ideals, with its vow of virginity. This is how a special church within the church was formed, but it grew in the interests of the church itself. Although in form an antisocial institution, from the point of view of the state public, monasticism in essence was not an expression of renegade in relation to the purely Christian public. It, in the very foundations of its ideology, represented only a return to the lost moral and religious perfection of the primitive Christian community. In the implementation of the very vows of virginity, monasticism was not a denial of Christian marital family in its very principle, but only a departure from this family in the interests of a freer development of the moral and religious personality. It was a kind of aristocracy of spirit, but adapted only to the conditions of the individual aspirations of the individual to fight against moral and religious humiliation. The world as a whole, with its life according to the ideals of the Gospel, was not destroyed in the mind of the ascetic monk. Christian marriage, pure Christian family life, state-social relations, as necessary foundations of the life of the world, are not excluded from the code of rules of monastic asceticism. Otherwise, those appearances into the world of the external public by many primitive Christian ascetics, who showed their vigorous activity not only in monastic retreats, but also in the arena of life outside the monastery, would have been impossible. All the best figures of the fourth century of Christianity were ascetic monks by their initial upbringing and education. These are: Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome and, finally, St. John Chrysostom. All these famous pillars of Christianity of the 4th century, who in monastery retreats created the fortress of their moral and religious forces, tempered their moral character, devoted the mature years of their lives to the world, for the creation of the kingdom of God in it. The Christian Church itself owes it to them that it emerged pure and unsullied from the crucible of trials precipitated by the state-social life of the 4th century. They actually bore on their shoulders all the burdens of the transitional moment of Christianization of Roman society of the 4th century, both in the field of metaphysics and in the field of ethics. Athanasius the Great, Basil and both Gregori were primarily defenders of the metaphysical side of Christianity and with their persistent activity they interrupted the formidable stream of pagan ideas that swept through the consciousness of Christians of the 4th century in the form of Arianism. John Chrysostom turned out to be a pillar of Christianity in the area of ​​moral and practical life par excellence. Here lies his main and irreplaceable service to the church and society. This activity, carried out against the backdrop of a gloomy reality, won him the crown of martyrdom in distant exile. We do not need to go into a detailed analysis of all the smallest details of Chrysostom’s wide activities (which can serve as the subject of a special study). We will present only a general image of his bright appearance, which is closely associated with his personality, which is undoubtedly great in the annals of church history. And above all, the very life of Chrysostom evokes in us involuntary surprise with its integrity, firmness, and inflexibility in walking along the path of the moral and religious ideals of Christianity. The son of the rich Antiochian aristocrat Secundus and Anfisa, this Christian woman of rare moral greatness, to whom the famous pagan rhetorician Livanius expressed an enthusiastic review: “What amazing women Christians have,” I. Chrysostom, even in his youth, discovered the positive features of his moral and religious character. He was one of the few historically known persons who was struck by the dual faith, the moral laxity that reigned in the society around him. This sensitivity of conscience, implanted in his heart by the skillful upbringing of Anfisa the Christian, determined his moral and religious disposition for the rest of his life. A critical moment in his life was his appearance in Antioch as a lawyer. Having thus come face to face with the depraved society of Antioch, he experienced the ills of his time. At the same time, undoubtedly, he became aware of the danger that threatened him from the sinful Antiochian society, and at the same time arose a feeling of his own unpreparedness to fight the moral decay of this society. Chrysostom leaves the profession of a lawyer and goes inside his own spiritual world. Many years of self-collection began for him, developing his own moral character, and the Gospel became his favorite book, in which, under the guidance of Anfisa, he greedily sought and found the ideal of the life of a Christian man. Subsequently, the Gospel - generally St. Scripture remained the only guiding source of all his activities, the inspiring beginning for his wondrous preaching. Anyone who is closely familiar with the numerous speeches of Chrysostom knows very well that they all constitute a complete commentary on the biblical truths of life. His works, almost all written in the form of homilies, i.e. live conversations - a kind of expanded Gospel, adapted to the demands and needs of his time. This is all their charm and main advantage. Chrysostom's sermons are actually a broadly sketched program of the entire life activity of a Christian according to the precepts of the Gospel. At the same time, they reflect his own moral and religious character. But the Gospel for Chrysostom was still only the general inspiring beginning of his moral and religious sentiments, and the real image of his amazingly persistent moral and religious character was undoubtedly the result of another school. This school for him was a monastery retreat, to which he retired at his own insistent desire (contrary even to his mother’s advice), at a time when it became clear to him that even the home environment of life in the world still could not give him complete satisfaction on the path to moral and religious perfection. Under the leadership of Elder Diodorus, Bishop of Tarsus, a famous expert on Holy Scripture, Chrysostom stayed in the Tarsus monastery for six years. During this time, he experienced the difficult path of mastering evangelical ideals. The moral nature of St. The ascetic here was completely tempered and strengthened so much that after 6 years of ascetic labor he was no longer afraid to return to his home and then begin his pastoral service. The first works of Zlato Mouth appeared in the monastery retreat - his famous treatises devoted to issues of Christian ethics (of which in the first place should be placed: “On virginity”, “To Theodore the Fallen” and “Six Words on the Priesthood”). Chrysostom's asceticism was undoubtedly the result, first of all, of his own ascetic labors. In his asceticism, we are mainly struck by the following feature of his view. For the external exploits of the ascetic monk (virginity, severe feats, fasting) he recognized only external, purely educational significance. These exploits are only a means expediently adapted to the formation in a person of a strong Christian mood and unyielding will. In particular, virginity is only a haven for a more convenient struggle with passions, but a haven that does not exclude another life - marriage, family life. Therefore, a virgin and an ascetic monk should not exalt himself with his exploits if the spirit of Christian life is not warmed through them. “Iron (chain) is of little value if reason does not restrain the flesh in spiritual bonds,” said Bishop Meletius, the leader of Chrysostom. Chrysostom undoubtedly thought in the same spirit when he asserted: “it is less essential to run away into the desert than to be able to come to true spiritual solitude” (Word to Stelechius). Chrysostom himself, by his example of leaving the monastery, clearly showed that he attached only passing significance to monastic ascesis on the way to the broader activity of the same ascetic monk, in his struggle with the entire world around him. Chrysostom's illness, which befell him in the monastery, was undoubtedly only an external reason for leaving the seclusion; the main reason was his desire to open the narrow boundaries of the life of an ascetic monk and put him in front of the whole world. That Christian, all-pervading love, the kindling of which he especially spreads throughout all his writings, undoubtedly forced him to go out to serve these little ones, thus contributing to the creation of the universal kingdom of Christ. In general, monasticism, in his opinion, is not a necessary institution, but only forced by the “corruption of cities,” in which it has become impossible for a perfect Christian to live. The very preparation for the shepherd, according to Chrysostom (developed especially in detail in his books on the priesthood), should consist in undergoing ascetic feats - humility, non-covetousness, constant warming of the spirit of energy and determination to stand up for the cause of Christ, without any transactions with conscience. Thus, shepherding is presented to him as a transitional stage from asceticism - monastic to asceticism - pan-Christian. And so, when Chrysostom himself felt an excess of moral strength in himself, a readiness to show a firm and indestructible will, he broke the bonds of the monastic retreat and, with the inner appearance of an ascetic monk, went out into the world to show here the greatness of his moral freedom. However, the awareness of his own powerlessness and weakness in the fight against the world, and the awareness of the high responsibility of the shepherd of the church, never left Chrysostom. Faced with the shame of the terrible decline in morals among the clergy of his day and especially among the highest representatives of the church (which he himself repeatedly mourns in his writings), his strong spirit seemed to instinctively weaken, out of fear, perhaps, of heavy responsibility for his own pastoral feat. We see that the court temporary worker, the eunuch Eutropius, who wanted to see Chrysostom at the see of Constantinople at all costs, only through deception managed to lure him out of Antioch and bring him to Constantinople. If it were not for the cunning and imperious whim of Eutropius, we might never have seen Chrysostom in the rank of bishop... The entire pastoral service of Chrysostom, first in the rank of deacon and presbyter in Antioch and in the rank of bishop in Constantinople, was, one might say, a continuous feat of the saint’s struggle against the surrounding evil of moral and religious decline. Extremely strict with himself, he was merciless towards others, as an exposer of vices. The main weapon of struggle for him was his innate talent - that amazing eloquence, which he used, one might say, to the depths, constantly speaking as a preacher from the church pulpit. In view of this, almost all of his extremely numerous works (more than 600 in number, except those that have not reached the present day) were written by him in the form of homilies, that is, church conversations. He usually gave teachings weekly on every Sunday, but sometimes, as circumstances required, he spoke every day, even twice a day (in Antioch on the occasion of the overthrow of statues). Apparently, Chrysostom had an inexhaustible supply of eloquence, so preaching was hardly a great difficulty for him. He undoubtedly improvised many of his speeches right in the church, since some details of the sermon positively exclude any thought about its preliminary preparation. That is why his sermons were completely devoid of formulaic pretense and artificiality. That is why all the content in them, from beginning to end, breathed extraordinary simplicity, sincerity and rare sincerity of the tone itself. It was clear from everything that the speaker himself seemed to be experiencing all his thoughts and, as it were, pouring them into the very heart of his listeners. Chrysostom's words were, as it were, part of his own organism. That is why listeners very often applauded their favorite preacher so wildly. That is why involuntary outbursts of approval were often heard even when Chrysostom no less ardently convinced his audience to spare the shrine of the church and not to liken the church to an amphitheater. With depth of feeling and charm of thought, Chrysostom's sermon also combined the special grace of completely classical speech, which usually flowed evenly and smoothly from his lips in streams of soft, pleasant sounds. For all his unattractive, squat and emaciated appearance. Chrysostom had an amazingly cute voice that reached the most remote corners of the building, arousing the most intense attention in everyone. But what was especially striking in Chrysostom’s sermons was his amazing fearlessness and impartiality. All his sermons testify positively to these qualities. Chrysostom was not afraid to castigate with his denunciations even the formidable temporary nobleman Eutropius in his time, known throughout the empire for his vindictiveness and cruelty, the proud, capricious and hot-tempered Empress Eudoxia, the wife of the weak-willed and weak Arcadius, and many representatives of the highest aristocracy, mired in terrible vices. Chrysostom poured out especially many denunciations against Marcia, Castrizia and Eustaratia - these high-ranking courtesans of Constantinople, positively drowning in bliss and insane “luxury”. Chrysostom equally, and without any pretense or fear, denounced the simple artisan, the hungry, violent proletarian, the rude monks, and the clergy devoted to worldly intrigues and luxury, who spent all their time in the company of the “agapettes.” And all these denunciations were not an expression of simple ostentatious pharisaism. In his personal life, Chrysostom was beyond any suspicion of certain vices, which he brought to the court of public conscience. Castigating wealth and extravagance of luxury, he himself - in his personal life - represented an example of extreme non-acquisitiveness and simplicity, even reaching the point of Spartan purism. In the luxurious patriarchal chambers of his predecessor Nektarios, he carried out a complete restoration. He sold all the gilded furnishings, expensive carpets, jewelry, and ceremonial exits, and used the proceeds for hospitals, feeding the poor and orphans. Once the owner of his father's rich estates, he had absolutely no property: his entire household was limited to only the most necessary utensils and clothing. Revolting against the Lucullan dinners of his contemporary aristocrats, he himself observed extreme moderation in food and stubbornly refused to share even the royal feasts; for which he experienced constant anger from Empress Eudoxia. The simplicity and unpretentiousness of his personal life more than once served as a reason for indignation even from the clergy. It is known that Akakios, Bishop of Berry, accustomed to receiving luxurious and plentiful treats from Patriarch Nektarios, became extremely furious when one day at Chrysostom’s table he had to be content with only one dish and one bottle of sour wine. All the rich income of the Patriarchate, all the abundant donations that were given into the hands of Chrysostom, received from him a completely different purpose - they went to the benefit of the poor, widows and orphans, to the benefit of hospitals and hospices, into which all the vast premises of the Patriarchate turned. Chrysostom himself was content with only the smallest room. It is clear with what undisguised irritation all the rich people of Constantinople must have listened to Chrysostom’s sermon on wealth and, conversely, with what lively sympathy and fervor all the poor people listened to it, who knew perfectly well that there was no barrier between Chrysostom’s word and deed. In all of Chrysostom’s speeches against the wealth and luxury of the aristocracy, against the abuse of power by officials, some researchers of Chrysostom’s era, like Mr. Morozov (see his work: “In a thunderstorm and storm”), try to discern Chrysostom’s secretive politicking in the spirit of modern socialist theories. But to think so means not knowing Chrysostom at all, not understanding the vital nerve of all his activities. The center of gravity of Chrysostom's sermon is not at all in politics, but in Christian ethics, where everything comes down to the personality of each individual, to the freedom of personal will. Politics always presupposes, at its core, external coercion and violence. Chrysostom never spoke of any violence. Revolting against the rich, he always appeals only to their conscience, wanting to arouse on their part a free disposition towards mercy towards poverty. In not a single sermon of Chrysostom will we find a call addressed to the mob, with the aim of inciting them against the rich, inciting them to violence against them. In general, the role of a political demagogue is not at all in the spirit of Chrysostom. This is clearly evident, if only from the fact that at a critical moment in his life, when his position in Constantinople was shaking, he not only did not take advantage of the services of the agitating mob, but acted on them in precisely the opposite direction. For his part, he took all measures to calm the restless soul of his flock; urged them to submit to Providence. “God gave, God took away” - these are Chrysostom’s own words, spoken by him at parting. The whole mood of the exile poured out into them. True, Chrysostom was a conductor into the consciousness of society of the idea of ​​universal brotherhood, equality, freedom, but only in the spirit of the ideal of Christianity, realized in the early Christian apostolic community, when “everyone had everything in common,” but by voluntary agreement, due to the freedom of personal will. Chrysostom also called for this will, inspiring everyone to imbue with the ideals of the early Christian apostolic community, sealed by selfless love for one’s neighbor. And Chrysostom himself deeply carried within himself the image of St. John, this apostle of love par excellence. Love, as a Christian virtue, love, dissolved with a feeling of compassion and mercy, constitutes the vital nerve of both Chrysostom himself and his entire sermon. He showed such love even in the most pathetic places of his accusatory sermon, directed against all sinners of his time. When the powerful Eutropius, the main enemy of Chrysostom, fell in the opinion of the empress, when he, humiliated, fleeing from her anger, himself turned to a spiritual shepherd for help, Chrysostom, with truly Christian love, did not turn away from Eutropius, did not pour out his anger on him, but lovingly looked upon him in the church, which even according to the barbarian customs of that time was considered an inviolable shrine. Chrysostom, at the sight of the repentant Eutropius, only received a reason to turn to the people with a sermon about forgiveness for the sinner, about the vanity of the worldly greatness of power. The historian Neander described Chrysostom’s mood absolutely correctly: “as much as Chrysostom was merciless towards sin, he was just as full of mercy towards the sinner.”... We do not argue that the depraved imagination of Chrysostom’s contemporaries, who listened to his fiery, hitherto unheard, accusatory speeches, sometimes saw in them the ghost of a demagogue bishop encroaching on the foundations of political life, but... such a ghost is already too common a phenomenon in the political life of all nations. The only fact is that Chrysostom fell, but it is also a fact that seven years after his martyrdom he rebelled in the consciousness of the same society, surrounded by an aura of holiness and innocence. Theodosius himself in 438, when transferring the relics of Chrysostom - the martyr from Comana to Constantinople, with his tears seemed to wash away the sin of his royal parents. In general, the story of Chrysostom is a sad but eternal story!... Saint John Chrysostom 5 6 The one thousand five hundredth anniversary of the blessed death of St. John Chrysostom is now celebrated brightly and solemnly throughout the entire celestial breadth of the Christian world. From sea to ocean and on the floor of the ocean, in all corners of the earth and in different human languages, sublimely joyful hymns and praises in honor of St. John are now heard. This is a worldwide holiday, a Christian holiday, a great triumph of Christian enlightenment. All baptized people, the Eastern and Western churches, Orthodox and Catholics, with one mouth and one heart these days glorify, praise and bless the wondrous Saint Chrysostom. John Chrysostom!... Who among Christians is not familiar, who has not heard, does not know this name?! In the entire history of all mankind, how many more such world-famous and eternally glorious names are there?! John Chrysostom, this is the greatest of the great Christian fathers and teachers, those pillars of Orthodoxy, on whose bones the invincible Church of Christ was erected forever and who themselves now stand as prayer books for us before the throne of the Lord. Chrysostom, this is the luminary of the universe, a lesson for centuries, an image and example to people. Chrysostom, this is the great power, the bright glory, the beauty of the Church of Christ on earth. Chrysostom is a universal teacher, a holy ascetic, a sage in Christian enlightenment and piety. He explained the depths of our faith, he is an inspired interpreter of the word of God, he defended and defended the truth and purity of our holy faith from heresies and schisms, from Jewry and paganism; he is the deepest and most touching, the most sincere and beloved shepherd and mentor in Christian life, he is, finally, a wondrous, unique and incomparable speaker-preacher, who from ancient times was called the teacher of the golden tongue, the golden-tongued, Chrysostom. His writings, which contain everything a Christian needs, including life and piety, filled and, one might say, watered the earth, and educated many Christian tribes and generations. For our, for example, ancestors, the ancient Russian people, it was the works of Chrysostom that constituted the most beloved and most enticing reading. The collections that were so widespread in our old days - Izmaragd, Emerald, Margarit, Andriatis, Zlatostruy, Golden Chain, Golden Matitsa, and finally Chrysostom directly, as can be seen from the very name of many of them, were filled primarily, and some exclusively, with the works of John Chrysostom. Thus, Chrysostom should be especially close and dear to us, the Russian people; he is the most beloved teacher of our fathers, the mentor of our earnest and glorious Russian orthodoxy; According to the books of Chrysostom, our ancestors studied and grew spiritually, Chrysostom nourished and delighted their souls and hearts; According to Chrysostom, they organized and directed their “pious and godly” life - to Chrysostom, one might say, our Orthodox Rus' owes most of all the fact that from time immemorial it became not any other, but precisely holy Russia. And regardless of this distant past, Chrysostom is near and dear to all modern Russian people: the eternal and significant monument of Chrysostom and a daily reminder of him for all of us is the divine liturgy, compiled by him and performed daily in all our Orthodox churches. Directly from him, therefore, we perceived and inherited the indescribable beauty of our worship. But for a devout Russian man and a pious son of the Orthodox Church, is there anything more joyful and kind than the church?! For the Russian heart, is there any beauty sweeter and more precious than church and liturgical beauty?! This is probably why Saint Chrysostom is so close to us and so loved by us: this is evidenced by the inner conviction of each of us. In fact, something especially warm and sincere responds in the heart with this name, as if it were a native, close name - Chrysostom! At the same time, we involuntarily recall our long-ago youth, when, while still at school, those people who taught us to believe and pray, told us about Chrysostom, this loving defender of the suffering, the formidable accuser of the wrong, this extraordinary passion-bearer-ascetic. Perhaps the details were forgotten, in particular from what we were told and heard about Chrysostom; but we remember the charm of those high moments when the heart trembled at the stories about the wondrous deeds of this wondrous, most luminous saint. Isn’t that why now something special, joyful and comforting is felt on this ripe day of bright celebration - in memory of Chrysostom?! From the darkness of centuries, in our imagination, the majestic image of this close, most grateful, holy and extraordinarily great man is now resurrected. And now we mentally look at him, we have gathered here in his name and around him, our soul and heart are filled with sacred thoughts about him... What wreaths will we weave for Chrysostom on this solemn, festive day named after him? It is not for us to weave wreaths for Chrysostom; There has not yet been a second Chrysostom born in this world who could worthily and righteously, to the extent of Chrysostom’s extraordinary gifts and perfections, glorify and exalt Chrysostom. And now we will just bow in reverent tenderness before his great and sacred shadow And, for spiritual sweetness, we will only admire this wonderful man and his wonderful deeds and words. Let us transport ourselves mentally to those long-gone Zlatoust times and places. That was the 4th century AD, the most remarkable century in the history of Christianity; it is marked both by the great triumph of Christianity on earth and by the most terrible dangers for it. For three centuries the blood of Christians had been shed; There was no such weapon, no such torture that the evil of hell would not try on Christians. But the blood of the martyrs was only the seed from which new and new generations of confessors of Christ grew. Finally, at the beginning of the 4th century, something happened that seemed even to saints and perspicacious Christians, for example. Tertullian, incredible: the Roman emperor himself, that is, the head of the whole world at that time, became a Christian. The success of Christianity was great, but far from final and complete. It turned out to be difficult, impossible, to break immediately with paganism, which lived for centuries and completely filled and determined the life of the people. And so, instead of external attacks on Christianity, open persecutions, now an internal, spiritual, but no less dangerous struggle begins, a struggle not for the right of the existence of Christianity on earth, but a struggle and rebellion against its very essence. All evil forces are rising to overthrow the doctrine of Christianity, to humiliate it, pervert it, and disgrace it. Both pagans from the outside and various heretics in the depths of Christianity itself, equally intensely undermined and insulted the one and pure truth of Christ - apparently, they steadily led Christianity to decay, to the end. This struggle, the last and extreme, the struggle of life and death, was so dangerous for the young Church of Christ that not only the masses of the people, but also representatives of the church, bishops and clergy, and even the crowned guardians of the faith themselves - the emperors - fell into the network of errors and became heretics and pagans. Arianism, a terrible heresy that did not recognize the divinity of Christ, and therefore radically undermined Christianity, at times seized almost the entire Christian church, with bishops and kings at its head. There were, for example, such terrible days when in the capital of the empire, in Constantinople, only the small remaining handful of Orthodox Christians huddled in one house church, and the rest of the world was carried away by Arianism. And for example, the second, after Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine, his successor on the imperial throne, Julian, clearly retreated, renounced Christianity, and directed all his efforts towards the destruction of Christianity and the restoration of old paganism in his empire. But all these horrors and fatal dangers have accumulated over the Church of Christ, as if precisely for this reason, so that the works of God may appear over it. Just as it was in the first days of Christianity, when only twelve fishermen, unknown to the world, accomplished an incredible deed with their preaching, won victory over the power of Rome, persuaded both the Roman legions and thousands of people to the cross and before the cross, so now, at the moments of the greatest uprising and extreme tension of the forces hostile to Christianity, the almighty and saving power of Christ miraculously manifested itself, and it also manifested itself only in a few, mainly image of four, confessors of Christ. By their word, by the feat of their entire lives, by the great authority of their personality, they defended the faith of Christ from all the encroachments of malice and enmity on earth and hell, saved Christianity for the whole earth and passed it on intact to us, and forever and ever. They were truly God-raised and God-enlightened, luminous universal fathers and teachers - Athanasius the Great, Basil The Great, Gregory the Theologian and, the most majestic and especially amazing in terms of the wealth and variety of talents and the power of his incomparable influence on all Christian times and generations, John Chrysostom. Chrysostom was born in 347 in Antioch. Antioch, now a very small, insignificant town, with a population of five thousand in the southeastern corner of the Asia Minor peninsula; and at that time it was a wonderful, world city, one of the most significant centers of ancient civilization. Antioch was once the capital of the ancient Syrian kingdom, annexed to the great Roman Empire, and in the days of Chrysostom it was called the “Queen of the East”; Chrysostom himself called her “the head and mother of the eastern cities.” Antioch is one of the most honorable cities in general in Christian memories, in the history of our church: Antioch was, so to speak, the successor of Jerusalem; the followers of Christ, scattered from Jerusalem, concentrated in it; after the first persecution and murder of the first martyr Stephen in Antioch, the famous apostolic church was formed in the first years of Christianity, here for a long time he stayed and preached, and it was from here that St. made his three great apostolic journeys. supreme apostle Paul. Finally, it was here, in Antioch, that for the first time and forever all of us, followers of Christ, received the name Christians. The huge population of Antioch at that time, two hundred thousand, in the 4th century consisted half of Christians and pagans. St. John came from a Christian and noble family, very famous in Antioch: his father, named Secundus, was the commander of all the imperial troops in Syria. But he died suddenly when John was only one year old. The orphan baby was left in the care of his mother Anfisa. A young widow, only twenty years old, and rich, educated and beautiful at that, Anfisa, without a doubt, could marry again; but in addition to her qualities indicated, she was also a strictly pious, highly moral woman, an ideal Christian mother. She gave up her personal happiness in order to devote all her strength and her whole life to her children - her son John and his older sister. It was not for nothing that later, John’s teacher, the famous learned pagan Livanius, having learned the story of Anfisa’s selfless maternal love for children, exclaimed enthusiastically: “What amazing women Christians have.” Anfisa was able to give the proper and most beneficial direction to John’s unusually happy natural gifts and God-given talents. As the ancient writer put it, she raised John on the word of God.” Under the influx of the tenderest motherly love, the dear treasures of a tender, virginally noble, loving heart were revealed in his soul. Under the constant influence and impressions of his mother’s religiosity and piety, John’s gradual spiritual growth and improvement took place, his steady aspiration and approach to the ideal of an exalted, pure holy life. John spent the first sixteen years of his life under the direct guidance and happy tutelage of his mother. And then he entered the school of the then famous scientist and rhetorician (speaker) Livan. Livanius was one of the last pillars and defenders of paganism, but still, of the pagans, he was undoubtedly the best, an honest and educated, noble man. Anfisa boldly entrusted him with the education of her talented son, both because the Livanian school was the best in Antioch, and because John had already matured and strengthened in a Christian mood so much that the pagan beliefs of the teacher could not be in any way scary or dangerous to him. John studied with Libanius for four years. With his rare talents and brilliant successes in science, he amazed and delighted his teacher. While still a youth, John had already surpassed his teacher in oratory, this most famous rhetorician, whose name resounded not only in Antioch, but also in Athens, Constantinople, and Nicomedia, where Livanius had previously lived and, as an orator, excelled over everyone. Now this Livanius, having read one of the first experiments, actually John’s student exercise, his “Eulogy to Constantine” Great One,” wrote in admiration to John: “How lucky you are that you can speak and praise so beautifully!” But how happy is the emperor, for whom such a speaker was found!” And when he was dying, Livanius greatly lamented that John could not become his successor at school: “I would not like to leave anyone behind me except John, but Christians kidnapped him from me,” Livanius complained bitterly. Meanwhile, John at that time had not yet been baptized: due to the custom then allowed by some to accept holy baptism not according to the faith of the recipients, as now with us, but according to the conviction and full understanding of the baptized person himself, John, who considered himself still not spiritually mature, decided to proceed to holy baptism only after reaching the age of 22. But now, in his youth, just preparing to join the church, he made all the efforts of his mighty soul towards the deepest and most complete assimilation, comprehensive perception of the high, holy ideals of the teachings of Christ. At the same time, certain external circumstances contributed to the cultivation in John of an unshakable conviction in the truth and holiness of Christianity. Thus, while still a youth, in his native Antioch, John had to witness the great persecution of Christianity, raised by the apostate emperor Julian. Having set out to raise the old paganism and humiliate and suppress Christianity, Julian naturally drew attention to the great center and stronghold of the faith he hated, to Antioch. He himself arrived in Antioch and here, first of all, he appeared at the once famous church of the god Apollo. But imagine his indignation when he found the church completely empty: the emperor was met here only by one old man, a priest, who, in honor of the high visitor, sacrificed his own goose to the god Apollo, since there had been no pilgrims or sacrifices yet. Meanwhile, a Christian church stood nearby, with the relics of St. Martyr Babyla, was overflowing with people. In extreme irritation, Julian ordered the church of Apollo to be restored to its former beauty and splendor, and the Christian church to be closed and the relics removed from it. Then the Christians staged a majestic procession of the solemn transfer of the holy relics. This made Julian even more embittered, and, on his orders, the pagan warriors rushed at the Christians, began to disperse them and beat them, catch them, and torture them. Meanwhile, according to the consistent testimony of historians, an extraordinary phenomenon occurred: during these very hours of the massacre of Christians, the very church of Apollo, which Julian took such care of, was struck by lightning, and it perished in fire. Such a miraculous manifestation of the heavenly will incredibly inspired and inspired Christians, but only Julian did not come to his senses. Contrary to all evidence, he announced that Christians had burned the church of Apollo, and with even greater cruelty he continued the atrocities against them; By the way, he closed the main Christian church in Antioch, and the elderly presbyter who served in it, St. Theodoret, subjected to martyrdom. After this, Julian persecuted Christians throughout the empire in every possible way, ruined them with exorbitant taxes, destroyed churches, confiscated their property, beat and imprisoned the clergy, etc.; and on the other hand, for devotion to paganism, he showered all sorts of favors and rewards, opened and decorated old pagan temples, even ordered the restoration of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, etc. To the groans and complaints of Christians who were subjected to furies at the hands of the pagans, Julian responded with his well-known phrase: “What a disaster if ten Galileans perish at the hands of one pagan!” But, as you know, the persecution of Julian and all these last efforts of paganism only ended in greater triumph and greatness of Christianity. To his horror, Julian himself managed to be convinced of this, who nevertheless remained a stubborn, unrepentant pagan until his death: during one of the campaigns, mortally wounded, he raged with anger that he could not destroy Christianity, and, in a powerless rage, throwing stones and dirt into the sun, with his last breath, he croaked his even more famous phrase in history: “You have defeated me, Galilean.” And Chrysostom experienced and observed all this bloody persecution of Julian at the age of a particularly impressionable youth, responsive to all suffering and sensitive to all injustice. He himself suffered through these terrible days for the Antiochian Christians, shared with them all their worries and fears, took part in the burial of the confessors of the holy faith tortured by Julian, and shed burning tears with the Christians over the beheaded Christian martyrs. All this mattered to John as a most powerful school of life, in which the great spirit of this great Christian grew and strengthened. Upon completion of his studies, John assumed the title and duties of a lawyer. At that time it was the most fashionable and profitable profession; It was a rare young man from noble, privileged classes who did not try his hand at this field, which opened the way to the highest positions in the state, since oratory was then valued highest and most dearly. For John, as an unusually talented, brilliant, fascinating speaker, advocacy obviously promised wealth, fame, and a brilliant career. But the stormy cycle of vain, secular life, which John inevitably now had to become familiar with, and these lawyering activities, most often in the field of untruths, vices and all kinds of evil in life, could not fill John’s soul and satisfy him. True, thanks to these very studies, he studied the human heart more closely and more accurately from its negative sides and vicious inclinations, and this later came in handy for John as a spiritual doctor of human depravity; but in any case, now all the vanity of life inspired him with conscious and convinced disgust. He was drawn to a completely different path, he was attracted by a different calling. He soon announced to his mother that he wanted to leave the world and go to a monastery. The thought of separation from her beloved son overcame the weak strength of the pious Anfisa and she begged John not to leave her, at least until her death. “Having learned about my intention, Chrysostom himself tells us in one of his works: mother took me by the hands and burst into tears; She began to say words that were more pitiful than the tears themselves. Do not subject me to another widowhood in the world, she said, do not awaken again the grief that has fallen asleep in my soul, wait for my end. When you bury my ashes in the earth, then go, the Lord is with you! – go where your calling takes you. And while I haven’t stopped breathing yet, stay with me, don’t cause your mother, who is innocent before you, to suffer and don’t anger the Lord with this!” As a devoted and loving son, John fulfilled his mother’s will, he did not leave her and the world; but nevertheless he managed, even while living in the world, to escape from the world. Just around that time, having received the holy sacrament of baptism, he stopped his lawyering and became entirely occupied with the education of his soul, he delved into the study of the word of God, became imbued with its spirit and ideals, constantly went to church, even taking on the duties of a reader. At the same time, in his private life, he practiced himself more and more in deeds of piety and self-sacrifice, and even imposed on himself the feat of silence, that is, as far as possible, complete abstinence in speech. John, thus, gradually renounced the world and current modernity - he renounced all the more willingly because this modernity was very sad and could only depress the soul of every honest patriot and true Christian. There was constant unrest and disturbance in different parts of the empire, and a reign of anarchy grew everywhere. Generals and leaders of troops of different tribes and faiths in the empire often started internecine bloodshed, shook the royal throne, and others themselves sat on it. This is how, by the way, Julian the Apostate reached the throne. From outside, like waves, the so-called barbarians, Franks, Goths and Huns rushed towards the empire. There was no peace, no tranquility in the depths of the Christian Church. For example, in Rome, two contenders, Daniel and Ursinus, with weapons in their hands, raising internecine bloodshed, challenged each other for the Roman see. Arianism, already condemned at the Council of Nicea, spread in a crushing torrent throughout the empire, threatening to completely drown Orthodoxy. The emperors themselves, Constantius, and then Valens, were Arians: the Orthodox were subjected to oppression and bloody persecution. Even in Antioch, the heresy became so widespread that the Orthodox had to endure a constant, so to speak, siege war; The Orthodox Bishop of Antioch himself, the kind elder Meletius, to whom John especially clung with his soul, was repeatedly subjected to exile and imprisonment. In such difficult circumstances, some of the surrounding bishops close to Antioch, defending and upholding Orthodoxy in every possible way, drew attention to the great spiritual power that grew in the personality of the still young reader John, the rumor of whose talents and asceticism had already spread in the surrounding area. Despite John's youth, they decided to make him a bishop. Hearing about this plunged John into indescribable confusion and trembling. The sacred service of the Church of God seemed to him so sublime and holy that John did not even dare to think about accepting the episcopal rank. It was precisely with these worries and fears that a difficult life deprivation and test coincided for John: he had to bitterly mourn his unexpectedly and early, not yet old, mother Anfisa. It was as if the Providence of God deliberately called the pious soul of Anfisa from the earth, so that her worthy son could freely embark on the great and crusader path that captivated him. No one and nothing Now unconnected in life, John withdrew from the world all the more willingly and all the more quickly, because he had to fear even violence from the bishops who had designs on him. At least one of the most sincere friends and comrades of John, also known for his piety, the young man Vasily, was ordained a bishop just these days, almost by force. And so John hid from Antioch, hid secretly even from this friend of his, Basil, and went into the desert, so that there he could devote himself entirely and unhindered to God, to improve himself in a holy life. From the city of Antioch, on the horizon, one can see in the fog the spurs of an endless ridge of deserted, wild mountains, cut by inaccessible gorges and here and there covered with forest. Since the first centuries of Christianity, due to frequent persecutions, many confessors of Christ retired to this inaccessible mountain wilderness. So there arose there, in the clefts of the mountains, many small monasteries, hermitages, and monasteries. It was in one of these monasteries that John retired. One can imagine how difficult this hermit’s life was for him, who spent his childhood in bliss and luxury. This life was a continuous feat, incessant work and patience. This is what John himself later told about his life in the monastery. At midnight the monks rose for prayer and psalmody; Before dawn we rested a little, and met the sunrise again in the church, during the morning service. Then, during the day, they gathered in the church four times for prayer - at the third, sixth, ninth hours and for Vespers. In the intervals between services, the hermits were engaged in reading and copying sacred books, and also performed all the work of life themselves: chopping wood, carrying water, etc. Their clothing was animal skins and the coarsest fabrics made of camel hair, they did not wear any shoes, slept on the ground or on bare boards, ate once a day, only bread with water and sometimes vegetables. - John spent four whole years in such a life. year. Carrying out all the duties and general work, and being unmissably present at divine services, John began his brilliant literary and theological activity here and then. During these years, he composed several remarkable works: so, first of all, he wrote perhaps the most perfect and profound work of his pen: Six Words on the Priesthood. Here John, in justification of his evasion from the episcopal dignity, comprehensively and unusually talented, deeply and convincingly portrayed the greatness, holiness and enormous responsibility of pastoral ministry. And to this day and, of course, forever, this work of Chrysostom will remain the best and wisest, the most touching and sincere patristic instruction and guidance for every Christian shepherd. In the monastery, John compiled Three Books in defense of monasticism. This work was written on the occasion of the persecution of monasteries and monasticism raised by Emperor Valens. Having become infected with Arianism, Valens saw in the monks the strongest stronghold of Orthodoxy, and therefore ordered them to be taken as soldiers and imprisoned. This policy of the Arian emperor found approval in part and in general of secular society; under the influence, mainly, of the same Arianism, then opinions and disputes arose about the purpose and meaning of monasticism in general, voices were heard from different sides about the destruction of monasteries. For the same reason and with similar content, John wrote the book Comparison of a Monk with a King. In this work, which was an echo of John’s own personal impressions and his passion for monastic life, he proves that the life of a monk is more sublime and happier than any other rank and position, even better than royal life. “Is there an existence on earth higher than that of monks?” Chrysostom asks here. And with great animation he answers: “No!” no, not even excluding royal life. After all, the king does not belong to himself, but to his subjects; thousands of responsibilities distract him from himself, thousands of anxieties torment him, thousands of temptations expose him to temptations and falls. Only a monk is free from vain interests that absorb the entire life of all other people. Without kinship, without family, without property, a monk lives only for God and for the salvation of his soul!” etc. Many letters from John, written by him from monastic solitude to his former secular friends, have also been preserved, letters representing entire treatises on various theological topics. Eg. a large letter from Chrysostom to Stelevius is known, in which John introduces his friends to his new life; as in the above works, he passionately depicts the advantages and beneficial properties of monasticism. No less well known is the deeply meaningful letter to Demetrius, where John tries to arouse and support in the hearts of his friends an incessant and fiery desire for the high ideal of Christian life, set out by the Savior in the Sermon on the Mount, but so desecrated and perverted in life. With vigorous energy and fiery animation, giving himself up to asceticism with all his heart, John was not even content with monastic life; after a four-year stay in the monastery, he went even further and deeper into the mountains, retreating into complete solitude. In an inaccessible wilderness, in the depths of wild rocky mountains, John found a deep cave and remained in it, exposing himself to all the terrifying helplessness and defenselessness of a complete hermit from the world and people, an anchorite. And here, without hearing the voice of man, subjecting himself to even unimaginable hardships and feats for us, eating only grains and roots that could be found nearby in the mountains, John spent another two years in unceasing prayer, in lonely reflection. – This six-year asceticism, contemplation of God and self-deepening gave John an incomparable knowledge of the Word of God, an unshakable conviction in the truth of Christianity and an amazingly deep, penetrating knowledge of the human heart. All this was a higher school, accessible to only a few for the world's greatest figures, which brought up for humanity Chrysostom, this extraordinary expert on the heart, an all-powerful moral leader, the true ruler of human souls and hearts. It is possible that John would have buried himself in his stone tomb, and would have remained hidden, unknown to the world; but God was pleased to reveal this bright light, adorned with natural gifts, and enlightened by higher knowledge, and purified in the crucible of incredible asceticism, for all humanity to reveal to the world. Unimaginably difficult feats and hardships broke John’s health; he reached extreme bodily exhaustion. From abnormal nutrition, his stomach was completely weakened, and from the eternal dampness in the cave, the extremities of his arms and legs not only ached unbearably, but even began to become paralyzed. Thus, John was forced to part with his happiest, equal-angelic, hermit life in his eyes. At the end of 380, John returned to his native Antioch. Here, under normal living conditions, the strength of the young body quickly began to recover, and John soon recovered. No matter how carried away he was by the hermit’s life, but, envisioning new paths of God’s Providence in his destiny, he never returned to the desert. Seeing the crowded city that he had forgotten, he realized that a Christian, in addition to his responsibilities to God and himself, also has responsibilities in relation to his neighbors. It was not for nothing that earlier, in his writings on monasticism, he wrote that the desert should not distract all the best people from the world, so as not to deprive the masses of the people of their beneficial influence - that not only those living in cities should not all rush to the mountains, but, on the contrary, hermits from the mountains should return to the cities in order to limit the dominance of evil and vices in them with their influence. John now understood that there is a feat no less important and no easier for a Christian, besides caring about himself: the feat of self-sacrifice, for the sake of others, for the good of his loved ones. And from here John irrevocably embarked on the path of this new feat - serving people. This path led him to bitter suffering, which even ended in martyrdom for him; but on the other hand, John’s new feat brought immeasurable, priceless benefit for the entire Christian world and created, forever exalted and glorified the name of Chrysostom. Having once fled with fear from the high and honorable rank of bishop, John with reverent submission now accepted the humble rank of deacon of the Antiochian church offered to him by the local bishop, the pious Meletius. And for the next five years John served in this rank, zealously and selflessly fulfilling the duties associated with it: every day he participated in divine services, monitored the order in the church, the deanery in church meetings, and what especially required vigilant care and work - he was in charge of the very important, responsible business of church charity. That is, John sought out and visited the poor and sick, alleviated the situation of all the unfortunate, provided personal services and material assistance to all those in need. And this noble and especially God-blessed charitable activity was an important contribution, a significant addition to the total amount of moral education and spiritual improvement of the great personality of John. The fact is that the solitude in which he had been for so long before could have concentrated all his thoughts and feelings only on concern for his own salvation and to some extent extinguished the holy flame of love for people in his soul, generally cooled the warmth of his beautiful heart, his responsiveness to the suffering and needs of his neighbors. After all, your neighbors and their misfortunes are so easily and naturally forgotten when you see neither one nor the other. And so the deaconry again unfolded the picture before John’s eyes disasters and human suffering. Seeing the suffering of others, of course, is both painful and unpleasant, but as long as suffering exists on earth, seeing it is always useful and instructive for anyone, even an ordinary person. The grief and tears of others pierce our indifference and insensitivity, raise good movements, noble impulses in the depths of even a hardened soul, soften and enliven the heart, make it capable of sacrifice and self-sacrifice. And there is no need to say how this spectacle of human suffering, wide open before John, was how it affected his sensitive soul! In any case, it is known that the very first mites that Deacon John gave to the poor and needy were the remnants of his own property. And from that time on, although he later held, as they say in the hostel, lucrative positions and could, if desired, accumulate entire wealth, but, as before, during his hermitage, so now, in these positions, he never had anything, did not leave anything for himself, gave everything he had to the poor, himself forever remaining the first, the most extreme poor man. Among his incessant and zealous labors, John, who did not yet have the right, as a deacon, to preach, found leisure and the opportunity to help those in need of encouragement, consolation and edification - with his writings. Thus, he compiled Three Books on Providence - this work was written by John for one of his friends (Stagira), who was in a state of severe spiritual oppression, and contains an extensive, detailed theological treatise on the meaning of sorrows and suffering allowed by Divine Providence in human life. John then wrote the Book of Consolation to a young widow who had lost her beloved husband. This book, as well as even more so the next book written then by John, On Virginity, are well-known in patristic literature, beautiful, enthusiastic, one might say, hymns praising the virtues and price of chaste widowhood and virginity in Christianity. At the same time, John composed a large polemical work - the Book of St. Babyla, against Julian and the pagans, where the story of the holy martyr Babyla, the former bishop of Antioch, is eloquently told, and, according to the personal recollections of John himself, the story of the above-mentioned persecution of Christians in Antioch, raised by Julian, is conveyed. In 386, John, already approaching the age of forty, was ordained to the rank of presbyter. At that time, in Antioch, their complex responsibilities were divided among the elders: some were primarily occupied with performing divine services, others with the correction of religious services, and others with preaching the word of God. John, as an already well-known, gifted speaker, was assigned precisely this last duty. And from now on, John’s preaching activity expanded widely, bringing him worldwide fame and eternal fame. Preaching was John's true calling, the most dear activity close to his heart. With tireless energy, John devoted himself to his new work, and from the pulpit of the cathedral church of Antioch, his inspired word, imprinted with the spirit of apostolic zeal and strength, flowed in a truly abundant, grandiose, mighty stream. John preached sermons on all holidays, Sundays and Saturdays, and in addition twice a week; sometimes he spoke twice a day, during morning and evening services; sometimes he warned his listeners that on such and such a day he would talk with them early in the morning, so that neither the heat nor the worries of everyday life would prevent them from coming to the church, and then, on the other hand, it happened that night would find him at the pulpit. Sometimes he preached for several days in a row, busy revealing one truth. Often he had to give sermons on behalf of his bishop, moreover, a sudden order, and sometimes he even had to finish a speech that had already been started by the bishop himself; He also often received sudden invitations to preach here or there. He not only had no time to prepare or write his sermons, but often did not have the opportunity to think about them in any way in advance, so his speeches in most cases were pure improvisations. Often a fleeting incident, the impression of a moment, gave John topics for sermons. For example, one winter he goes to church; By chance, his attention was attracted to the ragged, chilled poor people, the beggars, and John, ascending the pulpit, begins: “I want to talk to you now about a very important subject that concerns us closely.” Now I saw the pitiful poor, barely covered with rags, and on my part it would be a crime, cruelty, if I did not talk to you about compassion, philanthropy, etc. - the speech flowed on this topic. Or, for example, already during the beginning of the sermon, John noticed that the attention of his listeners was accidentally distracted by the lighting of candles in the church, and he makes a transition in his word: “I direct all my efforts to kindle in your hearts the light of the word of God; but simple lamps attract your attention more. What is more important and what is more necessary for us - the light of spiritual knowledge, or the light of material candles? And - a speech began on this unexpected and certainly not foreseen topic. Etc. Hundreds of conversations and teachings of John Chrysostom have reached us and have been preserved, of the most varied content: dogmatic, explaining the basic dogmas of the Christian doctrine, exegetical, consistently explaining many of the holy books of the Holy Bible, edifying and moralizing, accusatory, polemical, funerary, laudatory, in honor of St. saints of God and for many different cases of pastoral practice of the preacher. But all this is only part of all his sermons delivered by Chrysostom. During the eighteen years of his priestly service in Antioch, and then in Constantinople, he preached an innumerable number of sermons; but not always, and not everything he said was written down by others, and not everything that was written down has survived to us. Chrysostom's sermons, in terms of the richness of their content, the power of the feeling that animates them, the captivating sincerity and sincerity of the tone, the extraordinary simplicity and accessibility of presentation, and at the same time the amazing energy of the word, the beauty, liveliness, figurativeness of the language, and the strength, finally, of an irresistible influence on the listeners - are incomparable pearls of church oratory, eternal role models, in their own way the height of perfection. The gift of eloquence at that time was valued above all other human talents: orators, like Livanius, enjoyed special respect and attention from their contemporaries. But the pagan eloquence of the orators from the Livanian school was already degenerating into pompous sophistry, into a more or less effective game of loud phrases, artificial figures of speech, crackling, sonorous words that could amuse and delight the ear without capturing or touching the heart. And now, in the mouth of Chrysostom, a completely different eloquence sounded, highly simple in appearance, but full of great inner strength, inspired by the irresistible conviction of the believer, the holy soul of the speaker and warmed by the warmth of his heartfelt fire. Decisively avoiding any artificiality in words, and not at all chasing the external beauty of a phrase, Chrysostom amazed with the extraordinary warmth, cordiality and vitality of his speeches. Every thought of his, every word breathes with power and, so to speak, beats with life, because they were taken by the preacher from life, reality and explained to everyone by well-known, obvious, and therefore irresistibly convincing examples, comparisons, comparisons. Such eloquence, alien to sophistication, but full of soul, heart and, so to speak, bewitching heart, had never been heard in Antioch, and crowds of people listened with amazement and admiration to the inspired speeches of John. Cursive writers flocked to the churches where he served and preached, caught and wrote down all his words, and then sold and distributed them among the people. In the city, thoughts from Chrysostom’s sermons were passed on from mouth to mouth; Quite often, as the latest news, what Chrysostom said was reported and discussed. His sermons were read in assemblies, at feasts, in marketplaces, and many memorized them. The rumor about the extraordinary, amazing preacher spread widely beyond Antioch, one might say, throughout the entire Christian world. Listeners flocked to John's pulpit from other cities, regions, and countries. Heretics, Jews and pagans were interested in the Orthodox preacher and often and in large numbers came to the temple and listened to John. And the influence of John’s speeches on the crowd of people was powerful, extraordinary, almost miraculous. Often, under the impression of his denunciations, groans and sobs filled the church; the listeners cried, fell on their faces, tore their clothes, beat themselves in the throes of repentance and remorse. And even more often, the listeners, delighted with John, according to the then custom, brought into churches from theaters, noisily, furiously applauded and applauded the preacher, which, however, he immediately stopped and which he hotly condemned many times. John became a great favorite of the people; everyone looked at him with admiration, they honored him, they listened to him with sweetness and pleasure, they tried not to miss his conversations, and during the sermon they were afraid to utter even a single word of his. The Antiochians did not know how or with what to express their surprise and affection for John; they did not know how to exalt him, what to call him: they called him the mouth of God, the words of Christ, the mouth of Paul, they called him the golden-tongued, mellifluous, honey-tongued, golden-tongued, etc. p.; but in the end the voice of the people, like the voice of God, gave him the name Chrysostom, with which name he remained forever. According to legend, this name was first uttered in church by a woman: listening with reverent attention to John’s sermon, she did not understand something in it and, as if in oblivion, completely captured by the wondrous harmony of his words, she exclaimed: spiritual teacher, John Chrysostom! You have greatly deepened the wisdom of your words, and my mind cannot comprehend them.” These words were recognized as being spoken at the inspiration of God, and henceforth the great preacher became generally known under the name of Chrysostom. By the way, one event happened in the life of Antioch that further spread the popularity and raised the moral authority of John Chrysostom. On the occasion of special political celebrations, in honor of the tenth reign of Emperor Theodosius and the fifth anniversary of the heir to the throne, Arcadius, in the rank of Augustus, as well as for the military needs of the country, a rather heavy tax was announced on the inhabitants of Antioch. The latter did not like this very much, and a murmur was heard. Dark personalities, lazy scum of the population, adventurers and rebellious, idle people, of whom there were always and everywhere in big cities, and then especially in Antioch, took advantage of this mood of society. The crowds of this rabble, supported by the excited mass of civilians of Antioch, caused a riot: some public buildings were destroyed, statues of the emperor and members of the reigning house were toppled and broken. But soon the distraught people came to their senses, and everyone was overcome by fear, expecting punishment. Such crimes against imperial honor were punished in the most cruel and merciless manner at that time. It seemed to everyone that the rumors that were already flying in the city were completely plausible and probable that the inhabitants of Antioch would be expelled without exception, and many executed, that the city would be destroyed and even its very place would be plowed up. All the dark and hidden leaders and leaders of the rebellion, as always happens in such cases, disappeared, and the inhabitants helplessly abandoned themselves to despair. A gloomy silence took over the city. All public and entertainment places, such as theaters, circuses, baths (which then had the meaning of today's clubs), were closed, and only the Church of Christ opened its arms to the fallen people. The latter rushed to the churches, begging the Almighty for forgiveness and salvation in the misfortune that befell the city. Meanwhile, the trial and investigation had already begun, the residents had already begun to be expelled, tortured and executed. And it was then that the brilliant power of Chrysostom’s eloquence shone with a bright light. In this kingdom of panic, the courageous and encouraging voice of the great preacher was heard. Chrysostom took advantage of these terrible days for his pastoral purposes and at the same time provided invaluable services to his native city and all its inhabitants. Chrysostom delivered a series of conversations to the people regarding the events they were experiencing. With vivid features and with amazing power of words, he painted a gloomy picture of an unhappy city, when residents abandoned their property and sought salvation in flight, when everyone was afraid for their next hour, when horror gave rise to the darkest forebodings, created the most absurd rumors and news. “What can I say and what can I talk about now?” This is how Chrysostom began: now is the time for tears, not speeches, sobs, not words, prayers, not rantings. What we have done is so terrible, the wound is so painful and incurable that only the highest heavenly power can help us. My voice breaks from crying, sobs hinder my words. I wouldn’t even try to speak, but who will disperse the darkness of our sadness and what will illuminate our darkened thoughts?! Let us apply our ears and hearts to the teachings of the Lord. We always came here with joy before; Let us now cast our sorrow on the Lord. Let us not turn away from Him in the days of our sorrow, and He will not reject us who are sorrowful - He will take us under His protection, He will restore us to peace, He will change our crying into joy!.... Let us not lose heart, let us not cry and be afraid: He who shed His blood for us will not deny us salvation even now!” Words of compassionate love and bright hope met a warm echo in hearts suppressed by despondency and despair. The horror and hopelessness gave way to a quieter, more conscious sadness and contrition. Chrysostom completely captured the souls of the troubled people; he gathered the confused thoughts of his flock, pacified and brought the people to reason. He drew the most sincere tears of repentance for the crime committed and for all sins and vices in general; and on the other hand, he managed to encourage the people with hope for heavenly protection and royal mercy. Chrysostom inspired the people, and, taking advantage of this opportunity, raised in them the most blissful, Christian mood. By the way, Lent has arrived. For whole weeks the Antiochians lived only in the joy of the church, they only waited and longed to hear the energetic, powerful and encouraging speech of Chrysostom, only in him did they see their great father, comforter and friend. Meanwhile, the elderly Bishop of Antioch, Flavian, went with a touching speech, composed by Chrysostom, to Constantinople, to the Emperor Theodosius, to beg forgiveness for the criminal Antiochians. Very large, this speech to the emperor is a wonderful example of the power, strength and persuasiveness of the human word. It’s hard to even choose, so to speak, for show, any parts of it, all of it is lovely, perfect. Remembering the many benefits shown by Theodosius to the Antiochians, Bishop Flavian, in the words of Chrysostom, among other things says to the king: “We have angered you, merciful sovereign, gentle father; but we suffer terribly! We are ashamed to look at the sun, tears of shame burn and darken our eyes... But, sir, there is a cure for our wounds. Once God, having created man, gave him paradise; but through the envy of the devil, man destroyed his paradise and insulted his Creator. And God, in immeasurable mercy, forgave man and, instead of an earthly paradise, opened the kingdom of heaven to us. Do the same, Christ-loving sovereign, and you too! Do not execute us and our city, and thus do not fulfill the desires of the demons who inspired us to commit a crime, but cover our sin with your love, becoming like the merciful God!... We are not the only ones asking for ourselves, all of Christianity is asking you for us; for the entire universe is waiting for your decision. Hearing your merciful judgment, both Greeks, Jews, and barbarians will exclaim: what wonderful power is in the Christian faith! How great is the God of Christians, who overcomes human nature and makes an offended person a good-natured angel!... Execution and punishment are easy and common to everyone, but to spare and have mercy on offenders is a gift of God’s chosen ones... I came to you, sir, not only from the Antiochians: the Lord himself sends me, his servant, to you to remind your noble heart of the holy promise: if you forgive a person their sins, Your heavenly Father will also forgive you. Remember now, sir, your last day and wash away your human sins with this good deed! I do not come to you with gold and gifts, I came to your majesty with the law of the Lord and I beg you: imitate your Lord, who, even though we insult you, is immeasurably good and merciful to us! Do not put us to shame in our hope, do not reject our prayer!״.... And the prayers were crowned with success. Deeply moved, the kind and wise Emperor Theodosius, after listening to the speech, only answered: “If our Lord himself was crucified by His servants who had been blessed by Him, and being crucified, prayed for His crucifiers, then how can I, a man, not forgive people like me?!” He granted Antioch complete forgiveness and even urged Flavian to quickly return to his city and calm down its inhabitants, who were tormented by fears. Flavian returned just in time for Easter and brought the purely bright, joyful news of forgiveness to the Antiochians. Thus, Chrysostom’s assurances and encouragements were fulfilled and, thanks mainly to his eloquent word of prayer before the emperor, the terrible thunderstorm passed. This was the greatest triumph of Chrysostom. Even the pagans, who in general fear went to listen to Chrysostom and were now convinced, as it were, of his miraculous spiritual power, masses received holy baptism from him and became Christians. Chrysostom priested in Antioch for more than eleven years. In an innumerable mass of words, spoken here from the church pulpit, he explained many of the books of St. scriptures, denounced and overthrew the heresies and church schisms that arose at that time, but most of all he corrected the behavior and raised the morality of the Antiochian Christians. Especially in this regard, his numerous sermons are remarkable, powerful and touching, for example. against religious and moral frivolity, lack of faith and superstition, against luxury and fashion, against shows, theaters, circuses, in defense of slaves, the poor and the sick from cruelty towards them, etc. In Antioch, Chrysostom spent the flourishing, best years of his life. And despite tireless work, constant tension, and a strictly ascetic life, these were his happiest years. He experienced a high sense of moral satisfaction, seeing and knowing that his labors and efforts were not in vain, that his flock loved him, listened to him, and at least wanted to obey him. In fact, a living mutual communication was established and, one might say, an ideal relationship between this ideal shepherd and his flock. Chrysostom literally conquered the heart of the people, and this heart was tied, attracted and gravitated to the charming personality of Chrysostom by invisible but powerful moral bonds. The closest spiritual connection and sincere heartfelt love of the people for Chrysostom was a majestic and touching phenomenon. The people literally yearned for Chrysostom, they were deprived of peace and joy when, due to ill health or as a result of Chrysostom’s absence, they did not see or hear him for a long time. The appearance of Chrysostom at the pulpit, after even a short separation, caused a stormy movement among the people: uncontrollable exclamations, cries of joy and delight, like a general sigh from the chests of the people, resounded in the vaults of the church. Such love of the people could not help but resonate in the most noble and loving heart of the great teacher. And he, not only as a shepherd, suffered, was sick, tormented by the ailments and sorrows of his flock, but simply, as a person full of compassion, love and goodwill towards his listeners, he was able to miss them, grieve, and cry. “I left you for just one day,” he says, for example. Chrysostom upon returning from some small trip: and it seemed to me that it was as if I had not seen you for a whole year - I was so sad and bored being away from you.” “What tormented me most of all,” Chrysostom says another time, having recovered from his illness: separation from you, my beloved! After all, your love is dearer to me than my health.” One day Chrysostom fell ill from overwork and decided to leave Antioch for a few days and rest in a mountain monastery; but the flock bombarded him with letters in which they begged him not to leave them for a long time, but to return to them as soon as possible. And Chrysostom returned. ״So, do you remember me? he began, appearing at the pulpit: not for a moment could I forget you. I remembered your zeal for my conversations, your love for preaching, your goodwill towards the preacher, I generally contemplated all the goodness that distinguishes you, and this eased the melancholy of my separation. you. Sitting and standing, at rest and in motion, at home and outside, everywhere and always these thoughts about you haunted me. Even in my sleep, at night, as during the day, I was nourished by the sweetness of the memories of you. I could not resist your requests; I preferred to return to you without having recovered, rather than, while waiting for recovery, to languish with longing for your love. And so I got up and came to you.” What genuine sincerity, what mighty power of Christian love breathes, for example, in the following appeal of Chrysostom to his flock: “I carry you in my heart, you occupy all my thoughts.” There are many of you, a great people, but my love is also great, and no one will be cramped in my soul. I have no other life besides you, no other worries except concern for your salvation! And the people, I repeat, repaid their great and loving shepherd with fiery love. The people humbly and obediently listened to his formidable reproaches, cruel words of reproaches and accusations. But much more reprimands and denunciations were heard from the pulpit. The frivolity, inconstancy in goodness, and the depravity of the Antiochians so often evoked thunders of righteous indignation and anger from the lips of Chrysostom. “I don’t want your applause, I don’t want this noise!” For example, Chrysostom energetically calls out: I demand that in silence you listen to me and apply my instructions to life - that’s the kind of praise I need! You are not in the theater and I am not an actor: this is a spiritual school,” etc. ״What is this? For example, Chrysostom calls out another time: the church is being turned into a theater! Women come here dressed indecently and shamelessly; and behind them come the shameless ones. It seems that women cannot find a more convenient place to seduce them than church! They also buy and sell here - it’s more convenient than in the square; Here they gossip and spread the news! Is this tolerable? Is it possible to demolish this? Every day I get tired here, I’m tormented in order to bring you benefit, and you leave here with great harm.” Etc. Such and similar menacing, stern speeches, truly a powerful spiritual father, were constantly heard from the lips of Chrysostom. And there were people, incorrigibly frivolous, hopelessly empty and deeply unscrupulous, who were angry with Chrysostom for these denunciations of his, reviled him and slandered him; but there were only a few of them, the vast majority of listeners invariably loved Chrysostom, since even in his harsh, stern words they saw the sincerity and warmth of his soul, they sensed and caught in their hearts the dominant tone of love in all and every speech of Chrysostom. The fame of the great preacher, an extraordinary orator, spread far beyond the boundaries of the Antiochian church and spread more and more loudly to all ends of the then Christian world. When the archbishop's see became vacant in Constantinople at the end of 397, no one could be found more suitable and worthy to occupy this see: at the direction of Eutropius, then a temporary worker under the new emperor Arcadius, John Chrysostom was elected. Since, alien to the shadows of vanity and lust for power, Chrysostom would not have voluntarily wanted to take this, the highest church position in the empire, and since, on the other hand, the people of Antioch, who selflessly loved Chrysostom, voluntarily, without resistance and perhaps even without indignation, would not have given up, would not have released Chrysostom from Antioch, then it was decided to take him by cunning. On behalf of the emperor, one of the dignitaries of the empire invited Chrysostom, supposedly for negotiations about some important matter, to the church of St. martyrs, which was located outside the city, outside Antioch. And then the emperor’s messengers grabbed Chrysostom and put him in a carriage prepared for that purpose. Chrysostom was brought to Constantinople under strong escort. – Reasoning humanly, Chrysostom had never suffered a more serious misfortune in his entire life than his forced appointment to the see of Constantinople. Not the patriarchal miter, but a crown of thorns they put on him..., Not only did he not want or seek any promotions, but he was captured by deception and forcibly brought to Constantinople, Chrysostom immediately became convinced that all resistance was in vain, and, already seeing the special will of God in what had happened, he submitted. On February 26, 398, he was consecrated to the rank of archbishop by a council of bishops, many of whom looked at Chrysostom with envy and discontent, since they themselves harbored ambitious plans for the oldest and most honorable see of Constantinople in the empire. Among the latter, the Alexandrian Archbishop Theophilus, a cunning and vindictive man, especially stood out. He harbored a great anger in his soul against Chrysostom and subsequently brought him a lot of torment. For anyone else, the high rank of archbishop of the capital might have brought happiness and satisfaction, but for Chrysostom it was a great cross, which prematurely led him to a martyr’s end. Chrysostom's fame as an extraordinary orator and preacher preceded him in Constantinople. They were waiting for him, they wanted him, although, more likely, they waited and wanted him not as a holy man, a shepherd and a great teacher, but as a rarity, as a celebrity who was interesting to see and interesting to listen to. And now a new, vast and very neglected, uncultivated field of activity opened up before Chrysostom. Even so, the recently created new capital, Constantinople, with the privileges that were given to the first settlers, attracted masses of the most diverse people, different nationalities and different confessions. In addition, soon after Constantine the Great, Constantinople was engulfed by Arianism, so that even the episcopal see of Constantinople was repeatedly occupied by heretics. Orthodoxy was suppressed and insulted here; there was wide freedom and free space for all kinds of errors of mind and vices of will. The great ascetic, holy ascetic, Chrysostom found himself in the midst of an effete, corrupted metropolitan society, with which he could have nothing in common and before which the zealous archpastor of the church and thunderous preacher could not and did not remain silent. With apostolic zeal, Chrysostom began his difficult holy feat. He entered into direct communication with his new flock through his great God-given talent - the word. A few days after his ordination to the rank of archbishop, Chrysostom spoke his first word to the people. Unfortunately, this word has not survived to us. But it is known that it had a striking, enchanting effect on Chrysostom’s new listeners. Word quickly spread throughout the city that in the person of the new archbishop, the people of Constantinople had indeed received a previously unheard-of, unprecedented speaker who was worth listening to. And then Chrysostom’s pulpit was literally besieged by a crowd of people. Chrysostom was pleased and touched by such attention to his words. “I haven’t talked to you yet,” he says at the beginning of one of his first words: “and with my soul I loved you, as if I had always lived with you.” I feel that I am already tied to you with strong bonds of the most sincere love.” – This is how the tirelessly energetic, ebullient, multifaceted activity of Chrysostom in Constantinople began and then expanded widely. There is no way in a short word to review and illuminate this gigantic work of Chrysostom, and if necessary, I will only name, count, only indicate in a few words entire complex areas, entire enormous spheres of the archpastoral activity of John Chrysostom. First of all, this was an administrative, archpastoral activity. Chrysostom energetically and courageously set about correcting the Constantinople clergy and clergy, which at that time was not inferior in vices and effeminacy to secular society. He wrote two large books against moral depravity, especially intolerant, flagrant and sinful among the clergy; in these books, as in the mass of church teachings on the same topic, Chrysostom shames, convinces, and threatens. Considering himself responsible before God for the spiritual flock entrusted to his leadership, Chrysostom was alien to the cowardice that is so common in ordinary people, and he did not limit himself to only half measures that are often disastrous in life. According to the figurative expression of one ancient biographer, Chrysostom, as a bold operator, did not stop before fire and iron, that is, before strong and decisive measures, just to raise the dignity of the pastorate, cleanse the clergy from unworthy members, free the clergy from fair criticism and direct its good influence on the people. Many unrepentant and hopelessly fallen clergy, even bishops, at the insistence of the high priest, unyielding in holy zeal, had to vacate the places they had unworthily occupied and disgraced by their behavior. With caring love, embracing all the churches and local ones, dependent on the capital's see, Chrysostom not only established constant active relations with the bishops and the clergy of these churches in general, but also visited them himself. So, for example, in February 400, sick, in bad weather, he made a hundred-day trip to Asia, called by historians “apostolic.” After a difficult and dangerous winter voyage, due to the lack of roads, he walked on foot to Ephesus, where he gathered up to 70 bishops. At this council, many perplexities were resolved, disorder and disorder in church life were eliminated, several bishops and many clergy were removed from their positions. Blessed Theodoret, subsequently, spoke about Chrysostom, recalling his apostolic journey: “Ephesus saw you and called you new, second John; Ephesus heard you and remembered the heavenly thunder that was once heard there from the lips of the first John, the Apostle Theologian.” Further, Chrysostom’s activity was missionary. In view of the danger and great evil brought into the religious life of the country by the Arians, Novatians, Manichaeans, Marcionites and other heretics, Chrysostom set the goal in every possible way to raise Orthodoxy in the eyes of the people, to make it more majestic, to attract to it the attention and favor of the frivolous and unstable population of Constantinople. Among the measures taken in this direction by Chrysostom, I will note one, very happy, useful and especially attractive: in contrast to the various heretical religious ceremonies that confused and captivated the people, Chrysostom organized majestic, grandiose Orthodox processions, with candles, torches, sacred hymns, and public singing. The nightly religious processions, church processions and liturgical meetings introduced by Chrysostom made a particularly striking impression on the people. Chrysostom himself was very fond of these night vigils and enthusiastically attracted the people to them: “the night was not created at all for sleep alone,” he said: the Church of God is awake even at midnight. Get up too, Christian! Contemplate and enjoy this chorus of heavenly bodies, this deep silence of the night, its mysterious silence. Bow before the Providence of your Lord! After all, at night your soul is purer, lighter, it rises more freely up and down; and darkness and silence more strongly dispose her to contemplation. When else, if not at night, do the plants emit a fragrance! So your soul perceives the dew of heaven more freely at night. What is burned during the day lives and refreshes at night.” Chrysostom drew attention to the many tribes and nationalities that were not yet enlightened by the light of Christ that were part of the empire or neighboring it, and made active efforts to spread the true faith among them. He organized societies, brotherhoods of missionaries, entire missionary squads, and sent them even to wild peoples, to distant countries, to the east and north - to Phenicia, Arabia, Persia, to the Goths and Scythians, to the tribes that inhabited the borders of present-day Russia, in the plains between the Danube and the Dnieper. Chrysostom sought funds for the maintenance of these missions, built a church in the newly enlightened countries, organized bishoprics in them, and introduced worship for them in their native language, for example. Gothic, language, etc. Further, Chrysostom’s activities in Constantinople were charitable. Having reduced his personal needs and expenses to the extreme, he gave all the very rich funds of his department to charity. In addition to the constant distribution of alms to the poor and beggars, in addition to constant donations to the charitable institutions of Constantinople that existed before him, Chrysostom, using his personal funds and those received from the rich people he disposed of, organized very large and then famous charitable institutions in Constantinople, namely: he founded in the city a huge hospital for the sick and an equally huge hospice for strangers and homeless people. The maintenance of these institutions and their improvement was the constant and, one might say, favorite concern of Chrysostom. It is not for nothing that in his sermons he so often calls on and disposes the rich to charity, and so ardently glorifies the Christian virtue of almsgiving. It is known that Chrysostom strove for the complete destruction of beggary and poverty in Constantinople and already dreamed of creating a comfortable, fraternal relationship between his flock, in the likeness of the leading Christians of Jerusalem. It is impossible, further, not to mention Chrysostom’s liturgical activities - to improve, improve and streamline public worship. An eternal monument to these concerns and labors of Chrysostom is the rite of the Divine Liturgy of Chrysostom, which he compiled and is generally accepted for all times and among all Orthodox Christians. But the most important activity of Chrysostom, in which he was truly inimitably great, was preaching activity. Here, first of all, it is necessary to note the huge section of his exegetical conversations. Continuing the work of explaining the word of God that he began in Antioch, here in Constantinople he gave exemplary interpretations of the book of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of the Apostles in their simplicity, accessibility and at the same time in depth of thought, completeness of understanding. Paul to Philippisia, to Kolosai, to Hebrews and other sacred books. But the most enormous part of Chrysostom’s preaching activity consists of his moral, edifying and accusatory teachings, and Chrysostom had to deal with the same orders of his flock as in Antioch, but only to an even worse degree, to a greater extent. Depending on this, Chrysostom’s Constantinople sermons - against spectacles, immorality, effeminacy, fashion, debauchery, gluttony, frivolity in faith, etc. - breathe, as it were, with even greater energy of words and intensity of feeling. And all this multilateral, vigorous activity of Chrysostom was an extraordinary success, apparently bringing good fruits and results. And the religious and moral life of the inhabitants of the capital little by little began to take on a more comfortable, orderly appearance. The indomitable, truly apostolic zeal of the archpastor had an irresistible effect, at least on the simple, more virgin hearts of the common people. The success of Chrysostom’s sermons here, in Constantinople, was enormous and extraordinary. As was the case in Antioch, no church in Constantinople could accommodate the masses of people who wanted to listen to John; There was usually an incredible crush near his pulpit; cursive writers at different ends of the church recorded his speeches, which were then widely distributed among the people in the capital and beyond. Applause, loud sighs, crying, sobs, etc. manifestations of uncontrollable excitement of feelings in the listeners often disrupted the smooth or stormy flow of Chrysostom’s speech, and sometimes brought tears of tenderness in the eyes of the preacher himself. The crowd saw off Chrysostom outside the church and enthusiastically took upon themselves the voluntary responsibilities of guarding and protecting their beloved archpastor from all dangers and sorrows; very often hundreds of townspeople spent whole nights at the doors of Chrysostom when some kind of trouble threatened him. Seeing and knowing such devotion and love of the people, Chrysostom, indeed, had reason to address his listeners with approximately the following speeches: “You are my everything; you are my father, my brothers, and my children; you are my members, my body and my life! You are my crown and consolation; you are my anointing, my light!” And such words, moreover, breathing with Chrysostom’s power and sincerity, literally shocked the crowd, unspeakably inspired them, captivated them even more and attracted them to the great archpastor. During the Constantinople period of Chrysostom’s life, there were special cases, exceptional events that further strengthened Chrysostom’s moral connection with his flock and further advanced and raised his authority in the eyes of the latter. So, for example, at the end of the first year of Chrysostom’s ministry in Constantinople (in 398), a terrible disaster broke out over the city - a great earthquake. A terrifying underground noise was heard; then the earth cracked in many places, water gushed out from the cracks, fire burst out, and terrible suffocating smoke rose; The waters of the Bosphorus literally boiled and overflowed the banks, flooding the city. Menacing clouds covered the sky with impenetrable darkness, lightning cut the air in all directions with its fiery arrows. Buildings and dwellings cracked and fell apart, burying many under their ruins. The imperial family, dignitaries, city governors and masses of citizens fled the city. In this kingdom of horror and panic, the courageous archpastor was not at all at a loss and remained unshakable. After the disappearance and dispersion of the authorities, he alone remained in the capital, as its master, chief and comforter of the people. And he managed to restore order in the capital with his self-control; he gathered the distraught residents near the church, encouraged them, and calmed them down. And when the disaster had passed and those who had fled returned to the city, Chrysostom opened a series of conversations on this malice of the last days: with fiery colors he depicted the troubles and torments he had experienced, without failing to show to his listeners the moral reasons that brought down this wrath of God on them. And in order to further strengthen the frightened people in a good, religious mood, Chrysostom arranged a grandiose ceremony of transferring St. the relics of the martyrs into a magnificent new church, on the other side of the Bosphorus, nine miles from Constantinople. This celebration, in which many thousands of people took part, with candles lit, hymns sung, at night, made an enthusiastic impression on all those present. Looking at the countless mass of believers there, far from the city, Chrysostom exclaimed in emotion in his speech: “It’s as if some kind of sea spilled here from the city itself!” - a sea not raised by a storm, not threatening collapse, safe from underwater stones. This sea spilled like a river of fire, from the abundance of lamps - across the sea and over the land... What should I say now? I'm full of fun, I'm beside myself! I rejoice, I am carried away with an admiring soul, I am enchanted by this spiritual joy; I fly and play for joy that this desert has become a populous city, and the city remains a desert!” The sincere delight of the beloved archpastor raised the mood of the people even more. The rejoicing of the people was complete and the impression was indelible. The people were intoxicated by this exceptional religious joy and were deeply grateful to Chrysostom for this, loudly expressing their grateful feelings to him. A similar event happened in the second year of Chrysostom’s priesthood (399), when, just in the days of Passion Week, an extraordinary storm broke out over Constantinople and destroyed a lot of buildings and dwellings in it. A terrifying rain, as if in a continuous stream of water, fell from the heavens, devastated the fields, destroyed fruits and plants and destroyed all the well-being of the people. The same panic, confusion and disappearance of the authorities from the city, and also Chrysostom alone - in his usual familiar role as the only representative of the authorities and father, the people's comforter. Taught by the experience of the past, the citizens now fled to the church, to Chrysostom. He announced public prayers and, in front of a countless crowd of people, performed processions of the cross, throughout the city and outside the city, also across the Bosphorus, to the other side, etc. With a word, Chrysostom, this time again, distracted the suppressed thoughts of the people from earthly horrors and filled the consciousness of his flock with a religious mood, Christian hopes. The storm subsided, the inhabitants calmed down; but these services of Chrysostom in the difficult, joyless days could not be forgotten, and the people’s love for him grew and strengthened. It is also impossible not to recall an extremely important incident when Chrysostom appeared as the savior of the fatherland from the invasion of the capital by barbarian foreigners that plunged everyone into horror and threatened with dire consequences. At that time, one young military leader stood out - Gaina, a Goth by nationality, an Arian heretic by religion, a cunning, evil and ferocious man. In 398, he was sent by Emperor Arcadius with an army to Phrygia to suppress the rebellion there. But Gaina treacherously united there with the enemies of the empire and, at the head of foreign troops, headed for Constantinople. Emperor Arkady, in order to tame and appease this barbarian, agreed to declare him the commander of all the troops of the empire. But this did not disarm Guy. He made outrageous demands one after another to the emperor. For example, he demanded the heads of some consuls, faithful servants of the fatherland, and demanded concessions to the Arians from several Orthodox churches. And only the great, truly selfless energy and protests of Chrysostom broke the wild will of the wild rapist: he gave in and abandoned his advances. But then soon Gaina, bored with peace and tranquility, again raised an open rebellion in Thrace. Having gathered huge hordes there, he, destroying everything along the way, rushed towards Constantinople with a terrifying thunderstorm. Trembling took hold of everyone; the panic was so great that no one - neither superiors nor subordinates - dared to confront the barbarians. The capital, and with it the empire, found themselves defenseless and were ready to meekly await their bitter fate. And so Chrysostom, at this terrible moment, alone retained his composure and saved his fatherland with his selflessness: he was not afraid of the ferocious and, as one might think, already angry barbarian; He boldly went alone to Gaina to persuade him to calm him down and thus save the capital, the king and the fatherland. And this extremely risky mission, which threatened Chrysostom with death, murder in a barbarian camp, especially with the help of God, was crowned with complete and brilliant success. Even this ferocious barbarian and heretic, Gaina, showed full attention and respect to the saint. Having learned that the glory of the world was coming to him, Chrysostom himself, Gaina, came out to meet him, even with his children, bowed to him and agreed with his admonitions not to destroy people, not to destroy empires. Soon after that, Gaina, in his military scams, ceased his violent existence and died; in any case, at this critical moment, only this, namely the world spiritual force in the person of Chrysostom, defeated the indomitable physical force of barbarism. This was a glorious patriotic feat of Chrysostom, his great spiritual victory that saved the fatherland. Such were the unforgettable works and exceptional merits of the great saint before the people, the church, before the tsar and the fatherland! In general, during that unfortunate reign of Arkady, the disasters and trials to which the fatherland was subjected forced Chrysostom not to limit himself only to church activities. The weakness of the imperial rule forced him to become, in some cases, a political and patriotic figure. In this, for example, story with the Mystery, Chrysostom not only defended religion as a Christian shepherd, but also as a patriot, he risked his life for his homeland and for his king. Meanwhile, a black cloud of anger and a whole storm of hatred, while invisibly and drop by drop, gathered and accumulated over the head of the great saint, and hence the story of all the remaining years of Chrysostom’s life is one of the saddest pages of church history in general. As one would expect, Chrysostom’s strict measures in relation to the corrupt and depraved clergy of Constantinople and the clergy of the country gave rise to a dull murmur against such a zealous and strict archpastor. The mass of clergy, presbyters and bishops who suffered because of Chrysostom’s holy jealousy formed a strong and numerous contingent of Chrysostom’s enemies, who wished for all sorts of trouble for him and hoped for his death. And many representatives of the highest spiritual power, bishops, like Theophilus of Alexandria, were painfully envious, looking at Chrysostom - they envied his position in the see of the capital, and his unprecedented, unparalleled glory, and influence on the people, and they hated him because of his holy apostolic life, which served as a living reproach for themselves. The proximity of the highest aristocracy in the state and the court spheres was a new and even unnecessary burden and grief for Chrysostom. In the midst of this pampered, spoiled and satiated lordship, Chrysostom could not be liked primarily in himself, as a holy ascetic, an unyielding ascetic. Such a person and his whole life, his surroundings, simplified to the most extreme degree, brought precisely to apostolic simplicity and poverty, were incomprehensible and, in any case, unsympathetic to representatives of the fashionable aristocracy. “The intractable monk,” as Chrysostom was called in these circles, who rejected all worldly vanity, secularism, strictly speaking, and in the patriarchal see was a hermit who ate only bread and gave everything to the poor, unshakably straightforward and unwaveringly truth-loving - such a person, in the magnificent capital and in the ranks of the highest, ruling aristocracy, was a decidedly extraordinary and its contrast hurt the eyes. Chrysostom in itself was unbearable for these people, just as bright light is unbearable for sore eyes. But what was even more terrible was that this intractable monk did not want to look indifferently at those around him and did not leave them alone. Ruinous luxury, selfishness, and, depending on this, all sorts of lies of the upper classes and officials met in Chrysostom an unprecedentedly merciless, formidable and unusually strong, witty accuser. Chrysostom's sermons, full of artistic beauty and striking power, involuntarily attracted everyone to his pulpit, including the people he cruelly denounced; These sermons were often the events of the day, they were talked about everywhere, they were written down, rewritten, they were distributed everywhere in public circles, they were read. Among the mass of people, offended by the accusations - and there were too many of them - indignation and embitterment towards Chrysostom formed and grew; the number of his enemies and haters kept increasing. The common people, far from the spheres of power and, due to poverty, less infected with vices and moral laxity, invariably here, as in Antioch, passionately loved the new archpastor and listened to his word with nothing but sincere delight. But vicious and criminal people, ill-wishers and enemies of Chrysostom, were looking for every opportunity and opportunity to catch and blame the holy man; and since nothing sinful, vicious, or compromising could be seen in the life and behavior of Chrysostom, they desperately wanted him, like the Jewish elders once did to the Savior, to convict him in word. And so, in the ranks of the people who admired the sight and speeches of Chrysostom, there were also spies, enemies of Chrysostom, greedily catching every inaccurate word, ambiguous expression, the slightest hint of it, in order to inflate it all and exaggerate it with slander, and then condemn and accuse Chrysostom. In the circle of people who were unkind to him, streams of vile and shameless slander began to spread with the obvious goal of humiliating, dishonoring, and destroying him. Chrysostom's words were distorted and his actions were reinterpreted; he was accused, for example, of greed, stinginess, and pride; They spread the rumor that Chrysostom outraged the people, insulted the authorities, that his ascetic life was only for show, but in secret he indulged in orgies, revelry and the like, extremely absurd, vile and for anyone incredible abominations they wove in the name of a holy, great man. Moreover, some of the most powerful and vicious enemies of Chrysostom even sent spies to Antioch, there, so to speak, to rummage through the young life of the archpastor they hated, to look for any evidence or accusations against him. But, however, these zealous efforts did not lead to anything and did not deliver any necessary data to Chrysostom’s enemies. Chrysostom could not help but see the storm approaching him; but of course this holy man could never stoop to fight against intrigue, slander and baseness with the same weapons generally accepted in the world. Yawning his complete rightness and innocence, he, as a shepherd and as a Christian, was not afraid of earthly malice and was ready to endure everything for the sake of heavenly truth. “Yes, and why should I be afraid?!” he says, for example, in one sermon. ״Is it really possible for me to be afraid of death when Christ Himself is my life! Am I really afraid of losing my property? But I came naked into this world and will take nothing with me from it. Yes, I have nothing, everything I have is in one desire: to live for the good of Christian souls.” Courageously and firmly, like a true Christian, Chrysostom was ready to accept the persecution brought upon him by envy, hatred and all the dark passions of man. Meanwhile, times now, after the death of the wise Emperor Theodosius, have changed and changed very much for the worse. There was no one to find protection and support for the selfless preacher and merciless exposer of human vices and everyday lies. At the head of the empire was the young sovereign Arkady, a kind and pious man, but very weak and characterless. He completely succumbed to the influence of those close to him. His wife Eudoxia stood next to him and led him. She was a woman of almost unknown origin, very beautiful in appearance, but completely unkind in soul, a submissive slave of the passions of luxury and greed, for the satisfaction of which she was capable of allowing any violence and lawlessness. She was introduced to Arkady and became his wife, thanks to the efforts of Eutropius, the chief, so far secret, and then open adviser to the king. Eutropius is a man of very low origin and low spiritual qualities. In his youth, he was sold and resold several times as a slave, and then began his career as a courtier with the more than modest title of a royal eunuch, that is, a bed servant; but thanks to cunning and audacity, he managed to infiltrate the emperor’s trust, and then became an all-powerful royal adviser and leader. Having taken possession of the king, Eutropius, however, surfaced, so to speak, to the surface: he did not hesitate to become the main dignitary of the empire, and appropriated to himself the honorary, proud, ancient Roman title of consul, patrician. As was mentioned, it was the all-powerful Eutropius who elected Chrysostom to the archbishop’s see. But Saint Chrysostom could least of all be bribed with any favors or handouts. For him, the truth of God was above all; Seeing her violations, Chrysostom did not stop at anyone or anything, did not spare himself and did not regret his life. The insightful, wise saint quickly looked at what kind of person his “benefactor” was,” and, of course, there could not be any agreement or unanimity between the holy man and the low temporary worker. By the way, by spreading his autocracy, often subjecting his personal enemies, unnecessary and unpleasant people to unjust persecution, sometimes imprisoning and exiling completely innocent people, with the sole purpose of confiscating their property, appropriating their property, Eutropius rebelled against the primordial and great right of the church, the right of the “holy refuge.” This right consisted in the fact that every person, justly or unjustly persecuted by anyone, could appear in the church, and there, under the shadow of the holy altar, he remained safe and inviolable: no Eutropius could take him from there. It was this sacred right, which indeed was often used by those raped by Eutropius, that was so hateful to the latter. And he insisted, despite the powerful protest from Chrysostom, he insisted before Arkady on the formal destruction of this right. But what was the vicissitude of fate and how cruelly the Lord punished this criminal man, who raised his daring violence against the sacred rights of the church! Very soon after this, Eutropius, with his insolence and rudeness, outraged the Queen Eudoxia, who had once been elevated to the throne: she, taking her children, in tears, fell to her knees before Arkady and complained about the temporary worker. This time the queen's influence prevailed. Arkady expelled Eutropius from himself. This overthrow of the temporary worker, who had brought so much evil to the people, was greeted in the city with stormy delight: crowds of people rushed to take out their anger on the now defenseless Eutropius. So what? – he himself rushed into the church, under its “holy refuge”! With a face distorted in horror, trembling, in convulsions, he grabbed the edge of the throne in the altar. And the great Chrysostom took him under his protection, saved him at the risk of his own life, defended him from an angry crowd of people and soldiers who had already burst into the church and crushed all sorts of obstacles. But the fearless archpastor, throwing the church veil over Eutropius, alone confronted the crowd and with his self-control stopped this stormy flow of popular anger. Eutropius stayed in the church overnight. In the morning the cathedral was again filled with a huge and still excited crowd. During the service, Chrysostom lifted the altar curtain, pointed out to the people the pitiful figure of Eutropius, trembling and crouching near the throne in horror, and pronounced, based on this clear example, one of his most inspired, brilliant words about the vanity and corruption of everything earthly, about the tawdry and fragility of all worldly glory and power. Hostile attitudes toward Chrysostom were not slow to emerge on the part of Eudoxia, who now, after the overthrow of Eutropius, had become even more omnipotent. Eudoxia immediately looked at Chrysostom as a rival for herself, who also had influence on Arkady, an influence, however, for the latter that was painful and depressing, since, due to his kindness and lack of character, Arkady submitted to the authority of Chrysostom and always yielded to him in all very frequent demands and requests - either for the church or for the people, and also listened to instructions and accusations from the courtiers from Chrysostom lies and vices. With her feminine instinct, Eudoxia understood well and saw in the great saint a man who was very unsafe for her, and therefore she only waited for the time to somehow get rid of Chrysostom. It did not take long to wait for reasons for open discord. Chrysostom's thunderous denunciations of the extravagance, dandyism and debauchery of high-society ladies were interpreted by Eudoxia's associates as direct allusions specifically to her and her closest confidantes. And soon an incident occurred in which Chrysostom actually spoke directly to Eudoxia. She was seduced by the property (vineyard) of a widow and, without any legal reason or reason, confiscated it, that is, she simply seized it for herself. The offended widow, deprived of her only property, turned to her father, as the merciful saint was usually called among the poor people. Chrysostom placed the widow and her orphans in a hospice home, and Eudoxia, as a spiritual father, wrote a touching, convincing letter about this. But Eudoxia did not listen to the suggestions of justice, and henceforth began, so to speak, an open campaign against Chrysostom in order to somehow remove from her path the impartial and powerful archpastor with moral authority. All the dark forces were aroused, all the numerous envious people and haters of Chrysostom began to swarm. In order to more plausibly arrange the removal of the highly revered and beloved saint by the people, a kind of council was arranged of bishops hostile to him. The head of this conspiracy was Theophilus of Alexandria, Chrysostom’s long-time envier. This Theophilus is an unworthy man, whom historians sometimes call “amphallaxa,” that is, a carminative, a saddlebag, and sometimes “the new Pharaoh of Egypt.” In August 403, Theophilus came to Constantinople with a large load of fabrics and jewelry - for gifts to the right people. Through persuasion, flattery, gifts and bribery, “Pharaoh” united around himself the worst and dishonest representatives of the clergy and all the enemies of Chrysostom. This is how a “council” was formed, which could not even meet in the city for fear of the people, but sat outside the city, on the other side of the Bosphorus, on the outskirts of Chalcedon. At this false council, statements and slanderous denunciations against Chrysostom were heard from various rogues, disrobed clerics and monks, who now took the opportunity to pour out their anger on the saint who had righteously punished them. In the end, in the name of the “council” a whole series of false, absurd and downright absurd, ridiculous accusations were brought against Chrysostom. For example, he was accused of stealing church property - he was unmercenary, the poorest man in all of Constantinople, who did not have any property and gave everything he owned to the poor! They blamed him for the fact that he eats alone, immoderately, like a Cyclops” (?!) - they blamed, of course, for the fact that Chrysostom never received any so-called guests, just as he himself did not even attend ceremonial royal dinners - although everyone knew that he ate at home almost exclusively on bread. They blamed him, further, for the fact that he “corrupts bishops”, “does not pray in church”, that he “betrayed Eutropius”, etc. Chrysostom was even accused of heresy, of Origenism, i.e. in that sin from which many of Chrysostom’s self-proclaimed and arbitrary accusers, and most of all Theophilus himself, were undoubtedly not free. Although the stupidity and vileness of such accusations were too obvious, nevertheless, under pressure and at the insistence of Eudoxia, Arkady approved the decision of the false council to remove Chrysostom. Soldiers had already been sent to take him and take him into exile. The rumor about the deposition and impending expulsion of Chrysostom quickly spread throughout the city; the people became agitated and moved en masse to defend their beloved archpastor. There were shouts that the accusations against Chrysostom were not fair, that it was impossible to blame him for anything, that it was necessary to assemble a real legal council that would consider this whole matter and unravel the story raised against Chrysostom by his enemies and haters. But Chrysostom, in order to prevent unrest and, perhaps, bloody disasters, himself tried to calm the people. He came to the church and spoke a word to the people. He urged people not to be afraid for him, since he himself was not afraid of anything. “I am not afraid of any earthly threats, just as I do not desire any of the blessings of this world. I am not afraid of poverty, just as I do not desire wealth... And therefore I ask you, my beloved, to calm down. No one and nothing will separate me from you: those whom God has united, people will not separate them. Don’t worry and by this prove your love to me... Don’t be embarrassed, but rather pray. And tomorrow and always I am with you: death itself will not separate us.” The people, indeed, calmed down, seeing the unshakable firmness and courage of their beloved archpastor. Meanwhile, Chrysostom, speaking about mutual love, not temporary, but eternal, and about uninterrupted spiritual communication in the kingdom of God, said goodbye to his flock in his soul and that same night, secretly from the people, left his cell; he went to the shore, where he voluntarily surrendered himself into the hands of the guards. The latter immediately put him on the ship and quickly set sail from the Constantinople coast. When the rumor about Chrysostom's exile spread in the morning, the greatest popular confusion arose. Sobs and screams were heard everywhere; the grief of the people was sincere and inexpressible. At the same time, Chrysostom's judges, Theophilus and his bishops, appeared in the city to calm the people; but Theophilus himself was almost thrown into the sea by the people; and his friend and like-minded person, Bishop Severian, who dared to ascend the see of Chrysostom to speak to the people, was expelled not only from the church, but even from the city. It was necessary to resort to the force of troops, and the city was stained with blood. Seeing the genuine grief of the people and these consequences of what they had done, Eudoxia herself was frightened; her heart trembled and in the depths of her soul she already repented. Meanwhile, the Lord himself, in defense of the innocently injured saint, showed himself with a miraculous and formidable sign. This first and restless, dangerous day after the expulsion of Chrysostom had just passed, when a terrible earthquake occurred on the following night. The whole of Constantinople shook and shook, buildings fell and were destroyed; The groans and cries of the oppressed and ruined were heard everywhere. In this natural disaster, everyone saw God’s punishment for the injustice committed towards the holy man. In the darkness and gloom, amid the roar of underground shocks, frantic human cries were heard everywhere: “The Lord is upon us!” This is God's execution! Woe to us! We will perish if the saint does not return!” But it seems that Eudoxia was the most frightened and frozen in horror. Everything in her rooms rang, fell, was destroyed, and even the bed she was on shook and swayed. Thinking that her last hour had come, she rushed to Arkady with a prayer to immediately return Chrysostom: “He is a righteous man,” she shouted: “God Himself avenges him.” Save us and the empire, bring him back soon!” And so, by order of the emperor, messengers rushed in different directions on horses and on boats to catch up with Chrysostom, since at first they did not even know where to look for him. The messengers were presented with a letter to the saint from Eudoxia, in which she begged him to return to the capital as soon as possible and save everyone from grief and danger: “Holy One!” under the weight of fear, Eudoxia cried out in a letter: “I beg you, do not think that I participated in your deposition.” It is evil and corrupt people who have plotted against you,” etc. When, on the third day after his exile, Chrysostom sailed back to Constantinople at night, the sea and the shore presented a wonderful, magical picture. The whole city was awake and came out to the sea, and the sea became as if on fire from the countless number of torches with which thousands of Christians sailed in boats: songs and hymns in honor of the holy exile resounded across the sea and the city. It is unlikely that any triumphant man has ever been greeted with such joy and enthusiasm with which the people of Constantinople now greeted their father and shepherd. As soon as Chrysostom stepped ashore, the people, like a treasured jewel, picked him up in their arms and brought him to the cathedral church, placing Chrysostom on his pulpit. Excited and extremely tired, Chrysostom said a short word: he thanked the queen out of Christian love and forgiveness and expressed the joy of his soul at meeting with his beloved flock. Peace, tranquility and rejoicing now replaced the horror and darkness of the previous two days in Constantinople. Few days passed peacefully. The peace on the part of Eudoxia, under the trembling of fear, so ardent and sincere, turned out to be only a brief and fragile truce. The fear passed, and old passions and antipathies rose again and began to speak. After all, defeated, humiliated pride is least likely to forgive. And again anger and indignation began to boil against Chrysostom. And soon the opportunity presented itself for a direct, again open, obvious rupture. Intoxicated with ambition, Eudoxia decided to erect a monument to herself alive. And so, in September 403, not more than two months after Chrysostom’s return from exile, a massive silver column with a statue of Eudoxia was erected in the central square of Constantinople, just opposite the altar of the cathedral church of St. Sofia, where Chrysostom usually officiated. The opening ceremony of the monument was accompanied by folk food and various semi-pagan amusements and entertainments. This public festival lasted for several days, accompanied by the sounds of music, the screams of clowns, buffoons, terrible noise and din, which drowned out even the worship in the church. Chrysostom turned to the prefect of the city with a request to somehow protect the church of God from mockery and disgrace. But the prefect was a heretic (Manichaean) and a supporter of Eudoxia. And the noise in the square in the following days not only did not stop, but increased. This was already a direct challenge to Chrysostom, and he, with his characteristic sacred jealousy, used the usual technique - public denunciation. From the church pulpit, Chrysostom uttered a word that has not survived to us, but, according to the concurring reviews of his contemporaries, it was very strong and animated, regarding all the inappropriate and untimely street revelry. Immediately the henchmen reported this to Eudoxia. And now the case of Chrysostom’s “insult” of the Queen arises. The troublemakers, intriguers and haters of Chrysostom raised their heads again. In January 404, the continuation of the same lawless “council” was resumed, from the same former accusers of Chrysostom, with the exception, however, of Theophilus, who was now afraid to appear in person in Constantinople and only from afar, from his Alexandria, nevertheless continued to lead the course of the conspiracy. This time the matter dragged on for a long time, several months; but the course and outcome of the matter can be conveyed in a few words. The self-appointed judges looked for, in addition to the previous ones, new, but similar to the previous ones, the guilt of Chrysostom, and in the end they also decided to remove Chrysostom. This slanderous and decidedly lawless verdict of the illegal “council,” under the increased influence of Eudoxia and her entire party, just as the first time, was approved by the weak, characterless Arkady. An order was made to take Chrysostom into custody and remove him from Constantinople. Meanwhile, the great, holiest days in the Christian world, the last days of Passion Week, have just arrived. On Holy Saturday, according to ancient custom, the archbishop had to perform the baptism of the catechumens. This time there were especially many of them, up to 3,000 people. And so, when Chrysostom was in the church and the sacrament of baptism had already begun, a terrible noise was heard: a crowd of soldiers, mostly wild Thracians, pagans, burst into the temple and desecrated the holy place with terrible violence and atrocities: they seized Chrysostom, took him out of the temple, destroyed and overthrew everything in the altar, struck with saber blows both the newly baptized and the clergy, so that the baptismal fonts were filled with blood. Attempts by the people to stop the outrage in the church caused even greater bloodshed on the streets of the city. Armed pagan soldiers mercilessly cut down, killed and captured Christians who defended John. All the prisons were filled with them, where they spent Easter night singing Sunday hymns; and the churches were empty, because out of fear no one dared to go to them. Even the imperial family, contrary to the ancient custom of attending the solemn Easter service in the Church of St. in all its splendor and splendor. Sofia, now, in view of these unrest in the city, stayed at home. This is how the Holy Resurrection of Christ was greeted in Constantinople in 404. Chrysostom was imprisoned in his cell. He was guarded by guards. The devoted and faithful flock, despite the persecution, also guarded and protected his home for their part. And it is known that there were attempts even on the life of Chrysostom. Twice the bribed murderers penetrated Chrysostom, and both times they were caught and almost torn to pieces by the people. In the end, even now Chrysostom himself did not want to resist lawlessness and, in order not to expose the capital and his faithful flock to new disasters, he voluntarily decided to carry out the decree of the false council on his expulsion. On one of the Trinity evenings, he said to his most devoted friends, several bishops and clergy, who did not leave him in captivity; “Let’s go to church and let’s pray.” He prayed long and fervently. Then he said to those present: “It’s all over and my whole path has been passed; soon you won't see me anymore. But I command you: do not forget to love and respect the church, and therefore, no matter what happens and no matter who is here in my place, obey him, just as you obey me - by this show your love for me! May the Lord be merciful to me, and remember me in your prayers! Then, moved to tears, he hugged everyone and said: “Stay here until I calm down a little.” He crossed himself and left. Since even here, in the church, the murmur of the crowd, worried in the square near the church, could be heard, in order to divert the attention of the people, Chrysostom ordered the horse to be brought to the western doors. Of course, the entire crowd concentrated here, eagerly awaiting the appearance of Chrysostom. Chrysostom went out, but only through the other, eastern doors. Under the cover of the darkness of the night, he headed to the harbor, where he surrendered to the soldiers. The people waited for a long time at the western doors of the church. Finally, suspicion arose... The crowd became agitated, broke down the door to the church fence and entered the church. And on the other side, warriors appeared. A bloody fight ensued; the holy place resounded with curses, groans, and was covered in blood. Assuming that some kind of violence had been done to the archpastor, the crowd of his defenders and guards spread the excitement to the streets of the city. And when the truth became known to the people and they rushed to the harbor, only in the distance could they see the ship that forever carried Chrysostom away from the capital and from the people devoted to him. Screams and groans were heard on the shore and over the sea. The people's grief was boundless. Meanwhile, this time too, a terrible sign of God’s wrath broke out over Constantinople: an extraordinary thundercloud gathered in the sky and a terrifying storm arose. The entire city literally trembled from the incessant and deafening peals of thunder. The hail of extraordinary size killed people and animals and devastated the city. Lightning struck the cathedral, and soon it was all engulfed in a cloud of sparks and smoke. The flame went further, along this central and most luxurious square of Constantinople, reached the Senate, and destroyed this decoration of the capital. The searing heat melted the lead roofs of the Senate and neighboring buildings, and the lead poured into the ground in streams. Columns, statues, marble, gold, bronze, silver, all split and melted, turned into ugly flaming lava. The most magnificent buildings of the city were reduced to ashes. The imperial palace, especially the chambers of Eudoxia, was severely damaged and damaged. But this time, the queen’s heart, petrified in anger at Chrysostom, was not touched and did not want to understand divine admonition. Everyone and she herself, not only that night, but also the whole next day, were busy, distracted by the fire, Chrysostom was forgotten for now. When the fire finally stopped, Chrysostom was already far from Constantinople: on the other side of the sea, he walked along the road to Nicaea, under the escort of the praetorian guard. On July 20, 404, Chrysostom was deposed and removed, and a week later, on the 27th, his successor was already appointed. The chair of the golden-talented, worldly orator was occupied by Elder Arzak, a dumb man; it was not for nothing that his contemporaries nicknamed him “the long-tongued fish.” Chrysostom's enemies apparently triumphed; but not for long. The righteous judgment of God was not slow to punish many of them. For example, one of the bishops who judged Chrysostom, on the way back from the false council, fell from his horse and fell to his death; another fell ill with purulent dropsy and was eaten alive by worms; the third died of malignant erysipelas; the fourth had his tongue so swollen from an incomprehensible illness that he was strangled with it; the fifth, just at the council that condemned Chrysostom, stepped on a corn, and from this insignificant reason gangrene developed and, as a result, a painful death. Finally, just three and a half months after the exile of Chrysostom, Eudoxia also died, she died completely unexpectedly, in the most terrible labor pains. And what happened to the holy exile? Let us briefly trace the history of his further suffering. The three remaining years of Chrysostom’s life were precisely continuous suffering. The anger of the enemies did not leave the expelled innocent sufferer alone. He was sent to more and more remote, wild and inconvenient places for living. So, successively he was in Nicaea, Kukuza, Aravis and, finally, in Comana. Chrysostom’s very journeys from place to place were barbaric torture of the saint. For example, he had barely rested for a few weeks in one place, in Nicaea, when he had to go to Kukuz. The road was very long and unbearably difficult. Chrysostom had to walk on foot, under the escort of pagan guards, who, moreover, were ordered to bypass the cities if possible and stop only in deserted places. Under the scorching rays of the sun, exhausted by fever, eating only stale, moldy crackers soaked in dirty, salty water, which could be found in this area, Chrysostom walked for forty days to Caesarea in Cappadocia. Caesarea was the largest crossroads for Chrysostom, and the people of this large city, who had long heard a lot about Chrysostom, greeted him with joy and honor. But the Bishop of Caesarea (Pharetrius), one of Chrysostom’s most vicious enemies, demanded his immediate removal. Meanwhile, in the area surrounding Caesarea, the Isaurians appeared, a mountain bandit tribe that was the terror of all of Asia Minor; they were pirates at sea and they also carried out predatory raids on land. Therefore, to set off meant to get caught by these barbarians, to go to almost certain death. And yet, at night, a crowd of some dark personalities, sent by Faretri, besieged the house in which the prisoner-priest took refuge; they began to break down the doors and threatened to set fire to the house, so they had to leave Caesarea immediately at night and despite the dangers. But thank God, this night of the dangerous journey passed safely, and during the day Chrysostom could stay in one castle, a few miles from Caesarea. But as soon as night fell, the Isaurians attacked this castle. I had to run again and save myself. On a dark night, along a country mountain path, carved into a rock and strewn with constantly rolling stones, one had to grope forward. But the little horse that was given to Chrysostom here stumbled and fell. The saint hit the stones and lost consciousness. The guards even considered him dead. But he woke up and had to crawl further on his way, through abysses, cliffs, through mountain streams, every minute being exposed to mortal danger and truly suffering as a martyr. After the next thirty days of such a journey, Chrysostom finally reached Kukuz. It was a border village in the mountain wilderness, with an unbearably harsh and disastrous climate for health, absolutely without any comforts of life and under the eternal fear of attack by robbers and savages. In such and such a living grave, hidden from the light and inaccessible to people, Archpastor Chrysostom lived for more than two years. Only temporarily, as a result of the attack of the same barbarians, the Isaurians, on Kukuz, the saint was forced, in the winter of 405, in severe frosts, without a road, through snow-filled mountain abysses and icy forests, to escape to the mountain fortress of Arabis, where he took refuge for several months. This fortress itself was worse than any prison: at that time its forgotten and abandoned inhabitants suffered and died of hunger. But life in Kukuza was a complete martyrdom for Chrysostom. The meek saint himself, not at all as a complaint, is how he described his first winter in Kukuza to one of his friends: “I am writing to you, having risen from the very doors of death. I spent the harsh and cruel winter here even worse than the dead, since I felt and felt only one thing: suffering. For weeks I could not get out of bed. To get rid of the cold, I covered myself with all my rags, lit a fire and lay in an unbearable fume. And on top of that, headaches, vomiting and constant insomnia caused me great illnesses.” And in such a terrifying situation, in extreme exhaustion, Chrysostom retained the imperturbable calm of his meek and gentle soul. Inspired by unshakable devotion to the will of God, he resignedly and even joyfully bore his heavy cross in life. His letters from that time arouse surprise: such vigor and courage emanate from them! Obviously, this great man stood above ordinary earthly temptations, not allowing any cowardly human complaints or lamentations. “Why lose heart in suffering!” For example, Chrysostom exclaims in one letter: “Is it possible not to draw firmness from the divine words of the One who suffered more for us than we do!” How to complain and be depressed when the Lord himself preached the gospel amidst persecution and torment?” In another letter to his friends, Chrysostom writes: “I was expelled from the capital, and I am indifferent to this. Wherever I am exiled, the Lord’s land and its fulfillment are everywhere. And no matter what they do to me, I’m ready for anything: they want to cut me up, Isaiah will be my example; drown me - I will have Jonah in my thoughts; burn me - three youths; throw it to the beasts - I will remember Daniel "... ״Chrysostom's enemies everywhere and in every possible way spread the rumor that Chrysostom was ambitious, proud, that he was burning with the desire to return to his pulpit to deal with them; and meanwhile, Chrysostom wrote this to his friends from Kukuz: ״let no one come to the unfortunate idea of ​​getting me out of here! Let him not think of showing me mercy by this!" “My heart, we read in another letter from Chrysostom, finds the greatest consolation in suffering; my treasure is hidden in them. And I rejoice and bless the Lord, who has granted me the grace to suffer so much.” And the imprisoned saint did not remain inactive. At least in the days of his relative health, he displayed amazing energy and industry. In addition to extensive correspondence with his former friends, bishops, with monastic communities and with Christians who turned to him from all sides (more than 250 of his letters have survived even to us, and many of them are more or less detailed treatises on various theological topics), Chrysostom, even in exile, remained a great figure in the current life of the Christian Church. Living on the outskirts of the then inhabited world, among and near savages, barbarians, rude pagans, he strained all his efforts on the holy work of the mission among these people who were still in the darkness and shadow of death. Collecting quite abundant funds from his benefactors and admirers, he even now organized entire missionary societies, squads, which he sent to Phenicia, Persia, the Goths, etc. If in exile Chrysostom was pursued by the malice of his surviving enemies, then he was pursued even more in the inaccessibly deaf, distant outbacks by glory, fame, love and respect for him from the entire, one might say, Christian world. Even when Chrysostom went into captivity, in many places Christians greeted him with triumph and revered him as a great man and the glory of the world. For example, the inhabitants of Caesarea bitterly mourned his innocent suffering and loudly called out to him: “It would be better if the sun were eclipsed than your golden lips were silent!” And when Chrysostom settled in Kukuza, a mass of pilgrims from everywhere, especially from Constantinople and Antioch, paved the way to this wild wilderness, hitherto unknown to the world, to the great exile. Secular people, clergy, monks, bishops, pious women, crowds and lines made their way to Kukuza. All the honest clergy of the Far East openly and secretly maintained relations with Chrysostom, so that almost more than ever, the great saint became the authority and representative of the church for the entire Christian world. Rich offerings were sent and brought to him, significant sums of money, which he devoted entirely, to the last penny, to the work of mercy and to the needs of the mission. Hundreds of letters flew to him from many of his admirers and admirers, demanding advice, guidance, or simply blessings from him. In a word, the overthrown and imprisoned archpastor not only did not fade, but appeared as an even greater light to the world, and insignificant Kukuza became more glorious than Constantinople, because it contained within itself the greatest of people. The party of Chrysostom's haters, and now, after the death of its most important leaders, is still numerous and strong, could not help but feel its shame - despite the visible, outward triumph. To their shame and considerable horror, they said: “Look, this defeated, dead man is becoming terrible for the living, for the victors.” Observing the attraction of Christians to Kukuz, to Chrysostom, they repeated at that time the well-known phrase: “all Antioch is in Kukuz!” And it was precisely this circumstance, the great popularity of John, that prompted his enemies, taking advantage of the same weakness of Arkady, to hide the “luminary of the earth,” as Chrysostom was then called, somewhere further away, into an even more inaccessible, dark and terrible place, where the golden lips would finally have grave silence as soon as possible. In June 407, it was ordered to transfer Chrysostom to Pitiunt. This is already the most extreme and remote place in the empire, in the wild and scorching desert, where barbarians reigned and plundered unhindered. As a matter of fact, this was a conscious and deliberate death sentence for Chrysostom. And everything was obviously aimed at achieving this barbaric and villainous goal as surely and quickly as possible. It was ordered that already extremely weakened by illness and adversity, the almost 6-year-old elder, Chrysostom, made this long journey on foot, barefoot and with a speed beyond his strength. Two soldiers were appointed to accompany him, rude pagans who knew neither pity nor compassion. Yes, however, they were very clearly made to understand that they did not need to worry at all about whether the prisoner would be brought to the place alive, or whether he would die on the way. It was clear that Chrysostom was sentenced to death, but which, however, could not be directly called murder. It is impossible to think that Chrysostom himself did not understand this. But nevertheless, the innocent passion-bearer with a cheerful spirit set off for a new martyrdom, on his last, truly mortal journey of the crusade. Chrysostom's dying torments continued for a very long time, three whole months. After 90 days of non-stop travel, in conditions terrifying for the exhausted old man, Chrysostom, barely alive, passed through the city of Comany (within the now Russian possessions: in the Caucasus Mountains, not far from the northern shore of the Black Sea). A few miles from Koman there was a secluded church in which the martyr, St. Basilisk. It was in this lonely sacred shelter that Chrysostom stopped, since he was absolutely unable to go further. But the cruel companions dragged him by force. However, they soon became convinced that the death hour of the new martyr was approaching, and they picked him up and carried him in their arms back to the church of St. Basilisk. Having gathered all the rest of his strength, the saint stood up in the church and asked for white clothes, which he donned. Then he received Holy Communion. secrets and continued to pray, aloud pronouncing his last earthly sighs and prayers to the Lord. His voice soon began to weaken and fade. His body leaned on the church floor. Clearly, rarely, he said: “Thank God for everything!” He crossed himself, stretched out and barely whispered: “Amen.” With this final sacred word, the golden lips closed forever. The righteous spirit of the great martyr flew to the heavenly abodes, where there was no illness, sorrow or sighing. By a significant coincidence, it was September 14 (407), that is, the day when all Christians remember the mortal passion of the Savior and worship the holy cross of Christ. The news of the death of Archpastor Chrysostom, ascetic and martyr, quickly spread everywhere. Christians flocked in large numbers from all sides to Comana to venerate the sacred ashes of the greatest father and teacher of the church. Saint John Chrysostom was buried there, at the place of his blessed death, that is, in the church of St. Basilisk, next to the relics of this martyr. Time passed; one after another, all the last enemies and haters of Chrysostom quickly went to the grave. And he seemed to grow larger and higher and rise above the ground. Rumors and memories of the extraordinary, great saint archpastor, of his ascetic life, his amazing deeds of mercy, of his wondrous, golden teaching and innocent martyrdom, spread more and more among the people. So 30 years passed, and then one day, the new, already fourth successor of Chrysostom, the pious and holy Archbishop Proclus, on the day of Chrysostom’s memory, spoke a word of praise to him. The people interrupted the preacher’s speech with exclamations: “Give us back our John!” We desire to have the body of our Father!” Proclus immediately conveyed this desire of the people to the emperor. And the emperor, also new, the pious Theodosius II, in agreement with all the clergy, decided to satisfy the ardent desires of the entire people, to return at least only the sacred ashes of Chrysostom to Constantinople. In 438 The emperor sent a solemn embassy to Comany and with it his own handwritten message to John Chrysostom. With reverent triumph, the relics of the saint, which turned out to be completely incorruptible, were lifted from under the church bushel. The royal message was read before the relics and given, placed in the hands of the saint. ״Universal teacher and my spiritual father! In this message, Emperor Theodosius appealed: to you, as to a living person, I send this petition. Grant me and your flock forgiveness! Forgive us and come to us, your children, like a beloved father - bring joy to those who love you with your coming! I do not command, but I beg you, most honest Father: give yourself to those who are waiting for you! Come in peace to yours, and yours will receive you with love!” Many people gathered to celebrate and accompany the dear shrine, and many miracles and healings took place during these days. For example, an amazing miracle happened in front of everyone at the very first moment after the removal of St. relics from the ground: one lame man, who squeezed his way to the coffin, with great enthusiasm and faith, grabbed the towel that was used to remove the coffin from the ground, and applied it to his sore, bent leg: his leg immediately stretched out and became healthy. The royal embassy with the honorable relics of John Chrysostom immediately set off on the return journey from Koman to the capital. This return procession of the saint to his cathedral city was highly solemn and majestic. Throughout the vast distance from Koman, the holy relics were carried in the arms of a wave of people, growing more and more and increasing. When the grand procession approached the Bosphorus, its waters, as before, upon the return of Chrysostom, came to life, adorned with a countless flotilla of boats, ships, crowded with Orthodox people, with bright torches in their hands and with enthusiastic cries and hymns of praise to the saint on their lips. The magnificent imperial yacht took upon itself an expensive, passionately desired and enthusiastically celebrated shrine; and she smoothly rushed along the waters of a seemingly frozen and silent strait towards the capital. And here, on the shore, was all of Constantinople, with the emperor and the royal family at its head. The holy relics were transferred to the church and placed in the middle, on the bishop's pulpit, where previously the golden lips of the deceased had so often opened and from where, one might say, his golden words thundered throughout the whole world and for all time. The emperor took off his purple imperial purple and reverently covered the holy relics with it, and he and his sister, the princess, knelt before the relics. Shedding tears, loudly and publicly, the emperor asked the kindly saint for forgiveness to his parents, Arkady and Eudoxia, who brought the holy sufferer so much sorrow and grief... Then, before lowering the relics into the reliquary prepared near the throne, Archbishop Proclus raised the head of the saint in front of the whole people, and everyone, together with the archbishop, enthusiastically and loudly They exclaimed: “Our Holiness Father, accept again your holy throne!” The entire people wept in great religious ecstasy; the spiritual joy and jubilation of Christians at this time cannot be expressed in any words. 1500 years have passed since then. And now the whole baptized world is again resounding with festive rejoicing in the name of Chrysostom. The consciousness of each of us will see the great saint risen from the darkness of centuries, in wondrous grandeur and a charming aura. His memory has not faded over these long centuries; she is alive and sacred in the world, his name is a native name for all Christians. His holy, martyr’s life and incredible labors have not sunk into eternity without a trace - no, the trace of Chrysostom runs like a golden thread through the entire history of Christianity, the legacy from him in our holy church is enormous. On Chrysostom, on his golden words, entire tribes and peoples were brought up; From his great spirit, countless teachers, shepherds, and preachers were born and on his books developed and grew in the Christian Church. But no one has yet compared with him and no one has eclipsed him. In the annals of Christian enlightenment and eloquence, there is not yet a name more glorious, more deserved, and more speaking to the mind and heart: the name of Chrysostom shines even now, as the only and incomparable one. And now, the selfless and ascetic life of Chrysostom and his marvelous oratorical talent are the subject of admiration and amazement. As before, Chrysostom’s works captivate, enchant, and captivate readers. Through the darkness and confusion of centuries, for us and, of course, for generations after us, it sounds powerful and victorious, all-conquering and all-delighting words of the eternal truth of Christ and high, holy edification. And to this day he is the most necessary and most beloved interpreter of the word of God by Christians, and until now his writings are an unattainable model for imitation and an inexhaustible source for enlightenment. The power and brilliance of Chrysostom’s wondrous sermons have not faded at all, amazingly simple and infinitely meaningful, always incredibly interesting, lively and never boring, resounding like a stormy stream from a fiery and loving heart and enveloping and igniting hearts. By nature, imprinted with the special gifts of God, his soul enlightened by Christian wisdom, covered in the grace of the Lord and purified in the crucible of asceticism, a truly holy man, a martyr in life and an apostle of love in his writings, a thunderous speaker, a poet-preacher, Chrysostom is the glory of the Church of Christ, the joy of Christians, a miracle in people. The usual title “great” is not enough for Chrysostom: there were several “great” ones, but “Zlatoust” was only one. No matter how they tried to apply this name to some imitators of Chrysostom, it does not cling to them, because by right it belongs only to him alone. Before the shrine and greatness of such a person, only reverent admiration and tender prayer are possible and appropriate. If in our everyday distraction we forget Chrysostom, then let the current triumph of Chrysostom remind us of him and bring him forever closer to our hearts. In our bleak present time, a time of extreme spiritual poverty, may every Christian soul rise up and rejoice from contemplation and moral rapprochement with the mighty, unyielding, great spirit of the great Chrysostom, the mentor, comforter and friend of all of us Christians! As we now celebrate this bright jubilee celebration, let us bow in reverent emotion before the sacred and precious face of St. John Chrysostom and give thanks for it to God, who is truly wondrous in His saints. Glorifying and glorifying Chrysostom, let us exclaim together with Chrysostom: Glory to Thee, God, for everything! Amen". On the history of literature about St. John Chrysostom (Extracts from bibliographic works) This article outlines what can be known about the literature on the life and works of St. John Chrysostom based on two bibliographic works belonging to the mentors of the Kazan Academy. These works: a) Description of the manuscripts of the Solovetsky Monastery, located in the library of the Kazan Theological Academy, parts I, II and section one of part III. Bibliography on the history of the church during the period of the ecumenical councils, published in 1883. From the manuscripts of the Solovetsky Library one can judge the reverent respect that they had for St. John Chrysostom, our pious ancestors of the 13th–18th centuries, who translated and distributed in numerous manuscripts all the most remarkable works of St. John Chrysostom and carefully collected information about him. ״Together with the adoption of Christianity, according to prof. Petersburg Ponomarev Academy, our ancestors also received a precious treasury of the works of St. I. Zl. From the 10th to the 18th centuries, it was a reference book for all Russian people skilled in writing. All Russian church writing was under their strong influence in language, form and presentation. Not only literature, but also the very worldview of the Russian people were formed under the impression of the works of the great teacher. The description of the Solovetsky manuscripts was published relatively recently (in 1881, 1885 and 1898) and the compilers of the Description had at hand the Description of the manuscripts of the Synodal Library and other repositories of ancient Russian manuscripts, to which they carefully point out; - on the other hand, they often make (and in relation to the great works of St. I. Chrysostom one can always say) an indication of where these creations can be found in Greek and ancient Russian publications. From this it is clear that for students of the life and works of St. I. Chrysostom The description of the manuscripts of the Solovetsky Library should have very great scientific value. As for the Bibliography on the history of the church during the period of the ecumenical councils, although this publication, published in 1883, is significantly outdated and since then many more works have been written about St. John Chrysostom and his works, but since with the existence of new works the previous ones are usually subject to oblivion, and yet there is a lot of value in them, it is not superfluous to keep them in mind, especially since in their nature they are distinguished by a different, more pious direction. In addition, the cited book contains not only a list of titles of works about St. I. Chrysostom, but their content is also reported and information about their authors is given in places; and, moreover, not only printed essays are reported, but also handwritten course essays by students of various academies are reported. We will begin with a review of what is given in the book Bibliography on the history of the church during the period of the ecumenical councils. In the book: Russian and foreign bibliography on the history of the church during the period of the Ecumenical Councils (Kyiv, 1883) we find the following references to literature about the life, works and teachings of St. John Chrysostom. About the life of St. John Chrysostom. (578) 7 Bigo in 1680 published in the Greek original “The Life of St. John Chrysostom." Bigo in 1680 published in the Greek original the Biography of St. John Chrysostom." E. Bigot. Palladii er. Helenopolit. Dialog de vita S. J. Chrisostomi. Paris 1680; – According to Kurtz, this biography does not belong to Bishop Palladius of Elenopolis, but to another Palladius, a Roman writer. (1005). Stilting – ״Biography of St. I. Chrysostom." – Placed in the Acta Sanctorum on September 14th. pp. 401 – 709. (747). Kev "Biographies of the most famous church fathers of the first four centuries." About Chrysostom, see vol. III pp. 237–405) 8 (822). Neander. ״St. John Chrysostom" 9. An essay in two parts. The first talks about the upbringing of I. Chrysostom and his service in Antioch; in the second - about his service in Constantinople, his trial and the last days of his life. This major work of Neander, highly valuable in scientific terms, is also distinguished by its edifying direction. V.I. Lebedev partly used it in his work. (See below). Neander had the greatest ability to enter into the worldview of the persons he portrayed. “Neander,” writes Schaff, “lives in his heroes, thinks, feels, acts and suffers with them.” (762). Lebedev V.I., Bachelor of Moscow Academy † 1864 ״Detailed description of the life and pastoral activities of St. I. Chrysostom." Moscow 1860. The work was originally published in the Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers; volumes XIV, XV and XVI. – For a review of the work, see the Orthodox Review for 1860. (1011). Yakhontov I., archpriest. “About the holidays of the Orthodox Church.” The book also contains the life of St. I. Zl., which was reprinted in Spiritual Conversation for 1864. (554). Agapit, archimandrite. ״Life of St. I. Zl. and his pastoral activities." St. Petersburg 1874. (574). Bakhmetyeva. “Stories from the history of the Christian Church from the 1st to the 9th centuries.” Three parts. In the second there is a biography of St. I. Zl. (p. 193 ff.). (645). Gottfried Hermann, aka Menard. ״Life of St. I. Zl. 10 The author treats Chrysostom with the greatest reverence. ״Reading his comparison of Chrysostom with the ap. Paul, writes Schreck, it is difficult to resist giving preference to Chrysostom.” ((...)) 11 . Gaza. “Church history.” Kirchengeschichte (...) 12,. The author makes about St. I. Zl. such a review. “The judicious clarity of the Antiochian explanation and the rhetorical eloquence of Libanius were complemented by the sincerity of his Christian feeling, and he tried, as far as possible for a person, to fulfill the ideal of a presbyter, which he outlined with such enthusiasm in the early years of his life.” (983). Foerster. "AND. Chrysostom in his relation to the Antiochian school 13. (883). “Saint John Chrysostom in the history of Christian society in the 4th and 5th centuries.” Two articles in Orthodoxy. Review for 1873. The author does not give a biography of Chrysostom. He speaks only about the dark features of the social life of his time and how Chrysostom fought against them; describes the Antiochian indignation, the passion of the Antiochians for spectacles, the position of slaves, the material and moral poverty of the proletariat, the luxury and superstitions of the rich, and finally, the vices of the clergy. The image is very picturesque and detailed. (969–970). Thierry Amédée. ״St. John Chrysostom and Empress Eudoxia" 14. The work was originally published in the magazine Revue de deux mondes for 1861–1869, and in 1872 it was published separately. For a review of the essay, see Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment for 1872; – detailed transfer of the contents of the essay to the Government. Review for 1868 Nr. 5 and for 1869 - A complete translation of the work was made by Yu. D. Podgursky in the Proceedings of the Kyiv D. Acad. for 1867–1870 (623). ״St. I. Chrysostom and Stagir.” Article in Voskr. Readings for the XXXIII year of publication. (684). ״St. John Chrysostom and Eutropius." Two translated articles in the Spiritual Bulletin for 1862 from the work of Am. Thierry, published in the magazine Revue de deux mondes. (Mars et Aout 1861). (611). ״St. John Chrysostom and Eutropius." Article in Sunday Reading (XI year of publication). (998). ״Stories from the history of Christ. churches. Chrysostom and Eutropius." Article in the Readings of the Society of Spirit Lovers. education for 1871 (677). Darr. “General history of the church” 15. Multi-volume edition. In volume XI there are the following titles: - Arkady, - Chrysostom and Eutropius (187–208 pp.), - Chrysostom and his critics. Works of Villemain and Thierry (356–372), – Chrysostom and Gaina (399–424), – Chrysostom’s participation in the affairs of the Ephesian Church (424–457), – Chrysostom and Eudoxia (457–486), – Long Brothers (586), – Cathedral under the Oak (537–777), – Exile of Chrysostom. (890). "Deaconess Olympias" Course essay by a student of Kyiv Acad. Prokopovich (Review in the Protocols of the Kiev Academician for 1875–1876, pp. 437–444). (570). “Processes of spiritual judgment in the ancient church.” Article by Prof. T. Barsova in Christian Reading for 1871. By the way, the article talks about the trial of I. Chrysostom (pp. 299–301). (649). Gefele. “History of cathedrals” 16. Volume II of this publication, among other things, describes the councils regarding the Pelagian heresy and the case of I. Chrysostom. (746). Custantus Peter, a Benedictine, published Letters of the Roman Pontiffs. Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum. Here we find two letters from I. Chrysostom to Pope Innocent about his trial in Constantinople (letters 4 and 11) and a letter from Pope Siricius about complaints against St. I. Chrysostom on the part of Theophilus of Alexandria regarding the Origenistic disputes. (737). Koppalik. ״St. Cyril of Alexandria" 17. The author, among other things, dwells on the question: how and why it happened that Cyril fought against the already deceased St. I. Chrysostom, and how to look at this fact. The author's thoughts on this issue are reported in the review of his book by A.P. Lebedev, placed in the Addendums to the Works of St. Fathers 1882, Part IV, pp. 546–562. (6o8). ״St. I. Zl. in exile." Article in Sunday Reading for the second year of publication. (611). ״The last years of the life of St. John Chrysostom." Article in Sunday Reading for the 11th year of publication. It says: - about the sad state of health of Chrysostom during his stay in exile, - about his concerns from here about the remaining flock (his letters), - about petitions for Chrysostom, - about the decree of the emperor assigning him a new place of exile, - about the death of the saint. (609). ״The blessed life of St. John Chrysostom behind the tomb." Article in Sunday Reading for the fifth year of publication. It contains an excerpt from the History of Kedrin, about how one of the admirers of St. John, Bishop Adelphius, asked God that the fate of St. would be revealed to him. John, - and he (Adelphius) was told that a person clothed with a body cannot see St. John, since he stands before the throne of the Lord. (609). ״Transfer of the relics of St. I. Chrysostom." Article in Sunday Reading for the fifth year of publication. It says that the reason for the transfer of the relics of St. I. Zlatoust, a word of praise to Chrysostom delivered to Constantinople by Proclus, Archbishop of Constantinople 18. The transfer did not take place when the emperor sent the order to transfer, but took place only when he sent a request for it. (610). ״Church praise of St. I.Zl.” article in Sunday Reading for the 9th year of publication. It conveys the content of the canon of Joseph for the celebration of the transfer of the relics of St. I. Zl. 19 Creations of St. John Chrysostom Edition of the Works of St. I. Zl. in the original in the West it apparently began in the 16th century. (1009). Thus, in 1525, “Tales on the Priesthood” (Basel bei Frobenius) were published, and the preface to this publication was compiled by Erasmus. In the 17th century, “Complete editions of the works of St. I. Chrysostom." (922) - in 1613, Savilli (Henr. Savilli) published them in 8 volumes (Altonae). (812) - in 1636, the Jesuit Duceus (Phronton le Duc.), together with Morellius, published the Works of St. I. Zl. in XII volumes (Paris 1636 et seq.). (738). In addition, in the same century, in 1661, Cotelerius (a doctor of the Sorbonne, who spent a long time analyzing the Greek manuscripts of the Paris Library) published 4 conversations on the psalms and an interpretation of the prophet Daniel 20), attributing these works to St. I. Chrysostom. In the 18th century, again (as in the 16th), separate editions of words about the priesthood first appeared. (668). So, in 1710 he published these words in Greek. original and Latin translation, with a biography of Chrysostom compiled by Kave - Gugges 21), (576) and in 1725 Bengel 22 - and this edition was reprinted twice in Leipzig in 1825 and 1834. (810). At the beginning of the same century, the most complete and best edition of the Works of St. John Chrysostom, made by the Benedictine Maurinian Montfaucon and published in Paris in 1718–1738 - in volume XIII 23). “The publication of Montfaucon, writes Schreck, makes the use of other publications, with the exception of Savilliev, unnecessary. Montfaucon published a total of 7,440 works by Chrysostom, including 50 that had not yet been published by anyone before him. The publisher used in his work all the manuscripts of Chrysostom’s works that he found in France and Italy, as well as countless translations of these works in various languages. Montfaucon divided all published works into genuine, dubious and forged, prefacing each of them with a special introduction and notes. Before the entire publication there is a biography of St. I. Chrysostom, not particularly extensive (since the publisher did not find it necessary to talk about Chrysostom’s works), but distinguished by the accuracy of chronological dates. Montfaucon's edition was reprinted in Venice in 1734–1740. - and in the same years (1735–1740) it was again published in Paris by Sinner (Lud. de Sinner) and Fix in an expanded and corrected form. This Paris edition by Sinner is reprinted in Minh's edition 24. (771). From subsequent editions of the works of St. I. Zl. Only Lomler's edition of the most important works of St. is noted. I. Zl. in the Greek original and Latin translation, published in 1840 25. In the preface, Lomler, among other things, lists the then existing editions and translations of St. I. Zl. “On the Priesthood”, 32 editions in total. (789). In addition, we note that in 1776 Mattei (Mattaei) first published in Moscow (Monquae) one of the speeches of St. I. Chrysostom according to five manuscripts. (895). From translations of the works of St. I. Zlat. Pusey's edition of his Conversations in English 26 is remarkable in new languages. In the preface to the book, Pusey speaks about the need to study the works of St. fathers of the ancient church: ״If the Old and New Testaments remain for us the source of Christian teaching, then the works of St. the fathers are the channel through which this teaching reached us. No distinction should be made between the teaching of the Church Fathers and the teaching of Holy Scripture. “Rather, one should make a distinction between the teaching of the fathers and our teaching, between the universal church and the whim of the subjective mind of our time.” (740. 1003. 776). In German all the works of St. I. Zl. translated and published in Leipzig in 1748 onwards. years Kramer, a Protestant, in 10 volumes - Schneider (Eulog Schneider) translated and published in Augsburg in 1788 ״Conversations of St. I. Zl. on the Gospel of John”, in three volumes, and Mayer in 1830 translated and published “Conversations of St. I. Zl. against the Anomeans - about the incomprehensibility of the Divine" 27). - Kramer attached an excellent biography of St. to the volume of his publication. I. Zl., and to 2, 6, 7 and 10, detailed treatises on the preaching eloquence of St. I. Zl. “These treatises, writes Schreck, arouse the desire to have similar studies on the exegesis and moral teaching of Chrysostom.” – In the same way, Mayer added a treatise on St. to his publication. I. Chrysostom, as an exegete. Editions of the works of St. I. Zlat. in the Russian translation were countless and in the book from which we are making extracts, a small part of them is indicated. Namely (699). From the 17th century: Edition, archim. Kiev-Pechersk Lavra of Elisha Pletenetsky: ״Conversations of St. I. Zl. on the Acts of St. apostle". Kiev 1624. (933.708). From the 18th century. ״Conversations of St. I. Zlat. to the Antiochian people”, translated by the translator at the Holy Synod, Luka Sichkarev. St. Petersburg 1778. ״Various words and conversations of St. I. Zl.” translated by priest Ivanov (Moscow, 1787–1791). Since the beginning of the 19th century, the work of translating the works of St. I. Zl. mainly studied in theological academies. (711). So, at the very beginning of the 19th century at the Moscow Academy - Irinei Klementovsky, abbot of Znamensky and the Moscow Academy preacher, translated a) ״Conversations of St. I. Zl. on the Epistles to the Corinthians" (Moscow 1806 and b) ״Selected Conversations of St. I. Zl.” (Moscow 1819) (864) and in 1835, the rector of the academy, Archimandrite Polycarp, published “Translations from Greek into Russian” (Moscow 1835) where, among other things, there are several conversations of St. I. Chrysostom. – Then (672) at the Moscow Academy he was engaged in the translation of the Conversations of St. I. Zl. to the message of Ap. Paul to the Romans" prof. P. S. Delitsyn. The translation was published in 1879 as determined by the Holy Synod. (771.987) In the half of the last century, the St. Petersburg Academy published a complete translation of all the works of St. I. Zl., and the XV volumes of this translation were published under the editorship of Prof. Academy of Evgraf Ivanovich Lovyagin. This is a complete edition of the works of St. I. Zl. It was republished at the St. Petersburg Academy recently in XII volumes. Translations of the works of St. appeared in the 19th century. I. Zl. compiled by individuals and non-academic corporations. So: (932) In 1842, I. Sinaisky translated the Interpretations of St. I. Zl. to the message of Ap. Paul to Titus" (Moscow 1842). (698) - in 1854. Rev. Eusebius (Ilyinsky), Exarch of Georgia, published Works and Translations, Vol. I (St. Petersburg, 1854), which, among other things, contains translations from the works of St. I. Zl. (787). In 1872, priest. P. A. Matveevsky published in Russian. translation of the work of St. I. Zl. “On the priesthood.” (St. Petersburg 1872). (964). In 1878, the Collection of Conversations of St. I. Zl. - (Moscow 1878) and in 1879 - Holy Father of Ours I. Zl. and Ephraim the Syrian's teaching on oaths (Moscow 1879) 28. (816). In addition, we note that Muralt (Edward von Muralt) in the 2nd part of the work: Beitrage zur kirchlichen und klassischen Literatur gave a study about the works of St. I. Zl. and other church writers based on manuscripts from St. Petersburg libraries (Petersburg 1850). Articles about St. I. Zlatoust 791. Meyer – ״St. I. Chrysostom, as an interpreter of Holy Scripture" 29. – The work was published at the beginning of the 19th century, the 1st part in 1806, the 2nd in 1814. See Pr. Review 1889 Sept. S. M. Solsky. ״Brief history of St. Bibliology and Exegesis". Article in Proceedings Kyiv. D. Academician – It also talks about the works on the exegesis of St. I. Zl. (Proceedings Kiev. Ak. 1866 No. 11). (988). ״Interpretations on the main passages of the books of the prophets Isaiah and Daniel according to the guidance of St. Kirill Ierus. I. Chrysostom and other saints. fathers." Article in Christ. Readings for 1845 (6o8). About the conversations of St. I. Zl. to the messages of the Ap. Paul." Article in Sunday Reading for and year of publication. (911. 865 and 913). ״Exposition of the teachings of St. I. Zl. about pastoral ministry." – Thoughts of St. I. Zl. about the importance and difficulties of pastoral ministry." – ״Admonition of St. I. Zl. to the elders." – All three articles are published in the Manual for Rural Pastors, the 1st in 1862 (No. 25, 30, 42), the 2nd in 1863 and the 3rd in 1867. (718). ״Teaching of St. I. Zl. about the fact that we should not condemn spiritual shepherds - bishops and priests." Article by P. S. Kazansky in Soulful Reading for 1877 (617). ״On the distinctive properties of the conversations of St. I. Evil.” – Article in Sunday Reading for the 19th year of publication. How are the distinctive qualities of St. I. Zlata, the author notes their special applicability to circumstances and the special persistence of the preacher; and in the presentation - special simplicity, clarity and eloquence. (998). “Stories from the history of the Christian Church.” - Two articles in Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment for 1871 - of which the first talks about Chrysostom as a preacher. (904). ״St. I. Zl. like a preacher." Handwritten course essay by a student at the Kyiv Academy Rozhdestvensky. – Review of him in the Kyiv Protocols. Academy for 1876 p. 180. (553). Albert. "AND. Zl. as a people's speaker" 30. – Albert’s work in Russian translation is included in Trud. Kyiv. Ak. for 1862 (846). Pannier. “History of Christian eloquence” 31. Volume I, among other things, talks about the conversations of St. I. Zl. (692). Wilmain. “Church preaching in the 4th century.” 32 – Wilmain’s study of Chrysostom was translated in Spiritual Conversation for 1874–75. “Reading the immortal works of the church fathers,” the author writes, you become a spectator of the greatest revolution in the human race. An ancient, dying world rises before us; the lively and fiery speeches of preachers seem to reproduce this world incomparably better for us than history itself.” (993). Vogüe. “Central Syria” 33 - according to the review of this book in Christian Reading for 1881, the description of the monuments of Antioch is especially important in it, since in it we find confirmation of many of the instructions of St. I. Chrysostom about Antiochian life. (818). Muller. Historical research. “On the views, customs and luxury of the Theodosian century” 34. – The author describes the era of Theodosius and Arcadius mostly on the basis of the writings of St. I. Chrysostom. (919). ״Sermon of St. I. Zl. against spectacle and panache." Article in the Manual for Country Shepherds, 1879. (689). “Thoughts of the ancient fathers and teachers of the church about spectacles.” Article in Spiritual Conversation for 1865. (606). “On theaters and spectacles according to the judgment of the church fathers.” Handwritten course essay by a student at the Kazan Academy Voskresensky. The author quotes exclusively the works of St. I. Chrysostom. (776). ״St. John Chrysostom as a preacher." Handwritten course essay by a student at the Kazan Academy, Majorananov. The essay consists of an introduction and three parts. In the introduction, the author briefly talks about the significance of the 4th century in the history of Christianity. In the first part, the author gives an outline of the religious and moral state of Greco-Roman society in the second half of the 4th century; in the second part he describes the life and pastoral activity of St. I. Zl.; in the third he characterizes him as a preacher. This last part is divided into two sections: the first conveys the content of sermons against pagans, Jews, Anomeans, popular superstitions, spectacles, the rich, luxury, lust - and sermons with an exhortation to mercy: the second gives a general description of the preaching methods of St. I. Zl. The author carefully studied the sermons of St. I. Zl. and all the best guides for your essay in Russian and French. Some sections of the work were published in Sunday Reading for 1881, below. titles: ״Struggle of St. I. Zl. against the passion for luxury” (two articles) and “The passion of voluptuousness according to the image of St. I. Zl.” (three articles). (693). ״Thoughts of St. I. Zlat, about Christian marriage.” Article in Soulful Reading for 1861. (942). ״Marriage and mutual relations of spouses according to the teachings of St. I. Zlat.” Article in Sunday Reading for 1880. (984). ״St. I. Zl. about raising children." Article by Archbishop Philaret (Gumilevsky) in the Chernigov Eparchs. Gazette 1864 No. 1. (790) “Thoughts of St. fathers (mainly St. I. Zlat.) about raising children.” Article by priest Evgraf Megorsky in Spiritual Conversation for 1871 - See more about the same thing in Spirit. Demon. for (622). ״Charity and property rights according to the teachings of St. fathers (mainly St. I. Zlat.). Article in Sunday Reading for the XXXIII year of publication. The author proves that, while armed against the stinginess and usury of their time, the church fathers did not deny property rights. Morals of St. I. Zlat.” – Handwritten course essay by a student at the Kyiv Academy Nikod. Yanovsky. Review of the essay, very approving, in Protok. Kyiv. Academician, for 1906–1907 pp. 532–534. About the liturgical works of St. I. Zl. (989). ״Works of St. I. Zl. on the organization of public worship." Article in Christian Reading for 1849 (896). ״Essay on the service based on the writings of St. I. Evil.” Article by Ramensky in the Guide for Rural Shepherds for 1874 (989). ״Liturgy of Basil the Great and. Chrysostom"; Article in Christian Reading for 1848 (626). Vetrinsky. “Monuments of the ancient Christian church.” St. Petersburg 1823. – In the XII book of this edition, among other things, there is talk about the beginning and celebration of the liturgy with the prescribed prayers and an extract of the ancient liturgy is made from the original writings of St. I. Chrysostom. (955). ״Proof of the authenticity of the liturgy of St. I. Evil., found in his writings.” Course handwritten essay by a student in Kyiv. acad. Stenkovsky (Review of him in the Protocols of the Kyiv Academy for 1874–1875, p. 304). (722). Essay on the history of the liturgy of our Orthodox Church." Two articles by Prof. Katansky in Christian Reading for 1868. The beginning of the second article is devoted to a review of the history of liturgy in the period from the 3rd to the 5th centuries. “The period from the 3rd to the 5th centuries, the author writes, in relation to the history of the liturgy there is a) a time of extraordinary expansion of liturgical prayers - and b) a time of attempts to reduce the number and length of prayers.” – To prove the first, the author introduces the liturgy of the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions; to prove the second, he reviews the works of Basil the Great and John Chrysostom. (720). “Comparison of ancient eastern liturgies” Handwritten course essay by a student at the Kazan Academy Kamensky. (989). “On changes in the order of the liturgies of I. Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Gregory Dvoeslov, indicated in the Pomeranian answers and the Spiritual Sword.” Essay by Abbot Varlaam. Chisinau 1860. – For a note about this book, see Christian Reading for 1861. (982). ״Dogmatic teaching about the sacraments in the works of St. I. Chrysostom." A handwritten course essay by a student at the St. Petersburg Academy, Ustvolsky. Review in Prot. Petersburg Academy for 1881 p. 234. (730). “Dogmatic teaching on the sacrament of the Eucharist.” Handwritten course essay by a student at the St. Petersburg Academy, Kirillov. – The author, among other things, expounds the doctrine of the Eucharist of St. I. Chrysostom. Review of the essay in the Protocols of Petersburg. Academy for 1877–1878 p. 266. (919). “About confession as a Divine institution.” Article in Hand. for rural shepherds for 1878. Based, among other things, on the works of St. I. Zl. the author states that oral confession before a priest was common in the ancient church. - “About the time of celebrating the Nativity of Christ.” Article in Hand. for rural shepherds for 1878. Based on the writings of St. I. Chrysostom, the author finds out why St. The church fathers decided to celebrate the Nativity of Christ on December 25. (607). “On ancient holidays to the holy martyrs.” Article in Sunday Reading for the second year of publication. The author collected testimonies from St. I. Zl. about the veneration of martyrs in his time. (907). “Orders and customs observed in the ancient church when delivering sermons.” Handwritten course essay by a student at the Kyiv Academy, Rozov. – Compiled mainly from the works of St. I. Chrysostom. Review of the essay in Protocols Kyiv. Academy for 1871–1873 p. 376. (960). “It is an ancient custom among Christians to read the Bible and the popes prohibit it for the laity to read it.” Article in the Wanderer for 1868. It contains admonitions to Christians from the holy fathers, including St. I. Chrysostom - so that they read the Bible at home. (958). “The primacy of the popes before the court of antiquity.” Essay by John Merike; translation by A. Perov. St. Petersburg 1861. The essay notes, among other things, that in ancient liturgies (including the liturgy of St. I. Zlat.) the name of the pope is not mentioned anywhere. Review of the book in the Wanderer for 1861 (817). ״Teaching of St. fathers about the fundamental truths of universal human faith and knowledge.” Essay by Ippolit Myshkin. Vyatka 1875. By the way, the book expounds the teachings of St. I. Zl. about the existence of God. (787). “Greek Augustine” (Augustinus Graecus). Handwritten work of the Benedictine Massuet, which is reported in the History of the College of Maurinians, Tassin - Massuet set out in his work the doctrine of grace contained in the works of St. I. Zl. (725). ״Systematic summary of the teachings of St. Fathers of the Church about the human soul." The work of Archpriest Stefan Kashmensky. Vyatka 1865. Two parts. Review in the Wanderer for 1867. The author grouped the teachings of St. fathers (including St. I. Zl.) about the soul according to the headings of psychology textbooks. (602). “On the beneficial influence of ancient monasticism on monastic life.” Vishnyakov’s article in Soulful Reading for 1860. – The author, by the way, refers to the opinion of St. I. Zl., according to whom “one simple view of monastic life was capable of producing a saving change in people.” (938). “About the ascetics who flourished in Syria and Mesopotamia.” Two articles by P. Sladkopevtsev in the Wanderer for 1880. In the first article of the author, he describes the general features of the life of the Syrian ascetics, borrowing this description from the article about Chrysostom, placed in the Addendums to the Works of St. fathers (part XIV, pp. 198–204). – In the second article, the author lists the main monasteries that were in the vicinity of Antioch, of which in one (Nagorny) St. I. Zl. laid the foundation for his ascetic life. About the apologetic activity of St. I. Chrysostom. (995). “A review of the apologetic works of the Eastern fathers and teachers of the church in the 4th and 5th centuries.” Tsvetkov's article in the Additions to the Works of St. father for the XXV year, edition. By the way, it conveys the content of the word of St. I. Zl. in memory of the Holy Martyr Vavila. (605). ״The spirit of the ancient church fathers in the fight against heresies and schisms. Handwritten course essay by Kazan Academy student Voinov. According to the author, the church fathers discovered both a spirit of severity and a spirit of love in the fight against heresies. This is the nature of the activity of St. Afanasia Alex., Vasily V., I. Zl. and Pope Leo the Great. (959). “Church grapes.” Essay against the priestless hegumen Parthenius. (Moscow 1865). The book provides testimonies of the church fathers (St. I. Zlat, and others) about the need for salvation to belong to the church. – See review of the book in the Wanderer, 1866. Missionary concerns of St. I. Zl. (728). “On freedom of conscience.” Article by Prof. Kiparisov in the Additions to the Works of St. father for 1881, volume XXVIII. In it, among other things, the opinions of St. I. Zl. on the means of spreading Christianity among the pagans (pp. 322–333) and on baptism (pp. 471–478). ״The care of St. I. Zl. about spreading the gospel among the pagans." Levitsky's article in Additions to the Works of St. father – volume II. Most of the article is devoted to an overview of the relationship of St. I. Zl. to the pagans in Antioch and Constantinople. (609). ״Care of St. I. Zl. about the spread and welfare of Christian churches in pagan countries." Article in Sunday Reading for the VII year of publication. Three letters from St. I. Zl. to the Phoenician and Gothic missionaries. (601). "Ulfila, Bishop of Goth." A handwritten course essay by a student at the Kyiv Academy, Vinogradov. (See the review in the Protocols of the Kiev Academy for 1876 (p. 350). – Outlining the history of the Gothic Church, the author gives, among other things, a treatise on the relationship of St. I. Zl. to this church. From the Description of the Solovetsky Manuscripts, published at the Kazan Academy, it is clear that these manuscripts contain the following about the life and works of St. I. Chrysostom 35: Articles about the life of St. John Chrysostom Image of St. John Chrysostom 196, 601. 1. 78. Notice to the reader about it 195. His life (402, 407, 214, 248–251). About his life and sorrows 674 (497). About the visit of the Apostle Paul 196 (214). Why is he called Chrysostom (246). The story of the vision of St. I. Chrysostom angels during the service of the liturgy 188. The tale of the expulsion and return of his honorable relics 287, 677. About the transfer of his relics (413, 464, 511). Homily on the Council of the Three Hierarchs (468). About the afterlife of St. John Chrysostom (142). About the healed man at his tomb (352). Troparion of St. I. Chrysostom 26. 56. Conversations of St. John Chrysostom on the books of Holy Scripture A note on reading the Sixth Day of St. I. Zl. 338. About the benefits of reading Psalms 37. On the prophet Isaiah (about seraphim) 290. About Psalms 145. 299. 310. On Gospels 160–165. 310.702. On the Gospels: Matthew 164, 166, 167, 442. 277; – Luke 162; – John 160, 646, 702. On the book of Acts 89, 90, 92, 94, 171, 172, 175, 176, 186, 275, 282, 283, 284. On the messages of Ap. Paul 107, 108, 183, 192, 196, 263. On Epistles: Romans 197, 199, 272, 275, 276, 279, 283; – 1 Corinthians 197, 270–273, 277, 279, 283, 284; – 2 Corinthians 199, 280 (179); – Galatians 199; – Ephesians 199; – Philippiseys 199, 271, 669, 670; – to Thessalonians 199, 287; – to Colossae 199; – 1 Timothy 199, 274, 275; – 2 Timothy 199, 274, 275; – to Titus 199, 273; – to Philemon 199; - Hebrews 199, 271, 277, 493. Words to the Antiochian people (Andriatis) 260. Collections of words of St. I. Chrysostom: Zlatostruy 269–289 and Izmaragd 562–600. Words: about the Incomprehensible against the Anomeans, followers of Eunomius 290. – Against the Jews 290; – about saraphimech 290; – on the drinkers and about Lazarus 291. Words for Sundays and holidays and the days of the Holy Pentecost, placed in the collections: Chrysostom, Chrysostom the Weekly, Solemnist Lenten, Solemnist Pentecostal. Words from the Week of the Publican and the Pharisee to the Day of Passover 601–615; 617–619; 635–644; 649–663; – about the publican and the Pharisee (482); – about the prodigal son 702 (482); - on Saturday the meat-eating of the dead (482); – meat-eating week (499); – in the week of raw food (482): – in the 1st and 2nd weeks of Lent (483); – in the 4th week of Lent (261, 483); – in the 5th week led. post 368. 363; – on Palm Sunday, on Monday, Thursday and Friday of Holy Week (483); - from the word for Maundy Thursday 243. Words from Easter Day to All Saints' Week 615–617; 619–620; 644–649; 663–672; – on Easter 441. 702 (250, 484) 28. 29. 51. 161. 264. 337; – on Monday and Tuesday of Easter (489); – for the week of myrrh-bearing wives 505 (111); at midweek (484); – at Pentecost 493 (485); on the 7th week of Easter (263.276); – for the week of all saints 702. Words from the Sunday of All Saints to the 36th Week of Pentecost 620–627. Words for holidays: to the beginning of the indict 672 (332, 369); – on Christmas Day 676 (313, 518); - about Herod and the babies beaten for Christ's sake. 676; – the week before Epiphany (468); – on Epiphany 676 (411, 469, 477); – on the Annunciation (678 2); 679; 683; 689; (428); – on the Nativity of John the Baptist 679, 685 (683, 449, 479); – on the Beheading of John the Baptist 682, 692 2 ) (466, 480, 499, 503); – to the Council of John the Baptist (477, 497); – on the Transfiguration 687 (461, 470); – on the Nativity of the Virgin Mary 293 (373); – to the Cathedral of the Virgin Mary (469); – on the Exaltation of the Honorable Cross 673, (333, 377); Praise to John the Theologian 209 2) 673. 674 (333, 374. 379. 440, 475, 500); – Praise to the Apostles 686; – Praise to the apostles Peter and Paul 680, 686. 155 (450, 479, 503); - To worship the chains of St. Petra (218, 492, 519, 521); - Praise to the ap. Andrey (400); – Praise to Archdeacon Stephen (409, 480); – About Job 291, (447); – About three youths (308); – About the Maccabees (460); - On St. Vavilu (239, 308). Liturgical works of St. John Chrysostom Charter of the Divine Service (proskomedia) 17. 20. 25. 29. 47. 49. 53. 59. 63. 68. 70. 72. 73. 74. 76. Liturgy of St. Chrysostom 3. 18. 20. 26. 29. 34. 36. 45. 50. 54. 6o. 63. 68. 71. 72. 74. 76. 78. Preface to the Typiku of St. I. Zlatoust 212 Interpretation of his service 45. 129. Sermon on the communion of holy water 67. Following those who are overcome by unclean spirits 111. Prayers of St. I. Chrysostom 72. 138. 167. 171. 172. 267. 276. 309. 317. 323. 326. Message of St. I. Chrysostom, to Kyriako (249); – for the Olympics (250). Works of St. I. Chrysostom From a book about virginity (178). Words on the Priesthood with Table of Contents 261–263. From the book on the priesthood (244). There are also many small articles and extracts from the works of St. in the manuscripts. I. Chrysostom. Namely: About the creation of Adam and how the soul was received and about the passion of Spasov 291, 269. – About Adam, how first he would bear from the tree of wisdom some evil, some good 276, 291. – For the sake of the tree of wisdom, good and evil were called and as of course the hedgehog: you will be with me in paradise 276, 292. – About our Lord I. Christ (256). – About David and Saul and about non-malice 291. – About the Divine Philogon (173). – About false prophets (237). – Sometime outside the church Eutropius was found 293, 428. – St. Paley. I. Zl. (90). – Life of Paul the Confessor (401). Announcement to those who want to be baptized 290. – About repentance and tenderness and about Rahab the harlot 292. – About repentance (3). - Theodore the fallen man about repentance 555. 560. 173. - About the need for confession (173). – About fasting and mercy for the poor (261). – About the post (501). – About abstinence (305) – About alms 4. 216. – About the poor and the rich and about alms (231). – About divine secrets (516). - How it is appropriate to come to church with faith (231). – About speaking in church 4. – About prayer 31. 33. 37. 42. 43. (172) – About tenderness of the soul (485, 490). – About the vain life and about the benefits of the soul and about tenderness (261) 155. – About cleansing 275. – About the vain life 746 (501). – About rewarding everyone according to his deeds 175. – On patience and praise (519). – About those who humble themselves (52). – On keeping secrets (196) – On church law (18). – About drunkenness (244, 489) – About those who let their wives go (211). – Teachings to the abbot 371 (181, 182). – Rules of spiritual teaching 361, (34). – Punishment by priests (74) – Punishment for spiritual children 149. Commandments (14). – The story is soulful (135). – About the holy service (65) – About the incense offered 196. Extracts beginning with the words: I want to decide for you, brethren, something wondrous (474); We are looking for us every earthly (176) - even if, beloved, we are fed with food (196); - even if there is squalor and a bath for every day, he will protect (3); - About the presbyter, whose thoughts you received from God (3); – Let us think well, O brethren, that we gain fruit (3); – Pack thee, presbyter of Christ’s flock (3); – the Lord told us (4); - be thou, O man, the tabernacle of this world (61); – if they lose their craft, can they enrich them (2); – Tell us, Lord, how can we overcome the world 258, 363. Excerpts from the writings of St. I. Chrysostom 320. 390. 443. 738. 754 (194. 557. 579) 273. 276. 285. 290. 293. 338, 343. Sayings of St. I. Chrysostom 629 (172). Mention of St. I. Zlatoust is on the trail. page Descriptions: 20. 24. 27. 32. 102. 106. 113. 114. 143. 151. 155. 161. 180. 225. 252. 267. 268. 403. 460. 484. 547. 548. 560. 563. 606. 623. 625. 626. 630. 676. 696. 714. 730. 738 (66. 69). By order of His Eminence Archbishop Demetrius, this article was distributed throughout the Kazan diocese before the day of celebration of the memory of St. John Chrysostom November 13th. Transferring the memory of saints who died on great holidays to the Orthodox Church. Churches were not uncommon. In Nicomedia, on the night before the Feast of the Nativity of Christ, those who were burned are commemorated on December 28 (comp. 25); St. Martyr Lucian the Presbyter, founder of the famous School of Antioch, suffered on the feast of the Epiphany, but his memory was moved to October 15; St. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan, died on the feast of St. Easter, but services in honor of this saint are held on December 7, etc. 3 Delivered in the church of the Kazan Theological Academy on November 13, 1907. The Chairman of the Brotherhood is the military investigator of the Kazan Military District, General I.G. Chinnov. Public reading at the solemn meeting of the Brotherhood in the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary, November 11, 1907. The numbers in brackets indicate the pages of the book Russian and Foreign Bibliography, which speak about the indicated works, sometimes in more detail than here. W. Cawe. Lives the most eminent Fathers of the first four Centuries. Oxt. 1840. A.W. Neander. Der heilige Joannes Chrisostomus. Berlin. 1848. La vie S. Jean Chrisostome Paris, 1664. One volume. Second edition. Lion. 1683 Two volumes. The numbers are illegible - electronic editor's note. Foerster. Job. Chrisostomus in seinem Verhältnis zur antiochinischen Schule. Gotha 1869. S. Jean Chrisostome et l'imperatrice Eeudoxie. Paris, 1872. Histoire générale de l'Eglise. Par l'abbé J. Darras, vicaire général d'Ajaccio de Nancy. Concilien-Geschichte nach den Quellen bearbeitet von Hefele. Freiburg und Breslau 1855. Koppalik. Cyrillus von Alexandria Mainz. 1881. This word is published by Combephasius in the publication Bibliohecae graecolatinorum patrum novum auctarium. Parisiis 1898. See vol. I, p. 468. From the latest literature about the life of St. I. Zl. We can indicate the following. - “The Life and Works of St. fathers and teachers of the church." Essay by F. W. Farrar. Translation by A. P. Lopukhin. St. Petersburg 1891. This publication contains a large article about St. I. Zl., which was published in abbreviation and without notes in the Cheap Library of Suvorin. St. Petersburg 1891. - “Biography of St. I. Zl.” - in the preface to the translation of his works, published at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in XII volumes. - “Life of St. John Chrysostom and his time." Essay by Bush Uzler. Translation from English prof. A. P. Ponomareva. St. Petersburg 1908. - “St. I. Chrysostom and the customs of his time.” Essay by Aimé Puch. Translation from French A. A. Izmailova. St. Petersburg 1897. Review in Christ. Readings for 1897. No. pp. 500–503. – “The Lives of the Saints: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John the Golden.” – (Prot. Debolsky) with their images. St. Petersburg 1897. (Extracted from the book “Days of Worship.” – “History of the churches of Antioch and Constantinople during the time of St. I. Zl. according to his creations." An essay by priest S. Nikolsky. Stavropol Caucasian. 1906 Homiliae in psalmon et interpretatio prophetae Danielis, graece et latine, inteprete I. B. Cotelario. Paris 1661. Πεϱί ίεϱοσύνηϛ I. A. Bengel, Stuttgart 1725. Johannis Chrisostomi opera omnia. Paris I718–1738. Migne, Patrologiae cursus copletus ser. graeca XLVII=LXIV Tom. T. G. Lomler. Opp. praestantissima. Rudolphopoli 1840. In the book Library of the Fathers of the holy Catholic Church ant. to the division of the East and West. Dr. Ph. Mayer. Das Joh. Chrysost. Auserwahlte Homilien. Nurenberg 1830. In addition, there are also translations of the works of St. I. Zl. – On the upbringing of children (translation by Archbishop Philaret of Chernigov, St. Petersburg, 1889). – “On Virginity” (translated by Maria V., ed. 2. St. Petersburg, 1892) and “Letters of St. I. Zl. for the Olympics" with the image of St. I. Zl. ed. 2. St. Petersburg 1904). G. W. Meyer. De Chrisostomo Litterarum sacr. Interprete. Pars I Altori 1806. Pars II Erlangen 1814. S. Joan Chrisostome, considéré comme orateur populaire. Par Paul Albert. Paris. 1858 Panicl. Geschichte d. Christl. Beredsamkeit. Wilman. Tableu de l'elloquence chretienne au quartrieme sieccle. Syrie centrale. Par le C-te Vogue. Paris 1865 – 1877. P. E. Muller. Comment, histor. de genio, moribus et luxu aevi Theodosiani. Lips, 1797. Until now, only two parts of the Description of the Nightingales have been published. manuscripts and the 1st section of the 3rd part. The 1st part contains a description of manuscripts on the Holy Scriptures, Patrology and Theology, and the 2nd on Church Law and Church History; in the 1st part of the 3rd volume on worship. When making references to the Description page, we indicate references to the 1st volume by numbers without parentheses; on the 2nd volume with numbers in brackets and on the 3rd volume with italic numbers. – In all likelihood, there are a lot of extracts from the works of St. I. Chrysostom is also in other manuscripts of the Solovetsky Library (not yet described), especially in the Collections.