Приложение (студенческие работы)

On the difference between religious, moral and aesthetic feelings 1028 * Religious, moral and aesthetic feelings constitute the category of higher objective feelings. The last two types of objective feelings appear in our consciousness with such clearly defined homogeneous content that the originality of each of them seems undoubted 1029 *. On the contrary, the content of religious feeling represents such a variety of theoretical, moral and aesthetic elements that the primitive character of religious feeling seemed doubtful to the three great representatives of philosophical thought of modern times, Kant, Schelling and Hegel, and depending on which element in religious feeling seemed to them the strongest and most significant, they made discoveries of religious feeling from the moral, aesthetic or intellectual aspirations of man. The denial of the primary character of religious feeling was given formal validity by the fact that for religious aspirations it was apparently impossible to indicate a special organ in our soul, while the satisfaction of intellectual aspirations is served by our thinking abilities, moral aspirations are realized in the activity of the will, and finally, aesthetic aspirations, by their very name, are manifestations of our feelings par excellence. The newest direction in the field of psychology, without recognizing as valid the doctrine of mind, will and feeling as special basic mental abilities 1030, equates religious aspirations on their mental basis with moral, aesthetic and mental aspirations. Other grounds for identifying religious discoveries with other aspirations come down to a one-sided view of the religious feeling and partly on that which seems to be primary in relation to the religious feeling. The philosophical experience of identifying religious manifestations with moral ones belongs to Kant. Recognizing religious and moral precepts to be quite similar in content, Kant distinguishes them only by the form in which they are given - by the grounds on which their obligation is based. Having no independent content, religious duties in the name of God require from a person the same thing that his own moral nature demands from him in the name of his inherent moral law. Thus, religious feeling has only a auxiliary relationship to moral feeling. But real life far from justifies such a view. The primary form of moral feeling, in which it reveals itself to our consciousness, is the pleasant or unpleasant mental moods aroused by individual acts of our self-determination. The specific, qualitative features of these moods are inaccessible to strictly logical definitions, but, nevertheless, we distinguish these moods from others similar in tone. The meaning of these moods becomes directly, without any conscious logical constructions, accessible to our mind: a pleasant mood, or a feeling of inner peace, serves for us as a sure sign of the moral dignity of free actions or intentions, and an unpleasant mood, or internal restlessness, remorse, we take as a sure sign that the actions or intentions that caused this internal remorse are immoral. The fact that the moral sense is thus revealed with the correctness of the physical law, that is, it always evaluates homogeneous manifestations of our freedom in the same way - that moral torment in us increases when we put into action intentions that our moral sense recognized as unkind - that we again experience these moral torments every time the thought of an immoral act we have committed enters our consciousness (conscience) - soon teaches us to see not an accident, but a law in the manifestations of a moral sense, - not only an assessment of the known facts of our self-determination, but also a guiding rule for our activities. We generalize individual indications of moral feeling, compose from these generalizations a code of moral rules, or a moral law, the fulfillment of which we recognize as our duty, which we have no power to violate, without being subjected to internal retribution for such a crime in the form of remorse. Thus, Kant quite rightly calls our moral legislation, insofar as it is accessible to our consciousness, autonomy. We ourselves are the guardians of our moral law: the consciousness of duty that accompanies the discovery of a moral sense, the moral bliss that accompanies our activity in accordance with the requirements of duty, and moral torment - an indispensable consequence of actions that do not agree with the moral law - these are the incentives with which he can direct our activity, and their effect is the stronger, the more receptive we are to our internal states, the more attentive we are to our past, illuminated by the moral consciousness or conscience. All motivations for moral activity exert their influence on us at a time when we still intend to commit some act, and the inner peace or inner torment that we experience after committing a certain act is only a repetition of the mood that we experienced already at the moment when the intention to commit this act arose in us. Thus, the entire binding force of moral feeling lies in the present state of mind, and not in the distant future. Moral feeling relates to all manifestations of our self-determination, and therefore the requirements of duty extend not only to our individual life, but also to all our relationships with other creatures similar to us, with other individuals. The range of these latter relations, according to Kant, is limited to our relations with other people. But such a representation of the scope of moral relations is too narrow: our moral relations with the highest Personal Being, the psychological basis of which is religious feeling, should also be counted among the type of moral social relations 1031 *. Our moral relations towards other finite individuals must necessarily be preceded by conviction in their existence and knowledge of their properties, which determine the nature of our moral relations towards these individuals. The fact of the existence of other people and their properties are accessible to our observation and are known to us empirically. Meanwhile, the truth of the existence of God, with the conviction of which our religious life begins, is not subject to our either internal or external observation. No conscious process of thinking can prove the truth of God’s existence so strictly logically that it appears to our reason as an obvious, precise and necessary consequence from given premises. Subjective conviction in the truth of the existence of God appears as given outside of experience, as a result of a cognitive process inaccessible to our consciousness, as a “dark perception by religious feeling” 1032 * of the fact of the existence of God - a perception as direct as the perception in a sensory sense of the fact of the existence of external objects. This “direct perception by feeling” of the existence of God constitutes the primary moment and the most essential side of religious feeling, because it constitutes the grain from which the entire religious life of man develops. All proofs of the existence of God presuppose the existence in man (albeit only possible) of subjective conviction in the truth of the existence of God as a necessary condition for their persuasiveness. All subsequent development of the concept of God is “guided, advanced from stage to stage, corrected from mistakes” by this initial religious feeling; it “exercises constant control over the religious consciousness, over the conscious understanding and further development of the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe Divine” (Ulrici. Body and Soul. p. 742). Thus, the essential side in religious feeling is theoretical, cognitive 1033 *; its practical side constitutes a necessary consequence of the development of the idea of ​​​​the Divine and is only a modification of the manifestations of moral feeling 1034 *. In fact, in the views of natural peoples, the Divinity is certainly connected with the sign of a force that exceeds the strength of man, and, moreover, a living, intelligent force that feels a person’s relationship to it, undoubtedly influencing his existence. The necessary consequence of such a theistic view is a cult in which a person expresses a moral feeling of gratitude for the benefits of the Deity, hopes to gain his favor and ward off the hostile actions of the formidable Deity. Those feelings in which a person’s relationship to the Divine is expressed do not constitute the primary element in religious feeling. There is no term meaning the most sublime feelings of a theist - a term that could not be applied to any moral relationship between people: feelings of gratitude, fear, love, even reverence, in their lowest degree, take place in relations between people. External manifestations of religious feeling are distinguished by the same, so to speak, anthropological character. Sacrifice, a very common type of cult, had, according to pagan ideas, significance not as an external expression of the moral feat of renunciation of certain earthly attachments; the sacrifices offered to the Divine pleased him in a grossly sensual way. The ancient Greek, when making a sacrifice, burned it because, in his opinion, the gods liked the smell of burning meat (κνίσσα). – No matter how gross such a distortion of religious feeling may be, it is based on the idea that religious aspirations have a goal in themselves, without their relation to other types of moral aspirations, that in religion a person seeks a direct relationship with the Divine, and not a means only for moral self-improvement. The same idea is proven indirectly by the undoubted fact that the requirements of religion did not always coincide with the requirements of morality and sometimes even stood in contradiction with them. - So “murder - especially committed against a foreigner - is not at all considered an offense by many tribes of blacks; but failure to observe any holiday or religious food prohibition is a crime worthy of death.” “Whoever kills a person from a lower caste must,” according to Brahmin law, “read several prayers”; but whoever deliberately kills a cow, this sacred animal, must die (Wundt. 2 vol. pp. 314–315). In the latter case, it is obvious that the moral consciousness of the Indians has developed to the concept of the crime of murder, but the religious feeling is not so much outraged by this crime as by the killing of a sacred animal. The cult of Melitta in Babylon and the service of the goddess Kali in India are far from the only examples of the contradiction between the prescriptions of religion and moral requirements. Jesus Christ recognized the possibility of such a contradiction between religious and moral feelings even in people professing open religion (John 16, 2. 3). Such an unnatural relationship between different types of moral feelings, between love for neighbors and love for God, is explained, however, from a correct view of the relationship of religious duties to moral ones (in the narrow sense). Since the subject of our religious relations is God, the highest Being, then the suggestions of religious feeling are naturally recognized by us as a higher principle than those requirements of moral duty that determine our individual life and our relationships with other people. And when religious consciousness is still so undeveloped that the Divine is not conceived as the highest moral Being, Who cannot prescribe to a person what his moral sense condemns, then a collision of moral (in the narrow sense) and religious duties is very possible. In these cases, the religious principle displaces and displaces the moral one all the more easily because the first principle is based on such motives as hope for the mercy of the Divine in case of fulfillment - and fear of the formidable punishment of the gods in case of violation of the requirements of religion - motives that act on a poorly developed person incomparably stronger than a sense of moral duty, inner peace or remorse. That is why, in cases where religious demands coincide with moral ones, when the latter receive sanction from religion, religious principles turn out to be a more powerful motive for preserving moral relations between people and strengthening individual morality than purely moral motives, and the common sense of rulers and private individuals encourages them to seek guarantees of public order and private rights not in moral, but in religious feeling: in the most important cases they require an oath from a person, and not an honest word. Even when the moral sense is very highly developed, religious impulses retain their full significance in the matter of moral improvement. Relying on such high factors as a sense of duty and truly moral love for God, a person becomes much more morally strong than when he is guided only by a sense of duty. Thus, religious feeling, although it relates to the moral as a species to a genus, remains completely unique in relation to other types of moral manifestations, since the subject of religious relations is not identical with the subjects of other moral relations. This feature of religious feeling determines all the other features of its difference from moral feeling (in a narrow sense) - the predominant importance of the cognitive element in religious feeling, and the different ratio of the requirements of religious feeling to moral demands at different moments of religious development, and the highest degree of obligation recognized by all for religious precepts. Moral and aesthetic feelings belong to two different orders of mental phenomena and therefore represent a complete difference in their initial principle, in the objects that excite them, in the content they introduce into consciousness, in their significance in human life, and therefore in their mutual relationship. It is impossible not to admit that moral feeling arises from the depths of the human spirit itself and in its manifestation depends relatively little on the external world. Therefore, the significance of the higher organs of external senses for a person’s moral life is limited to the fact that, serving as a means of communication with other people, they - indirectly - can contribute to the disclosure of moral feelings already existing in a person. But, in any case, even someone who was born blind or deaf-mute, or even deaf-blind, can live in his own moral world and achieve a certain degree of moral development, become morally even superior to some people who have a healthy, normal physical body 1036 *. Even less can a person's moral life be affected by a lack of sight or hearing alone. As a purely spiritual feeling, the moral feeling is not attached to any external form, to any phenomenon of the external world. Only the inner mood of a free-thinking agent, revealed in an external fact, gives it moral meaning, makes it an object of moral feeling. An external fact in itself can be neither moral nor immoral. Even such a stunning fact as the murder of an innocent child receives a moral character only when we, through synthetic judgments, discover the rationally free performer of this fact; otherwise, this fact constitutes only misfortune and not a crime. In a word, the moral element is not immanently inherent in a given phenomenon, but comes from outside, from the cause of the phenomenon, inherent in it transcendentally. The aesthetic feeling by its nature stands, as it were, on the border of the spiritual and physical nature of man. True, the human soul is inherent in an aesthetic norm, the idea of ​​beauty; but the aesthetic feeling, as a mental process, “is immediately adjacent to the sensually given,” and is in such close dependence on external higher feelings that the loss of one of them closes the whole area of ​​\u200b\u200besthetic impressions for a person. Even relatively minor damage to the organ of hearing or vision makes it impossible to enjoy the highest and complete enjoyment of music or a beautiful work of sculpture, painting or architecture. Even in the field of poetry, the most free from communication with the outside world, a lack of development of vision or hearing becomes noticeable: they notice that the works of a myopic, and even more so a blind poet, despite his high poetic talent, do not have the same merits that are noticed in the works of poets with normal vision. The object that excites the aesthetic sense is the beautiful, the graceful - in nature and art. The essence of beauty is usually believed to be the harmonious relationship between idea and form. But, notes Wundt, “this position is valid only in relation to the highest manifestations of the graceful; but there is also no doubt that an elegant form can appear where there is no question of the embodiment of ideas; and then we have the right to doubt whether we are not taking for the highest feeling of grace that which is in fact a feeling mixed from religious, moral and intellectual elements. Known combinations of colors and combinations of sounds are elegant or ungraceful, regardless of whether they belong to one whole, expressing some idea” (The Soul of Man and Animal. 2 vols. Page 72). Whichever of these two views is more correct, in any case, form constitutes a necessary, essential element of grace. Ideas, admittedly, are neither beautiful nor ugly, and if the beautiful consists in the embodiment of ideas, then they receive aesthetic significance only from the moment of their embodiment in external forms. Thus, the object of aesthetic feeling is the external side of the phenomenon of the visible world. And the external fact immanently contains everything that makes it graceful before the judgment of our feelings. No additional information regarding a given phenomenon will make it elegant if our aesthetic sense does not recognize it as such, and vice versa. Aesthetic criticism of a well-known poetic work can change the degree of development of our aesthetic taste or strengthen our attention, draw it to aspects of the poem that we had not previously noticed, through a series of analytical judgments give it a different light and thus change the verdict of the aesthetic feeling. But it is not difficult to notice that this change occurred due to the fact that we received an idea of ​​an external fact that is not identical with the original idea about which we made our previous aesthetic judgment. But in the case when additional information represents a synthetic judgment and does not change the identity of our idea of ​​​​a given phenomenon, our aesthetic verdict about it remains unchanged. An exact determination of the place and time of the birth and death of Homer, the place and year of writing of the Iliad would not have any influence on the judgment of the aesthetic sense about it. Therefore, the aesthetic feeling is completely indifferent to the question of the cause that produced a certain elegant phenomenon, or - better said - never asks this question. Whether this beautiful phenomenon is the product of the elemental forces of nature or the creative imagination of a self-conscious genius, this has no value for the aesthetic feeling, and anyone who would tell a person listening with aesthetic pleasure to the sounds of a musical piece the name of its composer would only produce an unpleasant break in the aesthetic feeling, because in the soul of the listener this information would not find a question about the composer of the play. An equally complete difference is noticeable in the content with which moral and aesthetic feelings appear in our consciousness. The feeling of inner peace, appearing in our soul as a sign of the dignity of a certain manifestation of our freedom, imposes on it the stamp of obligation, duty - it has a commanding character. We recognize ourselves as obligated to carry out the intention to which our moral feeling has given sanction, and we experience positive moral suffering when we arbitrarily fail to carry out this intention, yielding to opposite impulses that do not have the sanction of moral feeling. Thus, the moral feeling is to our consciousness the supreme authority in our spirit, the dictates of which must triumph over all obstacles, give direction to our will in all clashes with other instincts. The goal to which moral feeling leads us, that is, virtue in its entirety and individual manifestations, is achieved only through labor and activity, each individual moment of which is imputed to us and shaded by one or another mood of moral feeling. The inner peace achieved by our feat is the more intense, the more difficult the feat was. Thus, the area of ​​moral feeling opens up to our consciousness as an area of ​​struggle and the imputation of our actions to us, so that every moral mood we experience is, as it were, a part of ourselves and an indelible fact of our self-consciousness, characterizing our personality, our “I”. This is not the case in the area of ​​aesthetic feeling. We are not aware of the unconditional obligatory nature of our aesthetic aspirations. True, the highest manifestations of beauty attract us very strongly and focus our attention on themselves for a long time; but, nevertheless, we ourselves do not recognize ourselves as obliged to make the contemplation of the aesthetically beautiful the highest goal of our existence. On the contrary, every normally developed person, no matter how great the receptivity of his aesthetic sense, is aware that aesthetic aspirations are not of primary importance in our life, that satisfaction with them constitutes our natural right, which we can use in order to make our existence full and happy, but we can use it only in those cases where our right does not conflict with our duty. Therefore, our aesthetic aspirations bow before the power of moral duty, and in the event of a collision between our aesthetic inclinations and moral duties, we realize that in order to maintain a normal state of mind, we must follow the instructions of moral feeling. One of the reasons for the superiority of moral aspirations over aesthetic ones is perhaps the absence of achievement, struggle, which constitutes a specific sign of manifestations of aesthetic feeling. In fact, in the present state of affairs, in real life, work ennobles and elevates a person. Meanwhile, the aesthetic feeling is perhaps the most inactive of mental processes. A certain degree of aesthetic development, a certain degree of active attention, which, however, thanks to the attractive power of the beautiful, soon turns into passive - these are the necessary conditions on the part of a person under which the contemplation of the beautiful becomes possible. And the nature of grace is such that it deepens a person’s peace. A drawing is recognized as elegant only when our eye easily follows the curves of the contour in the drawing and the thought without strain comprehends the harmonious relationship between the parts and the whole. Therefore, although there is a surprisingly harmonious relationship between the parts of a right triangle, since it is recognized only after an intense cognitive process, the right triangle is not considered an elegant figure; Meanwhile, other geometric figures, for example, a circle and a square, the symmetry of which is immediately obvious, are recognized as the primary, simplest forms of plastic beauty. The psychological significance of rhythm in music and poetry lies in the fact that it divides the entire aesthetic work into small similar systems, as a result of which the first systems make it easier for us to perceive all subsequent ones. Finally, the highest manifestations of beauty come closest to their ideal perfection when, without intense mental labor on the part of the person contemplating them, the idea embodied in them is introduced into his consciousness. As a result of all this, the mood that we take away from the contemplation of beauty has a pleasant tone; but since this more or less pure and high pleasure is achieved by us almost without any labor, then, as undeserved by us, it is not imputed to us in the sense of a fact that characterizes our personality - it is not imputed to us in the same way as the bright mood with which we perform mental or physical work, overcome obstacles in the performance of our duties, etc. is imputed to us. And this circumstance gives rise to the conclusion that in human life the aesthetic feeling is much less important than the moral one. The same conclusion is led by the fact that not a single person is born personally criminal or immoral, while many by nature are deprived of the opportunity not only to achieve the highest aesthetic development, but even to feel beauty in all its forms. In general, a person who renounces the possibility of aesthetic development and aesthetic pleasures in the name of a moral idea, for example, a missionary who has devoted his life to educational work among a people whose external environment does not represent anything aesthetically beautiful, in a country poor in beautiful natural phenomena, represents a grandiose manifestation of self-sacrifice and arouses deep respect for himself; on the contrary, someone who, in pursuit of aesthetic ideals, would begin to exploit his neighbors to achieve them, despite even his high artistic development, as a person would deserve contempt, although he would arouse admiration for himself as an artist. If, in this way, aesthetic aspirations in themselves cannot become the principle of truly human life, then what determines their significance for man as a moral being, which gives them a place among the species differences of man? Ulrici points to the highest effects of beauty, refreshment, elevation, inspiration, as the basis of the claims of beauty and art to ethical significance (Body and Soul. p. 671). These actions of the beautiful take place not only when the highest manifestation of the graceful introduces some high idea into our consciousness, but also when we are under the impression of a beautiful picture of nature or music - those types of beauty whose basic idea is least definite. These actions of the graceful, and therefore its meaning for man, are determined by the general laws of human existence. Human nature is such that he cannot be constantly active. His work, both physical, mental and moral, must necessarily be replaced by peace and pleasure. We can say that the significance of enjoying the beautiful in our soul is as great as the significance of sleep in organic life. Aesthetic contemplation of beauty moderately excites our mental powers, weakened by prolonged stress, distracts our attention from our inner world and the oppressive ideas of difficult practical activity and turns our thoughts to the outside world. A beautiful phenomenon concentrates our consciousness on itself for a long time, displaces all other ideas beyond its limits, brings into our soul several pure pleasures that do not exhaust our strength, and establishes deep peace in it. Our spiritual powers, restored by peace, do not yet have time to unite with known ideas, and the entire wealth of our spiritual energy is revealed to our consciousness in its pure, abstract form, without connection with a specific content. An inner sense of our own strength and freedom elevates us above the level at which we recognized ourselves; the best instincts of our nature are awakened and encourage us to strive for the highest. Our consciousness is then free from the mass of ideas changing in it. They slowly penetrate into consciousness, and we seem to begin to live a conscious life again. Such a result of contemplating the beautiful in itself does not yet have moral dignity; the whole significance of this result for moral life is that we get the opportunity, with renewed strength, to begin activities according to the direction of moral feeling. But not all aesthetic impressions have this meaning. The action of pictures of nature, as well as the best works of music, the idea of ​​which is not distinguished by definiteness, most achieves this goal, because, while renewing and elevating our forces, it does not give them a specific goal, it leaves us free to give them a specific goal. But those manifestations of the elegant, which introduce a more or less definite idea into our consciousness, thereby already impress us, encourage us to concentrate all our forces on the implementation of this idea (if the idea is practical) and in any case limit the freedom of our self-determination. The moral significance of such works can be very high if their ideas are moral and high; but since in reality this does not always happen, these manifestations of beauty can also have a harmful effect on a person’s moral development. Consequently, beauty has only a conditional meaning for moral feeling. There is a view that the religious feeling produces from the aesthetic. As the basis for such an identification, Schelling points to the identity of the religious contemplation of nature with the aesthetic. Ulrici defines the relationship of religious feeling to the aesthetic with the rather general term “internal direct affinity” and how, at the moment of this affinity, it indicates a religious desire for an unconditionally perfect Being, the ideal of the good, the truly beautiful. “On this last moment of religious feeling is based the internal direct affinity between religion and art; it explains the historical fact that art everywhere initially arose from religion and was combined with religious feelings and ideas. This also explains why the concept of God, in its content, everywhere coincides with the contemporary ideal of goodness, beauty and perfection to which the ethical education of man and the culture of a given tribe and people have risen” (Body and Soul. p. 745). But no matter how closely the religious feeling converges with the aesthetic at these points, behind this apparent similarity are hidden features of deep difference. Let us pay attention first of all to the direction along which religious feeling goes in its gradual enlightenment in historical manifestations. The specific and more essential element of religious feeling is the cognitive element, there is that primary perception of the Infinite, which makes possible the conscious, logical, rational disclosure of the idea of ​​God, which in turn determines the most internal, moral attitude towards the Divine, or the subjective side of religious feeling. But the more the idea of ​​God is enlightened in religious consciousness, the more it approaches the adequate concept of God, the more vividly and clearly man realizes that the Divine, the purest, absolute Spirit, cannot be represented in visible material forms, the more he rises to the thought of serving Him in spirit and truth, and therefore the more he distinguishes between the internal and external in religion. And the artistic element in religion constitutes its external side. And since form constitutes a necessary element of the graceful and there is no possibility of hoping that the aesthetically beautiful will ever free itself from connection with matter, become spiritualized and embody in the purest and most perfect way an adequate representation of the Divine: that religious feeling, as it purifies and exalts, more and more leaves the aesthetic feeling behind itself and reveals a tendency - at the highest moment of its development to break off its union with the aesthetic feeling 1037 *, which, by its conditions, cannot to rise in one’s ideals to the point of their complete identification with an infinitely sublime religious ideal, nor – much less – to serve a religious goal in the most perfect way 1038. In any case, it is very significant that it was precisely in the era of its highest development, in the first centuries of Christianity, that the religious feeling had very little connection with the aesthetic. It is impossible to deny the fact of the existence of individuals with a deep religious feeling, who, however, had a negative attitude towards the ideals of aesthetic feeling (just as the opposite fact is beyond doubt that people with a highly developed aesthetic feeling were not always highly religious people). Finally, it cannot be argued that in the whole Reformed religious society there are not and have not been people with a developed religious feeling; and meanwhile, this religious society makes a principle of the denial of the artistic element in religious rituals. The Orthodox Church does not know this principle. It allows an artistic element in its rituals, but it allows, on the one hand, because not all members have reached that moral height at which a person has no need for his moral and religious actions in the indisputably beneficial assistance of aesthetic feeling, and on the other hand, in the name of connection with his historical past, and therefore recognizes the norm of the artistic element in his worship not to indicate the aesthetic taste of individuals or a certain modern era, but a type of churchliness consecrated by tradition, in which the graceful is a symbol of one or another religious truth. In general, at the highest moments of religious inspiration, a person is inherent in the consciousness of the self-sufficiency of religious feeling - the consciousness that the object of religious aspirations is so sublime that the mere thought of it is enough to excite the liveliest desire for it: even the darkness of the cave did not hinder the ancient ascetics in their lofty religious exploits. Thus, the difference between the religious and aesthetic feelings at the highest moment of development of the first exists undoubtedly and turns out to be so strong that the origin of the religious feeling from the aesthetic becomes a very doubtful matter. Indeed, the assumption that religious aspirations at the beginning of their discovery were identical with aesthetic ones contradicts information about the state of religion among ancient and modern natural peoples; Even the idea of ​​“an internal and immediate affinity between religion and art” does not seem completely solid, because the historical facts explained by this hypothesis and giving it much significance are not confirmed by information about the religious state of natural peoples. Thus, the position that “the idea of ​​God, in its content, everywhere coincides with the contemporary ideal of beauty to which the culture of a given tribe has risen” can be considered completely fair only in relation to the Greeks and partly the Romans. On the contrary, the plastic representations of savage and even some civilized peoples prove that the ideal of their religious feeling did not correspond to the aesthetic ideal. The idea of ​​God as the Great Spirit, not alien to many peoples, is undoubtedly very close to the aesthetic idea of ​​the sublime; therefore, if a person’s religious aspirations were homogeneous with aesthetic ones, one would expect that it would be the sublime thought of the One Great Spirit that would become the basis of religious myths and plastic images of the Divine. But - generally speaking - the exact opposite happened: “having contemplated the One Eternal for some time,” says Broglie, “people in powerlessness and horror turned away from Him in order to make gods for themselves according to their own understanding and according to their own standards.” And in fact, “among the Negroes, as well as in the New World, the cult of the Supreme Deity is for the most part in great oblivion” (Wundt. T. 2. p. 305); and “the ugly features of idols, taken from the unclean imagination of the masses” (Broglie, Christian Reading. 1875. September-October. Pp. 331), - the idols of Indian and Egyptian deities are often so aesthetically ugly that they hardly leave room for doubt that, when worshiping them and creating them, the pagans were not at all guided by an aesthetic feeling and aesthetic standards. Incomprehensible given the supposed coincidence of the aesthetic and religious ideal, the possibility of such a representation of the Divine becomes completely clear when we imagine that the essential feature most illuminated by consciousness in the concept of the Divine - as this concept was formed under the influence of the primary perception of religious feeling - is the idea of ​​power, which pushes into the background the idea of ​​beauty, which constitutes one of the essential features in the concept of the peoples of the highest culture about God. Therefore, a Negro is sometimes content to depict the Deity with the first stone he comes across, if only he (the Negro) managed to experimentally verify the presence of divine power in this object (Wundt. T. 2. p. 339). Of course, the Egyptians did not depict their gods with blue or green faces or with animal heads because they saw the ideal of beauty in such an unnatural combination of human and animal members, but because such images were considered the most expressive symbols of various divine powers. Such images of deities are of decisive importance in the question of the identity of the religious ideal with the ideal of beauty and the internal direct affinity between religion and art, and therefore of religious and aesthetic feelings; because the fact that in the churches of the gods we often have the first examples of architecture proves only that man forced his aesthetic sense to serve the religious: an elegantly built church is not an end, but a means for religious feeling - not an image of the Divine, but a sacrifice to Him, material proof of the great reverence for Him of a person who devotes to Him the best work of his hands and thoughts. Thus, the religious feeling, not only at the highest moment of its development, but also in its lowest, most imperfect manifestations, is different in its object from the aesthetic and is recognized as a spiritual discovery higher in comparison with it, for which the aesthetic feeling can sometimes serve as a means, but is never the goal. As a result, the “direct sensation of divine harmony in nature,” or the aesthetic contemplation of nature, shaded by feeling, cannot be recognized as a mental process identical with religious feeling. Since the religious feeling reveals a person’s need to become directly related to the Divine Himself, the aesthetic contemplation of nature can be identical with a religious feeling only under the necessary condition if a person begins to think of the Divine as diffused in nature, completely identical with it and having no existence outside of it. But a natural religious feeling, not influenced by perverted, extreme trends of thought, resists any non-theistic idea of ​​​​the Deity and turns the impersonal Deity of artificial religious systems into a personal Being. On the other hand, the aesthetic contemplation of nature is related as a species to a genus to an aesthetic feeling, and therefore the quietism of the direct sensation of divine harmony in nature lies in the very essence of this mental process. Meanwhile, religious feeling, as a type of morality, has an active character, disposes a person to feat in the name of the Personal God and in itself represents a feat that requires both active attention and willpower, and is recognized as a duty. This last feature seems especially strange and unnatural when applied to aesthetic feelings: duty when applied to pleasures is a contradictio in adjecto; the clearly recognized obligation to enjoy aesthetic impressions almost completely destroys pleasure itself. It is also impossible not to admit that the direct feeling of harmony and divine harmony in nature is not as universal a fact as a religious feeling: the aesthetic feeling in an undeveloped state is applied more to individual manifestations of beauty in nature than to the harmony of the whole. How little an undeveloped person is capable of feeling the harmonious action of natural laws in the whole of nature, this is shown by the general inclination of uncivilized peoples to explain each more or less limited circle of natural phenomena by the action of animate, special for each circle of phenomena, figures. In general, aesthetic contemplation of nature as a whole is possible for people with a highly developed aesthetic sense, and not for savage peoples, who are sometimes not alien to very high glimpses of religious feeling. In fact, aesthetic pleasure in the beautiful in nature is not only not identical with a religious feeling, but in itself, in its pure, unalloyed form, is not even a reason, a fact that excites religious feelings. The aesthetic feeling consists of an inseparable, holistic perception of the harmonious relationship between the parts and the whole, and, moreover, without increased strain on the cognitive powers of the human spirit; for the aesthetic sense, everything lies in the contemplated phenomenon, and therefore the one who enjoys the beautiful does not at the same time ascend to the idea of ​​the agent who produced this beauty; even in the case when the thought of this appears in the consciousness of the contemplator as a ready-made given from the outside, it cannot, due to the narrowness of the horizon of human consciousness, remain in it without displacing the idea of ​​the contemplated object. Therefore, the one who contemplates the beautiful in nature, by virtue of this law of aesthetic feeling, does not ascend in thought to the Creator of nature, does not ask the question about the cause of the beautiful phenomenon and does not solve it (the question): the transition from an external fact (beautiful) completed in itself to its beginning and cause would be too strong a movement, not in harmony with the tranquility of aesthetic contemplation. Therefore, if a person felt divine harmony in nature as an artist - with his aesthetic sense, then he made a teleological conclusion from the fact of the existence of divine harmony to the existence of the Divine, its rational cause, as a thinker. That elevation and renewal, which appears as a result of the action of beauty on a person, as a feeling of fullness of spiritual energy, is not yet a religious feeling, just as the feeling of an excess of vital forces in the body is not yet a purposeful movement - and represents only a person’s pointless desire for infinity, and not a rationally free desire for the Infinite. – The religious teleological contemplation of nature, which represents a periodic change in the consciousness of purely aesthetic feeling and reflection, is not identical with the purely aesthetic contemplation of nature. Based on the position that there is God, the Creator and Ruler of the world, the religious contemplator reduces each individual manifestation of beauty in nature to its original axiom, sanctifies and explains with it all perceptions of aesthetic feeling and, having felt the harmony of the world in its parts and as a whole, completes his contemplation with his original thought. Psalms 8 and 103 present beautiful, completely finished examples of this complex process in which the aesthetic feeling is raised to the height of a religious act 1039 *. What is the doctrine of the heredity of talent based on? Francis Galton. Heredity of talent, its laws and consequences Examples of the preservation of certain physical or mental characteristics in one genus over several generations are quite common. The least artificial explanation of this remarkable phenomenon is that according to which these features appear to be inherited from ancestors. This explanation, even when it relates to the fact of the special talent of a famous family, is accepted in ordinary society without any distrust: “so-and-so was born like his father, his grandfather,” “it’s in their family,” these are the usual common phrases with which people think to explain the reason for the remarkable talent or eccentricity of a famous person. This is not the position of the theory of heredity of talent in the scientific world. Presenting solid scientific foundations for this theory is a very difficult matter: the question of the heredity of talent turns into the question of the innateness of spiritual gifts and, finally, into the dark question of the influence of mental qualities on the composition of the physical organism. It is not surprising, therefore, that the theory of heredity of talent in the scientific world had both defenders and opponents. Recently, a strong defender of this theory has been Francis Galton, who presented in two essays (“The Heredity of Talent” and “Englishmen of science, their nature and nurture”) the results of a long-term and thorough study of the facts relating to the question of the nature of talent. Galton “was the first to try to develop this question statistically, came to conclusions that could be expressed in numbers, and applied the “law of deviation from averages” to the study of heredity. Galton's first essay presents the experience of substantiating the theory of heredity of talent on the basis of statistical data, the second essay, almost more valuable than the first in terms of the number of particular points investigated in it, reveals those moments that influence the birth and upbringing of gifted people. The original method that Galton applied to the study of the question of talent aroused praise, was applied to a study in one of the Russian journals and led to results partly identical to those obtained by Galton. – “The English thinker Galton... so simply opened the doors of the mysterious church of genius that, apparently, he solved his problem without the traditional consciousness of its inaccessibility and without any thought (?) that he was tearing the veil off one of the deepest secrets of human nature” (Heredity of Talent. P. 26). Without hesitation, he puts such a subtle and, one might say, weightless matter as the question of genius on the rough scales of statistics... and as a result of this bold operation, conclusions were obtained worthy of the full attention of the educated world (Family and School. November. Page 189). The first chapters of “The Heredity of Talent” are aimed at eliminating objections, on the one hand, to the very topic of Galton’s work, and on the other, to the method he adopted for developing his subject. Obviously, the question of the heredity of talent can be raised only when the question of innate talent is resolved in a positive sense, when the fact of the difference between people according to their natural talents is put beyond any doubt. Galton does not consider this fact generally accepted, but nevertheless defends it in the most decisive manner. “I absolutely do not accept the hypothesis, sometimes expressed directly, and even more often implied, mainly in stories written for the edification of children, which claims that everyone is born almost the same, and that the only factors that create the difference between one and another ... person are diligence and moral efforts over oneself. I most certainly reject the assumption of natural equality between people” (Heredity of Talent, p. 15). In these few words, which very aptly outline the most attractive side of the opposing view, a position is expressed that is hardly possible to refute in its entirety. Galton's entire argument aimed at defending this position produces a strange effect. Its logical side is far from impeccable; one can find weaknesses in each of its members; one can only consider as probable everything that is expressed so categorically 1040; but if this probability is assessed not from a strictly logical, but from a vital and practical point of view, then in place of doubt there is the need to recognize the real truth of this probability. One can, of course, without a logical error, assume that “the phenomena observed in the nursery, school, university, and especially in various fields of later activity” and representing such obvious evidence of the differences between people in their ability for mental work, do not yet indicate anything about their natural talents, which are not subject to our observation in their pure form, not complicated by external influences; but for practical life these logical subtleties are completely indifferent. The conclusion a posse ad esse and a non esse ad non posse, sophistry or paralogism from the point of view of logic, is peculiarly correct from a vital and practical point of view: phenomena and forces for us exist as much as they manifest themselves, and a person - let's say - phenomenally talented in pötentia, who has not declared his talents in any way, from a practical point of view is as untalented as an idiot. – From this point of view, it seems very apt to compare Galton’s method with rough scales. A question that is insoluble from a strictly logical point of view, a weightless subject, becomes easily solvable and acquires very noticeable weight when they begin to look at it from a practical point of view. One such real picture of psychic experiences that lead a person to a correct determination of his powers, his humble place in the world, which Galton draws (pp. 16-17), provides a very convincing proof of the difference between people according to their natural gifts, although we cannot determine the extent of the difference that exists between the natural abilities of people in the very first moments of their lives. Having recognized the fact that people differ according to their natural gifts, we thereby prejudge the question of the heredity of talent, or, more precisely, talent. If those elements that make up talent are innate to a person, then, obviously, he received them from his parents. One can object to this only under the condition of a different concept of heredity as the succession of those characteristics that were noticeably manifested in the ancestors. If we do not recognize as hereditary the wealth that the son acquired through the development of gold ore on his family estate, the existence of which the father did not even imagine, then, applying the concept of heredity that is expressed in judgments about this fact to the succession of the elements of talent, we have the right to assert that the heredity of talent is far from a universal fact and is observed in cases that can be considered exceptions. Galton, in his first essay, summarizes the results of his research as follows: In “English men of science” he provides the following data on the question of the heredity of the talent of modern English men of science: Of the 191, only 59 chose their career based on innate inclination (hence, only 0.3). Of the 91, 56 scientists chose their branch of natural sciences certainly by innate inclination (0.6), 11 - certainly not by innate inclination (0.12), and in 24 cases the innate inclination to this specialty was doubtful (0.26) (Family and School. December. pp. 282–283). If we reduce all these data to one denominator, it turns out that the ratio of cases of hereditary talent to cases in which heredity is questionable is 0.4=(0.5+0.3)/2 or 0.55=(0.5+0.6)/2. Thus, the figure of 0.5, derived by Galton from the statistical data collected in his first work, turns out to be very firm, and deviation from it is very small. And it is hardly possible to recognize as a law determining the succession of talent something that is noticed in only half of the observed facts. This skeptical attitude towards this numerical data is further strengthened by the method by which Galton made this generalization. What is the doctrine of the heredity of talent based on? Galton recognizes the hereditary talent of all those gifted people who have “outstanding” or “famous” relatives. This is not in all cases a reliable criterion for determining the heredity of talent. Since talent can change in its form, passing from ancestors to descendants, proving that a famous famous person has hereditary talent is in some cases as difficult as proving, for example, that player x made a fortune for himself by betting on a gold coin given by a special person, while he came to the gambling house with gold coins, which X took, without paying attention to their distinctive features, streets t, n, y and z. The probability that X got rich “from the lucky hand” of y, in this case, is no more than that X owes his happiness to the happiness of m, n or z, or all of them together, or, finally, none of them. It is also difficult to prove that Countess Lovelace, “possessed remarkable mathematical abilities” (Heredity of talent. p. 195), had hereditary talent because she was the daughter of the famous Byron, or that Heine had “hereditary talent” because he was related to a man who “was poor at first, but later acquired up to 2,000,000 pounds sterling and donated enormous sums to public institutions” (p. 196). Knowing about Ada, Countess Lovelace, only that she had hereditary talent and was distinguished by mathematical abilities, everyone, of course, will a priori assume that she was the daughter of Newton, Pascal, Laplace, Gauss, but the name of Byron will be remembered after many others, and probably in this form: “is she really the daughter of Byron?” Knowing about Solomon Hein only that he was a man who rose from poverty to the position of a millionaire, one can rather assume that he is a relative of one of those American millionaires who begin their business operations with 1 dollar and leave to their children a capital of 25,000,000 dollars (Aston), or, starting from the position of a laborer who carries wood on barges, acquire the reputation of the first businessman in the United States (Vanderbilt. Son Fatherland. 1874 No. 291), but it is difficult to guess that this relative of Solomon Heine is the impractical poet Heinrich Heine. But even if we assume that a talent preserved in a certain family in the general form of talent should be considered hereditary, then, according to the strict meaning of the concept of “heredity,” the talent of a famous person can be recognized as hereditary only in the case where it is possible, at least only with probability, to indicate the relative from whom the “famous” person in question inherited his talent, and to show that he (the “famous” person) could inherit the talent of his relative. Since the only form in which it is possible to inherit, along with a developed brain, the talent of a famous person is through descent from him, it is clear that to prove the heredity of the talent of a famous person, it is not at all important that he has gifted relatives in general; the whole question is whether this person has gifted relatives in a direct ascending line, ancestors in the proper sense of the word, whose blood, as is usually expressed, flows in the veins of the famous person in question. Since, according to the theory of probability, the causal dependence of descendants on their ancestors regarding their abilities is directly proportional to the amount of blood of their ancestors that flows in the veins of their descendants, then in order to prove the heredity of the mental abilities of a famous person, it is far from indifferent to what degree of kinship his gifted ancestors are with him. The formula presented by Galton on page 287 makes it possible to express in numbers the dependence of descendants on their ancestors in their natural properties, and therefore in some of the cases cited in his work, the heredity of talent may seem doubtful. Here are some examples from the table of "statesmen" 1041: The Duke of Wellington has a single talented ancestor in "Sir John Trevor, a dishonest judge, cousin and rival of the more talented, but scarcely more dishonest Judge Jeffreys." This gifted ancestor is the great-great-grandfather (ORp, 5th degree of relationship, Gr 5/32=59049/3.200.000=0.01845...) of the Duke of Wellington. With such a distant relationship between these famous statesmen and their gifted ancestors, it is difficult to assume that the talent of the former is determined by the talent of the latter, when the influence of the Duke of Bedford turned out to be powerless in the three generations closest to him, and the talent of Sir John Trevor was not noticeably reflected even in as many as 4 generations and began to act in those descendants who have less than 2/100 of Trevor’s blood in their bodies. As for descending kinship, despite all the importance of statistical data of this kind for the theory of heredity of talent, it cannot be taken into account in those generalizations that determine the percentage of “famous” people with hereditary talent to the total number of “famous” people. The existence of “outstanding” people in the offspring of “famous” people, while representing factual proof that the talent of “famous” individuals can become hereditary in their offspring, cannot in any way serve as evidence that they themselves possessed hereditary talent, just as the mediocre offspring of a brilliant person who has talented ancestors does not yet prove that this gifted representative of his family possessed a non-hereditary genius. Therefore, “famous” people who have “outstanding” relatives only in a direct descending line should be classified as persons who do not have hereditary talent. With all the more justice, those “famous” people who have “outstanding” relatives only in the collateral line should be excluded from the list of hereditarily talented people. The fact that Bernard Jussier (p. 181) had two talented brothers, a “famous” nephew and a nephew’s son who inherited his father’s talent, excludes, of course, the possibility of the assumption that the talent of the Jussier family is a purely accidental phenomenon, having no basis in the natural properties of the ancestors of the famous brothers, but does not give the right to assert that Bernard Jussier’s talent was hereditary: to indicate the gifted ancestor of Jussier who influenced the mental powers of three brothers is impossible, and brothers cannot transfer their talents to each other. In this case, there is at least no doubt that the talent of the Jussier brothers, which, moreover, represents a remarkable similarity in form (all of them are famous botanists), comes from one natural cause, depends on the influence of the same factors, because all Jussiers descend from the same ancestors; but when a “famous” person has only a “distinguished” cousin or even a more distant relative, then it is impossible to say about the origin of their talent, and what little can be said about Jussier’s talent. MuN, the sum of the elements of two gifted cousins Mt and Nn, according to Galton’s formula, can be presented in the following form: M=(81a+9b)/(100x20)+90β/(100x20)+1m/10, N=(8l+9c)/(100x20)+90γ/(100x20)+1n/10. Is it possible, based on these formulas, to prove in any logical way that the talent of Mt and Nn depends precisely on the influence of factor a, that is, their paternal grandparents, and not on b and c or ß and γ, that is, the personal properties of their fathers or the personal and generic properties of their mothers? This difficulty in proving the relationship of two people in terms of talent increases and approaches positive impossibility as they become more distant in terms of the degree of physical relationship. Strange in the work of such an apparently impartial scientist as Galton, the extremely strained attempt to declare Newton’s genius hereditary and through the influence of kinship with Newton to explain the talent of the Huttons - represents a kind of reductio ad absurdum of the rule adopted by Galton - to recognize as hereditarily gifted anyone who has outstanding relatives in any line and degree of kinship. Newton's mother was not gifted, nor were her father, mother and sister; but two great-great-grandsons or even great-great-great-grandsons of the latter, the Gettons (in the 7th or 8th degree of kinship with Newton), were gifted; although one of the Gettons was born 95 years after Newton and 10 years after his death, however, both Newton and the Gettons are hereditarily gifted: the same blood flows in their veins, although not in equal quantities (0.4... of it in Newton’s body and 0.036... or even 0.016... in the Gettons, whose family connection with Newton is expressed by the ratio 1:0.09 or 1:0.04). The extent to which this incorrect norm for determining the heredity of talent has exaggerated the percentage of hereditarily talented people can be seen from the following comparison: Thus, of the 224 “famous” people recognized by Galton as hereditarily gifted, only 104 can in fact be considered so; of the remaining 120, 62 people are recognized as having hereditary talent because they have talented descendants in the proper sense of the word, and 58 because they have gifted relatives on the collateral line. At the same time, the percentage of hereditarily gifted persons to the sum of “famous” turns out to be exactly half that indicated by Galton: instead of 49.2% - only 24.6%. This percentage is somewhat lower than the actual percentage, since in its calculation the percentage of gifted people from the class of “political figures” is not taken into account, because the chapter “Men of State” is changed in the Russian translation (p. 86) and on the basis of it it is impossible to determine which political figures are mentioned (p. 243) under the general title of “Lord Chancellors, statesmen under George III and premiers.” Meanwhile, the number of hereditarily gifted persons in this class is very significant - 64%, so that the ratio of people with hereditary talent to the number of “famous” people of all classes fluctuates around 0.268. In any case, the theory of the heredity of talent in the strict sense, with its modern scientific formulation, turns out to be insufficiently firm in the most important thing: the majority of facts are against it, and this is extremely important in all questions that are solved statistically; in the absence of other, more compelling reasons than statistical data, it is difficult to agree to recognize as an essential feature of a certain class of phenomena that feature that is observed in approximately 27 out of 100 cases. But perhaps the theory of heredity of talent (in the precise sense) can be defended from a different point of view using a different method. This theory is based on the idea that talent is the fruit of a high degree of brain culture and mental abilities, unattainable for one generation; the progressive development of mental abilities turned out to be possible precisely because the descendants received from their ancestors abilities at a higher degree of development than the one in which they were born to their ancestors. It is difficult to argue against the validity of this thought when applied to facts of various orders; in the form in which, for example, Carpenter defends it, the theory of the continuity of intellectual culture deserves complete confidence. “Who, for example,” he says, “will refuse to recognize as an innate gift the amazing ability to understand numerical relations, discovered without any training in childhood by Georg Bidder and Zerah Colborne? But who, on the other hand, can believe that Bidder or Colborne could suddenly appear among a tribe of wild ones who cannot count beyond five? Or who can fail to notice in the history of Mozart's earliest years the dawn of that glorious genius whose brilliant but short-lived career left an indelible impression on the art which it enriched? But who will have the courage to assert that the child Mozart could be born among that tribe whose only musical instrument would be a tam-tam and the only song would be a monotonous tune? (Russian V. 1872. T 100. P. 795). Perhaps this idea is completely true when applied to talented people of the same race. There is some difference between “famous” people in the strength of their talent: there are “brilliant” people, whose place, in Galton’s terminology, can be between G–X, and there are only “talented” people, who occupy a place between F–G. From the Negro race came L'Ouverture, but the Negroes do not have their Pitt, their Kant or their Humboldt. In the same way, from families that have not declared themselves to be talented, perhaps only “talents” come out, but not “geniuses,” so that the talent of “famous” people in its strength is directly proportional to the sum of their gifted predecessors in their family, or, if one can put it that way, to the amount of heredity. How important it is for defenders of the theory of heredity of talent to justify this assumption with facts, this can already be seen from the fact that Galton carefully distinguishes all the statistical data that confirm this assumption 1042. However, this assumption is rather refuted than confirmed by facts. The fact that the most gifted people have the greatest number of distinguished relatives is true only of judges, statesmen and generals, but this class of gifted “men of action” represents exceptions. Thus, Lord Broome, whom Galton points out (p. 38) as such a strong talent that “no combination of circumstances could reduce to the level of imperceptible mediocrity,” cannot properly be recognized as hereditarily gifted, because he has only one outstanding relative in the collateral line in the 4th degree, the brother of his maternal grandfather (Or). Among the most gifted of the “statesmen” Fox (R. O), Sheridan (R. R. O. o) and Peel (R. O) have a brilliant genealogy; not to the same extent as they, but Richelieu, Pitt the Younger and Disraeli justify Galton's remark; the influence of gifted ancestors on Wellington, Rossel and Palmerston, due to the remoteness of kinship, may be questionable; but Cecil, the most gifted of the Guises, Cromwell, Colbert, Pitt the elder, Wilberforce and Canning have no distinguished ancestors. Regarding “commanders,” Galton’s remark turns out to be the most fair. True, the list of commanders who do not have famous or outstanding ancestors includes the names of Philip of Macedon, Belisarius, Wallenstein, Prince Eugene, Marlborough and Wellington, but the list of hereditarily gifted ones includes such stars of the first magnitude as the names of Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Caesar and Napoleon (Caesar and Napoleon had only gifted mothers), - the conqueror of Hannibal, Scipio, and “the greatest of the French marshals of pre-Napoleonic times,” Turenne. But Galton’s observation, expressed three times by him, turns out to be true only with respect to the three mentioned classes of “famous” people; on the contrary, “men of thought” - writers and scientists - then poets and “men of art” represent in general such a deviation from the fact noted by Galton that statistical data regarding famous people of these classes provide sufficient grounds for the conclusion that the most gifted person usually has no predecessors in his surname. This conclusion is quite close to the position of Prosper Lucas: “true genius invariably remains lonely” (Heredity of Talent, p. 251) and represents a sufficient counterbalance to Galton’s observation. The high importance of statistics relating to writers, scientists, poets and artists is quite understandable: their field of activity is more open to competition than any other. In order to demonstrate his abilities as a great statesman, an Englishman must first of all become a member of Parliament, and for this, with the often practiced system of bribing voters, a solid fortune was necessary. In order to become a famous commander, you must first become a commander, and getting this important post without patronage, without strong family ties and an aristocratic name is not possible for every talented military man. This explains the strong predominance of the aristocratic element among statesmen, generals and even judges (p. 28). But such obstacles as humble origins and comparatively insufficient material wealth, which could block a gifted person’s access to success in the political and military fields, do not seem strong enough to block access to fame for a writer, scientist or poet. Consequently, if statesmen or generals, the most famous, at the same time have the most brilliant genealogies with famous names, then the question still remains open whether the number of these aristocratic (and in the sense of hereditary talent) names would not be balanced by the same number of plebeian names, if political and military careers were equally available to people with a famous name and high social position, and to “new people” in the Roman sense of the word. And therefore, regarding the testimony of statistics about famous statesmen and commanders, we have less right than regarding statistical data concerning people of thought and art, we can say: “this is a fact proven by numbers, it cannot be otherwise based on the very essence of the matter,” that is, to draw a conclusion a non-esse ad non-posse. Regarding scientists, Galton notes that the most gifted of them had fathers who were often completely uneducated (p. 166). Indeed, the percentage of the most famous scientists in the list of those without outstanding ancestors is very significant. The most brilliant genealogies are found only in Bacon, Darwin and Celsius, who gave his name to the 100-degree thermometer (R.O.), because Cassini can hardly be considered as famous a scientist as the three above-mentioned; the next place in terms of the strength of heredity of talent belongs to Leibniz (O. R.); Aristotle, Galileo, Napier, the inventor of logarithms, have only outstanding fathers, and Buffon and D'Alembert - outstanding mothers. Then, those famous in astronomy have no outstanding relatives at all. Among the “writers” with hereditary talent, the most famous can be considered Scaliger (O) Grotius (P.O.) Steel (R.O.) Niebuhr (O) 5. Macaulay (P.O.), with whom Gallam or Porson (O.O.) can hardly be compared in degree of fame, and John Stuart Mill (O). Obviously, the conclusion about the strength of their talent based on the number of their gifted ancestors may turn out to be completely erroneous. They do not have gifted ancestors: English writers Defoe, Swift, Stern and Bentham, German writers Lessing and Fichte, French writers Montesquieu, Rabelais, Voltaire, Rousseau, Champollion and Chateaubriand, Bossuet and Fenelon. This predominance of the non-hereditarily gifted is seen even more fully among poets. Neither of them has a prominent father or grandfather; only Cowper has a distinguished grandfather; Goethe alone has an outstanding mother. The most famous of the hereditarily gifted ones can be considered Goethe, Cowper, Milton and Tasso. Thus, among the non-hereditarily gifted are such celebrities as Pop, Shakespeare, Walter Scott and Byron - in English literature, Schiller - in German, Ariost, Dante, Petrarch, Alfieri - in Italian, all French poets, for example, Racine, Corneille, Moliere, Beranger, all Spanish poets, not excluding Cervantes, Calderon and Lope de Vega, Camoes - Galton's only representative of Portuguese poets, all Greek and Roman, such as: Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes, Plautus, Terence, Virgil, Ovid, Horace and Juvenal. If we compare these data with what statistics represent regarding Russian scientists, writers and poets, the similarity will be complete. Lensky (Family and School), having studied, using Galton’s method, the family ties of our literary figures, came to the conclusion that only “outstanding” Russian writers have gifted relatives, and not first-class, “famous” ones. “Famous” artists and musicians, by the very nature of their art, must have not only genius, but also highly developed eyesight or hearing, and such development is hardly possible without the work of several generations. Therefore, great artists and musicians, made doubly dependent by the conditions of their art on the development of their ancestors, apparently should be distinguished by the abundance of famous ancestors. However, this is not entirely fair. True, a family richly gifted with musical talents represents a striking example of the vitality of musical talents, but this example is the only one, and, moreover, there is still the question of whether Sebastian Bach, no matter how “high his musical genius,” can be considered the same among musicians as Raphael is considered among artists, and whether this place does not belong to Mozart or Beethoven. If this last sentence is true, then there appears to be a remarkable resemblance between the greatest geniuses of the two arts. Raphael does not have a long line of distinguished ancestors, he is the son of “a painter worthy of mention” - “who stood, without a doubt, above mediocrity” - and nothing more. Mozart also does not have a long line of distinguished ancestors, but he is the son of a “famous violinist” who “wrote a lot” (about music? or musical plays?) but Galton does not consider him “famous” in the strict sense. Then Correggio (“a rare example of genius”) and Beethoven do not have outstanding ancestors, the father of Haydn, one of the seven most famous musical geniuses, was not “outstanding,” but, however, was an organist, Father Murillo (“few artists can equal this great Spanish painter in the strength and originality of talent”) was not gifted, but two of his maternal uncles were painters, this gives some, albeit rather shaky, basis conclude that Murillo's mother had at least well-developed vision. True, a conclusion about the nature of artistic genius based on such a limited number of facts will be too arbitrary, but if it can be drawn up, it should have the following form: Great geniuses, like Raphael and Mozart, had relatively talented fathers. This is a positive authority. Such geniuses as Allegri and Beethoven did not have outstanding fathers. This is a negative authority. Such a famous composer as Haydn had a father who was not talented, but nevertheless an organist, that is, a person with a fairly developed musical ear. This trait, with all justice, should be attributed to Mozart’s father and, in that modified form, which is assumed by art itself, to Raphael’s father; it is possible in Murillo's mother and not improbable even in the ancestors of Correggio and Beethoven. This is perhaps an instantia crucis on the question of the origin of the greatest geniuses of art. It is incredible that Raphael inherited his genius from his father: in order for nature to move from Giovanni Sanzio to Raphael Sanzio, she had to make a leap, had to, in a certain sense, create the genius of Raphael, as she created the genius of Correggio, Beethoven and Haydn, but in relation to the purely physical perfection of the organs of vision and hearing in Raphael, Beethoven and Haydn, nature entered, perhaps, a higher, but at the same time completely consistent degree of development. In any case, it cannot be said about artists, as well as about writers, that the greatest of them at the same time possess talent, the heredity of which is most obvious. Thus, from the statistical data collected by Galton and constituting - in his opinion - the most solid foundation of his theory, two conclusions unfavorable for the theory of heredity of talent (in the strict sense) follow: 1. About 70% of talented people cannot be recognized as hereditarily gifted, therefore nature in the formation of talent mostly makes leaps, rather than natural transitions from the lowest degree of development to the next highest. 2. Those people whose talent turns out to be the most hereditary are not always the most gifted; on the contrary, genius often manifests itself in a family ex abrupto, without any previous phases of talent. Consequently, the theory of the heredity of intellectual culture, since it presupposes the idea of ​​a strictly gradual, progressive, straightforward cultural movement, when applied to particular facts from the life of one race, turns out to be not entirely consistent. Therefore, the theory of the heredity of talent, as talent, as a known, holistic manifestation of the human soul, cannot be considered firmly substantiated until a greater number of facts prove that talent is not hereditary in only 20-30 cases out of 100. However, the proposition that every genius is a son of his time and people is considered a generally known truth; The natural abilities of a person, according to the very concept of innate, are borrowed from parents, and since ex nihil o nihil fit and it is impossible to isolate something from nothing, we again come to the assumption of heredity of talent. But so that the logical result does not contradict the fact, the theory of the heredity of talent must take a different form. When a poet, by the power of his creativity, transforms existing reality into an artistic ideal type full of truth, then it cannot be said that the poetic image does not depend on this reality. All elements, the matter of the ideal, are a product of a given place and time, which has a strong influence even on the very combination of elements in the artistic type: Hector the “man-killer” inflicts mortal wounds on the heroes with a sword, a spear, perhaps a heavy stone, but Priamid has nothing at his disposal that would bear even a remote resemblance to a mitrailleuse or even a bayonet. When nature produces a diamond, it does not create a completely new substance, but only modifies one of the ready-made, already existing elements, the internal characteristics of which partially predetermine the very form of the new work of nature: from pure carbon it does not form gold, silver, or ivory, but only diamond. Something similar happens with talent. According to the meaning of the theory of “pangenesis”, “temporary” - in the opinion of its creator, Darwin, every personality is composed of many particles (“gemmules”), which are grouped in a wide variety of ways; the individuality of a person, his character and the measure of his talent depend on the form of these groups. It is assumed that all these particles in their elementary form exist in every person, but not in everyone a certain individual particle has the same strength: in individual A, particle a has a dominant position and with a group of particles b, c, d, naturally related to a, ... gives direction to all other combinations of particles, facilitating the possibility of rapprochement for elements more or less akin to a, and making it difficult for elements opposite - in other words - gives a person a certain type and one or another direction his activities; in individual N, particle a and those similar to it are suppressed, pushed into the background by the predominant influence of particle n and those similar to it. Since every person is the son of two individuals and, therefore, inherits the same elements, but in different combinations from two individuals, then for him there are three identical, if we reason a priori, possibilities: 1. to resemble a father or mother, if the groups of elements inherited from one of the parents receive such a predominance in the son that they are relegated to the background or even decomposed into component parts of the groups inherited from the other; 2. to combine in one’s personality more or less fully the typical characteristics of the father and mother, which is achieved in two ways - either through the struggle between groups of two individuals, in which, so to speak, the weakest groups perish, and the strongest are preserved and, due to their similarity, continue their joint existence in a new individual - or through a complete fusion of the groups of father and mother, through which their strength and dominance over other elements increases; this fusion is possible only when no antagonism is noticed between the characters of the father and mother; and finally 3. does not resemble either father or mother; appear as a completely unique type. This happens when the weight and influence of the father and mother groups are exactly the same, and the antagonism between them is so great that the inevitable struggle between them ends in their mutual disintegration. Then, in the new individual, those groups that were relegated to the background in the father and mother receive a predominant influence. This explains the numerous cases of “nature’s play”, when a strong genius appears in a race that has not declared itself to be gifted. Galton explains this “atomistic” theory of the formation of talent, of course, more than he proves it, with various, numerous cases from social life. The logical merit of this theory is exactly the same as that of Herbart's mathematical laws, expressing the relation between consciousness and "representations", that is, if the struggle between elements exists, then it must be accompanied by the results provided for by the "atomistic" theory of the formation of talent; from this side she turns out to be wealthy. As a hypothesis, it has over the theory of heredity of talent as a talent the important advantage that it explains the fact of the origin of talented people from families that have not demonstrated high mental development - a fact that, from the point of view of this latter theory, should be recognized as a “game of nature”, an exception to the “general” rule (and statistics show how often nature “plays” in this way and how relatively few cases in which it follows the supposed general rule!) But all this does not yet solve the question of the factual reliability of the Darwin-Galton theory. After all, all this struggle of particles occurs outside the boundaries of human consciousness and observation and enters the realm of empirical reality only through its final result, the fact of the appearance of a gifted personality in the light. Further, the very particles, as a result of the happy grouping of which talent appears, essentially constitute only the unknown x: we cannot yet, having read this theory, name in understandable terms those simplest groups of elements from the happy combination of which into more complex ones genius arises; we know just as little about the law that governs the combinations of elements so that sometimes a descendant is superior to all his ancestors. This depends, however, on the fact that we do not know the essence of the elements, which is why we cannot understand their similarities and opposites, which govern their connection and separation. Finally, this whole hypothesis is based on the assumption that each person has the same elementary particles in quantity and quality. This postulate is nothing more than a petitum principium; it may be inevitable in this hypothesis, just as similar unproven provisions are inevitable in all other hypotheses. In any case, in order to accept this hypothesis, it is necessary to translate “particles” unknown to anyone into psychological language, to prove the dependence of talent on such mental elements and facts that can, with the necessary changes, be transmitted hereditarily to children and the existence of which cannot be denied in persons of little development, but who became the fathers of “outstanding” and “famous” people. It doesn't seem impossible. Talent is a very high degree of mental strength. This feature in the concept of talent is so predominant; in all its discoveries, talent manifests itself to such an extent precisely from this side that all other signs of talent remain in the shadows, and some psychologists consider talent precisely as one of the forms of mental ability. Meanwhile, talent has a very complex nature and depends on mental properties that cannot in any way be subsumed under the category of mental abilities; talent is, so to speak, a focus in which the features of not only mental activity, but the entire personality of a person are collected. Galton, clarifying his view of natural talent, defines it not only as a quality of mind, but also as a quality of character, as a certain degree of energy and endurance in work. The question arises: to what extent is the talent of a famous person explainable from the harmonious combination of these last human properties? One might think that the developments of a person’s mental life are most strongly dependent on the make-up of his character. All individual characteristics of a person are noticeably divided into two categories: people differ from each other either in their quantitative or qualitative characteristics. A quantitative sign of a human personality is strength in its unnamed, abstract form, manifested as the power of thought, the power of imagination, the power of will, and so on. By this feature, two individuals who are close to each other in character, upbringing and type of activity, differ from each other. This same aspect is also taken into account in all classifications intended to distribute people according to degrees. The other side of human personality, the one that Galton calls character, is the qualitative or formal side. It is not difficult to see that character not only gives the direction of force, determines the type or form of its activity, predetermines to a certain extent the choice of profession, but determines the very measure of the manifestation of strength and, consequently, the degree of success of a person in his chosen field, just as the color of glass determines the degree of intensity of the ray passing through it, or matter, the color and surface of a heated body determines the amount of heat released by it. The mental power that a person displays in his activities and which determines its degree when classifying people according to their talent, is living force, is a part of the total amount of potential force, released by a person to the extent that this is possible with a given amount of potential force and with a given character. Hence, the importance of the addition that Galton made when revealing his view of natural talent is clear: by supplying energy and endurance in work, qualities that are a natural part of the choleric temperament, an indispensable condition for achieving a high reputation, Galton, as it were, excludes from the circle of gifted people persons with other temperaments, and from a practical point of view, he (Galton) is right. A sanguine person, a phlegmatic person and a melancholic person do not have the natural opportunity to demonstrate their mental abilities to the extent that a choleric person can. What the former gets only with intense labor, lively excitability and stubborn persistence in the implementation of their intentions constitute the natural endowment of the choleric person. Paying further attention to the fact that a very significant majority of English scientists possess these additional qualities of talent of the highest degree, we can with all justice believe that they, modern English scientists, owe a lot of their fame precisely to their extraordinary energy and endurance 1044. From this we can draw the conclusion that a change in even such a general basis of character as temperament, which consists in increasing energy and constancy or moderating the harsh features of the choleric temperament, when it takes a narrow, one-sided direction, with an admixture of sanguine and melancholic elements, must be accompanied by an elevation in the mental level of “mediocre” people. In fact, judgment about them is made by the amount of their “living” mental strength, while the amount of their potential strength is in the full sense of terra incognita. Lotze does not consider it possible to deny that the weak receptivity to civilization among the peoples of even the so-called low races depends on their tribal character, on “the difficulty of arousing in them a persistent interest in the benefits of our enlightenment much more than from the complete lack of intelligence necessary for understanding them (Microcosm. Part 3. pp. 119–120 and 137 ff. M, 1867).” It would also be unfair to assert that “mediocrities”, with their mental abilities, even with a change in the natural outline of their character, if this were practically possible, are unable to rise above the level of mediocrity. Lotze's remark can also be applied to these people that the rudeness that distinguishes some of them is a sign of their character and not of their mental abilities, that the poverty of their spiritual life depends at least as much on their weak sensitivity to higher mental interests as on their mental limitations. Experience shows that even they, these people without high mental gifts, in emergency situations are capable of rising to the level of “outstanding” people. In an era of social disasters, says Galton, “people become noticeable who until then did not stand out in any way and who again return to their former way of life as soon as the circumstances that called them to activity have passed. But while there was danger, they were real heroes. They were cool in the face of danger, shrewd in deliberations, cheerful in prolonged hardships, humane in their attitude towards the wounded and sick, and supported courage in the faint-hearted” (Page 48). Even if “the lucky characteristic of these people is to have too elastic nerves”; but it means that under these strong, coarse nerves hides a very significant, untold wealth of potential spiritual forces (and including mental forces: in order to be insightful in meetings, it seems that nerves are required not only strong, but also to a certain extent subtle), if in an era of disasters these people are capable of becoming real heroes. Consequently, the most that can be allowed in judging these individuals is that, given the state of their mental abilities and character, they cannot be recognized as talented, because they have little chance of demonstrating their strengths more fully; but this does not prevent the conclusion that the children of these people, if the mother’s influence has a beneficial effect on their temperament, can become not only outstanding, but also famous people, and the possibility of a happy union of the temperaments of father and mother in a son is recognized by almost everyone. Temperament constitutes the outline for the development of character, its natural basis in the strict sense; but character develops under the influence of yet another natural factor, which represents the historical element in man. These are hereditary habits, the result of the often repeated actions of their ancestors, which made corresponding changes in their nervous system and became their second nature. The possibility of hereditary transmission of habits is recognized by many scientists. The importance of hereditary habits for the entire spiritual life of a person is self-evident: every habit, as Ushinsky puts it, is either capital or debt; the habit of order, combined with a happy temperament, represents an environment that is capable of manifesting mental powers in the purest and fullest form, releasing them in the greatest possible quantity. Habit is the form in which most of the hereditary special qualities of a person are transmitted, and the whole success of a person in a certain profession depends on its combination with a proportionate amount of strength. A priori, it can be assumed that the son of a remarkable gymnast inherits his father’s organization even if he does not inherit his strength; Probably he (the son) will not be able, for example, to lift heavy weights, but agility and flexibility will be his natural qualities. The mental qualities of ancestors are transmitted to descendants in the form of mental habit 1045. This quality represents only a very favorable condition for a person’s mental activity, but is not identical with mental talent. The entire significance of mental habit for a person is limited to the fact that mental labor, which places such a heavy burden on a person exclusively devoted to physical labor, becomes a need and a pleasure; such a person will handle logical techniques with greater dexterity, which still does not give reason to conclude that the results of his mental labor will be especially valuable. Mental habit is one of the most stable mental qualities; once developed to a high degree in one individual, it is transmitted to his descendants with remarkable consistency. It seems that there has never been an example (and if there were such examples, it was, of course, very rare) of the son or grandson of a remarkable person returning to the lifestyle of his ancestors and beginning to live exclusively by physical labor. This phenomenon cannot be explained simply by the fact that this life does not provide those external comforts that are available to the middle class: another question is whether a literary worker who lives by his literary work really enjoys more comfort than a wealthy farmer. The most natural explanation is that the innate inclination towards mental work and pleasure manifests itself so strongly in the descendants of literary celebrities that they prefer the quiet, prosperous life of a farmer or small owner to a life of literary work, which, despite all the anxieties associated with it, already represents mental pleasure in itself. Temperament and habits, and in particular mental habits, are constant factors influencing the mental powers of a person in their manifestation, but the talent of descendants does not depend solely on the constant properties of their ancestors. If this were so, then the degree of talent of members of one family would be subject to almost no fluctuations; all brothers would be equally gifted, and the only deviation from the general norm would be that the younger brothers, born at the time of the highest mental maturity of their parents, would be somewhat more gifted than the elders. However, according to Galton’s calculations, it turns out that out of 250 brothers, only 127 are gifted, and moreover, the older brothers (that is, the older half) have almost twice the chance of becoming famous than the younger ones 1046 - a clear sign that a person’s talent is strongly dependent on some changing cause. And since no changes in the external world directly affect the child before his birth, it should be concluded that changes in the psychophysical state of the parents are the only reason for fluctuations in the level of abilities of siblings and the only form in which the external world can influence the abilities of the child. And in fact, if the changes in the body, through which the mental qualities of the parents are transmitted to the children, or the supposed combinations of particles serve at least in any way as a true and accurate expression of reality, as it is revealed to our consciousness, then we must assume that the influence of the present mental state of the parents at a given period of time on the abilities of their children should be very great. A person lives in alternation and change of his mental states, and the significance of some of them for a person is so great that he looks at himself from the point of view of these chosen states: they become the form of his self-consciousness. A person, of course, very rarely recognizes himself as a being with such and such a temperament, with such and such abilities, but usually thinks of himself as a person who is doing and experiencing at the moment such and such. If not all, then the more constant and intense of these states, especially those which, by their influence, completely suppress the opposite states, must be reflected in the body. Only this can explain the still uncontested facts of the influence of the mother’s imagination on the child’s organization. It can therefore be assumed that if Newton had a son in that period preceding the great discoveries, when “immersed in thought, Newton did not know what he was doing, became insensitive to external impressions and the ordinary excitements of life,” when he, “waking up in the morning, often sat half-naked in bed for most of the day” (Whewell), then no matter how high Newton’s genius was, his son would hardly have been a worthy successor to his name. But if the state of the parents’ mental life in a given period can lower the level of the child’s mental abilities, then the opposite conclusion cannot be avoided: the happy mental mood of the parents should raise the level of their child’s talent. It is undeniable that the same person at one time seems more gifted than at another. Under the influence of happy circumstances, the spiritual mood can take on a brighter color, and then a person feels more energetic, more morally strong; his thought and will reach the highest degree of perfection; in a word, thanks to happy excitement, he begins to release a greater amount of potential force than at other times. It is natural to expect that a son born under such favorable circumstances will inherit an energetic, strong character and such an excess of mental strength that, in general, the result will be a nature incomparably more gifted than that of his father or mother. This happy stimulation of their powers in most cases replaces the successive culture of mental abilities that systematically continues over several generations, which is out of the question, as the parents of most gifted people are referring to 1047. Closely related to the question of the influence of the spiritual mood of parents on the talent of children is the question of knowledge of the moral element of marriage, namely mutual love between parents, for their children. An a priori theory that addresses this question resolves it in a positive sense. Schopenhauer and Haeckel (Notes of the Fatherland, 1876, January. The Struggle for Individuality) see love, with its distinctive feature - the desire for the opposite, making up for what is lacking in the properties of one individual - as one of the most powerful means by which nature achieves the improvement of species. “Always (in der Regel),” says Haeckel, “a new individual has a higher organization than the two from whose fusion he arose.” This is also the general opinion regarding this issue; at least from arranged marriages, gifted offspring are not expected. But the statistics collected by Galton provide too little material to resolve this issue. Galton, who studied the statistical relationships of similarity and contrast between the parents of modern English scientists in terms of physique and even hair color, for some reason left open the question of whether there was a connection between the son’s talent and the mutual love of his parents. From everything that has been said about talent, the conclusion follows that it has a complex nature and represents the result of the interaction of such mental elements that (with the exception of mental habit, which is formed as a result of a more or less long-term culture of mental abilities) equally exist both in the soul of a talented person and in the soul of a “mediocre person.” These conclusions completely coincide with the idea about the nature of talent and its origin that Galton’s hypothesis gives. Any solution to the question of the origin of talent in the sense that talent is not determined by chance, but by the influence of natural causes, whatever these reasons may be, logically leads to a conclusion that is very important in its practical significance. Galton began his work with precisely this practical interest in mind, coupled with solving the question of the heredity of talent in a positive sense. “Just as, notwithstanding various limitations, it is not difficult, by careful selection, to obtain a breed of horse or dog in which speed of running is not an accidental, but a constant quality, so it would be quite feasible to produce a highly gifted race of men by suitable marriages in the course of several generations,” says Galton at the very beginning of his work. And indeed, no matter what formulation is given to the question of the heredity of talent, no matter what natural factors its origin is dependent on - unless these factors are accidental, it depends on the will of a person to put himself in such a position that natural causes will produce natural consequences. This is how one can reason a priori about Galton’s project. This project appears in a different light when it is discussed a posteriori, when the question of its practical implementation at the present time is raised. Galton ends a series of his reflections with the following gloomy tirade: “Thus the race gradually declines, becoming with each successive generation less capable of high civilization, although it retains the external form of the latter until the time comes when the whole political and social machine collapses and a more or less sharp return to barbarism appears in society, during which time the race can be renewed again.” The reason for this decline of the race is that “thanks to social conditions, in the old civilization there is a counteraction to the fertility of the able classes”: gifted people have no chance of marrying early: people “famous” (grades F and G), firstly, are too few in number for their offspring to have a strong influence on the general level of the race, secondly, if they have descendants, they become infected with the desire to found families through the marriages of their eldest sons with rich heiresses, that is, women, having little chance of fertility - and delaying the marriages of younger sons; to this is added the evil of concentrating the best forces of the country in large cities, “where marriages are less fertile and children have less chance of living.” As a result of all these conditions, “the improvident and unenterprising element alone contributes chiefly to the increase of population” (Page 278). It must be admitted that the general idea of ​​this tirade - that at the present time it is difficult to hope for an increase in the general mental level of the race - is fair (whether all evil really depends on social conditions alone is, of course, another question). In fact, if the elevation of the race should consist in increasing the percentage of talented people, then it can be achieved in two ways: for this it is necessary either to create gifted people who will appear as homines novi in the world of talents, or to take them from existing aristocratic (in the sense of talent) clans, in other words, it is necessary either to constantly replenish the ranks of gifted people with talents coming from the genus of “mediocrity”, or to maintain fertility in the clans that have declared yourself with talent. The first example is not essentially impossible. Too 70% of famous people are homines novi. But, given the current state of our knowledge, this technique is absolutely impracticable - it is impossible to apply it to business with confidence that out of a given number of experiments, even 1% will give the desired, brilliant result. It is still impossible to identify with any precision all those elements, those simplest psychological qualities, the interactions of which form talent; the less it is possible to determine - so to speak - the reaction of these elements, so that everything that one individual lacks is filled with the properties of another, that is, to arrange a completely rational, completely appropriate marriage. The chemistry of talent, if it is possible to use such a combination of words, is still in an infantile, not to say embryonic, state, and the only measure that, given the given state of knowledge and with the presumed good consent of all members of real human societies, could be applied to the matter with confidence in success, could be rather negative than positive: it could consist in arranging only such marriages, regarding which it cannot be said with a high probability that they will lead to bad consequences. Of course, from this measure one should expect not the emergence of talents or geniuses, but only a slight increase in the general level of abilities, although this result is very important. In general, this (first) method of elevating the race, if only the knowledge of the nature of talent is destined to develop and if the reasons that gave rise to 70% of talented individuals are ever brought into sufficient clarity, has a brighter prospect than the second, and for increasing the contingent of talented people has approximately the same importance as the grafting of fruitful trees for the development of horticulture. The second method of elevating the race, the method projected by Galton, seems to have a great advantage over the first. If we agree that the figure 28 truly signifies the percentage of undoubtedly hereditarily talented among the "famous" people of each country, we find 1048 that in England a man of 20-60 years of age of classes F-X has the chances of producing a "famous" son, expressed in the ratio 1:62.32 (28:1745), while the chances of a man of classes A-E are 1:4,881.13 (72:3.514.420), that is, a talented Englishman is 78.32 times more likely to become the father of a “famous” person than a “mediocre” one. This statistical indication is supported by the consideration that a gifted person has the opportunity to transmit to his son a mental habit in the highest sense of the word, which most “mediocrities” (classes A, B and even C) cannot develop. But all these bright hopes which the thought of carrying out a second project for the improvement of the race might excite, are dashed by two circumstances. Firstly, Galton is unable to resolve a simple question: is it fair and to what extent is it fair that men and women gifted with unusual genius are sterile (Page 249)? Although, however, he agrees that “there is no doubt that very many talented people did not have offspring.” Meanwhile, some writers solve the question posed in a positive sense and, it seems, not without reason, point out the reason for the infertility of gifted individuals not in external circumstances (for example, the desire to found families), which can be eliminated one way or another, but in the unchangeable law of nature. “The law of balance between the nervous and sexual functions is confirmed by the facts of comparative physiology...” This “universal law of life can be formulated as follows: the degree of fertility changes in inverse proportion to the development of the nervous system, so that animals with more brains are the least, and those with less are the most fertile... Nothing related to the present question has been established with such certainty as the general antagonism between the nervous and reproductive systems. During intense mental activities, which absorb a lot of nervous element, not many germ cells are formed... People who are heavily engaged in mental activity are generally infertile in childbearing... The facts themselves suggest that the suppression of families is closely related to the high development of mental abilities. Of the 15 people who held the presidency in the United States, seven were childless, and the number of all children was up to 20. The same phenomena are repeated everywhere. Napoleon, Washington, the Foxes, the Pitts, and other remarkable men, as if by rule, did not leave behind children to fill the gap left by their death... Commercial activity is equally unfavorable for the continuation of the race, as is scientific and political activity” (Carey, A Guide to Social Science, pp. 567–578). Secondly, Galton bases his project for the elevation of the race on the supposed possibility of strengthening in a certain family the high abilities of an ancestor “by means of corresponding marriages for several generations,” while if we, “taking as a basis of calculation the rule that population is renewed 3 times in 100 years” (p. 261), 33 1/3 years are for the highest period of maturity, and the arbitrarily taken year 1600 for starting point of chronology, let us present in chronological order part of the comparative table (p. 239) compiled by Galton, we will find the following: In 1600, a group of 400 men had one very talented person among them. In 1634, 200 men married to 200 women, the sons and daughters of the previous ones, had 8 very talented individuals among them. In 1666, the children of the predecessors, 100 men and 100 women, had 31 gifted members among them. In 1700 there were 250 men, sons of the previous ones, of which 127 were gifted. 1734 100 people, children of the most gifted part of the previous ones, have among themselves 48 gifted individuals. 1766 200 people: 7 of them were gifted. 1800 400 men, descendants of the previous ones, have in their midst - 1 gifted person. Thus, the culture of mental abilities, which lasted two hundred years, gave far from brilliant results. The percentage of gifted men (1/4%) in 1600 and 1800 is exactly the same. Galton explains the increase in percentage until 1700 and the decrease from 1700 by corresponding marriages in the first period and inconsistent marriages in the last period; but the validity of this explanation is subject to strong doubt. There is no doubt that the members of this family who lived after 1700, when it produced such a significant contingent of talented and “famous” individuals, had incomparably more chances of entering into appropriate marriages than its members who lived before 1700. True, the former could be “infected with the desire to found families” and marry rich heiresses; but 1) this is only a possibility, 2) not all heiress are necessarily infertile, 3) their infertility should adversely affect the number, and not the mental abilities, of children; in order for the latter assumption to remain logical, it must be assumed that the mental abilities of these heiresses were very low if their influence so quickly paralyzed the results of more than 100 years of successively continued intellectual culture, which should significantly strengthen talent of this kind; but is it likely that the descendants of famous people of 1700 were so morally stupid that they could decide on such marriages? The fact becomes incomparably clearer if we begin to look for its causes not in the social “conditions of the old civilization,” but in the very influence of talent on the human body. Both the comparative sterility of gifted people and the amazing decrease in the percentage of gifted people in a race famous for its talent are explained by the same law of conservation of strength. If the soul is a parasite of our body, then of course nowhere is it found on this side so strongly as in people of genius. The amount of juice absorbed by intense mental activity must be quite significant. This waste of energy, which is unproductive in relation to the body, does not always, however, reveal disastrous consequences for the body; Many English scientists present factual proof of the compatibility of a sound mind with a sound body, but there seems to be much more logical truth on the side of those who consider the famous “mens sana in corpore sano” an ideal that is rarely realized in real life 1049. In fact, it is reliably known that some, probably very many famous people supported their bodies only through a strictly dietary lifestyle (for example, Pascal, D'Alembert, Laplace), some became victims of their passionate attachment to their subject (for example, Euler, Chladni, Jung, Lagrange, Malus, Huygens, Fresnel 1050), and finally, some famous people brought their bodies to such exhaustion that their mental strength apparently weakened (Kant, Huygens and Humboldt). All these facts serve as a sign that talent can be accompanied by such a waste of energy that the remainder is barely enough to support the self-existence of brilliant people. It is clear that the son of such a brilliant person has a much greater chance of receiving his father’s talent than a strong, healthy body. Meanwhile, with a strong hereditary inclination towards mental work, the children of gifted people usually develop earlier than their parents, that is, their (children’s) talent begins to deplete their strength before they reach a certain strength, and thus the children of great people often have to choose between two outcomes: either develop mentally, in danger of completely depleting the supply of organic strength, or limit their impulses to mental pursuits, which is not always feasible in practice. The first alternative can lead to two consequences: a gifted person will either have no offspring at all, or his influence on the nature of the children will be too weak and therefore will be suppressed by the influence of their stronger, although less gifted mother, and thus their mental level will decrease. From this it is clear that the analogy between the formation of a highly gifted race and the artificial improvement of animal breeds cannot be called particularly successful. Anyone who sets out to breed a breed, for example, of dogs equally fat and fast, can hardly count on sure success; and he who intends to produce a highly gifted race of men has a task no less difficult. Therefore, those means that people who breed new breeds of animals use with such success do not promise sure success in their application to humans. “Appropriate,” according to Galton, marriage occurs when both husband and wife come from the same race (tribe) 1051, have the same physique, even hair color, much less temperament, and are equally talented. This remedy can help ensure that the groups of elements of the father and mother will be similar and therefore, without particularly strong antagonism, will become part of the body of their child; but this measure can also lead to the suppression of the talent of families, because it fans the flame of genius into a destructive fire. In order to preserve talented families, sometimes, and perhaps very often, it is necessary to resort to the opposite measure, that is, to take care only to cover with an admixture of healthy elements the deficit in bodily strength that occurred as a result of the high development of talents in the famous representatives of these families, and such a measure almost inevitably leads to a decrease in the mental level of the members of these families. Thus, the wave-like fluctuation in the level of talent, evidenced by statistics (p. 239), is probably a completely normal phenomenon in families that, through the extraordinary development of talent, have not doomed themselves to extinction. Despite, however, the fact that statistical data do not justify the assumption that talent develops strictly progressively, being transmitted from ancestors to descendants, there is still no reason to assert that the general level of talent of a certain people remains unchanged. Nothing can be said against the validity of the assumption that “ad nihilum nihil fit.” Consequently, it cannot be asserted that the development of mental talents, once achieved, the mental habit once acquired, disappears completely without a trace, while the progressive, rapid development of talent in a famous family causes a lasting reaction. True, only 1/4% of the great-grandchildren of gifted representatives of famous families turn out to be gifted, but one cannot ignore the fact that a whole century separates their glorious ancestors and two whole centuries from their ancestors. Consequently, if the percentage of gifted people in a certain society turns out to be the same in 1600 and 1800, then one cannot conclude with complete confidence that the people of the 18th century are no higher in their talents than the representatives of the 16th century. The only scale available to us is reputation; and this scale does not remain identical, but, on the contrary, itself changes over the centuries, and, perhaps, those who in the 16th century. occupied a place in category F in the 18th century. would hardly stand out from the ranks of representatives of category E. In any case, judging the comparative talent of persons separated by centuries is as difficult as determining the general rise in the level of a large field produced over the years. The doctrine of the heredity of talent still cannot be considered firmly based on obvious facts. True, after Galton’s research it is impossible, without going into dialectical subtleties, to answer negatively to the question: is talent hereditary? But the statistical data collected are in any case not sufficient to answer in the affirmative the question of whether talent is hereditary, when this question is posed without any explanation or restrictions. The facts of the obvious heredity of talent stand alone, out of connection with the ordinary course of human life, and are more than balanced by facts of a different nature. But it is not firm enough when the data of experience are recognized as its only basis, the doctrine of the heredity of talent is strong in its logical side, in its connection with the fact of the difference between people according to their natural gifts, when the very doctrine of the heredity of talent is proposed in the form in which Galton sets it out in the final chapter of his first work, and thus enters as a part into the whole into the doctrine of the heredity of mental properties in general. Pythagoras as represented by Porphyry “Περί τοΰ βίου Πυθαγόρου λόγος” Porphyry presents a fairly significant amount of data for characterizing Pythagoras in various respects. The first section of this work (1–17 numeri ar. Holstenium) deals mainly with the upbringing of Pythagoras, the second (num. 18–52) deals with the political activities, miracles, private life and teaching of Pythagoras, the third describes the last period of Pythagoras’ life and the fate of Pythagoreanism after the death of its founder. Porfiry treats the sources of his work so objectively that in his work there is a place for news that is different to the point of contradiction, and most often 1052 Porfiry does not go into criticism of their comparative reliability. The pragmatic connection between facts is indicated only in very few cases. Therefore, it is sometimes necessary to speak only speculatively about Porfiry’s own view of the news he provides. Believing that Porfiry recognizes as reliable all those news that do not mutually exclude each other, and from the news that directly contradict each other, he accepts those that are confirmed either by the majority of quoted writers, or are found in a work that Porfiry himself recognizes as especially accurate, we can imagine the following outline of the life of Pythagoras according to Porfiry: Pythagoras was born in Samos 1053 between 610–562. BC 1054. On his mother's side, he belonged to one of the most ancient aristocratic families in Samos. The father of Pythagoras (imaginary, as some assured, together with one Samian poet who considered Pythagoras the son of Apollo) Mnesarchus 1055 was a very rich and “experienced” man (πολλάς μέν πόλεις, πολλά δέ κωρία έπιών) and took care of raising his children. Having noticed in Pythagoras since childhood his talent and ability to learn (είς πάσαν μάθησιν), Mnesarchus sent him to Tire to study with the Chaldeans. Returning from there, Pythagoras listened to Pherecydes, a cosmogonist philosopher, not free from the influences of the East, namely from the “Phoenician books” (Henne in Diet. Sciences Philosoph., 1851), then Hermodamantus and Anaximander, who taught, among other things, geometry and astronomy (num. 11). After this, Pythagoras, to complete his education, undertook a journey to Egypt and to various peoples of Western Asia 1056. Pythagoras owes most of his wisdom to this journey. Pythagoras undertook this journey with the purpose of 1) to study the natural and mathematical sciences in their original source - among those peoples who laid the foundation for various branches of these sciences and specially developed them - and 2) to become familiar with religious and moral teachings and institutions, as well as the secret knowledge of peoples who became famous in this regard. He studied geometry from the Egyptians, astronomy from the Chaldeans, pure mathematics from the Phoenicians, and from Zabrat, along with the doctrine of the principles of all things. (των δλων άρχαί), and the doctrine (λόγον) about nature. Among the Jews, Pythagoras, the first of the Greeks, learned the art of dream interpretation and fortune telling through incense; the magicians and Chaldeans presented their teachings to Pythagoras, and Zabrat not only taught him what a person should strictly abstain from (άγνεύειν), but also cleansed him from the defilements of his former life (τά τοΰ προτέρου βίου λύματα). In Egypt, Pythagoras encountered many obstacles, and the victory over them shows off all the “amazing patience” (καρτερίαν) of the inquisitive Greek. Here he had to study the Egyptian language and three types of writing - symbolic, hieroglyphic and demotic (έπιστολογραφικόν). Thanks to Polycrates' letter of recommendation, Pythagoras received from Pharaoh Amasis II an order for the priests to allow Pythagoras into their secrets. When he presented this decree to the priests of Heliopolis, they, in order to get rid of the obsessive Greek, sent him to Memphis under the pretext that their leaders lived there (πρεσβύτεροι); The Memphis priests, under the same pretext, sent Pythagoras to the priests of Diospolis. These latter probably had nowhere to send Pythagoras further; it was scary to refuse to fulfill the Pharaoh’s decree, and it was also undesirable to carry it out. Therefore, they decided to frighten Pythagoras with the severity of the test and prescribed for him exactly what was contrary to Greek customs. But Pythagoras submitted to the temptation with such patience that the priests were surprised and allowed Pythagoras - the first of the foreigners - to their sacred rites and the treasures of their wisdom. Returning from his journey through various nations, Pythagoras opened a school in Samos. There was much that was non-Greek in the philosopher’s behavior and views; unusual. He often retired to a country cave and spent days and nights there talking with friends. When he saw his childhood friend Astraeus, he peered long and carefully into the features of his face, studied him both in a state of rest and in motion, and only then allowed him to be one of his listeners. All other friends and acquaintances of Pythagoras were subjected to the same procedure. His aversion to any kind of killing was so great that he did not even go near cooks and hunters. Having become close to the Samian athlete and Olympic winner Eurymenes, Pythagoras began to tell him that winning the Olympic Games does not mean achieving moral perfection (ουμβαίνειν γάρ καί άλλως μηδ’ ευαγείς είναι τούς νικώντας καί φυλλοβολουμένους), that you need to work πόνους), but avoiding envy is the consequence of victory, and therefore advised Everymen to strive in the field of an athlete, but not to win - a thought that is in complete contradiction with the range of concepts of the ancient Greek. Recognizing that it was incongruous with his dignity as a philosopher and a free man to endure the too despotic rule of Polycrates, Pythagoras decided to leave Samos and, probably under the influence of childhood memories of beautiful Italy, where he had once been with Mnesarchus, chose great Greece as his new fatherland 1057. On his way to Italy, he visited the sanctuaries of Apollo in Delphi and Zeus in Crete and was initiated into the mysteries of the Dactyls. In Croton, Pythagoras had a brilliant success. Pythagoras was only 40 years old, and he already enjoyed the fame of a great traveler; he was called the favorite of happiness, because along with high spiritual gifts he also had a beautiful appearance: his stature was tall, his facial features were noble, his voice was harmonious, his gestures and external behavior (ήθος) were graceful. In a word, both his reputation and his appearance already had the Greeks in his favor. Indeed, his first, long and beautiful speech to the young Crotonians (τοΐς νέοις) immediately gained him the favor of the Geronts themselves, and then, at their request, Pythagoras addressed instructions to the young men (ήβητικάς παραινέσεις), and then to children (τοϊς παισίν). His speech to women was equally successful. The strength of the impression he made can be judged by the fact that with one speech (μιςχ μόνον άκροάσει) he attracted more than 2,000 followers. The fame of Pythagoras grew and grew, his name became known not only in other Greek republics, but also outside the then civilized world: Lucans, Messanians, Picenians, Romans, even “kings and rulers from a neighboring barbarian country” came to listen to Pythagoras. He acted as a preacher of moderation in everything, dietary, modest lifestyle, education, unanimity in the family and the city. This last shade of Pythagoras' teaching was closely related to the sad state of public affairs in Italy at that time. Discord occurred between cities and fellow citizens; many cities lost their political independence and were in slavish dependence on other cities. Pythagoras, who was keenly aware of his dignity as a free man, who even left his homeland because there was no freedom in it, naturally did not put up with this state of affairs in Italy. What were the political views of Pythagoras, this can be seen from the fact that Simichus of Centuripin, under the influence of the words of Pythagoras, renounced tyranny and divided his property between his sister and the citizens. As Italy and Sicily became covered with a network of closed, strictly organized circles or communes (όμακοία) of the Pythagoreans, the agitation took on ever wider dimensions; The Pythagoreans inspired their fellow citizens with the idea of ​​freedom, and thus Pythagoras liberated Croton, Sybaris, Catana, Regium, Himera, Agrigentum, Tauromena and some other republics. Along with freedom, they received from Pythagoras laws drawn up in his spirit by Charondus and Zaleukos - laws so perfect that neighboring countries began to imitate them. This public activity of the Pythagoreans earned them such respect in Italy that some cities placed them at the head of government. Pythagoras himself, however, did not accept public positions. Such a high political position of the Pythagoreans was not strong enough. There was a sore point in the reform they carried out: it was too bold; Pythagoras did not want to “follow the beaten path,” that is, follow the opinion of the common people; and therefore the laws given by Pythagoras were alien to the people. And the high social position of the Pythagoreans began to arouse envy of them. The signal for a general uprising against them was the attack on them by the rich and influential Crotonian aristocrat Quilon. This morally rude man could not forgive Pythagoras for the wound to the aristocrat’s pride that Pythagoras inflicted on him by denying him the right to enter Pythagoras’ society. Cylon accused Pythagoras in front of his many clients of some kind of intent against them, and when Pythagoras, along with 40 of his students, met in one house, Cylon attacked them and set the house on fire from all sides. The Pythagoreans, they say, threw themselves into the flames and, making a living bridge from their bodies, gave their teacher the opportunity to escape. Of these, only two were saved; the rest of the Pythagoreans who were not at this meeting were beaten. – Pythagoras retired for the first time to the Caulonian port and from there headed to Locri. But the Locrian deputies from Gerusia met Pythagoras on the border of their republic with such a characteristic speech: “We, Pythagoras, heard that you are a wise and intelligent man (δεινός), but in our own laws we do not find anything bad (έπί τοΐς ίδίοις νόμοις ούθέν £χομεν έγκαλεΐν), and we will try to preserve them, and you take from us what you need and go somewhere else.” Pythagoras went to Tarentum, then to Metapontum; but everywhere there was persecution against the Pythagoreans, which left a long-lasting memory among the people. During the rebellion in Metapontum, Pythagoras himself died of hunger in the Church of the Muses. According to another piece of news, having lost his friends, the philosopher himself exhausted himself (έαυτόν του βίου έξαγαγεΐν φασίν) due to sadness about them. But the good fruits of Pythagoras’s political influence outlived him: thanks to him, for many generations (άχρι πολλών γενεών, num. 22) in all the republics of Italy and Sicily there were no strife, internal and external disagreements. The high qualities of Pythagoras could not be fully expressed in his public activities, for which he himself had no special sympathy, but were manifested in his private life among his students. Pythagoras strictly adhered to the ideal of life that he recommended to everyone (n. 22). A strictly dietary, moderate lifestyle surely led to the fact that Pythagoras’s physical health was in a flourishing state. Innocent pleasures, such as music, a walk in quiet beautiful groves, or visiting churches accompanied by two or three friends, had an equally beneficial effect on his soul and body. To maintain mobility in him, Pythagoras resorted to some kind of dancing. The philosopher's table was the most modest: honey or honeycomb - at breakfast (ŭpiorov), millet bread or porridge (μάζα) and raw or boiled vegetables - at dinner. Pythagoras avoided eating meat even when he needed especially nutritious food that satisfied hunger for a long time, and only occasionally made an exception to his rule for some parts of the sacrificial meat. Thanks to such a diet, Pythagoras never lost weight or became fat. Pythagoras’s spiritual mood was just as even and harmonious: he stood above any excessive joy or sadness; he was never seen laughing or crying. And, however, he was not at all a callous, heartless person. He loved his friends deeply (ύπερηγάπα), as one would expect from the one who first expressed the principle: “friends have everything in common.” He willingly spent time talking with them, healed their illnesses, calmed their passionate emotions, and made them forget about mental suffering with his magical singing. His meek soul shines through even in his relations with animals: he caresses for a long time (έπαφησάμενος χρόνον συχνόν) the ancient bear, strokes the eagle that descended on his hand, and lets go. The Crotonians turned the house of Pythagoras into the church of Ceres; the Pythagoreans considered him almost a god (κατηρίθμουν μετά των θεών (not έ v τ. θ. or π ρ ò ς τ. θ.). This can be considered a sure sign that Pythagoras’s moral qualities were really high, according to the court of his contemporaries. But perhaps it was not Pythagoras’ moral qualities alone that served as the basis for such a high opinion of his contemporaries. He demonstrated his superhuman power and knowledge in many “wonderful and divine” actions 1058. Not only people, but also animals and even the elements themselves were subject to the influence of Pythagoras. His caresses and spells turned the terrible bear into a gentle animal, harmless to both people and animals. The bull, after listening to Pythagoras's instructions, never ate beans again. At the word of Pythagoras, the waves of the seas and rivers along which his friends sailed subsided. The Caucasus River greeted him loudly, for all to hear, with the words: “χαΐρε Πυθαγόρα!” With his magical songs he healed his friends from illnesses; at his word, pestilence, hail and storms quickly ceased. On the arrow of Hyperborean Apollo, Pythagoras was carried through the air through all earthly barriers and thus on the same day could talk with his friends in Tauromenia (in Sicily) and in Metaponte (in Italy). The superhuman knowledge of Pythagoras was already attested by Empedocles. Pythagoras had such “wealth of mind that he comprehended all the researches of the wise; with the full exertion of all his spiritual powers, he saw through and through everything that exists, everything that happens over the course of 10–20 human generations.” In fact, Pythagoras correctly predicted earthquakes, determined exactly the number of fish in the net that had not yet been pulled out, and said that he was carrying a ship entering the harbor; knew exactly all the forms of his existence, starting from the time of the Trojan War - from Euphorbus to Pythagoras, - he even knew about other people, who they were before their incarnation in a real personality, and reminded some of them of their life in previous forms. Pythagoras' external senses were so perfectly organized that he could hear the wondrous sounds emitted by the celestial spheres. In a word,” notes Porfiry, “no one else is told about more important, amazing and divine things... However, Pythagoras also gave material proof of his divine nature. The priest of Hyperborean Apollo Abaris came to the idea that Pythagoras is precisely the Apollo whom he, Abaris, serves, and the philosopher not only did not dissuade Abaris from this, on the contrary, as proof of the correctness of his view, he showed him his golden thigh. “Everyone knows this,” notes Porfiry, “and is recognized by everyone as the truth.” Porphyry admits that it is completely impossible to present precisely and thoroughly the teachings of Pythagoras έχει φράσαι βεβαίως). The reason for this is the strictly esoteric nature of Pythagoras’ teaching, on the one hand, and its dark, mysterious (αινιγματώδες) presentation, on the other. The philosophy of Pythagoras in its pure and complete form could not spread outside the Pythagorean community due to the “strict silence” of the Pythagoreans, and therefore the terrible blow dealt to the Pythagoreans by the uprising of the people against them was no less a heavy blow for the philosophy of Pythagoras itself. Lysias and Archippus, who escaped death, and some other Pythagoreans, apparently, did not particularly clearly understand the dark teaching of Pythagoras, because the teaching they set forth in their “memoirs” (υπομνήματα) represents only “a few dark and almost elusive sparks of philosophy” (όλίγα... ζώπυρα της φιλοσοφίας, άμυδρά τε και δυσθήρατα num. And yet, this is the most important written monument of Pythagorean philosophy, since Pythagoras himself did not write anything. According to Pythagoras, philosophy is a means for achieving true knowledge of things, and for that very reason it is a means for achieving happiness. Man is gifted with a mind that, by its very nature, is capable of seeing and hearing everything, of comprehending the “true and sound,” the eternal, incorporeal, unchangeable in quality and image of its existence (τά έχόντα ωσαύτως καί κατά ταύτά). But the body in which the mind is confined is blind and deaf, and therefore the mind is forced through the bodily organs to cognize only the bodily, which has no stability either in quality or in quantity έφ’ δσον ούν διαμένοντα). The purpose of philosophy is to free the mind from bonds and obstacles of this kind. The difficulty of achieving this goal lies mainly in the fact that the mind, which has been eating unhealthy, bad food for a long time, has become accustomed to it, so that if you suddenly offer it healthy food, that is, contemplation of the eternal and incorporeal, then it will only be frightened by this sudden change and refuse healthy food. Therefore, philosophy must artificially arouse in the mind the appetite (έφεσιν) for healthy food and raise the mind from the contemplation of the corporeal to the contemplation of the incorporeal gradually and imperceptibly. To do this, she must first offer the mind the contemplation of such objects that occupy the middle between the corporeal and the incorporeal. It is precisely these subjects that mathematics 1059 deals with, for example, geometric bodies have three dimensions, like physical bodies, but they also have a very important difference from the latter: geometric bodies do not have corporeality, materiality, which declares itself in opposition to our movement - they do not have άντιτυπίαν. The “very first philosophy” (ή πρώτιστη φιλοσοφία) of Pythagoras is also somewhat connected with the mathematical sciences. It represents a treatise (πραγματεία) on numbers, or the clarification through numbers of the basic principles of existence. There is essentially nothing original in this technique; this is a simple imitation of techniques that have long been practiced by grammarians and geometers. Every grammarian begins by showing the student a letter and calling it a known sound, and only subsequently explains to the student that the letter itself is not an element of speech and has only a casual relationship with the sound (δύναμις) for which it was chosen to denote. The geometer visually depicts a triangle with the letter Δ; by this he wants to say not that this sign, subject to external perception (το ύπό τήν οψιν ύποπΐπτον), is the triangle itself (as a generic concept), but only that this letter has a resemblance to a triangle (that is τοιοΰτο), and therefore can remind him of him. In the same way, the Pythagoreans, finding it difficult to express clearly in words “the first incorporeal species (εἴδη) and the first principles (άρχαί),” believed that they could most clearly and best be expressed in numbers (παρεγένοντο έπί τούς άριθμούς εύσήμου χάριν διδασκαλίας). Not entirely original from a formal point of view, the teaching of Pythagoras is not entirely new in its content; at least in his teaching about the first two numbers, Pythagoras repeats the teaching found in other philosophers about the comprehensive principles of equality and dissimilarity or difference (έτερότητος). The Pythagoreans recognized the existence of two opposing forces (άντικειμένων δυνάμεις): the principle and internal basis (λόγος) of unity, equality, identity, - according to the teachings of the Pythagoreans, - the principle of difference is opposed (έτερότητος), inequalities. The first principle is the cause (τό αίτιον) of internal connection, interaction and preservation of the whole (της σύμπνοιας καί της συμπάθειας των δλων), the cause of everything stable in quality and mode of existence, - the second principle is the cause of everything divisible (τοΰ μεριστοΰ) and changeable (τύ έν μεταβολή καί άλλοτε άλλως έχοντος). The Pythagoreans called the first principle one (έν) and one (μονάς), the second - two-form, unequal, different or - what is the same - two (δυάς). The Pythagoreans associated many others with this initial opposition and designated them with the same terms. Here are the types of this opposition mentioned by Porfiry: The Pythagoreans interpreted other numbers in the same spirit. So, for example, in the number 3 they saw the expression of the idea of ​​everything complete, perfect (τέλειον), everything that has a beginning, middle and end, and they called the number 3 itself perfect. They placed the number 10, the decade, even higher; in the very name of this “most perfect” number “δεκάς” they saw a modified “δεχάς” and associated with it the idea of “idea and power” that embraces everything else, just as “the number 10 embraces every count (λόγον), type and ratio (άναλογίαν) of number” 1060. In general, the basis of the entire treatise on numbers seems to be a view of the world and natural phenomena as something strictly correct. “The nature of everything is determined (περατοΰται) by counting numbers and proportions (κατ’ άριθμών λόγους τε καί άναλογίας), and everything that happens, increases and ends (τελειούμενον) occurs by counting numbers.” Outside of connection with this “primary philosophy” are other “well-known” points of Pythagoras’ teaching. They were not the product of his independent philosophical thought, and his entire merit in this case is limited to the fact that he was the first to bring them to Greece. These are the philosophical theses listed by Porfiry: 2. It passes into other (άλλα) genera of animals. This thesis seems to have taken first place in Pythagoras’s argumentation. Pythagoras first proved with irrefutable, visual 1061 arguments (τεκμηρίοις) the immutability of the fact of transmigration of souls (the fact that he, Pythagoras, during the Trojan War was incarnated in the person of Euphorbus and then successively existed in the persons of Aethalides, Hermotimus and Pyrrhus and, finally, for the fifth time incarnated in the person Pythagoras) and from this empirically proven fact he concluded (δι’ ών έδείκνυεν) that the soul is immortal. 3. There is nothing absolutely new, because after a certain period everything that happens (τά γινόμενα) returns to existence again. 4. All animate beings (τα γινόμενα) should be considered homogeneous. Pythagoras presented the origin of the organic world in this form: The first beginning and being (γένεσις) became clouded, and the seeds of many (substances) fell en masse into the ground and together underwent decomposition. Both animals and plants began to emerge from the decomposed mass; at the same time, the beans grew from the same rot from which people originated. Nothing is definitely known about the physics of Pythagoras 1062. Porphyry speaks in more detail about the moral teachings of Pythagoras. The object of a person’s aspirations should and can be 1) what is beautiful and honorable, 2) useful for life, and 3) pleasant or pleasure. But not all pleasure is permissible. There are pleasures that are grossly sensual (ή γαστρί καί άφροδι σίοις ήδονή), deceptive and stupefying a person (γοητευτικήν), bought by him at too high a price. These are the songs of sirens that kill people. But there are pleasures of another kind, consisting in the enjoyment of the beautiful, just and necessary for life, the most respectable, innocent and, moreover, lasting pleasures (ήδονή βέβαιος): pleasant in the present, they do not entail repentance in the future. These pleasures are the harmony of the muses. They alone are permissible for a person. Out of connection, at least visible, with this general teaching about what is proper or permissible are the various fragmentary moral precepts of Pythagoras. Porphyry himself does not bring them into any system, does not try to derive them from any one principle, but it seems that quite a significant part of them can be brought under the principle so energetically expressed by Pythagoras: “moderation in everything.” The attitude towards this principle of such rules as: “don’t be selfish (“don’t jump over the scales” ζυγόν μή ύπερβαίνειν τοϋτ’ έστι, μή πλεονεκτεΐν)”, “don’t indulge in (excessive) sadness (don’t eat your heart)”, “don’t live too luxuriously (φυγαδευτέον άπό κοιλίας πολυτέλειαν),” - it’s clear. The same principle can be used to explain the rule: “live in such a way as not to arouse envy in anyone, and do not envy yourself” 1064 with the requirements arising from it: “avoid ambition and love of fame, which are most capable of arousing envy; For the same purpose, give up even victory.” In the name of the same principle, it seems, Pythagoras limits the oppositional attitude to established concepts. Prohibiting “to walk along the beaten path,” that is, the opinions of the common people (τών πολλών), ordering to adhere to the opinions of the educated minority (42), he, however, leaves existing laws completely intact and strictly arms himself against discord (στάσιν) in the state (n. 22) and prevents the possibility of a hostile clash with society, avoiding relations with it (τάς μετά τών πολλών όμιλίας) (n. 32). As for other moral rules, it seems impossible to derive them from the principle: “avoid immoderation in everything.” These are the rules: “Be hardworking” (do not live in idleness (42); must endure (ύπομένειν) labor (15)). - Pythagoras understood work in a very broad sense - both physical labor, such as the work of an athlete, and as a feat of a purely moral nature. – You need to work for the benefit of other people, but at the same time pay attention to the fact that this assistance supports them in their labors and in virtue, and does not serve as a reason for them to be lazy, or, in the picturesque language of Pythagoras, “you need to help the porters put on the load, and not lay it down”, – You need to take care of your education (φυγαδευτέον... (άπό) ψυχής άμαθίαν). Consequently, mental work is obligatory for a person, and it has a very high importance: without philosophical education, the human mind cannot contemplate the true, truly existing, and in this contemplation lies the bliss of man (48). But if contemplation of the true (τό άληθές) is bliss for a person, then telling the truth (τό άληθεύειν) is his duty. Truthfulness is one of the main virtues: “only it can make a person godlike (παραπλήσιου θεω), because the soul of the god Ormuzd is like truth” 1065. “It is necessary to faithfully keep not only the entrusted money, but also the entrusted secret τφ παρακατα- θεμενω φυλάσσειν) 1066 . The instructions about love (εΰνουν είναι) for parents and benefactors and about unanimity between family members (φυγαδευτέον... (άπ’) οϊκου διχοφροσύνην) do not represent anything particularly typical. Pythagoras’s injunction: “visit the churches of the gods not in passing (μή έκ παρέργου),· but leave the house with this intention” (38) deserves special attention as proof of the extent to which the analysis of moral actions was deep: Pythagoras is not content, when assessing the moral dignity of a fact, with the fact itself, its external side, but monitors its very origin in the human soul. As a means for moral improvement, Pythagoras recommended systematic control (φροντίδα) over oneself, self-examination before and after sleep. Finally, the last rule of Pythagoras was: “when you set out, do not return,” that is, die calmly, do not grab hold of the life that is leaving you. Judging by the fact that Pythagoras zealously studied the religious beliefs of various peoples and was initiated into the secrets of the Egyptian and Greek dactylic cult, one could expect that he would offer some new religious teaching. However, Porfiry does not say anything clearly. There is one saying of Pythagoras, in which there seems to be a dull hint of some secret Pythagorean teaching about the gods. “Do not wear images of gods on rings,” says Pythagoras, that is, do not divulge opinions and teachings about the gods μηδέ φανερόν £χειν, μηδ’ εις πολλούς φέρειν). But this saying also allows for another interpretation: one should not wear images of gods on rings, perhaps not at all because these images are new and have not come into general use, but only because they are holy; One should not profane religious subjects by making them the subject of ordinary conversation with everyone. In other sayings, Pythagoras is completely conservative in religious terms: he does not, apparently, rise to the idea of ​​​​monotheism; He commands his disciples to speak respectfully (εύφημον είναι) not only about the gods, but also about demons and heroes, to sacrifice odd things to the heavenly gods, and even things to the earthly gods, to visit churches, leaving their home with this intention. Pythagoras himself used to go to the sanctuaries of the gods for quite some time, and on his way to Italy he did not fail to visit the sacred places of Delphi and Crete, and in this latter place he reverently performed various religious rites. And yet it cannot be said that the dark sides of the Greek dogma were unknown to Pythagoras; he knew them well and seemed to deliberately increase their number, and, despite this, he remained a believing Greek. His faith was not shattered even by such things as the tombs (τάφοι) of Apollo and Zeus; Pythagoras recognized the fact of the death of both gods, writing on the tomb of the latter: “Here lies the deceased Zan, who is called Zeus,” and denying Apollo even the glory of victory over Python. Pythagoras was alien to religious intolerance and exclusive adherence to the Greek cult, and this tendency towards syncretism is perhaps the most important difference between Pythagoras’s religious views and the views of an ordinary pious Greek. In Babylon, Pythagoras did not hesitate to receive “cleansing from the defilements of his former life” from Zabrat, and in Egypt he even received the right to make sacrifices to the gods, and there is no reason to doubt that he took advantage of this right. He recognized Ormuzd as a god and according to the legend of the magicians, that the body Ormuzda, like light, and the soul - truth, substantiated the doctrine of the high importance of truthfulness as a virtue that makes a person godlike. Thus, the religious beliefs of Pythagoras were not fundamentally opposed to the Greek doctrine, and therefore there were no hostile clashes between Pythagoras and the zealots of the Greek cult. True, the teaching of Pythagoras that animals should not be killed was at odds with ordinary religious rituals - Pythagoras considered bloody sacrifices a hateful offering that offended the gods 1067 - but in this respect Pythagoras knew how to avoid a break with Greek ritual - partly by evading the consistent application of his teachings 1068 - so he, although occasionally, ate some parts of the sacrificial meat and he sacrificed the most tender piglets and chickens, partly through a peculiar, so to speak, allegorical performance of religious rites; for example, on the occasion of the discovery of his famous theorem, he sacrificed a bull prepared from flour; and he advised the gods to bring libations “up to the very ear of the vessel,” meaning by this image, taken from common practice, that the gods should be worshiped with hymns and music that are perceived by the ear. The special organization of the Pythagorean school represents a very important characteristic feature of Pythagoreanism. The reason for such an organization of the school lies in Pythagoras' sublime understanding of his relationship to his listeners. The usual relationship of the teacher with his students did not satisfy Pythagoras: he saw his friends in them, became deeply attached to them and wanted to unite them with strong moral ties; and Pythagoras had the most ideal concept of a friend. “My friend is another me,” he said, “friends have everything in common.” From here naturally followed the need for complete moral communication between friends and the destruction of private property (ούτοι τάς ουσίας κοινός έθεντο n. 20). These two features also determine what form of community life Pythagoras should have chosen as a model for his school. This form was the family (οίκος) with its strong moral and material connection. Indeed, the Pythagorean community was called όμακοίον. It is quite clear that Pythagoras had to choose his student friends with great care. To do this, he first studied the facial features of the person coming, observed him in movement and at rest, and, from there making a conclusion about the moral qualities of the person coming, either accepted or sent him away. Of the qualities required of a visitor, Porfiry mentions only one - the ability to remain strictly silent; Pythagoras did not order that “swallows”, that is, talkative and intemperate people be accepted into their homes. - Of course, the close unification of the Pythagorean school should have been greatly facilitated by the fact that entire families, husbands, wives and children were accepted into the όμακοίον (n. 20), so that, entering the όμακοίον, the Pythagorean did not break his natural ties, did not leave people dear to him outside the community, who could make him remember with regret the world he left behind. The Pythagoreans were divided according to the volume of the course of the sciences they studied into two classes - acousmatists, who listened only to the general foundations of the sciences (μόνας κεφαλαιώδεις ύποθήκας των γραμμάτων), and mathematicians, who studied a precisely developed course of sciences έπιστήμης λόγον). The laws and rules of Pythagoras covered all aspects of the life of the Pythagoreans (έκτός τούτων (νόμων) πράττειν μηδέν), and they obeyed them as divine commands. The establishment of the school turned out to be the most lasting and, one might think, beneficial work of Pythagoras. Having experienced the era of its political power and philosophical prosperity - at a time when the philosophy of Pythagoras was presented to the Pythagoreans themselves in the form of a few sparks, dark and subtle - the Pythagorean community continued to live an isolated life, according to the rules of its idolized founder; for many generations, it still amazed society with the strength of its moral connection, the indestructible mutual loyalty of its members and their high moral endurance: they never humbled themselves to tears and sobs, or to caresses and ingratiation, and did not give in to anyone’s requests when it came to what they considered a deviation from the principles of their teacher. The mutual loyalty of Damon and Phintius withstood the most severe test on the part of Dionysius, but in vain their tyrant asked them to accept him third into their friendly alliance: the Pythagoreans turned out to be adamant here too. Pythagoras was high in his personal merits and in his historical merits. From the beginning to the end of his life, Pythagoras remains a bright personality and attracts sympathy in all his everyday situations, whether he is as a philosopher in the true, high sense of the word, with tireless zeal seeking wisdom in its very cradle - in the east, - or as a political figure - a fighter for freedom and better laws, - or as a private person with ascetic inclinations, with a meek, loving soul - is he he is like a great miracle worker, unparalleled, using his wonderful gift most often for the benefit of man; finally, when he is driven, persecuted, he still remains handsome, tall, already as a result of the deep, selfless love that he managed to arouse in his students. The merit of Pythagoras as a political figure lies in the fact that through his activities he prevented all sorts of civil strife for a long time - as a philosopher - in the fact that he pointed out the mathematical correctness of everything that happens in nature, and even more so in the fact that he was the first to bring to Greece the doctrine of the immortality of the soul and proposed a moral teaching, which, having been implemented in practice, brought forward a whole society of people, although not disposed to an open social life, but, in any case, not dangerous to anyone, morally pure (comparatively) and strictly honest. Is it possible to prove from the Gospels of Mark and Luke the validity of that ancient tradition that the first is an abbreviation of the sermon of St. Peter, and the second - the sermons of St. Pavel? 1069* Ancient church writers spoke with complete clarity on the question of the relationship of the Gospel of Mark to the sermon of St. Peter and the Gospel of Luke to the sermon of St. Pavel. Also St. Papias of Hierapolis (lived c. 118 AD), repeating and developing the thought of John the Presbyter (i.e., perhaps, the Apostle John himself, as Garike believes, Introduction to the New Testament Books. M., 1869, I, pp. 130–131), argued that Mark wrote down exactly 1070 and, as far as possible, completely 1071 everything that I remembered from the sermon of St. Peter about the words and deeds of Christ. St. St. hold essentially the same view. Irenaeus 1072, Clement of Alexandria 1073, Tertullian 1074, Origen 1075, Eusebius 1076 and bl. Jerome 1077: not completely agreeing with each other in details 1078, they unanimously recognize the Gospel of Mark as a record of the sermon of the apostle. Peter and no other source for the said gospel are indicated. Of all these church writers, St. Irenaeus was the most careful and accurate exponent of the ancient tradition, and Tertullian the most concise and decisive 1079. Using their words, the essence of the ancient tradition regarding the Gospel of Mark can be formulated as follows: The Gospel of Mark is a recording of the sermon of St. Peter, is in a certain sense the Gospel of Peter. The idea of ​​the dependence of the Gospel of Luke on the preaching of St. Paul speaks out for the first time by St. Irenaeus. In the 1st chapter. III book. “Against Heresies” by St. Irenaeus says that Luke set out in the book what was preached by the apostle. Paul's gospel; but in 14 ch. St. himself from the same book. Irenaeus says that “Luke betrayed to us what he learned from the apostles, as he himself testifies, saying: as they who were from the very beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word delivered to us.” This idea about the dependence of Luke's gospel on the preaching of St. Paul with this necessary, on the testimony of the evangelist himself, based on her limitation, is also accepted by other authoritative church writers (Tertullian 1080, Eusebius 1081 and Jerome 1082), who disagrees with her opinion 1083 that the source of the Gospel of Luke was the only sermon of the apostle. Paul, is only mentioned by these writers, but not shared. However, pointing to the tradition of the apostles, “who were eyewitnesses of the Word from the very beginning,” as one of the sources for the Gospel of Luke, the ancient church writers do not place any of the eyewitness apostles in a special connection with the Gospel of Luke, nor call any of them by name 1084; and this circumstance makes it possible to assume that, according to the meaning of the ancient tradition, the Gospel of Luke in its main element is a record of the sermon of St. Paul, is mostly Paul's gospel. Is it possible and to what extent possible, based on the data of the Gospels of Mark and Luke themselves, to prove the validity of the ancient tradition about them? This question can be formulated in two ways: 1. Do we have compelling evidence to reject the influence of the high authority of witnesses to an ancient tradition and recognize this latter as valid? A. Are the internal signs of our 2nd and 3rd canonical gospels such that, even without knowing anything about the ancient tradition, or even that the writer of the 2nd gospel was the interpreter of St. Peter, and on the 3rd - a companion of St. Paul, would we still come to the conclusion that the 2nd Gospel is Peter’s Gospel, and the 3rd is Paul’s (for the most part, at least)? b. Are their internal signs such that we should have come to a similar conclusion at least when it became known to us that between our 4 canonical gospels there is one (but it is unknown which) the Gospel of Peter and another, mostly Paul's? 2. Do we have sufficiently strong data to recognize the tradition as untenable? Are the internal features of the Gospels of Mark and Luke such that they exclude any possibility of recognizing the first as Peter’s Gospel, and the second in some part as Paul’s? A positive answer to the first (1a) question will obviously be the strongest; a negative answer to the last (2) question is weak evidence of the validity of the ancient legend. It is self-evident that one can judge whether Petrovo and Paul are among our canonical gospels in no other way than by first compiling on the basis of the words and writings of the apostle. Peter and Paul's idea of ​​the gospel of both apostles, of its character and content. Character, as the sum of typical features, the character of the gospel of one and the other apostle is determined by two undeniable features of the difference between the apostle. Peter and the ap. Paul: a) the first was an apostle of circumcision (Gal. 2:7), although chosen by God from the first days, so that from his mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel (Acts 15:7), ap. Paul is the apostle of uncircumcision (Gal.2:7); b) ap. Peter was one of the eyewitnesses of the Word (2 Pet. 1:16), ap. Paul was not a follower of the Lord during His earthly life. Apostle of Circumcision, St. Peter was not a Judaist, a supporter of particularism in Christianity 1085; in known cases ap. Peter is as clear as the apostle himself. Paul spoke about the universal purpose of Christianity (10:28, 34, 35:43–48, 11:17, 15:8–9) and about salvation by faith without the works of the law (10:43, 17:10–11). The whole difference between the apostle of circumcision and the apostle of uncircumcision is in this case that the former had fewer reasons to express these truths, could preach Christianity to the Jews without bringing to the fore the questions of the calling of the Gentiles to the Church of Christ, in a word - by his position as an apostle of the Jews, he was removed from constant participation in the struggle against the Judaizers. The Apostle of the Gentiles, on the contrary, could fulfill his ministry in no other way than by constantly proclaiming the truth that Christianity is a universal religion; every accession of pagan believers to the Church elevated this truth by its very fact. The Apostle, who thus exalted this truth by the very fact of his existence as the Apostle of the Gentiles, could not help but defend this truth theoretically, for the sole reason that the Jews themselves challenged him to debate (13:45-49, 15:1-2.). And indeed, app. Paul in his epistles presents a very developed rationale for the truth that Christianity has a worldwide purpose 1086. So, the gospel of circumcision and the gospel of uncircumcision (Gal. 2:7) should differ from each other not qualitatively, but quantitatively, the degree of completeness and clarity with which the universal purpose of Christianity is revealed in them. But the ministry of St. Paul, as the apostle of the pagans, was accompanied for him personally by such consequences that could be reflected in his gospel: the apostle of the pagans was especially hated by his fellow tribesmen, “he was immensely wounded and many times at the point of death (2 Cor. 11:23–24–26)”; the whole history of his activities in the book. The Acts of the Apostles, from his first appearance to preach (9:22-23) to his last appearance in Jerusalem (23), is at the same time the history of the systematic persecution of him by the Jews (9:23-50, 13:50, 14:2-5, 17:5-7, 18:12, 21:27, 23:12-15), who did not stop at any means, nor before by inciting the people against him, neither before slander (17:6-7), nor before a conspiracy against the life of the apostle (9:23-24, 23:12-15). It would therefore not be surprising if it turned out that in the gospel of Paul the enmity of the Jews against the Savior is outlined in sharper lines than in the gospel of Peter. The Apostle Paul was not an eyewitness to the earthly life of the Lord. Christ revealed himself to Paul in His heavenly glory rather as the living principle and essence of Christianity 1087 than as that specific person of the Prophet of Nazareth, as His first disciples first saw Him. Therefore ap. Paul had a more natural opportunity to be a theologian than a narrator - to offer a frank teaching about Christ in His essential and absolutely necessary relation to Christianity, than to narrate His temporary appearances in this or that Galilean city, or about individual manifestations of “the fullness of the Godhead, which all dwells bodily in Christ” (Col. 2:9). – The Apostle Peter was one of the very first disciples of his Teacher, who was for him Jesus, the Prophet of Nazareth, before he revealed himself to him as Christ, the Son of God. In the last three years of Christ's life, St. Peter was, one might say, His constant companion and a witness to all His deeds. It is natural, therefore, to expect that the Gospel of Peter will present more details characterizing Christ the Savior as a person - a more vivid and complete reproduction of these circumstances of the place and time in which Christ “created and taught.” Let us consider our gospels from these sides. Already the Gospel of Matthew very clearly testifies to the worldwide purpose of Christianity (for example, 24:14, 26:13, 28:19), to the calling of the pagans into the Kingdom of Christ (8:11–12); the faith of the Gentile is placed above the faith of the Israelites (8:10). But, along with these features, the gospel indicates with particular clarity that Christ “was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24), that the apostles should initially preach the gospel only to the Jews (10:5). In the Gospel of Mark, the worldwide purpose of Christianity is revealed more clearly. Here, not only are the words of Matthew 24:14 and 26:13 repeated in 13:10 and 14:9, but in 16:15 the idea of ​​Christianity as a world religion is expressed with greater force than in the parallel passage of Matthew 28:19 (go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, cf. 16:20), and in Art. Chapter 17 11 only in this gospel is given the meaning of the words of Christ as a testimony to the calling of all nations into the Church of God (the quotation from Is. 56:7 continues: My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations; the words: for all nations in Matthew 21:13 and Luke 19:46 are not read). True, in the Gospel of Mark there is no story about the healing of the centurion’s servant; therefore, there is no reason either to mention the great faith of this pagan, surpassing the faith of Israel, or to utter a prophecy that people who came from the west and east will replace the Israelites in the Kingdom of God (Matthew 8: 5–12); the well-known parable of the vinedressers is not accompanied by a clear saying of the Savior about the calling of another people instead of Israel (Matthew 21:43 cf. Mark 12:1–10; this saying is not found in Luke 20:9–17): but the absence in the gospel of places that (at first glance, at least) seem to disagree with the universal purpose of Christianity and therefore could confuse pagan believers ( Matthew 10:5, 15:24), forces us to recognize in the Gospel of Mark a clearer expression of the idea of Christianity as a world religion. The first of these passages in the Gospel of Mark is omitted (6:8-11, - in the same way in Luke 9:1-5, 10:1-16), the latter is replaced by a precise and clear definition of its true meaning. (Mark 7:27. “First let the children be satisfied.” Cf. Acts 3:26 “God, having raised up His Son Jesus, sent Him first to you (the Israelites) to bless you.” Ap. Peter. D. 13:46. “You (the Jews) were the first to have the word of God preached.” Ap. Paul and Barnabas). Also remarkable is the clear and complete statement of Christ about the meaning of the Sabbath (2:27–28. The words of v. 27: “the Sabbath is for man, and not man for the Sabbath” in parallel places Matthew 12:8 and Luke 6:5 are omitted) 1088. The idea of ​​the universal purpose of Christianity is revealed even more fully in the Gospel of Luke, despite the fact that there are no passages in it parallel to Matthew 24:14, Mark 13:10 and Matthew 26:13, Mark 14:9. One might say that the first and last word of this gospel is the proclamation of this idea. Announcing the birth of the Savior to the shepherds, the angel proclaims “great joy that will be for all people” (2:10). Simeon calls the Child “a light to enlighten the Gentiles” (2:32). In His first sermon in the Nazareth synagogue, Christ already brought to the attention of the Jews the fact that the Old Testament prophets performed great miracles not for the Israelites, but for the Gentiles (4:25–27). Christ’s last word to his disciples was the command to preach repentance and forgiveness of sins in His name to all nations, starting from Jerusalem (24:47). Christ is the Savior of all mankind already because he is not only the son of David or the son of Abraham (cf. Matt. 1:1), but also the son of Adam - this is the idea of ​​the genealogy of Christ (Luke 3:23-38 vv.). – And the Israelites, in the person of their representatives, such as the universally respected Pharisees or priesthood, are no more moral and no more worthy of the grace of Christianity than those whom they despised as much as the pagans (18:11 cf. 15:1-2, Matthew 18:17). This is the idea of ​​​​those parallels that are so many in the gospel of Luke. Thus, in 7:36–50, the despised (especially v. 39) sinner, marvelous in her great love, is compared with the arrogant Pharisee; in 10:30–37 the good Samaritan, on the one hand, and the priest with the Levite, on the other; in 15:11–32 the prodigal but repentant son and his cold and demanding brother; in 17:12–18, nine healed Jews who did not return to give glory to God, and the only grateful foreigner, a Samaritan; in 18:10–14, a Pharisee proud of his merits and a humble publican. – The same idea lies in the glorification of the wondrous faith of the pagan above the faith of the Israelites (7:1-10), and in the remark (which is not in Matthew 9:10 and Mark) that all tax collectors and sinners approached Christ (Luke 15:21), and in the depiction of a “sinful man”, from the point of view of the Jews, but a true “son of Abraham” in the eyes of Christ - in the depiction the publican Zacchaeus (19:1–9), and finally in the story of the high faith of the thief, which opened paradise to him (23:39–43) 1089. Thus, in the Gospel of Luke we find a very detailed disclosure of the universal purpose of Christianity and, moreover, in such a way (by comparing the Jews with persons despised by them), which represents some analogy with Rom. 2:25–29. Comparing the gospels according to the descriptions they contain of the hostile relations of the Jews towards Christ, one cannot help but see that these relations in the Gospel of Luke are outlined more sharply than in the Gospel of Mark. According to the Gospel of Luke, the very first appearance of Christ as a teacher is overshadowed by an explosion of rage of the Jews (4:28), while, according to the Gospel of Mark, the first actions of Christ evoke in the Jews only a feeling of reverence for Him (chap. 1). The meeting of the Pharisees with the Herodians against Christ in the Gospel of Mark is described in less gloomy terms than in the Gospel of Luke (Mark 3:6; Luke 6:11: “they were enraged”; these words are not in Mark; neither are they in Matthew, who mentions the fact not in the 3rd or 6th chapters, but only in 12:14). The accusation of Jesus Christ before Pilate is conveyed in detail only by Ev. Luke; it contained slander (23:2 “we found that He corrupts our people and forbids giving taxes to Caesar” 1090) all the more blatant because the persons to whom Christ gave such clear proof that He does not forbid taxes to Caesar were, according to Luke 20:19-26, sent precisely by the high priests and scribes. But the trait that reveals the highest degree of bitterness of the Jews against Christ was conveyed only to him. Matthew (27:25). In terms of its presentation, the Gospel of Mark represents an “amazing, rare, almost unique in history” phenomenon 1091. The Holy Evangelist depicts primarily the works of Christ, the royal ministry of Christ, but depicts in such a way that, along with the idea of the “Lion of Judah,” the image of the Son of Man is reproduced with His mental movements 1092, with His gestures 1093, even with the sound of His words 1094, the people around Him are reproduced, with their peculiar eastern speech 1095, sometimes expressing the most their innermost spiritual movements 1096, sometimes the changes occurring in these persons are revealed with clarity to the reader himself 1097, in general, the speeches of the persons mentioned in the gospel are most often conveyed by Ev. Mark 1098. The evangelist usually means the place of 1099 and the time of 1100 incidents very precisely; even the purely decorative side of the fact is not ignored 1101; the idea of ​​quantity is sometimes clarified by indicating the result 1102; sometimes an exact figure is indicated where other evangelists are vague 1103. The high skill with which the Evangelist Mark narrates is shown by a comparison of his story about the feeding of 5,000 people (6:30–44) or the healing of a demon-possessed youth (9:14–27) with parallel ones in Matthew (14:12–21, 17:14–18) and Luke (9:10–17). This vividness of the story, the accuracy, the abundance of details, involuntarily invites one to think that all this is narrated by an eyewitness, and, moreover, a lively, impressionable person; but the narrative of the death of John the Baptist, lively and detailed (cf. Mark 6:17-29 with Matthew 14:1-12 and Luke 9:9, 3:19-20), forces one to be especially careful in drawing conclusions: after all, it is hardly possible to doubt that not a single apostle was an eyewitness to Herod’s feast. The Gospel of Luke differs in another way. There are few details to be found here; It is enough to note that, knowing only the Gospel of Luke, we could not imagine the characteristic appearance of John the Baptist (3:2-18). Abstract expressions (like 5:17: “the power of the Lord appeared in healing”), a form of indicating the purpose and reason for this or that saying (14:7. 18:1–9.), an abbreviated (18:15–17 cf. Mark 10:16) presentation, and sometimes an omission (Luke 17:3–4 cf. Matt. 18:21) of the circumstances under which this or that was pronounced word - show that facts for the Evangelist Luke are important only as a form of discovery of one or another idea, as a reason for moral edification. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine that the Gospel of Luke was written under the guidance of an eyewitness, to whom each fact, as a fact of his own life, is presented with its details and is valuable in itself, according to the memories associated with it. So, both the direction and nature of the presentation of the gospels of Mark and Luke are such that even if they do not lead with logical necessity to recognition in St. Peter and Paul, the authors of these gospels, then in any case do not represent anything unfavorable to the ancient tradition. Let us now consider, as far as is accessible, the very matter (i.e., the sum of facts from the history of the earthly life of the Lord) of the gospels of Petrov and Pavlov and compare with it the matter of our synoptic gospels 1104. The similarity or difference between them in this respect should naturally be more important than the similarity in spirit: a greater number of writers can converge in a general direction than in the manifestation of this tendency in particulars. The Acts of the Apostles preserved for us five speeches (historical content) by St. Peter (1:16–22, 2:14–36, 38–39, 3:12–26, 4:8–12, 10:34–43). The last of them (since its content is less affected than the content of the others by the fact that caused it, and since, in the absence of Old Testament quotations in it, it is distinguished by the unity of content), can be taken as the main text; supplementing it in places from other speeches and from the epistle of St. Peter, we get the following outline of the gospel story: AD 10:37. “You know what happened throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism preached by John”; 38, a. “How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power.” Art. 22nd 1st ch. D. gives some reason to believe that in the speech to Cornelius, it is no coincidence that the gospel story begins with the Baptism of John, that this, at least, was the more common beginning of the sermon of the apostle. Petra. Of all the synoptic gospels, only the gospel of Mark begins the story with the baptism of John. The opening words of the 38th Art. very close to the expressions of Luke 4:1,14,18. – The words: “Jesus of Nazareth” are read at the beginning of the gospel literally only in Mark 1:9. B. St. 38. “And He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil...” 2:22. “...witnessed of God by powers and wonders and signs.” Ap. Peter pays full attention to the works (miracles) of Christ in general and to the healing of the demon-possessed in particular. As a great miracle worker, Christ is depicted precisely in the Gospel of Mark. The gospels of Matthew and Luke (cf. 24:10) set out equally fully both the deeds and the words of Christ (the latter even in great detail). It is remarkable that, according to Mark 1:27, the witnesses of the healing of the demoniac cannot seem to imagine the teachings of Christ separately from the miracle performed by Christ (cf. Luke 4:36) 1105 *. In particular, casting out demons only in the Gospel of Mark seems to be a special, special type of activity of Jesus Christ (1:39 cf. Luke 4:44). Of the 20 cases of healing mentioned in ev. Mark, 7 - healing of the possessed, while in ev. from Matthew 7 healings of the possessed are accounted for by 24 healings in general, and in Heb. from Luke 10 to 31, so in ev. from Mark, exorcisms of demons account for 35% of the total number of healings, in Heb. Luke - 32, 26% and in ev. Mf, – 29, 16% (See appendix at the end). V. 2 Pet.1:17. “He (Jesus Christ) received honor and glory from God the Father when such a voice came to him from the magnificent glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” –18. And we heard this voice coming from heaven while we were with Him on the Holy Mountain.” The voice of God the Father in such words is not read in any of our gospels: in all (Matthew 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35) it ends with the words: “Listen to Him.” But closer than the other gospels is the exposition of St. Peter stands for the Gospel of Matthew: only here the words are read: “in whom I am well pleased.” D. The history of the sufferings of Christ includes 1 Peter 2:23–24; Acts 1:16 et seq. 2:23, 3:13–18, 4:10, 10:39. Here are the features that seem more or less characteristic: 1. The leader of those who took Jesus, Judas, acquired at an unjust price a land called Akeldama, and he himself died an unnatural death (1:16-19). Only Ev speaks about the death of Judas and the purpose of the 30 pieces of silver. Matthew (27:3–8). There is, however, some possibility of assuming that the mentioned fact was not included in the Gospel of Peter, since the words of Acts 1:16-19 are taken from a speech delivered on a special occasion, which made the mention of Judas inevitable, and addressed not to the listeners enlightened by the Gospel teaching, but to the apostles themselves. 2. The Israelites and their leaders betrayed I. Christ to death out of ignorance. This is the conviction of the apostle. Peter (Acts 3:17). After this, it would be very natural to find in the Gospel of Peter the words of the Crucified: “Father! forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” But they are read in the gospel of Luke (23:34). In general, the history of the suffering of Christ, if it does not present important obstacles to the identification of the Gospel of Peter with the Gospel of Mark, then in any case does not present data in favor of this identification. D. Acts 10:40. “This (Jesus) God raised up on the third day, and made him appear (έδωκεν αύτόν έμφανη γενέσθαι text. rec.= to become manifest) 41. not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen by God, to us, who ate and drank with Him after the resurrection Him from the dead έκ νεκρών). The whole question as to the exact meaning of this word lies in what sentence the words “after His resurrection” should be applied to. If we relate them to the sentence: “gave Him to appear,” then the words: “who ate and drank with Him” will have the same meaning as Acts 1:21; if we relate the words: “after His resurrection” to the immediately preceding sentence, which seems more natural, then the words “who drank and ate with Him” will have the meaning of one of those “many sure proofs” (Acts 1:3), which The Risen One confirmed the reality of His resurrection. Similar to 1106 described ap. Peter mentions facts in Luke 24:41–43 and John 21:12–15, but Mark’s gospel is silent about them. In general, it is impossible to categorically assert that Ev. Mark agrees, nor does it disagree at this point with the sermon of St. Petra. E. 42. “And He commanded that it should be preached to the people that He is the judge appointed by God of the living and the dead.” If the Lord gave this command, as apparently should be concluded from the context, after His resurrection from the dead, then it (the command) is omitted in all the gospels. J. 1 Peter 3:22. (Jesus Christ), “having ascended into heaven, is at the right hand of God.” Mark 16:19. “The Lord... ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.” The Gospel of Matthew is silent about the ascension and sitting at the right hand of the Father, the Gospel of Luke is silent about the sitting as a fact accomplished (24:51 cf. 22:69). Thus, the sermon of St. Peter turns out to be identical with the Gospel of Mark in 3 points (A.B.Zh.), of which the complete agreement in the depiction of Christ as a miracle worker and healer of the demoniac is especially important (B). Of the points in which disagreement is noticed (V.G.E.), V seems to be the most significant. But in general, the similarity turns out to be more significant than the difference. The Acts of the Apostles have preserved for us one rather significant speech (of historical content) by St. Paul (13:16–41). Replenishing it with places from the messages of St. Paul, we get this outline of the gospel story: A. Acts 13:23 “Out of the descendants of David, God, according to the promise (given to the fathers, v. 32) raised up a Savior Jesus to Israel.” The similarity at this point between the sermon and the Gospel of Luke is complete, even in word expression. “From the descendants of David (Luke 1:27, 32, 69) God raised up (cf. 1:69), according to the promise (cf. song of Zech. 1:68–73 also 54–56), to Israel a Savior (2:11; it is remarkable that the very word “Σωτήρ” does not appear in other synoptic gospels 1107) Jesus" (without any addition in the gender: “from Nazareth (Acts 10:38, Mark 1:9)” or “from Galilee (Matthew 3:13)”; St. Luke in 2:52, 3:21, 4:1, also does not use any addition). B. Gal.4:4 “When the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, made subject to the law.” In the Gospel of Luke there are no words: “the time is fulfilled,” which are read only in the Gospel. Mark 1:15 and which are so close to the opening words of the above verse; but the existence in Jerusalem of persons awaiting the consolation of Israel (2:25), awaiting deliverance (v. 38), - the general expectation of the coming of the Messiah when John appeared (3:15), finally the agreement of all those present in the Nazareth synagogue - agreement with Christ that the time of the coming of the Messiah has come (4:22, 21:18-19), sufficiently compensate for the lack of words Mark 1:15. The Son of God is also depicted as “born of a woman” in the Gospel of Matthew (1:18–25; Luke 2:1–7), but as “being under the law” is presented primarily (if not exclusively (Matthew 3:15, 5:17)) in the Gospel of Luke (2:21–22.). V. Acts 13:24. “Just before the appearance of Him (Christ), John preached a baptism of repentance... 25. At the end of his career, John said: Who do you say that I am? I'm not the same; but behold, he comes after me, whose shoes I am not worthy to untie.” The words of John the Baptist in this form are not found in any evangelical (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:7–8; Luke 3:15–16); but since neither ev. Mark, neither ev. Matthew does not explain the reason for uttering these words, it should be recognized that the Evangelist Luke, who indicates this reason in the fact that John was revered as Christ (v. 15), comes closer than others to the presentation of the apostle. Pavel. D. 1 Cor. 11:23–25. Establishment of the sacrament of the Eucharist. To see how the presentation of ev. Luke is approaching the exposition of St. Paul, let's compare their words in Greek. Kal λαβών άρτον, εύχαριστήσας, Εκλασε, καί έδωκεν αύτοΐς, λέγων. Τοΰτό έστι τό σώμά μου τό υπέρ υμών διδόμενον τούτο ποιείτε εις τήν έμήν άνάμνησιν. 20. ώσαύτως καί τό ποτήριον, μετά τό δειπνήσαι, λέγων. Τοΰτο τό ποτήριον ή καινή διαθήκη έν τφ αϊματί μου, τό υπέρ υμών έκχυννόμενον. 23. δ Κύριος Τ Ιησοϋς, έν τη νυκτ'ι ή παρεδίδετο, έλαβεν άρτον. 24. Kal εύχαριστήσας Εκλασε, καί είπε, Λάβετε, φάγετε τοΰτό μού έστιν τό σώμα τύ υπέρ ύμών κλώμενον τοΰτο ποιείτε είς τήν έμήν άνάμνησιν. 25. ώσαύτως, καί τό ποτήριον, μετά τό δειπνήσαι, λέγων. Τοΰτο τό ποτήριον ή καινή διαθήκη έστιν τοΰτο ποιείτε, όσάκις έάν πίνητε, είς τήν έμήν άνάμνησιν. The Gospels of Mark and Matthew have only one feature in common with the presentation of St. Paul: they preserved “Λάβετε, φάγετε”, which was omitted in the Gospel of Luke. But in other features between the formulas of the gospels of Matthew and Mark and the formula of St. Paul, it is not the similarity that is noticed, but the difference: in Ev. Matthew and Mark do not read either “τό υπέρ ύμών κλώμενον (=διδόμενον)” or “τοΰτο ποιείτε είς τήν έμήν άνάμνησιν"; instead of “τούτο τύ ποτήριον ή καινή διαθήκη έτίν έν τώ έμιώ αϊματί” read “τοΰτο έστι τό αίμά μου, τό της καινής διαθήκης, το περί πολλών έκχυννόμενον.” The formula adopted by the Evangelist Luke “τό ύπέρ ύμών έκχυννόμενον” provides clear evidence that the basis of this, at least, section is the sermon (or epistle) of the apostle. Paul: everything borrowed from other sources is either modified in accordance with the main text or left unchanged, but in no way modifies the main text: borrowed from another source τό... έκχυννόμενον (implied αίμά) did not change, however, its case, did not turn into “τφ... έκχυννόμενφ”, but did not change the “τώ αϊματί” of the main text in “τό αϊμα”; the words between “τό...” and ... “έκχυννόμενον”, probably “περί πολλών”, influenced by the text of St. Paul changed to "ύπέρ ύμών". From all that has been said, it follows a. that the gospel of Luke is the only gospel that at this point should be considered Paul’s gospel, b., the text of St. Paul in this case appears in the Gospel of Luke with such significance that it becomes probable that his (the text of St. Paul) influence is not limited to the boundaries of this department. D. Heb.5:7. “He (Jesus Christ) in the days of His flesh, with a strong cry and with tears, offered prayers and supplications to Him who was able to save Him from death; and was heard (was – είσακουσθείς) for His reverence...” It is most natural to relate these words to the prayer for the Cup in the garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36–44; Mark 14:32–41; Luke 41–44). Especially strong expressions. Paul is led to believe that his gospel contains an equally strong description of the fact; and the words of Ev. Luke “And being in trouble, he prayed more earnestly; and His sweat was as drops of blood falling to the ground (v. 44)” represent, without a doubt, the most powerful description of the prayer for the cup. Doesn’t the mentioned appearance of an angel to Jesus Christ to strengthen Him have anything to do with the words: “he was heard for reverence” only in the Gospel of Luke? E. Acts 13:27–30; 1 Corinthians 15:3–4. About the suffering, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul speaks in terms common to all the gospels; however, the words of Acts 13:27 (the rulers... did not recognize Him and condemned Him) may be related to the words of Christ: “they do not know what they are doing,” given only in the Gospel of Luke (23:34). J. Acts 31 art. “(After the resurrection) He appeared for many days to those... who are now His witnesses before the people (cf. Luke 24:48).” 1 Corinthians 15:5 “He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren (together) at one time... 7. Then he appeared to Jacob, and also to all the apostles.” From Chapter 24 L. is unclear whether on one day or several, also once or several times Christ appeared to the twelve. Not a single gospel mentions the appearance to more than 500 brethren and the appearance to Jacob, but the appearance of the apostle. Peter is told only by the Gospel of Luke (24:34), which at this point, with more right than any other, can be called Paul’s Gospel. Thus, “thus, a comparison of the sketch of the earthly life of Christ, an sketch compiled on the basis of the words and writings of the apostle. Paul, with the Gospel of Luke shows the similarity between them in all points (A-G); in none of them an. Paul does not approach the gospels of Matthew or Mark any more than he does the gospel of Luke 1108; and one of the points of comparison (D - the establishment of the Eucharist) represents a very strong proof of the strong and undoubted dependence of Luke's gospel on the writings (or preaching) of the apostle. Pavel. But if we move from history to the theology of St. Paul, we note along with the similarities between the teachings of St. Paul and the story of St. Luke and the differences between them that are unfavorable for identifying the Gospel of Luke with the Gospel of St. Pavel. It is known how fully revealed in the epistles of St. Paul's dogma about Jesus Christ as the High Priest (epistle to the Hebrews) - the Redeemer of mankind and the Head of His Body, the Church. Certain aspects of this dogma, for example, the idea of ​​Christ as the Savior and Reconciler, the idea of ​​justification (salvation) by faith without the works of the law and the adoption of those who believe in Christ to God, are revealed quite fully in the Gospel of Luke. This is how the angel calls Christ Savior (2:11); He Himself testifies that He came “to seek and to save that which was lost” (19:10; cf. 9:55–56; 15:4–9; cf. 1:69–77, 3:6). The idea of ​​Christ as the Reconciler is expressed in the song of the angels at His birth: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men” (cf. regarding the meaning of the word “good will” with 3:22; cf. 19:38), given only in the Gospel of Luke, a song that is compared (Davidson) with Col. 1:20 (cf. Eph. 2:1-4). The idea of ​​salvation by faith without the works of the law is expressed in the story of the forgiveness of the sinner (7:36–50) and especially in the story of the thief who repented on the cross (23:40–43) with such clarity as this New Testament idea could only manifest itself in facts from the lives of Old Testament persons. Finally, the idea of ​​adoption is manifested in the name of God as the Father of believers (6:36, 11:2-13), and true Christians as sons of the Most High (6:35), although these expressions do not have the same clarity as, for example, the words of John 1:12. But the idea of ​​Christ the Redeemer in the Gospel of Luke is not revealed with the degree of completeness and clarity that one might expect in the Gospel of St. Pavel. True, in the Gospel of Luke we find the terms “λύτρωσις” (1:68) and “λυτροϋσθαι” (24:21); it even more often than other gospels mentions that Jesus Christ had to suffer and die (9:31, 13:33 have no parallel passages): but, as 24:21 shows, λυτροϋσθαι (and probably also λύτρωσις) does not have the same meaning as it does λύτρωσις Heb.9:12 and άπολυτ- ρώσεως Rom.3:24–25; Eph.1:7; Col. 1:14, and the goal of those who wait Christ's suffering, and the dogma of redemption consists in clarifying it, is expressed in the Gospel of Luke only at the establishment of the Eucharist, because the words of Christ: “The Son of Man came... to give His life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45) are omitted from the Gospel of Luke. The doctrine of the Church is expounded by St. Paul with remarkable completeness (in the letter to the Ephesians and Colossians). Excommunicating from the Church, handing over to Satan the Corinthian incest (1 Cor. 5:5) and Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim. 1:20), Apostle. Paul obviously uses the authority given to the representatives of the Church (John 20:22–23; Matt. 16:18–19, 18:15–20). Instructing Titus to “turn away from the heretic after the first and second admonition (3:10)”, Apostle. Paul only applies to a particular case the right given to the Church (Matthew 18:15 et seq.). And yet, in the Gospel of Luke there is not a single saying about the rights of the Church; the word “έκκλησία” also does not appear. But in particular, in individual thoughts and expressions, between the epistles of St. Paul and the Gospel of Luke have a lot in common. 1. Thus, the passage from Scripture quoted in the letter to Timothy (5:18): “the worker is worthy of his reward” is read literally (with the addition of only έστί) in Luke 10:7 (in Matthew 10:10 instead of του μισθού it is read τής τροφής). 2. Luke 10:8. “If you come to any city, and they will receive you; eat what is offered to you (έσθίετε τά παρατιθέμενα ύμΐν).” 1Kop.10:27. “If one of the unbelievers calls you and you want to go, then eat everything that is offered to you (παντό παρατιθέμενονύμΐν έσθίετε), without any examination, for peace of conscience.” Probably, sayings so similar in expression are similar in meaning: hardly Art. 8 of the Gospel repeats only what is said and proven in Art. 7.; in 8 tbsp. We are talking rather about the same issue that the ap. Paul touches on this in Col. 2:16. 3. 11:40. (Regarding the Pharisee’s washing of the cups) The Lord said: “You fools! Isn’t it the same One who created the external, also created the internal” (Cf. 1 Tim. 4:4 (we are also talking about food): “every creation of God is good”). 41. “Better to give alms from what you have; then everything will be pure for you (πάντα καθαρά ύμΐν έστιν). 1 Timothy 4:4. “And nothing is reprehensible if it is received with thanksgiving.” Titus 1:15 (against Jewish fables): “To the pure all things are pure (πάντα καθαρά τοΐς καθαροΐς).” Wed. Matthew 23:26 (the objection comes from a different point). 4. 11:49. (XL) “I will send prophets and apostles to them (the Jews), and some of them will be killed and others driven out.” 1 Thessalonians 2:15. “(The Jews) killed both the Lord Jesus and His prophets, and they drove us out.” Matthew 23:34 (not so similar to 1 Thess. 2:15). 5. 13:6–9. The parable of the fig tree, which has been barren for three years, but, at the request of the vinedresser, was left for another year. – This parable is found only in Luke’s gospel. In turn, the gospels of Matthew and Mark mention the Lord’s curse on the barren fig tree, which as a result withered to the root (Mk.11:12–14, 20–21; Matt.21:18–20). Interpreters consider the latter a symbol of the Jewish people. If the first one has the same meaning (see Luke 13:1–5), then the Evangelist Luke chose the first symbol, it seems, not without the influence of St. Paul, who does not call the Jews a tree withered to the root (11:16–18), and firmly believes in the future salvation of all Israel (vv. 26:1–2, 11–15, 23–25). 6. 13, 26. “Then you will say: We ate and drank before You.” R. 14, 17. “The kingdom of God is not food and drink.” 1 Corinthians 8:8. “Food does not bring us closer to God.” 7. 17:7–10. A parable that is in complete agreement with the way of thinking and expression of St. Paul (1 Cor.9:16–17, 23–27; Phil.3:9–14. Compare especially Luke 17:9 with 1 Cor.9:16–17). 8. Luke 19:9. Wed. Gal.3:7–9 (“son of Abraham”). 9 . Luke 22:59. “Every day I was with you in the church, and you did not raise your hands against Me; but now is your time and the power of darkness (καί ή έξουσία τοΰ σκότους).” Col. 1:12–13. “... Thanks to God and the Father,... who delivered us from the power of darkness (έκ της έξουσίας τοΰ σκότους), and brought us into the Kingdom of His beloved Son...” Some passages, while not representing complete agreement in meaning, are extremely similar in combination of words; for example, Luke 4:22 (έπΐ τοΐς λόγоις της χάριτος (about Christ)) and Col. 4:6 (λόγος ύμών πάντοτε έν χάριτι; Eph.4:29); Luke 4:32 (έν έξουσίςχήν ό λόγος αύτοΰ) and 1 Cop.2:4 (ό λόγος μου... έv αποδείξει πνεύματος καί δυνάμεως) 1109 . In general, the similarity of the Gospel of Luke with the Epistles of St. Paul is so large that Holtzman could compile a list of 174 words common between them; most of these words are only found in the ap. Pavel and Ev. Luke and meets. This fact is all the more remarkable because the messages of St. Paul are teaching writings, and the Gospel, no matter how much teaching there is in it, still belongs to the category of historical books - which could only limit the evangelist’s ability to use things in common with St. Paul. Paul's words and in no way could increase it. Therefore, the remarkable lexical similarity is a fact that can hardly be explained without the assumption of the dependence of Luke’s gospel on the epistles (or sermons) of St. Pavel. This is the limit of the material available to us for judging the relationship of the Gospel of Luke to the sermon of St. Pavel. But to judge the relationship of the Gospel of Mark to the sermon of St. Peter, the gospel itself presents a series of data that are so important, in the opinion of scholars who accept the ancient tradition, that it seems that all of them make the analysis of this data the core of their argument in favor of the reliability of the tradition. This argumentation takes quite a variety of forms: Klosterman 1110 argues in a more subtle way, Davidson 1111 and Garicke 1112; simpler, and Goltsman 1113 presents a condensed summary of everything said in favor of the tradition. The essence of Klostermann's argument is as follows: The calling of both pairs of brother apostles is described in Mark 1:16-20 in such subtle and vivid terms, the story is distinguished by such genuine freshness that we must (müssen) conclude that here we are encountering the testimony of an eyewitness (S. 24). Since the story about the calling of the sons of Jonah in its character, in its color, is no different from the story about the calling of the sons of Zebedee, we have no reason to assume that in Mr. 1, 16–20 we meet with the memories of two persons. And since in Art. 29 The main persons present are not James and John (μετά Ιάκωβον καί Ίωάννην), but Peter and Andrew (Nun nehmen wir wahr, dass er U. 29 unwillkürlich unter der Begleitung lesu nur Simon und Andreas denkt, diese beiden als Selbstverständlich anwesend voraussetzt, dagegen lakobus u[nd] Johannes nur durch Reflexion als gegenwärtig weiss...); then we must assume that ev. Mark writes from the memoirs of one of Jonah’s sons; and since, finally, in Art. 36 speaks only about Simon and those with him, then we must conclude that the evangelist uses the memories of the apostle. Peter (S. 31–32), oral or written - unknown. But that these memories did not reach the evangelist at second hand must be assumed on the basis of Art. 29: “When they left the synagogue, they came to the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.” Why, in fact, is the name of Andrei attached to the name of Simon here? This riddle (das Räthsel) can only be resolved on the assumption that St. Mark read or heard memories in this form: “and we came to our house.” By replacing this “we came” with the words “they came,” the evangelist had to accurately express the difference between the scope of this “we” and the scope of “our”; and since “we” included not only Simon and Andrew, the owners of the house, but also James and John, the evangelist divided them into two pairs, expressing in the very structure of the speech the difference in the relationship between them (S. 32). The well-known grammatical anacolusia in 3:14–19 leads us to the same assumption regarding the source of the Gospel of Mark: “And he appointed twelve (έποίησεν τούς δώδεκα) that they should be with Him... And he called (καί έπέθηκεν) Simon’s name Peter, James... and John”, etc. It must be assumed that St. Mark read or heard the news conveyed to him in this form: “and he appointed us twelve, so that... and he called my name Peter.” By omitting “us” and replacing “me” with the word “Simon,” the evangelist himself added Art. 17–19 (with the names of the apostles) (S. 72). - The particular detail and vividness of the story of 9:33-36 also becomes quite understandable when we imagine that it is based on the apostle’s recollections of an event that took place in his own (text. rec. έν τη οικία) house, where he had just returned after a rather long absence (S. 198), that the child who Jesus embraced probably belonged to the family of Peter (S. 199). Very important in Klosterman's argument is the assumption that the vividness of the story in Mark's gospel is, should be, explained by the fact that the story is based on eyewitness memories. Perhaps this is true; but since the narrative of the death of John the Baptist (6, 17–28) is distinguished by the same high merits of presentation as Mark 1:16 and further 9:33–36, and yet, with greater probability, it can be assumed that this narrative is not an eyewitness account than the opposite 1114: then Klosterman’s assumption, no matter how probable it is, still cannot be considered proven. But let’s assume that it is completely solid: Klosterman’s argument that this eyewitness is precisely the ap. Peter, still not very convincing. We have no reason to believe the assumption on which she solely rests, that an eyewitness transmitting his memories must necessarily put himself in the foreground, his “I” before any “he”: there are situations that the narrator cannot put himself in the foreground without distorting the nature of the event and the attitude of the characters to it. To see on what shaky foundation Klosterman built his entire argument, let's look at the data presented by the Gospel from a different point of view: suppose that the evangelist sets out the memories of St. Jacob. Could this apostle in v. 36 to say: “Jacob and those who were with him,” if, - which, judging by the character of the apostle. Peter is very likely - if the initiative of the enterprise belonged to the apostle. Petra? Likewise, isn’t it quite natural that in Art. April 29 Jacob put his name after the names of the ap. Peter and Andrey? After all, the Lord goes not to the house of Zebedee, but to the house of Simon and Andrew, and heals their relative. On the other hand, isn’t the very mention that the sons of Zebedee were also present at the healing of Simon’s mother-in-law even more natural in the mouth of James than in the mouth of Peter? Ap. Peter could have mentioned this as a simple detail of the fact or to certify the reality of the healing (the meaning would be: “it happened not in our presence alone, but also in the presence of strangers”; the name here would have a secondary meaning), a fact that for believers remained beyond doubt even without this secondary argument. But in the mouth of James this statement was not a mere detail: for the apostle himself it was a dear memory that he was inseparably with the Lord on the first day of his calling, for believers this was the primary argument for the reality of the fact of healing, it sounded like a speech: “what happened from the beginning, what we ... saw with our own eyes, what we looked at, ... we declare to you” (John 1: 1-3). – In the same way, the details of 9:33–36 could have been conveyed by the apostle. Jacob. Let the event actually take place in the house of the apostle. Peter (which is still unknown), - James was also there; and this speech of the Lord in his (Jacob’s) native Capernaum, where he had just returned after a rather long wandering, is memorable for him; and the speech and action of Christ for the son of Zebedee had even greater personal significance than for the other apostles: it is known that it was the sons of Zebedee who declared a desire to sit on the right and left sides of the Lord (Mark 10:35–45). As for the "riddle" presented by verse 29, which is supposedly resolved only by accepting Klosterman's hypothesis, one can doubt whether this riddle actually exists. Why is Andrei’s name next to Simon’s name as the owner of the house? In order to say that ap. Andrey lived in the same house with his brother. This detail is unknown to us from the other gospels; and if it were not in the Gospel of Mark, then it would be possible to assert a priori that the ap. Andrei lived in the house in which the apostle lived. Peter and - most importantly - his mother-in-law - would have been hardly possible; on the contrary, one might think that the house in which the ap. lived. Peter, was not his father’s house, but belonged (formerly) to his (Peter’s) mother-in-law, which is the ap. Peter moved here upon marriage, and St. Andrei stayed in his father's house. Finally, Klosterman’s attempt to explain the reason for anacoluthia in 3:14–19 cannot in any way be considered successful: the question still remains unresolved: why did the evangelist not give grammatical consistency to his presentation? Why did he, having so boldly added to the original text a list of the names of the apostles, moreover with the inauthentic 1115 names of James and John, did not dare to make such a simple amendment (instead of “και έπέθηκε τφ Σίμωνι” “Σίμωνα έπέθηκε αύτφ")? Goltsman in a condensed list of arguments given by scientists to prove the dependence of the Gospel of Mark on the preaching of St. Petra, in addition to the evidence developed by Klosterman, indicates the following: a. The real, detailed narrative (die eigentliche Erzählung) in the gospel begins with the calling of St. Peter (1:16...) and the healing of his mother-in-law (1:29). b. It is very likely that the house ap. Peter in Capernaum was the starting point of all subsequent travels of Jesus Christ. V. In general, most of the events narrated in the Gospel of Mark took place in Capernaum and Bethsaida - the place of residence (Mark 1:29) and birthplace (John 1:45) of the apostle. Petra. d. Only the Evangelist Mark strictly maintains the distinction between the names “Simon” (1:16–29–36, 3:16) and “Peter” (3:16, 5:37, etc.; meanwhile, St. Matthew already 4:18. “Σίμωνα τύν λεγόμενον Πέτρον"; 8:14. "είς τήν οίκίαν Πέτρου"; 5:3–4–5–10. “Σίμων”, 5:8. “Σίμων Πέτρος”). d. In the Gospel of Mark, the outstanding significance of the fact of Petrov’s confession is very clearly noted; it is shown that this fact constitutes an era in the social life of Jesus Christ. Regarding this evidence, we note the following: A. Since three more disciples were called together with the Apostle Peter, the fact that a detailed narrative begins with this fact can equally elevate us to the apostle. Peter, and to the other three apostles. Moreover, another question is whether one should seek an explanation for this fact in the attitude of the evangelist to the person of one of the called apostles: perhaps this depends on the very task of the gospel - to present the social life of Jesus Christ primarily in facts, in His deeds; and having set himself such a task, the evangelist could not choose another terminum a quo for a detailed narrative. And the healing of the mother-in-law. Peter does not at all constitute a moment in the presentation of the gospel story: in 1:23–28 the healing of a demoniac in the synagogue is described in detail and this miracle is given higher significance than the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (vv. 27–28). b. The opinion is that the house is up. Peter was the starting point in the travels of Jesus Christ, it seems to be firmly established in the writings of German theologians: it is expressed by both Klostermann and Volkmar 1116. But the Gospel only once mentions the presence of Jesus Christ in the house of St. Peter (έν τη οίκίςι) - in Art. 1:29, when Jesus Christ healed Simon's mother-in-law and spent the night in his house. Returning to Capernaum after this, Christ enters not εις τήν οικίαν Σίμωνος, but εις οϊκόν (2:2); further mention is made of ή οίκίςι αύτοΰ (2:15), οίκος (3:20), ή οίκίςι (9:33). Since in the Gospel of Matthew there is a clear indication that even before the calling of St. Peter (4:18) and before the beginning of His sermon (4, 17) Christ moved from Nazareth to Capernaum (4:12–16; Matt. 9:1 cf. Luke 4:29–31), then there is no sufficient basis for the assumption that, returning to Capernaum, Christ lived in the house of the apostle. Peter, and not in the one in which he lived before His preaching. V. Therefore, there is no basis for the assumption that if the Gospel story according to Mark revolves mainly around Capernaum, then this is a consequence of the influence of St. Peter on the content of the gospel, who in his sermon set forth mainly the Capernaum deeds of Christ. It is not surprising that Capernaum was the center of the activities of Jesus Christ, the site of a very significant part of the miracles of Christ (cf. Matt. 11:23 especially 24), when it was “own” (Matthew 9:1; Mark 2:1) the city of Christ. For what reason it is scarcely possible to determine, but Bethsaida and Chorazin were minor centers of the activity of Jesus Christ; Here He performed more miracles (or more important ones) than in other cities (Matthew 11:21–22). Therefore, according to the theory of probability, we can conclude that in the Gospel, which sets out the works of Christ, we will encounter a significant number of Capernaum and several Bethsaida and Chorazin works of Christ. This a priori assumption is not justified only in relation to the Chorazin deeds of Christ, about which the evangelists are silent. d. The strictly maintained difference between the names “Simon” and “Peter”, perhaps, needs to be explained only by the accuracy common to the entire Gospel. d. It is true that in the Gospel of Mark the outstanding significance of Peter’s confession is more accurately noted than in the Gospel of Luke, but in the Gospel of Matthew this point is presented with such clarity that it is difficult to decide which Gospel should be put in first place, from Mark or from Matthew 1117. Finally, Davidson, in proof of the dependence of the Gospel of Mark on the preaching of St. Peter refers to the fact that in this gospel the name of the Apostle Peter is mentioned in events where the other gospels use vague expressions. Thus, in 1:36 it is said that “Simon and those who were with him followed Jesus,” while Heb. Luke speaks only of the people (4:42); Only from the Gospel of Mark do we learn that St. Peter drew the Lord's attention to the fact that the fig tree he had cursed had dried up (Mk.11:21; Matt.21:20); what up. Peter, James, John and Andrew asked the Lord to tell them a sign of the time when His prophecy about the fate of the Jerusalem Temple would be fulfilled, that, therefore, at their request, Christ delivered an eschatological speech (Mark 13:3; Matthew 24:3; Luke 21:7); that the angel especially pointed out to the myrrh-bearing women that they should also tell Peter that the Lord would appear to him, as well as to the other apostles, in Galilee (Mk.16:7; Matt.28:7-10). By themselves, these quotations do not resolve the question of the relationship of the Gospel to the preaching of St. Peter: they can be contrasted with just as many quotations from other gospels - quotations from which one can draw the same conclusion that the evangelists Matthew and Luke report from the personal history of the apostle. Peter has no less facts than the Evangelist Mark, and therefore, according to these signs, each of the three gospels can be considered Peter's. Thus, the Evangelist Matthew, and he alone, mentions the walk of the apostle. Peter on the waters (14:28), while St. Mark talks about Christ’s walk on the waters (which was the reason that Peter also walked to Him on the waters), but he doesn’t say a word about the walk of the apostle (6:49-50), only He. Matthew mentions that St. Peter asked the Lord to explain the meaning of the saying: “what does not enter into the mouth defiles a person” (15:15; Mark 7:17: “disciples”); only the Evangelist Matthew conveys the words of the Lord in praise of the apostle for his confession and the words of Peter, with which he reproached the Lord (16:17–19–22), while Heb. Mark omits both (8:29–31); Finally, only from the Gospel of Matthew do we learn about the statir, who is the ap. Peter had fish in his mouth (17:24–27), and that the apostle asked the Lord how many times he should forgive (18:21). Likewise, only from the Gospel of Luke do we learn that Peter’s call to the apostleship was preceded by a miraculous fish catch, according to the word of the Lord (Luke 5:1-11); what up. Peter turned to Christ with the words “the people are oppressing you” (8:45; Mark 5:31: “disciples”); what up. Peter asked: “Lord! Is this parable for us (about constant vigil in anticipation of the coming of the Lord), or for everyone?” (12:41) that the Apostle Peter was sent with John to prepare the Passover (22:8; Matt. 26:18–19 “disciples”; Mark 14:13 “two of the disciples”); We read the words of warning with which the Lord addressed the Apostle: “Simon! Simon! Behold, Satan has asked that he might sift you like wheat” (22:31–32); We learn that the gaze of the Lord turned the apostle who denied Him to repentance (22:61); that one of the first appearances of the Lord was the appearance of St. Peter (24:34). But the defenders of the tradition, by the very absence of some news about St. Peter in the Gospel of Mark is used to prove his dependence on the preaching of St. Petra. Deep humility prompted the apostle to omit in his sermon everything that related to his special glory, not to hide what tended to censure, not to mitigate his mistakes. Thus, the apostle omits the words of blessing that he received from the Lord for his confession, and passes on the words of reproach for contradicting Christ (Mark 8:29-33; Matthew 16:16-23) 1118; conveys in particular detail the story of his renunciation (14:30–32, 54–71) “before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times” 1119, and omits what he says about the depth of repentance (Matthew 26:75; Luke 22:62 “he wept bitterly” (πικρώς); Mark 14:72 “started to cry” 1120). This is the point of view on the testimony of the Gospel of Mark about the Apostle Peter, indicated by Eusebius 1121 and accepted by Davidson and Garike. Since only the ap himself could be guided by such a motive in choosing facts from his life. Peter, then, recognizing that deep humility was manifested in those silences that we encounter in the Gospel of Mark, we must admit that it was written depending on the sermon of St. Petra. And it is almost necessary to recognize this principle, this point of view, in view of the fact that only from this point of view is the difference between Mark 8:29–33 and Matthew 16:16–23 quite satisfactorily explained; Luke 9:21; John 6:69. But it can hardly be denied that this principle explains much in the Gospel of Mark, but not everything; It is difficult, for example, to explain with this principle the silence about what exactly ap. Peter turned to Christ with the words: “the people are crowding you,” etc. (Luke 8:45; Mark 5:31); that he was sent along with John to prepare the Passover (Luke 22:8; Mark 14:13); that he struck the high priest's servant with the sword (John 18:10; Mark 14:47) 1122 that the Lord commanded him to return the sword to its scabbard (Matthew 26:51–54; Mark 14:48–53) and, touching the slave's ear, healed him (Luke 22:51); that, finally, the Lord’s glance at the renounced apostle reminded him of his promises and aroused in him deep repentance (Luke 22:61). And if it is so difficult to trace the manifestations of this principle in all individual cases, then without a doubt it is even more difficult, not to say completely impossible, by analyzing all these cases to come to the recognition of this principle as the sole guiding principle of the Gospel of Mark, as far as it sets out the history of the Apostle Peter. One can therefore believe that, not knowing from tradition that this gospel was written on the basis of the sermon of St. Peter, the researcher would in no way come to this conviction by analyzing the history of St. Petersburg. Peter in the Gospel of Mark; on the contrary, since the Gospel of Mark undoubtedly provides more data than any other gospel, for example, about the apostle. James 1123, then the researcher would be in danger of going the wrong way and arriving at a false result. Based on all that has been said, it remains to give a short answer to the three questions posed about the consistency of the ancient tradition regarding the sources of the gospels of Mark and Luke. 1. To the question of the first of the three forms: are the internal signs of the gospels such that, based on them, one can come to the conclusion that the gospel of Mark is an abbreviation of the sermon of St. Peter, and the Gospel of Luke is preached by St. Paul, the answer must be negative. Historical department in the speeches and messages of St. Peter and Paul is far from complete; the similarity between the Gospel of Mark and the corresponding passages from the speeches and epistles of Peter is limited to only a few points (including, however, one essentially important one, namely the point of view on the earthly life of Jesus Christ (B)); between the Gospel of Luke and passages related to the Gospel history from the speeches and epistles of St. Paul there is a very remarkable similarity (especially in the speech on the Eucharist (D) and particular points of teaching, also in point B), but there is also a rather important difference (instead of expressing Paul's theology of the atonement in speeches equal to those recorded by John the Theologian, in the Gospel of Luke we find only a few words about the atonement and complete silence about the Church and its powers). However, if there were similarities between the gospels and the historical sections in the speeches and epistles of St. Peter and Paul was even more complete, yet the researcher, being in the conditions we assume, would still have the opportunity - the opportunity, even turning into an obligation - to assume that the preaching of the other apostles, perhaps, represented a more complete similarity with the gospels under consideration. Finally, the identification of the Gospel of Luke with the sermon of St. Paul is not favored by the direct, literal meaning of v. 2 of the 1st chapter of the Gospel of Luke, which the researcher avoids, having no information about the personal relationship of the evangelist to the apostle. Pavel, would not have the right. According to all this, the identification of the gospels of Mark and Luke with the sermon of St. Peter and Paul, regardless of any dependence on ancient tradition, would either be completely impossible or would have the nature of a hypothesis too bold to inspire confidence in itself. 1. b. It’s a different matter if we assume that the researcher knows that between our canonical gospels there is one part - Petrovo and another part (albeit larger) Pavlovo. This information saves you from the abyss of assumptions, which in other circumstances are completely legal, inspired by logic itself, narrows the field of search, and provides solid ground. One information is that the second gospel we are looking for is not entirely Paul’s, and that, therefore, one cannot look for an exact reproduction of all the details (and sections) of the teachings of the apostle in it. Paul, - gives every right to ignore the points of difference between the Gospel of Luke and the one based on the epistles of St. Paul's idea of ​​Paul's gospel and recognize in the first the sought-after part of Paul's gospel. After this, the choice of Petrov's gospel becomes much easier, since only two gospels remain. One might think that the matter would not have happened without hesitation (on one side of the scale there is a similarity in point B 1124 *, on the other there is a difference in point C (“This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” 1 Pet. 1:17; Matt. 17:5) and such important facts from the life of the apostle. Peter, as Matthew 14:28–31, 16:17–22, 17:24–27, 18:21–35); but the final decision would probably be identical with the testimony of ancient tradition. 2. Finally, given the current actual state of affairs, when the dependence of the Gospel of Mark on the preaching of St. Peter and the Gospel of Luke from the sermon of St. Paul, we have the unanimous testimony of ancient church writers, there can be no doubt about the meaning of the answer to the last question: are there any signs in the gospels themselves that are inconsistent with the ancient tradition and force us to recognize it as untenable? By taking the point of view of tradition and conducting the matter not through the path of a researcher in the exact sense, but through the path of an apologist, we have the opportunity to turn into evidence in favor of tradition the agreement of the direction of the gospels with the direction of the apostles indicated by tradition, and the nature of the presentation, and agreement in such points that, with another method of research, seemed of little value (for example, A and G in the Gospel of Mark - the coincidence of the beginning of the gospel with the beginning of the speech of Acts 10, v. 37. and Mark 16:19 with 1 Peter 3:22), - in a word, to illuminate from this point of view the entire mass of material related to this issue. The image obtained in this way and presented in such a light turns out to be so consistent, both in the main and in secondary particulars, with the ancient tradition that the points of difference can only raise doubts about the possibility of understanding them with the limited means that exegesis currently has, and not doubt about the reliability of the ancient tradition. Passages from the Gospels that speak of healings performed by Jesus Christ Healings of the possessed are noted + Church ritual differences in the second century In the New Testament scripture there is no section similar to the Old Testament ritual law; it clarifies only the spirit of Christian worship (John 4:23–24), determines only what the inner mood of the person praying should be (Matthew 6:5–18), but leaves it to the believers themselves, called to freedom (Gal. 5:13), to establish external forms of worship of the Father in spirit and truth (R. 14). But not all believers have the same religious mood, and the most Christian truth takes on different shades in the minds of different Christians; and therefore it is not possible to create such a ritual that would satisfy all believers of all times and places. Therefore, it was quite natural that the state of church ritual in which it was in the second century, when the practice of not only local churches, but even each community (parish) was distinguished by its own peculiarities, and the practice of the last quarter of the century differed in many points from the practice of the first quarter. The attitude of a certain part of Christian society towards these ritual differences put a sharp, albeit rather arbitrary, boundary between them: while some differences were not the subject of controversy, did not raise doubts about the legality of their existence and were considered normal varieties of Christian ritual, others, on the contrary, were viewed as abnormal phenomena subject to abolition, and even threatened to become a reason for schism. Church ritual differences between individual parishes are a very common phenomenon in the 2nd century. In the absence of Christian churches 1125 1126 * and a range of liturgical books, quite a few details in the service depended on the discretion of the head of the Christian community, therefore on his character, the degree of his development and often on his origin, and therefore had a random character. Therefore, in the 2nd century. It was possible that the head of one community convened his flock in the triclinium of some respected Christian, and at the same time the head of another parish in the same city 1127 * considered the usual place of liturgical meetings not quite safe and performed divine services in some deserted place outside the city or in the catacombs; that one primate offered his flock reading from one evangelist in order to revive in their memory some past event, and another on the same day assigned a section from another evangelist for reading in order to give his flock a gospel lesson useful for them in the present 1128; that in one community, following the learned exegetical word of a philosophically educated presbyter 1129, an extensive and eloquent Eucharistic prayer was heard, and in another, after a simple and short exhortation to follow those wonderful instructions given by the Holy Scriptures, the presbyter 1130 * pronounced a simple and unartificial thanksgiving to the Lord Such differences were, of course, noticeable for Christians of the 2nd century, and those of them who had a certain degree of education and had a tendency to enjoy elegant speech, treated with complete sympathy the form of worship that eloquent and learned shepherds gave to it - could be carried away by it more than they should, sometimes paying for their passion by ending up in Gnostic societies similar to those founded by the famous Mark; but such persons could hardly doubt the legality of the existence of another form of worship, simple and artless; on the other hand, only a person with ultramontane views could think that eloquent preaching and prayer were the products of a false mind. In the minds of most Christians, these two typical forms of worship did not stand as incompatible opposites, because their difference did not obscure their common basis: it was clear that each primate “sends prayers and thanksgiving as much as he can” 1131, as well as “everyone gathers (for prayer) where he wants and where he can” 1132. The differences between the apparently generally accepted rites of the different periods of the second century are a natural consequence of the influence which time has on all human institutions 1133 . The external circumstances among which the believers actually carried out their rituals changed several times; questions arose regarding such cases of church practice that were not provided for by the pastors of previous times; the very idea underlying well-known rituals became clear in the minds of believers from aspects that were not expressed in the ancient form of church ritual. Under the influence of all these circumstances, church rituals were changed or supplemented, went through various phases of development and, finally, by the end of the 2nd century. appeared in a form much more complex and developed than the one it had at the beginning of this century. One can hardly doubt, however, that those differences that historical evidence presents as differences between the rituals of two periods of time were at one time differences between churches: no change in ritual could take place in all churches at the same time; on the contrary, the previous form of church ritual in some places could last for quite a long time. The first historical news about the general order of Christian worship in the 2nd century. found in Pliny's letter to Trajan. Pliny mentions two liturgical meetings - a morning one (before dawn), at which Christians “alternately sang a hymn to Christ, as if to God, and committed themselves by sacrament” to a virtuous life, and another, probably an evening meeting “to eat food” 1134. Kurtz 1135 and Garike 1136 believe that this eating of food should mean both the supper of love and the Eucharist. The suspicion of the Roman government was directed precisely at these gatherings for eating food: Pliny applied the Edict of Trajan against the heterias, and the Bithynian Christians “stopped holding” meetings for eating food. As a result of similar measures of the Roman government, agapes fell out of use for some time, and the celebration of the sacrament of communion was combined with the morning (“homiletical”) 1137 divine service 1138 *. This was the order of worship in the time of Saint Justin, who makes no mention of love suppers 1139 or other liturgical gatherings different from those described by him 1140. Finally, in the last years of the II century. Agape came back into use 1141 *, but the Eucharist was still celebrated at the morning service, before dawn ((horis) antelucanis coetibus. De cor. mil. c. 3. ap. Gieseler). Thus, the order of public worship, introduced at the beginning of the 2nd century. under the influence of unfavorable external circumstances, at the end of the century it was voluntarily withheld by Christians: a Christian of Tertullian’s time accepted the holy mysteries “before all food” even when he received communion at home 1142. In the second half of the 2nd century. There was a noticeable change in the order of the liturgy. During this period, Christians became more and more convinced of the need to celebrate the Eucharist in strict secrecy, impenetrable to non-Christians. St. Justin still finds it possible, in his apology addressed to the pagan emperor, to twice describe the order of performing the most essential part of the liturgy; writes just as openly about the Eucharist and St. Irenaeus; but “all the apologists who appeared in the last quarter of the second century maintain a deep and obviously deliberate silence about the order of the celebration of the Eucharist” 1143. But since extending the requirement that no one except those who have been baptized can be present at the celebration of the liturgy to the catechumens and closing the doors of Christian liturgical meetings on them meant depriving the catechumens of such an important educational means as the “homiletical” part of Christian worship; then the custom was established of allowing them to listen to the first part of the liturgy and sending them out before the start of the Eucharist proper - the liturgy was divided into the liturgy of the catechumens and the liturgy of the faithful 1144 *. During the time of Tertullian, this custom was already very firmly established: in his essay “On Prescription Against Heretics,” Tertullian strictly condemns heretics for the fact that among them “the catechumens are considered perfect before they learn,” so that “it is not known who their (heretics) catechumen is, who is faithful: they come (to worship) the same way, they listen the same way, they pray the same way” 1145 . If the interpretation given to the quotation from the works of Bl. is correct. Jerome, the beginning of the division of the liturgy into two parts dates back to the time of St. Justina 1146. Finally, we can note one unimportant feature of the difference in the order of the liturgy as described by St. Justin and Tertullian, a feature that can have a difference only on the assumption that St. Father and church writer absolutely accurately describe the order of contemporary worship. According to St. The Justinian Liturgy began with the reading of the Holy Scriptures of the New or Old Testament, followed by a sermon and general prayer; according to Tertullian’s description, the liturgy began with a general prayer, similar in content to a great litany, then followed by reading of the Holy Scriptures and a sermon, and sometimes excommunication 1147. In the writings of Tertullian there are the first news of home communion, home in the proper sense 1148. Pious people, mainly women, put aside part of the Body of Christ 1149 in a reliquary, took it to their home and subsequently ate it before any food. The time of appearance and area of ​​distribution of this custom are unknown with accuracy 1150 1151 *. It developed and became more complicated especially noticeably in the 2nd half of the 2nd century. baptism ceremony. The ritual described by St. Justin, still very simple, consists almost exclusively of those necessary for the performance of the sacraments and positively prescribed in the Holy Scriptures. The Lord commanded the apostles to a) preach repentance and forgiveness of sins in His name (Luke 24:47), b) teach all nations and c) baptize those who believed (Mark 16:16) in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). Those preparing for baptism during the time of St. Justina a) fasted and prayed to God for forgiveness of previously committed sins (= repented), b) were instructed in the truths of faith and morality, and c) after expressing their consent to baptism, they were baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. In the time of Tertullian 1152, the catechumen sometimes before the very water of baptism, and sometimes in the church under the hand of the primate, renounced the devil, and delusion, and his angels; then, in rather lengthy answers to the questions of the primate, he confessed his faith, and thus moved from serving the devil to serving Christ, entering His army 1153. The believer was then baptized by threefold immersion. Upon leaving the font, the newly baptized person was “anointed with a fragrant unction,” in the likeness of the anointing with oil of the Old Testament priests 1154, and they gave him (the believer) to eat a mixture of milk and honey, as a sign that the believer had become a newborn baby in Christ (1 Peter 2:2) 1155. Then the grace of the Holy Spirit was brought down upon the believer through the laying on of hands. For a whole week, the newly baptized abstained from the usual daily ablution. From this it is obvious 1156 * to what extent the rite of baptism had developed and become more complicated by the time of Tertullian. Three ideas in the baptismal rite of St. Justin, not even intended, found in the baptismal rite of Tertullian's time 1157 * a fairly clear symbolic expression (the idea that a Christian is a warrior of Christ, that he is a priest (2 Pet. 2:9), and, finally, that he is a child in Christ (1 Pet. 2:2)). The renunciation of the devil “under the hand of the primate” and the custom of “abstaining from daily ablutions for a whole week” are also new, unknown from the writings of St. Justina ritual details 1158. The same feature in the character of the second half of the second century is revealed by the appearance during this period of a new church position and new holidays. Tertullian first mentions the church position of a reader in 1159, and Clement of Alexandria has the first unclear mention of the feasts of baptism and the birth of Christ in 1160. Perhaps even during this period, among the days of Pentecost, they began to distinguish in a special way the fortieth day as the day of the Ascension of the Lord. And differences in the practices of different parishes 1161 * and differences in the rites of different periods of the 2nd century. They have this common feature that they are not stable: the first rest on such a moving foundation as the personality of one or another presbyter 1162 *; the latter are the result of circumstances that are valid only at a certain time, 1163 * represent various phases of the development of church rituals, related to each other as the present and the past, disappearing in the present 1164 *. A distinctive feature of the differences that make up the peculiarity of a known local church is their stability: usually having as their basis the national characteristics of the Christians of a given church, they (the differences) can exist for more than one century and resist all attempts to replace them with another ritual. Due to the fact that the Carthaginian church had such a representative as Tertullian, its ritual features can be reproduced with greater completeness than the features of any other church. True, some features of the ritualism of the Carthaginian Christians were recorded by Tertullian only because he himself considered them phenomena that were not entirely normal, extremes: but these extremes only represent in a brighter light the general direction of the Christians of the Carthaginian Church and, of course, were not completely isolated phenomena if they were noticed and recorded by Tertullian. The ritual, worked out to the smallest detail, was observed by the Carthaginian Christians with care, bringing them closer in some points to the Jews. Some, for example, considered it an indispensable duty to wash their hands before prayer; others considered it necessary to remove outer clothing before prayer; others prayed with such affectation and so loudly that they reminded Tertullian of the Pharisees; others, at the end of the prayer, hurried to sit down; others extended the strictness of fasting to the point that they refrained from giving the kiss of peace to the brethren 1165. Sunday in Carthage was celebrated in the image of the ancient Sabbath: regular activities were stopped so as not to give room to the devil. Standing days were observed with particular strictness in the Carthaginian church. Tertullian testifies with complete clarity that the days of standing are not prescribed by law 1166 *; but custom gave obligatory force to what was a matter of freedom, and Tertullian himself considers as a strong obstacle to marriage between a Christian and a pagan those difficulties in observing fasting on fasting days that she may encounter from her husband. One might think that this strictness in observing the days of standing is in a causal connection with the idea of ​​militia Dei, symbolically expressed in the rite of baptism. This idea, without a doubt, was in complete harmony with the stern, energetic national character of the North Africans, and was easily assimilated by them and applied to their work. Since Christians are soldiers of Christ, their duty is to faithfully observe what they have given to their king and God, their duty is to bear the responsibilities of military service. One of them was fasting during standing days. “Standing,” reasoned the Carthaginian Christians, “got its name from military life, since we too are the army of God (2 Cor. 10:4; 1 Tim. 1:18); but neither the joy nor the sadness that happened in the camp interrupts the standing of the sentries...” It is not surprising if some, trying to elevate the severity of fasting to the severity of its prototype - the discipline of a sentinel, went so far as to be afraid of violating what they considered the sacred duty of a Christian, through a brotherly kiss or even through the acceptance of the holy mysteries 1167. It is also clear that for Christians with this way of thinking, the meaning of fasting was no longer to save a few money by abstaining from food and give it to a widow, orphan or poor person, but in the very process of fasting (standing) 1168 . In some Western churches, especially the Roman and, probably, the Carthaginian, there was a custom to continue fasting on Saturday. Perhaps Western Christians were motivated by the words of the Lord: “the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast” (Mark 2:20); but it is very likely that another, stronger motive, expressed in the 3rd century, was mixed with a similar motive already in the second century. Victorinus, Bishop of Petabion 1169: Western Christians were afraid that they might seem to be celebrating the Sabbath with the Jews if they did not fast on that day. On the contrary, in the eastern churches, where there were more Jewish Christians than in the west, and where therefore anti-Jewish tendencies could not develop as much as in the western churches, they maintained the opposite practice. In the east, not only did they not fast on Saturday (with the exception of one Great Saturday), but they brought it closer to Sunday. “The Apostolic Constitutions,” a collection that appeared at the end of the 3rd or the beginning of the 4th century, but which enjoyed such authority in the East, 1170 * which no patristic work had, 1171 which, of course, would have been impossible if the “Apostolic Constitutions” were not based on the ancient practice of the Eastern churches, advise Christians to hold church meetings on Saturdays for the joyful remembrance of the creation of the world 1172. This contrast in the ritual of the Eastern and Western churches was expressed in all its fullness only later 1173; but even at the end of the second century in the West, Eastern practice became the subject of serious dispute; the reason for the dispute was the Eastern Christians in the west 1174. Another church ritual difference is essentially the same in nature - the difference in the celebration of Easter Day. It is immediately obvious that the so-called Quartodecimani 1175 * followed the customs of the Jewish Christians, therefore the opposite practice of the Roman Church is based on the traditions of the first pagan Christians. Only the boundaries of the spread of Judeo-Christian practice in the celebration of Easter do not coincide with the boundaries of the spread of the custom of not fasting on Saturday: in the latter case, the practice of the Roman Church was opposed by the practice of the entire Greek-Eastern Church; on the contrary, on the issue of celebrating Easter, on the side of the Roman Church, 1176 *, in the words of Eusebius, “churches throughout the entire universe,” while the Quartodecimani occupied a very insignificant corner 1177 * of the Christian world. The history of relations between representatives of one and the other practice begins in the first quarter of the 2nd century. The Roman bishops Xystus (115–125) 1178, Telesphorus, Hyginus and Pius († 155), knowing about the existence of the Judeo-Christian custom of celebrating Easter, however, send the Eucharist to those who adhered to it 1179. Around 162, the Bishop of Smyrna, St. Polycarp had the opportunity to touch upon this difference during his negotiations with the Roman Bishop Anicetas; both shepherds attached so little importance to this ritual difference that they did not want to argue about it, and parted in peace, each remaining with his own ritual. But around 170–171. the question of celebrating Easter has already caused a strong dispute in Asia Minor itself, namely in Laodicea; Two modern writers have written essays on this issue. Finally, in 196, the bishop of Rome attached the most important importance to this issue. The excitement caused by the dispute over the celebration of Easter spread throughout the entire universal church from Gaul to Mesopotamia: several councils were drawn up in 1180 *; several messages were written, from which it became clear that Palestine, Pontus, Phenicia, Mesopotamia, Achaia, Alexandria, Gaul and some other churches adhered to the Roman 1181 * rite, while the Judeo-Christian custom was followed only by the churches of proconsular Asia with some Christian communities of neighboring regions (Syria, Cilicia, Mesopotamia) 1182. The unrest caused by this issue threatened to be resolved by schism: Victor, Bishop of Rome, declared the churches of Asia Minor excommunicated from church communion, and only the intervention of the peacemaker - St. Irenaeus and many other bishops averted the danger that threatened church unity and restored the broken peace of the church. It is as easy to determine the order of celebrating Easter in the Roman church as it is difficult to reconstruct from the remaining historical monuments all the details of celebrating Easter according to the Asia Minor custom. Easter was a solemn annual remembrance of those sacred events to the memory of which the church dedicated certain days of the week. The founders of the Roman rite of celebrating Easter set out to eliminate the possibility of disagreement between the annual and weekly commemoration of the suffering, death and resurrection of the Savior. But since such a disagreement would be inevitable if for the annual remembrance of sacred events those days of the year were designated on which these events took place, if Easter was a fixed holiday, then it was established to celebrate these events only approximately at the time of the year in which they occurred, and certainly on those days of the week which, completely in accordance with the history of these events, were dedicated to their remembrance. According to this rite, the resurrection of Christ, which historically took place on the first day of the week of the 16th of Nisan, was not always remembered on the 16th day of Nisan, but always on the first day of the week and never on the 6th, dedicated to the remembrance of Christ’s suffering on the cross. The first Sunday following the 14th of Nisan, or the first full moon after the spring equinox 1183, was chosen as the day of the annual remembrance of the resurrection of Christ. The day of solemn remembrance of the resurrection of Christ was preceded by days of remembrance of the suffering and death of the Savior. The pagan believers reacted to these gospel events as their natural feeling required - they recognized them as mournful events. The days dedicated to their annual remembrance were considered days of mourning and fasting: the church mourned about the Bridegroom taken from her and fasted, according to His word (Mark 2); all Christians, not excluding the Eastern ones, recognized the validity of this interpretation of the Lord’s words 1184. The fast before Easter did not have the same duration in all churches and not even among all Christians of the same church; but it seems that nowhere among Christians who followed the Roman rite was it reduced (to one day) to less than two days. The peculiarity of this fast before Easter, in contrast to ordinary days of standing, was that it lasted not until nine o’clock (3 pm), but until the end of the day, or until the night roosters crow (Tert, de jejun. 2. Ar. Gieseler, Const, apost. V. 18. Schürer). On the night of Easter, public worship was held, which ended with the celebration of the Eucharist, which was not celebrated during the days of fasting. Both the feast of the Resurrection of Christ and the days of fasting (especially Friday - Tert, de bapt. 19. pascha, - cum et passio dominica adimpleta est. 1. c. ap. Schürer) bore the common name of Easter; but the holiday itself, the focus of all Easter days, was the day of “celebration of the sacrament of the resurrection of the Lord (Eusebius)” - Sunday, or the so-called later “πάσχα άναστασιμον”. The Jewish Christians 1185 *, acting on impulses as natural as those that guided the pagan Christians, had to create an order for the celebration of Easter that deviated significantly from that accepted among the pagan Christians. After converting to Christianity, the Jews, of course, did not abandon their previous customs; they continued to celebrate Jewish holidays (cf. Acts 21:20–25; 18:21), especially one as sacred and significant as Easter. But, celebrating it according to Jewish custom, observing, if possible, the requirements of the law (i.e., eating the lamb; if the Passover was celebrated in Jerusalem, or at least unleavened bread if the holiday was celebrated in another city 1186 *), Christians had to give a Christian character to the holiday by remembering New Testament events closely related to this day. Thus, eating unleavened bread or taking the cup of thanksgiving, a Christian could remember the establishment, under similar circumstances, of the holy sacrament of the Eucharist; the Passover lamb could evoke the memory of the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world, slain from the foundation of the world; finally, the very time - the evening of the 14th Nisan - could evoke the memory that several years ago, on this day and hour, the Lord was laid in the tomb. Thus, Christians could equally connect with the Passover, celebrated on the 14th of Nisan, the sacred memories of both the 13th (Thursday) and the 14th of Nisan (Friday). But in the fact that all these memories took place during the celebration of a bright, solemn holiday, there lay a natural possibility of contemplating New Testament events from a different angle from which pagan Christians viewed them - the opportunity to give the New Testament holiday a more solemn rather than sad 1187 * character, to lay the foundation in the strict sense for the saving Passover, and not the cross. These features, in all likelihood, distinguished the celebration of Easter among the Asia Minor Christians of the time of Polycrates. The holiday was probably preceded by a one-day fast, which has its basis in Jewish practice. The Christians of Asia Minor, in all likelihood 1188 *, ate unleavened bread (“the people put aside leavened bread.” I.V. Cheltsov. History of the Christian Church. p. 307). One might think that Polycrates himself was of the belief that Christ ate Easter on the 14th day. (This view was held by the fourteeners contemporary to Eusebius. “Περί της τοΰ πάσχα έορτης” by Eusebius. Zeitschrift für die historischen Theologie. 1870. S. 230). But the prevailing Christian memories associated with the Asia Minor Easter holiday of the end of the 2nd century bring it closer to Good Friday than to Holy Thursday 1189 *. a) Πάςχα σωτήριον - the name that Eusebius gives to the Asia Minor 1190 * holiday - contemporary to the historian St. Athanasius, with a minor change, uses 1191 * to mean Good Friday (ήμέρα σωτήρια. Athanas. encyclica ad epis- cop. c. 4. ap. Guericke. S. 169). b) According to Theodoret, the Fourteeners, citing the example of the Evangelist John, celebrated Easter on the 14th day of the moon and celebrated the remembrance of the passion of 1192 * (of Christ) (Schürer. 252. Haereticarum fabularum compendium, III. 4). It is most likely 1193 * that the Christians of Asia Minor also celebrated the annual festival of resurrection, but it is impossible to prove this with historical evidence 1194 *. What was the likely order of celebrating Easter among the first Christians 1195 * The Christians of Asia Minor do not have their own Tertullian. The surviving historical information does not give a complete picture of the order of celebrating Easter in the churches of Asia Minor; and therefore, scientists who set out to present the celebration of Easter according to the Judeo-Christian rite as fully and clearly as possible were forced to fill in the gaps in the monuments with their own assumptions and came to a wide variety of results 1196 *. Since hypothetical judgments are inevitable when discussing this issue, it would probably be most convenient to begin with an assumption and end by verifying it with historical data 1197 *. What was the likely order in which the early Jewish Christians celebrated Passover? The apostles did not impose any obligations in relation to rituals on the Jewish believers, and the question of whether or not to observe the decrees of the ritual law was left to the decision of each person’s conscience. But just like ap. Paul, who so clearly preached about Christian freedom in relation to the ritual law, himself observed some of its decrees, for example, “shaved his head according to the vow in the Canaries” (Acts 18:18) and undertook a trip to Jerusalem to celebrate Pentecost there (Acts 18:21, 20:16), then it can be assumed with a significant degree of probability that the Jews, even after converting to Christianity, continued to observe their customs (ἔθη Acts 21:21) rituals. It is all the less likely that Jewish Christians would refuse 1198 * the celebration of such a solemn holiday as Easter, with which they had so many bright memories. Jewish Christians celebrated Easter, of course, with the same rituals as all Jews: they ate the Passover lamb if they were in Jerusalem, limited 1199 * to one Passover supper (with unleavened bread), if they were not in Jerusalem (the Passover lamb was a sacrifice and could only be offered in the church) 1200, and probably fasted first in the morning 1201 * until evening 1202. – Celebrating Easter primarily in the Old Testament 1203 *, Christians, of course, celebrated it on the same day as the Jews - Nisan 14 and rarely on the 13th 1204 *. – There is no doubt that Christians had to give a Christian character to the Old Testament holiday, remembering the New Testament events closely connected with it. The connection of the holiday with New Testament events may have been determined by the Christian's view of the chronology of the Gospel events: whoever was convinced that Christ ate Passover on the 14th of Nisan, for him the Easter holiday was a New Testament holiday in honor of the establishment. the Holy Eucharist, the remembrance of the last supper of Jesus Christ with the disciples 1205 *, etc.; who, on the contrary, believed that the Lord suffered on the 14th of Nisan - for him the Old Testament Passover was 1206 * a year-long remembrance of the suffering and death of the Savior. But another alternative is possible, and it seems even more likely. If pagan Christians followed the order of the Gospel events in celebrating Easter, then this fact cannot be turned into a requirement obligatory for Jewish Christians. The first, one might say, creatively created their holiday, painted on a background covered with the contours of a Christian painting, and therefore the image drawn by them (pagan Christians) is very distinct; on the contrary, Jewish Christians were limited in their creativity by the Old Testament form of the holiday; instead of creating forms corresponding to the Christian idea, they had to adapt the New Testament idea to the Old Testament form. There were many points of contact between the Old Testament holiday and Gospel history, and they could give direction to the thoughts of a Christian, independent of any chronological view. A Christian might think that Christ ate the Passover lamb on Nisan 14; but before him (the Christian) lay the Passover lamb 1207 *, whose bones he was not to crush; and this circumstance reminded the believer of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, of Christ crucified, whose legs were not broken (John 19:33). Another could hold the view that the 14th of Nisan is the day of the Savior’s suffering on the cross; but during the Easter supper, the Christian received the cup of thanksgiving, and this reminded him of the last supper of Jesus Christ, at which He established the sacrament of the Eucharist. Thus, the very ritual of the Old Testament holiday provided many reasons not to separate, but to combine in memory the events of the last two days of the earthly life of Jesus Christ. But there is still a side to the Old Testament holiday that could influence the formation of the difference between the Passover of Jewish Christians and the Passover of Gentile Christians. The memories of the Savior's suffering on the cross, evoked by certain features of the Old Testament Easter, can only cause sorrow in a Christian if he treats them according to the indications of his feelings. Meanwhile, the Old Testament Easter is a holiday of deliverance, bright, solemn, and therefore should have aroused a joyful mood in those celebrating. This influence of the Old Testament holiday encouraged Jewish Christians to contemplate the very sufferings of the Savior from a different point of view from which pagan Christians contemplated them 1208 *: Jewish Christians focused their attention not on the historical, but on the dogmatic side of the Lord’s suffering on the cross 1209 - on their relationship to the cause of the salvation of mankind. Therefore, Easter among Jewish Christians retained the character of a holiday, while among pagan Christians, the memory of the suffering of the Savior gave rise to the fast of 1210 *; therefore, the Easter of Jewish Christians can more fairly be called the Easter of salvation. It is highly probable 1211 * that the Jewish Christians also celebrated the day of the resurrection of Christ, but on which day of Nisan it is impossible to decide a priori: the choice of the day was probably based on the chronological view of the believers 1212 *. In order to judge the extent to which the historical data on the basis of which conclusions are drawn about the celebration of Easter in the churches of Asia Minor and which should, however, serve as a touchstone for any hypothesis, are incomplete or uncertain, one only needs to compare those programs for the Asia Minor rite that were proposed at different times. The question of how close the celebration of Easter in the churches of Asia Minor was to the Jewish celebration of Easter was resolved very differently. a) Previous scientists even believed 1213 * that Asia Minor Christians ate the Paschal lamb until the end of the 2nd century 1214. b) Others (Bleek - Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Berlin, 1866. S. 194. - Gieseler, S. 211, Neander, S. 381) believe that Asia Minor Christians ate only the Easter supper (with unleavened bread) 1215 *. c) Others think that all the similarities were limited only to the day of Passover, the 14th of Nisan (Schaff, S. 315, Kurtz, S. 243–244, Hefele, ibid., S. 873, finally Shürer). d) Some even deny this last similarity (Alt, Caspari, cited by D.A. Khvolson). There are equally different answers to the question of when and what events of gospel history were remembered in the churches of Asia Minor. a) Some believe that the 14th of Nisan was dedicated to the memory of the last supper of Jesus Christ, the 15th to the memory of the Savior’s death on the cross, and finally the 17th to the memory of the resurrection of Christ 1216. b) Others claim that the 14th of Nisan was dedicated to the memory of the Savior’s death on the cross, and the 16th to the memory of His resurrection 1217. c) Gieseler (S. 211) states that “there is no trace of the celebration of Easter Sunday by the Christians of Asia Minor” and there was only a week-long holiday of the resurrection. d) Some (Steitz, Scherdlin and Weitzel ar. Schürer, S. 202) believe that Asia Minor Christians postponed the celebration of the resurrection of Christ until the first Sunday following the 14th of Nisan, and this Sunday had the character of an annual holiday among them, as in the West. e) Schürer believes that the 14th of Nisan in the churches of Asia Minor was a holiday not in honor of any separate New Testament event, but in honor of the very fact of redemption, in which all the individual moments of the history of redemption were united, and that it was in the strict sense a one-day holiday 1218. f) But the program proposed by Alt is particularly original (Der Christliche Cultus. II Abth. Berlin. 1860, S. 17). He proceeds from the assumption that all Jewish months began on Saturday and that therefore the 14th of Nisan always fell on a Friday. The Christians of Asia Minor began their holiday on Thursday evening (hence, according to the currently used date - the 13th of Nisan), and ate the Paschal lamb (sic); then, in fasting and prayer, they remembered the gospel events from the farewell speech of Jesus Christ to His burial, and while the Jews began to celebrate their Easter on Friday evening, the believers continued their fast until the morning of Nisan 16, from which their solemn celebration of the resurrection of Christ began. Thus, according to Alt, the entire dispute between Christians about the day of Easter comes down to a pure misunderstanding: Asia Minor Christians celebrated the Resurrection of Christ on the same day, fasted on the same days as Western Christians. This conclusion, as well as the assumption that the 14th of Nisan always fell on Friday, which contradicts all historical data 1219, deprives this hypothesis of significance in the most significant points of the question of Easter in Asia Minor. A comparison of all scientific assumptions 1220 * shows that the question of whether and when the Asia Minor Christians celebrated the day of the Resurrection of Christ constitutes the darkest point in the entire question of celebrating Easter. It is impossible to refer to any positive evidence in favor of resolving this issue in a positive sense, and perhaps the only argument for such a decision is the correct assumption that the Christians of Asia Minor could hardly exclude the holiday of the resurrection from the circle of annual holidays, which was celebrated even every week. Other points of the issue under consideration are no longer so controversial. Thus, most scientists define the day of Easter celebration in the churches of Asia Minor in the same way. All sources of 1221 * speak about the 14th of Nisan, and the assumption that Easter in Asia Minor was celebrated on the 13th of Nisan is based only on a conditional, not strictly proven understanding of the fact that the Christians of Asia Minor traced their practice back to the Evangelist John. There is no direct and clear evidence that the Christians of Asia Minor ate unleavened bread during the Easter week, or that their Easter holiday began with the Easter supper. Church writers do not attribute this custom even to the fourteeners who separated from the church. But an indirect indication of the celebration of Easter with Jewish rituals can be seen in the contrast between Asia Minor Christians and Roman Christians as τηροΰντες and “μή τηροΰντες” 1222. It is known that the verb “τηρεΐν” in the New Testament holy books is used in the sense of “observe ritual regulations” (Acts 15:2–3, 21:25). “This man is not from God,” they said about Christ, “because he does not keep the Sabbath (τό σάββατον ού τηρεί),” that is, the Jewish decrees on keeping the Sabbath. Finally, the words of Polycrates that his predecessors “always celebrated the day when the people (ό λαός) left leavened bread” (Eusebius 5:24), if they are not allowed to be interpreted as Rufinus did 1223, but understood in accordance with the context, contain an indication of the observance of Jewish Easter rites in the churches of Asia Minor. Rufinus translates the words of Polycrates as follows: “qui omneš ita observarunt hune diem, ut conveniret cum illo, quo fermentum judaeorum populus aufert”; but Polycrates does not mention the Jews either in the preceding or subsequent words, and therefore by “the people (ό λαός) who left leavened bread” one should understand not the Jews, but Christians from the Jews” (N.V. Cheltsov. History of the Christian Church. p. 307). It can be said with greater justification that in Asia Minor Easter was celebrated in memory of the suffering of the Savior than that it was dedicated to the remembrance of the events of the previous day. The latter opinion is based on the very probable assumption that the Asia Minor Christians represented by Polycrates believed that Christ ate His last supper on the day of the Jewish Passover and thereby sanctified the custom of celebrating the 14th of Nisan. Indeed, there is reason to think that this was a generally widespread opinion in the churches of Asia Minor, because this was the opinion held by the Fourtecostals of the time of Eusebius (His “Περί της του πάσχα έορτης” (Schürer. S. 230–232) was written in refutation of such a view eastern bishops - fourteeners). But it does not follow from this that on the 14th of Nisan they were supposed to celebrate the memory of the last supper of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, the very term “σωτήριον”, applied by Eusebius to the Easter of the churches of Asia Minor, is used by the contemporary historian Saint Athanasius to mean Good Friday (“σωτηρία”. Athan, ep. encycl. ad ep. p. 4.1. pp. ar. Guericke, S. 169). And Theodoret directly says about the Fourteeners that they, referring to the Evangelist John, “triumphant” on the 14th day of the moon the memory of the suffering (of the Savior) (πανηγυρίξουσι του πάθους τήν μνήμην. Haeret. compend. III, 4.1. Word for the birthday of the Blessed Empress Tsesarevna and Grand Duchess Maria Feodorovna Like freedom, not like cover possessing malice freedom, but like a slave On this day, on which the Holy Church has gathered us for prayer not only as its sons, but also as members of the Russian state, it would not be inappropriate, favorable listeners, to bring to your attention the apostolic teaching on how to use public freedom in life. Teaching believers to live in civil society worthy of their high Christian calling, the holy Apostle Peter tells them: “Be subject therefore to every human authority, for the Lord; whether to the king, as the supreme power, or to the rulers, as sent from him... as free, not as using freedom to cover up evil, but as servants of God" 1224. That freedom is one of the most precious blessings of man, everyone knows and feels this. Christianity sanctified this good of man. Recognizing freedom as the true and distinctive property of the sons 1225, it names believers with the high name of children of God 1226; placing everyone under the authority of the one Heavenly Father, it calls all believers brothers 1227, thereby placing equality, impossible without freedom, as the basis of their mutual relations. Finally, St. Paul urges the faithful to stand in the freedom that Christ has given and not be subjected to the yoke of slavery 1228. And of course, what is so high and precious in the order of purely spiritual relations cannot become low and despicable if it manifests itself in the ordinary order of social life. But the peculiarity of this good is remarkable: it can be used correctly precisely when it is followed by its direct limitation, and only those who know how to renounce their freedom, submit and become a servant of God can be properly free; otherwise one must be afraid that she will do a lot of evil under the guise of this good. “As free people, not as using freedom to cover up evil, but as servants of God.” Who would not be convinced of the lofty vital truth of these words of the holy apostle! Look what would happen to a person who would understand his freedom as his inalienable right to obey only his own will and discretion, to carry out his every desire, and would begin to resist every command coming from another. In civil society, a person lives in too close connection with other people. The field of his free activity is covered with a dense network of paths along which people each strive towards their own goal, and you cannot break a single thread of this network, you cannot even touch them with a rough hand, without fear that this will resonate in the most painful way in someone. It is clear how much evil and misfortune would be brought to others by someone who would use his freedom to cover only his unbridled arbitrariness, even when there was nothing intentionally malicious in his actions. No! Social life, by its very essence, imposes on every person the obligation to limit the range of his voluntary actions, and the higher a person stands in the eyes of people and God himself, the more fully he has subjugated his freedom to social laws or better to the will of God, good, pleasing and perfect 1229, the more in his actions there is love, which does not riot, does not seek his own 1230, the more alive is the readiness in him to freely and voluntarily renounce his natural freedom, to say with the holy Apostle Paul: “being free from everyone, I have enslaved myself to everyone” 1231. Then, with such a high triumph of freedom over oneself, the completely free and the servant of God merge, and man finds the right measure in using the blessings of freedom. It is wonderful that St. The apostle wants us to be submissive to human power precisely as free men and servants of God. The well-being of society can never be as high as in the case when the government finds in its subordinates the obedience of precisely free people, free in the high sense of the word, that is, people who have submitted their will to the will of God; because no one else has such high moral motives to firmly stand guard over public order as a free person. Of course, a person can obey the orders of power out of fear of punishment; but are the foundations of this forced submission strong? No, the state of a society in which people obeyed the law only out of fear of punishment would be extremely pitiful. Who does not know that the punishing sword of justice does not always overtake the lawbreaker? Who doesn’t know that there are relationships that are dear to a person, which even the most detailed laws cannot protect, and even the most vigilant authorities cannot protect? Of course, one can submit to human power because it is useful; but how fragile, how changeable are the boundaries of obedience that are drawn by the thought of personal benefit! On the contrary, the obedience of a free person, whom admiration before the will of God has enlightened and elevated, is firm and unchanging. This is submission out of conscience, out of conviction in the high importance of laws for the common good. In his very freedom, does he not have a moral obligation to respect the freedom of others? He knows from experience how dear this good is to a person: who should understand better than him the bitterness of the insult inflicted on a person by deprivation of his legal right? Let the urge be strong to cross the boundaries beyond which the rights of another begin; let these motives be not only impeccable, but even apparently sublime: but if a person unhypocritically loves freedom, if it is higher for him than just the brilliant veil of egoism, then will he not retreat before the thought of insulting freedom with violence, trampling it under foot only because it is the freedom of another? Let those benefits be flattering that can be wrested from another by violating the laws that protect him, but will not a true lover of freedom find in the very respect for it enough moral strength to always and everywhere, in his aspirations even for the most legal, prefer the long and tedious one - easy only for love, long-suffering and unpretentious - the path of persuasion, request, entreaty, over the short and easy path of even the most subtle violence? But maybe we need examples taken from life itself of a high sense of legality, unconditional respect for the freedom of others? Look how the holy Apostle Paul, this great preacher of freedom and self-denial, behaves. A slave who had fled from his master comes running to the apostle. This latter is a devout Christian, obedient to the demands of the apostle. The Apostle has a need for Onesimus, who fled to him, and yet returns him to his master with a message in which we read the following sacred words 1232: “Having great boldness in Christ to command you what should be done, out of love I better ask, none other than me, Paul the Elder, and now a prisoner of Jesus Christ; I ask you about my son Onesimus... Accept him as my heart. I wanted to keep him with me, so that instead of you he would serve me in prison for the gospel; but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your good deed would not be forced, but voluntary.” Supportive listeners! Nowadays, more often than ever, we hear rumors of violent unrest being raised here and there in the name of freedom, and therefore, more than ever, it is timely to remember the words of the Apostle: as you are free, and not as a cover for those who have evil, freedom, but as servants of God. Let these rumors find us deaf to the seductive appeals for freedom, which is achieved only by brute force, and unswervingly steadfast in free submission to authority and laws, firm in observing the existing order. Let us always think that only those rights are lasting that are given not forcedly, but voluntarily. IV year student Vasily Bolotov * In the autograph on the first page in the lower field there is a signature: “Vasily Bolotov”; in the upper right corner there is a mark (?): “5”. * The following text is written in the margins: “The homogeneity of the content of these feelings can hardly authorize the recognition of their originality.” “I will limit myself only to illuminating a little the facts on the basis of which Müller reheats the old theory of the faculties of the soul.” Wundt. The soul of man and animal. T. 2. Note, to lecture 54. Page 18. * The first part of the phrase is crossed out, and the following text is written in the right margin: “All this confirms and does not in the least refute Kant’s view of religion.” * This fragment of text in quotation marks is underlined, and in the left margin of the page the text is written: “Isn’t this perception a kind of empirical perception? Doesn’t this perception presuppose a conviction, even if immediate, in the fact of God’s existence?” * Part of the sentence is underlined, and the following text is written in the right margin of the page: “But no conscious process of thinking can prove the existence of God, the whole matter here comes down to (a) dark perceptions and unconscious (b) processes. Why can the cognitive side be recognized as a natural side in religious feeling? * The part of the sentence starting with the word “is” is underlined, and after it the following text is written and placed in parentheses: “(This is Kant’s thought).” Buddhism, like deism, is already the fruit of the influence of civilization on man. As a non-theistic idea of ​​the Divine is unusual for the natural sense of man, this is evident from the fact that Buddhism in its pure form could “retain in the heads of a few thinkers.” “But popular religion could not stand at such an abstract height. She made her founder a god." Wundt. The soul of man and animal. T. 2. Page 291. * The sentence is underlined, and the following text is written in the right margin of the page: “This can hardly be said about someone who is deaf-blind from birth.” * The part of the sentence beginning with the words “religious feeling” is underlined, and the following text is written in the right margin of the page: “This is the Puritan point of view.” The relationship of the religious feeling to the aesthetic in their mutual, normal development, as far as it was expressed in the most important historical epochs, seems very similar to one type of relationship between geometric and arithmetic progression, in which the first will be an indicator of the religious element, and the latter - of the aesthetic. – It is not without reason to believe that at the first moment of historical development, the religious feeling was in complete balance with the aesthetic; such a balance, although perhaps distorted at one of the previous moments in the life of mankind, is also noticed among natural peoples (although, however, the peoples known under this name cannot be considered natural in the strict sense): they have equally weak both religious and aesthetic development * (In the left margin of the page the following text is written: “Historical circumstances were also important here. Aesthetics could not develop in the catacombs.”). Let us denote this moment of relationship between religious and aesthetic feelings by 1.75:1.75. At the next moment of development this equilibrium must cease; the aesthetic feeling prevails over the religious; the ratio of the latter to the former is 3.0625 (3 1/16): 3.5 (3 8/16) * (The following text is written in the left margin of the page: “Fantasmagorische Betrachtungen.”). This moment corresponds to the cultural state of the classical world, a state most expressed in the Greek world. At the third moment of natural, strictly gradual development, the religious element already prevails over the aesthetic and is related to it as 5.359375:5.25. This is the ratio of the religious and aesthetic elements in the Christian world (approximately like 5.359375:5.25 - in the apostolic age, like 5.3593...:5.25 - in the Orthodox Church and like 5.3...:5.2... - in the Roman Catholic Church). Although at this moment the religious feeling prevails over the aesthetic, it is still so close in relation to it that it becomes possible for the appearance of such a view as Schelling’s view. But at the next moment of the ideal development of humanity, for the masses, peoples and all of humanity in real life, perhaps unattainable, also in a completely normal way, without any leap, the religious feeling appears at such a height to which the aesthetic feeling cannot even approach; the close connection between them ceases, and all their further development should make the line separating them only more sharp and noticeable. The ratio between the religious and aesthetic element = 9.37890625:7. * The last sentence is crossed out, and the following text is written in the left margin of the page: “This means that between religious and aesthetic feelings there is no incompatibility that the author above finds between them.” Thus, to recognize reputation as a measure of talent and assume the opposite proposition: “Whoever does not have the reputation of a talented person does not have talent” means to draw a conclusion a non-esse ad non-posse. The position that gifted people certainly achieve fame despite any unfavorable circumstances (Pages 43 and 38) is essentially just an assumption, very close to the conclusion a posse ad esse. On the contrary, it is very likely - at least there is no factual basis in favor of the opposite opinion - that such a strong talent as Newton’s would not have emerged if an accidental insult inflicted on him by a comrade had not awakened his (Newton’s) energy, and would have died out amid unfavorable external circumstances if his uncle had not sent him to the university (Whewell’s History of the Inductive Sciences. 2 vols. Littrow’s Note. p. 773). Of 191, 11 modern English scientists admit that the motive that determined their career is a happy accident, and 99 - external favorable circumstances (Family and School. December. pp. 282-283. Extract from Englishmen of science, their nature and nurture). The indication that the nephews of the cardinals did not become famous despite external support (Heredity of talent, p. 42) cannot yet serve as an instantia crucis on the question of the significance of external favorable circumstances for the formation of talent: external support and social advantages cannot be a favorable circumstance for all people, not for every temperament. The mathematician Lagrange, the son of a count, considered the reason for his happiness that his father went bankrupt and he had to work. “If I had a fortune,” he said, I would not like mathematics, perhaps I would not even learn it” (Whewell’s History of the Inductive Sciences. 2 vols. Page 785). Even the fact that a man, after many vain efforts with a competitor who is supposed to be happier in his natural gifts, himself admits his mental weakness in comparison with his rival, does not exclude the logical possibility of the assumption that this difference is the result of influences not corresponding to the natural characteristics (temperament) of this person, or of the assumption that he is fighting in a different field of mental activity to which he is called. Tredyakovsky declared himself a mediocre scholar, but do we have the right to conclude that, under more favorable circumstances, he would not have been, for example, a gifted philologist or archaeologist? Husband and wife are marked with =, “gifted” people – *, “mediocre” – X. The names of Aristotle, Bacon, Leibniz, Fichte and Mill are the names of the entire philosophical character in Galton's work; We do not find other names, famous in the history of philosophy, in Galton’s work, either in the chapter “Scientists” or in the chapter “Writers”. This seems rather strange: Galton states that it is difficult for him to choose “famous” writers and scientists, that he (Galton), in order to avoid long explanations of the reasons why famous persons were included in his list, chose mainly such “famous” scientists and writers about whom the fame was still well preserved in England. But regarding philosophers (and Galton also included them in his list, p. 137, although this name is applied to Boyle, and Newton, and Franklin, and even Davy), it cannot be said that the choice of the most famous of them could be especially difficult; on the other hand, are the names of Locke and Hume or Auguste Comte so little known in England that they had to be excluded from the list of “famous writers” in order to avoid lengthy explanations? Meanwhile, if Galton’s repertoire of philosophical names had been more complete, then the percentage of “famous” hereditarily gifted writers would undoubtedly have decreased. It is known about Descartes and Hume from Galton’s work itself that they are not among those with hereditary talent. Page 244. Whewell (History of the Inductive Sciences. Vol. 2. p. 238) reports the following interesting fact: “Newton did not notice any difference between himself and other people and saw only his habit of stubborn firmness and constant vigilance. When asked how he made his discoveries, he answered: “by constantly thinking about them”; and another time he expressed that if he did anything, then he owed it solely to mental diligence and patience. “I keep the subject of my research constantly in mind,” he says, “and wait patiently until the barely dawning light of the morning gradually and little by little turns into a full and brilliant light.” It is impossible to form a clearer idea of ​​the property of that mental tension by means of which he brings into action the fullness of his powers, explains Whewell, but these powers of the mind themselves are very different from person to person. There are many people who can wait a whole century in the twilight and never wait for the slightest light.” This is fair, but the question is whether such a person will endure the role of waiting until the end and whether he will not mentally fall asleep at his observation post. This term is borrowed from Carpenter, who, however, does not clearly indicate the relationship of mental habit to mental strength or ability. “Acquired habits of mind,” says Carpenter, “are often implanted in the organization of man with sufficient force and constancy to enable them to be transmitted to posterity as tendencies toward a similar frame of mind. Knowledge, as everyone admits, cannot pass in this way from one generation to another, but an enhanced capacity (?) for acquiring knowledge in general, or some special kind of knowledge, can be inherited. These inclinations and faculties will acquire new strength, extensibility, and constancy in every new generation...” “When any state of mind, by no means innate, has been frequently repeated,” writes Mill, “the mind acquires, as is proved by the faculty of habit, a greatly enhanced power of coming into that state, and this power must depend on some change in the physical character of the organic activity of the brain... Such an acquired ability to a certain state of brain activity can be transmitted through inheritance” (Russk V T. 100. pp. 793–794). This last conclusion applies specifically to English scientists (Family and School). “A healthy, active father, a healthy mother with an energetic character, all of whose mental and physical forces are directed towards achieving some high goal - these are for the most part the parents of a genius” (Comb. Family and School. January). The calculation was made on the basis of page 34 of “Heredity of Talent”. K.D. was also a defender of this view. Ushinsky. All examples given are selected from Littrow's notes to the History of the Inductive Sciences. All biographical sketches – 17; in 10 there is evidence of the parasitism of talent. Galton, in his second work, showed that the talent of a writer who comes from one race is higher than the talent of one who comes from a mixed race. This seems to be true only of English, Scottish and Irish writers (out of 180 writers, only 3-4 are of mixed blood). This cannot be said about Russian historical figures. Lensky (Family and School) reviewed the genealogy of 46 of our writers, and among this number there were 13 people of mixed blood (28.26%); Among these latter there are the names of not only minor writers (Kantemir, Kapnist, Khemnitser, Delvig, etc.), but even such celebrities as Fonvizin, Karamzin, Zhukovsky, Pushkin (the last three are not even of a purely Caucasian race), Lermontov and Turgenev. The famous Suvorov should be called Suvara. Even Peter I on his mother’s side is a descendant of the Englishman Hamilton. The news that Pythagoras was in Delos during the uprising of the Crotonians against the Pythagoreans (n. 55) is the only one clearly recognized by Porphyry as erroneous (n. 56 et 15). Samos, Metapontus and Phliunt (Lycus) argued about the honor of being the birthplace of Pythagoras, but Cleanthes, Apollonius and Diogenes consider Samos to be the birthplace of Pythagoras. According to Apollonius, Pythagoras listened to Anaximander (born 610), and according to Aristoxenus, Pythagoras left Samos 40 years from birth during the reign of Polycrates (565–522 BC according to Schlosser). The origin of Mnesarchus is unknown with certainty. Some call him a Samian, Cleanthes a Tyrian, which easily and naturally explains the fact that he gives his son an Eastern education and sends him to Tire for this purpose; but Diogenes, who “accurately expounded everything concerning the philosopher” (Pythagoras), expresses the opinion, which is also known to Cleanthes, that Mnesarchus was a Tyrrhenian from the islands of the Aegean Sea. “Many (οϊ πλείους) say that Pythagoras studied with the Egyptians, Chaldeans and Phoenicians” (6 num.). Diogenes lists the peoples with whom Pythagoras studied, in general similar to these many: “Egyptians - Arabs - Chaldeans - Jews.” According to Antiphon, apparently, a trip to the east (unmentioned) should precede a trip to Egypt: having described in detail Pythagoras’ stay in Egypt, Antiphon speaks directly about his return to Ionia and his opening of a school in Samos. Ἄλλους άποφαίνονται... πλέοντος δέ τοΰ Μνησάρχου είς τήν 'Ιταλίαν, συμπλεύσαντα τόν Πυθαγόραν, νέον δντα κομιδή, σφόδρα οΰσαν εύδαίμονα, καί τόθ’ ύστερον είς αυτήν άποπλεΰσαι. Porphyry's own belief in the miracles of Pythagoras is expressed quite clearly. “If we must believe those who wrote about him (Pythagoras) - and these are ancient and worthy writers (παλαιοΐς τε ούσι καί άξιολόγοις) - then his influence extended to dumb animals” (23 num.). Further (num. 28) he states that the miracles of Pythagoras are told “constantly and consistently.” The importance of mathematics in the philosophy of Pythagoras in Porphyry seems to be placed in connection with the mathematical education of Pythagoras, "(Num. 6). The famous “tetract” is mentioned by Porfiry, but without any explanation (num. 20). This can be assumed from the fact that Pythagoras also proved the simultaneous emergence of beans and man from the same rot, and this is more of a chemical experiment than a philosophical proof (num. 44). If there is a hint of the physical cause of the supposed sounds emitted by the celestial spheres - movement (in the words: “he heard ... the harmony of the spheres of the universe and the stars moving in these spheres,” n. 30), then in any case the hint is very unclear. The saying of Pythagoras: “the sound made by copper as a result of striking it is the voice of the demon imprisoned in copper,” judging by the context, should be considered simply a figurative expression (n. 41). “φυγαδευτέον πόση μηχανή καί περικοπτέον πυρί καί σιδήρφ καί μηχαναΐς παντοίαις... όμοΰ (άπδ) πάντων άμετρίαν.” Envy in the sayings of Pythagoras has both meanings. “Τούς έκ του νικάν φθόνους φεΰγειν” (15). “Φιλοτιμίαν φεΰγειν καί φιλοδοξίαν, τώπερ μάλιστα φθόνον έργάξεσθον" (32). In the first saying, of course, the envy is not of the winner, but of strangers, in the last - the envy of the ambitious person himself. The Persian flavor of this view is too clear. This rule relates to the previous one as a conclusion or its further development; its meaning: “do not deceive your principal”, the meaning of the previous one is “do not deceive (at all)”. τε ήκιστα. But perhaps the consistent implementation of this teaching was not part of Pythagoras’s vision. Porfiry contains evidence that does not entirely agree with each other on this issue. Thus, according to Eudoxus (n. 7), Pythagoras avoided killing and those who kill κεχρήσθαι) entirely, strictly, as one might assume from the tone of the story; by nn. 34 and 43 (one might think) Pythagoras ate only some parts of the sacrificial meat. But, according to n. 39, he prohibits the destruction (φθείρειν) only of animals harmless to the human race (ζωον δ μηδέ βλαβερόν είναι πέφυκε τφ άνθρωπείω γένει); a to n. 45 prohibits the consumption of μήτραν, and since we are not talking about sacrificial animals, one might think that he allows the consumption of other parts of all animals in general. * In the autograph on the first page in the lower field there is a signature in ink: “Vasily Bolotov”; In the upper right corner it is written in ink: “5 +”. ένός γάρ έποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, του μηδέν ών ήκουσεν παραλιπεΐν. N. E. Euseb. III. 39. – This and the following quotes are taken from Davidson’s An Introduction to the New Testament. London. 1848. Vol. 1. pp. 141–145. Devir. illustr. c. 8. Epist. ad Hedeb c. 2. This disagreement serves, however, as very clear evidence that the confidence in the dependence of the Gospel of Mark on the preaching of St. Over time, Petra not only did not weaken, but grew stronger. The following phases of the development of church tradition are interesting, representing an ascending progression: 1. St. Irenaeus († 202): the Gospel of Mark is a recording of the sermon of the apostle. Petra; 2. Clement of Alexandria († c. 220): it was written, however, without the knowledge of the apostle. Peter and, having become known to him later, did not meet with either encouragement or obstacles on his part when spreading among Roman Christians; 3. Origen († 254): it was written under the direction of St. Petra (ώς Πέτρος ύφηγήσατο); 4. Eusebius († c. 340): it is authorized by the apostle himself. Peter, joyfully approved by him for the edification of the churches (κυρωσαί τε τήν γραφήν είς έντευξιν ταΐς έκκλησίαις); 5. bl. Jerome († 420): it was dictated by St. Peter; Mark only wrote down his words ((Marci) evangelium, Petro narrante, et illo scribente, compositum est). Licet et Marcus quod edidit evangelium Petri affirmatur (Adv. Marc. IV. 5). This opinion had, as far as we know, three phases of development: a) they argued that ap. Paul calls the gospel of Luke his gospel (Rom. 2, κατά τό εύαγγέλιόν μον; 2 Tim. 2:8); b) that this gospel was dictated by St. Paul, and Luke only recorded and published (Pseudo-Athan. synops. in Athanasii opp. Evangelium secundum Lucam dictatum quidem est ab ar. Paulo, consciptum vero et editum a Luca); and c) that it was written by the apostle himself. Paul (Tert. adv. Marc. IV. 5. Nam et Lucae digestum Paulo adscribere solent). Dorotheus's opinion that Luke wrote the Gospel on behalf of the apostle. Petra άποστόλου), later and completely alone (ganz vereinzelte), cannot destroy the complete agreement of the ancient tradition. Credner. Einleitigung in der Neue Testament. Halle. 1836. S. 147. The most compelling and obvious evidence of this is, of course, the book of the Acts of the Apostles (chapter 10, especially art. 28:45–48; 11:18; 15.), the authenticity of which cannot but be denied by supporters of the Tübingen school; but the expressed idea of ​​the ap. Petre cannot change into the opposite even when, to justify it, we use the data presented by Art. 11–16 ch. 2nd ate, Galatians, i.e. denunciation of the ap. Pavel. He calls the action up. Peter, who stopped “eating with the Gentiles, began to hide and withdraw, fearing those of the circumcision (i.e., some of Jacob),” hypocrisy. “Together with him (Peter), other Jews (of course those from Antioch, and not “some from Jacob” v. 12) were hypocrites, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy (v. 13).” But the hypocrite, of course, is not the one who is guided in his actions by his true way of thinking (cf. v. 14), but the one who betrays him shows himself not to be what he is. And if so, then the true way of thinking and constant way of life (v. 14) ap. Peter was not at all identical with the beliefs of “some of James.” Вот схема доказательства этой истины в послании к Римлянам: христианство назначено для всех людей (1:16); this is a fact. Yes, it cannot be otherwise: a) God is the God not only of the Jews, but also of the pagans (3:29–30); b) сами иудеи не нравственнее язычников, не более их достойны спасения (2:17–29, 3:9–23). Saul “persecuted the Church of God” (1 Cor. 15:9), persecuted Christianity. But “he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul! Why are you persecuting Me? He said: Who are you, Lord? The Lord said: I am Jesus, whom you persecute” (Acts 9:4-5). The “universalism” of the Gospel of Mark is confirmed by the views of scholars who recognize the existence of Paulinism and Petrinism in the Apostolic Church. Baur, no matter how important it was for his theory to discover traces of Petrinism in the gospel, which tradition calls Petrine, had to recognize his character as at least neutral. Volkmar (Die Evangelien. Leipzig, 1870) recognizes this gospel as a didactic-poetic (Lehr-Poësie) presentation of the Paulinian teaching (S. 643–647). This work is full of oddities, but, in any case, even Volkmar could not have developed his view and supported it in a work of 660 pages if the Gospel of Mark had not been a monument to “universal” Christianity. But Hilgenfeld, recognizing the proximity of the gospel to the Paulinian movement, still considers it (the gospel) Judeo-Christian. To prove this, he cites the following data: a) (Mark 12:29) the words: “The Lord our God is one Lord” express the dogma that the Judeo-Christians opposed to the doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ (and which, we add, was preached by the apostle himself. Paul - 1 Corinthians 8:4-6; 1 Timothy 2:5); b) The pagan country is considered the seat of demons (Mark 5:10 - but it would be necessary to first prove that demons could not make such a request if they were expelled from a person in Judea); c) Christ did not allow the healed pagan to follow Him, did not accept him as one of His disciples (Mark 5:18, but entrusted him with the apostolic mission v. 19, and Hilgenfeld has no logical right to resort to this argument because this fact is also narrated in the “Paulinian” gospel Luke 8:38–39). Einleitigung in der Neue Testament von A. Hilgenfeld. Leipzig, 1875, S. 518. They pay attention (Gerike) to the election of 70 disciples according to the number of supposedly 70 pagan nations (B. 10) as evidence of the calling of pagans to Christianity; but, it seems, Holtzman is quite right in noting that the number “seventy” could just as much resemble the 70 pagan nations as the 70 palm trees in the desert (Exodus 15:27), the 70 elders under Moses (Exodus 24:9) or the 70 members of the Sanhedrin. Bibel Lex. Schenkel. – Lucas Holtzmann. Die synoptischen Evangelien. Leipzig, 1863, S. 113. Having mercy 1:41 Wed. Matthew 8:3; Luke 5:13; Mark 5:30, 10:14 (was indignant), 21 (loved him), cf. Matthew 19:14; Luke 18:16; Matthew 19:16ff; Luke 18:18ff. 1:43, 3:5, 5:30–32, 10:21–23–27. 3:17, 5:41, 7:11, 14:36, 15:34. 1:45, 4:39, 5:8 et seq. 8:17–20. 8:10–12, Wed. Luke 11:29, 8:27 Wed. Luke 9:18. 1:35, Wed. Luke 4:42; 2:26, ​​4:35, cf. Luke 8:22, Mark 15:25. 4:38. “And He slept at the stern at the head.” 6:39. "on green grass." Wed. Luke 8:23, 9:14–15. 2:2 “immediately many gathered together, so that there was no room at the door”; 3:20, 6:31. - “so it was impossible for them to eat bread.” 2:3, 6:37 (200 denarii); 8:14, 14:5 (“more than 300 denarii”) cf. Matthew 26:9 (at great cost). The Gospel of Christ's beloved disciple cannot be considered because he, the writer of the Gospel, is undoubtedly not identical with the apostle. Peter, nor with the ap. Pavel. * In the autograph, opposite these words in the left margin of the page, the author wrote the following text: “Mk.1:27. “What is this? What is this new teaching, that He commands even the spirits with authority...” Luke 4:36. “What does this mean, that He commands the unclean spirits with authority and power, and they come out?” Similar, because it is impossible to assert their identity: according to Luke 24:41–43, Christ ate before the apostles, according to John 21:12–15 they dined before Him; but whether they ate with Him is not known from these quotations. Davidson. An Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. 1, p. 196. The fact that Luke's gospel, following the story of the ascension of Jesus Christ, does not mention His sitting at the right hand of the Father, while the last truth is mentioned in the epistles of St. Paul repeatedly (Eph.7:20; Heb.1:3, 12:2), not only does not serve as an argument against the greater (compared to other gospels) closeness of the Gospel. Luke to the sermon of St. Paul, but can even be recognized as a line of similarity between them: ap. Paul also does not talk about sitting at the right hand of the Father in those places where he talks about the ascension (Eph. 4:9-10; 1 Tim. 3:16; on the contrary, 1 Pet. 3:22). Based on this similarity, the “Saxon anonymous” considers the apostle himself to be the writer of the Gospel of Luke. Pavel. Goltsman gives 27 parallel passages indicated by “anonymous”, including 4:22 cf. Col.4:6; Eph.4:29; Luke 4:32. cf. 1 Corinthians 2:4; 10:8 cf. 1 Corinthians 10:27; 11:41 cf. Tim.1:15; 11:49 cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:15; 13:26 cf. 1 Corinthians 8:8. Das Marcus evangelium nach seinem Quellenwerthe von August Klostermann. Gottingen, 1867. An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 145–147. Introduction to the New Testament. Page 122. 125. Die synoptischen Evangelien, ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter. Leipzig, 1863. and the article "Markus" in Schenkel's Bibel Lexicon. If the Gospel of Mark was even dictated by St. Peter, then he himself, in all likelihood, received information about the circumstances of the death of John the Baptist from the disciples of John (Matthew 14:12), who, apparently (προσελθόντες 1. p.), were also not eyewitnesses. ... בָּנִי ארגז der so ganz andersartig ist, als der des Simon, und unmöglich mit der Bestellung zum Apostelamte in Zusammenhänge stehen kann... S. 72. Volkmar defends the idea that that house (ή οικία αύτοΰ Mark 2:15) in which, by calling the apostle. Matthew, Christ reclined with publicans and sinners, there was the house of the apostle. Petra. S. 255. Matthew 16:21 (From that time Jesus began to reveal to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things, etc.); Mark 8:31 (And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things...32. And he spoke about this openly.); Luke 9:21–22 ((But He strictly commanded them not to tell anyone about this,) Saying that the Son of Man must suffer many things... etc.). Τοσοΰτων είρημένων τφ Πέτρφ ύπό τοΰ Τ Ιησού ό Μάρκος μηδέ τούτων μνημονεύσας, δτι μηδ’ δ Πέτρος ταΰθ’, ώς είκός, έν τάϊς αύτοΰ ... σιωπδσθαι ήξίου. Demonstr. evang. Credner Ave. Einleitigung in der Neue Testament, S. 125. Of course, we can say that the apostle is silent about this, not wanting to show himself off, to distinguish himself from the ranks of other apostles; But in this case, why isn’t the Gospel silent about the fact that St. Peter confessed the Lord as Christ, that he witnessed the resurrection of Jairus’s daughter and the transfiguration of the Lord and was chosen to follow the Lord into the solitude of Gethsemane - facts that highlight the ap. Peter from a number of other apostles than the above? Thus, only from the Gospel of Mark do we learn about the workers of Zebedee (1:20); about the fact that app. James and John were present at the healing of Peter's mother-in-law (1:29); that the Lord called them sons of thunder (Boanerges) (3:17); that they are together with the ap. Peter and Andrew asked the Lord about the time of fulfillment of His prophecy about the Temple of Jerusalem (13:3); and finally, if Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 name the same persons, then the Gospel of Mark also reports the name of the mother of James and John (Salome). * In the autograph, opposite these words in the right margin of the page, the author wrote the following text: “Jesus Christ – Wonderworker – Healer of the possessed.” It is hardly possible to prove the existence of Christian churches even at the end of the 2nd century; at least the antitheses of Tertullian (de idolol. p. 7): “ab idolis in ecclesiam, de adversarii officina in domum Dei venire”, in which Gieseler (Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte. Bonn, 1844. T. 1. S. 231), Kurtz (Handbuch der allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte. Mitau, 1858. T. 1. S. 279) and Schaff (Geschichte der alten Kirche. Leipzig, 1867 (S. 313) see “sure traces” of the existence of Christian churches as special buildings - explainable even without this assumption. * The word is underlined, the following text is written in the right margin of the page: “Churches - so; and houses of worship, or houses of the Lord? * The words “parish” and “the same” are crossed out, above them are written respectively: “communities” and “other”, in the left margin of the page the text follows: “In the 2nd century this is unimaginable. There were no parishes then.” Kurtz. Kirchen Geschichte, S. 266. Tertullian. apolog. c. 39: Coimus ad divinarum literarum commemorationem, si quid praesentium temporum qualitas aut prae monere cogit aut recognoscere. Origen's conversations, in all likelihood, were not the first experience of this type of church preaching. * The word “presbyter” is underlined twice, the following text is written in the right margin of the page: “If by presbyters we mean priests, as Origen was, then in the 2nd century they did not preach.” 1 Apology of St. Justina. 67. Collection of ancient liturgies. Answer of St. Justina Rustica. Ruin. Act. sine. mart, in Goette's Church History. St. Petersburg, 1872. Ι.,στρ. 436. At least there is no historical data proving that, for example, the rite of baptism that St. describes. Justin and the one described by Tertullian were not each in common church use at one time. N.V. Cheltsov. History of the Christian Church. St. Petersburg, 1861.1. page 135. Kirchen Geschichte, S. 257. 260. Lehrbuch der christlich kirchlichen Archäologie. Berlin, 1859. S. 283. Kurtz. Kirchen Geschichte, S. 261. * The words “completion” and “it was united with the morning” are underlined; the following text is written in the left margin of the page: “Perhaps in Bithynia it is so; and in other places? Neander. Allgemeine Geschichte der christlichen Religion und Kirche. Gotha, 1863.1. S. 417. However, St. Justin does not say at what time of day the Eucharist was celebrated, although the explanation of the meaning of the celebration of Sunday (“this is the first day on which God, having changed darkness and matter, created the world”) favors the assumption that it was celebrated in the morning. * The words “entered again” are crossed out, “were” is written above them. Kurtz. Tert, ad uxor. 2, 5: Non seiet maritus, quid secreto ante indignity cibum gustes. Et si sciverit panem, non ilium credit esse qui dicitur. Kurtz. Kirchen Geschichte, S. 273 – Thus, for example, Tertullian (apol. p. 39) limits himself to presenting only that part of the (Christian) liturgy that should be called the liturgy of the catechumens (Collection of ancient liturgies). * The end of the sentence, starting with the word “separation”, is underlined, in the right margin of the page it is written: “These are our names.” Kurtz. Tert, de praescript. With. 41. Inprimis quis catechumenus, quis fidelis, incertum est; pariter adeunt, pariter audiunt, pariter orant... Ante sunt perfecti catechumeni, quam edocti. Kurtz believes that Marcion interpreted Gal. 6:6 with a polemical purpose: “he who is taught by the word, share every good thing with those who teach” in the sense that the faithful and the catechumens should pray together (Simul. Hier, ad Gal. 6, 6), - that in this case Marcion had in mind the new liturgical order of the Orthodox Church (Kirchen Geschichte, S. 272). – St. Justin does not mention the expulsion of the catechumens, but the short form of the liturgy in chapter 65 of the 1st apology seems not impossible to explain by the assumption that the catechumen was baptized between the liturgy of the catechumens and the liturgy of the faithful. Collection of ancient liturgies. The communion of absent people, but through deacons, is already mentioned by St. Justin. And at 2.5 ad uxorem and at 19 de orat. (Kurtz) Tertullian speaks only of the Body of Christ; in both cases the custom is observed by women. “Having broken up the Eucharist,” writes Clement of Alexandria, “according to custom, some invite each of the people to take part of it themselves, because everyone’s best judge of whether to proceed or withdraw is his conscience” (Stromata. 1.1. Collection of Ancient Liturgies). For those who did not consider themselves worthy to begin, but did not want to completely avoid communion, the practice described by Tertullian was a very desirable outcome, and it was very easy for them to apply it to their work. * Opposite this phrase in the top and left margins of the page is written: “What is the difference between the churches?” De cor. milit. ss. 3. 4 in “Collection of Ancient Liturgies”. Gieseler. Tert, ad Martyr, p. 3. Vocati sumus ad militiam Dez vivi jam tunc, cum in sacramenti verba respondimus... Gieseler. Tert, de cor. milit., de bapt. c. 7. Adv. Marcion. 1. c. ibid, qua (harmonia lact. et mell) infantamur. – The custom of giving milk and honey to the newly baptized is indicated by Clement of Alexandria (Paedag. 1. pp. Neander, 1863. I. S. 406), but he gives this custom a different interpretation, seeing in it an indication of entry into the heavenly Jerusalem. * The word is underlined, in the left margin of the page it is written: “Difference in the completeness of descriptions.” * The words “rite” and “times” have been crossed out, above them written respectively: “description” and “y”; the expression “baptism of times” is taken in parentheses with a simple pencil. On the absence in the writings of St. Justin’s mention of the “laying on of hands” or “confirmation” should, of course, be viewed as a simple omission, - From the words of St. Justin: “and we fast with them (those preparing for baptism)” one can conclude* (The last two words are underlined, in the right margin of the page it is written: “It is possible not to conclude.”), that in his time there was no custom to perform the baptism of the enlightened on the day of Pentecost, because during the entire holiday from Easter to Pentecost the believers did not fast (Neander, S. 385); but in the time of Tertullian, Easter (actually Great Saturday?) and the days of Pentecost were the usual times for the baptism of catechumens (Siegel. Handbuch der christlischen kirchlichen Alterthurmer. Leipzig, 1838. IV. 213. Tert, de bapt. c. 16: Diem baptismo soleniorem Pascha praestat, exinde Pentecoste ordinandis lavacris latissimum spatium est). – Probably, the appearance and baptism of the so-called clinics dates back to this period, but the first historical news about it dates back to the 3rd century (Cypr. ep. ad Magnum. 1. s. ar. Neander, S. 397). – Tertullian’s polemic against infant baptism, begun in the last years of the 2nd century (Neander. S. 400), could have led to important changes in church rite (to the abolition of recipients, an institution first mentioned by Tertullian, but probably very ancient, perhaps contemporary with the first examples of infant baptism), but, apparently, had no success. – The debates about the baptism of infants and the baptism of heretics, which took place in the 3rd century, even if they belonged to the 2nd century, do not concern baptism as a rite. Tertullian reproaches the heretics for the fact that “today he is a deacon who tomorrow is a reader” (de praescr. Ar. Guericke). – The Alexandrian catechists can hardly be considered church officials in the sense in which the readers: Clement of Alexandria combined with the position of catechist the rank of presbyter, which is impossible for a church reader (Guericke, S. 79) * (The word “impossible” is underlined, the prefix “not” is crossed out and “possible” is written). Clement says that some have tried or are trying (είσΐ δέ οί περιεργότερον... προσπθέντες Ar. Neander) to calculate the day of the Savior’s birth and believe that He was born on the 25th of Pahon (= May 20. Ideler, Handbuch der mathematischen Chronolgie. Berlin, 1826. II. 385, 387), and the Basilidians also celebrate the day of His baptism. There is no doubt that these holidays have not yet become generally known, and only the impossibility of accurately identifying the local church, the distinctive feature of whose practice they constituted, prompts us to consider them as a feature of the 2nd half of the 2nd century. In view of the fact that heretics usually borrow rituals from the Orthodox Church and, on the contrary, only with great difficulty find access to the church what was in use among the heretics, it should be assumed that the feast of baptism originally appeared in the Orthodox Church. If, further, it could be proven that in the Basilian sect it was introduced into use by Basil himself (about 130), originally from Syria, in whose metropolis, Antioch, the feast of baptism was highly respected (though at the end of the 4th century. Neander, 386), then one might assume that he appeared in Antioch in the first quarter of the 2nd century; but, despite the connection of this holiday with Jewish views - a connection that distinguishes all ancient Christian holidays - its ancient origin is hardly likely, since more ancient monuments do not mention it. It is hardly possible to admit that under Clement the Orthodox celebrated this holiday. – On the contrary, it is very likely that those who calculated the day of the birth of Christ and, of course, those who celebrated it were Alexandrians *(The word “Alexandrians” is crossed out, the word “Romans” is written above it.): Ideler believes that the strange result of their calculations is explained by an error, possible only in Alexandria: they heard that Christ was born in the 9th (Jewish) month, but put the 9th Egyptian. * The word “parishes” is crossed out, above it is written: “dioceses”. * The word “presbyter” is crossed out, above it is written: “bishop”. * The words “the result of circumstances that are valid only at a certain time” have been crossed out. * Starting with the word “relating”, part of the phrase is crossed out, the following text is written above it: “and not inter-church ritual differences of a given time.” Neander, S. 387. Tert, de orat. With. 23. – Subsequently, the Council of Laodicea (363) advised Christians, if possible, to spend Sunday in peace, but only in order to wean them from the Jewish celebration of the Sabbath. Guericke, S. 144. * The last two words, starting with “not”, are underlined, in the left margin of the page it is written: “Not universally binding every day for every person; but generally definite.” De orat. 19. Collection of ancient liturgies. Hermae, Pastor 1. p. ar. Neander, S. 356. * The words “enjoyed” and “such authority” are underlined, in the right margin of the page it is written: “When? From whom?" Guericke, S. 146.–VII, 23. δημιουργίας έτίν υπόμνημα... V, 20. κυριακήν έπιτελοΰντες συνόδους εύφραύεσθε. While the Latin Council of Elvira declares the custom of those who do not fast on Saturday to be corrected, the Greek 65th Apostolic Canon deposes that cleric and excommunicates the layman who fasts on Saturday, with the exception of one. Guericke, S. 146–147. Ibid. Tert, de orat. With. 23. * The word is underlined, in the left margin of the page it is written: “Schismatics of the 4th century?” * The word “stood” is crossed out, above it is written: “they made a unanimous decision.” * The last five words are crossed out, the following text is written above them: “Those who did not accept this resolution were a minority.” Schürer, Die Passastreitigkeiten des 2. Jahrhunderts in Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie. 1870. Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. V.24. * “Before” is written in pencil in the left margin. * The word “Roman” is crossed out, above it is written: “one”. Hefele. Osterfeierstreit. Kirchen Lexicon, herausgegeben von Wetzer und Welte. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1851. VII. S. 873. The unity in the celebration of Easter by all churches (except those of Asia Minor) was in fact only apparent. All churches agreed on the principle that Easter should be celebrated on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox, but these astronomical terms did not mean the same thing. Therefore, the Roman and Alexandrian churches subsequently differed from each other in Easter reckoning to such an extent that in 227 the first celebrated Easter on March 25, and the latter on April 22 (Ideler, II. S. 221). Die paschae communis et quasi publica jejunii religio est. Tert, de orat. c. 14.ap. Gieseler. – Const, apost. V, 18. - φωνίας νυκτός. Schürer. S. 261. * The word “Christians” is crossed out, above it is written: “Bishops.” * The words “eating the lamb” and part of the phrase from the words “in Jerusalem” before the comma are underlined, after the comma – crossed out, above it is written: “Even after the destruction of the church?” * In the left margin of the page it is written: “Why?” * This expression is crossed out, above it is written: “Undoubtedly.” * In the right margin of the page it is written: “I don’t understand.” * The last two words are underlined, in the right margin of the page it is written: “This is Easter.” * The last three words are underlined, and “Of course” is written in the right margin of the page. * The expression after the comma is crossed out, and after it - at the end of the work the following text is written: “At the end of the fast, or remembrance of the Passion. They speak about this clearly and equally.” *The title is not included on the manuscript. * The first sheet of the manuscript is separated from the bound sheets and represents a draft version of the next sheet, differing from it in one phrase. On the margins and back of the first sheet, the text in Gothic (?) is written in a simple pencil perpendicular to the text. In the lower field of the second – final – sheet there is a signature: “Vasily Bolotov.” * On the first draft sheet of the manuscript, instead of this phrase, the following is written: “Hypothetical judgments in resolving this issue are inevitable; but since the Christians of Asia Minor trace their practice back to the time of the Evangelist John, to an era from which no one has survived...” * This part of the phrase is underlined and the following text is written in the margins: “Who suggests this? And what is the reason for such assumptions? * Above these words is written: “When the Church existed,” and in the margin there is a sign “NB.”. YES. Khvolson. The last Easter supper of Jesus Christ. 1825–1875. 5 Sep. Page 441. * The word “morning” is crossed out and “evening” is written above. The Talmud (1. p. Schürer. Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol. 1870, S. 242) forbids eating at least from 3 o’clock in the afternoon until dark, that is, before the Passover supper. * The last three words are crossed out and the following is written: “and together is new.” * The words “and rarely on the 13th” are crossed out, in the margin it is written: “Where is this?” * Part of the phrase with the words “New Testament holiday” is underlined, the following text is written in the margins: “Such was the holiday of Maundy Thursday in the 4th century, and probably earlier; not Easter. No one has ever connected with the concept of Easter one specific holiday, but a certain number of deliberate, or holiday days.” * The word “Old Testament” is crossed out and above it is written: “first day”, in the word “Easter” at the end, instead of “a”, “and” is added (the word is underlined), in the word “was”, instead of “a”, “b” is added. *The last three words are underlined and “Never” is written in the left margin. * Part of the phrase is crossed out, in the right field it is written: “What is it?” Hefele in Kirchen-Lexikon von Wetzer und Welte. VII, S. 872. * The last two words are underlined, the following text is written in the left margin: “Didn’t the Ephesian Christians fast before the Easter of the Resurrection of the Lord?” * Part of the phrase is crossed out, above it is written: “Undoubtedly.” * Part of the phrase, starting with the words “but on what day...” is crossed out, the following text is written above it: “On the 14th of Nisan, and the sufferings of Christ were remembered during the fast before the 14th of Nisan.” * The entire phrase, except for the first two words, has been crossed out and instead of “they even thought” it is written: “they were mistaken a lot.” Schürer (S. 218) names Mosheim, Schreck and Breitschneider. (Mosheim (Ideler, II. S. 202) even thought that all Christians ate the lamb, only those of Asia Minor, together with the Jews, on the 14th day of the moon, and Westerners - on the night of Easter Sunday.) - Against such a conclusion, the fact that after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple of the Paschal lamb the Jews themselves stopped eating the Paschal lamb, and it is hardly possible to admit that Christians themselves they slaughtered a lamb, that is, a sacrifice that must be offered in the church by the priest. * The expression in brackets is crossed out, above it is written: “that is, they celebrated the Eucharist, and in their home life they used unleavened bread.” Neander, K. G. Hamburg. 1828. I. 2. S. 342. Kurtz, (Schaff). Hefele, Smirnov. – Kurtz and Hefele divide the Quatrodecimans into the Ebionists, who thought that the Lord ate the Passion on the 14th of Nisan, and the Orthodox, who considered the 14th to be the day of the Lord’s death on the Cross. Schaff also holds this opinion, but does not share the holiday program proposed by Kurtz and Hefele, but (like the history of Neander, published in Gotha in 1863) states only that the 14th of Nisan was dedicated to the remembrance of the death of the Lord on the cross, and does not mention any other day of Nisan. In proof of the latter point he refers to Epiph. Naeg. " έπιτελοΰντες.” For example, Eusebius, V, 23, 1: “όποίςι δαν ήμέρᾳ τής έβδομάδος περιτυγχάνοι.” * Part of the phrase is underlined and the following text is written in the left margin: “It would be much more useful for you to read the history of Eusebius of Caesarea.” * These two words are underlined and the following text is written above them: “And all of them - one that you did not look at.” Euseb. edit. Heinich. annot. ad V, 24.6. You might be interested in: