EESYCHASM
302
HESTCHASM
Patriarch John Glycus (John XIII, 1316-1320), and
the Great Logothete Theodorus Metochites. and be-
came himself perhaps the most distinguished man of
learning in the Greek world of the fourteenth century.
He wrote theologj', philosophy, astronomy, history,
rhetoric, poetry, and grammar. His best-known
work Ls a Roman history in thirty-seven books, de-
scribing the period from 1204 to 1329. In the midst
of so many occupations he made the acquaintance of
Barlaam, and entered the lists with liim against Pala-
mas and the Hesychasts. He wrote a number of con-
troversial works to confute these people, and tells the
story of the quarrel in hLs historj- (books XV, XVIII,
XIX. XXII) with much animus against them. Like
most of the anti-Hes\-chasts Gregoras was a pro-
nounced latinizer. At the time when Barlaam was
opposed to the Latins Gregoras wrote against him;
with Palamas too he discussed the question of reunion
with the West in a friendly and conciliatory way.
Eventually Gregoras fell into disfavour with the Court
and disappeared.
The monks of Athos might have contemplated their uncreated hght without attracting much attention, had not the question become niLxed up with the un- ending Latin controversy and with political issues. They had already practised their sj'stem of auto- suggestion for a long time when Barlaam, arriving at Constantinople, began to denounce it as superstitious and absurd. There had been some opposition before. People had heard Palamas boast that he could see the light of God with his eyes, and had accused him of blasphemj-; but, since Isaias. the Patriarch of Con- stantinople (1323-1334), was him.self a monk of Athos and a disciple of Palamas, the opposition had not been very successful. However, from the year 1339. when Barlaam arrived in the city, began the really serious quarrel which for twenty j-ears was to rend Orthodox theologj', cause enormous commotion at Constanti- nople, Athos, and all the great centres of the Orthodox world, and lead even to active persecution. Barlaam, like all opponents of Hesychasm, based his objections mainly on a vehement denial of the possibility of an uncreated light that was yet not God's essence; throughout the controversy he and his party used the arguments they had learned in the West to show the impossibility of such distinctions in God. He also made bitter mockery of what he calls the "O/i0aXo^ux'a of the monks who sit with bent heads gazing at their own person, and brought various accusations against Palamas's life and manners. After Isaias, John XI\' (John Aprenus, 1334-47) had become patriarch. Barlaam demanded of him a synod to settle the ques- tion. For a time the patriarch refused to take the matter so seriously; eventually, since the quarrel l)e- came more and more bitter, in 1341 the first synod of the Hesychast question was summoned at Constanti- nople. The emperor (.\ndronicus III) presided. This first s>Tiod considered only two questions: (1) Whether the light of Thabor (that of the Transfigura- tion) was created or not; (2) a certain prayer used by Hesychasts, stated by Barlaam to contain ditheism. The enormous influence of the monks at Court and the want of energj^ of the patriarch (who was in his heart on Barlaam's side) made this first sjTiod a victory for Hesychasm. In both points the monks and their theorj- were approved, and Barlaam was forced to withdraw his accusations. Soon afterwards he left Constantinople forever: his cause was taken up by Gregory Akind^os. The emperor died a few days after the sj-nod. John \T, Cantacuzenus (1341- 13.5.5), who gradually usurped the imj^erial power, first as rival, then as fellow-emperor, of Andronicus's son John V, Palieologus (1341-76), was always a friend of Palamas and the Hesychast monks. The second Hesychast synod under Cantacuzenus. but without the patriarch, condemned .\kind\Tios and introduced a new element by representing him and all its oppo-
nents as latinizers who were trying to destroy Ortho-
doxy.
In 1345 the patriarch summoned the third synod. By now he had definitely made up his mind to with- stand the Hesychasts. This synod then, under his direction, excommunicated Palamas and Isidore Buchiras, Bishop elect of Monembasia in Thessaly, one of Palamas's disciples. Buchiras and Palamas withdrew their heresy outwardl}-, and waited for a better chance. The chance came in 1347. By this time their protector John Cantacuzenus had entered Constantinople in triumph and had been crowned emperor. The other party (that of the child-emperor John Pala?ologus and of his mother Ann of Savoy) was now helpless. The controversy from this time is complicated by a political issue. Cantacuzenus and his friends were Hesychasts; the party of the Palse- ologi were Barlaamites. As long as Cantacuzenus triumphed the Hesycha.sts triumphed with him; by the time he fell Hesychasm had become so much iden- tified with the cause of the Orthodox Church against the Latins that the other side never succeeded in ousting it. On 2 February, 1347, the fourth Hesy- chast synod was held. It deposed the patriarch, John XIV, and excommunicated Akindj-nos. Isidore Buchiras, who had been excommunicated by the third synod, was now made patriarch (Isidore I, 1347-1,349). In the same year (1347) the Barlaamites held the fifth sj-nod, refusing to acknowledge Isidore and excommunicating Palamas. From tliis time Xicephorus Gregoras becomes the chief opponent of Hesychasm. Isidore I died in 1349: the Hesychasts replaced him by one of their monks, Callistus I (1350- 1354). In 1351 the sixth sjnod met in the Blachemie palace under Cantacuzenus. Gregoras defended his views boldly and skilfully, but again the Hesychasts had it all their own way, deposed Barlaamite bishops, and used violence against their own opponents. In this synod six questions about God's essence and at- tributes were answered, all in the Hesychast .sense, while Palamas was declared to be without any doubt orthodox and unimpeachable. The synod finally publLshed. in defence of Palamas and his views, a de- cree (T6mos) which eventually was looked upon as an authentic declaration of the Orthodox Church. From this time Hesychasm may be said to have defeated all opposition. Gregoras was arrested and kept in cus- tody in his own house. He was not set free till Can- tacuzenus (with whom rests the eternal disgrace of having first invited the Turks to Europe) was deposed and the Pala-ologi triumphed in 1354. Cantacuzenus then withdrew to .\thos, became a monk himself, tak- ing the name of Joasaph, and spent the rest of his life writing a hi.stor>' of his own times and contemplating the uncreated light. This history in four books (in Migne, P. G., CLIII. CLIV) covers the period from 1320 to 1356, and tells the whole story of the Hesy- chast controversy. Being written by a violent parti- san, it forms an interestingcontrastto that of Gregoras.
After the deposition of Cantacuzenus. the Barlaam- ites held an anti-Hesychast synod at Ephesus; but the patriarchs of Constantinople and the great mass of the people had by now become too firmly persuaded that the cause of Hesychasm was that of Orthodoxy. To oppo.se it was to incur the guilt of latinizing; so even Cantacuzenus's fall was not enough to turn the scale. Hesvchasm from this time is always trium- phant. About 1360 Palamas died. In 1368 the seventh S\Tiod of Constantinople (concerning this matter) under the Patriarch Philotheus (1364-1.376: Callistus's successor) excommunicated the Barlaam- ite monk ProchorusCydonius. confirmed the "Tomus" of 1351 as a "Faultless Canon of the true faith of Christians", and canonized Palamas as a Father and Doctor of the Church. So by the end of the four- teenth centurv Hesvchasm had become a dogma of the Orthodox Church. It is so still. The interest in
