Pokora – „matka cnót” (μήτηρ άρετων) w ujęciu Bazylego Wielkiego i Jana Chryzostoma

Abstract

The aim of the article is to show the basic assumptions underlying the teaching of humility in Eastern patristics, on the example of writings by two outstanding writers of the 4th century, who used the Greek language – St Basil and St John Chrysostom. They come to analogous conclusions as St Augustine, who lived at the same time, speaking explicitly about humility as the basis of all virtues. Their conception is a synthetic summary of a few earlier currents. Besides the biblical, and especially evangelical, data, the authors used the ancient Greek terminology connected with the ideals of moderation and magnanimity and the attitude of lack of conceit, changing its original semantics in the Christian spirit. They also referred to the foundations of the teaching of humility as a moral-religious virtue that were formed in the circle of Alexandrian theologians (Clement of Alexandria, Origen) and to the idea of putting humility at the head of virtues as the foundation of Christian life that was used in the ascetic practice of early-Christian monks. Basil and John Chrysostom define humility as freedom from conceit and the conception that a man may be covered with glory all by himself, and not by looking for it as coming from God. They emphasize that various kinds of submissiveness may be called humility and that not all of them deserve to be called virtues. Evaluation of a given form of humility depends on the motivation which resulted in assuming this attitude. Both these authors do not leave any doubts as to the foremost importance of humility in the process of acquiring virtues. It is the mother, the root, the supporter, the basis and the bond for all the other virtues (μήτηρ άρετων). According to the rules of the ancient rhetoric Basil and John Chrysostom present the virtue of humility against the background of the fault it opposes, that is conceit. They stress that although true humility is the opposite of conceit, the borderline between the fault and a distorted form of the opposite virtue may be quite fluent; one can pride himself on his own humility and derive pleasure from it. Humility as it is understood by Basil and John Chrysostom is a specific virtue. On the one hand, it a separate virtue that opens the way to perfection and makes it possible to acquire other virtues, but on the other - it is an attitude that accompanies all the virtues; it is the ‘head’ (κεφαλή) of each of them and a trait that distinguishes each true Christian. In this formulation, humility in a sense comes close to the Aristotelian ideal of ‘μεσότης’, which also sometimes was described as a separate virtue and sometimes as an inseparable feature of each virtue. The well-known stoic conviction that one who acquires one virtue, at the same time acquires all of them, may be connected, in a peculiar way, with this understanding of humility.