The meaning of forka, emperor in the encyclopedic dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron. Church during the reign of Emperors Phocas and Heraclius St. John and his “Ladder”

Cyrus reported to Constantinople about the rejoicing of the Christians of Alexandria and Egypt over the achieved reunification, but this report contained an obvious exaggeration: both among the Orthodox Chalcedonites and among the Monophysites there remained many who rejected the union: outside Alexandria, in the provinces, especially in the south, in Upper Egypt was decisively dominated by Monophysites who rejected the union. The Monophysite patriarch Benjamin retired from the capital Alexandria to the south of Egypt. According to A.V. Kartashev, “in Alexandria, Cyrus continued to fight against Monophysite tenacity and more and more often resorted to police violence. The Copts, in turn, committed atrocities on occasion. For example, one “Melkite” priest was burned alive by them along with his family. Among subsequent Coptic... writers, the name Cyrus does not differ from all others (“Chalcedonians”) and is pronounced as the name of an evil persecutor, even the forerunner of the Antichrist. As someone who was transferred to Alexandria from the Caucasus, he is disparagingly called a “Caucasian man” ( al-mukavkaz in Arabic)… The national separatists were not satisfied with anything, any concessions. They needed heresy to separate themselves from the Greeks." Soon these aspirations were fulfilled in full and in abundance: the Muslims conquered Egypt, eliminating the “Melkite power” over it.

Saint Sophronius, who was then in Egypt, expressed his decisive disagreement with the union.

Among the Orthodox, decisive disagreement with the union was expressed by Saint Sophronius, who was then in Egypt, who, together with John Moschus, collected information about the venerable fathers who labored in Egypt for the famous patericon “Limonarium”, or “Spiritual Meadow”. They were both very learned people: Sophronius had previously taught rhetoric in Damascus. Sophronius stayed in Egypt for a long time, became close there with the holy Patriarch John the Merciful and helped him defend the Chalcedonian dogma in polemics against the Monophysites. By the time of the Unionist Council he was already 80 years old. Having familiarized himself with the draft of nine anathematisms even before their proclamation at the Council, Sophronius, falling at the feet of Cyrus, begged him to abandon his destructive plan, to exclude from the anathematisms the expression “mia energy” (“one energy”), but Cyrus stood his ground, relying on support from Emperor Heraclius and Patriarch Sergius. From Egypt, Saint Sophronius headed to Constantinople. Talking with Patriarch Sergius, he convinced him to abandon the use of the expression “mia energy”. For his part, Sophrony promised Sergius not to use the expression “two energies” in his polemical writings.

In 634, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Saint Modest, died, and the elderly zealot of Chalcedonian Christology, Sophronius, was unexpectedly chosen as his successor. This was followed by his publication of a district notification message (synodics), in which he, without using the expression about one or two energies in Christ, nevertheless essentially defends the doctrine of two energies, which follows with logical inevitability from the Chalcedonian oros about two natures in Christ: “The Word truly became incarnate and... put on a body and was knowable as the one Son, producing from Himself every action: Divine and human, corporeal and incorporeal, visible and invisible, describable and indescribable, corresponding to the effectiveness of His natures, and in itself unceasingly preaching and constantly proclaiming this duality."

The election to the Patriarchal throne of Jerusalem of an opponent of monoenergism, whose sanctity of life was well and widely known, worried Patriarch Sergius. He had particular concerns because of the expected support for Sophronius from the Roman see and the entire Western Church - until then, the popes were either unaware of the disputes aroused in the Christian East by the union policy of the emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople, or they paused there to get more full information about what is happening.

The heresy of Pope Honorius and the question of “papal infallibility”

In the period following the repose of St. Gregory the Dvoeslov, the Roman throne was occupied by Savinian - from 604 to 606, Boniface III - in 607, Boniface IV - from 608 to 615. In 609, Pope Boniface IV, according to the Venerable Bede, “received from the Emperor Phocas as a gift to the Roman Church a sanctuary, from ancient times called the Pantheon, since there were images of all the gods. Having removed all the filth from there, he founded a church there dedicated to the holy Mother of God and all the martyrs of Christ, so that after the host of demons had been driven out, it would serve as a memorial to the host of saints.” The consecration of the temple took place on May 13, and since then on this day the Roman Church has celebrated the memory of all saints; later the holiday was moved to November 1. After the death of Boniface IV, the Roman See was occupied by Deodatus, and from 619 by Boniface V, who died in 625.

His successor was Honorius, a native of Campania, son of Petronius, who held the rank of consul. According to the historian of Rome F. Gregorovius, “the Romans should have been pleased with the election of a fellow tribesman of a noble family, since Honorius, an educated and pious man, tried to follow the example of the great Gregory... Honorius’s fame was created by his church buildings, with which he... immortalized his name.”

Honorius entered the history of the Church, however, mainly not because of his active temple construction. Fearing a negative reaction from Rome to his theological initiatives, Patriarch Sergius addressed him with a message in which he spoke about how the new Patriarch of Alexandria Cyrus annexed the former Monophysites to the Catholic Church, and about the dispute in which the “Reverend monk Sophronius, now appointed primate of Jerusalem." In his letter to Honorius, Patriarch Sergius makes a verbal correction to the previous Christological formula, replacing the word “action” (“energia”) with the word “will” (“felima”): “One and the same only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God, acts both according to Divinity and humanity... The expression “one action,” although it is used by some of the holy fathers, sounds strange and outrageous in the ears of some, who assume that it is pronounced in the sense of the destruction of two natures united in Christ our God, unfused and hypostatic - which is by no means and will not be, just as the expression “two actions” tempts many as it is not used by any of the divine and illustrious secret guides of the Church, to follow which, moreover, would mean preferring two wills that are opposed to one another, for example, the will of God the Word, who wanted to accomplish saving suffering, and the will of humanity, opposing His will.” In this passage, Sergius resorts to a kind of forgery, because his opponents, who insisted on the doctrine of two actions in Christ, and then also, after the terminological modification of the polemic he undertook, on two wills, did not at all think about such a human will in Christ, which would oppose the will of God. “It is impossible,” writes Patriarch Sergius, “for two wills that are opposite to each other to be present in one subject.”

This argument of his in the course of later polemics would be refuted by the Monk Maximus the Confessor, but to Pope Honorius the arguments of his Constantinople brother seemed quite convincing, despite the fact that in the culturally degraded West of the 7th century, Honorius had a reputation as a theological luminary of the greatest brightness. According to the characteristics of V.V. Bolotov, “due to the pitiful state of education in Rome, Honorius stood head and shoulders above his contemporaries in education, for which he enjoyed the greatest respect from them.” In Rome he was extolled as a man of strong intellect, reasonable, wise, and teaching. At the same time, according to A.V. Kartashev, “the pen of Honorius was his secretary, later Pope John IV.”

This is a typically Roman position - not to attach importance to the subtleties of theological dialectics

In his reply letter, Honorius, agreeing with Sergius, finds the polemic about one or two actions in Christ devoid of true theological meaning, a scholastic and empty dispute about words, which can only be carried away by people with the mind of self-righteous schoolchildren: “Scripture clearly shows that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son and Word of God, through whom all things came into being, alone acts in divinity and in humanity. But how one should speak or think, one or two actions should take place for the sake of the affairs of Divinity and humanity, this does not concern us, we leave this to grammarians or writers by profession, who in their writings for children are in the habit of flaunting the names they have acquired.” Echoing Sergius, Honorius calls in future not to use the expressions “one” or “two actions,” “so that infants, stumbling over the name “two actions,” would not think that we sympathize with Nestorian madness, or if we again began to confess one action of the Lord of our Jesus Christ, not to appear to the dumb ears as confessing the stupidity of the Eutychians, - being careful lest the ashes of those whose vain and empty weapons were burned should again kindle the fires of fiery questions - in simplicity and truth confessing our Lord Jesus Christ alone acting in the Divine and human nature, - considering it better that empty naturalists, idle and inflated philosophers burst out against us with the exclamations of frogs, than that simple and humble Christian peoples could remain hungry. No one will captivate fishermen’s disciples with philosophy and empty flattery.” This is a typically Roman position - not to attach excessive importance to the subtleties of theological dialectics, the passion for which is supposedly generated by the Greek love of word debate, but to keep at the forefront pastoral concern for the salvation of these little ones, to whom the twists and tricks of philosophical speculation are alien and inaccessible.

The pope's message sets out the Orthodox Chalcedonian teaching about the union of two natures, Divine and human, in Christ, but on the issue that caused a storm in the church environment, Honorius clearly takes a heretical position. The quintessence of his theology is expressed in the words: “We confess in the Lord Jesus Christ one will (“en felimah”).” This formula of his later served as the basis for his anathematization by the fathers of the VI Ecumenical Council.

In the light of the later Roman Catholic teaching on papal infallibility, the conciliar condemnation of Pope Honorius constitutes a stumbling block for Catholic ecclesiology. Therefore, mont Blancs of books and articles have been written, the task of which is either a direct apology for Honorius, or such an interpretation of his error that would make it compatible with the Vatican “dogma” of papal infallibility. "Cardinal Hergenroether in his church history... listing only the most important on this issue, there are up to 16 scientists who decide the issue against, and up to 8 who defend this message in more or less special works.” But these statistics are almost a century and a half old, because Cardinal Gergenreter’s book was published in 1880. Summarizing the various versions of the apology for papal infallibility in the face of the condemnation of Honorius by the Ecumenical Council as a heretic and setting out counterarguments regarding each of the theses presented, A.V. Kartashev, following the argumentation of V.V. Bolotov, wrote: “I. Both the message of Pope Honorius and the acts of the VI Ecumenical Council are interpolated. But not only these acts speak of the heresy of Pope Honorius, but many other documents and letters of that era testify to the same thing. II. The Latins say that the Council condemned a false opinion... However, in reality the pope’s opinions were different. It is the error facti that is condemned, not the person. III. The pope acted this way out of “economy,” wanting to settle the dispute. But dad took only one side under his protection in the dispute. IV. As if the pope expressed this judgment not ex cathedra. But then what is ex cathedra?.. The appeal to the pope was made officially, as specifically to the pope, and on a dogmatic issue... VII. ...The expression (en felimah) is incorrect. But the pope’s thought was correct, for he affirmed the tomos of Pope Leo. But this is precisely what heresies consist of: that incorrect conclusions are drawn from correct church premises. So Sergius and Cyrus, from the harmony and sinlessness of the will in Christ, drew a conclusion about both “mia energy” and “entelima,” but in a conscious ontological sense.”

Apologist of papal infallibility, who lived in the 20th century, Uniate P.-P. Ioannou wrote that the views of Pope Honorius were Orthodox, but expressed in unsuccessful language, thereby providing a weapon to the Monothelites against the defenders of the Orthodox doctrine of two wills in Christ, for which Honorius was condemned by the VI Ecumenical Council; Therefore, the popes are the successors of Honorius and recognized his anathematization. “The condemnation of Honorius,” writes P.-P. John, - in fact, did not in the least diminish the authority of the throne of Peter in matters of faith.” However, this circumstance proves the opposite of what John wants to prove. If, before the condemnation of Honorius, the popes had claimed doctrinal infallibility, and in the East their claims had been recognized, then the condemnation of Honorius either could not have taken place at all, or by its condemnation of the pope the Council would have rejected previously recognized claims. In fact, the Roman see, insisting on its doctrinal authority, at that time did not yet claim infallibility, and therefore, condemning one of the bishops who occupied it, just as other bishops were condemned at other Councils, including the primates of the first thrones - Nestorius, Dioscorus, Sergius, VI Council, in the words of P.-P. John, “did not diminish the authority of the throne of Peter.” And the successors of Honorius, very scrupulous in matters relating to the prerogatives of the Roman See, were not embarrassed by his condemnation until the incomprehensible doctrine of papal infallibility was announced urbi et orbi.

"Ektesis" and the emperor's repentance

Papal support strengthened Patriarchs Sergius and Cyrus, as well as Emperor Heraclius, in upholding the doctrine of one will in Christ. Monothelitism became a kind of official confession of the empire: its main provisions were presented in an act issued in the fall of 638 in the form of an imperial edict entitled “Exposition of the Faith” (“Ektesis tis pisteos”). Valid literary author"Ektesis" was Patriarch Sergius. The initial draft of this document he compiled dates back to 634. This act reproduces the monothelitic formula invented by Sergius and approved by Honorius: “Therefore... following the holy fathers in everything, we confess the one will (en felim) of our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God.” Declaring the doctrine of one will in Christ, “Ektesis” forbade further disputes about one or two energies, or, what is the same, actions in Him.

Thus, Emperor Heraclius and the primates of the primate Churches (Roman, Constantinople, Alexandria) discovered their adherence to heretical teaching. The Patriarchal throne of Antioch was occupied by the Monophysite Athanasius, who entered into communion with those Chalcedonites who had previously accepted the teaching of Patriarch Sergius about the one divine act in Christ. Of the pentarkhs, only Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem rejected the Monothelite heresy.

The end of the 630s ended with the death of the main participants in the counter-versus around this heresy: “In 637 or 638, Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem died, in December 638 - Patriarch Sergius, earlier, in October of the same year, Pope Honorius, in February 641 - the emperor Irakli". After the conquest of Egypt by the Muslims, the Patriarch of Alexandria, Cyrus, also died in 642. Peter, who shared the Monothelite error, was installed as his successor. The Patriarchal throne of Constantinople was occupied by the Monothelite Pyrrhus, and after his deposition in 641, by a like-minded person of Sergius and Pyrrhus, Paul. After the death of Saint Sophronius, the throne of Jerusalem remained widowed until the beginning of the 8th century. In 640, the Monothelite Macedonius was installed at the See of Antioch.

In Rome, after the death of Honorius, the Roman Severinus was elected pope, but his consecration and enthronement were delayed for more than a year, probably for the reason that he refused to accept and sign the ill-fated “Ektesis”. And while the papal throne remained unoccupied, awaiting the approval of the elected bishop of Rome by the emperor, an incident occurred in the city that caused indignation among the townspeople. The depletion of the imperial treasury prompted Heraclius to take a reckless step that undermined his authority in Italy. In 640, he ordered the Exarch of Ravenna, Isaacius, to expropriate funds from the papal treasury, taking advantage of the moment when Pope Honorius had died and Severinus, who had been chosen as his successor, had not yet received sanction to take office. To carry out this action, Chartular Mauritius, who was in Rome, at the head of the crowd, by order of the exarch, stormed the Lateran Palace and sealed its vault. Isaac, who urgently arrived in Rome, sent part of the captured treasures to the emperor in Constantinople, and took the rest for himself.

The clerics sent as apocrisiaries from Rome to Constantinople to obtain imperial sanction for the installation of a pope were detained on their way to the capital. By order of Patriarch Pyrrhus, all clergy under his jurisdiction were obliged to sign the “Ektesis”. Since the Roman apocrisiaries entered the territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, signatures were also required from them, but they refused to sign them, citing their lack of appropriate authority. And yet, the sanction for the enthronement of Severin was received from the emperor, the apocrisiaries returned to Rome, and Severin “assumed the throne of Peter on May 28, 640, but did not occupy it for long - only two months and six days.” There is no evidence that a condition for the approval of his election was agreement to sign the Ektesis. VI Ecumenical Council, who identified the primates of the Churches guilty of adhering to the Monothelite heresy and posthumously condemned them, included in the list of those anathematized the name of one Pope - Honorius. Severinus's successor, John IV, who had formerly served as secretary under Honorius and was originally from Dalmatia, occupied the papal throne until his death in 642. In 641 he publicly rejected the Ektesis.

Heraclius died in peace with Orthodox Church, confessing the right faith in two natures and two wills in Christ

The mortally ill emperor, having learned about what had happened, turned away from the Monothelite heresy and, in his justification, wrote to Pope John that it was not he, but Patriarch Sergius, who was guilty of drawing up this document. It is true that Heraclius was not the author of the Ektesis, but it was published in the name not of the patriarch, but of the emperor and according to his will. Contemporary Byzantine scholar J. Norwich notes on this matter: “Exhausted by illness, deprived of courage, with his last breaths he rejected any responsibility for “Ektesis.” “It is the work of Sergius alone,” he groaned, “only at the insistence of the patriarch, against his own will, he agreed to its publication. And so one of the most significant Byzantine rulers died on February 11, 641, with obvious lies on his lips, in shame and humiliation.” Norwich was not present at the bedside of Emperor Heraclius. What he said is a literary invention, inspired by Heraclius’s attempt to justify himself in the eyes of the pope. More important, however, is not the fact that he was disingenuous in belittling his responsibility for the Ektesis, but his renunciation of the heresy contained in this ill-fated document: Heraclius died in peace with the Orthodox Church, professing the right belief in two natures and two wills in Christ.

Venerable John and his "Ladder"

The 7th century was a time of catastrophic decline in education and culture in the Latin-speaking West of the empire, in Italy and Africa; to a certain extent, this process also captured the Greek-speaking world. Monasteries, the number of which grew in this era, increasingly became centers of enlightenment in the East; the number of their inhabitants also increased. In contrast to the declining secular schools, in which they continued to study “external” writers, the monastic school and monastic science were exclusively Christian in nature, and the works created in these monasteries were devoted to the science of sciences - the doctrine of salvation. Many of these writings have been lost, but the best ascetic works have been preserved through the diligence of diligent readers and copyists. The treasury of patristic works includes the “Ladder” (“Climax”), read and diligently studied by Christians seeking salvation for many centuries, by St. John, who owes his nickname Climacus to this creation of his.

His life was compiled by the saint’s disciple, the monk of the Raifa monastery, Daniel. It gives basic information about his life and exploits, but the time and place of his birth, as well as the date of his death, remain exactly unknown. “I cannot say with certainty,” begins the Life of the Saint compiled by Daniel, “in what memorable city this great man was born and raised.” According to Nicephorus Callistus, who wrote an interpretation of the Ladder, this city was the capital of the empire. Callistus calls Saint Xenophon the father of the Monk John, and Arkady his brother, but this information is not confirmed in other sources. From sources, based on indirect data, different dates of his birth are extracted: 525 or 579, as well as death - 595, 605, 649, 680. In any case, the chronological framework of his life is determined as follows: “on the one hand, he lived no earlier than the ascetics of the Gaz school of the Monks Barsanuphius the Great and John (VI century), whose ascetic teaching was reflected in the “Ladder”, on the other hand, before St. Theodore Studite (late 8th century), during whose time John Climacus was revered as an ascetic of the past." The main events of his life, outlined in the Life written by Daniel, are known.

The saint was born into a wealthy family, for he received a good education: according to the hagiographer, he “possessed external wisdom,” which, however, is not difficult to detect in his works. At the age of 16, he left the world and came to Sinai, joining a monastery, which at that time was dedicated to the Transfiguration of the Lord and the Burning Bush. Later, in the 11th century, it received a new name - the Holy Great Martyr Catherine, whose relics were discovered by the Sinai monks in the 6th century. Having received monastic vows at this monastery, Saint John “entrusted himself to the spiritual guidance of Abba Martyrius.” After 19 years, when his elder departed to the Lord, John “set out into the field of silence... and, having chosen a place convenient for the exploits of solitude, five furlongs from the temple of the Lord (this place is called Thola), he spent 40 years there in unremitting exploits, always blazing with burning jealousy and divine fire.” His home in the desert was a granite cave. Near the cave he built a vegetable garden, the fruits of which he ate. The Monk John labored in prayer and fasting, which, however, did not go to extremes: “He consumed all types of food that were permitted to the monastic rank without prejudice, but he ate very little, wisely crushing through this... the horn of arrogance.” The saint left the desert to visit the Skete and Tabenniot monasteries in Egypt and acquire ascetic experience, which the monks there shared with him.

Appointed abbot of the Burning Bush Monastery after 40 years of desert living, the Monk John wisely instructed the brethren of the monastery, earning from them the name of the new Moses. The saint’s educativeness gave his envious people a reason to reproach him for “excessive talkativeness and idle talk. But he brought them to his senses by the very act... for he was silent for a whole year, so that his detractors turned into petitioners and said: we have blocked the source of ever-flowing benefit, to the detriment of everyone’s common salvation.” Shortly before his departure to the Lord, the monk appointed as his successor in the management of the monastery sibling George, ordained a bishop, and he himself returned to his former place of exploits, to a granite cave in Fola, where he soon reposed. Georgy survived his brother by 10 months. The death of John himself followed on March 30. On this day his memory is celebrated, and in addition, the 4th Sunday of Great Lent is dedicated to him.

Wanting to teach instruction to those monks who could no longer listen to him, St. John wrote “The Ladder,” or “Spiritual Tablets.” “The Ladder” is directly addressed to monks, it presents the monastic way of life, but the observations it contains on the human soul, sincerely striving for salvation, on the temptations that await the ascetic in his spiritual life, the advice and instructions of the monk are useful to every Christian walking the path of spiritual life. abuse. The book is distinguished by the thoughtfulness of the teachings offered, based on the experience of prayer and ascetic asceticism of the author himself, by the clarity and accessibility of presentation; in its construction there is a system based on the laws of spiritual life, which the monk represents in the form of a gradual ascent up a ladder, in the image of the ladder that in ancient times the forefather Jacob saw in a dream vision.

Characterizing at the very beginning of the book the relationship of created creatures - people and angels - to their Creator, the saint writes: “Of all those created by our good and most good and all-good God and King... intelligent and venerable creatures with the dignity of autocracy, some are His friends, others are true slaves, others slaves are indecent, some are completely alien to Him, others, finally, although weak, nevertheless resist Him. And His friends... are actually intelligent and incorporeal beings... His true servants are all those who untiringly and unflaggingly fulfill His will, and the indecent ones are those who, although they were worthy of baptism, did not keep the vows given at it... Under the name of strangers God and His enemies should be understood as infidels, or evil-believers (heretics); and the opponents of God are those who not only did not themselves accept and reject the commandments of the Lord, but also strongly arm themselves against those who fulfill them.”

“No one should, exposing the severity and multitude of his sins, call himself unworthy of the monastic vow”

The most convenient way of spiritual ascent, which is accomplished through the struggle with passions, is monastic life and work. Entering this path is not prevented by a sinful life in the past: “No one should, exposing the severity and multitude of his sins, call himself unworthy of the monastic vow and, for the sake of his sensuality, imaginaryly humiliate himself, inventing excuses for his sins: for where there is a lot of rottenness, there is also a need for powerful healing that would cleanse the filth; but healthy people don’t go to the hospital.” It is only important to have a sincere and unremitting intention to walk the narrow and cramped path and, having renounced the world, not to turn back in mind and heart, to overcome regret about the lost pleasures and conveniences of life in the world. It is not in vain that the monk strives who retains the zeal and ardor that prompted him to enter the monastery, “unquenchable and even until the end of his life he did not cease every day to add fire to fire, ardor to ardor, zeal to zeal, and desire to desire.” .

Monasticism is associated with the feat of cutting off self-will, which leads to sin, therefore, upon entering the monastery, one must act in obedience to an experienced mentor and obey him in everything, completely trusting him with one’s salvation, thereby acquiring true and saving humility. St. John cites in the “Ladder” the words of “one of the most skillful elders”: “A prudent novice, even if he raises the dead, and receives the gift of tears, and achieves deliverance from battles, thinks in every possible way that this is accomplished by the prayer of his spiritual father, and remains alien and far from vain pretense."

“Do not be horrified if you fall every day, and do not deviate from the path of God, but stand courageously”

John Climacus, who chose monastic life at a very early age and had no experience of life in the world, reveals in his work the subtlest knowledge of the human soul, its sinful lusts, its infirmities and passions - knowledge gleaned not from communication with the world, but from careful observation of ourselves, over the temptations that lie in wait for the monk and from overcoming sinful movements of the heart through the feat of prayer and abstinence: “When we have fallen into the ditch of iniquities, we cannot get out of it unless we plunge into the abyss of the humility of the penitent... Often old habits painfully possess those who mourn their sins... no mind comprehends what kind of sins happen to us from negligence, which by the allowance of Providence and which by the abandonment of God. However, someone told me that if we fall into sin by God’s permission, then we soon rise and turn away from sin; for He who has allowed us does not allow us to be possessed by the demon of sorrow for a long time. If we have fallen, then first of all let us take up arms against this demon; for he, having appeared during our prayer and remembering to us our former boldness towards God, wants to tear us away from prayer. Do not be horrified if you fall every day, and do not deviate from the path of God, but stand courageously; and, without a doubt, the Angel who guards you will honor your patience. When the ulcer is still new and hot, then it is convenient to heal; but old, neglected and neglected wounds are inconveniently healed, because their healing requires a lot of labor, cutting and cauterization... Before our fall, demons present God to us as humane, and after our fall as cruel.”

Sins and passions are not characteristic of the primordial nature of man, created by God, but are rooted in the deviation of the human will from following nature: “God is neither the culprit nor the creator of evil. Therefore, those who say that some of the passions are natural to the soul are mistaken... we ourselves natural properties good turned into passions. By nature, for example, we have seed for childbearing; and we use it for lawless voluptuousness. By nature, we also have anger, but against the ancient serpent; and we use it against our neighbor. Jealousy was given to us so that we would be jealous of virtues; and we are jealous of vices."

The step-by-step process of the emergence and development of sinful passion in the human soul, presented by the Monk John, became a classic of ascetic science: “According to the definition of the prudent fathers, another is a pretext, another is a combination, another is a combination, another is captivity, another is a struggle and another is the so-called passion in soul... A preposition is a simple word or image of some object, again appearing to the mind and brought into the heart; and combination is a conversation with the image that has appeared... conjunction is the agreement of the soul with the presented thought, combined with pleasure; captivity is a violent and involuntary attraction of the heart or prolonged mental intercourse with an object, ruining our good dispensation; struggle refers to the equality of strength between the fighter and the one being fought in battle, where the latter arbitrarily either wins or is defeated; Passion is the name given to the very vice that has been ingrained in the soul for a long time and through habit has become, as it were, a natural property of it, so that the soul already voluntarily and by itself strives towards it.”

The sins into which a monk or a person living in the world falls are diverse and interconnected: “Those living in the world, during illness, are attacked by the demon of anger, and sometimes by the spirit of blasphemy. Those living outside the world are tormented by demons of gluttony and fornication if they have an abundance of everything they need; if they stay in places far from all consolation and asceticism, then they are tempted by the demons of despondency and ingratitude. I noticed that sometimes a fornicating wolf intensifies the illnesses of those who are ill and in the very illnesses produces movements and discharges. It was terrible to see that the flesh, in the midst of severe suffering, was rampaging and raging.” Discussing the relationship and interdependence of sins, the saint teaches that the same sin can be caused by different passions: “Untimely laughter, for example, is sometimes born from the demon of fornication, and sometimes from vanity, when a person internally shamelessly praises himself; sometimes laughter is born from pleasure (of food). Much sleep sometimes occurs from saturation; sometimes from fasting, when those who fast are lifted up; sometimes from despondency, and sometimes simply from nature... Dejection sometimes comes from pleasure; and sometimes because there is no fear of God in man.”

The very names of sins, reproduced in the headings of individual “words” or chapters of “The Ladder”, contain such knowledge of the human soul, which is drawn from the Holy Scriptures, the books of the fathers, the advice of elders and from the experience of personal struggle with passions: “On memory of malice "; “On slander and slander”; “About despondency and laziness”; “About the womb, dear to all and the wicked ruler”; “About insensibility, that is, about the mortification of the soul, and about the death of the mind, which precedes the death of the body”; “On cowardly timidity, or insurance”; “On Diverse Vanity”; “About Crazy Pride”; “About inexplicable blasphemous thoughts.”

Sins are contrasted with good deeds and exploits, also indicated by the very headings of the “words”: “On impartiality, that is, putting aside care and sorrow for the world”; “On blessed and ever-memorable obedience”; “On caring and real repentance...”; “On the Memory of Death”; “About joyful crying”; “On freedom from anger and meekness”; “On imperishable purity and chastity, which perishables acquire through labor and sweat”; “About bodily vigil: how we achieve the spiritual through it and how it should happen”; “About meekness, simplicity and gentleness, which do not come from nature, but are acquired through diligence and labor, and about wickedness”; “About the eradicator of passions, the highest humility, which occurs in the invisible feeling”; “On the Reasoning of Thoughts and Passions and Virtues”; "On Prudent Reasoning." The last steps of the “Ladder”, leading to the heaven of blissful dispassion, the very names of the corresponding “words” indicate an approach to perfection: “On the sacred silence of body and soul”; “About the mother of virtues, sacred and blessed prayer and about standing in it with mind and body”; “About earthly heaven, or about God-imitating dispassion and perfection, and the resurrection of the soul before the general resurrection”; “On the union of three virtues, that is, about faith, hope and love.”

Archpriest Georgy Florovsky, summarizing the teaching of St. John about the ultimate goal of asceticism, about the state into which those who have ascended to the top step of the ladder arrive, wrote: “This is a kind of frenzy or rapture of the soul by the power of the Spirit - or ecstasy. This is “silence of the mind,” and “silence is the sacrament of the future age.” This is the peace of contemplation, it is above all activity. This is already a revelation of God in a pure mind. In it the Kingdom of God is already transfigured... The soul in an incomprehensible unity is likened to God and illuminated by the highest light... But the gift is given in response to the feat, usually during prayerful standing, when the soul is especially collected and concentrated and prepares to listen to God... So it is not on the heights the synergy of achievement and goodness, freedom and grace is abolished.”

“The Ladder” did not reflect the theological disputes that excited church life around the doctrine of a single divine action in Christ and then about a single will in Him, which probably occurred in last years earthly life of St. John. It may be true (due to the lack of indisputable chronological information about him) that by the time of the ill-fated theological initiative of Patriarch Sergius, he had already reposed. There is neither in the work of St. John, nor in his Life, compiled by Daniel, any mention of Islamic expansion, which affected the monastery he headed in the most direct way.

Around 630, Sinai was conquered by the Muslims and became part of the caliphate. Christians in Sinai were granted freedom of religion under the condition of loyalty to the Islamic authorities and payment of the poll tax - jizya. At the same time, the inhabitants of the Burning Bush Monastery were exempted from jizya and land tax - kharaj. There is a legend, the factual basis of which is questioned in historical science, but which is reflected in later monuments, that back in 624 the Sinai elders received a letter of safe conduct - a firman - from Muhammad himself, the original of which was removed from the monastery and delivered to Constantinople after the capture of Egypt Ottoman Sultan Selim I. According to legend, the firman was inscribed on gazelle skin parchment in Kufic script and sealed with the handprint of Muhammad. A copy of the firman kept in the monastery of the Great Martyr Catherine, in particular, reads: “Let no bishop or priest leave their places, and may not a monk marry from his monastery... May not a single one of their churches or chapels be destroyed, and may nothing belonging to their churches be used for the construction of mosques or Muslim houses."

In the 7th century, Islam was adopted by the Bedouin tribe Jabaliya, who lived near the monastery, at that time still dedicated to the Transfiguration and the Burning Bush, whose origins go back to 200 families resettled under St. Justinian from Alexandria and Pontus Anatolian. But, despite the change of religion, these Bedouins continued to protect and serve the monastery.

Foka

Foka. Molivdul, lead.

Phocas - Byzantine emperor in 602-610. Date and place of birth unknown, died October 5, 610 Constantinople. As a centurion in the Byzantine army on the Danube, he led the soldiers who rebelled against the emperor in 602 Mauritius. When Phocas approached Constantinople, he was supported by the population of the capital. Mauritius and his sons were executed. Foka responded to the speech of the capital's officials and large provincial nobility with terror. Having received support from the papacy, in 607 he recognized the Pope as the head of the entire Christian Church. The accession of Phocas to the throne was exploited by the Shah Iran Khosrow II, who, under the pretext of revenge for Mauritius, began a war against the empire, seized significant territories in the east and south from Byzantium by 608, and fell in 611 under the pressure of his troops. Antioch. In 608, the exarch of Carthage rebelled against Phocas; in October 610 his son Irakli approached Constantinople with a navy and received the support of the rebellious population of the capital. Phokas was deposed and executed, having previously managed to drown all the royal treasures in the sea. Heraclius became emperor.

Byzantine dictionary: in 2 volumes / [comp. General Ed. K.A. Filatov]. SPb.: Amphora. TID Amphora: RKhGA: Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2011, vol. 2, p.449-450.

Phocas - Byzantine emperor in 602-610. + 4 Oct. 610 The origins of Phocas are unknown. Before his meteoric rise, he served as a centurion in the Danube Army. According to Kedrin, he had a small stature and an ugly figure, thick bristly eyebrows that grew together on the bridge of his nose, and red hair, and an ugly wide scar on his cheek. He did not receive any education: he had no knowledge of literature or laws, but he was prone to rough pleasures - drunkenness and voluptuousness (Gibbon: 46). However, he enjoyed great influence among the soldiers. In 599, he was among the deputies of the Danube army who came to Constantinople with complaints against the commander Comentiol. Theophanes writes that Phocas, speaking with Emperor Mauritius at the Privy Council, rudely contradicted him, so that one of the patricians slapped Phocas and plucked out his beard. Three years later, the Danube legions rebelled and proclaimed Phocas exarch (commander-in-chief). At the head of the army, he marched on Constantinople. There was an uprising in the capital and Mauritius fled. Patrick Herman (the eldest son of Mauritius Theodosia was married to his daughter) began to seek the throne, but the circus party did not allow this and began to praise Phocas. Meanwhile, Phocas stopped in Eudoma and summoned the patriarch, the popular parties and the senate there. He feignedly offered to crown Herman with the imperial title, but Herman also feignedly refused. Then, in the Church of John the Baptist, Phocas was proclaimed emperor and on the third day he rode into the capital in the royal chariot (Theophanes-.592,594).

According to all historians, the reign of Phocas was marked by unbridled terror. As soon as he took the reins of power, he ordered the beheading of his predecessor Mauritius. Five of his sons, including an infant, were executed along with him. Then Phocas ordered the head of Mauritius' brother Peter to be cut off with a sword. The strategist Komentiol, the hypostrategist George, the domestic Presentin were killed, and many other close associates of the former emperor were killed. Constantina, the wife of Mauritius, was first imprisoned by Phocas in some private house (Simocatta: 8; II, 13), but later ordered to be executed along with her three daughters. Herman and his daughter were also killed (Theophanes: 599). In the last years of his reign, the emperor also killed all those who assisted him in seizing power (Simokatta: 8; 15).

In 603, the war with the Persians resumed, which went extremely unsuccessfully for the Romans. Phokas executed the commander Nerses, before whom his enemies had trembled for many years, and entrusted the command to his close associate Leontius. That same year, the Romans were defeated twice. Dara fell in 605. In 606, the Persians plundered all of Syria, Palestine and Phenicia, taking many people captive. In 607 they took possession of Armenia, Galatia and Paphlagonia, and reached Chalcedon itself. Phokas was unable to resist the enemies. Several times conspiracies were hatched against him, but they were discovered and suppressed with great cruelty. Finally, the Constantinople mob also turned away from the emperor. In 609, during the horse games, the Prasins scolded Phocas and shouted, hinting at his love for alcohol: “Again you have drunk your cup and lost your meaning!” The emperor ordered the screamers to be intercepted, many to be mutilated, and the severed members to be hung on hippodrome poles, others to have their heads cut off, others to be put in sacks and drowned in the sea. In response, the Prasins burned the praetorium, broke the prisons and released the prisoners (Theophanes: 596,598-601).

When the exarch of Africa, Heraclius, broke away from the emperor in 609, all sympathies were on his side. In the fall of 610, the African fleet, led by the exarch's son, also Heraclius, approached the capital. On October 4, a man named Photius, who was offended by Phocas, since he had recently dishonored his wife, entered the palace with a large army, immediately captured Phocas, took off his imperial vestments, wrapped him in black clothes, twisted his hands tied behind his back, and on the ship he handed the prisoner to Heraclius. Heraclius, seeing him, said: “So, unfortunate one, you ruled the state.” He replied: “Do you intend to manage better?” Heraclius ordered his head to be cut off, then all his limbs to be cut off, and his body to be dragged through the Forum of the Bull and there to be burned. At the same time, his brother Domentiol and some close associates were executed (Nicephorus: 610).

All the monarchs of the world. Ancient Greece. Ancient Rome. Byzantium. Konstantin Ryzhov. Moscow, 2001

"Try better!"

Foka (? - 610, imp. from 602)

Before his meteoric rise to the throne, Phocas served as a hecatontarch (centurion) in the army on the Danube. Possessing among the soldiers known influence, he entered one of the embassies sent by soldiers to Mauritius with claims, and at the audience he spoke to the basileus so disrespectfully that a certain senator who was present there, indignant, hit him in the face and pulled him by the beard. In the fall of 602, the Thracian troops rebelled, elected Phocas as commander-in-chief ("exarch") and marched on the capital.

After the flight of Mauritius, Herman, who was authoritative both among the soldiers and among the common people, could lay claim to the throne, in addition to Phocas. But Herman hesitated for too long, and when he decided to accept power, the Prasins opposed his election.

On November 23, 602, the patriarch placed the imperial diadem on Phokas's head, and two days later the new ruler entered Constantinople to the jubilation of members of the circus parties and ordinary townspeople. “Since the Dimas glorified the usurper and everyone passionately wanted change, this monster was proclaimed emperor, the usurper became the lord of the imperial scepter, grief took precedence over happiness and from that time the great and, one might say, famous disasters of the Romans began” ( F. Sim., ).

Foka, as usual, distributed donations to the soldiers, and on December 25 celebrated his consulate with games. However, the rude, ferocious and intemperate tyrant soon forced citizens to cry about the times of the overthrown Mauritius. Phocas became one of those few emperors whose reign received an unequivocal and unanimous negative assessment by historians.

He marked his rise to power, and remained a soldier in purple, with a whole series of executions among the aristocracy, which he himself, being of low birth and having no merit, hated and feared. In addition to Mauritius, his sons and favorites (Diocletion and Komentiol), he ordered the killing of many other noble people, including the senator who tore his beard at a reception with the late basileus. Terror soon spread to ordinary citizens. Grief and horror gripped the Byzantines “ever since this Calydonian tyrant, clad in iron, this half-barbarian from the Cyclopean tribe, this dissolute centaur invaded the palace 1) , for whom the royal throne was only an arena for drunkenness" ( F. Sim., ). Even in appearance - short, red-haired, with a thick beard and broad chest, with a face disfigured by a scar, Foka looked more like some kind of barbarian king than a Roman emperor.

Already in 603, an uprising broke out against Phocas in the capital. Instigator eunuch Scholastic and many other participants were executed, and those of Mauritius's relatives who were still alive (his widow Constantine with his daughters, Philippik and German), ended up in monasteries.

The new emperor began to pursue the most unsuccessful foreign policy of the state. Being alien to the traditions of the political elite of the empire and constantly feeling its hidden opposition, Foka turned for support to the West, to the pope Gregory the Great. In 603 the emperor concluded an alliance against Lombards with the queen of the Austrasian Franks, Brunnhilde, and appointed Smaragda, who was pleasing to the pope, as exarch in Italy, who managed to achieve a truce with the Lombards. Basileus confirmed the primacy of the popes in church affairs and subsequently, under the pope Boniface III, forbade the Patriarch of Constantinople to be called “ecumenical” (607). Gregory I(d. 604) hailed Phocas as the deliverer from the “tyranny of Mauritius,” and in 608 Smaragdus erected a column in Rome in his honor, with a gilded bronze statue of the emperor at the top. This column, but without a statue and with the erased name of Phocas, still stands in the Forum near the triumphal arch of Septimius Severus.

Foka treated affairs in the East with disdain, which was not slow to bear fruit. He delayed for a long time in sending the traditional embassy to Ctesiphon, notifying the Persian court of the accession of the new ruler of the Romans. Having done this only in the middle of 603, he thought of putting Laelius, the murderer of Mauritius, at the head of the delegation. Khosrow II immediately took advantage of such tactlessness as a pretext for war, especially since a man posing as the legitimate heir to the throne of Theodosius fled to Persia. In the same 603, Khosrow Parviz and (regardless of him) did not recognize the usurper Narses started a war with him. But the treacherous emperor persuaded Nerses, whose military abilities the same Persians were in awe of, with promises, to stop hostilities, captured him and, despising his own oaths, executed him. A year later, he sent an army to the East under the command of Leontius, his confidant and comrade-in-arms. The Persians defeated these troops, and Phocas, who knew no bounds in his anger, ordered Leontius to be chained.

By 607, Byzantium had lost Armenia, the Persians captured Feodosiopolis and Dara, the walls of which were torn down by them. Two armies of Khosrow, led by Shahin and Shahvaraz, successfully operated in Asia Minor - the first reached Chalcedon (!), and the second took Edessa. The Jews who inhabited Palestinian Caesarea were indignant and themselves surrendered the city to the Persians.

In Constantinople, despite the atmosphere of severe repression, discontent was brewing. In 605, a conspiracy arose against the autocrat in the highest echelons of the capital's nobility - it was decided to blind and kill him at the hippodrome during the holidays. But the woman who carried letters from the organizers to the monastery of the disgraced Constantine betrayed the conspirators, and Phocas carried out reprisals against them with his characteristic sadism: Anastasius, the committee of palace bounties, and Theodore, the praetorian prefect, were beheaded, another participant was used as a target for archers in the countryside shooting range, and the head of the arsenal, Elpidius, with severed limbs, gouged out eyes and a cut off tongue, was put into a boat and, launched into the sea, burned alive. Soon it was the turn of Constantina and her three daughters: they were killed in the same place as the rest of the Mauritius family, on the Eutropius pier in Chalcedon.

In 607, the autocrat married his daughter to his former boss, the committee of the Excuvites, Priscus, a very respectable man. Portraits of the young, as was customary, were exhibited by the circus parties at the hippodrome along with the imperial ones. Phocas, ill-mannered and ignorant of etiquette, saw in this a secret hint of the people’s desire to see Priscus as emperor and, enraged, ordered the beheading of the Dimarchs. Only the intercession of the townspeople saved the lives of the unfortunate people. After this event, Priscus, fearing for his fate, himself began to intrigue against his bestial father-in-law.

In 609, during the march, the Prasins shouted to Phocas, known for his excessive addiction to alcohol: “Again he stuck his nose into the jug, [drank wine,] again he lost his mind!” (Feof., ) The emperor reacted as usual: the eparch of the city, on his orders, cut off the heads of the guilty or, sewn into bags, threw them alive into the sea. Prasins were prohibited from holding public office. In response, residents set fire to praetoriums, prisons and offices.

At the same time, the Jews, outraged by the absurd order of Phocas to subject them to forced baptism, rebelled and killed many Christians, including the Patriarch of Antioch Anastasius. The basileus's protege, Comitant of the East Vaughn, who had perfectly mastered the methods of his patron, terrified Syria with atrocities - he hanged, burned, drowned and threw to be torn to pieces by wild animals all those suspected of involvement in the rebellion. “Thus, the Persians raged outside, and Phocas raged even worse inside the fatherland with murders and imprisonments” (Theoph., ).

The lawlessness committed by the emperor turned even his former comrades away from him, for no one could feel safe near this unbridled ruler. State affairs fell into a state of complete decline, so when a man appeared who led the fight against the usurper with arms in his hands, he found widespread sympathy and support. This man turned out to be Heraclius, exarch of Africa, an Armenian by birth, a famous military leader from the times of Mauritius. In 609 he refused to send grain to the capital. In response, Phocas locked his wife and his son's fiancée, also Heraclius, in prison (the women were later released by the Prasins). The following summer, Heraclius the Father, having secured the support of a number of officials from outside the exarchate of Egypt, began preparing troops. Augustal of Egypt informed Phocas about this and managed to lead the Alexandrian fleet to the capital. While the basileus was gathering forces, a squadron under the command of Heraclius the Younger sailed from Carthage, and a corps led by the exarch’s nephew, the son of his brother Nikita, set off by land.

The emperor ordered Bona, whose name alone was terrifying, to go to Egypt. At first he managed to defeat part of the rebel troops, but the government troops failed under the walls of Alexandria. Nikita, having skillfully placed combat vehicles on the city’s fortifications, thwarted the assault attempt, and the next day he himself organized a sortie and won a decisive victory over Bon. The latter had no choice but to leave for Constantinople.

At the end of September 610, Heraclius the son landed in Avidos, on the Asia Minor coast of the Dardanelles. Metropolitan of Kizika presented him with a crown taken from the icon of the Mother of God. Wasting no time, on October 3, Heraclius pulled out ships with battle towers on their decks in a line along the coast from the capital to Eudom. Phokas rode on horseback from Constantinople to Eudom, gloomily admired the enemy fleet and returned back. The emperor, who was quickly abandoned by almost all of his former supporters, concentrated his forces - the Dimots, Excuvites and Bucellarii of Priscus - in the area of ​​Julian (Sofia) harbor and gave the order to strengthen the Sophia Palace. In the harbor, tied with a chain, stood the Alexandrian fleet, but without sailors - the incredulous basileus locked them in prison.

On October 4, at a predetermined signal, the Prasins released the chain and set the palace on fire. Heraclius' soldiers captured the tyrant's last refuge with virtually no resistance. The wounded Vaughn fell into the sea and choked, his warriors fled, and the Prasins immediately began to beat the Veneti. Phocas himself took refuge in the temple of the Archangel Michael, but was taken out of there and, already without imperial clothes, taken to Heraclius. The winner, reproaching him, asked him: “That’s how you ruled the state!” To which Foka, in his characteristic manner, rudely replied: “Try better!” ( Nikifor, ) Heraclius kicked him and ordered his execution. Foke was cut off right hand and the head, and the corpse, together with the bodies of the keeper of the treasury Leontius and Vaughn, who was caught from the water, on the morning of October 5, 610, was burned where criminals were usually burned - on the capital's Bull Square.

They say that before the fall of the palace, Foka, no longer hoping for success, in a fit of impotent anger, ordered the state treasury to be drowned in the sea.

Notes

1) The centaur and cyclops served as a symbol of violence and rudeness for the Greeks.

Book materials used: Dashkov S.B. Emperors of Byzantium. M., 1997, p. 92-95.

Literature:

. Nikifor. Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople, " Short story"/ Translated by E.E. Lipshits//VV. T. 3. 1950.

. Smetanin V.A. List of editions of late Byzantine letters from 1502 to 1917 AD SV. Vol. 6. 1969.

. Feofan. Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophan from Diocletian to the kings Michael and his son Theophylact/Trans. V.I. Obolensky and F.A. Ternovsky. M., 1890.

. Theophylact Simocatta. History/Trans. S.P.Kondratieva. M., 1957.

. Udaltsova Z.V. Ideological and political struggle in early Byzantium (according to historians of the 4th-7th centuries). M., 1974.

Read further:

Patriarchs of Constantinople(biographical reference book).

Byzantine Emperor (602-610). When an uprising against the emperor broke out among the army camped across the Danube in 602. Mauritius, which aroused displeasure with its frugality and attempt to introduce strict military reforms, the violent soldiers elected the simple centurion F., a man of disgusting appearance and cruel temperament , and moved to Constantinople. Mauritius tried to stay in the capital by arming, among other things, the circus parties; but when the rebels led by F. approached the city, a revolution broke out here, led by the Green Party. Mauritius fled with his family to the Asian coast and sent his eldest son and heir Theodosius from Chalcedon for help to the Persians. Meanwhile, F. entered the capital; Mauritius was killed after his five sons were put to death before his eyes (November 27th, 602). Theodosius was overtaken in Nicaea and shared the fate of his father. Subsequently, Mauritius’ wife, Constantine, along with her three daughters, died painfully on charges of conspiracy. The reign of F., who saw in royal power only a means to satiate his wild passions and cruelty, was marked by a long series of ferocious executions, often without preliminary investigation or trial. The affairs of the empire were in complete disarray. In the East, a fierce struggle broke out with Khosroes II, who, under the pretext of revenge for the murder of Mauritius, his friend and guardian, attacked the Byzantine possessions. This war with the Sassanids was at first very unfortunate for Byzantine weapons. The danger from Persia forced F. to conclude a humiliating peace with the Avars, increasing the indemnity he paid, and move all his forces to the Asian theater of war. This measure only led to the fact that the Transdanubian barbarians received free access to the empire from the Danube to the Peloponnese; the population of the Balkan Peninsula underwent major changes due to the immigration of the Slavs, who settled in dense masses in Dalmatia and Mysia. In the East, things were going badly for the empire. The best of the generals, Narses, who had previously inspired fear in the Persians, raised the banner of rebellion in Edessa and sought an alliance with Chosroes. True, with false promises they managed to persuade Narses to surrender (he was treacherously executed), but the frustrated and undisciplined Byzantine army began to lose one battle after another. In 606, strong Dara fell; the same fate befell Amida and Edessa. Having driven the Greeks out of Mesopotamia, Khosroes penetrated into Asia Minor, devastated it and reached Chalcedon (609). The same fate befell Phenicia and Palestine. The population of the eastern provinces, part of which was under the yoke of religious persecution, was not inclined to resist the Persian invasion. Things went just as badly for the Greeks in Spain and Italy. It is characteristic of the policy of the papacy that such a highly moral person as Pope Gregory the Great welcomed the accession of the ferocious Φ. as the liberation of the people from the tyrant of Mauritius; he expressed joy that “the merciful and pious sovereign has reached the throne”; “Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth rejoice,” etc. etc. - these were the words of the strict ascetic, Peter’s deputy, to the murderer of Mauritius. This is explained by the fact that F.’s predecessor, Mauritius, supported the Patriarch of Constantinople John the Faster (582-595), who, despite the protests of the Pope, accepted the title of “ecumenical” (οίκουμενικός), and F. preferred not to quarrel with Rome and abolished this title. The disasters that befell the empire after the murder of Mauritius were beneficial for the papacy, which could uncontrollably prepare the spread of its secular power to Central Italy. Discontent against the disgusting government in the capital was restrained by F.'s bloody measures; but the elderly African exarch Heraclius was openly indignant, stopped paying income to the treasury and began to prepare for the fight. Finally, the Senate and even F.'s son-in-law, the talented commander Priscus, entered into relations with Heraclius, who sent a land army under the command of Nikita and a fleet under the command of his son, Heraclius the Younger, the future emperor. While Nikita was walking through Egypt, the exarch's son entered the waters of the Bosphorus at the beginning of October 610. The cowardly F. did not resist and was torn to pieces by the people; His associates also died along with him. The story of F. is told by Theophylact Simocatta in the Easter Chronicle, in the chronicle of Theophanes, by Zonara and Kedrin.
Mr.

• - From the Habsburg dynasty...

  All the monarchs of the world

• - Andronikos is the name of three Byzantine emperors...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• - brother-in-law of the Byzantine Emperor Leo I, took away imperial power from Zeno Glavrianin in 475, but with his cruelty aroused such hatred that Zeno, without bloodshed, could again take the throne in 476 V. together...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• - see Henry, Count of Flanders and Gennegau...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• - see Heraclius...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• - Michael is the name of several Byzantine emperors. When in 811 the Bulgar Khan Krum completely defeated the Byzantines and Emperor Nikephoros I died on the battlefield, and his son, Stavratius, was sickly from the incurable disease he received...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• - the second of the Amorian dynasty. He came to the throne under favorable conditions. Nothing threatened the Empire except Arab pirates; the population was relatively prosperous, the treasury was rich...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• - Byzantine emperor...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• - ...

  Spelling dictionary of the Russian language

• - BYZANTINE, oh, oh. Relating to the Byzantine state of 415 centuries, formed after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Byzantine art. Byzantine literature...

  Dictionary Ozhegova

• - Byzantine adj. 1. Related to Byzantium, associated with it. 2. Peculiar to Byzantium, characteristic of it. 3. Belonging to Byzantium. 4. Created, manufactured, etc. in Byzantium...

  Explanatory Dictionary by Efremova

• - Byzantine "...

  Russian spelling dictionary

• - Cunning, hypocritical, cruel...

  Dictionary foreign words Russian language

"Phocas the Byzantine Emperor" in books

1. 7. 1. Medieval authors believed that the famous Byzantine emperor Justinian was a Slav.

From the book Empire - I [with illustrations] author

1. 7. 1. Medieval authors believed that the famous Byzantine emperor Justinian was a Slav. German historians late XIX centuries they write about the famous emperor Justinian, allegedly from the 6th century AD, the following: “The emperor’s native language was Latin, and his surname (Savvaty) was Thracian,

2. Emperor Phocas (allegedly 602–610)

From the author's book

2. Emperor Phocas (allegedly 602–610) “Before his rapid rise to the throne (under the Emperor of Mauritius, that is, “Black” - Author), Phocas served as a hecatontarch (centurion) in the army on the Danube... In the fall of 602, the Thracian troops raised rebellion, elected Phocas commander-in-chief (exarch) and

2.1. MEDIEVAL AUTHORS BELIEVED THAT THE FAMOUS BYZANTINE EMPEROR JUSTINIAN WAS A SLAV

From the book Reconstruction general history[text only] author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

2.1. MEDIEVAL AUTHORS BELIEVED THAT THE FAMOUS BYZANTINE EMPEROR JUSTINIAN WAS A SLAV. German historians of the late 19th century write about the famous emperor Justinian, allegedly from the 6th century AD. e., the following: “The emperor’s native language was Latin, and the surname (Savaty) was Thracian, but

1. Petrarch greets Urban V. - France and Italy. - The state of Rome in this era. - Urban abolishes the Banderesi rule and installs conservatives. - Arrival in Italy" of Charles IV. - Entry of him and the pope into Rome. - The emperor's shameful departure from Italy. - Perugia is disobedient to the pope. - Byzantine Emperor in Rome

From the book History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages author Gregorovius Ferdinand

1. Petrarch greets Urban V. - France and Italy. - The state of Rome in this era. - Urban abolishes the Banderesi rule and installs conservatives. - Arrival in Italy" of Charles IV. - Entry of him and the pope into Rome. - The emperor's shameful departure from Italy. - Perugia is disobedient to the pope. -

From the book Calif Ivan author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

12. According to a number of sources, the Byzantine emperor Justinian was a Slav. Let us turn to the multi-volume German publication “History of Humanity. The World History" . This rare book was brought to our attention by our readers who discovered unexpected and interesting things in it.

2. EMPEROR PHOCAS (ALLEGEDLY 602–610)

From the book Tsar of the Slavs author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

2. EMPEROR PHOCAS (ALLEGEDLY 602–610) “Before his rapid rise to the throne (under the Emperor of Mauritius, that is, the “Black” - Author), Phocas served as a hecatontarch (centurion) in the army on the Danube... In the fall of 602, the Thracian troops raised rebellion, elected Phocas commander-in-chief (exarch) and

Foka (? - 610, imp. from 602)

author Dashkov Sergey Borisovich

Phocas (? - 610, imp. from 602) Before his meteoric rise to the throne, Phocas served as a hecatontarch (centurion) in the army on the Danube. Possessing a certain influence among the soldiers, he entered one of the embassies sent by the soldiers to Mauritius with claims, and at an audience he spoke with

Nikephoros II Phocas

From the book Emperors of Byzantium author Dashkov Sergey Borisovich

Nikephoros II Phocas (912–969, emperor from 963) Emperor Nikephoros II came from the powerful and noble family of Phocas, which regularly provided Byzantium with major military leaders. Nicephorus himself, a domesticate of the schola since 954, glorified himself with his successes on the battlefields. In the spring of 960, the Synclite and the Emperor

Emperor Nikephoros Phocas

From the book Russian Land. Between paganism and Christianity. From Prince Igor to his son Svyatoslav author Tsvetkov Sergey Eduardovich

Emperor Nikephoros Phocas In 963, Emperor Romanus II died in Constantinople. His young children, Vasily II and Constantine VIII, came under the care of their mother. In fact, all affairs at court were managed by the eunuch Joseph Vringa, the former tutor of Roman II and an influential courtier.

Why did the Byzantine Emperor Vasily II receive the nickname Bulgarian Slayer?

From the book The Newest Book of Facts. Volume 3 [Physics, chemistry and technology. History and archaeology. Miscellaneous] author Kondrashov Anatoly Pavlovich

Why did the Byzantine Emperor Vasily II receive the nickname Bulgarian Slayer? The Byzantine Emperor Vasily II, during the war with the Western Bulgarian Kingdom, committed a monstrous massacre of the Bulgarians: in the summer of 1014, he ordered the blinding of 16 thousand captives. Vasily's cruelty

FOKA (?-610)

From the book 100 Great Dictators author Mussky Igor Anatolievich

PHOCAS (?-610) Byzantine emperor from 602. Being a centurion (centurion), he led the uprising of the Byzantine troops and took the throne. He pursued a policy of terror towards the aristocracy. Deposed and executed by Heraclius. The last years of the 6th century and the beginning of the 7th century were marked in Byzantium

FOCA

From the book All the Monarchs of the World: Greece. Rome. Byzantium author Ryzhov Konstantin Vladislavovich

PHOCAS Byzantine emperor in 602-610. Died Oct 4 610 The origin of Phocas is unknown. Before his meteoric rise, he served as a centurion in the Danube Army. According to Kedrin, he had a small stature and an ugly figure, thick bristly eyebrows that grew together at

Foka

From the book Great Soviet Encyclopedia (FO) by the author TSB

"Foka"

author author unknown

"Foca" The boat "Foca" is the only Italian submarine that had three propeller shafts. It was driven by FIAT gasoline engines. On April 26, 1909, when the boat was in the port of Naples, a fire broke out on it from an explosion of gasoline vapors. To not give

"Foka"

From the book Submarines: Over 300 submarines from all over the world author author unknown

"Foka" The boats "Foka", "Atropo" and "Zoea" are Italian underwater minelayers built in the late 30s. According to the design, each ship's 100 mm gun was mounted on a rotating turret located behind the conning tower. Later the gun was moved to

Foka(killed in 610) - usurper, Byzantine emperor (602-610).

Biography

When in 602 a rebellion broke out in the Byzantine army camped across the Danube against the Emperor Mauritius, who had aroused displeasure with his frugality and an attempt to introduce strict military reforms, the mutinous soldiers elected the centurion Phocas, a man of disgusting appearance and cruel disposition, as commander-in-chief, and marched on Constantinople. Mauritius tried to stay in the capital by arming, among other things, the circus parties; but when the rebels led by Foka approached the city, a revolution broke out here, led by the Green Party. Mauritius fled with his family to the Asian coast and sent his eldest son and heir Theodosius from Chalcedon for help to the Persians. Meanwhile, Phocas entered the capital: on November 27, 602, Mauritius was killed, after his five sons (including Tiberius) were killed before his eyes. Theodosius was overtaken in Nicaea and shared the fate of his father. Subsequently, Mauritius's wife, Constantine, along with her three daughters, died painfully, accused of conspiracy.

The reign of Phocas, who saw in royal power only a means to satiate his wild passions and cruelty, was marked by a long series of ferocious executions, often without preliminary investigation or trial. The affairs of the empire were in complete disarray. In the East, a fierce struggle broke out with Khosrow II, who, under the pretext of revenge for the murder of Mauritius, his friend and guardian, attacked the Byzantine possessions. This war with Persia was at first very unsuccessful for Byzantine weapons.

The danger from the Sassanids forced Phocas to conclude a humiliating peace with the Avars, increasing the indemnity they paid, and move all his forces to the Asian theater of war. This measure only led to the fact that the Transdanubian barbarians received free access to the empire from the Danube to the Peloponnese; the population of the Balkan Peninsula underwent major changes due to the immigration of the Slavs, in large quantities settled in Dalmatia and Moesia. In the East, things were going badly for the empire. The best of the military leaders, Narses, who had previously inspired fear in the Persians, raised the banner of rebellion in Edessa and sought an alliance with Khosrow. True, with false promises they managed to persuade Narses to surrender (he was treacherously executed), but the frustrated, demoralized, and beheaded Byzantine army began to lose one battle after another.

In 606, the Dara fortress fell; the same fate befell Amida and Edessa. Having ousted the Greeks from Mesopotamia, Khosrow II Parviz, Shahinshah of Iran, penetrated Asia Minor, devastated it and reached Chalcedon (609). The same fate befell Phenicia and Palestine. The population of the eastern provinces, part of which was under the yoke of religious persecution, was not inclined to resist the Persian invasion. Things were going just as badly for the Romans in Spain and Italy.

It is characteristic of the policy of the papacy that such a highly moral man as Pope Gregory the Great welcomed the accession of the ferocious Phocas as the liberation of the people from the tyrant of Mauritius; he expressed joy that “the merciful and pious sovereign has reached the throne”; “Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth rejoice,” etc. - these were the words in which the strict ascetic, Peter’s deputy, addressed the murderer of Mauritius. This is explained by the fact that Phocas’ predecessor, Mauritius, supported the Patriarch of Constantinople John the Faster (582-595), who, despite the protests of the Pope, accepted the title of “ecumenical” (Greek), while Phocas chose not to quarrel with Rome and abolished this title.

The disasters that befell the empire after the murder of Mauritius were beneficial for the papacy, which could uncontrollably prepare the extension of its secular power to Central Italy. Discontent against the disgusting government in the capital was restrained by the bloody measures of Phocas; but the elderly African exarch Heraclius the Elder was openly indignant, stopped paying income to the treasury and began to prepare for the fight. Finally, the Senate and even Phocas's son-in-law, the talented commander Priscus, entered into relations with Heraclius, who sent a land army under the command of Nikita and a fleet under the command of his son, Heraclius, the future emperor. While Nikita was walking through Egypt, the son of the exarch entered the waters of the Bosphorus at the beginning of October 610. The cowardly Foka did not resist and was torn to pieces by the people; His entourage also died along with him.

According to almost all historians, the eight-year reign of Phocas represents the worst period of Byzantine history, when brutal executions and the inhumane beating of all high-born people suspicious of Phokas who had connections with the previous government, apparently constituted one of the main tasks of the government. The story of Phocas is told by Theophylact Simocatta, in the Easter Chronicle, in the chronicle of Theophanes, by Zonara and Kedrin.

The origins of Phocas are unknown. Before his meteoric rise, he served as a centurion in the Danube Army. According to Kedrin, he had a small stature and an ugly figure, thick bristly eyebrows that grew together on the bridge of his nose, and red hair, and an ugly wide scar on his cheek. He did not receive any education: he had no knowledge of either literature or laws, but he was prone to rough pleasures - drunkenness and voluptuousness. However, he enjoyed great influence among the soldiers. In 599, he was among the deputies of the Danube army who came to Constantinople with complaints against the commander Comentiol. Theophanes writes that Phocas, speaking with the emperor at the secret council, rudely contradicted him, so that one of the patricians gave Phocas a slap in the face and plucked out his beard.

Three years later, the Danube legions rebelled and proclaimed Phocas exarch (commander-in-chief). At the head of the army, he marched on Constantinople. There was an uprising in the capital and he fled. Patrick Herman (his eldest son Theodosius was married to his daughter) began to seek the throne, but the circus party of the Prasins did not allow this and began to extol Phokas. Meanwhile, Phocas stopped in Eudoma and summoned the patriarch, the popular parties and the senate there. He feignedly offered to crown Herman with the imperial title, but Herman also feignedly refused. Then, in the Church of John the Baptist, Phocas was proclaimed emperor and on the third day he rode into the capital in the royal chariot.

According to all historians, the reign of Phocas was marked by unbridled terror. As soon as he took the reins of power, he ordered his predecessor to be beheaded. Five of his sons, including an infant, were executed along with him. Then Foka ordered to cut off the head of brother Peter with a sword. The strategist Komentiol, the hypostrategist George, the domestic Presentin were killed, and many other close associates of the former emperor were killed. Foka initially imprisoned Konstantina, his wife, in some private house), but later ordered to be executed along with her three daughters. Herman and his daughter were also killed. In the last years of his reign, the emperor also killed all those who assisted him in seizing power.

“In 603, using the violent seizure of power by Phocas as a pretext for war, he ordered the trumpet of war to be blown, destroying the world; she destroyed the happiness of the Romans and Persians. It seemed that he pretended that he wanted to preserve the holy memory of the emperor. This was how the war with the Persians was destined to begin, which went extremely unsuccessfully for the Romans,” wrote Theophylact Simocatta.

Phokas executed the commander Nerses, before whom his enemies had trembled for many years, and entrusted the command to his close associate Leontius. That same year, the Romans were defeated twice. Dara fell in 605. In 606, the Persians plundered all of Syria, Palestine and Phenicia, taking many people captive. In 607 they took possession of Armenia, Galatia and Paphlagonia, and reached Chalcedon itself. Phokas was unable to resist the enemies. Several times conspiracies were hatched against him, but they were discovered and suppressed with great cruelty. Finally, the Constantinople mob also turned away from the emperor. In 609, during the horse games, the Prasins scolded Phocas and shouted, hinting at his love of alcohol: “Again you have drunk your cup and lost your meaning!” The emperor ordered the screamers to be intercepted, many to be mutilated, and the severed members to be hung on hippodrome poles, others to have their heads cut off, others to be put in sacks and drowned in the sea. In response, the Prasins burned the praetorium, broke up the prisons and released the prisoners.

During the reign of Phocas, a genuine revolution essentially began in the country. Civil War, covering Cilicia, Syria, Palestine, Asia Minor and Egypt. Internal unrest made the road to the empire accessible to its external enemies.

The Byzantine government could no longer stop the Slavic-Avar onslaught. The Balkan Peninsula was actually open to invasion by its northern neighbors.

When the exarch of Africa broke away from the emperor in 609, all sympathies were on his side. In the fall of 610, the African fleet, led by the exarch's son, also Heraclius, approached the capital. On October 4, a man named Photius, who was offended by Phocas, since he had recently dishonored his wife, entered the palace with a large army, immediately captured Phocas, took off his imperial vestments, wrapped him in black clothes, twisted his hands tied behind his back, and handed over the prisoner on the ship. Heraclius, seeing him, said: “So, unfortunate one, you ruled the state.” He replied: “Do you intend to manage better?” ordered his head to be cut off, then all his limbs to be cut off, and his body to be dragged through the Forum of the Bull and there to be burned. At the same time, his brother Domentiol and some close associates were executed. On the same day, Patriarch Sergius proclaimed him emperor.

Share this article with your friends:

Similar articles

• 

  Funeral of Matveeva's novella
• 

  Numerology by date of birth Number 30 meaning in numerology
• 

  And about. Governor of the Novgorod region Andrei Nikitin is “a man from the young metropolitan crowd. Varyag in Novgorod. How Governor Nikitin lived his first year Andrey Nikitin, the new governor