Святого Максима различные вопросы и выборки из различных глав недоумений

I, 1. What are the virtues of the soul, and what are the virtues of the body? The virtues of the soul are the following: love, humility, meekness, generosity, long-suffering, forgivingness, gentleness, disinclination to anger, envy, condemnation and vanity, mercy, chastity, love of money, compassion, absence of pride and arrogance, contrition of heart. And the virtues of the body are the following: fasting, sleeping on the ground, vigil, abstinence, non-covetousness and concentration. 889 I, 2. What does the Apostle’s saying mean: I will sing with the spirit, I will sing with the mind (1 Cor. 14:15)? If someone pronounces [the words] of a chant only with his tongue, then he sings with the spirit, and if [someone], knowing the meaning of the chant, enjoys contemplation, then he sings with the mind. 890 I, 3. What do the words mean: I was conceived in iniquities, and my mother conceived me in sins 891 (Ps. 50:7: LXX)? Since the original purpose of God was for us to be born without marriage and corruption, and marriage was introduced because of the transgression of the commandment, for Adam committed iniquity, that is, rejected the Law given to him by God, therefore everyone who descends from Adam is conceived in iniquities, falling under the condemnation of the forefather. [The words] my mother conceived me in sins mean that Eve, the mother of us all, was the first to conceive sin, burning with a passion for pleasure. 892 Therefore, we, falling under the condemnation of the [great] mother, say that [the mother] conceives us in sins. 893 I, 4. What do the words of the Apostle mean: to be separated from Christ for... my relatives (Rom. 9, 3)? I prayed, 894 says the Apostle, from Christ to be given over to the devil, so as to be subjected to scourging and to endure punishments for the Israelites - which they justly deserved for their unbelief in God - only that they would be saved. 895 [After all] in the same way the Lord gave Himself (Eph. 5:2) and became a curse for us (Gal. 3:13). 896 I, 5. How many ways [are there] in which a person sins? I believe that a person sins in four ways: by [sudden, unreasonable] infatuation, 897 by deception [of feelings], by ignorance and by disposition [of the will]. 898 Those who sin in the first three ways easily come to awareness and repentance, but the one who sins by will and does not come to repentance either with experience or with time, suffers endless torment. I, 6. What does the Lord indicate when he says in the Gospel that two small birds 899 are sold for an assarium (Matthew 10:29)? They say that Assary is ten nummas, the number ten means the letter iota, and this letter is the first in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Consequently, in the name of the Lord both the old and the new people, both the internal and the external man, are redeemed. 900 I, 7. What do Elisha’s words mean when Elijah ascended: Where is God... aff ό (2 Kings 2, 14: LXX)? There are three understandings [of these words]: Where is the God of my father?; Where is the God of my great?; Where is the God of the hidden? 901 I, 8. In what ways is allegory carried out, and in what ways is tropology carried out? Allegory refers to inanimate things - say, mountains, hills, trees, etc. Tropology refers to our members - say, the head, eyes, etc.; after all, it is called “tropology”, [for it comes] from [the word] “to turn.” 902 I, 9. What do the words of the psalm mean: You sat and spoke against your brother, and set offense against your mother’s son (Ps. 49:20: LXX)? Anyone who reviles the deeds of a fellow believer and constantly scolds [him] is rightly believed to be speaking against his brother. And whoever, prompted by envy, slanderes the son of wisdom, adorned [with it], and seduces everyone, he lays a temptation against the mother’s son. 903 I, 10. In the hundredth chapter of Saint Diadochos it is written that certain people will be judged by fire and will be purified in the coming age. 904 I ask you to clearly interpret to me what the father meant. Those who have acquired the fullness of love for God and, with the help of virtues, raised the wing of the soul - those, according to the Apostle, are admired in the clouds (1 Thess. 4:17) and do not come to judgment (John 5:24). Those who have not mastered the fullness [of love], but have committed both sins and good deeds, come to the place of judgment. There, [when] a comparison of their good and evil deeds is made, they are subjected to a test by fire, and if the cup of good outweighs them, they are purified, [freed] from punishment. 905 I, 11. On the various [types of] justice. People who are wise in [the affairs of] God say 906 that there are three types of justice: human, angelic and Divine. Human justice is called equal distribution of the sensual goods of this world and benevolence, 907 angelic [is called] the unenvious endowment of Divine knowledge, Divine justice is defined as suffering for those who sin. 908 I, 12. Why did the Lord, reproaching Peter, call him Satan? 909 The Lord calls Peter Satan not, as some people think, to scold him. 910 Since what was a loss to the Lord 911 has become a gain for us, 912 as, for example, His death became life for us, and His dishonor became glory for us; and the Apostle Peter, when the Lord said that He was about to suffer, thought, based on the natural [order] of things, that it was impossible [to allow] life to be destroyed and glory to be dishonored - therefore the Lord, rejecting this thought, for in the supernatural one should not look for a natural sequence (after all, doing this through opposites, He planned to [give us] life through death and glory through dishonor), [so, the Lord, meaning] that this the thought is opposite to Him, said: Go behind Me, 913 as if he said: Follow My plan and do not try to look for the natural sequence of things. The name Satan, as they say, is translated as adversary. The Lord pronounced this word not as a curse word, but as if he had said: The enemy of my goal. I, 25. How can we, according to piety, understand the words of the Gospel: The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22)? And why in another place does the Lord say: I do not judge anyone (John 8:15), but the word that I spoke will judge him (John 12:48)? Being God, neither the Father nor the Son will judge anyone - after all, man becomes a judge for people, and not for animals. The Father gave judgment to the Son, not because the Son is God, but because He became man. He will judge everyone by comparing His human life with ours. 914 And His word will also judge, that is, the teaching that He revealed through works, according to what is written: what Jesus did and taught from the beginning (Acts 1:1). I, 27. What does the mysterious saying from Proverbs mean: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. After all, by doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head (Prov. 25, 21–22: LXX)? 915 The enemy of our soul is our body, which always fights with us, raising a rebellion of passions. If the wisdom of the flesh, 916 tormented by conscience, is hungry, that is, reaching out to salvation, or thirsts for Divine knowledge, 917 then it must be fed through abstinence and labor and watered by the study of Divine sayings. Thus, burning coals - Divine and spiritual thoughts - gather on his head, that is, on his mind. I, 28. What do the words of the hundred and first psalm mean: I am like a pelican in the desert (Ps. 101:7)? This pelican is a bird, and the serpent has great enmity towards its chicks. What is the pelican up to? It builds a nest at a height and protects it from the snake on all sides. What does the insidious snake do? He notices which way the wind is blowing, from that side he spits poison at the chicks, and they die. A pelican flies in, sees that its chicks have died, finds a cloud, flies high, beats its wings on its sides, blood flows out, sprinkles the chicks through the cloud, and they come to life. The pelican is understood as the Lord, his chicks are like Adam and Eve, that is, our nature, his nest is like paradise, and the snake is like the apostate devil. So, the originator of evil, the serpent, spat [poison] at the first created ones, [inspiring them] to disobey, and they became dead from sin. 918 But our Lord and God, out of love for us, is erected on an honorable cross and, when His side is pierced, through the cloud of the Holy Spirit He gives us eternal life. 919 I, 29. What do [the words] mean: [small] birds 920 will build nests there (Ps. 103, 17: LXX)? [The psalmist] calls either souls or various virtues [small] birds. 921 I, 30. What do [the words] mean: The dwelling of erodia presides over them (Ps 103.17: LXX). They say that Erodius 922 is a bird, and she lives so chastely that when she has to copulate, she mourns for forty days, and then, after copulation, for another forty. 923 She builds nests in trees, where there is an open sky above her and nothing casts a shadow. 924 Because of these qualities, erody means chastity, for it presides over all the virtues and distances itself from everything sensual, [so that] no shadow falls on it from anything transitory - after all, the number forty contains the completion of each of the four elements. I, 31. What do [the words] mean: He who rewards those who hate Me, [punishing] for the sins of the parents of children to the third and fourth generation (Deut. 5, 9: LXX)? 925 Мы предположили, что первое поколение – это посев зла, то есть приражение, 926 второе – это вожделение, 927 третье – это склонение ко злу, 928 то есть сосложение [с ним], 929 четвертое – это осуществление, то есть деяние. 930 Так вот, нам воздается до третьего и четвертого поколения, то есть за сосложение [с ним] и действие – ведь прилог и вожделение не подлежат наказанию, ибо [здесь] зло завершения не достигает. I, 33. Что означают [слова]: За три или четыре нечестия Тира не пощажу 931 его ( Амос. 1, 9 : LXX )? Я полагаю, что, [говоря] о четырех нечестиях, пророческое слово намеком указывает на следующие: приражение, 932 вожделение, склонение ко злу 933 и действие. 934 В случае первого и второго, то есть приражения и вожделения, Бог проявляет терпение, ибо [здесь] зло не достигает завершения. В случае же третьего и четвертого I , 6. нечестия, то есть склонения и действия или сосложения и поступка, 935 слово [пророка] по справедливости являет угрозу. I, 34. О том, что нельзя сказать: Христос Духа, так же, как об Отце и Сыне, хотя говорится без различения: Дух Бога 936 и Дух Христа. 937 Just as the mind is the cause of the word, so it is also the cause of the breath, 938 through the medium of the word. Just as we cannot say that the word is a voice, so we cannot say that the Son is the Spirit. 939 I, 35. What do [the words] spoken by the Lord mean: If an eye, hand or foot offends you, pluck them out and throw them away from you (cf. Matt. 5:29-30; Mark 9:43, 45)? We can assume that, according to a simple [interpretation] 940, the parable alludes to friends [who] are like eyes, to family members who are like hands that we need, and to companions who serve us like feet. It is these that the Word [and] commands to tear out if they seduce [us] and harm the soul. However, the injunction can be interpreted in another way, in an anagogical way: if you have contemplative knowledge, like an eye, but it lifts you to pride and arrogance, then tear it out. If you [have] a refined work, and it becomes the cause of arrogance for you, then tear it out. In the same way, if you have the ability to serve, which is the leg, and because of this you are exalted, then reject it. After all, it is useful for you to abandon these imaginary virtues, but at the same time not to reach complete destruction due to pride and arrogance. I, 36. What do [the words] mean: The sun rose and the moon stood in its place (Lev. 3, 11: LXX)? Whenever the Sun of Justice 941 rises in us, as a result of good deeds and true knowledge, then the moon rises in its place, that is, our nature, subject to change and distortion, acquires stable order. 942 I, 37. What do [the words] written in the Epistle of Peter mean: So that they, having been judged according to man in the flesh, should live according to God in the spirit (1 Pet. 4:6)? These words were spoken about the people of the time of the flood, who were in complete ignorance of God and were stuck in bad morals. So, what they sinned against themselves, through those trials, wars, raids and various events that happened between them, He forgave them. 943 But He did not forgive them the sins associated with ignorance of Him and wickedness, so that for their faith in Him, when He, out of His love for mankind, descends into the region of hell, the sin of wickedness would be forgiven to those who believe in Him, and they would live according to God in the spirit, of course, subjected to judgment, as it is said, in the flesh for sins against people. 944 I, 45. What do the [words] spoken in the [book of] psalms mean: Be ye 945 and know that I am God (Ps. 45:11 946)? There are six types of annihilation, by achieving which we can know God. The first is abolition from the practice of sin, the second - from inflaming food, 947 the third - from the place of concentration of those living in carelessness, the fourth - from behavior unsuitable for a godly life, the fifth - from a life [full of] quarrels and gossip and attracting the mind to many objects, the sixth - a complete absence of one's own will. 948 And this is true and godly renunciation and obedience. 949 I, 67. How should we understand the ignorance of the Son [of God] regarding the consummation? 950 There are two [types] of ignorance - reproachful and blameless; 951 and one of them depends on us, and the other does not depend on us. What is reproachful and depends on us concerns virtue and piety. The same thing that is beyond reproach and does not depend on us concerns things that we, although we want to know, do not know, for they happen far away or will happen in the future. So, if [in the case of] the holy prophets, by grace they recognized things that were distant and beyond our control, did not the Son of God know all [things] to an incomparably greater degree, and for this reason [His] humanity, not by nature, but by union with the Logos, [knew them]? For just as iron heated in fire has all the properties of fire - for it burns and burns - although by nature it is not fire, but iron, so the humanity of the Lord, by unity with the Logos, knew everything, and everything that befits the Divinity was revealed in it. 952 According to human nature itself, united with Him [that is, the Logos], it is said that He did not know. 953 I, 68. What does the monastic schema mean, 954 and - first of all - what is cutting of hair? Just as the head takes precedence over all parts of the body, so in the soul the image of the head is the mind, and all worldly thoughts should be cut off from it. 955 Kolovius 956, since he covers the whole body, but leaves only his hands open, 957 means that he must, having freed himself from committing sin in practice, be clothed with moral philosophy - after all, the hands, according to the general opinion, are a symbol of doing and action. The belt - since it is made from the skin of dead [animals] and compresses the loins and navel - signifies [, firstly,] mortification through abstinence, and [secondly,] that this mortification must always impose on the power and action of evil. 958 After all, the power of [God’s] opposite dominion of the evil one, according to Job, is in the navel of the womb (Job 40:16 (LXX)), and the loins, according to [the words of] blessed David, are filled with demonic mockery (Ps. 37:8: LXX); mockery is various acts of fornication. Analav, since behind and in front it has [the appearance of] a cross, means [the following]: according to the Apostle, it follows that not only we should be crucified to the world, but also the world to us (Gal. 6:14) 959 - so that when we flee from the world, there would be no obstacles in front of us, and connection with the world would not hold us back through obvious deceptions, and even when the worldly, being behind, pursues us, we because involuntary temptations would not weaken the tension of piety, but would remain insensitive and dead in relation to involuntary and voluntary passions. 960 Kukol means the grace of God, which protects and covers our mind. After all, the one who has cut off worldly thoughts receives the helmet of salvation (Eph. 6:17). 961 Sandals have this meaning: since they are made from the skin of dead animals 962 and are subject to small parts of the body, then, therefore, in the same way as the whole body is related to the feet of the sandal, so the soul should be related to the whole body, 963 and at the same time dead to unnatural passions. The mantle - since it is quadrangular, but also the world [is composed] of four principles - means that we must be clothed with natural contemplation, so that we see visible [objects] not to awaken feelings and passions, but, [contemplating the logos contained in them], elevate ourselves to their Creator. 964 The fact that the left hand remains open means that our good deeds must be obvious, according to the word of the Savior, so that people see your good deeds and glorify your Heavenly Father (Matthew 5:16). 965 The same thing that the clothes are black means that we should be invisible to the world, for our residence is in heaven (Phil. 3:20). If anyone perceives pallium 966 as a sign of the four generic virtues, he will not sin. 967 I, 69. [“The priest from the height of the pulpit speaks “peace” to the Church, imitating in this the Lord, Who, having accepted His pulpit, gives and leaves His peace. And the fact that the people answer: “and to Your Spirit” means the following: You, Lord, have given us peace, like-mindedness with each other, grant us peace, indissoluble unity with You, so that, pacified by Your Spirit, which You placed in us at the beginning of creation, we may remain inseparable from Your love."] 968 I, 70. If the dead do not rise at all, then why are they baptized for the dead? - said the divine Apostle (1 Cor. 15:29). If our bodies, he says, do not rebel at all, then why do we believe that at baptism they become incorruptible? 969 I, 71. [If you want to clarify for yourself the concept of the music mentioned in Scripture, then you should understand it this way. Praise the Lord with the sound of the trumpet - that is, in remembrance of the resurrection, which, as it is written, will be according to the sound of the trumpet (see 1 Cor. 15:52). Praise Him in the psalter and harp, that is, with your tongue and lips, when the Spirit strikes us like a clanking sound. Praise Him in the tympanum and face, that is, in the flesh and in the soul, from which, like faces, petitions rise to God. Praise Him in the strings and the organ, that is, in the heart and in the entrails, which the Prophet called the organ. Praise Him with harmonious cymbals, that is, with the lips by which psalmody is brought into harmonious sweetness]. 970 I, 72. Since some copies of the Apostle contain [the words] we will all fall asleep, but we will not all change, and in others we will not all fall asleep, but we will all change (1 Cor. 15:51), 971 then I ask you to explain which of the readings should be considered correct, and what do these [words] mean? Since both [readings] are already contained in the ancient copies, I believe that, following both readings, the one who understands the text, according to piety, will not move away from the apostolic goal. 972 The words we will all sleep, but we will not all change should be understood as follows: we will all undergo the sleep of death, but not all will receive glory and boldness in return. In another [place] the same apostle states this more clearly, saying: if only we, even though clothed, do not find ourselves naked (2 Cor. 5:3). And the words “we will not all fall asleep, but we will all change” should be perceived as follows: not all of us will fall into a long sleep, so that there is a need for burial and decay, [leading] to corruption, but those who will live at that [time] will suffer a short death, and they will not need to sleep for a long time, for the resurrection will immediately take place, [and then] everyone will change, that is, they will be clothed with incorruptibility. However, there is another contemplative interpretation of this [place]: we will not all fall asleep, that is, we will achieve peace and inaction of sins, and we will not all lull our passions, according to [what was said]: I sleep, but my heart is awake (Song. 5:2). After all, the one who wrote the Songs of Divine Love means that the one who has become completely inactive in relation to everything sensual and mental is awake only with his heart, enjoying only the contemplation of God. The words “we will all change” indicate a universal change [to a state of] incorruption. I, 77. What do [the words] spoken in the Apostle mean: O that they were cut off (otherwise: they began to lament - ἀηοκόψονται) [those who disturb you] (Gal. 5:12)? These [words] are spoken instead of [the words]: oh, if they began to cry and lament (κόψονται), coming to repentance that they had sinned, disturbing the faithful. 973 I, 78. Why are the Moabites and Ammonites forbidden to enter the church of the Lord until the third, fourth and tenth generation, and forever? 974 Since the Moabite is translated as “the womb of the father,” 975 and the Ammonite as “the father of the mother,” 976 these [words] mean [the following]: whoever has adopted the example of evil from another has demonstrated the womb of the father; the one who has produced sin from himself is the father of the mother, that is, of his own sin. Such people will not enter the house of the Lord until the third, fourth and tenth generation and forever, that is, the one who does not associate himself with God neither by the habit of goodness and deeds (after all, these are the third and fourth generations of virtues), nor by the name of the Lord Jesus and faith in Him, nor by [fulfilling] the ten commandments of the Law, nor by the rebirth coming in the coming century - he will not enter the house of God, that is, into the Heavenly city, in which the abode of all who rejoice (Ps. 86:7 (LXX)). I, 79. Why is a leper partially unclean, according to the Law, and a completely leper clean? 977 For someone who is leprous in any part, the part affected by leprosy is dead, for the life-giving blood leaves and a cavity is created; 978 and every time the leprous cavity gave way at the touch of the priest, he declared [the one with such leprosy] unclean. Likewise, one who is leprous in any part of the soul becomes unclean, [for] the soul has formed a cavity, that is, it has been humiliated due to the departure of the life-giving power of virtue. The one who is completely leprous has leprosy [only] on the skin [that is, he is not affected inside], and the life-giving blood spreads over the surface of the entire body. This means [the following]: whoever has reached the extreme limit of evil and then repented, he restores the life-giving power of virtue, and only his conscience is [still] colored by previous anticipations 979, for he cannot help but realize what he has done, as if he had not done [it]. Therefore, the Law declares such [a person] clean. 980 I, 81. Why did it happen that Ham sinned and Canaan was cursed? 981 And if anyone takes the meaning of Scripture literally, it will turn out that the just Noah is unjust here, for one sinned, and Noah cursed the other. Or, on the other hand: if Canaan was cursed, then it would certainly follow that his entire family would be cursed. We, on the contrary, find that his family converted to the faith of Christ more quickly than others. 982 Everywhere we find God and all the saints fighting evil and cursing it. Since evil is first born in accordance with the state of the [soul], 983 and sin in practice arises from the sinful state of the soul, then Canaan, which reflects sin in practice, naturally received a curse. If you want to trace this only in relation to the movement of the soul, which is realized through [the interaction of] two, I’m talking about soul and body, [then the sinful] state [of the soul] does not reach the end, this is the action [remaining only] in the soul. I, 82. Providence is the care that God shows for existing things. 984 Providence is the will of God, according to which everything that exists receives an appropriate dispensation. 985 I, 83. [God] appeared to Abraham through an angel, 986 to Moses through fire in a thorn bush, 987 to Isaiah through a seraphim, 988 to Ezekiel through a cherub. 989 They all testified that they saw Him in various forms. 990 Or: “lack of entertainment”, “lack of distraction” (τὸ ἀπερίσπαστον). In the Chapters on Love, St. Maxim gives a slightly different list of bodily virtues and soul virtues and talks about how obligatory some of them are: “Of the virtues, some are physical, and others are spiritual. Bodily essence: fasting, vigil, sleeping on bare ground, service, handicraft, so as not to be a burden to others, or for alms, etc. And the essence of the soul is: love, generosity, meekness, abstinence, prayer, and so on. So, if it happens that due to some need or physical condition, for example, illness or another similar reason, we cannot fulfill the above-shown bodily virtues, then we have condescending forgiveness from the Lord, who knows the reasons for this; without fulfilling spiritual virtues, we will not have any excuse, for they are not subject to such obstacles” (carit. 2.57, Russian translation according to the edition: Philokalia, vol. 3, pp. 189–190). It is interesting that Rev. Maximus here speaks of contemplation, and not simply of the gift of interpretation, useful to all, which follows directly from the context. ἐκισσησέν. The verb κισσάω has the original meaning of “passionately desire” (although in the Septuagint it is used in the meaning of “to conceive”, see Gen. 30, 38), it is possible that St. Maxim means both meanings (see next note). Thus, it is not conception itself that is a sin, but the passionate desire for sensual pleasure. At the same time, every person born “of the seed of a man” falls under the consequences of Adam’s fall, and this is precisely what corresponds to the words: “conceived in iniquity.” St. Maximus in his teaching on the separation of the sexes follows St. Gregory of Nyssa, see Greg. Nyss. hom. opif. 17: PG 44, 188A-C; 189A-B. As Sherwood writes: “Marriage and carnal birth (with corruption) were not the leading Divine intention in the creation of man, nor was the division into man and woman (see amb. 41: PG 91, 1305B-C). But man was actually created as male and female. If he had not sinned, God would have ensured his multiplication without corruption. This is an assumption (see amb. 41: PG 91, 1321A), but it is taken as proven (see amb. 42: PG 91, 1341C). Implicit arguments that take place apart from the influence of St. Gregory, are that man in paradise was endowed with the gift of incorruptibility, and the conception and birth of children imply corruption; this corruption comes from God’s curse for Eve’s disobedience (cf. amb. 42: PG 91, 1321A). Moreover, according to ap. Paul (Gal. 3:28), in Christ there is neither male nor female. If this is so in the Kingdom of Heaven, then it could also be in the beginning (amb. 41: PG 91, 1309A)” (Maximus the Confessor 2007a, pp. 514–515, note 71). See also amb. 42: PG 91, 1317A; 1309A. See Rome. 9, 3 in the original. Wed. “Divine justice is defined as suffering for those who sin” (qu dub. 1.11). κατὰ συναρπαγήν. Wed. in the Chapters on Love: “there is not one and the same reason why sinners actually commit the same sin, but [these reasons] are different. For example, it is one thing to sin out of habit, and another thing out of [unreasonable] passion (κατὰ συναρπαγήν). In the latter case, [the person] neither before nor after the sin thought about it, but was very sad about what happened. Quite the opposite happens to someone who has sinned by habit: even before the sin he did not stop mentally sinning, and after it he retains the same disposition” (carit. 3. 74, Russian translation by A. I. Sidorov, quoted from the publication: Maxim the Confessor 1993, book I, p. 130, see ibid. note 171, pp. 289–290. Sidorov, referring to Lamp's dictionary and one of the passages by St. Diadochos of Photiki, believes that in this case we are talking about an internal irrational impulse, although he notes that in other contexts this expression can mean the abduction [of the soul by the devil]). Thus, according to prp. Maxim, we sin either under the influence of irrational impulses, or because of the seduction of the sensual, obviously due to the attachment to sensory perception of the desire for sensual pleasures, or out of ignorance. These three ways in which we can sin can be recognized and we can repent of such sins. (Indeed, an irrational impulse can be recognized as alien to our conscious will, the seduction of the senses can dissipate when pleasure is replaced by suffering, and ignorance can be enlightened by experience and training.) But sin, which has become a habit due to the disposition of the will (see the previous note), cannot be recognized or repented either with experience or with time. Wed. Rome. 7, 22; Eph. 3, 16; 2 Cor. 4, 16. As D. Prassas notes (Prassas 2003, p. 385), the word ἀφφώ is interpreted in the text attributed to Athanasius the Great as ἄμφω (“both”) (see Ath. (?) test, e script, de comm, essent. patr. et fil. et spirit.: PG 28, 37A), and Theodorite as “hidden” or “hidden” (Theod. quaest. in libr. Regn. et Paralip.: PG 80, 749C). As Blowers writes in his book on Maximus's exegesis in the chapter on typology, allegory and tropology: “Certainly Maximus was not ignorant of the more subjective forms of symbolic exegesis, such as allegory and tropology as distinct from typology in the proper sense. In Quaestiones et dubia, he offers a curious definition of “allegory” as the interpretation of inanimate things (mountains, hills, trees, etc.), and “tropology” as the interpretation of parts of our body (head, eyes, etc.). This brief note, however, looks like a definition from some manual that Maximus probably reproduced, and there is no indication in the Questions to Thalassius that Maximus was bound by this definition” (Blowers 1991, p. 197). Definition of prp. Maxima from qu. dub. I, 8. one to one is found in George Kedrin (XI-XII centuries) (Georg. Cedr. compend. historiar. 1. 97.18–21, ed. Bekker). Of course, we can assume that George borrowed this text from St. Maxima. However, in George himself it is part of a lengthy passage regarding various types of tropes, allegories, etc. So it is possible that in St. Maxim and Georgy Kedrin had the same source, from which Maxim copied only an excerpt, and Kedrin the entire piece. About the meaning of the passage cited by St. Maxim, we can only guess. But, apparently, we can agree with Blauers that this is the distinction between allegory and tropology on the exegesis of the saint himself. Maxim was not affected. On the other hand, A.G. Dunaev, analyzing the interpretation of the “mountain” in patristic exegesis and referring to this question-answer, writes that St. Maxim “directly points to the mountains as the most suitable example when defining the allegory of Holy Scripture in contrast to tropology” (Dunaev 2006, p. 119). It is not entirely clear, however, why the head, eyes and other members of the human body, which are St., are less suitable for allegory. In this question and answer Maxim correlates with tropology. A.G. Dunaev does not raise this question. Meanwhile, in Qu. dub. we find many examples of allegorical interpretation of body parts (see, for example, qu. dub. I, 35). Wed. in qu. dub. 35 in the interpretation of the miracle in Cana of Galilee: “And the asking mother is faith, or humility, or wisdom [based on] knowledge.” Diad. Phot. cap. cent, de perf. spir. 100:p. 163, ed. des Places. Let us give an excerpt from the interpreted passage of St. Diadoche according to the Russian translation of the Philokalia: “If we do not properly confess about these (involuntary and unknown) sins, then during our exodus we will find some indefinite fear in ourselves. And we, who love the Lord, should wish and pray that at that time we will be free from any fear: for whoever is then in fear will not pass freely past the princes of hell, because they consider this timidity of the soul as a sign of its complicity in their evil, as it is in them. The soul, rejoiced by the love of God, at the hour of release from the body, with the angels of the world rushes above all the dark hordes, because such a soul is somehow inspired by spiritual love, having in this love the complete fulfillment of the law without any lack. Why are those who depart from this life with such boldness and at the second coming of the Lord will be caught up with all the Saints. Those who, at the time of death, are at least slightly affected by fear, will then be left in the crowd of all other people, as being under judgment, so that, having been tested by the fire of judgment, they will receive the inheritance due to them for their deeds from our good God and King Jesus Christ. For He is the God of righteousness, and His are upon us who love Him the riches of the blessings of His kingdom, forever and ever. Amen” (Philokalia, vol. 3, p. 74). To this word St. Diadoche added a commentary, which is nothing more than the answer of St. Maxima from qu. dub. I, 10. Let us quote this commentary on the Philokalia: “St. Maximus interpretation, on the issue of certain, of the following words of this hundredth chapter: “so that they may be tested by the fire of judgment...” and so on. “Those who have acquired perfect love for God and the wings of the soul through virtue have made it easy to soar, are admired, according to the Apostle, in the clouds, and do not come to judgment; but those who have not achieved such perfection, and in good deeds are not alien to sins, these come to the judgment seat, and there, through the study of their good and bad deeds, they are, as it were, tested by fire; if the cup of good deeds is drawn too far, they get rid of punishment" (Philokalia, ibid.). It is obvious that the answer of Rev. The maxim is directed against the Origenistic doctrine of universal salvation. In this answer he probably means the words of the ap. Paul: “Everyone’s work will be revealed; for the day will show it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test everyone’s work as to what it is” (1 Cor. 3:13). Wed. at St. Maxima parallel places in qu. -es : 99; 159, where the theme of the testing and cleansing fire of God is treated. The source of this thought is Rev. We were unable to find Maxim, it is possible that it belongs to him. Or: "kindness" (εύγνωμοσύνην). Wed. in Diogenes Laertius in his presentation of the teachings of Chrysippus: “following justice (δικαιοσύνη) [follows] evenness (ίσότης) and kindness (εύγνωμοσύνη)” (Diog. Laert. vit. philos.: 7. 126.11, ed. Long). St. Maxim overcomes the “dichotomy” of love and justice, the opposition of which in God is thus removed. Wed. 1 Pet. 3, 18: “because Christ, in order to lead us to God, once suffered for our sins, the righteous (δίκαιος) for the unjust...”. The word δίκαιος also means “fair”, and δικαιοσύνη – both “righteousness” and “justice”. It is interesting that in the Areopagitics, Divine justice is understood as the preservation and maintenance by God of all creation within the framework of the Divine plan for it, in which each nature has its own properties and its own movement (see Ps.-Dion. d. p. 8, 7). St. Maxim understands Divine justice from a Christological perspective - as sacrificial love and suffering for sinners (cf. qu. dub. I, 4). S. L. Epifanovich (see Maxim Confessor 2008, p. 28) sees a continuation of the development of the idea of ​​​​this question answer in the doctrine of “truths according to three laws” in Thal. 66: PG 90, 728A. See Matt. 16, 23; Mk. 8, 33. The point is probably that some see in these words of Christ that He condemned Peter, and this obviously contradicts the fact that Christ Himself taught not to condemn anyone (Luke 6:37). It is possible that Rev. Maxim builds his answer based on Chrysostom’s interpretation of this passage: “Christ, wanting to show that He is not going to suffer in the least against His own will, even denounced Peter and called him Satan... If someone who is called blessed and has confessed the deity of Christ hears such a reproach, then think, what will those who even now reject the sacrament of the cross hear? Christ did not say: Satan speaks through your mouth; but: “Get away from Me, Satan!” because the enemy precisely wanted Christ not to suffer. This is the reason why He rebuked Peter with such force; He saw that Peter and the others were most afraid of His suffering and could not calmly hear [about them]. For this reason, He also reveals his secret thoughts, saying: “You think not about the things of God, but about the things of men.” What does it mean: “You think not about the things of God, but about the things of men” (Matthew 16:23)? Peter, concluding the matter according to human and carnal reasoning, thought that suffering for Christ was shameful and unusual. So, penetrating his thoughts, Christ says: suffering is not at all unusual for Me, but you judge this way from the carnal mind; on the contrary, if you, in the divine Spirit, freed from carnal thoughts, expressed what I said, you would understand that it is very fitting for Me. You think that it is low for Me to suffer, but I tell you that this thought - not to suffer for Me - comes from the devil. Thus, with the fear of the opposite, He dispels the fear of Peter” (Joan. Chrys. in Matth.: PG 58, 536–537, Russian translation according to the edition: John Chrysostom, Commentary on Matthew 1993, vol. 2, pp. 557–558). στερήσεις. Aristotle's category (see next note). Or: “possession” (ἕ ξεις). Here Rev. Maximus expounds the soteriological doctrine using Aristotle’s categories: “deprivation” (στέρησις) – “possession” (ἕ ξις) (see Arist. cat. 1.10, 11b2o, ed. Bekker). These categories are very widely used by St. Maximus in the Difficulties to John, mainly in the context of the development of apophatic theology. It’s different in the Synodal translation. Wed. at St. Gregory the Theologian: “[Chritos] puts our obedience to the test and measures everything by His sufferings, guided by the art of His love for mankind, in order to find out from our own experience what is possible for us, and how much should be exacted from us, and to excuse us if weakness is taken into account during suffering” (Greg. Naz. or. 30.6: PG 36, 109C, Russian. transl. quoted from: Grigory Bogoslov 1994, vol. 1, p. This place will become the subject of interpretation by St. Maximus in Difficulties to Thomas (4). Parallel place: Rome. 12, 20. Obviously, this saying is “mysterious” if we understand it in relation to relationships with neighbors, more precisely, not so much “mysterious” as contradicting the commandment of love, since it turns out that by feeding a neighbor, even an “enemy,” we bring a curse on him, which does not fit with the commandment of love for enemies. St. Maxim moves away from such a literal understanding, moving to an anagogical one. We examine this question and answer in detail in the preface to this publication. See Rome. 8, 6. Speaking about the “wisdom of the flesh” (σαρκὸς φρόνημα), St. Maxim uses this expression here. Paul in a neutral sense, since he goes on to say that this “wisdom” can strive for salvation and thirst for Divine knowledge. We are obviously talking about our mental-physical existence, in which we have an internal need to live in accordance with the logos of our nature, that is, God’s plan for it, a need that did not disappear with the Fall and is felt by us thanks to the torment of conscience. This need, as can be seen from what follows, is satisfied through asceticism (saving us from passions) and teaching (enlightening us with the knowledge of God). St. Maxim speaks repeatedly in Qu. dub. about hunger, “but not of bread and water, but of hearing the word of the Lord” (Amos. 8, 11) (see qu. -es: 145; 161; 185). Wed. Rome. 6, and; in Scripture the opposite meaning is: dead to sin. As D. Prassas notes: “the answer to the question about the pelican can also be found in Physiologist, 4 (Physiologus 4. 28–31, ed. Offermans). Declercq wrote an article comparing the text from qu. dub. I, 28 with text from the Physiologist and concluded that the copyist of the Physiologist proceeded from the text qu. dub. I, 28 (see Declerck 1981, pp. 148–158). ...Eusebius gives the same interpretation as Maximus” (Prassas 2003, p. 386). The last statement should be corrected: this is St. Maximus gives an interpretation, retelling, and in a number of places accurately quoting Eusebius of Caesarea (see Euseb. comm, in Ps.: PG 23, 1253, 50–1256.19). As for the story about the pelican in Physiologist, the theme of enmity between the snake and the pelican is completely absent in it (instead of the snake, the chicks are killed by the female pelican), although there is a comparison of Christ with the pelican. It is considered an erroneous belief that parent birds tear their breasts to feed their chicks with their blood. This opinion arose due to the fact that nesting adult birds tilt their beaks to their chests and feed the chicks with fish brought in the throat pouch (see Biblical Encyclopedia 1891, p. 557). στρουθία. D. Prassas writes (Prassas 2003, p. 386) that this refers to sparrows. The soul is compared to a bird in Ps. 123, 7: “Our soul has been delivered, like a bird, from the snare of those who catch it.” Wed. in Athanasius (?) in the interpretation of Ps. 83, 4 (“the bird finds a home for itself, and the swallow a nest for itself”): “by the image of a bird he means the human soul, caught by a mental catcher, ... and by the image of a turtle dove, the soul that lives in the purity of chastity” (Ps.-Athan. expos, in Psal.: PG 27, 368, 49–50, Russian translation according to the edition: Athanasius Velikiy 1994, vol. 4, p. 277; the text probably belongs to Evagrius). This is exactly the opinion before St. Maxim could not be found. Compare, however, Porphyry (Porphyr, quaest. Homeric. ad Iliadem.: 10. 274. 45, ed. Schrader). Wed. in Athanasius (?): “the prophet says that the nest of the erodia (herons) is led by the birds themselves, because the erodias, having chosen the tallest trees, most often nest on spruces or “pines” (ἐλάταις), as on trees that are taller than all others” (Ps.-Athan. in Ps.: PG 27, 440.16–20, Russian translation according to the edition: Athanasius the Great 1994, T. IV, pp. ZZZ-ZZ4; St. Maxim moves away from the literal understanding of these words in the sense of God punishing children for the guilt of their parents, which understanding, obviously, became the reason for him to interpret these words anagogically. Or: “attack”, “addiction” (προσβολήν). Or: “state of evil” (ἕ ξιν τοῦ κακοῦ). As S. L. Epifanovich writes: “Passion becomes a sin only at the 3rd and 4th stages, when a passionate thought, strengthening in the soul, turns first into inclination, assent (ἕ ξις, συγκατάθεσις), and then into sin by deed” (Epifanovich 2003, p. 104). Perhaps εξιν τού κακού can also be translated as “possession of evil.” Or: “action, that is, deed” (ἐνέργειαν, τουτέστιν τὴν πρ ᾶ ξιν). St. Maxim uses one of the schemes for the development of sin (see this issue in: Zarin 1996, pp. 248–258). A more detailed diagram and definitions of its stages can be found in the Ladder of St. John of Sinai, however, here we are not talking about the transition of a sinful thought into action, but about the rooting of sin in the soul: “According to the definition of the prudent fathers, another is a pretext, another is a combination, another is a combination, another is captivity, another is a struggle, and another is the so-called passion in the soul. These blessed ones define that a preposition is a simple word or image of some object, again appearing to the mind and brought into the heart; and the combination is a conversation with the appeared image, by passion or dispassionately; coitus is the agreement of the soul with the presented thought, combined with pleasure; captivity is a violent and involuntary attraction of the heart or prolonged mental copulation with an object, ruining our good dispensation; struggle is the equality of strength between the fighter and the one being fought, where the latter arbitrarily either wins or is defeated; Passion is the name given to the very vice that has been ingrained in the soul for a long time, and through habit has become, as it were, a natural property of it, so that the soul already voluntarily and by itself strives towards it. Of all these, the first is sinless; the second is not entirely without sin; and the third is judged according to the disposition of the ascetic; struggle is the cause of crowns or torment; captivity is judged differently during prayer, differently at other times, differently in relation to indifferent objects, that is, neither bad nor good, and differently in evil thoughts. Passion, without a doubt, is subject in all, either to proportionate repentance, or to future torment; but whoever thinks about the first (that is, the preposition in thought) dispassionately, cuts off all the last at once” (Joan. Clim. scala 8, 73, Russian translation cited from the edition: Ladder 1908, p. 125). You can also find something in between the prp scheme. Maxim and the scheme of St. John, in particular the following scheme: “other is adposition (προσβολή), another is combination (συνδυασμός), and another is passion (πάθος), and another is struggle (πάλη), and another is conjunction ( συγκατάθεσις), and the other is action (ἐνέργεια)" (Athan. (?) synt. ad quend. politic.: PG 28, 1400, 3). In the “Greek” Ephraim the Syrian we find another stage in the development of sin following action - captivity ( αἰχμαλωσία) (see Ephr. Syr. de uirtutib. et passionib.: 401. 7, ed. Phrantzoles). Maxima turns out to be relatively simplified compared to other schemes, including those that already existed before it. Why does he resort - not only in this interpretation, but in Qu as a whole. dub., – it is precisely this simplified scheme that still needs to be understood. A four-part scheme, in addition to St. Maxim and somewhat different from his scheme, we find, for example, in Hesychius of Sinai (in his work attributed to St. Hesychius of Jerusalem): “the first is a preposition, the second is a concatenation (or: “combination”, “pairing” - συνδυασμός), that is, the confusion of our thoughts and the thoughts of crafty demons, the third - condolence, when both thoughts conspire for evil and decide among themselves what to do; the fourth is a sensual act, that is, sin” (ad Theodul. 46, PG 91, 1496В-С, Russian translation, quoted from: Fathers of the Church on prayer and sobriety 2001, p. 185, with clarification). At the Venerable himself. The maxims of the stages of development of sin are also considered in carit. 1. 83–84. Lit: “I will not turn away” (οὐκ ἀποστραφήσομαι). Or: “a state of depravity.” See previous question and answer and previous note. We read instead: εἴρξεως – πράξεως, as in one of the manuscripts (see Declerck 1982, p. 150). See Gen. 1, 2; Life 41, 38; Number 23, 7; Number 24, 2; Court. 6, 34; 1 Sam. 10, 10 ; 1 Sam. 19, 9; 1 Sam. 19, 20; 1 Sam. 19.23; 2 Par. 24, 20; Dan. 4, 5 – 6; Dan. 4, 15; 5, 14, Rom. 8, 9; 1 Cor. 7, 40. See 1 Pet. 1, 11; Rome. 8, 9. Or: "spirit" (πνεύματος). In Greek, πνεύμα means both spirit (or: Spirit) and breath; this St. Maxim uses this in his analogy. The problem that is resolved in this question and answer is St. Maxim, concerns the “asymmetry” or “unequal fairness” of the formulas existing in Scripture. In fact, if the Persons of the Trinity are equal in honor and if they say: “Spirit of God,” obviously meaning God the Father, and “Spirit of Christ,” then why cannot one say: “Christ of the Spirit.” Answer Rev. The maxim on this question has implications for the future debate around the Filioque problem, and it is in this context that it is commented on by J.-C. Larcher: “The second part of this passage indicates, in accordance with the wording of the question, that St. Maximus did not mean a relationship of origin, but a relationship of “belonging”: the Spirit is the “Spirit of the Son” or the “Spirit of Christ,” expressions that we find in Holy Scripture (cf. 1 Cor. 2:16; 2 Cor. 3:17-18; Rom. 8-9) and which do not mean that the Spirit receives from the Son His personal existence or even His Divine nature, but that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, which He received from the Father in order to manifest Him, to send Him, and to give Him to people. As having proceeded from the Father and as being revealed, sent and taught through the Son, the Spirit can be counted as “caused” through the Son. It is in this sense that St. Petersburg is used. Maxim's comparison indicates that the Father is the Cause of the Spirit through the mediation of the Son, just as the mind is the cause of breath or voice through the mediation of the word. The very nature of the symbol used clearly indicates that St. Maximus here refers to the manifestation of the Holy Spirit” (Larchet 2004, pp. 91–92). Larche's interpretation is obviously based on the solution to the problem of the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, which was given by the Council of Blachernae in 1285 and in the theology of Gregory of Cyprus, as well as by the Orthodox polemicists who followed him against the Latin teaching of the Filioque, in this perspective he reads St. Maxima. Or: “accessible, direct [interpretation]” (κατὰ τὸ πρόχειρον). The expression occurs frequently in the exegesis of Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa and Didymus the Blind and means a direct, accessible meaning in contrast to the spiritual and deep. At St. Maxim, however, as we see from this question and answer, as well as from qu. dub. 112, where a variation of this expression is used: o πρόχειρος νους - even such an “accessible interpretation” is not so obvious. The fact is that another method of interpretation, which differs from the interpretation of κατὰ τὸ πρόχειρον, is always spiritually higher, that is, corresponds to a higher level of spiritual life and its understanding. It is also interesting that the “direct interpretation” in qu. dub. I, 35 is allegorical. Thus, allegory (or: tropology?) for St. The maxim does not necessarily correspond to an anagogical interpretation. The anagogical interpretation differs from both the historical and any other “accessible” interpretation in its monastic-gnostic orientation, which is different from the externally moralistic one (see the preface to this edition for more details). Or: “righteousness” (See Mal. 4:2). On justice see qu. dub. 1.11 and notes thereto. Or: "place". Place and order are one word in Greek: τάζις. Ecumenius in his Commentary on the Apocalypse (Rev. 12:1: “a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet”) refers to Hab. 3, and interprets the sun as the Sun of righteousness - Christ, and the moon as the law of Moses (see Oecum. comm, in Apocal.: 136.15, ed. Hoskier). Wed. the thought of forgiveness of sins against other people through cleansing by misfortunes in qu. dub. 189. A more extensive interpretation of 1 Pet. 4, 6, which includes the ideas qu. dub. I, 37, found in Thal. 7: PG 90, 284V. In the original, the words have the same root: ἀποταγὴ καὶ ύποταγή, coming from one word - ταγή, which means “battle order”. That is, we are talking about leaving (dismissal) from one “battle order” (submission to the world) and moving to another “battle order” – submission to God; άποταγή has, in particular, the meaning of renunciation of the devil during baptism (see Lamp's dictionary), as well as renunciation of the world in ascetic life. See Matt. 24, 36; Wed Mk. 13, 32. Plato speaks of two types of ignorance (or “ignorance”): “it would not be a mistake to point out ignorance as the third cause of wrongdoing. It would be better on the part of the legislator to divide this ignorance into two types: simple ignorance, which can be considered the cause of minor offenses, and double ignorance. When an ignoramus is possessed not only by ignorance, but also by imaginary wisdom, it is as if he is fully versed in what he does not know” (Plat. Leges. 863c, ed. Stephanus, Russian translation according to the publication: Plato 2007, vol. 3, p. 376). This passage and a similar passage in the Sophist (229C-230C) were widely discussed and commented on in ancient and Neoplatonic philosophy. At St. Maxim, however, the question of ignorance is posed on a slightly different plane, in the same plane in which they talk about reproachful and blameless passions. This is obviously connected with the fact that the Agnoites attributed ignorance to Christ according to humanity as an impeccable passion (for more details, see note 821). St. Maxim in his writings repeatedly uses the image of a red-hot sword (or iron) to describe the hypostatic union of Divinity and humanity. In this case, it serves him to explain that there was no ignorance in Christ; the same image will serve him in the future to illustrate that when two natures are united in Christ, they preserve their actions, just as a red-hot sword preserves them, “the cutting of which, as we know, burns, and the burning, as we know, cuts. For fire and iron had a hypostatic convergence, and neither one nor the other, due to the connection with the other, lost their natural ability and after the connection contains it inseparably and without separation from the conjugate and coexisting” (Mach. er. 19: PG 91, 593B-C, quoted from the Russian translation by E. Nachinkin: Maxim Confessor 2007b, p. 207, cf. Max. disp.: PG 91, 340A and 341B). The same image of a red-hot sword serves in amb. 7 is an illustration of the fact that in the saints (of course, and in Christ) the created is entirely determined by the uncreated (see amb. 7: PG 91, 1076A). The question of “knowledge” and “ignorance” of Christ, briefly discussed in this question and answer, is related to the controversy with the Agnoites - one of the heresies of the 6th century that arose in the camp of the Monophysites. The ancestor of the Agnoites, Themistius, taught about one γνώμη (consciousness) of Christ, believing that ignorance of humanity was the same impeccable passion for Him as the corruption of the body (see: Hovorun 2008, pp. 32–33) · A very complex question about Christ’s assimilation of our ignorance according to His human nature in the context of theology St. Maxim is discussed in the article Sidorov 2005–2006, p. 229–272. Of course, Christ did not have any reproachful, sinful ignorance in human nature, and His assimilation of such ignorance as is revealed, for example, by the Gethsemane prayer (that is, blameless ignorance), according to St. Maxim, was, as Sidorov shows, only “relative”. This question and answer indicates the same understanding. Archim. Evlogy (Smirnov) writes about the history of the ritual of cutting hair during monastic tonsure as follows: “The tradition of cutting hair is interesting. According to the custom of Egyptian ascetics, the hair was cut off completely. In the charter of Saint Pachomius there were special rules about this. However, when monasticism came from Egypt to Greece, a completely different custom turned out to be there: the Greeks did not cut their hair. In the early days of monasticism, no importance was attached to cutting hair or wearing it. Only with the advent of communal regulations, which introduced uniformity into the external life of the ascetic, was the issue of cutting hair resolved in a certain sense. By tonsure, the complete cutting of hair was not thought of, but tonsure acquired the meaning of a symbol of the ascetic’s dedication to God, elevation to a certain level of life and activity in the Church of Christ, similar to the dedication of clergy. Upon tonsure, the monk put on special clothes that constitute the exclusive property of monasticism. They were either white (a symbol of angelic purity) or black (a sign of lamentation about former sins,” quoted from: http://portal-credo.ru/site/index.php?actlib&idi787). D. Prassas (Prassas 2003, p. 390) points out that the interpretation of hair cutting by St. The maxim is similar to the interpretation of the Areopagitik: “cutting hair means a pure and ugly (ἀσχημάτιστον) life, which does not embellish the appearance of the mind with [any] artificial images, but in itself – not by human, but by united and monastic beauties – rising to the most divine” (Ps.-Dion. p. h. 6. 3. 3: PG 3, 356A, Russian translation by G. M. Prokhorov with changes, quoted from the edition: Dionysius the Areopagite Maxim Confessor 2002, p. 701; in Prokhorov’s translation an absurd mistake was made: instead of “hair cutting” ( τριχών άπόκαρσις) it is written: “triple renunciation”!). P.K. Dobrotsvetov (see Maxim Confessor 2008, p. 255, note 1) points to another parallel with Clement of Alexandria (Clem. Alex. Paed. 1, 2). Next, a symbolic interpretation of the parts of the monastic robe is given; for reference, we present its general description by P. S. Kazansky, highlighting the names of individual parts in italics: “in the second half of the 4th century. monks of both communal and desert monasteries wore the following: 1) kukol, that is, a monastic cap that covered the head only to the neck; 2) the lower clothing of the monks was kolovii or leviton with short sleeves, barely reaching the elbows, so that the arms remained bare; 3) a leather belt with which the loins were girded as a sign of bodily purity; 4) Analav, which consisted of double bands woven from woolen threads. Descending from the neck, it hugged the shoulders in a cross shape and girded the clothes under the armpits; 5) Cassian classifies the maforium as a monastic garment - a short narrow hood covering the neck and shoulders of a monk. Other writers do not mention maforia as a special distinctive clothing of monks; 6) outer clothing was a mantle made of sheep or goatskin, according to the rule of Pachomius. She must be white. This mantle seems to have been replaced in the 5th century by a mantle or pallium, fastened on the left shoulder; 7) when the monk walked somewhere from his cell, he had a staff in his hands; 8) sandals served as shoes - actually a thick sole, tied to the foot with straps” (P. S. Kazansky, General sketch of the life of Egyptian monks in the 4th and 5th centuries, quoted with abbreviations from the editor: A. I. Sidorov, Ancient Christian asceticism and the origin of monasticism, 1998, pp. 411–415). D. Prassas (Prassas 200 3, p. 390) points to parallels in the interpretation of monastic vestments by Abba Evagrius, and P.K. Dobrotsvetov (see Maxim Confessor 2008, pp. 257–260) points to parallel passages from Abba Dorotheus (VI century) (see following notes). It is interesting to compare the interpretation of St. Maxima with both. Wed. from Abba Evagrius: “Nakedness of hands reveals the impersonality of life. For vanity is terrible; it hides and covers with a shadow of virtue, always pursuing human glory and driving out faith” (Evagr. capit. pract. ad Anat.: PG 40,1220C, Russian translation by A. I. Sidorov, quoted from: Evagrius 1994, p. 94). Abba Dorotheos speaks of bare arms, interpreting the symbolic meaning of the mantle: “Why do we wear a robe that has no sleeves? While everyone else has sleeves, why don't we have them? Sleeves are a semblance of arms, and hands are taken to denote action. So, when the thought comes to us to do something with the hands of our old man, such as, for example: to steal or hit, and in general to commit any sin with our hands, then we must pay attention to our attire and remember that we do not have sleeves, that is, we do not have hands to do any work of the old man” (Doroth. doctrina 1, 15 "Russian translation, quoted from the edition: Abba Dorotheus 1999, p. 39). Interpretation of St. Maxima, although she is closer to Abba Dorotheus than to Abba Evagrius, is still completely independent, a sign of which is his use of terminology characteristic of him (“moral philosophy”, etc.). Wed. from Abba Evagrius: “The belt that compresses their loins reflects all uncleanness, which is what is proclaimed [by the Apostle]: it is good for a man not to touch a woman (1 Cor. 7:1)” (Evagr. capit. pract. ad Anat.: PG 40, 1220C, Russian nep. A. I. Sidorova, quoted from: Evagrius 1994, p. 95). Wed. from Abba Dorotheus: “The belt that we wear is a symbol, firstly, of the fact that we are ready for work: for everyone who wants to do something first girdles himself and then begins the work, as the Lord says: let your loins be girded (Luke 12:35); secondly, for the fact that just as a belt was taken from a dead body, so we must mortify our lust: for the belt is worn on our loins, where the kidneys are located, in which, as they say, the lustful part of the soul lies, and this is what the Apostle said: put to death... your lusts, even on the ground, fornication, uncleanness, etc. (Col. 3, 5)" (Doroth. doctrina 1, 16, Russian translation, cited from the edition: Avva Dorofey 1999, p. 40). As P.K. Dobrotsvetov notes (Maxim the Confessor 2008, pp. 258–259), Abba Dorotheos gives an interpretation of Gal. 6, 14 is somewhat different from what we find in St. Maxim (see Doroth. doctrina 1, 13 Russian translation, cited from the edition: Avva Dorofey 1999, p. 37). It is also interesting to note that the interpretation of Abba Dorotheus is in no way connected with the interpretation of the symbolism of monastic robes, but St. Maxim makes this connection. Abba Evagrius has a different symbolic interpretation of the analav: “Again, the analav, intertwining their shoulders crosswise, is a symbol of faith in Christ, supporting the meek, always restraining what hinders them, and allowing them to act unhindered” (Evagr. capit. pract. ad Anat.: PG 40, 1220D, Russian translation by A. I. Sidorova, quoted from the edition: Evagrius 1994, p. 95). Abba Dorotheos gives the following symbolic interpretation of the analav: “We also have an analav, which rests crosswise on our shoulders. And this means that we carry on our shoulders the sign of the cross, as the Lord says: He will take up his cross, and he will come after Me (Mark 8:34). What is the cross? Nothing less than perfect mortification, which is accomplished in us through faith in Christ. For faith, as it is said in the Fatherland, always removes obstacles and makes it convenient for us that feat that leads us to such perfect mortification, that is, for a person to die for everything worldly. And if he left his parents, then let him strive against addiction to them; also, if someone has renounced estates and acquisitions and any thing in general, then he must renounce his very addiction to it, as we have already said; This is what complete renunciation consists of” (Doroth. doctrina 1, 17, Russian translation, cited from the edition: Avva Dorofey 1999, p. 40). D. Prassas (Prassas 2003, p. 390) points to a parallel from Evagrius: “The doll is a symbol of the grace of the Savior and our God, cherishing their infancy in Christ and protecting the sovereignty of the [souls] of the monks [from demons], always trying to inflict blows and wounds on [them]” (Evagr. capit pract ad Anat: PG 40, 1220C, russian nep. A. I. Sidorov, cited by: Evagriy 1994, p. Abba Evagrius gives the following symbolic interpretation of the kukol: “We also put on the kukol, which is a symbol of humility. Dolls are worn by small and gentle babies, but an adult man does not wear a doll: we wear it in order to be a child in malice, as the Apostle said: Be not children in your minds: but be childish in malice (1 Cor. 14:20). What does it mean to be an infant with malice? A gentle child, if he is dishonored, will not be angry, and if he is honored, he will not become vain. If someone takes what belongs to him, he does not grieve: for he is an infant in anger and does not take revenge for insults, and does not seek glory. The doll is also a semblance of the grace of God, because just as the doll covers and warms the head of a baby, so the grace of God covers our mind, as it is said in the Fatherland: “The doll is a symbol of the grace of God, our Savior, covering our sovereign (mind) and protecting our infancy in Christ from demons who always try to resist us and overthrow us” (Doroth. doctrina 1, 18, Russian translation, cited by: Avva Dorofey 199 9, p. As we see, Rev. Maximus is rather closer to the interpretation of Abba Evagrius than of Abba Dorotheus; although the latter, too, referring to the Otennik, interprets the kukol as a symbol of grace, but in St. Maxim does not mention a comparison with babies' dolls. Wed. in qu. dub. 149: “So, [his] word exhorts to provide for the body not carefully, but only with the foot of the soul,” and a note to this place. The interpretation of the mantle in connection with natural contemplation and the ascent from material things to their logos is not found either in Abba Evagrius or in Abba Dorotheus and is a characteristic feature of the interpretation of St. Maxim, as well as the “moral philosophy” mentioned above in connection with the interpretation of the image of the tunic. In Evagrius we find an interpretation not of the mantle, but of the mantle (the mantle was made from skin): “They also have the mantle, since they always carry in the body the death of the Lord Jesus (2 Cor. 4:10), silencing all the unreasonable passions of the body and stopping [all] vices of the soul involved in good. And, having loved poverty, they avoid covetousness, like the mother of idolatry” (Evagr. capit. pract. ad Anat.: PG 40, 1221A, Russian translation by A. I. Sidorov, cited from the edition: Evagrius 1994, p. 94). It is possible that the interpretation of St. The maxim of the nakedness of the left hand is partly based on the interpretation of the nakedness of the hands by Evagrius: “The nakedness of the hands reveals the impersonality of life. For vanity is terrible; it hides and covers with a shadow of virtue, always pursuing human glory and driving out faith” (Evagr. capit. pract. ad Anat.: PG 40, 1220C, Russian translation by A. I. Sidorov, quoted from: Evagrius 1994, p. 94). St. Maxim, however, talks about the nakedness of only one hand - the left. Pallium is a mantle or cloak; it was said above that it is the mantle that is quadrangular. Comparison of the interpretation of the symbolic meaning of monastic robes by St. The maxim with the interpretations of Abba Evagrius and Abba Dorotheus testifies that St. Maxim’s interpretation, although in a number of ways echoes those in the tradition, is completely independent and marked by the features of his exegesis, which seeks to “read” into Scripture and Tradition the concepts of the main components of ascetic life. It is especially interesting how St. Maximus interprets the meaning of sandals (see notes: 830, 831 and the text to them), which are not mentioned in either Abba Evagrius or Abba Dorotheus. Qu. dub. I, 69 does not belong to St. Maxim, and is contained in the collection of letters from St. Isidore Pelusiot (Isid. Pel. ep. I. 122: PG 78, 264C, Russian translation is cited from the edition: Isidore Pelusiot 2000 in vol. 1, pp. 60–61). Declerck considers this text an interpolation (see Declerck 1982, p. xv). Qu. dub. I, 70 is an abbreviated version (consisting only of the first and last sentence) of one of the passages of St. Isidore Pelusiota (Isid. Pel. ep. I. 221: PG 78, 321B-C). Let us quote here this entire passage in the old Russian translation: “What does this mean: “Unless the dead rise at all, they are baptized for the sake of the dead (1 Cor. 15:29).” If the dead do not rise at all, then they are baptized for their sake, the divine Apostle said about the nature of bodies, so beautifully comparing it with the unchangeable nature of souls, because the soul has no end and is immortal, and the nature of bodies is subject to decay and change. Therefore, we are baptized for the sake of the bodies that are naturally dead, believing that we will bring them to incorruption. This is the explanation of what the Apostle said. If,” he says, “our bodies will not be resurrected at all, then why do we believe that in Baptism they are transformed into incorruption?” (Isidore Pelusiot 2000, vol. 1, p. 102). Declerck considers this text to be an interpolation (see Declerck 1982, p. XV), but the question arises why a piece of the text of St. was released during this interpolation. Isidora? It is possible that the "middle" part was omitted because whoever entered this text into Qu. dub., feared that these words about baptism for the sake of bodies dead by nature might be taken in the sense that baptism is performed only for the sake of bodies, and has nothing to do with the soul. The entire passage is from St. Isidore Pelusiot (Isid. Pel. ep. I. 457: PG 78, 433В-С, Russian translation according to the edition: Isidore Pelusiot 2000, vol. 1, p. 186). Declerck considers this text an interpolation (see Declerck 1982, p. xv). It is interesting that Rev. Maxim refers to the antiquity of both readings, thus paying tribute to Tradition and, on its basis, refuses to limit himself to one reading. Thus, it is Tradition that is his criterion for the apperception of Scripture. At the same time, the last word in understanding this passage still goes to the interpreter, in this case the Venerable. Maxim, who gives interpretation to this and that reading. Thus, Rev. Maxim interprets this passage based on his understanding of Christian love, evading its understanding in the sense of “cutting off” from the Christian community those who disturb its peace. Wed. Deut. 23, 4; Ref. 20, 5 (LXX). A number of authors, starting with Philo, translate Moabite as “from the father” (see Philo leg. alleg.: 3. 225. 4, ed. Cohn). Moab – Mo ab is consonant with me ab – “from the father.” "From the womb" (mibbeten); here there is simply a complex preposition synonymous with “from” (min). Ammon – 'ammon. Scientific etymology - from ‘am “father” in a more general sense than ’ab: “ancestor”, “clan”, “people” † -on “little uncle” (some kind of epithet of a deity). Perhaps what is meant is that “mother’s father” is “grandfather”. Option: on in biblical means generative force. But this is connected more with male power than with female power. The source of information on medicine, which is presented here by St. Maxim, we couldn’t find it. ταῖς προτέραις προλήψεσιν. “Anticipation” from St. Maxima is associated with the memory of sensual pleasures, memories of which, emerging in the mind, incline it to desire them. See this term in qu. -es: 39, 46; 79; 85; 187. This passage from Lev. 13, 10–13 has been commented on by many authors. We find its spiritual interpretation already in Philo (Philo quod deus sit immutab. 27: 124–130, ed. Wendland). D. Prassas points out some patristic comments: Joan. Chrys. in er. ad Tit.: PG 62, 681; Theod. q uest. in libr. Regnor. et Paralip.: PG 80, 605B; Cyr. Alex. comm. in xii proph.: 1.9.24, ed. Pusey; Cyr. Alex. de adorat. et cult, in spirit. et verit.: PG 68, 245D. With none of them is the interpretation of St. Maxima does not match. Parallel with or. 44 of Ps.-Macarius, which is carried out by D. Prassas, did not seem convincing to us, although in Ps.-Macarius, in fact, we are talking about a leper, but in a different context. St. Maxim probably has in mind the episode of the healing of the Canaanite daughter (see Matt. 15:22–28), which he symbolically reads as an appeal to Christ of the Canaanites. κατὰ τὴν ἕ ξιν. Above, in qu. dub. I, 32 pr. Maxim spoke of four stages in the development of sin: opposition, lust, inclination to evil (lit.: “state of evil”, ἑξιν τοῦ κακοῦ), that is, copulation [with it], and implementation, that is, action. Obviously, κατὰ τὴν ἑξιν in qu. dub. I, 81 corresponds to ἑξιν τοῦ κακοῦ in qu. dub. I, 32. As a stable “state of evil,” that is, the moral acceptance of sin, it obviously becomes a sinful disposition (skill), which can also be expressed using the word ἑξις and is often denoted by this word in St. Maxima. Exact quotation from Nemesius (Nemes. de nat. horn.: 41.168, ed. Einarson). Wed. Max. amb. 10: PG 91, 1189A-B. In this excerpt from Qu. dub. we encounter a kind of preparation for the topic that St. Maxim will develop in the Difficulties to John, where the theme of providence is one of the most important. Rev. to her Maxim appeals repeatedly in different contexts, in particular, proving the existence of providence, the knowledge of which is one of the essential moments for him in ascent to God. In this matter, as can already be seen from the present passage from Qu. dub., St. Maxim relies to a large extent on Nemesius, although he does not simply repeat him, but in general, in his teaching about the providence of God, he carries out a kind of synthesis from the teaching of the Areopagitik about the providential origins of God and the teaching of Nemesius about providence, not only in relation to the general and generic, but also in relation to the individual (see for more details qu. -es: 121; 173, notes to them and Benevich 2009a). Exact quotation from Nemesius (Nemes. de nat. horn.: 41, 170, ed. Einarson); Wed. Max. amb. 10: PG 91, 1189A-B. It is significant which exact quotes from Nemesius were chosen by St. Maxim in this early work of his. The second definition implicitly connects the providence of God with the doctrine of logoi (the will of God), by which the diversity of the created world is arranged. Or: “[revealed] in various ways” (διαφόροις τρόποις). Qu. dub. I, 83 is an exact quotation from St. Amphilochius of Iconium (Amph. in natal, dom. (or. 1): 1. 44–45, ed. Datema). If this text is not an interpolation, of which one cannot be sure, then this entry can be considered as a “home preparation” of St. The Maxima is evidence of his reflections on how the one, unchanging and invisible God could be perceived by the prophets through various images. St. Maximus will address a similar issue in the Difficulties to John (amb. 19: PG 91, 1233C-1236D), interpreting a passage from St. Gregory the Theologian (Greg. Naz. or. 28.19: PG 36, 52B). The same problem - in a slightly different context - was discussed later during the controversy surrounding Palamism (see Gr. Pal. tr. 2.3.54–63). It is characteristic that qu. dub. I, 82 and I, 83, which in form do not represent question answers, like qu. dub. I, 69 and I, 71, prp. Maxim does not initially belong to it. Obviously, the absence of a particular qu. dub. question is a sign of borrowing. Although the question remains open, is borrowing always a later interpolation?