Mount Athos in the Fourteenth Century: Spiritual and Intellectual Legacy John Meyendorff Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 42. (1988), pp. 157-165. Stable URL hitp:/flinks.jstor-org/sicisici=0070-7546% 281988%2942%3C157%3AMAITFC%3E2. CO%3B2-3 Dumbarton Oaks Papers is currently published by Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University. Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hup:/www,jstororglabout/terms.hml. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hutp:/www jstor.org/journals/doaks.html ch copy of any part of'a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, ISTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @ jstor.org. hupulwww jstor.org/ Wed Mar 15 08:37:34 2006Mount Athos in the Fourteenth Century: Spiritual and Intellectual Legacy Jouw Mevenporrr ‘he increasingly numerous, and often excel- lent, studies of Eastern Christian monastic spirituality seldom refer to any significant Atho- nite authors before the last decades of the thir- teenth century. It appears that, since the time when the first hermits settled on the Holy Moun- tain and, in spite of the creation of the first great cenobitic monasteries in the tenth century, Atho- nite monks remained rather uninvolved in literary activities. Together with the vast majority of their brothers and sisters in other monastic centers of the Byzantine world, they accepted, as permanent criterion of asceticism and spirituality, the legacy received from the early Christian monastic tradi- ns of Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and the Constan- tinopolitan Stoudios. The predominantly rural re- cruitment of the Athonite communities and their remoteness from major urban centers were not conducive to intellectual creativity. Their isolation was, in fact, deliberately sought and was protected by the imperially approved status of the Holy Mountain. Several factors contributed to the sudden and ‘much greater visibility acquired by Mount Athos in the late thirteenth century and its central role in events of the fourteenth. First of all, the Athonite republic was the only major Byzantine monastic center that survived, practically untouched, the ‘Turkish conquest of Asia Minor, the Latin occu- pation of many Byzantine territories in Europe, and the Slavic advances in the Balkans. As a result, it acquired the prestige of uniqueness and began attracting numerous monks not only from the cap- ital but also from the South Slavic countries (St. Sava of Serbia, Cyprian of Kiev), the Middle East (St. Gregory of Sinai), and particularly from Thes- ‘An earlier version ofthis paper was read at the Dumbarton ‘Oaks Symposium on Mount Athos, 1-3 May 1987, salonica, which had become politically, socially, and intellectually a center rivaling the importance of Constantinople. ‘The presence on Mount Athos of so many in- fluential figures was in itself sufficient to raise its social prestige. Furthermore, such events as the Union of Lyons and its aftermath, in which Atho- nite communities were directly involved, the con- quests of the Serbian tsar Stephen Duan, the so- cial upheavals in Thessalonica, or the civil wars ‘opposing members of the Palaiologan family made itimpossible for the Holy Mountain to maintain its former aloofness from the world around it. Its rel- ative independence, its influence with the people, its prestige among the Orthodox Slavs, and the economic leverage provided by its landholdings made it inevitable for the monastic community to assume an important role in shaping the social and intellectual issues of the day. ‘My purpose here, however, is not to give a his- tory of Mount Athos in the fourteenth century but to discuss briefly the movement which, at the time, was certainly the most influential expression of Athonite spirituality: the movement known as “hesychasm” or “Palamism.” Publications on the subject are not lacking,! but opinions continue to "For the period 1959-72, D. Stiemon lists 303 titles of schol- arly publications related to Palamism ("Bulletin sur le Pala- tnisme,” REB 30 (1972), 251-341), Their number has more than doubled since, Most valuable are publications of texts. in the lst decades, the principal writings ofthe major protagonists fof the Palamite controversy have been published, including ‘most writings of Gregory Palamas himself (J. Meyendortf, ed. Defense des sans hésychastes: Introduction, ete rita, traduction et ‘notes, 2nd ed. (Louvain, 1971], 2 vols: P. Khrestou etal, eds, Madaud Zerreduuava, 3 vols. (Thessaloniki, 1962-70): of his disciples, Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos (Ado nal ua, ed P-Pseutogas( 1981); Aomaruxa Ey, ed. D. Kai= .ytohoyexd fey, ed. D. Tames (Thessaloniki, 1985}, Joseph Kalothetos (Zvrredwwawa, ed. D.158 JOHN MEYENDORFF differ as to the movement’ true significance, rela- tion to patristic theology, place in the Byzantine in- tellectual tradition, and legacy to the subsequent history of Eastern Europe. Whether or not a con- sensus can be reached, it is useful to discuss the subject once more, during a symposium on Mount Athos. In order to initiate such a discussion, a few ob- servations must be made in two distinct spheres: the historical and cultural importance of the Pal- amite victory in 1847-51, and the more technical issue of the “originality.” or “novelty” of Palamite theology itself. 1. Tie PataMrre Victory: SIGNIFICANCE ‘AND CONSEQUENCES Acute, and sometimes passionate, interest in the controversies that occurred in Byzantium in the fourteenth century is a relatively recent phenom- ‘enon. Itis connected with better acquaintance with the content of manuscript libraries and the discov- ery that a large proportion of fourteenth- and fifteenth-century manuscripts contain documents connected with those controversies. Historians have recognized that important issues were in- volved—important at least in terms of what that particular period of Byzantine intellectual history actually left to posterity. ‘What is rather unfortunate, however, is that the discovery was made within the context of confes- sional polemics. The entire “dossier palamite” was studied for the first time by the late French As- sumptionist Martin Jugie* But Jugie's scholarship was coupled with avowed and unabashed polemi- cal concerns, a combination that was quite usual iy ety tht pe one ape sper ot he eee eerie oe eer ed fae Hae ciketerd en e Siler ieee Steen Seem einai mover Borat aemnoneethe ie eer ood ene ater csc area ea among ecclesiastics in the Post-Reformation pe- riod. His goal was to show that a “schismatic” church, deprived of the guidance of the Roman magisterium and subjected to imperial caesaro- papism, could only lead to doctrinal incoherence. ‘The approval of Palamite doctrines by a series of councils was clear proof of that Although all historians profited from the lists of unpublished materials and other evidence pro- vided in Jugie's work, his polemical attitude has been largely abandoned. Nevertheless, criticism of Palamite theology remains strong among those who accept as self-evident some basic presupposi- tions of medieval Latin scholasticism. This criti- cism, on the other hand, provokes a defensive re- action on the part of convinced Palamites, not always aware of problems that might, at least in the minds of honest critics, have some legitimacy and require articulate answers. Even those historians who would normally not take sides in technical theological debates find themselves somehow con- ditioned by the continuous polemics, because so much of the secondary literature on the issue is already influenced by it. In order to make progress, the debate must transcend slogans and terminological ambiguities, so that the personalities and events of the four- teenth century might be understood in their proper context and not in the light of later ideo- logical options. (a) The first of such ambiguities concerns the very term hesychasm, which is so often used in con- nection with the events of the fourteenth century and is taken to signify, exclusively, the supposedly novel form of spirituality introduced by Athonite monks and defended by Palamas and his disciples. In reality, the terms hesychia (Flovy(a) and hesychasts (ovzacta) were part of the standard terminol- ogy used to designate the life of contemplative her- mits.‘ The idea that a new movement called “hesy- chasm” had begun on Mount Athos in the fourteenth century may have originated from one of the first hagiographic documents of that period to be studied by modern historians: the Vita of St. Gregory the Sinaite (d. 1346) by Patriarch Kallistos (1350-53, 1354-63). According to Kallistos, Greg- ory, upon arriving on Athos from Sinai, found no See, eg. the authors who contributed the editorial and sev- eral articles to sina 19 (1974), 257-349, “See J. Meyendorff, "Is “Hesychasm’ the Right Word? Re- marks on Religious Ideology in the Fourteenth Century" Har- ‘gard Ulrainian Studs 7 (1989) (= Okeanos, sas Prevent to Thar Scocenko, 447-48,MOUNT ATHOS IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY help in his search for “hesychia, or the guarding of the intellect and contemplation.” As a result, he pursued his goal on his own, and eventually re- vived the tradition on Mount Athos.* The text allowed. many authors to describe fourteenth- century Byzantine hesychasm as a “Sinaite spiri- tuality:"* Indeed, both the terminology and the es- sence of hesychasm were known on Sinai since the great St. John Klimakos, abbot of Sinai (seventh century),” and must have been preserved in later centuries. But the statement of Kallistos, according to which hesychasm was unknown on Athos in the fourteenth century, is certainly a hagiographic cliché intended to enhance the Sinaite’s role as a leader of spirituality in his time. In any case, nei- ther Gregory Palamas nor any other author sup- ported the contention of Kallistos that hesychasm came to Athos from Sinai through the exclusive mediation of Gregory On the contrary, Palamas specifically mentions other names as the great mas- ters of hesychast tradition in the contemporary Byzantine world: Patriarch Athanasios (1289-93, 1303-9), Theoleptos of Philadelphia (4. before 1327) and his Athonite teacher Nikephoros the Hesychast, as well as several other eminent monks of the fourteenth century, who lived not on Sinai but on the Mount of St. Auxentios’ near Chalce- don, across the Bosphoros from Constantinople. ‘Therefore, when Palamas defended the “hesy- chasts,” his aim was not to defend an imported novelty but to justify what he understood to be well-known and revered tradition, accepted within the mainstream of the Byzantine Church and so- ciety. It was his theological formulations—not hesychasm as such—that provoked some opposi tion. Indeed, the main adversary of Palamas, Gregory Akindynos, wrote about “divine hesy- 2a, ed I. Pomjalovei, St. Peteaburg, Iori lloihs {fake Zap 38 (1800), 1-04 here pate? " “This was apparently sarted by J. Bos “Grégoire le Snaite cthasychasmes Athos au XiVe seer BO 8 (1901) 88-98 “Igeod wr wali ey AvOH OOD nal we YO} oysiasipeatey (Step 27, PC Bb eal 1112G, ee) tis Hit of Palas, Patriarch Phlotheos Kokkinos men tions 2 "Gregory the Great” Femdges 6 ade) among the Spiritual dreetors of Palamas athe Shee of Glos on Mount ‘Nios (PG 151 co, S68B; ed, eames, Avwohoyera tera, 450) ‘Atempts ave been made to hdemaly. ths Gregory with Se Gregory of Sinai sce ately Balfour, “Was Sc Gregory Pala tna St Gregory the SinalteS Pupi™ St Vladimir Phdogia! ure 28 (1588), 115-80; This would not imply, however an Exelusive role of the inate in restoring hesyhaven on Mount Rhos "CE J. Meyendort, Dif, us-att Hem, A Sty of Gre Paloma a ed (Londons New York a) 2-20. 159 chasts;"" and some of the disciples of Theoleptos of Philadelphia, whom Palamas considered as his ‘master, became anti-Palamites, although they too claimed to represent the hesychast tradition."! tis true, of course, that the adversaries of Pal- amas—Barlaam the Calabrian, Akindynos, and Nikephoros Gregoras—occasionally identified, if not hesychasm in general, atleast the ideology de- fended by Palamas, with sectarian Messalianism or Bogomilism. These were actually attempts at es- tablishing guilt by association’*—attempts made easier by the fact that Messalian or Bogomil groups did exist within unsophisticated, popular Athonite monasticism and in popular circles in general. These were “charismatic” groups, claiming to see the essence of God with their physical eyes, but also rejecting the sacraments, the institutional church, and the veneration of icons, and preach- ing extreme asceticism. That Palamas had discus- sions with such people, particularly on Mount Papikion in Macedonia, is mentioned by his biog- rapher Philotheos."* But itis clear that the contacts, between Messalians and hesychasts were very much a matter of direct competition between Or- thodox traditionalists and “Bogomil” leaders. Both groups were moving and preaching in similar pop- ular circles. Be that as it may, Palamas and the Pa- lamites were not esoteric or anti-institutional see- tarians. On the contrary, the very “institutional,” leading role within the Church and within society that they assumed in Byzantium, and much be- yond the limits of the empire, was the real result of their victory. (b) Another major issue raised in connection with the role of the Athonite monks in the events of the fourteenth century is their political alliance with John Kantakouzenos, whose continued sup- port assured the victory of Palamas and his dis- ciples. This created another simplified scheme to explain the events. It was assumed that there was common interest between the landowning aristoc- “Leer 8 to Baraam, ef Hero, 26-27 This spartulaly the cate ofthe abbes Elogia Choum- nina, whose correspondence with her father confessor was published by A Here, A Woman’ Quest for Spinal Guida Phe Comepodence of Princes roe Esl Chennai Plagne (Grooktine Mass, 1987) Marla even wrote a treatise “Agsinst Mesalians” (Kara Maooaluavan), meaning the Palais, which & not preserved quoted profs mits refrain by Parnas For Cee sora, see his Antireta Ied. Beyer, 145-49) Akindynos se SS Pama i nore Boldt reps) saving venerated 3 Bogor woman named Porin a prop cles Leuer 53 ed. Hero 229-24, 403-4), prone PG 151 col 3820s, Tames, 481-42160 JOHN MEYENDORFF racy, represented by Kantakouzenos, and the monks, defenders of monastic properties. It ap- pears, however, that in order to substantiate such a scheme fully one would have to establish all the dimensions of the so-called “Zealot” rebellion in ‘Thessalonica. The rebellion was anti-Kantakouze- nist, but did it have religious implications as well? Did the “Zealots” support Hyakinthos, the anti Kantakouzenist Cypriot, who became metropoli- tan of Thessalonica in 1345, for theological rea- sons? That the political and religious conflicts of the time were closely intertwined is, of course, be- yond dispute. However, it also remains clear that there were anti-Palamites in the camp of Kanta- kouzenos,"* whereas Alexis Apokaukos, the megas dowx, who, together with Patriarch John Kalekas, was the major opponent of Kantakouzenos, showed sympathy for Palamas, in spite of their po- litical differences."* The theological controversy between Palamites and anti-Palamites therefore cannot be reduced to ial conflict. Most of the participants, on both sides, were members of the aristocratic and intel- lectual elite, within which John Kantakouzenos en- joyed much prestige and to which he distributed favors. Once he took power in 1347, only isolated individuals like Nikephoros Gregoras or deliberate “latinophrones” like Demetrios Kydones remained ‘opposed to Palamism. This opposition did not pre- vent some of them, particularly Kydones, from continuing to play an important political role at the imperial court. The alliance between Kantakouzenos and the monks did have a clear ideological and practical basis in the area of foreign policy. As the Turks continued their advance, as the Serbians and Bul- garians practically dominated the Balkans, and as the Venetians and Genoese controlled navigation and commerce within Constantinople itself, the power of the emperor was gradually becoming nominal. It was further weakened by the internal struggles between members of the dynasty. The patriarchate, however, was able to keep its prestige and influence, particularly throughout the Ortho- dox world. The patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, heading small minorities of Ortho- dox *Melkites” in the Middle East, were practically MCE. G. Weiss, Jones Kantaazens,Arilrat, Statiman, Kaiser und Monch in der Gelichftentclang von Bons I Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden, 1969, 121 and pass The attitude of Apokaukos is cesry shown in the corre spondence of Akindynos (. Leter 24, ed. Hero, and comm, 340), In ll his writings, Plamas mentions Apokos with Fespect and considers Patriarch Jon Kalekas as his el enemy, dependent on Constantinople, both intellectually and materially. The ecumenical patriarchate con- tinued to be respected by the Balkan churches, within the independent patriarchates of Bulgaria and Serbia, but particularly in Russia, where the metropolitan of “Kiev and all the Rus” continued to be appointed from Constantinople. A trend that began in the late thirteenth century ‘was leading to a sort of monastic monopoly in the patriarchate. Whereas John Kalekas, the patriarch ‘who opposed Palamas in 1341-47, had apparently ‘no monastic past or strong monastic connections, the end of the civil war and the victory of the Pal- amites marked the beginning of an uninterrupted series of monastic, almost exclusively Athonite, personalities on the patriarchal throne: Isidoros (1347-50), Philotheos Kokkinos (1358-54, 1364— 76), Kallistos (1350-53, 1354-63), Neilos (1379— 88), Anthony (1389-90, 1391-97)."* The conflict between Philotheos and Kallistos, both Athonites and Palamites, on the still continuing political issue of loyalty to the Palaiologan dynasty, did not pre- vent all those patriarchs from sharing with Kan- takouzenos an overall ecclesiastical and_ political ideology, which included at least the following three aspects (@) Constantinople, the “New Rome,” was to maintain its position as the universal center of Orthodox christendom. In the past this tradition of Roman universality was, most explicitly, main- tained by the empire itself. With the desperate weakening of imperial political structures, the mis- sion had to be picked up by the Church. This trend, which would continue later in the form of an “ethnarchy” under centuries of Ottoman rule, can, in a broad sense, be compared with the con- sequences of the imperial disintegration in the West after the fifth century, when the papacy grad- ually assumed the function of preserving a peren- nial Romanitas Writing in 1370 and quoting almost verbatim from the Epanagoge of the ninth century, but em- phasizing even more the universality of the pa- triarchate, Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos defined the functions of the see of Constantinople in terms that no pope would disavow: Since God has appointed Our Humility as leader (agoovdmny) of all Christians found anywhere in the inhabited earth, as solicitor and guardian of their souls, all of them depend on me (navres els ue ave- “For the backgrounds of patriarchs in this period, se F ‘Tinneeld,“Faktoren des Aufsieges zur Patrarchenetrde im spiten Byzana" JOB 36 (1986), 89-114MOUNT ATHOS IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY eivrat),!” the father and teacher of them all, If it were possible, therefore, it would have been my duty to walk everywhere on earth through the cities and, ‘countries and to teach there the Word of God. I would have had to do so unfailingly, since this is my duty However, since itis beyond the possibility of one weak and mightless man to walk around the entire inhab- ited earth, Our Humility chooses the best among men, the most eminent in virtue, establishes and ordains them as pastors, teachers, and high priests, and sends them to the ends of the universe ., . $0 that each one, in the country and place that was appointed for him, enjoys territorial rights, an episcopal chair, and all the rights of Our Humiity."* Similarly, Kallistos, the colleague and competitor of Philotheos, wrote in equally strong terms to St. ‘Theodosios of ‘Tmovo and other Bulgarian hesy- chast monks. The ecumenical patriarch, according to Kallistos, “judges, straightens out, confirms, and authenticates” the judgments of the other ancient patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem; so much more is he the “lord” (iigioc) of the younger church of Bulgaria.” Of course, such claims could not be supported in the case of Constantinople—as they were in the case of Rome—by scriptural references such as the words addressed by Jesus to the apostle Peter. ‘There is no hesitation in the minds of Byzantine patriarchs of the fourteenth century as to the real basis of Constantinople’s primacy: it is the old im- perial idea, for which they want to be responsible now that no really credible claim could be uttered by the emperors themselves. In his famous, and frequently quoted, reply to the grand prince Vasily Dimitrievich of Moscow (1393), Patriarch Anthony proclaims that the liturgical commemoration of the Byzantine emperor must continue in Russia, because “he is elected emperor (xeigorovetrat Bacideds) and autocrator of the Romans, that is, of all Christians; and in every place and by every pa- triarch, metropolitan, and bishop, the name of the ‘emperor is commemorated wherever there are Christians. ... For Christians, it is not possible to have a Church and not to have an emperor” There is no doubt that such ideas were cher- ished and cultivated most decidedly and explicitly ‘panagoge in a parallel text, describes the “pentarchy” hs: regional bishops “depend on thie patriarch’ (eb ‘okxet xareidoyn divéneivea), while the patriarch of Constan- tinople possesses a right of hearing appeals on issues unre: solved localy (IL, 9-10; Zepos, Jus, LV, p- 188). For Philotheos, the ecumenical patriarch posseies a universal jurisdiction in direct ay "*E, Miklosch and J. Maller, Acta dplomatagraeca medi avi, 6 vols. (Vienna, 1860-90) (hereafter MM), 321 "tbid., 435-39 bid. TT, 188-92, 161 in the circle of Kantakouzenos, who personally took an active part in settling ecclesiastical affairs in as distant areas as Russia,® and was always care- ful in approaching the issue of church union within the context of universality, demanding the participation of all regional churches in an even- tual ecumenical council? ‘Was this insistence on universality inherent also in the spirit that prevailed in the circle of Palamas and his Athonite disciples? All one can say is that Mount Athos had become a major meeting point of cultures, from where ideas traveled throughout the Orthodox world, and where major figures like St. Sava of Serbia, like Theodosios and Euthymios of Tiovo, as well as Cyprian, metropolitan of Kiev, had received their spiritual and intellectual training. Its, therefore, through an extended net- work of monastic contacts that a new solidarity of a religious and ideological nature was tying to- gether an Eastern Christian oitoumene, The net- ‘work was ideologically united: it was promoting monastic revivals both among Southern Slavs and. Russians, and giving context and reality to what is generally called “the second,” South Slavic (or ac- tually Byzantine) period of intensive influence in Eastern Europe. It appears that, on this point, the takeover of the patriarchate of Constantinople by the Athonite monastic party after 1347 left an indelible impact upon an area much larger than the narrow limits of the Byzantine Empire itself. (b) The second, and related, element in the ide- ology that prevailed in the monastic party was its resistance to the political schemes, which, since the reign of Michael VIII, conditioned church union negotiations with the Latin West. This resistance was used by opponents to create for the monks a reputation of obscurantism, as if they were op- posed not only to church union but also to all forms of free thought and progressive civilization. This image was cultivated first in the heat of po- Jemics by some intellectuals like Nikephoros Gre- goras and, in a more subtle and sophisticated way, by Demetrios Kydones. It was further enhanced after the fall of Byzantium, when a dramatic inter- ruption of culture and learning led Athonite mo- GE. his correspondence with Russian princes, discussed in J. Meyendorif, Bysantium and the Rise of Rusia (London-New York, 1981), 155, 280-82 BEE below, note 25, Ic isimpossible .o cite here all the relevant secondary lier ature. But see especially the work of G. M. Prokhorov (particu. larly Pooeso Miyae, Rus" Visantija » cpa Kubhocsht iy [eningrad, 1978), with eatier bibliography) cf. also Meyen” ‘dort Banton and th Rie of Rusa, 3-118,162 JOHN MEYENDORFF nasticism to a defensive, and frequently unenlight- ened, struggle for identity and survival. However, as often happens in history, disciples tend to simplify and vulgarize the teachings of their masters. Not all Augustinians are faithful to Augustine in every way, and not all Calvinists are consistent with Calvin. The same can be said of Pa- lamas and the later Palamites. In the fourteenth century neither Palamas him- self, nor his immediate friends, were opposed to serious attempts at bridging the gap between east- ern and western christendom, and they even pro- posed a concrete plan to achieve that goal: conven- ing an ecumenical council of union. The proposal was made by Kantakouzenos, almost immediately after his assuming power in 1347, through an am- bassador, Nicholas Sigeros, who traveled to Avig- non,* and presented in an even more solemn way ‘at a special meeting with the papal legate Paul twenty years later in 1367.2 The project had seri- ‘ous implications in terms of recognizing the eccl sial reality of the contemporary West. Normally, strict Orthodox (or Roman Catholic) ecclesiology, one does not hold a council with heretics on an equal footing. Heretics are called in only as de- fendants. Kantakouzenos, meanwhile, with the full ‘approval of Patriarch Philotheos, was thinking of a council aiming to “unite the church” (Evw8ijvat iy éxxknotay) at which East and West would meet “in friendship and brotherhood” (piAv6s xat &be).o.x0).* He did not doubt the full orthodoxy of the Greek position and was persuaded that a free debate would establish this. In his mind the debate required full representation of all Ortho- dox churches, even the “distant ones” (Russia, ‘Tre- bizond, Alania, Zecchia, Georgia, Bulgaria, Ser- bia...) This project was not only followed up by Philotheos, who sent appropriate invitations to the churches,#* but remained on the program of the hesychast “network” Metropolitan Cyprian of Kiev, a close collaborator of Philotheos (oixetog xab6yngos), acting as a “friend” of the Polish king Jagicllo,” would reiterate the proposal for an ecu- ‘menical council as late as 1397. Kantakouzenos, Hist IV, 9, Bonn edly II, 5860 On this episode, see J. Meyendorff, “Projets de concile oc- ‘cuménique en 1867: Un’ dialogue inédit entre Jean Cantacu ene et le légat Paul” DOP 14 (1960), 149-77 (epr. in idem, Byrne Hepa: Hsia, Theil and Sted Polen: Tondon, 1974). ‘Ibid, 30, 25, lines 258, 315, Thi, 10, lines 129-33, “See his leter of invitation addressed to the archbishop of Ohi: MM, 1, 491-98, thos dob n0k0s tou 8 xoding, writes Patriarch Anthony to Cyprian (MM, II, 288) A former grand prince of Lithuani, Such projects were in no way inconsistent with the attitude of Palamas himself who, even during the hard times of the civil war of 1341-47, at- tempted contacts with the Hospitalers of Rhodes and the Genoese of Galata.” It would be quite wrong, therefore, to caricaturize the Palamites as systematic and fanatical anti-Latins, and their ad- versaries as enlightened ecumenists. Some anti- Palamites did indeed become “latinophrones,” but ‘more often they were known as anticLatin po- lemicists. This is the case of Akindynos, the Cyp- riot George Lapithes, and Nikephoros Gregoras. Meanwhile, the Palamite leadership seems to have been ready for honest dialogue in conditions of fairness and mutual respect. Their idea of a coun- «il of union, initially rejected by the popes, would be revived following the victory of the Western “conciliarists” at the Council of Constance (1414~ 18), (©) Did the monastic ideology include a prescrip tion, or at least a prescribed attitude, toward the ‘overwhelming reality of the day: the Otoman ad- vance and progressive takeover of the remnants of the empire? This does not seem to have been the case. All Byzantines were fearful of what was to come and were looking for ways to avoid it. How- ever, the various antagonistic groups had devel- ‘oped somewhat different priorities. There were in- tellectuals who, in spite of their patriotism and cultural roots in Hellenism, found it preferable to ‘emigrate to Italy. There were politicians, particu- larly around the throne of the Palaiologi, with plans aimed at obtaining Western help, and who were ready to pay the price in terms of religious compromise or even capitulation before the Latin and papal positions. We have noted earlier how committed the hesychast patriarchate of the four- teenth century had become to the old Byzantine imperial idea. Of course, the idea was already uto- pian, but it had a strongly religious basis: the oikou- ‘mene of Philotheos Kokkinos was an Orthodox oi- oumene, and it deserved being defended against the Turks only as long as it was Orthodox. No one, of course, would explicitly foretell its ultimate col- lapse, but some implicit recognition that the future might actually bring about the Ottoman conquest and, therefore, the task of Christian survival ‘plo, had become the Roman Catholic king of Poland in 1886. On Cyprian, see particularly D. Obolensky. “A phiarho- rain ant topolitan Cyprian of Kiev and AlURussa” DOP 82 (1979), 79-84. a of Rusia, 245-00, *Akindynos, Lewer 44, lines 70-72, ed. Hero, p. 192; comm, p. 384, Meyendorlf, Byzantium and the RiseMOUNT ATHOS IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY 163 under Islamic rule, was certainly present in some minds. Kantakouzenos himself may have thought about it when he accepted his rather ill-fated alli- ance with Orkhan. Gregory Palamas, who, already as archbishop of Thessalonica, went through the curious episode of being taken prisoner by the ‘Turks and spending an entire year in occupied Asia Minor, must have conceived the possibility when he wrote back to his flock, describing in rel- atively detached and optimistic colors the survival of Orthodox Christianity among infidels and apos- tates.*' A purely cultural or patriotic attachment of some to a moribund empire could envisage no fu- ture under the Turks a all, but such a future could bbe envisaged by those whose ultimate priority was the Kingdom of God. IL. Patamrre THroLoay: Is It SeRtous OPrion? Having written a book on Palamas almost thirty years ago, which has been described (approvingly or disapprovingly) by critics as an apology of Pala- mism, the present author is not ready to go back upon his basic views expressed at that time. In- deed, the book was a justified reaction against the fact that western historians and theologians were almost universally accepting, in their judgment of Palamism, a criterion foreign to the tradition rep- resented by him, that is, intellectual patterns taken from medieval Latin scholasticism, or, on a slightly A forthcoming fourth volume ofthe Evyroduana of Pal amas wil eontain hi trates against Grogoas and quite i portant his homilies of which only the second half appears in Migne, the rat half being accesible excel ina rate cds by Sophokies Oikonomon, Fenyotn Taha Bua (A 188 “Originated by M. M. Vast, L’ hésychasme dans Pglise et Tat des Serbs du Moyen Age” Rese Th Uspny Tans, 1830), 110-2. This view strongly realirmed tn reference to the art of Theophanes the Greek (Feofan Gre) by NK. Ga tiuosky, “Zameth o Feofane Greke? Vem 24 (1908), 199 49; “Iakhazm truskaya zhivpie XIV-XV ya View 29 (968), 19621. “CE, for instance, V. N, Lazare, lrg vans hpi, 1 (Moscow, 1947), 225. om *TH.G_ Beck’ “Von der Fragwardigheit der thone? $B ‘Monch, plshibt XT (Munich, 1075) 40-44,MOUNT ATHOS IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY ership, particularly Metropolitan Cyprian, as can be ascertained from contemporary texts."! ‘Among the many problems that still require the attention of investigative research, two issues stand out: (a) The theological background of anti-Palamite figures like Akindynos and Nikephoros Gregoras. Indeed, the recent attention given to Barlaam the Calabrian has produced quite illuminating re- sults. The very different background of the two other major adversaries of Palamas (Akindynos, a self-made, honest theological conservative; Gre- goras, a member of the aristocratic, intellectual co- terie) deserves a close look by scholars well-versed in Greek patristic thought as well as in late Byzan- tine intellectual history: (b) The consequences of the Palamite victory for what can be broadly called “ecclesiology.” We have discussed earlier the problem of the rela- tionship between Athonite hesychasm and the anti-institutional and antisacramental movement known in the fourteenth century as Bogomilism or Messalianism. Clearly opposed to the latter, the Palamites were nevertheless carriers of a long- standing tradition of Eastern monasticism, wl recognized that the charismatic leadership of saints enjoyed a certain spiritual autonomy, even vis-a-vis the bishops—a prophetic ministry, some- what parallel to the established institutions of the Church.* The so-called “Haghioretic Tome” “On isin se J Meyer “pra Tenn Byzan Sum tn the Late Thiteenth and Ear Fourtenih Centres in Underwood, Te Rey Dj (neon, 118) Tog; and Meyendori Bunton en te Ror si 198-14, EtG. Ratt, ho wd Php Bye: De ort am i elope Mt de spines Gtr feeb (F5J0, ie ptmachn Cradag unde truck Entcg nic, 197), 12650; ad pray R'E Snkewns “fine Dona he Knowledge of Gait Eeny Wingy of Baio the Cavin’ Mest 44 (182) Taio "The recent publication of the correspondence of Akin nos a he fr anh of Gros vente fs {och inguty pele ren whe major ees of Ae js ain Pama, fond inthe sige ad par aap Moats 2% awa pubeaton “Testy Chviian mona prodaced numerous examples of spiral perlite ming “carom of tg sr Oe the ery mance att ofS Hal of Casara nt cea ths phenomenon, see fede, eC nd Be han of 165 (Tonos &yupertvxds) of 1340, signed by the lead- ers of Athonite monasticism in defense of Palamas, who at that moment was accused by Barlaam be- fore the patriarchal synod, is something of a man- ifesto of this monastic propheticism.® Of course, the practical attitude of the monks might have changed as they themselves took over the govern- ‘ment of the Church, as happened, for instance, in the West, when the monastic reformers of Cluny turned into the “Gregorian” reformers of the papacy. Nevertheless, all the consequences of the monastic victory in the Byzantine Orthodox world deserve to be understood better than they usually are. As witnesses to a faith understood as a personal and living experience, the monks always remem- bered the relative and instrumental character of tions. ‘This somewhat detached attitude proved useful at a time when institutions were crumbling. The empire was soon to fall. The pa- triarchate was to be placed in a ghetto and humil- iated within the new Ottoman order. But the Holy Mountain of Athos remained, for many more cen- turies, a symbol of continuity and survival. Even today it seems to meet, with relative success, the more subtle and more pervading challenge of mo- dernity. This Athonite longevity alone, clearly linked to the Palamite victory of the fourteenth ‘century, is significant enough to show the historical importance of that victory. Ladeip Toronto, 1879) and J. Meyendor, Bai, the Gite nd Chara Leadership" th Ordo hac Creo Chalnging snd thse proving example o sre of cour the eat of Syneon the New Teagan (102 ch. farcry But Krvchcine ne Lig of Crt St Sporn Be New Then (491020 Lie Spin Dearne Cres sad N10), The exten ft ted Ease me "ttc kes rather unneceseny fo specute about os She Western conectony suas the ane agg by ec iC St lucas Exhstologeal Theory i Byrne Hey chasm Parle jac da Bove? B2 701979, S244), Obus Parallels can, of course, be established between all charismatic And exchatologi trends in Judastn and Christianity “CE, my comments on the text ofthe “Tome” (PG 150, cols 1225-86) in Invoduction a Vétud de Grégaive Palamas, 278-74, 350-51; Eng. trans, A Study of Gregory Palomas (London. Crestwood, NV, 1974), 198-99,