Two
attempts at reunion; the hesychast controversy
In
1204 the Crusaders set up a short-lived Latin kingdom at Constantinople, which came
to
an end in 1261 when the Greeks recovered
their capital. Byzantium survived for two centuries
more, and these years proved a time of
great cultural, artistic, and religious revival. But politi-
cally and economically the restored
Byzantine Empire was in a precarious state, and found itself
more and more helpless in the face of the
Turkish armies which pressed upon it from the east.
Two important attempts were made to secure reunion between the Christian
east and west,
the first in the thirteenth and the second
in the fifteenth century. The moving spirit behind the
32
first attempt was Michael VIII (reigned
1259-1282), the Emperor who recovered Constantinople.
While doubtless sincerely desiring
Christian unity on religious grounds, his motive was also po-
litical: threatened by attacks from
Charles of Anjou, sovereign of Sicily, he desperately needed
the support and protection of the
Papacy, which could best be secured
through a union of the
Churches. A reunion Council was held at Lyons in 1274. The Orthodox delegates who
attended
agreed to
recognize the Papal claims and to
recite the Creed with the filioque. But the union
proved no more than an agreement on paper,
since it was fiercely rejected by the overwhelming
majority of clergy and laity in the
Byzantine Church, as well as by Bulgaria and the other Ortho-
dox countries. The general reaction to the
Council of Lyons was summed up in words attributed
to the Emperor.s sister: .Better that my
brother.s Empire should perish, than the
purity of the
Orthodox faith.. The union of Lyons was
formally repudiated by Michael.s successor, and Mi-
chael himself, for his .apostasy,. was
deprived of Christian burial.
Meanwhile east and
west continued to
grow further apart
in their theology
and in their
whole manner of understanding the
Christian life. Byzantium continued to live in a Patristic at-
mosphere, using the ideas and language of
the Greek Fathers of the fourth century. But in west-
ern Europe the tradition of the Fathers
was replaced by Scholasticism . that great synthesis of
philosophy and theology worked out in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Western theologians
now came to employ new categories of
thought, a new theological method, and a new terminol-
ogy which the east did not understand. To
an ever-increasing extent the two sides were losing a
common .universe of discourse..
Byzantium on its side also contributed to this process: here too there
were theological de-
velopments in which the west had neither
part nor share, although there was nothing so radical as
the Scholastic revolution. These
theological developments were connected chiefly with the He-
sychast
Controversy, a
dispute which arose at Byzantium in the middle of the fourteenth century,
and which involved the doctrine of God.s
nature and the methods of prayer used in the Orthodox
Church.
To
understand the Hesychast Controversy, we must turn back for the moment to the
earlier
history of eastern mystical theology. The
main features of this mystical theology were worked
out by Clement (died 215) and by Origen of
Alexandria (died 253-254), whose ideas were devel-
oped in the fourth century by the
Cappadocians, especially Gregory of Nyssa, and by their disci-
ple Evagrius of Pontus (died 399), a monk
in the Egyptian desert. There are two trends in this
mystical theology, not exactly opposed,
but certainly at first sight inconsistent: the .way of nega-
tion. and the .way of union.. The way of
negation . apophatic theology, as it
is often called .
speaks of God in negative terms. God
cannot be properly apprehended by man.s mind; human
language, when applied to Him, is always
inexact. It is therefore less misleading to use negative
language about God rather than positive .
to refuse to say what God is, and to state simply what
He is not. As Gregory of Nyssa put it:
.The true knowledge and vision of God consist in this .
in seeing that He is invisible,
because what we seek lies beyond all knowledge, being wholly
separated by the darkness of
incomprehensibility. (The Life of Moses, 2, 163 [77A]).
Negative theology reaches its classic expression in the so-called
.Dionysian. writings. For
many centuries these books were thought to
be the work of Saint Dionysius the
Areopagite,
Paul.s convert at Athens (Acts 17:34); but
they are in fact by an unknown author, who probably
lived towards the end of the fifth
century and belonged to circles sympathetic to the Mono-
physites. Saint Maximus the Confessor
(died 662) composed commentaries on the Dionysian
writings, and so ensured for them a
permanent place in Orthodox theology. Dionysius has also
had a great influence on the west: it has
been reckoned that he is quoted 1,760 times by Thomas
33
Aquinas in the Summa, while a fourteenth-century English chronicler
records that the Mystical
Theology of Dionysius .ran through England like
the wild deer.. The apophatic language
of
Dionysius was repeated by many others.
.God is infinite and incomprehensible,. wrote John of
Damascus, .and all that is comprehensible
about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility..
God does not belong to the class of
existing things: not that He has no existence, but that He is
above all existing things, nay even above
existence itself (On the Orthodox Faith 1, 4 [P.G. xciv, 800B]).
This emphasis on God.s transcendence would seem at first sight to
exclude any direct ex-
perience of God. But in fact many of those
who made greatest use of negative theology . Greg-
ory of Nyssa, for example, or Dionysius,
or Maximus . also believed in the possibility of a true
mystical union with God; they combined the
.way of negation. with the .way of union,. with
the tradition of the mystics or hesychasts. (The name hesychast is derived from the
Greek word
hesychia, meaning .quiet.. A hesychast is one who
in silence devotes himself to inner recollec-
tion and secret prayer). While using the
apophatic language of negative theology, these writers
claimed an immediate experience of the
unknowable God, a personal union with Him who is un-
approachable. How were the two .ways. to
be reconciled? How can God be both knowable and
unknowable at once?
This was one of the questions which was posed in an acute form in the
fourteenth century.
Connected with it was another, the question
of the body and its place in prayer. Evagrius, like
Origen,
sometimes borrowed too
heavily from Platonism:
he wrote of
prayer in intellectual
terms, as an activity of the mind rather
than of the whole man, and he seemed to allow no posi-
tive role to man.s body in the process of redemption and
deification. But the balance between
mind and body is redressed in another
ascetic writing, the Macarian Homilies. (These were tradi-
tionally
attributed to Saint Macarius of Egypt [300?-390], but it is now thought
that they were
written in Syria during the late fourth or
the beginning of the fifth century). The Macarian Homi-
lies revert to a more Biblical idea of man
. not a soul imprisoned in a body (as in Greek
thought), but a single and united whole,
soul and body together. Where Evagrius speaks of the
mind, Macarius uses the Hebraic idea of the
heart. The change of emphasis is significant, for the
heart includes the whole man . not only
intellect, but will, emotions, and even body.
Using
.heart. in this Macarian sense, Orthodox often talk about .Prayer of the
Heart.. What
does the phrase mean? When a man begins
to pray, at first he prays with the lips, and has to
make
a conscious intellectual
effort in order
to realize the meaning
of what he says.
But if he
perseveres, praying continually with recollection, his intellect and his
heart become united; he
.finds the place of the heart,. his spirit
acquires the power of .dwelling in the heart,. and so his
prayer
becomes .prayer of
the heart.. It
becomes something not
merely said by
the lips, not
merely thought by the intellect, but
offered spontaneously by the whole being of man . lips,
intellect, emotions, will, and body. The
prayer fills the entire consciousness, and no longer has to
be forced out, but says itself. This
Prayer of the Heart cannot be attained simply through our own
efforts, but is a gift conferred by the
grace of God.
When Orthodox writers use the term .Prayer of the Heart,. they usually
have in mind one
particular prayer, the Jesus Prayer. Among
Greek spiritual writers, first Diadochus
of Photice
(mid-fifth century) and later Saint John
Climacus of Mount Sinai (579?-649?) recommended, as
a specially valuable form of prayer, the
constant repetition or remembrance of the name .Jesus..
In course of time the Invocation of the
Name became crystallized into a short sentence, known as
the Jesus Prayer: .Lord Jesus Christ,
Son of God, have mercy on me. (In
modern Orthodox practice
the Prayer sometimes ends,
..have mercy on me a sinner.). By the thirteenth century (if not before), the
recitation of the Jesus Prayer had become
linked to certain physical exercises, designed to assist
34
concentration. Breathing was carefully
regulated in time with the Prayer, and a particular bodily
posture was recommended: head bowed, chin
resting on the chest, eyes fixed on the place of the
heart. (There are interesting parallels between
the Hesychast .method. and Hindu Yoga or Mohammedan Dhikr;
but the
points of similarity must not
be pressed too
far). This is often called
.the Hesychast method of
prayer,. but it should not be thought that
for the Hesychasts these exercises constituted the es-
sence of prayer. They were regarded, not as
an end in themselves, but as a help to concentration
. as an accessory useful to some, but not
obligatory upon all. The Hesychasts knew that there
can be no mechanical means of acquiring
God.s grace, and no techniques leading automatically
to the mystical state.
For the Hesychasts of Byzantium, the culmination of mystical experience
was the vision of
Divine and Uncreated Light. The works of
Saint Symeon the New Theologian (949-1022), the
greatest of the Byzantine mystics, are
full of this .Light mysticism.. When he writes of his own
experiences, he speaks again and again of
the Divine Light: .fire truly divine,. he calls it, .fire
uncreated and invisible, without beginning
and immaterial.. The Hesychasts believed that this
light which they
experienced was identical with
the Uncreated Light which the
three disciples
saw surrounding Jesus at His
Transfiguration on Mount Thabor. But how was this vision of Di-
vine Light to be reconciled with the
apophatic doctrine of God the transcendent and unapproach-
able?
All these questions concerning the transcendence of God, the role of the
body in prayer, and
the Divine Light came to a head in the
middle of the fourteenth century. The Hesychasts were
violently attacked by a learned Greek from
Italy, Barlaam the Calabrian, who stated the doctrine
of God.s .otherness. and unknowability in
an extreme form. It is sometimes suggested that Bar-
laam was influenced here by the Nominalist
philosophy that was current in the west at this date;
but more probably he derived his teaching
from Greek sources. Starting from a one-sided exege-
sis of Dionysius, he argued that God can only be known
indirectly; Hesychasm
(so he main-
tained) was wrong to speak of an immediate
experience of God, for any such experience is im-
possible. Seizing on the bodily exercises
which the Hesychasts employed, Barlaam accused them
of holding a grossly materialistic
conception of prayer. He was also scandalized by their claim to
attain a vision of the Divine and Uncreated
Light: here again he charged them with falling into a
gross materialism. How can a man see God.s
essence with his bodily eyes? The light which the
Hesychasts beheld, in his view, was not
the eternal light of the Divinity, but a temporary and cre-
ated light.
The defense of the Hesychasts was taken up by Saint Gregory Palamas
(1296-1359), Arch-
bishop of Thessalonica. He upheld a
doctrine of man which allowed for the use of bodily exer-
cises in prayer, and he argued, against
Barlaam, that the Hesychasts did indeed
experience the
Divine and Uncreated Light of Thabor. To
explain how this was possible, Gregory developed the
distinction between the essence and the energies of God. It was Gregory.s achievement to set
Hesychasm on a firm dogmatic basis, by
integrating it into Orthodox theology as a whole, and by
showing how the Hesychast vision of Divine
Light in no way undermined the apophatic doctrine
of God. His teaching was confirmed by two
councils held at Constantinople in 1341 and 1351,
which, although local and not Ecumenical,
yet possess a doctrinal authority in Orthodox theol-
ogy scarcely inferior to the Seven General Councils themselves. But
western Christendom has
never officially recognized these two
councils, although many western Christians personally ac-
cept the theology of Palamas.
Gregory began by reaffirming the Biblical doctrine of man and of the
Incarnation. Man is a
single, united whole: not only man.s mind
but the whole man
was created in the image of God
35
(P.G. cl, 1361C). Man.s body is not an enemy, but partner and
collaborator with his soul. Christ, by
taking a human body at the Incarnation,
has .made the flesh an
inexhaustible source of sanctifi-
cation. (Homily 16 [P.G. cli, 193B]). Here Gregory took up and developed the ideas implicit
in earlier
writings, such as the Macarian Homilies;
the same emphasis on man.s body, as we have seen,
lies behind the Orthodox doctrine of
icons. Gregory went on to apply this doctrine of man to the
Hesychast methods of prayer: the
Hesychasts, so he argued, in placing such emphasis on the part
of the body in prayer, are not guilty of a
gross materialism but are simply remaining faithful to
the Biblical doctrine of man as a unity.
Christ took human flesh and saved the whole man; there-
fore it is the whole man . body and soul together . that prays to God.
From this Gregory turned to the main problem: how to combine the two
affirmations, that
man knows God and that God is by nature
unknowable. Gregory answered: we know the ener-
gies of God, but not His essence. This distinction between God.s essence (ousia) and His ener-
gies goes back to the Cappadocian Fathers.
.We know our God from His energies,. wrote Saint
Basil, .but we do not claim that we can
draw near to His essence. For His energies come down to
us, but His essence remains
unapproachable. (Letter 234, 1).
Gregory accepted this distinction. He
affirmed, as emphatically as any exponent
of negative theology, that God is in essence absolutely
unknowable. .God is not a nature,. he
wrote, .for He is above all nature; He is not a being, for
He is
above all beings.. No single
thing of all that is created has or ever will have even the
slightest communion with the supreme
nature, or nearness to it. (P.G. cl, 1176C). But
however re-
mote from us in His essence, yet in His
energies God has revealed Himself to men. These ener-
gies are not something that exists apart
from God, not a gift which God confers upon men: they
are
God Himself in
His action and
revelation to the
world. God exists
complete and entire
in
each of His divine energies. The world, as Gerard Manley Hopkins said, is
charged with the
grandeur of God; all creation is a
gigantic Burning Bush, permeated but not consumed by the
ineffable and wondrous fire of God.s
energies. (Compare
Maximus, Ambigua, P.G. xci,
1148D).
It is through
these energies that God enters into
a direct and immediate
relationship with
mankind.
In relation to man, the divine energy
is in fact nothing else than the grace of God;
grace is not just a .gift. of God, not
just an object which God bestows on men, but a direct mani-
festation of the living God Himself, a personal confrontation between
creature and Creator.
.Grace signifies all the abundance of the
divine nature, in so far as it is communicated to men.
(V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 162). When we say that the saints have been
transformed or .deified. by the grace of
God, what we mean is that they have a direct experience
of God Himself. They know God . that is to say, God in His
energies, not in His essence.
God is Light, and therefore the experience of God.s energies takes the
form of Light. The
vision which the Hesychasts receive is (so
Palamas argued) not a vision of some created light,
but of the Light of the Godhead Itself .
the same Light of the Godhead which surrounded Christ
on Mount Thabor. This Light is not a
sensible or material light, but it can be seen with physical
eyes (as by the disciples at the
Transfiguration), since when a man is deified, his bodily faculties
as well as his soul are transformed. The
Hesychasts. vision of Light is therefore a true vision of
God in His divine energies; and they are
quite correct in identifying it with the Uncreated Light
of Thabor.
Palamas, therefore, preserved God.s transcendence and avoided the
pantheism to which an
unguarded mysticism easily leads; yet he
allowed for God.s immanence, for His continual pres-
ence in the world. God remains .the Wholly Other,.
and yet through His energies (which
are
God Himself) He enters into an immediate
relationship with the world. God is a living God, the
God of history, the God of the Bible, who
became Incarnate in Christ. Barlaam, in excluding all
36
direct knowledge of God and in asserting
that the Divine Light is something created, set too wide
a gulf between God and man. Gregory.s
fundamental concern in opposing Barlaam was therefore
the same as that of Athanasius and the
General Councils: to safeguard man.s direct approach to
God, to uphold man.s full deification and entire redemption. That same doctrine of
salvation
which underlay the disputes about the
Trinity, the Person of Christ, and the Holy Icons, lies also
at the heart of the Hesychast controversy.
.Into the closed world of Byzantium,. wrote Dom Gregory Dix, .no really
fresh impulse
ever came after the sixth century. Sleep
began. in the ninth century, perhaps even earlier, in
the sixth.
(The Shape of
the Liturgy, London,
1945, p. 548). The Byzantine
controversies of the four-
teenth century amply demonstrate the
falsity of such an assertion. Certainly
Gregory Palamas
was no revolutionary innovator, but firmly
rooted in the tradition of the past; yet he was a crea-
tive theologian of the first rank, and his
work shows that Orthodox theology did not cease to be
active after the eighth century and the
seventh Ecumenical Council.
Among the contemporaries of Gregory Palamas was the lay theologian
Nicholas Cabasilas,
who was sympathetic to the Hesychasts,
although not closely involved in the controversy. Ca-
basilas is the author of a Commentary on the
Divine Liturgy, which
has become the classic Or-
thodox work on this subject; he also wrote
a treatise on the sacraments entitled The Life in Jesus
Christ. The writings of Cabasilas are marked by
two things in particular: a vivid sense of the per-
son of Christ .the Saviour,. who, as he
puts it, .is closer to us than our own soul. (P.G. cl, 712A);
and a
constant emphasis upon the sacraments. For him the mystical life is essentially a life in
Christ and a life in the sacraments. There
is a danger that mysticism may become speculative and
individualist . divorced from the
historical revelation in Christ and from the corporate life of
the Church with its sacraments; but the
mysticism of Cabasilas is always Christocentric, sacra-
mental, ecclesial. His work shows how
closely mysticism and the sacramental life were linked
together in Byzantine theology. Palamas
and his circle did not regard mystical prayer as a means
of bypassing the normal institutional life
of the Church.
A
second reunion Council was held at Florence in 1438-1439. The Emperor John VIII
(reigned 1425-1448) attended in person,
together with the Patriarch of Constantinople and a large
delegation from the Byzantine Church, as
well as representatives from the other Orthodox
Churches. There were prolonged
discussions, and a genuine attempt was made by both sides to
reach
a true agreement on the great points of dispute. At the same time it was
difficult for the
Greeks
to discuss theology
dispassionately, for they
knew that the
political situation had
now
become desperate: the only hope of
defeating the Turks lay in help from the west. Eventually a
formula of union was drawn up, covering
the filioque,
Purgatory, azymes, and the Papal claims;
and this was signed by all the Orthodox
present at the Council except one . Mark, Archbishop
of Ephesus, later canonized by the
Orthodox Church. The Florentine Union was based on a two-
fold principle: unanimity in matters of
doctrine, respect for the legitimate rites and traditions pe-
culiar to each Church. Thus in matters of
doctrine, the Orthodox accepted the Papal claims (al-
though here the wording of the formula of
union was vague and ambiguous); they accepted the
filioque; they accepted the Roman teaching on
Purgatory (as a point of dispute between east and
west, this only came into the open in the
thirteenth century). But so far as .azymes. were con-
cerned, no uniformity was demanded: Greeks
were allowed to use leavened bread, while Latins
were to continue to employ unleavened.
But the Union of Florence, though celebrated throughout western Europe .
bells were rung
in all the parish churches of England .
proved no more of a reality in the east than its predeces-
37
sor at Lyons. John VIII and his successor
Constantine XI, the last Emperor of Byzantium and the
eightieth in succession since Constantine
the Great, both remained loyal to the union; but they
were powerless to enforce it on their
subjects, and did not even dare to proclaim it publicly at
Constantinople until 1452. Many of those
who signed at Florence revoked their signatures when
they reached home. The decrees of the
Council were never accepted by more than a minute frac-
tion of the Byzantine clergy and people.
The Grand Duke Lucas Notaras, echoing the words of
the Emperor.s sister after Lyons,
remarked: .I would rather see the Moslem turban in the midst
of the city than the Latin miter..
John and Constantine had hoped that the Union of Florence would secure
them military help
from the west, but small indeed was the
help which they actually received. On 7 April 1453 the
Turks began to attack Constantinople by
land and sea. Outnumbered by more than twenty to one,
the Byzantines maintained a brilliant but
hopeless defense for seven long weeks.
In the early
hours of 29 May the last Christian service
was held in the great Church of the Holy Wisdom. It
was a united service of Orthodox and Roman
Catholics, for at this moment of crisis the support-
ers and opponents of the Florentine Union
forgot their differences. The Emperor went out after
receiving
communion, and died fighting on the
walls. Later the same day the city
fell to the
Turks, and the most glorious church in
Christendom became a mosque.
It was the
end of the Byzantine
Empire. But
it was not
the end of
the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, far less the end of Orthodoxy.
|