60. He who prays in spirit and truth reverently honors the Creator, not [coming] from creatures, but [coming] from Him Himself, praising Him77.

61. If you are a theologian, then you will pray truly, and if you pray truly, then you are a theologian78.

62. When your mind, [kindled] by ardent love for God, gradually renounces the flesh and turns away from all thoughts emanating from feeling, memory and temperament,79 and at the same time becomes filled with reverence and joy, then consider that you have approached the limits of prayer.

63. The Holy Spirit, sympathizing with our weakness, visits us even if we are unclean; and if He finds that only the mind80 is praying to him with love for the truth, then He descends on him and disperses the entire phalanx of thoughts and [sinful] thoughts that surrounded him, turning him to an ardent desire for spiritual prayer81.

64. While others82 produce thoughts, thoughts and ideas in the soul, taking advantage of changes in the body, the Lord does the opposite: He enters the mind itself and puts into it the knowledge of those things that are pleasing to Him; through the mind He also calms the intemperance of the body83.

65. No one can avoid reproach when, while loving true prayer, a person falls into anger or resentment. For such a person is like one who wants to be watchful and damages his own eyes84.

66. If you want to pray, do not do anything contrary to prayer, so that God, approaching [you], travels with you85.

67. When praying, do not clothe the Divinity within yourself in visible forms and do not allow your mind to be imprinted in any [sensual] image, but approach the Immaterial immaterially, and [then] you will comprehend [It]86.

68. Beware of the traps of opposing [forces]. For it happens that when you pray purely and serenely, then suddenly a certain alien and foreign image appears before you in order to lead you into conceit and [instill the idea] that the Divinity is in a certain specific place and as if It immediately reveals itself to you as something quantitative, whereas this Divinity is devoid of form and size.

69. When an envious demon cannot awaken the memory during prayer, then he forces the bodily temperament to produce some alien idea in the mind and give it form. And since the mind has the habit of remaining in speculation, it easily gives in and, rushing towards immaterial and formless knowledge, is deceived and filled with smoke instead of light88.

70. Stand on your guard (Hab. 2:1), guarding your mind from thoughts during prayer, in order to fulfill the request89 and be unshakable in your own peace,90 and also so that the One who sympathizes with the ignorant91 will visit you too – then you will receive the most glorious gift of prayer.

71. You cannot pray purely if you are absorbed in material things and agitated by constant worries92. For prayer is the detachment [of the mind from all] thoughts93.

72. A bound man cannot escape; and the mind, slavishly serving passion, cannot see the place of spiritual prayer,94 for it is dragged and whirled by passionate thought and is unable to achieve motionless constancy.

73. When, finally, the mind begins to pray purely and dispassionately, then demons attack it no longer from the left, but from the right95. They [figuratively] represent to him the glory of God and take the form of something pleasing to the senses, so that it seems to him as if he has already completely achieved the goal of prayer. This, as the man abounding in knowledge said,96 comes from the passion of vanity and from a demon touching a certain place in the brain.

74. I think that a demon touching the said place [of the brain] turns away the light that surrounds the mind. And thus the passion of vanity penetrates into the rational part of the soul97, setting the mind in a frivolous mood so that the divine and essential knowledge becomes palpable98. Since the mind is not bothered by carnal and impure passions, but is in purity [in prayer], it seems to it that there is no hostile action in it. Therefore, he accepts the phenomenon produced in him by the demon as a divine phenomenon. And the demon, having demonstrated extraordinary skill, [acts] on the light associated [with the mind], changes it and, as we have already said, thereby shapes the mind.

75. The Angel of God, appearing [before us], with just one word drives away from us every enemy action and allows the light of the mind to act steadily99.

76. When the Apocalypse speaks of an Angel who brings incense to give it [to help] the prayers of the saints (Rev. 8:3), then I think that grace is meant here, brought into action by the Angel. [This grace] creates100 the knowledge of true prayer, so that the mind finally remains firmly outside all confusion, despondency101 and negligence.

77. “Bowls full of incense, which, as they say, are the essence of the prayer of the saints” and which were brought by the twenty-four elders (Rev. 5:8), [must be understood this way]: “the cup” is affection for God, or perfect and spiritual love102, in which prayer is carried out in spirit and truth.

78. When it seems to you that if you pray, you don’t need to cry about your sins, [immediately] pay attention to how far you are from God, although you must always abide in Him – then you will shed hotter tears.

79. Truly, having known your limits103, you will readily begin to lament104, complaining about yourself like Isaiah: how, being unclean and being among such a people, that is, among opponents, you dare to stand before the Lord of Hosts (Is. 6:5).

80. If you truly pray, you will gain complete certainty105 and the Angels will gather to you, as to Daniel, and will enlighten you regarding the logoi of created things106.

81. Know that the holy Angels encourage us to pray and stand next to us, rejoicing and praying for us. But if we are careless and susceptible to opposing thoughts, then we make them very angry, because while they strive so hard for our sake, we do not want to pray to God for ourselves, but neglect our service107 and leave their Master and God, going to meet unclean demons.

82. Pray meekly and calmly, “sing psalms wisely” (Ps. 46:8) and euphoniously108 – then you will be like a young eagle soaring into the height109.

83. Psalmody lulls passions and calms the intemperance of the body; and prayer prepares the mind to carry out the action that is characteristic of it110.

84. Prayer is an action befitting the dignity of the mind, or its best and true use.

85. Psalmody refers to manifold wisdom111, while prayer is an introduction to immaterial and slightly varied knowledge112.

86. The most beautiful thing is knowledge, for it promotes prayer, prompting the thinking power of the mind to contemplate Divine knowledge113.

87. If you have not yet received the [grace-filled] gift of prayer and psalmody, be persistent and you will receive it.

88. “He also told them a parable about how you should always pray and not lose heart” (Luke 18:1). Therefore, do not be discouraged and do not be discouraged by what you have not yet received. You’ll receive it later. And to the parable [the Lord] added [also the words]: “Although I do not fear God and am not ashamed of people, just as a woman does not give rest, I will bring judgment on her (Luke 18:4-5), so God will “soon protect those who cry out to Him day and night” (Luke 18:7)114. Therefore, rejoice as you continue in holy prayer with diligence and patience.

89. Do not desire what seems right to you,115 but desire what pleases God, and you will be serene and grateful in your prayer.

90. Even if it seems to you that you are already [being] with God, beware of the demon of fornication, for he is very deceptive and envious116. This demon wants to be more agile than the movement and sobriety117 of your mind in order to distract it from God, even when it stands before Him with reverence and fear.

91. If you diligently practice prayer, then prepare for the attacks of demons and patiently endure the blows of their whips118. For they will attack you like wild beasts and ulcerate your whole body.

92. Prepare, like an experienced fighter119, not to hesitate if you suddenly see a [certain] vision; do not be afraid if [you see] a sword pulled out against you, or a torch aimed directly at your eyes; do not lose heart if a certain face, ugly and bloody, [appears before you]120. On the contrary, stand firm, making a “good confession” (1 Tim. 6:12), and look upon your enemies with a light heart.

93. He who endures sorrow [worthily] will also find joy, and he who is courageous in hardship will not lose [spiritual] sweetness121.

94. Be careful that the crafty demons do not deceive you with any vision,122 but be attentive when turning to prayer and call on God, so that if the thought [comes] from Him, He Himself will enlighten you, and if not, so that He will quickly drive away the tempter from you. And be brave, because the dogs123 will not resist if you resort to fervently calling on God in prayer124. Then the demons, invisibly and indirectly scourged by God’s power, will run far away [from you].

95. You must not be ignorant of the following cunning of demons: at times they are divided among themselves, and if you seem to be seeking help against some, then others come in angelic forms and [as if] drive out the first so that you are deceived by their intent125, mistaking them for genuine Angels126.

96. Take care of much humility and courage, and then the attacks of demons will not touch your soul, and the blows of their whips will not come close to your bodily temple,127 because “His angel commanded you, keep you” (Ps. 90:11). And the Angels will invisibly repel every enemy action from you.

97. He who cares about pure prayer hears noises, stomping and voices emanating from demons, but he will not fall on his face from them and will not lose his head128, but, turning to God, will say: “I will fear no evil, for You are with me” (Ps. 22:4) and the like.

98. During such temptations, use short and intense prayer.

99. If demons threaten you, suddenly appearing out of thin air to strike you and steal your mind, do not be afraid of them and do not pay attention to their fears. For they frighten you, testing whether you take them seriously or have already completely despised them.

100. If you stand before God Almighty, the Creator and Provider of all things in prayer, why do you stand before Him so unreasonably and neglect His irresistible fear, being afraid of mosquitoes and cockroaches? 129 Or do you not hear the saying: “Fear the Lord your God” (Deut. 10:20) and “All fear Him and tremble at the presence of power” His (2 Chronicles 36:23, prayer of Manasseh) etc.

101. Just as bread is food for the body, and virtue is food for the soul, so spiritual prayer is food for the mind130.

102. In the sacred place of prayer, pray not like a Pharisee, but like a tax collector (Luke 18:10-14), so that you too may be justified by the Lord.

103. In your prayer, try not to call curses on the head of any [person], so as not to destroy what you are building and not to make your prayer vile131.

104. Let him who owes ten thousand talents (Matthew 18:24-35) serve as a lesson to you: if you do not forgive [your] debtor, then you yourself will not receive forgiveness [of your debt]. For [Scripture] says: “He gave him over to the torturers” (Matthew 18:34)132.

105. As you stand in prayer, do not pay attention to the needs of the body, so that if you are bitten by a flea, louse, mosquito or fly, you will not be deprived of the great benefit from prayer.

106. It has come to our attention that one of the saints, when he was praying, was so opposed by the evil one that as soon as he stretched out his hands,133 the evil one was transformed into a lion and, standing straight on his hind legs, raised his front paws, plunging his claws into the sides of the ascetic and without retreating, waiting for him to let go of his hands. But the saint never relaxed his hands without completing his usual prayer134.

The prevalence of the name “John” makes it difficult to determine the identity of this ascetic. The nickname “Small” (τὸν μικρόν), as well as the indication that he labored (“in the pit”) (ἐν λακκω), hardly allows us to identify him with John of Lycopolis (the Seer) (see note 96), for the latter, according to Palladius, lived in a cell from which he was not was published for thirty years (see: Palladium. “Lavsaik”, p. 84). G. Bunge assumes that John Kolov is meant here (see: Bunge G. Evagre le Pontique et deux Macaires, p. 217. For stories about John Kolov and his sayings, see: Memorable Tales, pp. 120–134). The word ἡσυχάχταντα (“silent”) seems to shed light on the tradition of “hesychasm” in the broad sense of this concept, which has existed since the very beginning of monasticism and continues to exist in the Orthodox Church to this day. This “hesychasm” cannot be identified only with the “hermit form” of monasticism, for it is equally inherent in “coenobitic” (“Cenobite”) monasticism (see: Monk Vasily (Krivoshein). The ascetic and theological teaching of St. Gregory Palamas // Seminarium Kondakovianum, t. VIII. Prague, 1936, pp. 100–101; Meyendorff J. Spiritual Trends in the Late Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries // Art et societe a Byzance sous.

107. The same was, as we know, John the Small, or rather, the greatest monk, who remained silent in the pit135. As a result of his constant presence with God,136 he remained motionless when the demon, in the form of a dragon, wrapped itself around him, bit his flesh and belched in his face.

108. You, of course, read the lives of the Tavennisiot monks, where it is said that when Abba Theodore spoke to the brethren, two vipers crawled under his feet, and he calmly covered them with his feet, like a vault, and kept them there until he finished his speech. Only after that did he show them to the brothers, explaining what was the matter137.

109. We also read about another spiritual brother that when he was praying, a viper crawled up and grabbed his leg. But he only lowered his hands when he completed his usual prayer. And this one who loved God more than himself did not suffer any harm.

110. During prayer, keep your eyes downcast138 and, having renounced your flesh and soul, live according to your mind139.

111. Another saint, who was silent in the desert140 and fervently praying, was attacked by demons for two weeks in this way: they played with him like a ball, throwing him into the air and catching him on a substitute reed mat. However, they could not bring his mind down from fiery prayer.

112. Two Angels appeared to another God-loving [ascetic], walking through the desert and mentally praying, and, standing on his sides, began to walk with him. But he did not pay attention to them at all, so as not to suffer damage at best141. After all, he remembered the words of the Apostle: “Neither Angels, nor Principalities, nor Powers… can separate us from the love of Christ” (Rom. 8:38–39).

113. A monk becomes equal to the Angels142 when he wishes to see “the face of the Heavenly Father” (Matthew 18:10).

114. During prayer, never seek to see [any] face or appearance.

115. Do not want to see in a sensual image either Angels, or the Power, or Christ, lest you become a complete madman, mistaking the wolf for a shepherd and worshiping [instead of God] the opponents demons143.

116. The beginning of the deception of the mind is vanity; prompted by it, the mind tries to describe the Divine in [any] face or form144.

117. I will say my own – what the novice also said145: blessed is the mind that, during prayer, has acquired complete freedom from material images146.

118. Blessed is the mind that, indulging in prayer without distraction, always acquires greater and greater love for God147.

119. Blessed is the mind that during prayer becomes immaterial and detached148 from everything material.

120. Blessed is the mind that, during prayer, has acquired complete insensibility149.

121. Blessed is the monk who considers every person to be a god after God150.

122. Blessed is the monk who looks upon the salvation and prosperity of all with great joy, as if it were his own151.

123. Blessed is the monk who considers himself dust trampled underfoot by all (1 Cor. 4:13).

124. A monk is one who, having withdrawn from everyone, is united with everyone152.

125. A monk is one who considers himself one with everyone, since he wants to see himself in everyone without exception153.

126. The one who successfully performs prayer is the one who bears fruit for God with all his first thoughts.

127. If you want to pray like a monk, avoid all lies and all oaths, otherwise it is in vain that you take on an appearance that is unusual for you.

128. If you want to pray in the spirit, do not drag up anything carnal155, and then there will be no clouds to obscure your [eyes] during prayer156.

129. Entrust [all] your bodily needs to God, and it will be clear that you trust him with the needs of the spirit157.

130. If you achieve the promises, you will reign158. Therefore, fixing your gaze on them, you must willingly endure the poverty of life here.

131. Do not give up poverty and sorrow, which are the substance of weightless prayer159.

132. Let the physical virtues in you be the guarantee of spiritual ones, the spiritual virtues – the guarantee of spiritual ones, and the spiritual ones – the guarantee of immaterial and essential knowledge.

133. When praying, observe the thought: if it calms down easily, [trace] where it came from, so as not to fall into an ambush and, having fallen into deception, not to betray yourself161.

134. It happens that demons inspire thoughts in you, and then encourage you to resist these thoughts in prayer and [internally] argue with them. Then [the demons] voluntarily retreat, so that you, having fallen into delusion, imagine yourself as if you have already begun to conquer your thoughts and frighten the demons.

135. If in prayer you confront any passion or demon that bothers you, remember the words of [the Psalmist]: “My enemies will marry, and I will suffer, and will not return until they die. I will offend them, and they will not be able to stand, they will fall under my feet” (Ps. 17:38-39)162 and so on. Speak them at the right time, putting on the armor of humility against your opponents.

136. Do not think that you have already acquired virtue if you have not previously fought for it to the point of blood. For one must fight to the point of blood, “striving without reproach against sin,” according to the divine Apostle (Heb. 12:4)163.

137. It may happen that, having helped some [person], you will suffer damage from another, and therefore, offended, you will say or do something indecent [in relation to your neighbor]. In this way, you will waste what you have collected well. And this is the goal of crafty demons. Therefore, you should be reasonably vigilant.

138. If you are attacked by demons, accept them, but take care to avoid their slavery.

139. At night, crafty demons ask [God to give them] a spiritual teacher and [they could] themselves frighten him164; during the day they [attack] him through people, entangling him in a network of misfortunes, slander and dangers.

140. Don’t ask for mercy from the clothiers165. For if they beat, trample with their feet, stretch and polish, then this only makes your robe [more] lighter166.

141. Since you have not renounced passions and your mind resists virtue and truth, you will not find fragrant incense in your bosom167.

142. Are you hungry to pray? – Then move from here and always have “residence in heaven” (Phil. 3:20)168. And have it not only in words, but by angelic deeds and divine knowledge.

The verb περικλέπτηται here should probably be understood in the sense of “to be distracted, to have fun” in connection with the teaching outlined above about concentrated, or undistracted, prayer. – 81.

This implies the distinction between the “monk-mind” and the “human-mind” discussed above (see note 43). In the concept of “monk” (μοναχός), Evagrius puts the meaning characteristic of the original monasticism: “who spends his life in solitude and chastity” (ὁ μονήρης βιός) (see: Guillaumont A. Aux origines du monachisme chrétien, p. 44–45). It should be noted that in the Eastern Orthodox tradition the concept of μοναχός had the meaning not so much of “alone/lonely, solitary” (solus), but of “single” (unus), i.e., it meant primarily an internal heart disposition, and not an external way of life. Therefore, Rev. John Climacus said that “monastic life” (μοναδικὸς βίος) is also available to Christians living in the world, since it is, first of all, internal unity, that “gathering of oneself” that the great ascetics spoke about. True, it was often noted that life in the world usually does little to promote such “collection of oneself,” and therefore the need for “external solitude” arises. In the Latin West in the Middle Ages and Modern times, a predominantly “external” understanding of the word “monk” prevailed, which denoted a specific image of monastic (mainly “Cenobite”) life (see: Dekkers E. Monachos. Solitaire, unanime, recuelli // Fructus Centesimus. Mélages offers à Gerard J.M. Bartelink. Steenbrugis, 1989, pp. 91–104). As for Evagrius, in a particular case he clearly depends on his spiritual mentor – Venerable. Macarius the Great, who said that a monk is called a “monk” because he talks with God day and night and is engaged only in God’s affairs, having nothing on earth (see: Bunge G. Evagre le Pontique et les deux Macaire // Irenikon, 1983, No. 3, p. 344). To understand the adjective “worldly” (κοσμικός), one can also make a comparison with St. Macarius, who contrasts “a house built on stone” with another “house built on sand” (Matthew 7:25–26): the first is “souls who believe and love the Lord,” and the second is sinful souls, possessing a “worldly mind” (νοῦς κοσμικός) and immersed in carnal passions (see: PseudoMacaire. Oeuvres spirituelles. T. 1. Ed. par V. Desprez (Sources chrétiennes, no. 275). P., 1980, p. 106–108). – 81.

The concept of “tabernacle” (σκηνή) here has the meaning of either a generally transitory earthly life, or a body (see: Lampe G.W.N. Or. cit., p. 1236–1237). – 81.

In this case, Evagrius most likely depends on St. Basil the Great, for whom “memory” (μνήμη) is not simply a repository of ideas, ideas, images and past events (i.e. a purely passive principle), but plays an active role, being the center of a person’s mental and spiritual life and determining his character (see: Bamberger J.E. Mneme-diathesis: The Psychic Dynamism in the Ascetical Theology of St. Basii // Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 1968, vol. 34, p. – 81.

Lit. “to conduct the proceedings” (πρὸς τὴν γνῶσιν τῆς παραστάσεως). But what is meant here, most likely, is monastic service – “standing in prayer.” This is exactly what Rev. is talking about. John Climacus: “Come now, we will see how we also correct our standing before God and the King in evening, day and night prayers” (see: Our Venerable Father John, Abbot of Mount Sinai, Ladder, p. 139). This concept is used in approximately the same sense by Rev. Macarius of Egypt, when he speaks of the human will as a “hypostatic presence” (ὡς παράστασις ὑποστατική) (see: Die 50 Geistlichen Homilien des Makarios, S. 270). The Russian translation of this expression is “an essential condition” (see: Our Venerable Father Macarius of Egypt, Spiritual Conversations, Message and Words. Sergiev Posad, 1904, p. 262) blurs this meaning, because here we are talking about the constant “service” of the will, which is the essential moment of the personal principle in a person. – 81.

The expression συλᾶσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς μνήμης seems to be a kind of antipode to another expression encountered above (see note 36): ἕξεις ἄσυλον τὸ κατόρθωμα. Since memory is the center of a person’s mental life, it naturally serves as one of the main objects of attack from “robber demons.” And carried away by them, she, in turn, steals the mind. – 81.

So, I think, it is better to translate the expression τῷ ἀρίστῳ αὐτοῦ δρόμῳ. The concept δρόμος is used here to designate monastic life. Very often it is used in the same meaning by St. Macarius in his newly discovered “Great Epistle”. In particular, he speaks of “the feat (ἀγών – struggle) and the path (δρόμος) of those who wish to strive for perfection,” meaning specifically the monks (see: Makarios/Symeon. Epistola Magna. Hrsg. von R. Staats. Göttingen, 1984, S. 88). In a similar sense, the blessed one also speaks. Diadochus of Photicus: “The demons, especially when they find us carelessly following the path of piety τρέχοντος), through bodily feelings they captivate the soul, forcibly calling it, the murderer, to what it does not want” (Popov K. Decree. cit., p. 438). – 82.

St. Gregory the Theologian in one of his epistles also speaks of “ascension to God through prayer” (δι’ εὐχῆς πρὸς θεὸν ἐκδημία) (see: PG 37, 29). – 82.

Prayer, as it were, returns a person to a paradise state, and therefore the words spoken to Adam in paradise are attributed by Evagrius to the prayer book. Wed. Rev. Maximus the Confessor: “Strive to acquire virtues, and then watch to maintain them. And this means “to cultivate” and “to preserve” (Gen. 2:15)” (Works of St. Maximus the Confessor, book 1, p. 108). Severian Gabalsky interprets this passage of Holy Scripture in a slightly different way: “To cultivate the commandment of God and to believe. And protect paradise from whom? “After all, there was no robber or passer-by plotting evil then.” This means, in order for [Adam] to preserve paradise for himself and so that, having violated the commandment, he does not lose it” (Catenae graecae in Genesim et in Exodum. II. Collectio Coisliniana in Genesim. Edita a F. Petit (Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca, vol. 15). Turnhout; Leuven, 1986, p. 92). – 82.

In the “Speculative Chapters,” Evagrius says that the spiritual warfare between people and demons is waged because of the contemplation of beings and the knowledge of the Holy Trinity, which the demons prevent. The same idea is repeated in one of his epistles (see: Les six centuries des “Kephalaia gnostica”, p. 115; Evagrios Pontikos. Briefe aus der Wüste, S. 276). These statements are quite consonant with the phrase under consideration, since “spiritual prayer” is genuine theology, which includes both the contemplation of beings and the knowledge of God. Such an understanding of theology goes back to the very origins of Christianity, for already for the first generations of Christians “all theology was prayer, and all prayer was theological” Nattap A. Genese et signification de la priere, aux origines chrétiennes // Studia Patristica, 1957, vol. II, pt. 2, p. 482). – 82.

The verb παχύνω, in the passive form meaning “to become thick, dense, bodily” (in St. Sophronius of Jerusalem and John of Damascus it also meant the incarnation of God the Word; see: Lampe G.W.H. Or. cit., p. 1054), was quite common in the tradition dating back to Origen. Origen himself, for example, says that just as a flame can illuminate, but can also burn and destroy material objects, so the “eyes of the Word” (ὀφθαλμοὶ τοῦ λόγου; cf. Rev. 19:12), with which It sees everyone who participates in Him, can also destroy the most material and dull of thoughts (τὰ ὑλικώτερα καὶ παχύτερα τῶν νοημάτων) (see: Origène. Commentaire sur saint Jean, t. 1. Ed. par C. Blanc (Sources chrétiennes, no. 120). P., 1966, p. 240–242). St. Gregory of Nyssa states that “feeling is akin to the plump and earthly” ἔχει) (Gregoire de Nysse. Discours catéchètique. Ed. par L. Meridier. P., 1908, p. 52). He compares a person “white in thought and turning his gaze downward,” that is, to bodily pleasures, with an animal that lives only for the belly. Such people “with dumb thoughts” are the majority, and it is difficult for them to comprehend the nature of beauty in itself, separated from matter (see: Gregoire de Ńysse. Traité de la virginité, p. 318, 382). It is unlikely that in such ideas one can detect traces of the so-called Origenist concept of the fall of “minds”, turning into “souls” as a result of “cooling”. Rather, there is a general spiritual-idealistic orientation of the worldview, characteristic of both Origen and St. Gregory of Nyssa. This is also shared by Evagrius, who in his writings more than once addresses the topic of “whitening the spirit.” Thus, interpreting Proverbs 26:10, he says that by “the flesh of fools” here we mean “souls made white by vice” (Evagre le Pontique. Scholies aux Proverbes, p. 414). – 82.

The adverb λογικῶς in this case can also be understood in the sense of “according to the law of God the Word (Logos).” See: Hausherr I. Les leçons d’un contemplatif, p. 75. – 82.

The expression “logoi of created things” (τοὺς λόγους τῶν γεγονότων) is rooted in the terminology of Stoicism (the well-known doctrine of “spermatic logoi”). Mediated by Platonism, this teaching, having undergone a significant transformation, was adopted by Christianity. Christian thinkers, primarily St. Justin the Philosopher began to develop this doctrine, bringing it into consonance with the doctrine of the creation of the world (see: Barnard L.W. Justin Martyr. His Life and Thought. Cambridge, 1967, p. 96–98). Drawing a distinction between the “seed Logos” (σπερματικὸς Λόγος – God the Word) and the “seeds of the Logos” (σπέρματα τοῦ Λόγου), St. Justin correlates the latter with the human world, and therefore individual “minds” (“logoi”) are, as it were, “sown” by the supreme Reason-Logos, and at the same time the cardinal difference between the Creator and the creature is preserved (see: Daniélou J. Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture. L.; Philadelphia, 1973, p. 41–44). This teaching is also perceived by Origen, who makes a significant change to it, applying it to the sphere of metaphysics: individual “logoi”, which are metaphysical principles (meanings) of created things and participating in the highest Logos, exist before the world and constitute, as it were, an “intelligible cosmos” (see: Daniélou J. Origène. P., 1948, p. 252–253). In principle, this idea is also developed by Evagrius, for whom the “logos” of each thing is the ontological basis, the semantic center of its existence. A. Guillaumont believes that this idea has a connection with that heretical concept, which was subsequently condemned by the Church and the essence of which is as follows: initially there was a certain single spiritual universe, consisting of rational entities (λογικοί), or “minds”, equal to each other and possessing the essential knowledge of God. Then, as a result of their own negligence, these rational beings fell away from such knowledge, the spiritual universe (“genada”) disintegrated, a movement (κίνησις) arose, and the fallen “minds” became “souls” (see: Guillaumont A. Les “Kephalaia gnostica” d’Evagre et 1’histoire de l’origenisme, p. 37–38). However, a direct connection between the two concepts (the doctrine of “logoi” and the idea of ​​“decline of minds”) is difficult to establish, and, most likely, the second was developed by later “Origenists” who misinterpreted Origen and Evagrius. In any case, the Church, having rejected the idea of ​​a “fall of minds,” adopted the theory of “logoi,” which, traced in the Areopagitica, is comprehensively substantiated and developed by St. Maxime the Confesseur (see: Dalmais I.N. La theorie des “lógoi” des creatures chez Maxime le Confesseur // Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques, 1952, t. 36, p. 244–249; Thunberg L. Man and the Cosmos. The Vision of St. Maximus the Confessor. N.Y., 1985, p. The creative impulse given by this theory to the development of Orthodox thought is not exhausted until late Byzantine hesychasm, and, for example, in the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas “logoi” are already identified with divine “energies” (see: Meyendorff J. Introduction à l’etude de Gregoire Palamas. P., 1959, p. 176–177). – 82.

So, it seems, it is better to translate the expression τὸν οὐσιώσαντα λόγον, which implies an emphasis on the role of God the Word as the Creator of the world (for a similar use of the verb οὐσιόω in Origen, St. Athanasius and others, see: Lampe G.W.H. Or. cit., p. 985). But Evagrius in this case probably emphasizes a specific aspect: the Word is, first of all, the Creator of the “intelligible world,” i.e., the totality of “logoi.” – 82.

This chapter emphasizes Evagrius’s usual tripartite scheme of spiritual success (see note 6). The acquisition of virtues (“practice”) prepares “natural contemplation” (φυσικὴ θεωρία), i.e. contemplation of “logoi,” and the latter ends with “theology,” which is accessible only to a true prayer book. It is characteristic that the latter is understood here as the revelation of the Word. This makes us treat with great caution judgments about the supposedly “non-Christian nature of Evagrius’s mysticism,” which, for example, was expressed by G.U. Balthasar, who believed that Evagrius was closer to Buddhism than to Christianity (see: Loser W. Im Geiste des Origenes. Frankfurt am Main, 1976, S. 118–128). The opinion of I. does not seem entirely correct. Meyendorff: “Evagrius could write his treatise “The Word on Prayer” with few references to Scripture, but without any mention of Jesus, the incarnate Son of God” (Meyendorff J. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. N.Y., 1974, p. 23). Indeed, Evagrius does not have a pronounced “Christocentrism” in this work, but this does not mean that Christ did not play a significant role in his theology. This role is indicated in chapters 112 and 115 of the “Tales on Prayer,” and in other works it is decisive (see: Bunge G. Das Geistgebet, S. 102). Indicative in this regard, for example, is one saying of Evagrius, preserved in a Syriac translation: “The Stone of Truth is uncracked faith (la foi sans fissure) in our Lord Jesus Christ, which the mind places as the foundation of the structure of the soul” (Evagriana syriaca. Textes inedits du Britisch Museum et de la Vaticane. Ed. et trad. par J. Muyldermans. Louvain, 1952, p. 161). – 82.

Evagrius defines the “state” (κατάστασις) of prayer with the concept ἕξις. In philosophical language, this concept had the widest range of shades (“possession”, “stable state”, etc.), and, for example, St. John of Damascus in “Dialectics” identifies five main meanings of it (see: Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. Hrsg. von B. Kotter. Bd. I. B., 1969, S. 126–127). In Evagrius, in a particular case, it is meant not so much a state given by nature, but rather an acquired skill (or ability), since this concept is combined with another term – ἀπάθεια, which is also very ambiguous. Going back to Stoic ethics, this term is organically adopted by Christianity and becomes the key concept of all patristic asceticism. And although it was actively used by previous Christian writers (St. Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Origen), it was Evagrius, in the words of one historian, who “baptized the Stoic concept of dispassion” (Chitty D.J.The Desert a City. N.Y., 1966, p. 50). Here Evagrius can be compared with his contemporary St. Gregory of Nyssa, for whom the perfect life of a true Christian is, as it were, concentrated in “dispassion,” identified with “purity” (απάθεια=καθαρότης) (see: Völker W. Gregor von Nyssa als Mystiker. Wiesbaden, 1955, S. 259). – 82.

The expression ἔρωτι άκροτάτῳ seems somewhat paradoxical in this combination, because at first glance the juxtaposition of “dispassion” and “highest love” seems strange. But here we are talking about “higher eros” (or “agape” – below Evagrius uses the verb ἀγαπάω), alien to any passion. According to Evagrius, “practice” leads the ascetic to “dispassion,” which is a necessary condition for “agape” (the goal of “practice”) (see: Louth A. The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition. Oxford, 1981, p. 103). – 82.

Lit. “delights to intelligible heights” (εἰς ὕψος νοητὸν ἁρπάζουσα). – 82.

In other words, prayer involves the purification of not only the violent and desirable parts of the soul (θυμοῦ καὶ ἐπιθυμίας), but also the rational principle in a person. – 82.

For St. Basil the Great, the first teacher of Evagrius, love of God is also the first and main duty of a Christian, the center of his entire religious and moral life. It is love for God that prompts the soul to prayer, and the latter gives the one praying a clear idea of ​​God, revives and strengthens the soul. Therefore St. Basil always emphasized the inextricable connection between love of God and prayer, which unites a person with God (see: Osborn E. Ethical Pattems in Early Christian Thought. Cambridge, 1976, p. 105). – 82.

The expression In this case, περισπᾶσθαι most likely suggests immersion in “thoughts about things,” concern and consideration of them, although without any “passion.” But such a lack of passion does not yet mean that the mind soars to God, for the objects on which it scatters its attention and with which it “entertains itself” remove it from God. This chapter is largely explained by the Greek fragment of one of Evagrius’s epistles: “Just as a thorn prevents the eye from seeing sensual things, so the mind, containing passionate thoughts, cannot comprehend speculation. And he should, gradually going through all these speculations, strive to the Cause and Father of intelligible [things], Who reveals Himself to the heart [of man] when it is deprived of [all] material thoughts. For the contemplation of created [things] is characterized by a plurality of points of view (κολλὰς ἔχει τὰς ἱστορίας), and the knowledge of the Holy Trinity is uniform. After all, essential knowledge is that knowledge that is devoid of [all] passions and bodies σωμάτων ἐμφανιζομένη). And the mind cannot be saved except by going up to this mountain (Heb. 12:22). And the intelligible mountain is the spiritual knowledge of the Holy Trinity, the ascent to the top of which is difficult for man. However, the mind that has achieved it eliminates all material thoughts from itself” (Guillaumont S. Fragments grecs inedits d’Evagre le Pontique // Texte und Textkritik. Eine Aufsatzsammlung. Hrsg. von J. Dummer. B., 1987, S. 218). – 82.

The phrase ἐν τοῖς λόγοις αὐτῶν ἀδολεσχεῖν literally means “to remain in meditation on the logoi of things.” The direct meaning of the verb ἀδολεσχέω is “to chat, to chatter.” But thanks to the Septuagint, this verb acquired a positive meaning in Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity. For example, in Philo of Alexandria it often meant “one-on-one conversation with God.” Origen’s interpretation of Ps. 119:15 is also characteristic in this regard (the indicated verb ἀδολεσχήσω in the Church Slavonic translation is rendered as “I mock”, and in Russian as “I reflect”): with this verse of the psalm we learn that it is impossible to understand the ways of the Lord otherwise than by examining them, and therefore a metaphor is used here “conversation” (ἀδολεσχίαν), which in the Holy Scriptures (for example, in Gen. 24:63) is applied to the conversation of the righteous with God. As a result, prolonged “practice” with the commandments of God (ἐπὶ πλεῖον ὁμιλεῖν ταῖς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντολαῖς) leads to the “royal and perfect path” leading to comprehension of God. As noted by M. Arles, this “understanding of the ways of the Lord,” carried out through the practice of ἀδολεσχία, in Origen presupposes comprehension of the Old Testament, leading to the knowledge of Christ (see: La chaiate palestinienne sur le Psaume 118 (Origene, Eusebe, Didyne, Apollinaire, Athanase, Theodoret). Ed. par M. Harl, t. 1 (Sources chrétiennes, P., 1972, p. 148–149, 212). In Evagrius, such a positive meaning of the verb ἀδολεσχέω recedes into the background in this chapter, and its original meaning comes first: although the contemplation of created things and their logoi is an important matter, in comparison with prayer it is still “idle talk.” – 83.

“Logos” (literally, “words about things” or their “meanings”) give a certain form to the mind contemplating them, and, as it were, impose the stamp of multiplicity on it. Therefore, for true prayer, only dispassion is not enough, without acquiring the formlessness of the mind (see: Lossky V. The Vision of God. N.Y. 1983, pp. 106–107). – 83.

To understand the expression τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τόπον we can cite the statement of St. Gregory of Nyssa, who, in connection with the interpretation of Exodus 33:21-22, says that by such a “place” we should not mean any limited space, since it is impossible to measure what has no size (ἐπὶ γὰρ τοῦ ἀπόσου μέτρον οὐκ ἔστιν); but Holy Scripture, commensurate with the limited capacity of human understanding, leads the reader (lit. “listener”) in a similar way to the comprehension of the Infinite and the Unlimited (see: Gregoire de Nysse. La vie de Moise. Ed. par J. Danielou (Sources chrétiennes, no. l ter). P., 1968, p, 272). – 83.

So, I think, it is better to translate the phrase ποικίλλεσθαι πρὸς αὐτά (another possible translation is “to be involved in their diversity”). It is probably connected with the expression “manifold wisdom” (ποικίλη σοφία), which appears below, in ch. 85. According to the interpretation of G. Bunge, this wisdom (more precisely, Wisdom) here is identical with Christ, that is, God the Word in His being and action ad extra, and is a varied reflection of the actions of God the Word in the material world (see: Bunge G. Das Geistgebet, S. 15–16). It is interesting to note that St. Athanasius in his “Life of St. Anthony” uses the verb ποικίλλω (“to decorate, paint, diversify, cunning”) in relation to demons who “take advantage of the seductions of dreams” (ποικιλλόμενοι ταῖς φαντασίαις; or: “are under various species”) (PG 26, 893). It is possible that in Evagrius, a shade of “seduction” is also present in the “manifold wisdom”, for since it is indirectly connected with the world of sensory things, then a certain moment of “inadequacy” (in comparison with the highest Unity of spiritual being) is inherent in it to a certain extent. – 83.

We are talking about the grace of God, which is a necessary condition for prayer. Evagrius points out the meaning of this grace more than once in his writings, and, for example, in the “Speculative Chapters” (first edition) he says: “To comprehend the contemplation of created natures is inherent in the power of the mind, but to contemplate the Holy Trinity is not inherent only to it: this is the highest gift of grace” (Les six centuries des “Kephalaia Gnostica”, p. 210). – 83.

One Coptic source reports that “Saint Abba Evagrius” commented on the Lord’s Prayer and in this commentary said that many great men spoke about “this holy Prayer.” Therefore, we, following their teaching, turn to it, for it leads a person to the “primordial nature.” Her words “Our Father, Who art in heaven” are the words of those who are close to God, like His sons. “Hallowed be your name” means that this name is hallowed among us and glorified by our good deeds. “Thy kingdom come” – this kingdom is the Holy Spirit, and we pray that He will descend upon us. “Thy will be done as it is in heaven and on earth” – the will of God is the salvation of every rational soul, and we pray that what has been accomplished by the heavenly Powers will also happen to us who are on earth. “Our daily bread” is God’s heritage, and we pray that it will be given to us “today,” that is, that its sweetness will be felt by us already in this age and will make us hunger for it (see: Hausherr I. Les leçons d’un contemplatif, pp. 83-84). – 83.

In a slightly different, but echoing and consonant sense, Origen interprets John 4:24: since God is Spirit, we must strive to worship Him in the spirit, which gives life, and not in the letter, which kills (2 Cor. 3:6), and to honor Him in truth, and not in images (τήποις), shadows (σκιαῖς) and examples (ὑποδείγμασιν). Such worship and reverence makes us like Angels (see: Órigèhe. Commentaire sur saint Jean, t. 111, p. 110). Evagrius, as it were, further develops the principle of the spiritual understanding of existence (a particular manifestation of which is the spiritual interpretation of the Holy Scriptures), clearly formulated by Origen: “worship in spirit and truth,” i.e. true prayer is going beyond the boundaries of the created world (not only the sensory, but also the intelligible) and soaring to God Himself (the Holy Trinity), Who is Spirit and Truth. – 83.

This brief maxim is the core of both the work “The Word on Prayer” and the entire worldview of Evagrius. He never tires of repeating the thought expressed here in his writings in different ways. Thus, in the “Speculative Chapters” it is said that to know God, it is not a “dialectical soul” that is needed, but a “seeing soul,” for dialectics is the lot of unclean souls, and vision (i.e., the ability of mental and spiritual vision) is only for pure souls. Another chapter of the same work (in the first edition) reads: “He who has not seen God cannot speak of Him” (lit. “theologize”). In the second edition, this idea is expressed somewhat differently: just as it is not the same thing for us to see the light and talk about it, so the vision of God and some comprehension of what relates to Him are not the same thing (see: Les six centuries; des “Kephalaia Gnostica”, p. 175, 186–187). The entire 62nd letter of Evagrius is also devoted to the distinction between true theology (genuine “gnosis”, i.e. the vision of God) from “pseudo-gnosis”, i.e. “dialectics” (see: Evagrios Pontikos. Briefe aus der Wüste, S. 282-283). In this case, Evagrius develops the ideas of his teacher St. Gregory the Theologian, who constantly emphasizes that the necessary conditions for a “theologian” are ascetic life, chastity and moral purification (the triad καθάρσις–θεωρία– θεολογία) (see: Plagnieux J. Saint Gregoire de Nazlanz theologien. P., 1952, p. 71–113) – 83.

The concept κρᾶσις (lit. “mixing”) is used here in precisely this meaning. Abba Thalassy, ​​associate and friend of St. Maxima also says: “There are three things through which you acquire thoughts: feeling, memory and bodily temperament (ἡ κρᾶσις τοῦ σώματος)” (PG 91, 1432). – 83.

The phrase εἰ εὕροι τὸν νοῦν μόνον most likely suggests that perfect prayer is prayer that embraces and enlightens a person’s entire being: his mind, soul and body. Here we are talking about prayer, so to speak, imperfect, to which only the mind so far turns, but turns with love for the truth (φιλαλήθως). – 83.

This chapter most likely refers to the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Spirit, which V. Lossky formulates as follows: “The work of Christ relates to human nature, which He heads in His Hypostasis. The work of the Holy Spirit relates to human individuals, addresses each of them separately. The Holy Spirit imparts to human hypostases in the Church the fullness of Divinity in a unique, personal way, adapted to each person as a person created in the image of God” (V. Lossky Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church // Theological Works. M., 1972, collection VIII, p. 88). Thus, the highest goal of the Christian life is the conscious and personal experience of the “visitation” of the Holy Spirit. It is precisely this experience, acquired primarily through prayer and which is the basis of spiritual success, that Evagrius speaks about. And although he rarely directly mentions the Holy Spirit, the “pneumatological” aspect seems to be one of the essential facets of his theology (see: Bunge G. Das Geistgebet, S. 96-97). Evagrius’s thoughts that the Holy Spirit is the Teacher of prayer, for He turns a person “to an ardent desire for spiritual prayer” (εἰς ἔρωτα πνευματικῆς προσευχῆς), are consonant with the statements of St. Macarius of Egypt, who teaches about the possibility of transformation of human nature already here on earth, since Christ “mixes” the Holy Spirit with the soul; this is “being born again.” Only the Holy Spirit reveals the highest secrets of existence, which become accessible to us through prayer (see: Dörries N. Die Theologie des Makarios/Symeon. Göttingen, 1978, S. 176–179). – 83.

By οἵ λοιποί are meant both demons and people. Since demons do not have direct access to the mind, they act on the power of a person’s imagination through the senses, thereby arousing passions (see: Hausherr I. Les leçóns d’un contemplatif, pp. 90–91). However, it should be noted that here we are talking about, so to speak, the “highest sphere of imagination”, which is in close contact and almost indistinguishably merging with the rational principle in man θεωρήματα). – 83.

If demons attack “from below” and attack the mind, relying on the body, then the Lord descends “from above” directly into the mind, enlightening it; the enlightened mind, in turn, illuminates the body. The idea of ​​deification, which is one of the central ideas of the Orthodox worldview, manifests itself in Evagrius in the form that. I.V. Popov characterizes it as idealistic, saying: “For theologians of the idealistic direction, the point of physical contact of human nature with the Divine is the mind, which, being deified by communication with God, transfers deification to the body that is in its possession.” The main impetus for the development of the idealistic form of this idea was given by Origen; in its pure form it was reflected in the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius and can be traced until the end of Byzantine patristics. Traces of it can be found in many Church Fathers, and, in particular, St. John of Damascus says: “God dwells through the mind in the bodies of saints” (see: Popov I.V. The idea of ​​deification in the ancient Eastern Church // Questions of Philosophy and Psychology, 1909, No. 97, pp. 183–191). – 83.

Wed. Rev. Maximus the Confessor: “He who has been awarded the gift of knowledge, but is offended and holds a grudge against his brother, is like a man pricking his eyes with thorns and thistles. Therefore, knowledge, out of necessity, needs love” (Works of St. Maximus the Confessor, book 1, p. 140). – 84.

Prayer, being the highest expression of spiritual life, is understood by Evagrius in a particular case as a constant movement. Therefore, he expresses the Orthodox idea of ​​“synergy”, the mutual assistance of God and man, with the phrase συμπορεύσηταί σοι. – 84.

These words are based on the idea of God as “formless” (ἀνείδεος) and “formless” (ἀσχημάτιστος), widespread in Greek patristics (see: Lampe G.W.H. Or. cit., p. 131, 253). True, the Fathers of the Church sometimes also spoke about the “form” (σχῆμα) of God, but only in order to emphasize the existence of God as a concrete Being, and not as an impersonal abstraction (see: Prestige G.L.God in Patristic Thought. L., 1952, p. 9–17). The formlessness of God naturally presupposes His immateriality, or immateriality, but the phrase of Evagrius “approach the Immaterial immaterially” (αὔλως τῷ αὔλῷ πρόσιθι) does not mean that the contemplation of God is inherent in the mind “by nature.” Such contemplation is a gift of God, i.e. grace (see: Bouyer L. La spiritualite de Nouveau Testament et des peres. P., 1966, p. 467). For Evagrius, as for all Christian thinkers, the soul (or mind) is not consubstantial with God, and therefore its immateriality is fundamentally different from the immateriality of God (as the creature differs from the Creator). This reveals the essential incompatibility of Christianity and Platonism. The latter just affirmed the consubstantiality of the human soul with the faceless Divinity (“Absolute”). Characteristic in this regard are the dying words of the founder of Neoplatonism, Plotinus, who said that “now he will try to merge what was divine in him with what is divine in the Universe” (Porphyry. Life of Plotinus // Diogenes Laertius. About life, teachings and sayings of famous philosophers. M., 1979, p. 462). – 84.

Ἄποσον δὲ τὸ θεῖον καὶ ἀσχημάτιστον. This idea is characteristic of all the Cappadocian fathers and, in particular, is found more than once in St. Gregory of Nyssa (see note 73) (see: Muhlenberg E. Die Ünendlichkeit Gottes die Gregor von Nyssa. Göttingen, 1966, S. 89–202). – 84.

Acting on human physiology (τὴν κρᾶσιν τοῦ σώματος), demons produce in the imagination a certain idea, or “dreaming” (φαντασίαν), which the mind takes for a “thought” (νόημα). Evagrius here, as it were, latently emphasizes the inextricable connection between representation as a fruit of the imagination and thought, which gravitates towards the bottom and becomes white. Therefore, true knowledge for him is immaterial and formless (αὔλον γνῶσιν καὶ ἀνείδεον), for it cuts off all sensual fantasies, which become a convenient weapon in the hands of demons to seduce a person. – 84.

The concept αἴτησις (“petition”) is used by Evagrius in this case as a synonym for “prayer” (προσευχή). It is characteristic that Origen, in his essay “On Prayer,” singles out “petition” as a special part of prayer, which begins with “doxology” (δοξολογίας) to God the Father through Christ; then comes “thanksgiving” (εὐχαριστίαν), followed by “confession” (ἐξομολόγησιν) of one’s own sins and a request to God for forgiveness of them, and only then “a request for great and heavenly [goods]” (περὶ τῶν μεγάλων καὶ ἐπουρανίων αἴτησιν), as well as ο relatives and loved ones. The prayer ends, according to Origen, with “the praise of God through Christ in the Holy Spirit.” Such a detailed differentiation of the forms and stages of prayer is alien to Evagrius (see: Origenes Werke. Leipzig, 1899, Bd. 2, S. 401). – 84.

In Minh’s “Patrology” instead of ἠρεμία there is ἐρεμία (“solitary place, desert, solitude”). But here we are rather talking about that stay (“standing”) in a state of inner peace (στῆναι ἐπί τῇ οἰκείᾳ ἠρεμίᾳ), which should be the goal of Christian life. This idea is clearly expressed by Clement of Alexandria, saying that a Christian in general should be characterized by peace, silence, meekness and peace εἰρήνης) (see: Clemens Alexandrinus. Werke, Bd. 2. Protrepticus und Paedagogus. Hrsg. von O. Stählin. B., 1972, S. 193). – 84.

With the phrase ὁ συμπάσχων τοῖς ἀγνοῦσι Evagrius clearly refers to the Holy Spirit; see chap. 63. – 84.

Wed. Abba Thalassius “The mind cannot devote itself to intelligible things (σχολάσαι τοῖς νοητοῖς) unless it cuts off [its] connection with feeling and sensible things” (PG 91, 1441). – 84.

Lit. “leaving (depositing) thoughts” (ἀπόθεσις νοημάτων). Evagrius repeats this idea more than once in various contexts. Thus, he says that the mind cannot comprehend spiritual things while passionate thoughts exist in it, and also notes that perfect faith is acquired through the renunciation of all thoughts about bodily things (see: Evagrios Pontikos. Briefe aus der Wüste, S. 277, 282). Rev. Maximus develops these views of Evagrius in his “Sermon on the Ascetic Life,” where a novice monk asks an elder: how prayer rids the mind of all thoughts νοημάτων)? The elder answers this question: “Thoughts are thoughts about things, and some of things are sensual, others are intelligible. While in them, the mind [constantly] revolves in a circle of thoughts about these things. The grace of prayer combines the mind with God, and this combination separates the mind from all thoughts. Then the mind, nakedly conversing with God, becomes godlike. Having become such, he asks God for what is due, and his request always achieves its goal” (Works of St. Maximus the Confessor, book 1, p. 83). Similar views are constantly found in patristic asceticism; for example, Rev. John Climacus believes that a necessary condition for prayer is “alienation from the visible and invisible world” (κόσμου ὁρατοῦ καὶ ἀοράτου ἀλλοτρίωσις), renunciation of all thoughts and concentration attention only to the Divine (see: Völker W. Scala Paradisi. Eine Studie zu Johannes Climacus und zugleich eine Vorstudie zu Symeon dem Neuen Theologen. Wiesbaden, 1968, S. 232–234). 84.

This “place” is most likely identical to the “place of God” spoken of in chapter 58. – 84.

Demons, being usually “left-wing,” change their tactics and, with the success of the prayer feat, appear as “right-wing”, often appearing in the form of Angels of Light. But another understanding of “right” and “left” is also possible, which is found in “Questions and Perplexities” by Rev. Maximus the Confessor. Here Ps. 3:7, which speaks of enemies “around those who attack me,” is interpreted this way: “around” means in front, behind, right and left. “Demons attack us from the front when they seduce us with material phenomena (διὰ τῶν ὕλης ἐπιφανειῶν δελεάζουσιν); from behind, when the memory is stimulated by anticipation of vicious thoughts; on the left, when the soul is raped by carnal and dissolute passions; on the right, when the soul is attacked through vanity and pride” (Maximi Confessoris Quaestiones et dubia. Ed. J.H. Declerck (Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca, vol. 10). Turnhout; Leuven, 1982, p. 67). – 84.

The expression “a man abounding in knowledge” (γνωστικὸς ἀνὴρ) indicates that tradition of genuine Christian “gnosis”, which Evagrius, like some fathers and teachers of the Church before him, contrasted with “false knowledge” (1 Tim. 6:20) (see: Bunge G. Origenismus-Gnostizismus. Zum geistgeschitlichen Standort des Evagrios Pontikos // Vigiliae Christianae, 1986, vol. It is characteristic that he applies this expression to the ascetic, which presupposes the idea of ​​monastic life as the highest and most adequate form of embodiment of the ideal of true “gnosis.” The same expression is found in Rev. Macarius of Egypt, who calls Abba Paphnutius ὁ γνωστικώτατος (see: Macarii Anecdota. Seven Unpublished Homilies of Macarius. Ed. by G.L. Marriot // Harvard Theological Studies, 1918, vol. 5, p. 38). As for the personality of the ascetic to whom Evagrius refers, I. Hausherr suggests that he can be understood as either the Venerable. Macarius of Egypt, or Blessed John the Seer of Thebaid (sometimes called John of Lycopolis) (see: Hausherr I. Les leçons d’un contemplatif, p. 106). Rufin speaks in detail about the latter (see: Rufin. The Life of the Deserted Fathers. Sergiev Posad, 1898, pp. 1–25, and also: Palladius of Elenopol. “Lavsaik”, or the Narrative of the Life of the Holy and Blessed Fathers. Pochaevo-Assumption Lavra in Volyn, 1914, p. 84–92). In his ascetic teaching, Evagrius clearly depends in a number of points on the blessedness. John (see: Dechow J.F.Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity: Epiphanius of Cyprus and the Legacy of Origen. Mercer, 1988, pp. 193–194). – 85.

So it seems best to translate the term λογισμόν in this case. – 85.

Phrase οὐσιώδους γνώσεως causes difficulties for translation and interpretation. But, most likely, what we are talking about here is that this knowledge is inaccessible to the demon. Therefore, it evokes the passion of vanity, which, with its frivolity, seems to make this knowledge “emerge” from the hidden depths of the mind, localizes it and thereby allows the demon to grope for it. The expression οὐσιώδης γνῶσις, generally characteristic of Evagrius, usually denotes knowledge of the Holy Trinity (the Kingdom of God), achieved through prayer and which is a gift of God (“charisma”). It requires the “nakedness” of the mind (νοῦς γυμνός), that is, “the putting aside of all thoughts” (see: Bunge G. Das Geistgebet, S. 50–52; Gendle N. Op. cit., p. 378–379). Finally, it should be noted the rare word κουφογνωμόνως (“frivolous, frivolous”), which is absent in the classical Greek language, and in patristic vocabulary is found only in Palladius’s “Lavsaik” – a work generally under the strong influence of Evagrius (see: Draguet R. L’Histoire Lausiaque, une oeuvre ecrit dans Tesprit d’Evagre // Revue d’Histoire Ecclesiastique, 1946, t. – 85.

This chapter is an organic continuation of the previous one. Just as the task of the demon seems to be the destruction of the light surrounding the praying mind (τὸ περὶ τὸν νοῦν φῶς), so the task of the Angel is to restore the action of light in its “energetic steadfastness” (ἀπλανῶς ἔνεργεῖν), for this spiritual energy of light and mind protects him and connects him with the Divine Light. It is quite possible that the idea of ​​the “light of the mind”, reflected in this chapter of Evagrius, underlies the iconographic canon of the image of a halo around the heads of saints. – 85.

Since the text contains simply ἐμποιεῖ, without indicating the subject of the action, a translation is possible: “[Angel] creates knowledge,” which, however, does not radically change the meaning. – 85.

We are talking about the passion of “dejection” (ἀκηδία), which is closely connected with “sadness” (λυπή) and arises “if a person, having withdrawn into himself, does not set God as the supreme goal of his life, but himself, in his existing elemental-cosmic unsettledness and passionate disorder, in his imperfect empirical existence, recognizes the center of an independent being. In this case, λυπή will have the character of a hopeless, gloomy, hopeless melancholy, leading a person to apathy, to inactivity in spiritual and moral terms; it paralyzes, as if it binds the active forces and abilities of a person. Ultimately, such a state of hopeless melancholy and hopeless despair is resolved by the spiritual “death” of a person – when a person’s spiritual strength weakens to such an extent that the feat of ascetic perfection seems impossible, unthinkable and fruitless to a person.” Many Church Fathers devoted many pages to the analysis of this passion and methods of combating it (Zarin S. Op. cit., pp. 287–289). It is in Evagrius that we find the most vivid and clear description of this passion (see: Bacht N. Evagrios Pontikos (ca.345–ca.399) // Grosse Mystiker. Leben und Wirken. Hrsg. von G. Ruchbach, J. Sudbrack. München, 1984, S. 44). – 85.

Evagrius in this case identifies the concepts φιλία and ἀγαπή. It is noteworthy that in John 21:15–17 (the conversation of the risen Lord with Simon Peter) a subtle distinction is made between the verbs ἀγαπάω and φιλέω, where the latter denotes rather a friendly disposition and is used by the Apostle Peter in his response to the Lord, and the former – the more sublime love that Jesus Christ asks about (see: The Explanatory Bible, vol. 9. Petersburg, 1912, pp. 502–503). In the Gospel of John, the verb φιλέω is used to denote the love of God the Father for the Son (5:20) and people, as well as people for the Lord (16:27). By the way, the latter meaning (people’s love for the Lord) is embedded in the indicated verb and in 1 Corinthians 16:22, although in a negative conditional context (εἰ τις οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον). In subsequent patristic writing, a similar meaning is transferred to the noun φιλία (literally “friendship”), For example, St. Gregory of Nyssa says that an essential feature of a perfect life is the fear of “falling away from the love of God” (τὸ τῆς φιλίας τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκπεσεῖν), since the perfection of life consists in becoming “a friend of God” (τὸ φίλον γενέσθαι θεῷ) (see: Gregoire de Nysse. La vie de Moise, p. 326). As for Evagrius, for him, as G. Bunge notes, love is “the living center of spiritual life”, the beginning (ἀρχὴ) of love is faith, and the end (τέλος – goal) is the knowledge of God (see: Evagrios Pontikos. Briefe aus der Wüste, S. 129). – 85.

The expression τὰ μέτρα σοῦ (lit. “one’s own measures”) can indicate both the limitations of man’s earthly existence in his fallen state, and that ideal “measure” of his existence, which was originally given by God to man and to which he should strive. – 85.

The word πενθήσης means precisely that “contrition” discussed above (see note 49). The adverb ἡδέως (lit. “sweetly, with pleasure”) here implies not so much the “pleasure” received from the process of contrition itself, but rather its final result. Rev. Symeon the New Theologian also says that the “Divine Light of the Spirit” is called “peace, joy and goodness,” for it is these gifts that are given to the “contrite” (τῷ πενθοῦντι) (see: Symeon le Nottpeau Theologien. Hymnes, t. 2. Ed. par J. Koder, L. Neyrand (Sources chrétiennes, no. 174, P., 1971, p. 184). – 85.

Evagrius uses the concept of πληροφορία (“full measure, completeness, complete conviction, complete confidence”), which plays a significant role in Christian theology, especially in patristic asceticism. It appears four times in the letters of St. Apostle Paul (Col.2:2; 1Thess.1:5; Heb.6:11 and Heb.10:22), although the Russian translation does not always accurately convey the main shades of this term. In subsequent Christian writing, the first to use it was St. Clement of Rome, who said that the Apostles, “having received the commandment, were convinced (πληροφορηθέντες) by the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in faith by the Word of God, with full assurance (μετὰ πληροφορίας) the Holy Spirit went to preach the coming Kingdom of God” (Die apostolischen Väter. Hrsg. von J.A. Fischer. München, 1981, S. 76). This sense of completeness and firm conviction in the truths of the Christian faith, embedded in this concept, can also be traced in the later fathers of the Church. For example, St. John Chrysostom, in one of his “Catechetical Homilies,” initiates the catechumens into the meaning of the Christian sacraments, so that they perceive the “fullness of authenticity” (πλείονα τὴν πληροφορίαν) (see: Jean Chrysostome. Huit catecheses baptismales inedites. Ed. par A. Wenger (Sources chrétiennes, P., 1957, p. This concept acquired a special connotation in the works of Rev. Macarius of Egypt, according to which the state when the entire soul becomes a “spiritual eye” and “light”, the “inner man” experiences “in experience and certainty” (ἐν πείρᾳ καὶ πληροφορίᾳ). In another place he exhorts: “Let us also pray with fullness of certainty and feeling (ἐν πληροφορίᾳ καὶ αἰσθήσει) in order to participate in the Holy Spirit” (Die 50 geistlichen Homilien des Makarios, S. 12, 267). In his other works, he also actively uses this concept to denote the completeness of the spiritual experience of a person’s personal “meeting” with God (see: Miquel D.P. Les caracteres de l’experience spirituel selon le Pseudo-Macaire // Irenikon, 1966, t. 39, p. 497–498). A similar meaning is assigned to the term by the Messalians (“eutychs,” i.e., “prayer books”), a specific monastic heresy. The Messalians claimed that they achieved the knowledge of God “in the fullness of feeling and certainty” (ἐν πάσῃ αἰσθήσει καὶ πληροφορίᾳ), emphasizing, however, that such an achievement of knowledge is carried out without any connection with the sacraments of the Church (see: Meyendorff J. St. Basil, Messalianism and Byzantine Christianity // St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 1980, vol. 24, p. 229). Therefore, the Messalians put a completely different meaning into an expression identical in form, recognizing only their own personal spiritual experience and only “personal grace.” The ecclesiastical understanding of the term, developed by Rev. Macarius, was adopted by subsequent Orthodox mystics and can be traced back to St. Simeon the New Theologian and St. Gregory Palamas (see: Guillaumont A. Situation et signification di “Liber Graduum” dans la spiritualite syriaque // Symposium Syriacum 1972. Roma, 1972, p. 318–319). It is characteristic that Rev. Mark the Ascetic, being an opponent of the Messalians, also often uses the expression: ἐν πάσῃ πληροφορίᾳ καὶ αἰσθήσει, giving it, like St. Macarius, a completely Orthodox meaning (see: Ware Κ.T. The Sacrament of Baptism and the Ascetic Life in the Teaching of Mark the Monk // Studia Patristica, 1970, vol. X, pt. 1, p. 447). And blessed Diadochus, weaving his voice into the choir of the holy fathers, also says that a Christian leading an ascetic life should strive to “love God with every feeling and certainty of the heart” (Popov K. Op. cit., p. 127). It is precisely this Orthodox understanding of the word πληροφορία that is reflected in Evagrius. – 86.

The purpose of the Angels, among other things, is to illuminate the mind, for if “the mind goes its own way, then it meets the holy Powers.” Such a meeting probably happens because the “minds” of these Powers are “pure and full of knowledge, and their bodies are lights that illuminate those; who approaches them” (see: Les сіх centuries des “Kephalaia gnostica”, p. 81, 101). – 86.

The expression τῆς ἑαυτῶν λειττουργίας, apparently, indicates the service of people to God through prayer, but perhaps also implies the mutual service of Angels and people to each other. Finally, the possibility of reading αὐτῶν instead of ἑαυτῶν is not excluded, which implies the ministry of Angels alone. However, the first option is most likely. So, for example, in “The Life of St. Melania” it is said that the saint, addressing the sisters, compares monastic service with the service of people who are at the court of earthly kings. “We, standing before the awe-inspiring Heavenly King, with how great fear and trepidation we must perform our service” (ἑαυτῶν τὴν λειτουργίαν) (see: Vie de sainte Melanie; p. 208). It is characteristic that the verb λειτουργέω in classical antiquity was associated with civil service and only starting with the Septuagint began to designate primarily religious service. In particular, among the apostolic men, this verb denoted serving God through the implementation of the commandments, having at the same time the meaning: “perform church service,” which implied serving God through serving others (see: Hilhorst A. “Servir Dieu” dans les terminologie du judaisme hellénistique et des premières générations chrétiennes de langue grecque // Fructus centesimus. Mélanges offerts à G.J.M. Steenbrugis, 1989, p. – 86.

Here, as in subsequent chapters, Evagrius makes a distinction between psalmody and prayer itself. However, despite the presence of such a difference in ancient monasticism, psalmody and prayer were closely interrelated. Yes, St. Gregory of Nyssa in “The Life of St. Macrina” says that she never parted with the “Psalter”, singing it in parts at the appropriate time, and when she got to work, and when she got up from the table, and when she went to bed, and when she got up to pray (εἰς προσευχὰς διανισταμενη) – everywhere psalmody accompanied her as a kind of good companion (see: Gregoire de Nysse. Vie de sainte Macrine. Ed. par. P. Maraval (Sources chrétiennes, No. 178). P., 1971, p. 150). – 86.

Wed. statement in the “Speculative Chapters”: “Spiritual knowledge is the wings of the mind, and the inspired mind is the leader” (Les centuries des “Kephalaia gnostica”, p. 121). – 86.

Psalmody in this case corresponds to the stage of “doing” (“practice”), and prayer – to the stage of “contemplation” (“theory”); the latter prepares the mind for “theology” itself, that is, for the knowledge of the Holy Trinity. In the first edition of the “Speculative Chapters” it is said in this regard that of all created things, only one mind is capable of achieving knowledge of the Holy Trinity (see: Les six centuries des “Kephalaia gnostica”, p. 126). – 86.

The expression τῆς ποικίλης σοφίας ἐστίν clearly goes back to κ Ephesians 3:10. (see note 74). In the “Speculative Chapters” a distinction is made between the “manifold wisdom of God” and the “manifold wisdom of Christ”: the former is discovered at the so-called “first creation”, when the intelligible cosmos (pure “minds”) was created, and therefore serves as the object of the “first natural contemplation”; the second appears already at the creation of the visible world and is therefore comprehended by the “second natural contemplation” (see: Guillaumont A.Aux origines du monachisme chrétien, p. 205–206). Therefore, in the “Speculative Chapters” it is said that the mirror of the goodness, power and wisdom of God is that creation that has not yet become any thing; in the second natural contemplation we see the manifold wisdom of Christ, which served Him during the creation of the worlds, and the knowledge related to rational beings (λογικοί) teaches us about the essence (substance) of this wisdom. On the contrary, not one of the existing things can teach us about the nature of the “manifold wisdom of God,” although all created being proclaims it (see: Les sikh centuries des “Kephalaia gnostica”, p. 62, 69). However, it is difficult to say with certainty that these statements reflect the true views of Evagrius. In any case, in the passage in question in the “Tales on Prayer,” Evagrius does not specify what kind of “wisdom” is meant. The same lack of specification is observed in the “Scholia on the Book of Proverbs,” which says: “The dispassionate mind delights in manifold wisdom, but the passionate mind falls into ignorance” (Evagre le Pontique. Scholies aux Proverbes, p. 422). This is probably due to the fact that both types of “wisdom,” even if Evagrius sometimes distinguished them, usually merge with him to the point of indistinguishability. And such a merger can be explained primarily by their non-hypostatic character (why we prefer to write with a lowercase letter: they are “wisdoms” and not “Wisdoms”) Being an “exoteric aspect” of God, His appeal ad extra, they (or, more likely, one “wisdom”) are, as it were, a totality of Divine “energies” emanating from a single Divine essence. Therefore, their difference (if it exists) should be understood as a difference in the modes of manifestation of a given Divine essence. Manifesting through the Hypostasis of God the Father, it becomes (in its exoteric aspect) “the manifold wisdom of God”; manifesting itself through the Hypostasis of the Son (Word-Logos) it becomes “the manifold wisdom of Christ,” which is probably identical to the totality of “logoi.” The teaching about the “wisdom” (or “wisdoms”) of Evagrius leaves the impression of a certain elusiveness and understatement. A similar elusiveness is characteristic of the similar teachings of many other Church Fathers, whose thoughts were characterized by flexible dynamism, difficult to comprehend by modern thinking, brought up on rigid rationalistic structures. This is also due to the fact that Christianity was naturally connected, on the one hand, with the Old Testament tradition, where “wisdom” (Hokman) was not a hypostasis, but was one of the manifestations of the living and personal presence of God in the world, and on the other, with the Greek tradition, where the concept of σοφία was of an ethical nature, reflecting the deep unity of knowledge and virtue. Therefore, if we consider the patristic tradition as a whole, we can notice two main tendencies: the first tended to understand “wisdom” as knowledge that gives a person bliss, and the second assumed the identification of this “wisdom” with God the Word (sometimes with the Holy Spirit). However, unlike modern sophiology, nourished by the Gnostic (and partly Hegelian) tradition, in the Patristic Tradition the first tendency prevailed, softened, and often simply absorbed the second (see: Jaeger W. The Patristic Conception of Wisdom in the Light of Biblical and Rabbinical Research // Studia Patristica, 1961, vol. IV, p. 90–106). In almost all the Fathers of the Church one can note a similar predominance of the first tendency. So. St. Basil the Great speaks of the “wisdom of God,” which is a property or quality of God and is closely related to the “wisdom of the world” (σοφία τοῦ κόσμου), which is its visible expression (or “voice”) in the created world. And both of these aspects of the “wisdom of God” (or two “wisdoms”) are inextricably linked with “human wisdom,” the main object of which is God (see: Spidlik Th. La sophiologie de S. Basile. Roma, 1961, p. 25–66). Likewise, Blessed. Theodoret of Cyrrhus speaks of three “wisdoms”: human, thanks to which we know God and all created things, God’s, reflected in the created world, and the wisdom revealed by our Savior, which is madness for unbelievers (see: Schipflinger Th. Sophia-Maria. Eine ganzheitliche Vision der Schöpfung. Munich; Zürich, 1988, S. 44). Finally, we can give an interpretation of Eph. 3:10-12 St. Gregory of Nyssa, who emphasizes that not only human nature was taught (ἐπαιδεύθη) divine mysteries through the grace of the Incarnation, but also the heavenly Principalities and Powers learned “the manifold wisdom of God” revealed among people “through the Economy according to Christ.” For before this Economy, the supercelestial Powers knew only “the simple and unique wisdom of God,” and they only now learned “that manifold type of wisdom formed from the interweaving of opposites” through the Church. And it was through the Church, the bride of Christ, that these Powers (“friends of the Bridegroom”) comprehended “such manifold and not simple acts of wisdom” τῆς σοφίας ἔργα) or “another distinctive feature (ἄλλον χαρακτῆρα) of God’s wisdom” (see: Gregorii Nysseni In Canticum Canticorum. Ed. H. Langerbeck. Leiden, 1960, p. 254–256). Despite all the differences between this ecclesiological and Christological interpretation of St. Gregory from Evagrius, who gravitates rather towards a mystical-ontological understanding of created being, reflecting the Divine being, they are brought together not only by some formal aspects of the teaching about the “wisdom of God” (for example, the identification of two of its aspects, closely related and almost merging with each other), but also by the general mood of theological thinking, alien to rigid scholastic constructiveness. – 86.

In the text: ποικίλης γνώσεως, but should read: ἀποικίλης γνώσεως (see: Hausherr I. Les leçons d’un contemplatif, p. 119; Bunge G. Das Geistgębet, S. 15). The subordination of “wisdom” to “knowledge” once again emphasizes the dynamics of the understanding of “wisdom”: it is also “human wisdom”, reflecting in itself the emanations of the “wisdom of God”. – 86.

The fluidity of terminology inherent in Evagrius is reflected in this chapter. “Knowledge” (“gnosis”) and “prayer” for him are like two lines ascending from bottom to top, which sometimes run parallel to each other, sometimes intersect, and sometimes merge with each other; and on each line, it is as if certain points are outlined, marking various stages of spiritual success (a kind of step of “Jacob’s ladder”). In addition, Evagrius outlines here the difference between simply “gnosis” and “divine knowledge” (τῆς θείας γνώσεως) – the latter, most likely, should be understood as the highest step of the “ladder”, which closely connects with the knowledge of God Himself (cf. “human wisdom” and “wisdom of God”) – 86.

Quotations are given as Evagrius gives them. – 86.

Evagrius uses the verb δοκέω, which here denotes the sphere of human opinion, unstable and fickle. – 86.

Patristic asceticism constantly emphasizes the special danger of the passion for fornication. Rev. John Cassian, for example, writes that “this passion, like gluttony, being a depraved state of the human soul, is also accomplished through the body and therefore requires twofold healing: bodily abstinence and spiritual vigilance. Prodigal passion is more long-lasting and constant than others, it begins to bother you from the first time of mature age until old age, since the attack of the devil is two-fold (that is, on the body and on the soul), then it is necessary to resist with two weapons, both the body and the soul must fight” (Hieromonk Theodore (Pozdeevsky)). Ascetic views of St. John Cassian the Roman. Kazan, 1902, p. 176). – 87.

The concept of νῆψις (derived from the verb νηφω – “to be sober”) is one of the central concepts of all Orthodox asceticism. It was also used outside of Christianity (Philo of Alexandria, Hermeticism), but the doctrine of “sobriety” was developed by the fathers and teachers of the Church, relying primarily on the New Testament (1 Thess. 5:6, 8; 2 Tim. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:13, 4:7, 5:8). In patristic ascetic theology, νῆψις denoted the spiritual state of the mind and soul of a person, always ready to stand before God with a clear mind and pure heart, vigilant and strict in relation to sinful thoughts and always remembering God. It was precisely this sobriety that was a necessary condition for true prayer and perseverance in spiritual warfare, constituting an essential basis for “doing.” Gradually, the concepts of “sobriety” and “doing” (“practice”) even began to be identified in ascetic writing, which is reflected, for example, in the title of the famous patristic collection of Nicodemus the Holy Mountain, which is literally translated as “The Philokalia of the Holy Abstainers” (see: Adnés P.Nepsis // Dictionnaire de spiritualite, fasc. LXXII–LXXIII. P., 1981, pp. 110–118; Hausherr I. Hesychasme et priere, 1966, pp. 225–237). As for Evagrius, he could also use this concept under the influence of Origen, who in his ascetic teaching emphasized the need to “guard the heart,” constant internal control and vigilance (for references to the relevant places in Origen’s writings, see: Origène. Traité des principes, t. IV. Ed. par. H. Crouzel, M. Simonetti (Sources chrétiennes, no. 269). P., 1980, p. 81–82). In particular, in the essay “On Principles” he says that the “vigilant mind” (vigilans mens), rejecting everything evil from itself, attracts good spirits to help itself (see: Origène. Traité des principes, t. III, p. 196). Teacher Evagrius St. Basil the Great also pointed out that the implementation of the Christian ideal requires constant sobriety and vigilance προεστῶτα) (see: L’Homelie de Basile de Césaree sur le mot “Observe-toi toi-même”. Ed. par S.Y. Rudberg. Stockholm, 1962, p. 30). Another great father of the Church of the 4th century. – St. John Chrysostom even says that for the catechumens, who are in great sobriety (σφόδρα νήφοντας), awakened and vigilant regarding their salvation, ten days are enough to experience the fruits of conversion (see: Jean Chrysostome. Trois catecheses baptismale. Ed. par A. Piedagnel et L. Doutrelau (Sources chrétiennes, no. 366, P., 1990, p. 160). He exhorts his listeners to pray diligently with a sober mind and a vigilant soul ἀγρυπνούσῃ ψυχῇ). Such prayer puts a person in the same choir with the Cherubim, and awareness of this is enough to always remain sober (see: Jean Chrysostome. Sur l’incompréhensibilité de Dieu, t. I. Ed. par A.-M. Malingrey (Sources chrétiennes, No. 28 bis). P., 1970, p. 254, 260). These texts show that the ideal of spiritual sobriety was for Christians in the 4th century. general requirement. But he was especially actively and persistently promoted by monasticism, for already the first desert fathers (St. Anthony, Arseny, etc.) constantly focused attention on him. A striking example of this are the works of St. Macarius of Egypt, who notes that spiritual warfare and prayer are unthinkable without sobriety (μετὰ πάσης νήψεως) (see: Makarios/Symeon. Epistola Magna, S. 148–150). And only a soul that strives through great sobriety, patience and faith can be granted victory in spiritual warfare (see: Makarios/Symeon. Reden und Briefen, Bd. I, S. 10). Therefore, the use of this word by Evagrius is determined, first of all, by the tradition of early monasticism (together with the ascetic theology of such fathers as St. Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, etc.). – 87.

These “flagellations” (μάστιγας) cannot be understood only in a figurative sense. The experience of ascetics shows that the evil one resorted to purely “physical” measures in the fight against them. Thus, in “The Life of St. Anthony” it is narrated that when the saint retired to the tomb, “then the enemy, unable to bear this, even fearing that Anthony would in a short time fill the desert with asceticism, comes to him one night with many demons and inflicts so many blows on him that he remains silently lying on the ground from pain; and, as Anthony himself assured, his suffering was very cruel, and the blows inflicted by people could not, according to him, cause such pain” (The Life of our Venerable Father Anthony, described by Saint Athanasius the Great. Sergiev Posad, 1908, pp. 10–11). – 87.

The concept of ἀγωνιστής was applied in Christian literature to the Lord Himself, martyrs, defenders of the true faith from heretics, as well as to Christians in general, and in particular to ascetics (see: Lampe G.W.N. Or. cit., p. 26). All these meanings of the word internal are interconnected. Regarding the last meaning, let us cite, for example, the characterization of Alexander of Antioch given by Blessed. Theodoret of Cyrus in the “Ecclesiastical History”: before becoming a bishop, he spent his life in the “ascetic palaestra” and, having been very successful in spiritual exercises (γυμνασάμενος ἐπὶ πλεῖστον), showed himself to be a noble fighter (γενναῖος ἀγωνιστὴς), instructing [others] with the word and confirming the word with one’s life (see: Theodoret Kirchengeschichte. Hrsg. von L. Parmentier, F. Scheidweiler. B., 1954, S. 337). – 87.

These warnings of Evagrius are undoubtedly based on spiritual experience – both his own and the experience of other ascetics. – 87.

This chapter clearly contains an echo of the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3–12; Luke 6:20–23). In Abba Thalassius, the thought expressed by Evagrius is expressed somewhat differently: “Patiently endure the onslaughts (ἐπαγωγάς) of sorrows and suffering, for through them the Providence of God purifies you” (PG 91, 1429). – 87.

If in ch. 92 Evagrius speaks about vision, using the term φαντοκήα, but here he uses a similar concept ὀπτασία, also common in ascetic writing. The similarity of both concepts can be seen, for example, in the “Life of St. Anthony”: “When there is any ghost (φαντασία), do not fall into fear, but, whatever this ghost is, first of all boldly ask: who are you and where are you from? And if this is the appearance of the saints (ἡ τῶν ἁγιων ὀπτασία), then they will confirm (πληροφοροῦσι) you, and your fear will turn into joy. And if this is a devilish ghost, it will immediately lose its power, as soon as your thought is firm” (Life of our Venerable Father Anthony, p. 38. Text: PG 26, 908). – 87.

Demons are implied. Wed. again “The Life of St. Anthony”: “The enemy who hates good, marveling that Anthony dared to come even after the blows inflicted on him, calls his dogs…” (Life of our Venerable Father Anthony, p. 11). – 87.

The concept ἔντευξις (literally “request”) to designate prayer is already used in the New Testament (1 Tim. 2:1, 4:5). It was in this quality that it was perceived by patristic literature from its very inception. Already in “The Shepherd of Hermas” it is said: “If irascibility is mixed with long-suffering, then long-suffering is defiled, and the prayerful invocation [generated] by it (ἡ ἔντευξις αὐτῆς) is no longer pleasing to God.” Also: “The prayerful invocation of a sad person has no power to ascend to the altar of God” (Hermas.Le Pasteur. Ed. par R. Joly (Sources chrétiennes, 53). P., 1958, p. 164, 190). Origen in his essay “Ο prayer” distinguishes (however, not very often) four subtypes of it, which in principle come down to two main types: 1) request, supplication or prayerful invocation of God (δέησις and ἔντευξις) and 2) “prayer” itself (προσευχή and εὐχή), which he often identifies with “thanksgiving” (εὐχαριστία) (see: Cessel W. Die Theologie des Gebetes nach “De Oratione” von Origenes. München, 1975, S. 85–104). – 87.

The concept of γνώμη (lit. “consciousness, spirit, will, opinion, intention,” etc.) in this context (ἐξαχατᾶσθαι ὑπ’ αὐτῶν τῇ γνώμῃ) most likely has this meaning. This suggests a view of demons as spiritual beings with consciousness and will. At the same time, their ability to appear sensually, to take on various forms and forms, presupposes a certain “materiality,” but a materiality of a special order, as if it were a kind of “spiritual matter.” Here demons (like fallen angels) are fundamentally no different from Angels, and therefore can take on their form and appearance. In this case, the “demonology” of Evagrius is consonant with the teachings of many other Christian authors. In particular, for St. According to Ephraim the Syrian, “spirituality” does not mean “immateriality”. Angels, demons and the devil also have bodies, but of a completely different kind than human ones (see: Martikainen J. Das Bose und der Teufel in der Theologie Ephraems des Syrers. Abo, 1978, S. 62). – 87.

The fact that demons easily take on the image of Angels requires from the ascetic the ability to “discriminate,” and this is bestowed only by the grace of God. Therefore, Evagrius in one of his epistles says that during prayer one should ask the Lord to send down grace-filled wisdom, which makes the soul dispassionate. This allows a person to be a “guard at the gate” of his heart and ask every thought that comes: “Are you ours, or from our opponents?” And if this thought is “one’s own” (or “home”, for Angels are “home” to a person), then it fills the questioner with joy, and if it is “from the enemy,” then it plunges into anger or lust (see: Evagrios Pontikos. Briefe aus der Wüste, S. 223-224). – 87.

The word σκήνωμα to designate the body was already used in the New Testament (2 Pet. 1:13–14), and then became commonly used in Christian literature. See, for example, “Epistle to Diognete,” which says: “The immortal soul dwells in a mortal temple” (A Diognete. Ed. par Η.I. Marrou (Sources chrétiennes, No. 33 bis): P., 1965, p. 66). – 87.

Lit. “and will not betray [his] understanding” (οὐδέ προδώσει τὸν λογισμόν). – 88.

Evagrius also speaks about the “fear of God” in his “Tale on Spiritual Work” (see below “Prologue” to this work and Chapter 81 of it). According to him, the “fear of God” is inextricably linked with all virtues. It is characteristic, however, that in this usual for Christian ethical teaching (going back to the Old Testament Sources) indication of the meaning of such “fear”, Evagrius emphasizes its “reasonableness”: the absence of such “fear” likens a person to “stupid cattle” (ἀλόγως). Evagrius’s interpretation of Proverbs is also noteworthy. 2:5 (“then you will understand the fear of the Lord, and you will find the knowledge of God”): this fear is “the protector (πρόξενος) of the knowledge of God” and precedes wisdom and understanding. Therefore, Evagrius warns those who despise wisdom and understanding, wanting to “flee” into the fear of God, because they consider it an “easy” matter (ὡς ἐπὶ εὐχερες πρᾶγμα) (see: Evagre le Pontique. Scholies aux Proverbes, p. 112); In general, in Christian ascetic writing, “fear of God” is often given one of the first places among the virtues of an ascetic. So, Stephen of Thebes says: “Child, fear God and reject pride, reject vice, reject envy, reject vanity, reject slander, reject verbosity.” Here the “fear of God” is clearly the basis of the monastic renunciation of the sins of the world (see: Des Places E. Les “Discours Ascétique” d’Etiènne de Thèbes. Texte grec inédit et traduction // Le Muséon, 1969, t. 82, p. 37). – 88.

This chapter clearly shows the trichotomous anthropology (mind – soul – body), characteristic of Evagrius. Here he does not mention “contemplation,” but in the “Speculative Chapters” he says: “Just as it is not substance (the plural in the text, and therefore literally “matter”) that nourishes bodies, but the power contained in them, so it is not objects [of contemplation] that cause the soul to grow, but [this] contemplation.” Another place in the same work reads: “If the bread of the rational nature is the contemplation of beings, and we have received the commandment to eat it “by the sweat of our brow” (Gen. 3:19), then we eat it, [procuring this bread] through [spiritual] work” (Les six centuries des “Kephalaia gnostica”, p. 73, 191). Thus, “contemplation” is inextricably linked with virtue, is “obtained” by it in the process of “doing”, and therefore also serves as “food” for the soul. At the same time, this “contemplation of beings,” closely connecting with higher knowledge (“gnosis”) and growing into it, becomes the “food” of the mind. In turn, “gnosis” organically turns into prayer – the true and most appropriate “food” of the mind. – 88.

In contrast to the paganism and religion of Old Testament Israel, the Fathers of the Church strictly forbade this kind of invocation of curses (καταεύξασθαί τινος – lit. “to pray against someone”), even on the heads of enemies – in prayer for others you can only ask for what you ask for yourself, that is, mainly for heavenly and spiritual benefits (see:Spidlik Th.La spiritualité de 1’Orient chrétien, t. La prière, 1988, p. – 88.

By “torturers” Evagrius clearly means demons. For, according to him, “merciless people after death will be seized by merciless demons” (Les centuries des “Kephalaia gnostica”, p. 149). – 88.

The expression “stretch out your hands” (ἐκτεῖναι τὰς χεῖρας) indicates a posture during prayer that reproduces the position of the body of the Crucified Lord and is unique to Christianity. Early Christian monuments testify to it, and in particular the “Epistle” of St. Clement of Rome: “Full of holy desire, with sincere zeal and pious hope, you stretched out your hands (ἐξετείνετε τὰς χεῖρας ὑμῶν) to God Almighty” (Die apostolischen Väter. S. 26). And Origen says that of all the positions of the body during prayer, the most preferable is standing with arms outstretched and eyes raised to grief. Moreover, this position has a symbolic meaning, for before the hands the soul seems to stretch out (τὴν ψυχήν ἐντείναντα), and before the eyes the mind rushes to God (τὸν νοῦν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἐντείναντα) (see: Origenes Werke, Bd. 2, S. 396). However, Tertullian already warned and cautioned against raising one’s hands and lifting one’s eyes too high, for the consciousness of one’s own sinfulness should humble a Christian. St. gives the same advice. Cyprian of Carthage. Therefore, in early monasticism the practice of praying with a bowed head gradually prevailed (see: Rordorf W. Liturgie, foi et vie des premiers chrétiens. Etudes patristiques. P., 1986, pp. 109–121). – 88.

In this and subsequent chapters, Evagrius conveys the living oral tradition of the Egyptian desert fathers. Their sayings and stories about them were later presented in various collections. One of the first such collections (in several editions) was “The Sayings of the Holy Fathers” (Apophthegmata Piatrum; or “Ancient Patericon”, “Memorable Tales”), which crystallized the “charismatic” experience of the Egyptian elders of the 4th century. For more details, see: Trinity I. Review of the sources of the initial history of Egyptian monasticism. Sergiev Posad, 1906, pp. 310–354. Also: Guy J.-C. Les Apophthegmata Patrum // Theologie de la vie monastique. Etudes sur la tradition patristique. P., 1961, p. 73–83. – 88.

The prevalence of the name “John” makes it difficult to determine the identity of this ascetic. The nickname “Small” (τὸν μικρόν), as well as the indication that he labored (“in the pit”) (ἐν λάκκῳ), hardly allows us to identify him with John of Lycopolis (the Seer) (see note 96), for the latter, according to Palladius, lived in the cell from which and did not leave for thirty years (see: Palladium. Lavsaik, p. 84). G. Bunge assumes that John Kolov is meant here (see: Bunge G. Evagre le Pontique et deux Macaires, p. 217. For stories about John Kolov and his sayings, see: Memorable Tales, pp. 120–134). The word ἡσυχάχταντα (“silent”) seems to shed light on the tradition of “hesychasm” in the broad sense of this concept, which has existed since the very beginning of monasticism and continues to exist in the Orthodox Church to this day. This “hesychasm” cannot be identified only with the “hermit form” of monasticism, for it is equally inherent in “coenobitic” (“Cenobite”) monasticism (see: Monk Vasily (Krivoshein). The ascetic and theological teaching of St. Gregory Palamas // Seminarium Kondakovianum, t. VIII. Praha, 1936, pp. 100–101; Meyendorff J. Spiritual Trends in the Late Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries // Art et societé les Paleologues. – 88.

Ἐκ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ συνουσίας, i.e., it implies a close and constant connection (“co-dwelling”) with God in prayerful communication. – 89.

This chapter unequivocally testifies to the presence of Greek “Lives” of Sts. Pachomius and Theodora at the end of the 4th century. (even if we assume that they existed in the rudimentary form of “Apothegm”). In general, the hagiographic tradition concerning these saints is extremely extensive and has come down to us in various languages: Greek, Coptic, Syriac, Latin and Arabic (see: Histoire de saint Pacome (tine redaction inedite des Ascetica). Ed. par J. Bousquet, F. Nau//Patrologia orientalis, 1981, t. IV, fasc. 5, no. 19, p. 409–420). At the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries. In science, a dispute arose about the priority of the Coptic or Greek versions of the Lives. For example, I. Troitsky (Op. cit., pp. 156–159) gave the palm to the Greeks, while A. Spassky, following E. Amelino categorically defended the “primogeniture” of Coptic sources (see: Spassky A. Pachomius and Theodore, the first founders of the Cenobite asceticism according to Greek and Coptic legends // Theological Bulletin, 1908, No. 1/2, pp. 53–80, 287–308. See also a review of these sources in the book: Archimandrite Palladius. Saint Pachomius the Great and the first monastic community according to newly discovered Coptic documents, Kazan, 1899, pp. 3–38). It should be noted that the dispute regarding the priority of Greek or Coptic sources in connection with new finds and publications does not subside to this day, and the problem can hardly be considered finally resolved (see: Rousseau Ph. Pachomius. The Making of a Gommunity in Fourth Century Egypt. Berkeley; Los Angelos; L., 1985, p. 39–55). – 89.

The word ἀμετεώριστον can also be translated as “not amusing, not wandering,” but rather it is derived from the verb μετεωρίζω (“raise, erect”). In both cases, the meaning is the same: the concentration of prayer is also manifested in the physical being of a person, for it is not only the mind or spirit that prays, but the whole person. This position, implied by Evagrius, as well as by all early ascetics, later served as the basis for the development of the so-called “psychosomatic method of prayer.” Therefore, the judgment of Father John Meyendorff is not entirely fair that “in contrast to the Platonic spiritualism of Evagrius, this (i.e., the Athonite hesychasts – A.S.) psychosomatic “method” (μέθοδος) of prayer presupposes a positive attitude towards the bodily, material aspect of human life. It is connected with the tradition of writings attributed to Macarius of Egypt” (Meyendorff I. On Byzantine hesychasm and its role in the cultural and historical development of Eastern Europe in the 14th century // Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature. L., 1974, vol. XXIX, p. 293). Evagrius no less than St. Macarius, was the forerunner of the Athonite “hesychasts” of the 13th–14th centuries. – 89.

Detachment from soul and flesh or, more precisely, “denial” of them (ἀρνησάμενός σου τὴν σάρκα καὶ τὴν ψυχήν) again does not speak of the “Platonic spiritualism” of Evagrius. One passage from the “Speculative Chapters” is very indicative in this aspect: “He who advances towards knowledge approaches a glorious transformation of the body, and he who advances towards ignorance advances towards an evil change in it” (Les six centuries des “Kephalaia gnostica”, p. 93). Therefore, life “according to the mind” (κατὰ νοῦν) is the life of a transformed flesh and a transformed soul, which are spiritualized, refined and, as it were, “concentrated” in the highest spiritual principle of man – the mind. – 89.

The expression ἐν ἐρήμῳ ἡσυχάζοντι indicates a hermit. But the concept of “hesychia” has two aspects: “external peace” and “internal peace”, which, although inextricably linked with each other, did not always coincide. Therefore, in patristic writing, starting with Origen, ἡσυχία and ἐρημία, on the one hand, often became synonymous (as, for example, in St. Gregory the Theologian, who speaks of his love for silence and solitude: ἐρημίαν ἀσπάζεσθαι… καθ’ ἡσυχίαν), and on the other hand, they differed (for example, Pseudo-Efrem the Syrian distinguished ἡσυχαστής as a recluse from ἐρημίτης – a hermit, but not recluse) (see: Hausherr I. Hesychasme et priere. Roma, 1966, p. 163–169). In general, for Orthodox ascetics, “hesychia” was only a means, albeit a primary one, to achieve the highest goal of man – deification and union with God (see: Spidlik Th. La spiritualité de 1’Orient chrétien, t. II, p. 324). – 89.

Since prayer is a “conversation with God,” then communication with Angels—exalted beings, but still created—is undoubtedly something “worse.” – 89.

For Origen, the boundary separating the human world from the angelic world was very unsteady and uncertain, for spiritual achievement, moral purity and knowledge of a person can make him a “cohabitant of the Angels” (see: Danielou J. Origène, p. 244). And St. Gregory of Nysse also believed that a person who labors in chastity already in this life collects the best fruits of the blessings prepared for us at the Resurrection, for he leads an “equal life to the angels” (see: Gregoire de Nysse. Traité de la virginité, p. 440-443). This idea, already laid down in the New Testament (Luke 20:36), became widespread among many early Christian authors (Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil of Ancyra, Didim the Blind, etc.). It acquired a special meaning in monasticism, for monastic life was considered as an “equal angelic life” par excellence (see: Bouyer L. Le sens de la vie monastique. P., 1950, p. 43–69). – 89.

As in the previous chapter, Evagrius rebels against all kinds of sensually visible “theophanies”. According to the observation of V. Lossky, there is a hidden polemic against Stoicism, on the one hand, and against Messalianism, on the other (see: Lossky V. The Vision of God, p. 111–112). A similar polemic can be traced in one of the epistles of Evagrius, where he speaks of the “pagan sages” (Stoics), who consider God limited and comprehended, as fire, “in a limited way.” To the thesis of these “sages” that God does not have an image, but changes and takes on any image that He desires, Evagrius responds that this property is not inherent in God, but in demons, who are easily likened to all bodily things (see: Epagrios Pontikos. Briefe aus der Wüste, S. 243). As for the Messalians, they were characterized by a teaching that said that since baptism does not cast out demons from the soul, only prayer can do this. He who has acquired such a prayer and has become “perfect and spiritual” is granted the fact that the Holy Spirit appears to him “in a sensual and visible image” παρουσίαν σημαῖνον). Moreover, this kind of “prayer books” can foresee the future and “contemplate the Divine Trinity with sensual eyes” (see: Theodoret Kirchengeschichte, S. 230–231). This Messalian teaching about the possibility of seeing God in a sensual way is attested by many Christian authors – not only Greek, but also Syrian. It was condemned at a number of local councils, as well as at the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus in 431. (see: Hausherr I. L’erreur fondamentale et la logique du messalianisme // Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 1935, vol. 1, p. 348–360; Dörries H. Wort und Stunde, Bd. I. Gesammelte Studien zur Kirchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts. Göttingen, 1966, S. 334–351; Gribomont J. Le dossier des origines du messalianisme // Epektasis. Melanges patristiques au Cardinal Jean Danielou. Temoignage de Babai le Grand sur les messaliens // Symposium Syriacum 1976. Roma, 1978, p. Rather, it is precisely against the Messalians that Evagrius’s hidden polemics in this case are primarily directed. – 89.

The thesis about the “indescribability” of God was a commonplace of all Greek patristics. Already an apologist of the 2nd century. Athenagoras expressed it quite clearly, though using not the usual definition ἀπερίγραπτος (or: ἀπερίγραφος), but the adjective ἀχώρητος (“limitless”, “not limited by space or place”), which also emphasized transcendence and the omnipresence of God (see: Potideron V. Athenagore d’Athènes philosophe chrétien. P., 1989, p. 123–125). St. Gregory the Theologian, speaking in particular about the Holy Spirit, directly speaks of His “indescribability” (τὸ ἀχερίγραχτον) (see: Gregoire de Nazianze.Discours 27–31 (Discours theologique). Ed. par P. Gallay (Sources chrétiennes, No. 250). For St. Gregory of Nyssa, the nature of God, being absolutely simple, “cannot have any outlines, and therefore, naturally, stands above all spatial dimensions” (Nesmelov V. Dogmatic system of St. Gregory of Nyssa. Kazan, 1887, p. 159). Very often the definition of ἀκερίγρακτος was applied to the Divine nature of Christ. The classic formula in this regard was the expression of St. Gregory the Theologian that the Lord is “passionate in the flesh (παθητὸν σαρκί), impassive in the Divine, describable in the body, indescribable in the Spirit” (ἀπερίγραπτον πνεύματι) (see: Gregoire de Nazianze. Lettres théologiques.]Ed. par P. Gallay (Sources chrétiennes, No. 208, p. 42). This position was adopted by many subsequent Orthodox theologians, and, for example, the author of the 6th century. Pamphilius almost repeats this phrase: Christ “is describable by body, but indescribable by divinity (ἀπερίγραπτος δὲ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα), created and uncreated, begotten and unbegotten” (Diversorum, postchalcedonensium auctorum collectanea. I. Pamphilii Theologii opus edidit J.H. Eustathii Monachi opus edidit P. Allen (Corpus Christianorum. Series Tumhout, 1989, p. 159). Later, the iconoclasts distorted this position, basing their argument on the denial of the describability of the flesh of Christ, since, as they believed, it is inextricably linked with the “indescribable” Divinity (see: Sidorov A.I. Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to Constantius (on the question of the ideological origins of iconoclasm) // Byzantine timebook, 1990, vol. 51, p. 65). Evagrius, saying that one cannot “describe the Divinity” (περιγράφειν τὸ θεῖον), expresses the general patristic position, applying it, however, in the context of ascetic theology as an argument against the “delusion” that awaits the ascetic in the difficult field of spiritual warfare. – 89.

I. Hausherr, referring to one manuscript of the 10th century, suggests another reading: instead of καὶ νεωτέροις (“newcomers”) one should read καὶ ἐν ἐτέροις (“in other [places, works]”) (see: Hausherr I. Les leçons d’un contemplatif, p: 150–152). A similar meaning of the sentence is also possible and suggests a reference by Evagrius to one of his previous works. The text of the “Philokalia” shows us Evagrius as an “abba” – an experienced spiritual mentor of young monks (see: Bunge G. Geistliche Vaterschaft, S. 27-30). – 89.

This is precisely the meaning, according to G. Lampe, that the term ἀμορφία has in this case (see.-.Lampe G.W.N.Op. cit., p. 91). – 89.

Along with the terms “agape” and “eros” (see note 66), Evagrius, like many other Christian writers, often uses the concept of πόθος (literally “longing, lust, passionate desire”) to denote the boundless love of God (see Chapter 57 “Words on Spiritual Work”). In patristic writing, the word “oros” was often used to denote a person’s love for God, and “agape” was often used to denote the love of God for a person, although the semantic nuances of both concepts were no less often merged and combined. This combination is observed, for example, in St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who also more than once replaces the word “eros” with the word κόθος (see: Meijerіпg E.P. Orthodoxy and Platonism in Athanasius. Synthesis or Antithesis? Leiden, 1968, pp. 142–143). Rev. Macarius of Egypt also often identifies the concepts of πόθος and ἔρως (πόθος πνευματικός = ἔρως θεῖος), generally using a rich range of terminology to express man’s love for God (see the critical apparatus of G. Dörries for publication: Die 50 geistliche Homilien des Makarios, S. 278). St. Gregory of Nyssa also repeatedly speaks of such an insatiable “lust” for Divine Beauty and Good ἐπηγγείλατο) (see: Gregoire de Nysse. La yie de Moise, p. 266). – 90.

The word ἀκτήμων (lit. “non-acquisitive”) has exactly this connotation in this case (“spiritually poor, detached”; see: Lampe G.W.H. Op. cit., p. 67). As I. Hausherr notes, here it has the same meaning as the word “naked” (γυμνός), characterizing the state of the mind in its, so to speak, bareness, devoid of all sensory ideas (see: Hausherr I. Les leçons d’un contemplatif, p. 154). For comparison, we can cite the statement of Abba Thalassia: “Spiritual detachment (ἀκτημοσύνη νοητή) is complete dispassion. Staying in it, the mind withdraws from [everything] here” (PG 91, 1446). – 90.

The concept of ἀναισθησία here assumes a positive meaning, identical to dispassion. – 90.

In his “Epistle on Faith,” Evagrius clarifies the meaning in which he uses the word “god” in relation to people: they are “gods” by grace. – 90.

In one of his letters, Evagrius seems to confirm this position with his own spiritual experience, expressing his joy at the success of the monk Rufinus and noting that such success is possible only through the implementation of the commandment of brotherly love (John 13:35). For he who commits a crime against love commits a sin against Christ, Who is “our Love” (see: Evagrtos Roptikos. Briefe aus der Wüste, S. 254-255). – 90.

In this short maxim, Evagrius seems to summarize the essence of monastic renunciation of the world. Abba Thalassius expresses the same thought somewhat differently: “He loves silence who does not have a passion for worldly things (ὁ μὴ πάσχων πρὸς τὰ τοῦ κόσμου). And he loves people who does not love anything human” (PG 91; 1433). A similar idea is found in the “Chapters on Love” by Rev. Maximus the Confessor: “A monk is one who has removed his mind from material things and abides in God through abstinence, love, psalmody and prayer” (Works of St. Maximus the Confessor, book 1, p. 114). Abba Dorotheus’s figurative comparison of the world with a circle, and God with the center of this circle, is also characteristic. The radii connecting the circle with the center are the paths of human life. Approaching the center, i.e. leaving or renouncing the world connects people with each other and with God, and, conversely, moving away from the center separates people from each other and from God. According to Abba Dorotheus, the desire for the center is the “nature of love” (ἡ φύσις τῆς ἀγάπης) (see: Dorothee de Gaza. Oeuvres spirituelles. Ed. par L. Regnault, J. de Preville (Sources chrétiennes, no. 92). P., 1963, p. 286). – 90.

This chapter develops the thought of the previous one and at the same time highlights them with the first commandment of Christ – love for all people without exception, even for enemies. It is noteworthy that Evagrius calls “enemies” only “spirits of evil,” and not people hostile to us (“visible enemies”). Evagrius calls the latter “benefactors”, since the insults and insults inflicted by them make the soul humble and save it from pride and vanity (see: Evagrios Pontikos. Briefe aus der Wüste, S. 265–266). – 90.

The meaning of the concept of πρωτόνοια is clarified from the writings of other desert fathers. Yes, Rev. Mark the Ascetic says that the devil “only has the power to instill a false teaching in the mind of only the first thought, in order to tempt our inner disposition, where it tends: either to his advice, or to the commandment of God, since they oppose each other” (Reverend and God-bearing father of our Mark the Ascetic Moral and Ascetic Words, p. 101). And Rev. John Climacus speaks in a similar sense: “There is a demon among evil spirits, called the precursor, who immediately upon awakening appears to tempt us and defiles our first thoughts. Dedicate the firstfruits of your day to the Lord, for to whomever you give them first (i.e., “first thoughts.” –A.S.), to him they will be” (John, Abbot of Mount Sinai, Ladder, p. 191). Thus, πρωτόνοια is the first initial movement of the mind and soul of a person, which manifests his deep spiritual disposition and determines the development of mental and spiritual life either during the day or over a longer period. – 90.

I. Hausherr suggests another reading of this passage: instead of μηδὲν ἀνιμήσῃ ἀπὸ σαρκός there can be μηδένα μίσει, i.e. “do not hate anyone” (see:Hausherr ILes leçons d’un contemplatif, p. 164). – 90.

Interpreting Proverbs 3:19–20, Evagrius combines this passage with Eph. 3:18 and explains the “deeps” and “clouds sprinkled with dew” mentioned here, as well as “width, length, depth and height” as “symbols of rational natures, scattered (literally divided) in worlds and bodies in proportion to [their internal] dispensation” (Evagre le Pontique.Scholies aux Proverbes, p. 126). This scholia suggests that in this chapter, the “cloud” symbolizes sinful corporeality, which belongs to this world and interferes with pure prayer. – 90.

In this case, to designate the highest principle in man, Evagrius uses the concept of “spirit” (πνεῦμα), although he usually uses the term “mind” (νοῦς) (see: Crouzel N. Recherches sur Origène et son influence// Bulletin de Litterature Ecclesiastique, 1961, p. 111). – 90.

By “promises” (τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν) Evagrius sometimes means speculation. Thus, interpreting Matthew 19:29, he says that the promised “a hundredfold” is the contemplation of things, and “eternal life” is the knowledge of the Holy Trinity (see: Les six centuries des “Kephalaia gnostica”, p. 155). One scholia on the “Book of Ecclesiastes” (Eccl. 1:2) sheds light on how Evagrius understands this term: “For those who have entered the spiritual Church (εἰσελθόντας εἰς τὴν νοητὴν ἐκκλησίαν) and comes into amazement from the contemplation of created things (θαυμάζοντας τὴν θεωρίαν τῶν γεγονότων), Scripture (ό λόγος) says: Do not consider that this is the final goal (τὸ ἔσχατον τέλος) hidden for you in the promises (τὸ ταῖς ἐπαγγελίαις ὑμῖν ἐναποκείμενον). For all this is vanity of vanities before the knowledge of God Himself. Just as medicines are in vain (μάταια) after complete healing, so after the knowledge of the Holy Trinity the logoi of centuries and worlds are in vain (μάταιοι τῶν αἰωνων καὶ κόσμων οἱ λόγοι)” (Evagre le Pontique:Scholies а̀ 1’Ecclesiaste, p. 58–60). Thus, for Evagrius, the inner essence of Christian promises is knowledge of God, that is, knowledge of the Holy Trinity, the path to which lies through spiritual activity and natural contemplation. Those who have entered this path become partakers of the “spiritual (intelligible, or heavenly) Church”; the fullness of this sacrament is realized in the future age, when partial knowledge ceases and knowledge “face to face” is acquired. – 90.

Evagrius emphasizes that poverty and sorrow (πενίαν καὶ θλῖψιν) are “the substance of weightless prayer” (τας ὕλας τῆς ἀβροῦς προσευχῆς), because, freeing us from material concerns and carnal passions, they remove the burden from the spirit and allow it to soar in prayer. – 90.

In this chapter, Evagrius seems to summarize the essence of true Christian gnosis: this knowledge is based only on virtue, on spiritual activity. According to S. Zarin, “the basis of “knowing” God lies in internal experience, in the internal possession of the beginning of Divine life present in a Christian. Having as its direct goal the realization of “truth,” “knowledge” presupposes such close penetration of the entire human personality by it that, under the influence of this influence, a completely new life arises in a person, free from the despotic oppression of elements alien to the ideal nature of man. Hence, there is no doubt about the closest, direct connection between virtue (ἡ ἀρετή) and knowledge (ἡ γνῶσις)” (Zarin S. Op. cit., p. 384). – 90.

Evagrius resorts to the image of Christians as “soldiers of Christ,” characteristic of all early Christian writing, starting with St. Apostle Paul. Hence, in the monuments of this writing there is an abundance of military terminology, associated primarily with the ascetic life of Christians in the world. Later, the monk predominantly becomes a “soldier of Christ”, replacing the martyr as the main “witness” of the truth of the teachings of Christ (see: Hamack A. Militia Christi. Die christliche Religion und der Soldatenstand in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. Darmstadt, 1963). – 90.

Already in the early Church, the Psalter occupied a special place among the Old Testament books, and in patristic literature, starting with Origen, St. Hilary of Pictavian and others, the so-called “prosopological method” was applied to her. The essence of this method was determined by the typology of David and Christ, according to which David is a prototype of Christ, and Christ is the “true David.” Therefore, many psalms (or individual phrases in them) were understood as the words of the Lord, spoken by the Psalmist David on behalf of Christ (see: Rondeau M.J. Les commentaires patristique du Psautier (III–V siecles). Roma, 1985, t. II, p. 35–93). – 91.

Wed. Abba Thalassius: “Strive for the commandments of God until death, for purified by them you will enter [eternal] life” (PG 91, 1145). – 91.

So, it seems, it is better to translate this sentence πνευματικὸν διδάσκαλον, οἱ πονηροὶ δαίμονες). Its meaning is most likely determined by Luke 22:31, where the Lord says that Satan asked (ἐξητήσατο) from Him to give him the Apostles. “Just as the devil once tempted Job (Job 1–2), so he asked God for permission to persecute the apostles with various trials in order to shake their loyalty to Christ” (Explanatory Bible. Pg., 1912, vol. 9, p. 260). I. Hausherr is also inclined to the same interpretation, who notes that a spiritual teacher should be understood as a gnostic, that is, an ascetic who has reached the highest levels of knowledge of God (see Hausherr I. Les leçons d’un contemplatif, p. 171). – 91.

If demons ask God, then the ascetic should not ask for mercy (μὴ παραιτοῦ τοὺς κναφεῖς) from demons, which are meant by fullings. – 91.

The expression λαμπρὰ ἡ ἐσθής can probably be compared with the white robe in which the newly baptized is clothed and which in liturgical texts and patristic writings is also called the shining robe, the royal robe, the robe of incorruptibility, etc. Putting on the “robe of light” after baptism means, first of all, return man to the integrity and innocence that he possessed in paradise, the restoration of his true nature, clouded and distorted by sin. St. Ambrose compares this clothing with the clothing of Christ on Mount Tabor. The transfigured Christ reveals His perfect and sinless humanity not in a “naked” form, but in clothing “white as snow,” in the uncreated radiance of Divine glory. “It is not sin, but heaven that reveals the true nature of man; and in baptism a person, returning to paradise, again finds his original robe of glory” (Schmeman A. By Water and Spirit. On the Sacrament of Baptism. Paris, 1985, pp. 93–98). – 91.

For “fragrant incense” see chap. 1. By “bosom” (κόλπος) one can simply understand the deep layers of the human personality, and in approximately this sense, St. Basil the Great speaks of “the depths of thought” (ἐνεσκηψε τοῖς τῆς διανοίας κόλποις) (see: Saint Basile. Lettres, t. I, p. 112). But his word may also have a connotation of a certain “abyss of the soul (heart),” unenlightened by the light of Divine knowledge and God’s grace, where creeping reptiles of vice and evil swarm in the darkness; this “abyss” is identical to the abysses of hell. In this sense, the Rev. uses this concept. Macarius of Egypt, who says that the Creator Himself, who created the body, descended into two places (εἰς τὰ δύο μέρη): into the abyss of hell and into “the deepest depths of the heart, where the bound soul is held by death and its thoughts.” And the Lord brought “dead Adam” up from this dark abyss (see: Makarios/Symeon. Reden und Briefen, Bd. II, S. 149). – 91.

The concept τὸ πολίτευμα, used by St. by the Apostle Paul, had a direct legal meaning and implied the idea of ​​Christians as “residents of the Heavenly City” and “citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem” who do not belong to “this city.” The opposition of the two “cities” can be traced already in the earliest monuments of Christian writing: “The Shepherd of Hermas”, “Epistle to Diognetus”, in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, etc. (see: Minnerath R. Les chrétiens et le monde (I et II siecles). P., 1973, p. 169–170). This theme is constantly heard in ascetic literature, as, for example, in the work of St. Macarius: “For we, being on earth, have a residence in heaven, in our minds and according to the inner man, adhering to the way of life and the government of the heavenly world” (Die 50 geistliche Homilien des Makarios, S. 168). – 91.

In “The Life of St. Hypatia” conveys the saint’s teaching to the monks, where he says that we must be “friends of God” not only when we live in peace and tranquility, serve Him and sing Him in psalms and hymns not only in times of joy and joy, but with even greater zeal and gratitude devote ourselves to serving Him when we fall into sorrow, misfortune and temptation, in order to be quickly freed from them (see: Callinicos. Vie d’Hypatios; p. 164). At first glance, the thought of St. Hypatia Seems to be the complete opposite of Evagrius’s statement, but this contrast is external and apparent, for both ascetics are unanimous in the main thing: God must be served and God must always be thanked – both in days of joy and in days of sorrow. – 92.

The expression ἐπιγνωμων ἀνήρ (lit. “knowledgeable man” or “understanding person”) here is most likely identical to “gnostic,” i.e., a genuine ascetic who has acquired spiritual knowledge. – 92.

In a similar way, the concept of εἴσπραξις (“collection, exaction, collection”) is used by Origen, who in his “Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew,” interpreting Matthew 24:37–38, says that at the second coming of the Son of Man there will be punishment for the sins of people, but it will not be punishment by transmigration from body to body (ἡ (see: PG 13, 1089). – 92.

What is noteworthy about this interpretation is the replacement of the word “women” in the text of St. The Apostle Paul on the “soul” of Evagrius, which reflects the approach to the “problem of sex” that is generally characteristic of patristic writing. This approach found clear expression, for example, in Origen, who stated that in Holy Scripture there is usually no distinction between man and woman, for before God there is no such distinction. The names “man” and “woman” correspond to the difference in souls, according to their internal structure and inclinations. For among women there are many who appear before God among the most valiant husbands, and, conversely, among men there are many who appear weaker and more effeminate than women. St. St. held a similar point of view in principle. Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa and many other Church Fathers (see: Hausherr I. Direction spirituelle en Orient autrefois. Rome, 1955, p. 253 ff.). – 92.

The concept of ἀνατυπωσις should most likely be understood in this sense. Similar usage can be found in St. Gregory the Theologian, who notes that passion (or suffering) is “the idea, reflection or gradual development of what was immediately comprehended by thought” (see: Gregoire de Nazianze. Discours 20–23. Ed. par J. Mossay (Sources chrétiennes, no. 270, P., 1980, p. 74). In another “Word” of St. Gregory, speaking about the difference between the Creator and the creature, says that if we comprehend things in a bodily way, then “passion” is observed in them, such as: “time, desire (ἔφεσις), idea (ἀνατυπωσις), care (φροντίς), hope, sadness,” etc. (See: Gregoire de Nazianze. Discours 27–31 (Discours theologiques), pp. 182–184). Thus, for St. Gregory, this concept is associated with the area of ​​“enduring”, passive perception of something (“imprinting” with something). In the same way, for Evagrius, ἀνατύπωσις most likely had the meaning of passive fantasy, mental imagination. Since this imagination arises in the mind of a passionate and unclean person, it is close in meaning to a “thought”, the suggestor or “agent” of which is usually a demon. – 92.

Both definitions (ὁ ἀνενδεὴς καὶ ἀδέκαστος) were repeatedly applied to God in patristic writing. As for the first (lit. “not lacking in anything”), then, for example, Clement of Alexandria says: “Matter always needs art [that shapes it] (ἐνδεὴς ἀεί ποτε ἡ ὕλη τῆς τέχνης), but God self-sufficient” (Clemens Alexandrinus.Protrepticus und Paedagogus, S. 44). As for the second, St. Gregory of Nysse, in particular, speaks about the “impartial judgment” of God (see: Gregoire de Nysse. La vie de Moise, p. 286). It is characteristic that Evagrius combines ἀνενδεὴς, bearing the stamp of “ontology,” with ἀδέκαστος, which tends rather to the sphere of ethics, suggesting that in God “ontological” and “moral” are inextricably linked. – 92.

The terms “vigilance” (φυλακή) and “discernment” (διάκρισις) played a vital role in patristic asceticism. The first was often associated with “sobriety” (νῦψις) and “attention” (κροσοχή), meaning primarily “guarding the heart” (φυλακή τῆς καρδίας), which is clearly reflected in the teaching of St. John Climacus and others (see: Hausherr I. La methode d’oraison hesychaste // Orientalia Christiana, 1927, vol. IX, no. 2, p. 136–137). The second term usually implied “discernment of spirits,” which was understood as the gift (“charisma”) of the Holy Spirit. The possession of this gift was and is achieved only at the highest stages of spiritual success; such possession of “discernment” is an essential condition for the spiritual nourishment carried out by the elders (see: Hausherr I. Direction spirituelle en Orient, p. 82–89). For Evagrius, without “vigilance” and “discernment”, pure prayer performed on the “spiritual altar” (i.e. in the mind) is impossible. – 92.

The “backbone” refers to the body, and the “face” refers to the mind. If a person becomes word-loving (λογοχαρής) and fame-loving (δοξοχαρής), then demons (“sinners”) arrange their intrigues (τεκταίνουσιν) not only in the body, but also in his mind. – 92.

Evagrius here establishes the closest connection between “attention” (προσοχή) and “prayer” (προσευχή), which later became classic in ascetic writing, especially among the “hesychasts.” And although a whole chapter is already devoted to the “Conversations of Epictetus”, the true origins of this ascetic teaching are found in the New Testament (where the verb προσέχειν is usually used; see: Luke 17:3, 21:34, etc.). St. Basil the Great wrote a whole sermon about “attention to oneself”, where he emphasizes that attention means a vigilant attitude towards one’s soul, monitoring all its movements and thoughts (see: L’Homelie de Basile de Cesaree sur le mot “Observe-toi”, p. 27). But if St. Basil addresses all Christians in general, then Abba Isaiah in Homily 27 (Words.., pp. 158–161) and St. Ephraim the Syrian, relying on the experience of previous ascetics, developed this doctrine of “attention” in relation to monastic life. Among their predecessors was Evagrius (see: Hausherr I. Hesychasme et prіere, pp. 232–236). – 92.

The meaning of the chapter is that, according to Evagrius, the value of prayer is determined not so much by the abundance of words (“quantity”), but by the strength and purity of the inner appeal to God (“quality”). – 93.