Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. ,., No. ., April .ccc.

Printed in the United Kingdom
# iooo Cambridge University Press
i6¡
Augustine in Byzantium
by JOSEF LO
$
SSL
A
s Cornelius Mayer wrote recently, the massive output of literature
on Augustine (c. ¸o,ooo extant titles) cannot hide the fact that
‘ much scholarly work remains to be done on the enormous variety
and scope of Augustine’s influence ’." One area of which this is particularly
true is Augustine’s impact on Byzantine theology.
While Augustine’s own use of Greek patristic literature and contacts
with the Greek patristic world have been investigated for some time and
in some detail, his influence on Greek authors – especially during the later
Byzantine era – has been sadly neglected. However, recent research on
such authors as Maximos Planudes (c. 1i¸¸–1¸o¸), Gregory Palamas
(1iµ6–1¸¸µ) and Prochoros Kydones (c. 1¸¸¸–c. 1¸¡o) has done
something to remedy that situation. This paper seeks to present a
summary of that development and provide a context for further study.
Augustine’s interest and impact in the east during his lifetime
Augustine’s relationship to Greek may seem somewhat ambiguous.
Partly, the ambiguity is of his own making. While he did little to hide the
fact that he had never set foot in a Greek-speaking country and, as a boy,
attended without much benefit the lessons of his Greek ‘ grammaticus ’# he
ACOlActa conciliorum oecumenicorum; ALlC. Mayer, Augustinus-Lexikon, i, Basle 1µµ¡;
BZlByzantinische Zeitschrift ; JOBlJahrbuch der oWsterreichischen Byzantinistik; Plan., Aug.
Triad. lΑυ γουστι νου Περι Τρια δο Βιβλι α Πεντεκαι δεκα, α περ ε κ τη Λατι νου διαλε κτου
ει τη ν Ελλα δα µετη νεγκε Μα ξιµο ο Πλανου δη. Ει σαγογη , ε λληνικο και λατινικο κει µενο,
γλωσσα ριο, editio princeps, ed. Μανο λη Παπαθωµο πουλο, Ισαβε λλα Τσαβαρι , Gianpaolo
Rigotti, Athens 1µµ¸; RE
T
Aug. lRevue des E
T
tudes Augustiniennes
" AL i, p. xiii.
# Augustinus, Confessiones i. 1¸. io, CCL xxvii. 11, line 16; ep. cxx. i. 1o, CSEL xxxiv\ii.
¡1i, lines ii–¸; De trinitate ix. 6. 1o, CCL 1. ¸oi, lines i¸–8. See also the survey in P.
Courcelle, Late Latin writers and their Greek sources, Cambridge, Mass. 1µ6µ, 1¡µ–6¸ (on
language), 16¸–io8 (on the influence of pagan and patristic Greek literature).
i68 j os ii io$ s s i
displayed a keen interest in and a considerable knowledge of Greek during
his later years.$ In consequence scholars have taken different views on the
matter. Some have tried to extrapolate from his theological genius and
present him as an outstanding classicist and exegete as well. Others have
questioned his competence in the latter two fields, especially as compared
to Jerome. Against both tendencies Pierre Courcelle has stressed the
importance of looking at the gradual growth and development of his
interests in Greek during his later life and their connection with his
theological concerns.
At the beginning of his career as a theologian Augustine was not
acquainted with the groundbreaking theological developments in the east
a generation before. His approach to Greek patristics was a peculiar one,
especially compared to that of Fathers like Marius Victorinus, Hilary,
Ambrose and Jerome. His ‘ theological culture was …individual ’ and ‘ his
belated reading of the Greek Fathers helped only to confirm and direct
the orthodoxy of original views ’.% Indeed we have to remember that well
into his thirties he had not much interest in church theology at all. For his
personal religion he adhered to Manicheism and his professional aim was
to become an accomplished orator. In ¸86 it had been rather by accident
– or, as he saw it, divine decree – that he had come across some neo-
Platonic texts which, in conjunction with Ambrose’s teaching, made him
accept the orthodox creed and baptism, and only after he had become a
presbyter in Hippo in ¸µo or ¸µ1 did he realise the need to learn more
about eastern theology. Courcelle stresses that even around ¡o¸ he was
still largely ignorant of much of the latter, as he confirms in ep. lxxxii. i¸
to Jerome. Yet ‘ afterwards ’ – and we have to consider that he had still
twenty-five years to live – ‘ he made a heroic effort to know the Fathers of
the Eastern Church’.&
Augustine was keen to present his theology as in line with eastern
orthodoxy. He saw that as his episcopal right and duty. Quite unlike
Jerome, who for love of learning did not even exercise his presbyterial
functions, Augustine did not study Greek texts for their own sake. He only
referred to them when compelled to, especially in controversies, when
they were quoted by his opponents in order to show that his teaching was
not in line with (Greek) orthodoxy. In such cases, especially during the
Pelagian crisis, Augustine tried to retaliate by proving that the Greek
theologians cited by his enemies held no other faith than he, and that his
$ Ibid; G. J. M. Bartelink, ‘ Die Beeinflussung Augustins durch die griechischen Patres ’,
Augustiniana Traiectina, Paris 1µ8¡, µ–i¡; B. Altaner, ‘ Augustinus und die griechische
Sprache’, in his Kleine patristische Schriften, ed. G. Glockmann, Berlin 1µ6¡, 1iµ–¸¸; O.
Rottmanner, ‘ Zur Sprachenkenntnis des hl. Augustinus ’, Theologische Quartalschrift (18µ¸),
i68–¡6. % Courcelle, Late Latin writers, 1¡µ–¸¡, io8.
& Ibid. io¡–8; Bartelink, ‘ Beeinflussung’.
i6µ .iois 1r xi r x nvz.x1r ix
theology, although, as some of his opponents, especially Julian of
Eclanum, would have it, discredited by its Latin and African background,
nevertheless represented genuine orthodoxy.' His method was two-fold.
He either discussed the source in question on the basis of the (Latin)
quotation in his opponent’s text (without checking its authenticity) or, if
one was in his reach, he used a translation of the work from which his
opponent had taken his text. Only rarely did he discuss Greek patristic
texts in the original language. Some examples may illustrate each of these
points.
Apart from a saying on incarnation and salvation in various sermons
Augustine quotes only two passages from Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses in his
entire work, although he uses them repeatedly and thus creates the
impression that he is rather familiar with the work of Irenaeus.( The way,
however, in which he interprets these passages suggests that he lacked an
overall understanding of Irenaeus’ theology.) Against Pelagius and
Julian he made a great deal of his knowledge of John Chrysostom.*
Courcelle attributes this to his obsession with accumulating proof texts,
' Cf. Aug., Contra Iulianumi. ¡. 1¸–1¡, PLxliv. 6¡8; Courcelle, Latin Latin writers, 1µ6. On
Julian challenging Augustine for being ‘ Punic’ see J. Lo$ ssl, ‘ ‘‘ Te Apulia genuit ’’ (Aug.
Contra Iulianum opus imperfectum vi. 18) – some remarks on the birthplace of Julian of
Eclanum’, RE
T
Aug xliv (1µµ8), ii¸–¸µ at pp. ii8–¸¡. That Julian may have had a point
is shown by the history of Pelagianism in the east up to its condemnation at the Council
of Ephesus in ¡¸1: L. Wickham, ‘ Pelagianismin the east ’, in R. Williams (ed.), The making
of orthodoxy: essays in honour of Henry Chadwick, Cambridge 1µ8µ, ioo–1¸ at pp. io6–µ.
( On the saying see Aug., Sermones clxvi. ¡; cxcii. 1; cxciv. i, PL xxviii. µoµ. 1o11f.,
1o16; the other passages are cited in C. Iul. i. ¸, ¸i; ii. ¸¸, ¸¡; iii. ¸i, PL xliv. 66¡. 66i.
6µ¡. ¡oof. ¡1µ; C. Iul. imp. iv. ¡if., PL xlv. 1¸8o. See also N. Brox, ‘ Irenaeus von Lyon’,
Reallexikon fuWr Antike und Christentum xviii (1µµ8), 8io–¸¡ at pp. 8¡µf.
) The passages are taken from Irenaeus, Adversus haereses iv. i. ¡; v. 1µ. 1, SC c. ¡1o–1i;
cliii. i¡8–¸o. In one it is said that only faith in Christ can heal the wound inflicted by the
bite of the old serpent (‘ non aliter saluari homines ab antiqua serpentis plaga, nisi credant
in eum, qui secundum similitudinem carnis peccati in ligno martyrii exaltatus a terra’), in
the other that the wisdom of the serpent is overwhelmed by the simplicity of the dove
(‘ serpentis prudentia deuicta per simplicitatem columbae’). Augustine uses both passages
to prove that Irenaeus taught a doctrine of original sin similar to his, a view fiercely
contested by Julian and not endorsed by modern studies : A. Orbe, AntropologıTa de San
Ireneo, Madrid 1µ6µ; P. Lassiat, ‘ L’Anthropologie d’Ire! ne! e’, Nouvelle Revue TheTologique c
(1µ¡8), ¸µµ–¡1¡; Y. de Andia, Homo vivens : incorruptibiliteT et divinisation de l’homme selon IreneTe
de Lyon, Paris 1µ86; J. Lo$ ssl, Intellectus gratiae : die erkenntnistheoretische und hermeneutische
Dimension der Gnadenlehre Augustins von Hippo, Leiden 1µµ¡, ¸¸¡ n. 11¸. On that basis I
cannot agree with Altaner and Courcelle who suggest that Augustine might have had a
comprehensive knowledge of Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses. He may have repeatedly quoted
from it, but it was always these two passages, and always for the same narrow purpose:
B. Altaner, ‘ Augustinus und Irenaeus ’, in his Kleine patristische Schriften, 1µ¡–io¸;
Courcelle, Late Latin writers, 1µ8.
* See Aug., C. Iul. i. i6, PL xliv. 6¸8, where Augustine quotes a long passage from
John Chrysostom, Homilia xxi ad neophytos, SC 1. 1¡8, in Greek and translates it. See
i¡o j os ii io$ s s i
characteristic for his later years."! But how did he gain access to such
texts ? There is no indication that he knew any of Chrysostom’s works
before ¡1¡, when he first quoted a passage which he had found in
Pelagius’ De natura."" He seems to have had no direct access to texts or
translations of Chrysostom’s works but relied on material in the works of
Pelagius and Julian of Eclanum, and when for once he referred to a text
he had looked up for himself in a translation of sermons of Chrysostom,
he picked one whose real author was the Arian Bishop Potamius of
Lisbon."# Similarly he ascribed a text entitled Adversus Manichaeos, which
was recently, however doubtfully, attributed to Serapion of Thmuis, to
Basil of Caesarea."$ Thus, despite his eagerness to demonstrate his interest
in Greek patristics he must have failed to impress as a connnoisseur. Once
he even confused Gregory Nazianzen with Gregory of Nyssa, calling the
former Basil’s brother."% His only source of texts of Gregory Nazianzen
may have been Rufinus’ translation of nine of his theological orations."&
Despite their scarcity then,"' it may have been these few texts which
inspired himwhen writing De trinitate, though it has proved difficult in this
case to trace the sources exactly. Except in his polemical writings
Augustine was not forced to account in detail for his references."( It can
also F.-J. Thonnard, ‘ Saint Jean Chrystostome et saint Augustin dans la controverse
pe! lagienne’, Revue des E
T
tudes Byzantines xxv (1µ6¡), 18µ–i18; J.-P. Bouhot, ‘ Version
ine! dite du sermon ‘‘ Ad Neophytos ’’ de s. Jean Chrysostome utilise! e par s. Augustin’,
RE
T
Aug xvii (1µ¡1), i¡–¡1; Lo$ ssl, Intellectus gratiae, ¸¸µ.
"! Courcelle, Late Latin writers, io8.
"" See Aug., De natura et gratia ¡6, CSEL lx. iµ1; C. Iul. i. 18–i¡, PL xliv. 6¸1–6o; Lo$ ssl,
Intellectus gratiae, ¸¸¡–¡o.
"# See A. Wilmart, ‘ Le ‘‘ De Lazaro’’ de Potamius ’, JTS xix (1µ18), i8µ–¸o¡, and ‘ La
Collection des ¸8 home! lies latines de saint Jean Chrysostome’, ibid. ¸o¸–i¡; B. Altaner,
‘ Augustinus und Johannes Chrysostomus ’, in his Kleine patristische Schriften, ¸oi–11 at p.
¸o8; Lo$ ssl, Intellectus gratiae, ¸¸8.
"$ Though in this case he was supported by tradition. Julian of Eclanum, too, thought
the work was by Basil. See G. J. M. Bartelink, ‘ Basilius ’, AL i (1µµ¡), 61¡–1¡ at pp. 61¸f.,
and Lo$ ssl, Intellectus gratiae, ¸¸6 n. 1¸¡. On the possibilities of identifying pseudo-Basilius,
Adversus Manichaeos, with Serapion of Thmuis, Adversus Manichaeos see N. Cipriani,
‘ L’autore dei testi pseudobasileiani riportati nel ‘‘ Contra Iulianum’’ i. ¸. 16–¡ e la
polemica anti-agostiniana di Giuliano d’Eclano’, Atti del congresso internationale su S. Agostino
nel XVI centenario della conversione, i, Rome 1µ8¡, ¡¸µ–¡µ. On more examples of confusion
over authorship in Augustine see Courcelle, Late Latin writers, io¡–8.
"% See Aug., C. Iul. i. 1µ, PL xliv. 6¸¸; Courcelle, Late Latin writers, io¸ n. ¸µ, ioi–¸.
"& See CSEL xlvi ; B. Altaner, ‘ Augustinus und Gregor von Nazianz, Gregor von
Nyssa’, in his Kleine patristische Schriften, i¡¡–8¸.
"' Like the Platonic books triggering his conversion in ¸86, they were ‘ paucissimi libri ’ :
Aug., De beata uita ¡, CCL xxix. 6¡. Like them they might have had a momentous impact.
"( Chevalier’s attempt to demonstrate comprehensively that Augustine depends on
Basil was soon dismissed by Altaner: I. Chevalier, S. Augustin et la penseTe grecque : les relations
trinitaires, Fribourg 1µ¡o, esp. pp. 1i¡–¡o; B. Altaner, ‘ Augustinus und Basilius der
Grosse’, in his Kleine patristische Schriften, i6µ–¡6 at p. i¡6. Altaner himself, however,
i¡1 .iois 1r xi r x nvz.x1r ix
at least be said, however, that prior to any influence of De trinitate on
Byzantine theology it was itself influenced by Greek orthodox theology,
although some of Augustine’s more daring original conclusions, especially
in the field of the psychological Trinity, were later rejected in the east.
Interestingly, the deeper reasons for that and the lack of enthusiasm in the
east for Augustine’s theology of grace as opposed to Pelagianism may be
closely related. Both the psychological Trinitarian analogies as developed
in the speculative parts in the second half of De trinitate and the doctrine
of grace as held against the Pelagians are based on a rather subtle concept
of divine–human relationship, so subtle that the distinction between
divine and human intellect and will might have been obscured altogether.
Was the psychological teaching of the Trinity a preclusion from the
human to the divine? Was the concept of individual predestination a
preclusion from the concept of God to human salvation cutting out the
theological virtues of faith and hope? Augustine’s speculations in these
matters transcended the traditional realm of theology. They sounded
distinctly philosophical, if not Gnostic.") They were, as Henry Chadwick
wrote recently, ‘ always open to the lethal charge of curiositas, claiming to
know matters which God has not thought fit to reveal ’."* In the west,
where philosophical analysis was to become an essential part of theological
study, this may have been acceptable, but in the east, where theologians
increasingly prided themselves on not adding anything new to the sacred
tradition such ‘ creativity’ was greeted with suspicion, and later rejected
altogether.
Thus the ambiguity remains. Augustine’s efforts in Greek patristics in
his later years are admirable and his achievements, especially compared
to the level of his learning on the outset, must be acknowledged. However,
it would be misleading to place Augustine on the same footing as Jerome,
Ambrose, Hilary and Marius Victorinus, who promoted Greek theology
in the west and were known for that in the east. That did not prevent him,
of course, from becoming the single most important Father in the west.
On the contrary, it actually supported the process which made him, after
all, ‘ the father of the west ’ – as opposed to the east. Yet it may explain to
some extent why his work and thought had such little subsequent impact
tracked down Eusthatius’ translation of Basilius’ Homiliae in HexaeWmeron in Aug., De Genesi
ad litteram (Altaner, ‘ Augustinus und Basilius ’, i¡of.), and J. F. Callahan identified an
heresiological digest of Basilius’ Contra Eunomium as the source of Aug., Conf. i. i1: J. F.
Callahan, ‘ A new source of St Augustine’s theory of time’, Harvard Studies in Classical
Philology lxiii (1µ¸8), ¡¸¡–¸¡; cf. Courcelle, Late Latin writers, io¸–¡.
") Given Augustine’s Manichean past that should not have come as too much of a
surprise, a view strongly held by Julian of Eclanum.
"* H. Chadwick, ‘ Orthodoxy and heresy from the death of Constantine to the eve of the
First Council of Ephesus ’, in Averil Cameron and P. Garnsey (eds), The Cambridge ancient
history, XIII: The late empire, A.D. ¡¡,–,.,, ¸61–6oo at p. ¸µ¸.
i¡i j os ii io$ s s i
in the east.#! Although it was never entirely unknown, ‘ its originality and
profundity were hardly ever recognized’.#"
Augustine himself as well as his supporters in the west were for a long
time unable to accept that. Augustine had ambitions in the east. With the
exception of Jerome no other western Father was as keen as he to make
an impact there, especially during the Pelagian controversy.## But unlike
Jerome and in spite of his support he simply lacked the qualifications and
the vocation for such a pursuit. Jerome, the ‘ trilingual man’, actually
lived in the east, where Latin was about to fall into utter oblivion. He had
established contacts there and a reputation, if an ambiguous one.
Augustine could only send his works, in Latin. In order to make an impact
they had to be translated. As the Pelagian controversy went on, some
translations were indeed made. But they were hasty, catering only for
immediate needs and carrying the risk of creating further
misunderstandings.#$ Whether some of these ‘ working translations ’ later
developed so that in the end whole works of Augustine were translated
into Greek, even perhaps during his lifetime, remains very much an open
question.#% Some attempts on Augustine’s side to establish personal
contacts with eastern bishops, too, seemto have ended in failure.#& At least
#! On the traces see B. Altaner, ‘ Augustinus in der griechischen Kirche bis auf Photius ’,
in his Kleine patristische Schriften, ¡¸–µ8, and ‘ Augustinus und die griechische Patristik’,
Revue BeTneTdictine lxii (1µ¸i), io1–1¸; D. Z. Nikitas, ‘ Η παρουσι α του Αυ γουστι νου στη ν
Ανατολικη Εκκλησι α’, Κληρονοµι α xiv (1µ8i), 18–1µ; A. Nichols, ‘ The reception of St
Augustine and his work in the Byzantine–Slav tradition’, Angelicum lxiv (1µ8¡), ¡¸¡–¸i;
H. M. Biedermann, ‘ Augustinus in der neueren griechischen Theologie’, in Signum pietatis :
FS C. P. Mayer, Wu$ rzburg 1µ8µ, 6oµ–¡¸. On the ecclesiastical dimension in general see A.
Nichols, Rome and the eastern Churches, Edinburgh 1µµi, 188–iiµ.
#" See Plan., Aug. Triad., xlvi-xlviii.
## On Augustine’s interventions in the east (and complaints about lack of response) see
O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius : die theologische Position der roWmischen BischoWfe im
pelagianischen Streit in den Jahren ,..–,¡., Stuttgart 1µ¡¸, ¡6–8¡, µ1–¸, 1¸¡–¡6, 16¸–¸,
ioµ–¸8; Wickham, ‘ Pelagianism in the east ’, ioif, io¡f ; O. Wermelinger, ‘ Neuere
Forschungskontroversen um Augustinus und Pelagius ’, in C. Mayer and K. H. Chelius,
Internationales Symposion uWber den Stand der Augustinusforschung .,!,, Wu$ rzburg 1µ8µ, 18µ–i1¡
at pp. ioi–¡.
#$ For example at the synods of Diospolis and Jerusalem. See Aug., De gestis Pelagii i,
¡, ¸µ, CSEL xlii. ¸¸, ¸6, µ¸; Orosius, Apol. vi. 1; vii. ¡, CSEL v. 61o, 61i.
#% Altaner, ‘ Augustinus in der griechischen Kirche’, ¡¸–6, µ¡, may be a bit too
optimistic in that regard. See E. Dekkers, ‘ Les Traductions grecques des e! crits patristiques
latins ’, Sacris Erudiri v (1µ¸¸), 1µ¸–i¸¸, io8–1o; Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius, 11¸ n.
16o.
#& See Aug., ep. clxxix to John of Jerusalem; ep. iv* to Cyril of Alexandria; ep. vi* to
Atticus of Constantinople (CSEL xliv. 6µ1; lxxxviii. i6, ¸i) from .i ¡16, ¡1¡, ¡io\1
respectively. In Aug., C. Iul. imp. iv. 88, PL xlv. 1¸8µ, Julian of Eclanum is quoted as
referring to Aug. ep. iv*. According to Aug. ep. xix*. ¡ to Jerome (CSEL lxxxviii. µ¸),
Augustine tried to get in contact with other eastern dignitaries as well, for example
Eulogius of Caesarea. On the dates and circumstances of the letters see M.-F. Berrouard,
i¡¸ .iois 1r xi r x nvz.x1r ix
no responses are extant. When at last Theodosius rr invited him to the
Council of Ephesus in ¡¸1, it was too late.#' He had died in August ¡¸o.
In the following centuries at least his name seems to have been held in
high regard.#( Yet his work continued to be benignly ignored. Naturally
one would not expect that situation to change as the relationship between
east and west progressively deteriorated during and after the Photian
Schism at the turn of the millennium. That split, which was to last for
centuries, turned Augustine and his work into one of the major theological
obstacles to reunification. Paradoxically, however, in the long run the
schism also created a need for dialogue. Ironically, in the peculiar
atmosphere of cultural encounter of the high Middle Ages and early
Renaissance period a number of significant eastern theologians discovered
Augustine the theologian and through the translation and adaptation of
some of his works made the world of his thought part of the eastern
tradition. In comparison to what had happened in that respect during
Augustine’s lifetime and in the ¡¸o years after his death, this was
something entirely new and groundbreaking.
Maximos Planudes and his translation of Augustine’s De trinitate
The reconquest of Constantinople in 1i61 under Michael \rrr Palaiologos
ended two centuries of bitter struggle between east and west.#) In the
wake of his victory Michael followed a course of reunion with the west
culminating in the Union of Lyons in 1i¡¡.#* Among the men at his court
‘ Les Lettres 6* et 1µ* de saint Augustin: leur date et les renseignements qu’elles apportent
sur l’e! volution de la crise ‘‘ pe! lagienne’’ ’, RE
T
Aug xxvii (1µ81), i6¡–¡¡; J.-P. Bouhot, ‘ Une
Lettre d’Augustin d’Hippone a' Cyrille d’Alexandrie (Epist. ¡*)’, in Les Lettres de Saint
Augustin deTcouvertes par J. Divjak, Paris 1µ8¸, 1¡¡–¸¡; G. Bonner, ‘ Some remarks on letters
¡* and 6*’, ibid. 1¸¸–6¡, and God’s decree and man’s destiny: studies on the thought of Augustine
of Hippo, London 1µ8¡, cl. xii. See also Œuvres de Saint Augustin: lettres .*–.,*: nouvelle
eTdition du texte critique et introduction par J. Divjak: traduction et commentaire par divers auteurs
(lBibliotheZ que Augustinienne ,cB), Paris 1µ8¡.
#' The invitation reached Carthage at Easter ¡¸1: Capreolus, ep., PL liii. 8¡¸; Council
of Ephesus, Collectio Veronensis xviii. 1, ACO r\ii. 6¡. On background and further references
see nowA. Fu$ rst, Augustins Briefwechsel mit Hieronymus (lJahrbuch fuWr Antike und Christentum:
ErgaWnzungsband iµ), Mu$ nster 1µµµ, i1o–io, and ‘ Augustinus im Orient ’, forthcoming.
#( He is mentioned, for instance, on a list extant from the Second Council of
Constantinople, actio iii. ¡. ¸, ACO r\\i. ¸¡. See Altaner, ‘ Augustinus in der griechischen
Kirche bis auf Photius ’. On another instance see S. Salaville, ‘ Une Mention de Saint
Augustin dans les diptyques de la liturgie grecque de Saint Jacques ’, AnneTe TheTologie xi
(1µ¸o), ¸i–6.
#) Beginning with the schism in 1o¸¡ and culminating in the sack of Constantinople by
the Fourth Crusade and the erection of a Latin empire in 1io¡. See D. M. Nicol, The last
centuries of Byzantium ..c.–.,,¡, ind edn, London 1µµ¸, 1–¸¡ (on the Latin prelude to
Michael’s reign), ¸µ–8µ (on Michael’s reign).
#* In 1i¡¡ Michael imposed the union on the city, dismissed the Patriarch Joseph and
i¡¡ j os ii io$ s s i
was the father of a boy who had been born around 1i¸¸ in Nicomedia.
The boy’s name was Manuel Planudes.$! Educated at court he developed
a special interest in Latin and before long he was the most outstanding
Latin scholar in the east. Michael probably intended to employ Manuel’s
skills for his policy of reunion. The translation of Augustine’s De trinitate,
completed c. 1i8o and certainly before 1i8i, has to be seen in that context
and also in the light of what happened shortly afterwards. For Michael’s
successor, Andronikos rr Palaiologos, who came to power in 1i8i, reversed
Michael’s policy of reunion.$" It might be significant that despite his
apparent friendship with Andronikos, Manuel did not stay on at court.$#
Some time after 1i8o, probably even after 1i8¸, he became a monk and
changed his name to Maximos.$$
His monastic life enabled him to concentrate on his intellectual
pursuits. For most of the time during the following decade he seems to
have been able to stay in the capital and teach and encourage research at
the Καθολικο ν Μουσειον, the famous high school of the city attached to the
imperial Chora monastery.$% In 1iµ6 he was asked by the emperor to join
an embassy to Armenia to negotiate ecclesiastical union. It seems that he
succeeded in rejecting this offer without further repercussions, but he
ended up accepting another, more delicate, one. He was invited to go to
Venice to mediate in a political crisis. The mission turned out to be ill-
fated.$& The ambassadors were imprisoned by the Venetians, nearly
executed and thrown out of the country without having achieved any
replaced him with John xr Bekkos, who had written a work in favour of the union. See
Plan., Aug. Triad. (introduction), pp. xvi–xvii ; PG cxli ; H. G. Beck, Kirche und theologische
Literatur im byzantinischen Reich, ¸rd edn, Munich 1µ¡¡, 681–6.
$! On the following see Plan., Aug. Triad. (introduction), pp. xv–clviii ; on Planudes’s
biography see his letters (Maximi monachi Planudis epistulae, ed. P. L. M. Leone,
Amsterdam 1µµ1, ed. M. Treu, Breslau 18µo); C. Wendel, ‘ Planudes, Maximos ’, Paulys
RealenzyklopaWdie xx\ii (1µ¸o), iioi–¸¸; C. N. Constantinides, ‘ The scholars and their
books in the late thirteenth century’, JOB xxxii (1µ8i), 1¸–i1; N. G. Wilson, Scholars of
Byzantium, London 1µ8¸, i¸o–¡1; A. P. Kazhdan and others, The Oxford dictionary of
Byzantium, iii, Oxford 1µµ1, 1681–i.
$" The new emperor dismissed Bekkos and reinstated Joseph, who was succeeded in
1i8¸ by Gregory rr of Cyprus, author of a το µο πι στεω against Bekkos. See PG cxlii.
i¸¸–¡6; Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 68¸–6. In 1i8¸ Gregory presided over the
council in Constantinople which defined the inner-Trinitarian distinctions (ε κπο ρευσι of
the Spirit from the Father, ε κφανσι of the Spirit through the Son) introduced to avoid the
‘ filioque’ : A. Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium: the filioque controversy in the patriarchate of
Gregory II of Cyprus (..!¡–..!,), New York 1µ8¸; Nicol, The last centuries, µ¸–1oo.
$# On Planudes’s friendship with Andronikos see Plan. epp. iv, xi, xix (11–¡¡ Leone
edn); Plan., Aug. Triad. (introduction), p. xxii n. iµ.
$$ On the discussion about when exactly Planudes took the habit see ibid. pp. xix–xx.
$% Ibid. pp. xx–xxi, xxvi–xxxiii ; C. N. Constantinides, Higher education in Byzantium in the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (..c,–c. .¡.c), Nicosia 1µ8i.
$& Cf. Plan., Aug. Triad. (introduction), pp. xxii–xxiii ; D. M. Nicol, Byzantium and
Venice : a study in diplomatic and cultural relations, Cambridge 1µ88, i1i–i¡.
i¡¸ .iois 1r xi r x nvz.x1r ix
results. Finally, on their way home they were shipwrecked off the
Albanian coast. Planudes arrived at home at the end of 1iµ¡ after a
dangerous and excruciating journey overland, ill and exhausted. Back to
his scholarly routine he seems to have spent the remaining eight years of
his life partly in his monastery near the modern-day Scutari and partly in
the academy of the Καθολικο ν Μουσειον, especially in its library, at the
decline of which he expresses concern in one of his letters.$' He died in
1¸o¸.
Besides his political involvement Planudes was above all renowned as a
master of the classical languages. As far as Latin is concerned he was
unequalled in the east. However, flattering as that may sound, it also
indicates that neither he nor anyone else in Byzantium taught Latin at a
higher level, or in a systematic way, and nobody of similar calibre seems
to have shared his interest in the language and its literature.$( His effort
and achievement in translating an impressive body of pagan as well as
Christian Latin texts seems to have been widely appreciated and admired
but it remained unique and does not seem to have resulted in a surge of
Latin studies in the east.$)
In terms of intellectual – and especially theological – impact his
greatest achievement was undoubtedly his translation of Augustine’s De
trinitate. It was the pioneering effort towards bridging the huge gap
between Augustine’s paramount role in the west and near oblivion in the
east, a gap that had since the mid seventh century acquired a polemical
charge, as Augustine became known in the east as the father of the
defamed ‘ filioque’.$* By translating his De trinitate Planudes put Augustine
on the map of Byzantine theology, no matter what exactly the purpose of
$' Plan., ep. lxvii ; Aug. Triad. (introduction) p. xxiv n. ¸6.
$( Cf. W. O. Schmitt, ‘ Lateinische Literatur in Byzanz: die U
$
bersetzungen des
Maximos Planudes und die moderne Forschung’, JOB xvii (1µ68), 1¡¸.
$) On other translations besides Aug., De trin. see Plan., Aug. Triad. (introduction), pp.
xxxiv–xlvi. They include works of Cicero, Macrobius, the Rhetorica ad Herennium, Boethius,
Ps-Donatus, Cato, Ovid and ps-Cyprian, De duodecim abusiuis saeculi, an Irish apocryphal
writing from the seventh century, popular in medieval times as a spiritual guide: W. O.
Schmitt, ‘ Pseudo-Cyprians ‘‘ De duodecim abusivis saeculi ’’ in der U
$
bersetzung des
Maximos Planudes ’, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-
historische Klasse, Berlin 1µ¡¸, 1¸–¸6.
$* The formula can be found in Aug., De trin. v. 1¸, CCL 1. ii¸; cf. Plan., Aug. Triad.
¸¡¡. Based on John xv. i6; xx. ii, Augustine held the divinity of the Spirit – against the
‘ Arians ’ of the day, who taught that the Spirit was the supreme creature – on the ground
that the Spirit, as the third person of the Trinity, is sent forth by the Father and the Son,
Father and Son being one principle and origin. In the west this was included in the Creed.
In the east this was contested on the ground that the Father and only the Father may be
considered origin and principle, of the Son by begetting, of the Spirit by sending forth. The
relationship between the Son and the Spirit was expressed in the east by formulae other
than ‘ sending forth’ : ‘ Double procession’, and ‘ Filioque’, in F. L. Cross and E. A.
Livingstone (eds), The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church, ¸rd edn, Oxford 1µµ¡, ¸o¸,
611 (further literature). See also n. ¸1. above
i¡6 j os ii io$ s s i
the translation may have been in the wider context of Emperor Michael’s
efforts towards reunion. Planudes was obviously captivated by the unique
literary and theological quality of the work and ‘ the fact that he dutifully
rendered the Latin doctrine of the procession of the Spirit from the Father
and the Son should bear witness not only to his intellectual propriety but
also to his esteem for Latin learning and theology’.%! But can it be said
that he ever shared the Latin position? To be sure, within a few years of
completing the translation he had written two polemic treatises against
the ‘ filioque’.%" This has puzzled scholars ever since.%# Did he change his
mind, ‘ convert ’, so to speak, from the western to the eastern position?
Did he act opportunistically under the new regime? Was he coerced
under Andronikos into writing those treatises, as was suggested by
Demetrios Kydones (1¸i¡–µ¡\8) and Cardinal Bessarion (1¡o¸–¡i)?%$
Did he consider the engagement in Trinitarian speculation as part of his
spiritual formation, no matter what its doctrinal implications ?%% Had he
been fired by a youthful enthusiasm for the Latin language and the
prospect of union under Michael \rrr Palaiologos,%& only to wake up to the
political and ecclesiastical realities when Andronikos reversed Michael’s
policies and reinstated John Bekkos as patriarch?
While there may be some truth in each of these suggestions, none of
them reveals the whole picture. Planudes himself gives only a slight hint
when he states in ep. cxiii that he was coerced into writing theology.%' He
saw himself primarily as a classical scholar and a monk, not as a
theologian. Whatever personal or spiritual interests he may have had, the
primary purpose of his translation was to provide others with a good text
as a basis for further study. Considering the difficulties and confusions of
Trinitarian terminology, that alone was an ambitious enough objective.%(
It also points to two aspects of Augustine’s theological genius in which
Planudes may have shared, his speculative powers and his reluctance to
give assent to positions which he thought he had not fully understood.%)
%! Plan., Aug. Triad. (introduction), p. xlvii.
%" Περι τη ε κπορευ σεω του α γι ου πνευ µατο κε α λαια συλλογιστικα κατα τω ν
Λατι νον and Λο γο περι πι στεω : ibid. p. xlviii.
%# See the discussion ibid. pp. xlviii–xlix (literature).
%$ See L. Mo$ hler, Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe : Humanist und Staatsmann, Paderborn
1µi¸, iio–¸, and M. H. Congourdeau, ‘ Planudes, Manuel ’, in Catholicisme, hier,
aujourd’hui, demain, xi, Paris 1µ88, ¡88–µo at p. ¡8µ.
%% Thus the explanation given in Plan., Aug. Triad. (introduction), pp. l–li.
%& Thus Concourdeau, ‘ Planudes ’.
%' Cf. Plan., Aug. Triad. (introduction), p. liv n. 1¡o.
%( Cf. Aug., ep. clxix, CSEL xliv. 61i, where Augustine writes that many people use
Trinitarian terminology but have little idea what they are talking about.
%) In Conf. xiii. 11. 1i, CCL xxvii. i¡¡, and ep. ccxlii. ¸, CSEL lvii, Augustine writes
that those who claim to have a complete understanding of the Trinity prove by that very
claim that they do not possess the light of truth. See also L. P. Schrenk, ‘ Augustine’s De
trinitate in Byzantine skepticism’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies xxx (1µ8µ), ¡¸1–6.
i¡¡ .iois 1r xi r x nvz.x1r ix
Such academic detachment made him a role model for later monastic
humanists like Prochoros Kydones, who considered translating theological
texts in itself a theological enterprise.%* But it earned him little recognition
in an era when such detachment was generally eyed with suspicion. If, for
instance, Gregory Palamas little less than a century later had recourse to
the text when writing his ‘ 1¸o Chapters ’, he kept quiet about it. Yet as
the number of thirty odd extant manuscripts suggests, Planudes’s
translation was widespread, even in the west, where parts of it were
printed in the seventeenth century, though a complete critical edition was
published only in 1µµ¸.&! With Planudes’s translation Augustine’s
theology, welcome or not, had entered the eastern domain. The
theological consequences now have to be considered.
Gregory Palamas and his use of Planudes’s translation
The reign of Andronikos rr Palaiologos was followed by an era of civil
wars, which ended only under John \r Cantacuzene (1¸¡¡–¸¡).&" Parallel
to the political conflicts a theological battle raged. It was finally settled at
the Council of Constantinople of 1¸¸1, when Palamitic Hesychasm was
declared orthodox.&# Hesychasm was a certain type of mystical prayer
aimed at union of heart and mind and popular among monks. Its major
proponent was Gregory Palamas. Born in Constantinople in 1iµ6&$ of
noble Anatolian stock, he had become a monk on Mount Athos in 1¸18.
In 1¸i6 he was ordained priest of the diocese of Thessalonica. His
teaching was focused on the idea that persons who are spiritually
exceptionally gifted may through practising the Hesychast way of prayer
reach a beatific vision of the divine light, or Thabor light, which resembles
God’s uncreated energy, i.e. the Holy Spirit. In defence of that teaching
Gregory maintained, especially from 1¸¸¡ onwards, a heated debate with
the Calabrian monk Barlaam (1iµo–1¸¡8).
Both Gregory and Barlaam were rooted in Byzantine tradition. Under
the influence of the apophatic tradition of pseudo-Dionysian neo-
PlatonismBarlaamcontested Gregory’s distinction between divine essence
and energy and his claim that it was possible, by way of simple prayer, to
%* See Plan., Aug. Triad. (introduction), pp. lv–lvi, esp. n. 1¡6.
&! Ibid. (introduction). In 16¸o Pietro Arcudio in Rome published excerpts of bk 1¸:
P. Arcudius, Opuscula aurea theologica circa processionem Spiritus Sancti, Rome 16¸o, ¸8¡–61¸.
This edition is included in PG cxlvii. 1111–¸o. The oldest extant manuscript is Bodleian
Library, Oxford, xs Laud. gr. ¡1, from 1¸¡i. &" Nicol, The last centuries, 1¸1–i¸o.
&# See J. Meyendorff, Introduction aZ l’eTtude de GreTgoire Palamas, Paris 1µ¸µ; Fairy von
Lilienfeld, ‘ Hesychasmus ’, Theologische RealenzyklopaWdie xv (1µ86), i8i–µ.
&$ On the biographical data see Meyendorff, Introduction, ¡¸–1¡o.
i¡8 j os ii io$ s s i
attain a state in which one could perceive the uncreated divine light with
one’s bodily eyes.&% In Barlaam’s view Palamas was going too far in
making such definitive statements on the nature of God in relation to his
creation in general and to man in particular. Barlaam held that Palamas
ignored the fundamental distinctions between creator and creation and
between spirit and matter, which also had implications for Palamas’s
teaching on the Trinity. In return, Palamas and his supporters accused
Barlaam of rationalism. In their view he reduced the working of God’s
spirit to the human intellect, which could only grasp what God was not.
While the Palamites saw Barlaam as an enemy of the faith, who
sabotaged their efforts towards developing an orthodox doctrine, for
Barlaam it was rather Gregory and his adherents who were throwing
overboard such orthodox fundamentals as the principle of tradition
founded on Scripture and the doctrine of the primitive Church. Barlaam
was not the only one to criticise the new teaching on these grounds. His
concerns were shared by figures like Gregory Akindynos (c. 1¸oo–¡8) and
Nicephoros Gregoras (1iµi–1¸61).&& But Palamas would not recant.
Supported by his fellow monks on Mount Athos and the patriarch he was
appointed archbishop of Thessalonica in 1¸¡¡. In 1¸¸1 his teachings were
officially recognised as orthodox. He died in 1¸¸µ.
The renewed interest which Palamas’s teaching has attracted since the
early days of the twentieth century has shed fresh light on the controversy,
though some of its aspects may have also been obscured.&' Thus the
rejection of Palamas’s concept of divine energy has been seen as leading
to secularism, nihilism, irrationalism, materialism, atheism, the denial of
the fundamental orthodox teaching of cosmic sacredness and of salvation
as human and cosmic deification, a denial which has led in the west to a
concept of creation as subject to human domination, exploitation and
destruction. Such arguments, whether valid in themselves or not, are
purely modern. They largely fail to recognise the concerns behind the
debate in the fourteenth century, which were essentially theological. (For
&% On the same grounds Barlaam also turned against western theology, for example
against the epistemologically optimistic ‘ realist ’ scholasticism of St Thomas Aquinas : J.
Meyendorff: ‘ Les De! buts de la controverse he! sychaste’, Byzantion xxiii (1µ¸¸), 8¡–1io at
pp. µi–1o¸; Introduction, ¸¡o–¸; and ‘ Un Mauvais The! ologien de l’unite! au xive sie' cle:
Barlaam le Calabrais ’, in .c,,–.,,,: l’eTglise et les eTglises, ii, Chevetogne 1µ¸¡, ¡¡–6¡.
&& On Akindynos see Gregorii Acindyni Refutationes duae operis Gregorii Palamae cui titulus
dialogus inter orthodoxum et barlaamitam, ed. J. N. Can4 ellas, Turnhout 1µµ¸ (lCCG xxxi),
esp. pp. xiii–xxviii, ¡11–¡8. See also Nicol, The last centuries, i1¸–1¸. On Nicephoros
Gregoras see Meyendorff, ‘ Les De! buts ’, µ¡–¸; Nicol, The last centuries, i¸i–¡.
&' For a recent discussion see R. Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche Blick nach Westen: zur
Rezeption von Augustins De trinitate durch Gregorios Palamas ’, JOB xlvi (1µµ6),
i¡¸–µ¡, i¡6 (literature). On the following see now also his Theosis bei Palamas und Luther :
ein Beitrag zum oWkumenischen GespraWch, Go$ ttingen 1µµ¡, esp. pp. µ8–1oµ, 1¡¸–¸8, and the
review by G. Podskalsky, BZ xci (1µµ8), 118–io (with further literature).
i¡µ .iois 1r xi r x nvz.x1r ix
instance, the discussion about the nature of the Palamite concept of divine
energy is reminiscent of the discussion about the divinity of the Logos and
the Spirit in the fourth century.) It would be misleading and anachronistic
to present Palamas’s opponents as westernised rationalists (or, for that
matter, irrationalists, as has also been claimed), agnostics and materialists,
influenced at the same time by Italian Renaissance humanism, late
medieval nominalism, medieval and early modern Augustinianism and
Thomism.&( In reality the controversy between Palamas and his
opponents emerged from the heart of Byzantine tradition. It was a home-
made affair and the way in which Augustine, a representative less of
western than of patristic thought, was drawn into it (alongside the likes of
Basil of Caesarea and Gregory Nazianzen), firmly underlines that.
The viewthat Palamas may have used Planudes’s translation, especially
in his Capita,&) was first advanced by Martin Jugie,&* who argued that
Palamas’s reference to the Spirit as love (ε ρω) between the Father and
the Son'! could not have originated fromany other source but Augustine’s
De trinitate, be it directly, or indirectly via Thomas Aquinas. The latter
now seems less likely. Demetrios Kydones had not finished his translation
of the Summa contra gentiles any earlier than Christmas 1¸¸¡.'" (His was the
translation Palamas would have had to rely on.) Yet Palamas had finished
his Capita by 1¸¸o at the latest.'# By that time he would already have
known Planudes’s translation of Augustine’s De trinitate for not less than
five years.'$
But could Palamas not have drawn the concept from a Greek source?
To be sure, attempts have been made at showing precisely that.'% Yet
according to Vladimir Lossky, a renowned expert in Palamite theology,
the idea that the Spirit is the mutual love between Father and Son is alien
to Greek tradition.'& But how did it enter Palamas’s work and, moreover,
&( On some examples see Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche Blick’, i¡¡ nn. 8, µ.
&) Γρηγορι ου του Παλαµα Συγγρα µµατα V, ed. P. Chrestou and others, Thessalonica
1µµi; R. E. Sinkewicz, Saint Gregory Palamas : the one hundred and fifty chapters : a critical edition,
translation and study, Toronto 1µ88.
&* M. Jugie, ‘ Palamas ’, Dictionnaire de theTologie catholique xi (1µ¸i), 1¡66.
'! See Greg. Pal., Cap. ¸6 (¸¡–¸ Chrestou V edn; 1i1–¸ Sinkewicz edn).
'" On the circumstances see Nicol, The last centuries, i¸¡ (literature).
'# See Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche Blick’, i¡8 n. 1i, i¡8–µ.
'$ Flogaus (ibid. i8i–¸, iµ6) argues, in my view convincingly, that Palamas may have
first encountered the work during his arrest at the imperial palace after his
excommunication in 1¸¡¡. Interestingly, not long afterwards his fate changed for the
better.
'% For example the Cappadocians, Didymus the Blind, Gregory of Sinai († 1¸¡6) and
Theoleptos of Philadelphia († 1¸i¡\¸), Palamas’ spiritual father: Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche
Blick’, i¡µ–8i; N. Cipriani, ‘ La retractatio Agostiniana sulla processione-generazione
dello Spirito Sancto (De trin. v. 1i. 1¸)’, Augustinianum xxxvii (1µµ¡), ¡¸1–µ at pp. ¡¸¡–¸.
'& V. Lossky, The mystical theology of the eastern Church, London 1µ¸¡, 81, i1¸; cf. Flogaus,
‘ Der heimliche Blick’, i¡8 n. 1¸.
i8o j os ii io$ s s i
what are the consequences ? According to Sinkewicz ‘ Palamas clarified
the analogy of the Spirit as love. In man this has its foundation in the
divine image and likeness to be found in the mind. The relation of the
mind to its immanent knowledge is described as ε ρω or ε εσι .’'' But
Sinkewicz warns :
Because of the similarities with Augustine’s trinitarian analogies there is a great
temptation to start reading Augustine’s ideas into the text of Palamas. The
temptation should be avoided. Gregory spoke of the knowledge naturally
inherent in the mind, but he did not equate this with the mind’s knowledge of
itself (notitia sui). He spoke of the relation of the mind to the knowledge
immanent in it as one of love, but he did not describe this as the mind’s intending
its self-love (amor sui and voluntas sui). Above all, Palamas very clearly did not
conclude that the Holy Spirit is the relation of love between the Father and the
Son.'(
Following Flogaus I have tried to show elsewhere that with this statement
Sinkewicz fails to do justice to either Palamas or Augustine.') For in Cap.
¸6 Palamas did speak of the Spirit as love, while when Augustine did he
always pointed out either that by doing so he was applying an analogy of
the mind, or that what he referred to is ‘ God’s will ’, a concept that comes
close to that of the Spirit as ε νε ργεια.'* To be sure, there are differences
between Palamas and Augustine (Planudes).(! But these are found in
'' Saint Gregory Palamas : the one hundred and fifty chapters, 18. '( Ibid.
') See Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche Blick’; J. Lo$ ssl, ‘ Augustine’s On the Trinity in Gregory
Palamas’ One Hundred and Fifty Chapters ’, Augustinian Studies xxx (1µµµ), 61–8i. A
middle position is held by J. Lison, ‘ L’E
!
sprit comme amour selon Gre! goire Palamas : une
influence augustinienne?’ Studia Patristica xxxii (1µµ¡), ¸i¸–¸i. Lison, too, argues for
Palamas’s use of Planudes’s translation but doubts whether that means that Palamas was
(heavily) influenced by Augustinian thought.
'* Cf. Aug., De trin. xv. ¸, CCL 1 A. ¡6¸: ‘ amans et quod amatur et amor’ (Plan., Aug.
Triad. 8¸µ: ο ε ρω ν και το ε ρω µενον και ο ε ρω, sc. the self-reflecting mind as likeness of the
Trinity). See also Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche Blick’, iµi n. ¸1; Greg. Pal., Cap. ¸6 (¸¡–¸
Chrestou V edn; 1ii Sinkewicz edn): το πνευ µα…οιο ν τι ε ρω ε στι ν α πο ρρητο του
γεννη τορο προ αυ το ν το ν α πορρη τω γεννηθε ντα λο γον. In De trin. xv. i¡ (CCL1 A. ¸o1;
Plan., Aug. Triad. µiµ) Augustine points out that according to 1 Jn iv. 8, 16, the Spirit
cannot be identified with α γα πη because God is called so. In De trin. xv. ¡1, CCL 1 A. ¸1¸;
Plan., Aug. Triad. µ61, he maintains that what can be said about the Spirit in this whole
puzzle (αι νι γµα) (sc. of Trinitarian relationships) is that it (πνευ µα) is ‘ will at its most
effective (ε ρρωµενεστε ρα θε λησι), or better, ε ρω η α γα πη, ‘ amor seu dilectio’. On the
importance of this passage in the history of the concept of the will see J. Lo$ ssl, ‘ Augustine
on the will ’, in M. Stone, and T. Pink (eds), The will and theories of human action: from the
Stoics to the present day, London iooo, forthcoming. On parallels between the Augustinian
concepts of divine will (inner Trinitarian and in the economic context of the operations
of grace) and the corresponding Greek concept of θε λησι in connection with the concept
of the Spirit as ε νε ργεια, as in Maximus the Confessor and John the Damascene (cf., for
example, idem, Expositio fidei ¸µ), see below n. 81.
(! In the case of the Augustinian concepts of ‘ notitia sui ’ and ‘ amor sui ’ Sinkewicz is
largely right, although even here Augustine’s identification of ‘ notitia’ and ‘ amor’
i81 .iois 1r xi r x nvz.x1r ix
theological concepts rather than philological evidence. For the latter is
overwhelming, especially in Cap. 1i¸–¸¸.(" The danger here is not to
‘ read Augustine’s ideas into the text of Palamas ’ but to fail to see
Augustine’s text behind the ideas of Palamas.
Cap. 1i¸ consists largely of a literal rendering of Augustine’s summary
in De trin. xv. ¸ of De trin. v, in which Augustine provides an
(anti-Eunomian) analysis of expressions like Father, Son and creator,(#
which must not be conceived of as substances but as relations (relative,
α ναφορικω ), as they relate to something (‘ ad aliquid’, προ τι) other than
self. To make the point Palamas simply copies a long passage from
Planudes’s translation. But at the end he changes a significant detail.
Where Augustine states that divine relations to temporal conditions – like
God’s lordship over creation – are to be understood strictly as temporal
(ε ν χρο ν), i.e. not affecting God’s immutable state in eternity, he adds,
partly in his own words, that this includes God’s lordship over all those
who are ‘ in eternity and over the Aeons themselves ; for being Lord is an
uncreated energy of God, distinct from the substance, as it is spoken of in
relation to something else, which he is not ’.($
What is here the decisive difference between Augustine and Palamas ?
Augustine had been careful not to give the impression that his teaching
required the concept of an eternal cosmos. He insisted that God’s lordship
could only be conceived of as occurring in time.(% For him, time was
through the concept of ‘ intellectus gratiae’ makes it possible to relate the concepts of God
as the supreme intellect (Augustine) and the supreme goodness (Palamas) respectively and
thus point out that there are indeed aspects in which the two theologies converge. In the
case of Cap. ¸6 no literal parallels can be found. But see (in the light of nn 68–µ above)
the following references with a variety of partly overlapping concepts of love. Planudes
preferred α γα πη as reference to God’s love, or to God as love, which renders Augustine’s,
‘ caritas ’ as opposed to φιλι α, which stands for Latin ‘ amicitia’, the mutual love between
friends : Aug., De trin. vi. ¡, CCL 1. i¸¸; Plan., Aug. Triad. ¸µµ–¡o1; Aug., De trin. v. 1i–¸,
CCL 1. i18–io; Plan., Aug. Triad. ¸6¡–¡1; Aug., De trin. vi. 11, CCL 1. i¡i; Plan., Aug.
Triad. ¡1¸; cf. Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche Blick’, iµ1–i n. ¸o; Aug., De trin. xv. i¡, CCL 1
A. ¸o1; Plan., Aug. Triad. µiµ; Aug., De trin. xv. i¡–¸µ, CCL1 A. ¸o1–1¸; Plan., Aug. Triad.
µiµ–¸µ; Aug., De trin. xv. ¸¡, CCL 1 A. ¸1¸; Plan., Aug. Triad. µ¸1; Aug., De trin. ¡1, CCL
1 A. ¸1¡–1µ; Plan., Aug. Triad. µ61–¸. Note also that in archaic Greek ιλι α denotes family
relation, συγγε νεια. On the Augustinian terminology see I. Hadot, ‘ Amicitia’, AL i
(1µµ¡), i8¡–µ¸; D. Dideberg, ‘ Amor’, ibid. iµ¡–¸oo, and ‘ Caritas ’, ibid. ¡¸o–¡¸.
(" See Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche Blick’, i8o–µ¸. Capp. 1–6¸ outlines Palamas’s teaching
in general, Capp. 6¡–1¸o mainly refute specific points raised by Gregory Akindynos.
(# Aug., De trin. xv. ¸, CCL 1 A ¡6¸; Plan. Aug. Triad. 8¸¡; Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche
Blick’, i81, esp. n. i1.
($ Greg. Pal., Cap. 1i¸ (1o6 Chrestou V edn; iiµ–¸o Sinkewicz edn); Aug., De trin. xv.
¸, CCL 1 A. ¡6¡; Plan., Aug. Triad. 8¸¡; cf. Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche Blick’, i81 n. i1.
Only the italicised passages are literally taken from Augustine. On the rest of the passage
see Lo$ ssl, ‘ Augustine’s On the Trinity’ ¡i–¡.
(% For example in De trin. v. 1¡, CCL 1. ii¸; Plan., Aug. Triad. ¸¡µ–8¸.
i8i j os ii io$ s s i
essentially creational. The distinction between the temporal and the
eternal was equivalent to the distinction between God and creation. The
limits of time were the limits of perception, even, and in particular, of the
human perception of God.(& From this point of view there were certain
properties which could be applied to God in a proper sense on the basis
of the biblical faith, because they referred to God’s presence in time, for
example that he is Lord. But there were also properties which could be
applied to God only by way of analogy, since they were not accessible to
the human mind by virtue of their very nature, such as the Trinitarian
relations and the eternity of God’s substance. With his concept of God’s
energy Palamas shifted the boundary between the concepts of the eternal
and the temporal, God and creation. In his view it is possible for the
human mind to perceive with certainty that God is Lord, not only ‘over
time’, i.e. creation in history, but also ‘ in and over eternity’. Asked what
that was supposed to mean, and whether it might not amount to dropping
the distinction between God and creation, he declared that the concept of
divine energy includes creation, insofar as it implies that creation is in the
process of deification.(' Thus one might concede that he upheld the
distinction in some sense, namely as the distinction between God’s essence
and God’s energy, although his opponents would have pressed further the
question as to how it can be perceived that God, in himself, is Lord in and
over an essentially other one, as if either the distinction were not real, or
as if it constituted a division in God himself.
What his opponents actually asked was whether he understood his
distinction between God’s essence and God’s energy as a substantial or an
accidental one. He replied that in his view it was neither, but relational.
The relevant passage in Cap. 1i¡ draws literally on De trin. v. ¸.(( Pressed
further as to whether he understood ‘ relational ’ as substantially or
accidentally ‘ relational ’, he conceded that he understood ‘ relational ’
‘ somehow’ (πω ) as accidental rather than substantial.() He obviously
(& See in Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio xxix. 16, SC ccl. i1o, the cautious remarks on the
use of a term like σχε σι in reference to the ου σι α of the Father and xxx. 18, SC ccl. i6i–¡,
the distinction between relative and absolute concepts of God. See Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche
Blick’, i81–i n. ii, against Saint Gregory Palamas : the one hundred and fifty chapters, ¡¡–8.
(' As a challenge to Palamas’s concept see, for example, Gregory Akindynos, Antirrheticos
ii. ¸. 1i. ¡¸–1o¡ (18i–¸ Can4 ellas edn). See also Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche Blick’, i8i.
(( Aug., De trin. v. ¸, CCL 1. ioµ–1o; Plan., Aug. Triad. ¸¡µ–¸o; Greg. Pal., Cap. 1i¡
(1o6–¡ Chrestou V edn; iiµ–¸o Sinkewicz edn); Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche Blick’, i8i–¸
n. i¸.
() See Greg. Pal., Cap. 1i¡ (1o¡ Chrestou V edn; i¸o Sinkewicz edn). Flogaus, ‘ Der
heimliche Blick’, i8¸ n. i¡, suggests that this brings Palamas closer to Thomas Aquinas
than to Augustine. He is right in that in Summa theologiae i. ¸. 6 Aquinas counts relations
among accidents. But then ibid. i. iµ. ¡ he also singles out the inner-Trinitarian
relations as subsisting relations. Thus the impression is rather that Palamas stood mid-way
between them.
i8¸ .iois 1r xi r x nvz.x1r ix
wanted to rule out the assumption that he referred to a split in God’s
substance and tried to avoid speaking of God’s energy as if it was a
substance. After all the concept had been developed largely against a
tendency towards substantialism in Trinitarian theology.(*
He also tried to apply this strategy against an argument of Nicephoros
Gregoras based on a quotation from Gregory Nazianzen, turning it into
a counter-attack.)! Nazianzen had argued that if the Spirit is not thought
of as a subsisting being (υ πο στασι) but only as an ‘ accidens ’, he must be
thought of as God’s energy. Everything else might imply that there are
several substances in God. However, if the Spirit is conceived in that way,
he cannot be thought of as an agent. For accidents cannot be causes. They
are effects of substances. Only with certain precautions can some of them
be called secondary agents. However, if the Holy Spirit were conceived in
that way he would cease to exist as an agent at the very moment at which
he begins to exist by being caused by the Father.
Nazianzen obviously intended the argument in this form as a ‘ reductio
ad absurdum’. In Nicephoros Gregoras’s view it raised a serious question
concerning Palamas’s concept of the Spirit as divine energy: If it was
‘ only’ an ‘ accidens ’, how could it be a υ πο στασι ? The subsistence and
divinity of the Spirit was in question. Palamas, however, understood the
argument as supporting his view. The term υ πο στασι had been
introduced precisely in order to avoid substantialism in Trinitarian
speculation. God was, and acted, not as three substances but as one
substance. Yet he subsisted in three υ ποστα σει. To speak of the Spirit as
a ‘ divine accidens ’ meant to say this of the Spirit in respect to God’s
substance, not to God’s ways of subsisting. In Palamas’s view therefore, in
contrast to Nazianzen’s polemical conclusion, the Spirit subsisted precisely
as God’s energy proceeding from the Father through the Son.
Palamas found his conclusion supported by a passage from the Expositio
fidei of John Damascene which contains the concept of ‘ uncreated energy’
as a middle-term between ‘ divine υ πο στασι ’ and ‘ created α ποτε λεσµα’
or ‘ ε νε ργηµα’.)" Repeatedly he insisted on the distinction between God’s
(* See Lossky, Mystical theology of the eastern Church, i1¸. Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche Blick’,
i8¡ n. ¸o, relates this to the Augustinian idea, related to the one of God’s lordship over
time, that there is only one centre of action ad extra in God. Other (temporal, locational
and habitual) categories may be applied to God metaphorically (translate, µετα ορικω ),
the category of action may be applied properly (‘ verissime’, α ληθε στατα): Aug., De trin.
v. µ, CCL 1. i1¸–16; Plan., Aug. Triad. ¸6¸; Greg. Pal., Cap. 1¸¸ (11o Chrestou V edn;
i¸µ Sinkewicz edn).
)! Cf. Nic. Greg., Antirrheticos i. 1. 8. 1¸ (18µ–µ1 Beyer edn); Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche
Blick’, i8¸ n. i8.
)" Io. Dam., Exp. fid. ¸µ (Patristische Texte und Studien xii. 1¡¡); Greg. Pal., Cap. 1iµ, 1¸1,
1¡¸ (1o8, 11¸, Chrestou V edn; i¸¸, i¸¸–6, i¡¡ Sinkewicz edn); Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche
Blick’, i8¡–¸.
i8¡ j os ii io$ s s i
essence and God’s will on the ground that it is a necessary precondition
for the distinction between the begetting of the Son and the creation of the
universe.)#
Like Gregory Nazianzen, Augustine tells a slightly different story. In De
trin. v. 1¡–1¸ he develops the notion that God can be thought of as origin
and cause (‘ principium’, α ρχη ) in two ways, inner-Trinitarian and
economic. In the first way the Father is called the α ρχη of the Son and the
Spirit, in the second the Trinity is called the α ρχη of creation.)$ Palamas
quotes nearly the entire passage. Only where Augustine’s argument comes
to its obvious conclusion he suppresses the following passage:
If the one who is given is at the same time the one who gives (for he does not
receive his proceeding from anyone else but from him), we must confess that the
Father and the Son are the α ρχη of the Holy Spirit, not two α ρχει but, as Father
and Son, one God.)%
Augustine makes this statement on the assumption that there is no
distinction in God between essence and attributes.)& In his view the Spirit
proceeding from the Father and the Son proceeds from one source only.
Palamas agrees that the Spirit proceeds fromone source only, but he holds
that this one source is the Father and the Son. On the basis of traditional
teaching established over the centuries in the east he argues that there has
to be a clear distinction between God’s will, conceived as his primordial
energy (besides other energetic properties) communicated through the Son,
and God’s essence, originating in, and proceeding from, the Father. A
divine ου σι α supposedly prior to all the persons taken together was to be
rejected in his view.)'
However, in the chapters surrounding Cap. ¸6, where he puts forward
his concept of the Spirit as ε ρω between Father and Son, he seems to
make an exception to that rule. In Cap. ¸¡ he states that God is the
)# Cf. Greg. Pal., Cap. 1¸¸ (111–1i Chrestou V edn; i¡o–1 Sinkewicz edn); Flogaus,
‘ Der heimliche Blick’, i8¡.
)$ According to Augustine the expression ‘ Father’ can be used to refer properly to the
relationship between God and creation as originating solely in God. In other words, the
Father is the sole cause. This is thoroughly eastern doctrine. Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche
Blick’, i86–¡ n. i1, observes that in Greg. Pal., Cap. 1¸i (1oµ–1o Chrestou V edn; i¸¡
Sinkewicz edn) Palamas does not even use the term ‘ energy’. He relies exclusively on
Augustine’s text.
)% Aug., De trin. v. 1¸, CCL 1. ii¸; Plan., Aug. Triad. ¸¡¡; cf. Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche
Blick’, i86.
)& Cf. De trin. xv. ¸8, CCL 1 A. ¸1¸–16; Plan., Aug. Triad. µ¸¸–6. See also Greg. Naz.
Or., xxix. ¡, SC ccl. 1µo; Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche Blick’, i8¡.
)' To illustrate this point see ibid n. ¸8, quoting from pseudo-Justin, Quaestiones
Christianae ad Graecos, PGvi. 1¡¸¸ B: ‘ το βου λεσθαι η ου σι α ε στι ν, η προ σεστι τ ου σι …ει
δε προ σεστι τ ου σι , ε ξ α να γκη α λλο και α λλο ε στι ν· ου κ ε στι γα ρ το ο ν και το προσο ν
ταυ το ν.’ As a possible response see Greg. Akind., ep. xlii. ad Lapithem (Letters of Gregory
Akindynos, ed. A. C. Hero, Washington 1µ8¸, 1¡8).
i8¸ .iois 1r xi r x nvz.x1r ix
supreme good and possesses his goodness not as a mere quality (ποιο τη)
but as a substance (ου σι α); yet immediately he corrects himself saying
that by this he does not mean to separate God and God’s life, or wisdom,
or eternity, or beatitude. Rather, all of these are one in God in the highest
sense, i.e. in his goodness. In De trin. xv. ¡–µ Augustine holds a similar
view,)( only he derives God’s properties not fromhis goodness but fromhis
wisdom, or intellect. This seems epistemologically sounder,)) for it
enabled Augustine at any moment in his inquiry to put on the brake and
point out the limitations of Trinitarian speculation.)* To him such
speculation was more of a formal, philosophical, insight, less binding than
what had to be accepted in faith from Scripture and tradition. Palamas
did not make that distinction. His need to correct himself in his point on
God as the supreme goodness shows that he tried – though in vain – to put
forward a concept which would be as formally sound as filled with
doctrinal content.*! That he tried it, and the way in which he tried,
however, is due to Augustine’s influence.
In Cap. ¸¸ Palamas distinguishes four meanings of λο γο in an attempt
to clarify the concept of the Son as ‘ God’s word from heaven’ (α νωτα τω
λο γο). He maintains that the latter, as far as its likeness to a dimension
of being human is concerned, is neither like an uttered nor like an
unuttered word, or thought, but like the ever present reality of the mind
(νου ), which in a certain sense can be called eternal.*" An obvious parallel
to this can be found in De trin. xv. 1¡–i¸,*# especially in Augustine’s
assumption that the ultimate level of likeness between God’s word and the
human mind lies in γνω σι.*$
)( See Aug., De trin. xv. ¡–µ, CCL 1 A. ¡68–¡1; Plan., Aug. Triad. 86¸–¡1; Flogaus,
‘ Der heimliche Blick’, i88 n. ¡o.
)) Sinkewicz holds that against him(see n. 6¡). But already Barlaam the Calabrian had
pointed out that Augustine’s theology was consistent in that respect. In his view Palamas
would run into difficulties trying to prove it wrong: Barlaam, ep. i to Palamas, in Archivo
storico per la Calabria a la Lucania, ed. G. Schiro' , i (1µ¸¸), 66–¡o; iii (1µ¸6), ¸ii, ¸i¡.
)* See, for example, De trin. ix. 1. 1, CCL 1. iµi–¸.
*! Sinkewicz (see above n. 6¡) is of course right in pointing out that by defining God
as supreme goodness Palamas is true to church tradition. But that is not exactly the point
here. The point is – and that is why, for example, Barlaam queried it (see above n. 88)
– that Palamas claimed that his concept of God’s goodness as his ου σι α is more than just
church tradition, that it is a necessary truth, accessible through speculation, reason and
mystical power, rather than a church doctrine to be accepted by faith.
*" Greg. Pal., Cap. ¸¸ (¸¸–¡ Chrestou V edn; 1i1 Sinkewicz edn); Flogaus, ‘ Der
heimliche Blick’, i8µ n. ¡1. The inconsistency particularly between this concept and the
one put forward in Cap. ¸6 is obvious. What kind of logic forces us to conclude from the
likeness of God’s word to the human mind that God’s essence is supreme goodness ?
*# De trin. xv. 1¡–i¸, CCL 1 A. ¡86–µµ; Plan., Aug. Triad. 8µ¸–µi¡; Flogaus, ‘ Der
heimliche Blick’, i8µ–µo nn. ¡¸–¡. Note the expressions προσ ορικο λο γο (Palamas);
λο γο προ ορικο ε ν θο γγ (Planudes); ‘ verbatim prolativum in sono’ (Augustine);
λο γο ε νδια θετο (‘ verbum cogitatum’); ε ν τ διανοι λο γο (‘ in animo’).
*$ See Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche Blick’, iµo, esp. n. ¡¸; Aug. De trin. xv. i¸, CCL 1 A.
i86 j os ii io$ s s i
In Cap. ¸¡ Palamas even goes as far as to combine this with the concept
of ‘ supreme ε ρω ’ signifying the likeness of the Spirit in humanity, as
pointed out in Cap. ¸6. Human beings, he writes, have an insatiable thirst
(ε φεσι) for γνω σι.*% Augustine, De trin. ix. 18, speaks of an ‘ appetitus ’
(ο ρεξι) in human beings, which through the rebirth of human knowledge
in the Spirit develops into a genuine divine love for what, or whom, is
ultimately intended to be known, namely God himself. It can be called a
likeness of the person of the Spirit in the human being.*&
Cap. is not the only one of Palamas’s writings which may be influenced
by De trin., or Planudes, Aug. Triad. Flogaus mentions particularly
Homilia 16 and Ad Xenam as candidates for rendering further evidence in
that respect. He points out that there are works, especially from the time
after 1¸¡¡, which nobody has as yet looked into.*' His studies so far have
shown that it may well be worth doing so. While we may not be able to
speak of a reception of Augustinian theology in Palamite thought,*( the
fact that the latter is influenced by the former seems now well established;
and since we can well speak of a reception of Palamite thought in later
Byzantine theology, we may look for further evidence of that influence. In
works like that of Prochoros Kydones, discussed in the next section, it
surfaces and is made more explicit. However, the teaching of the Palamite
had emerged in a context of fierce struggle and controversy,*) and to be
sure, that particular aspect was now perpetuated as well, with disastrous
consequences for some participants in the ongoing theological debate.
Prochoros Kydones – an Augustinian Palamite ?
The case of Prochoros Kydones** is particularly telling in that respect.
Having been one of Palamas’s most ardent followers during his lifetime he
¡µ8–¸oo; Plan., Aug. Triad. µi¸–¸. See also Palamas’s argument concerning the λο γο ε ν
διανοι , which cannot be the image of God’s word, because its perfection needs time, in
Aug., De trin. vii. ¡, CCL 1. i¸1–i; Plan., Aug. Triad. ¡¸1–6.
*% Greg. Pal., Cap. ¸¡ (¸¸ Chrestou V edn; 1i¸ Sinkewicz edn); Flogaus, ‘ Der
heimliche Blick’, iµi n. ¸i.
*& Aug., De trin. ix. 18, CCL 1. ¸1o; Plan., Aug. Triad. ¸¡µ; Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche
Blick’, iµ¸ n. ¸¸. *' See Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche Blick’, iµ¸–¡.
*( See the reflections on this by G. Podskalsky, BZ xci (1µµ8), 118–io at pp. 11µ, 1io.
*) On the political and ecclesiastical context see, brilliantly, Nicol, The last centuries,
i1o–¸o.
** Not to be mistaken for his brother Demetrios Kydones (1¸i¡–µ¡\8) who is known for
his translations of Aquinas, especially of the Summa contra gentiles, and a number of pseudo-
Augustinian and Augustinian works, for example Prosper Tiro, Liber sententiarum ex operibus
Sancti Augustini (autograph in Cod. Vat. gr. 1oµ6, fos 1¡1r–µµr; CCL lxviii A); Fulgentius
of Ruspe, De fide ad Petrum seu De regula fidei (Cod. Vat. gr. 1oµ6, fos 1µµv–ii1v; Vat. gr.
i8¡ .iois 1r xi r x nvz.x1r ix
ended up being condemned a heretic, not in line with Palamas’s teaching,
and has ever since been known as an ‘ anti-Palamite’."!!
Palamas was still struggling with his opponents when Prochoros joined
the µεγι στη λαυ ρα on Mount Athos, still a boy. After some years as a lay
monk he was ordained and became a ι εροµο ναχο. He studied Latin and
began to apply his knowledge to the works of Augustine and Thomas
Aquinas. In contrast to Planudes, who in his youth translated what is
probably Augustine’s most sublime work, Prochoros began his Augus-
tinian studies by translating some fairly basic passages from early works
like the first fifteen paragraphs of De uera religione,"!" five paragraphs of De
beata uita"!# and a large part of the first book of De libero arbitrio."!$ Only
a collection of eight letters contains later material."!%
In De vera rel. Augustine puts forward the principle of unity (‘ the one’)
as the guiding principle for religious worship"!& and as a characteristic of
Christian teaching and worship as opposed to the plurality of pagan cults
and Manichean dualism. The concept of ‘ the one’, he recognises, is, of
course, also central to Platonism. But Platonism, he insists, has failed,
6o6, fos iior–¸8v; CCL xci A), a work depending on Augustine’s Enchiridion; pseudo-
Augustinus, Soliloquia, a work dating from the thirteenth century (Cod Vat. gr. 6o¡, fos
1r–¸6v; PL xl. 86¸–µ8), excerpts from Aug., C. Iul. (Cod. Vat. gr. 1oµ6, fo. iiir–v) and In
Iohannis euangelium tractatus (Cod. Vat. gr. 111¸, fos 8¸v–µor; CCL xxxvi); on further details
see M. Jugie, ‘ De! me! trius Cydone' s et la the! ologie latine a' Byzance aux xive et xve sie' cles ’,
E
T
chos d’Orient xxvii (1µi8), ¸8¸–¡oi at p. ¸µ6; Demetrios Kydones : Briefe, I\i, ed. F.
Tinnefeld, Stuttgart 1µ81, 68–µ; Fu$ rst, ‘ Augustinus im Orient ’.
"!! See Flogaus, ‘ Der heimliche Blick’, i¡¡–8; Prochoros Kydones : U
W
bersetzung von acht
Briefen des Hl. Augustinus, ed. H. Hunger, Vienna 1µ8¡, ¡–8.
"!" Περι τη α ληθου θρησκει α (Cod. Vat. gr. 1oµ6, fos 1¡µr–¸6r); Aug., De vera rel.
1–1¸, CCL xxxii. 18¡–µ¡, line i¸ ‘ ut diem dei uideant ’. It dates from c. ¸µo.
"!# Cod. Vat. gr. 6oµ, fo. 1¡¸r–v; Aug., De beata uita ¡–8, CCL xxix. 66, lines 8o–¡o at
line 61). The Greek title is not extant. The work dates from ¸86.
"!$ Περι τη αυ τεξουσιο τητο (Cod. Vat. gr. 6oµ, fos 18or–¡r); Aug., De lib. arb. i. 1–µo,
CCL xxix. i11–iµ, dating from ¸88. See Prochoros Kydones : U
W
bersetzungen von S. Augustinus,
De libero arbitrio i. .–,c und Ps.-Augustinus, De decem plagis Aegyptiorum, ed. H. Hunger,
Vienna 1µµo, 1i–¸¸. The second work in this edition is an anonymous compilation
formerly ascribed to Augustine and now thought to be a work of Caesarius of Arles (CCL
ciii. ¡o¡–1¸).
"!% The only surviving xs is Cod. Vat. gr. 6oµ, fos 18¸r–µ1v, ioir–v, ioµr–v. See
R. Devreesse, in Codices Vaticani Graeci, iii, Vatican City 1µ¸o, 16–18; Prochoros Kydones :
U
W
bersetzung von acht Briefen (introduction), µ–11. The letters are ordered as follows : ep.
cxxxii (fo. 18¸r; CSEL xliv. ¡µ–8o); ep. cxxxvii (fos 18¸r–8r; CSEL xliv. µ6–1i¸); ep.
cxxxviii (fos 188r–µor; CSEL xliv. 1i6–¡8); ep. xcii. 1–6 (fo. 1µor–v; CSEL xxxiv\ii.
¡¸6–¡¸, line 18; i.e. the last two sentences are missing); ep. cxliii (fos 1µov–1r; CSEL xliv.
i¸o–6i); ep. xxviii (fo. 1µ1v; CSEL xxxiv\i. 1o¸–1¸); ep. cxlvii. ¡6–¸¸ (fo. ioir–v; CSEL
xliv. ¸i1, line 1µ ‘ et quod’ – ¸iµ, line i¡ ‘ sicut ’); ep. lxxxii. 1–¡ (fo. ioµr–v; CSEL
xxxiv\ii. ¸¸1–¡, line 1¸ ‘ posuisse’); cf. Prochoros Kydones : U
W
bersetzung von acht Briefen. Most
of the letters originate from the second decade of the fifth century.
"!& See J. Lo$ ssl, ‘ The One (unum): a guiding concept in De vera religione’, RE
T
Aug xl
(1µµ¡), ¡µ–1o¸. On paragraphs 1–1¸ see ibid. µ¸–6. See also Intellectus gratiae, ¡i–µ.
i88 j os ii io$ s s i
historically and, by implication, soteriologically as well. What he means
is that Christianity has attracted and empowered more people in history
than Platonism to do the good, find the truth and reach perfection in an
intellectual beatific vision of God."!' One paragraph earlier he had
stressed the distinction between creation and the ‘ creatrix trinitas ’. The
attractions as well as the problems of this model for Palamism are clear.
The mystical aspect, salvation as a progress towards unity in the One, was
acceptable. But the scholastic distinction between creator (‘ creatrix’) and
creation and physical and intellectual vision was a source of conflict. The
possibility of perceiving the uncreated divine light with one’s bodily eyes
was a crucial concept of Hesychasm and Prochoros was going to criticise
it.
De beata uita ¡–8 contains a similar account, only in autobiographical
terms."!( Augustine recalls his attraction to philosophy during his youth,
triggered by his reading of Cicero’s Hortensius, his errant years as a
Manichean and his conversion through books of Plotinus. Now he
recognises Christianity as the ‘ true philosophy’ and believes it will lead
him to a beatific intellectual life. The ensuing dialogue underlines that. It
refutes sceptic positions, states the existence of an individual mind soul as
opposed to the body and dwells on the idea that the soul needs to be
nourished with intellectual food as the body needs to be fed with material
food. In order to feed the soul the intake of bodily food has to be lessened.
This account, too, has traits that appealed to Palamism and others that
did not. To focus on the latter: Augustine has no concept which would
suggest an eventual integration of the mind soul into an ‘ ultra-intellectual ’
dimension in which the divine light is visible with bodily eyes and in
which the beatific vision is ‘ more’ than ‘ just ’ intellectual perfection.
De lib. arb. i. 1–µo deals with the phenomenon of the will. God creates
everything good. Man chooses to reject God’s goodness. His will turns evil
and loses its freedom. For by their very nature evil wills cannot ‘ learn’
(‘ improve’, become ‘ better’) or do the good by choice and reach the
intellectual beatific vision. Thus human beings need to have their good
and free will reinstituted by God."!) Here divine grace and human
freedom are for the first time opposed. One cannot be mistaken for the
other. Conversion is the change, by the intervention of divine grace, of a
person who wills evil into one whose free will for the good is sustained by
divine grace. Thus, although there are again a number of affinities, the
Augustinian model falls short of the Palamite concept of deification, no
matter how intrinsically interwoven one imagines divine grace and
"!' See esp. De vera rel. 1¸–1¡. The stress in the latter part of the argument lies on
‘ intellectual ’ as opposed to ‘ sensual ’. The road to salvation is the way from the senses to
the intellect. "!( See Lo$ ssl, Intellectus gratiae, µ–ii.
"!) Idem, ‘ Wege der Argumentation in Augustinus’ De libero arbitrio’, Theologie und
Philosophie lxx (1µµ¸), ¸i1–¸¡ at pp. ¸¸¸–µ.
i8µ .iois 1r xi r x nvz.x1r ix
human free will to be in the process of conversion and in the state of
beatific vision.
Finally, Prochoros’s collection of eight letters of Augustine is ordered
along the lines of one of the most widespread medieval collections,"!* with
two exceptions. Epp. cxxxv and cxxxvi, second and third in the western
collections, are omitted by Prochoros. Epp. cxlvii and lxxxii, found much
later in the western collections, are added on as nos ¡ and 8. These
discrepancies may not be entirely accidental. Epp. cxxxv and cxxxvi may
be omitted because they are addressed to Augustine and do not contain
any material relevant for Augustinian thought which could not be better
obtained from one of Augustine’s own letters. Epp. lxxxii and cxlvii do
contain such material. Moreover, they are closely related to epp. xxviii
and xcii respectively and they have their own reception histories. Ep.
cxlvii is also known as Liber de uidendo deo. It has been transmitted in
separate manuscripts and often in a fragmentary state, as also in
Prochoros’s collection.""! Epp. xcii to Italica and ep. cxlvii to Paulina are
letters addressed to ascetic aristocratic women in Italy during the
harrowing time of the Gothic invasions in the years shortly before the sack
of Rome in ¡1o. Like ep. xxviii, ep. lxxxii is addressed to Jerome. The
correspondence between him and Augustine has a reception history of its
own, too.""" Obviously, there are a number of reasons why epp. lxxxii and
cxlvii could have moved up from nineteenth or even fifty-seventh position
in the medieval western collections to seventh and eighth in Prochoros’s
Kydones.
There is also some internal coherence in Prochoros’s collection. Ep.
cxxxii is addressed to Volusianus. Volusianus’ response, ep. cxxxv, is one
of the letters omitted by Prochoros. Epp. cxxxvii and cxxxviii are
Augustine’s responses to epp. cxxxv and cxxxvi, written by Marcellinus.
Ep. cxliii is also addressed to Marcellinus. Augustine’s correspondence
with Marcellinus is of particular importance.""# It marks the beginnings
of the Pelagian controversy. Encouraged by Marcellinus and Volusianus,
Augustine expounded his soteriological epistemology and hermeneutics,
stressing the superseding role of grace under the condition of original sin
and refuting what was later to become ‘ Pelagianism’. Prochoros, although
not interested in the historical circumstances of the controversy, as the
omission of epp. cxxxv and cxxxvi shows, is none the less fascinated by its
theological implications, in particular the links Augustine draws between
"!* Epp. cxxxii, cxxxvii, cxxxviii, xcii, cxliii, xxviii, cxlvii, lxxxii. The oldest extant
manuscript of that group is Munich, clm. 6i66 (s. x); cf. CSEL xliv. xi (Goldbacher); on
the reception of the text see also CSEL lxxxiii. xx–i (Divjak edn).
""! See CSEL lviii. vii, xii, xxxix, xli–ii (Goldbacher edn).
""" See A. Fu$ rst, Augustins Briefwechsel mit Hieronymus, i¡o–¡.
""# See M. Moreau, ‘ Le Dossier Marcellinus dans la correspondance de saint
Augustin’, Recherches Augustiniennes ix (1µ¡¸), ¸–181; Lo$ ssl, Intellectus gratiae, 1i1–¸.
iµo j os ii io$ s s i
epistemics and salvation, which is also a central concern of Palamite
Hesychasm.
Ep. cxxxii contains instructions on a soteriologically relevant and
intelligent reading of Scripture. Ep. cxxxvii reflects on the hermeneutical
difficulties of speaking about the Incarnation against the background of
the philosophical problem of speaking about God. Ep. cxxxviii discusses
two questions : How can the God of the Old Testament reject the
sacrifices of the Old Testament but accept new sacrifices ? Does Christ’s
teaching contradict the ethical teaching of non-Christian human societies ?
Augustine always discussed such questions at a very fundamental level. In
his view everything depended on how one defined the relationship
between divine grace and human nature in the context of one’s theological
epistemology. Ep. xcii discusses scriptural passages on God’s visibility. In
1 John i. ¸ God is called ‘ light ’. In Augustine’s view this calls, once more,
for the distinction between God and creation, spiritual and physical light
and, correspondingly, spiritual and physical eyes. Prochoros would follow
him in that – and run into trouble with his religious authorities. Ep. cxliii
contains Augustine’s famous saying that he would rather make mistakes
than not improve in life. In the context of De lib. arb. this refers to the
concept of free will. Pelagius had claimed that it endorsed his own.
Augustine denied that but insisted that even if it were so it would still leave
the possibility that his teaching had improved since writing De lib. arb. He
then went on to discuss his doctrines of original sin and predestination in
the light of the concepts of the immortality of the soul and freedom,
stressing how all this is related to an epistemic notion of salvation. Ep.
xxviii contains questions concerning the canon of the Old Testament. In
addition ep. lxxxii also discusses Galatians ii. 1¡ about the quarrel
between Peter and Paul in Antioch. Earlier Fathers had played it down
and declared it a sham, as Jerome did. Augustine, however, insisted that
it was a real conflict.""$ Again he treated it as a challenge to soteriological
epistemology and hermeneutics as well as to Christian ethics and
spirituality. Conflicts, he insisted, must not be overlooked, or hypo-
critically denied and suppressed but tackled in brotherly love and care.
Ep. cxlvii, relating to ep. xcii, also addresses the question of how to so
acquire knowledge and insight (with the help ultimately of God himself
and his will) that it included the basic Christian attitudes, or virtues, of
faith and striving towards moral perfection.
Prochoros’s association with such ideas raised the suspicion of his fellow
monks. In the meantime Palamism had been accepted as orthodox and
Palamas himself had died. When Prochoros discussed some of the
theological problems he had left behind he was accused of heresy. The
""$ See J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome : his life, writings and controversies, London 1µ¡¸, i6¸–¡;
Fu$ rst, Augustins Briefwechsel mit Hieronymus, i–8¡.
iµ1 .iois 1r xi r x nvz.x1r ix
patriarch, Philotheos Kokkinos, encouraged his fellow monks to put him
on trial. The proceedings took place in 1¸68. Prochoros’s teachings were
anathematised, Prochoros himself was excommunicated. He died shortly
after.
If Prochoros was allowed to speak at the trial at all, no records are
extant. Therefore it is not possible to establish his position exactly. Unlike
Palamas and his opponents a generation before, he never had the chance
to trigger and sustain a controversy. But to judge from his extant writings
it is unlikely that this would have been his intention. He did not refute
Palamas’s teaching as a whole, but rejected the notion that the physical
Thabor light was uncreated. In his view it was created (κτιστο ν) and he
tried to prove his point by resorting to scholastic methods in logic and
dialectic.""% For his opponents that alone was sufficient to put himon trial.
In an attempt to understand their reaction one might imagine that to
them his position might have looked as Eunomius’ position had seemed to
Basil of Caesarea: an attempt to put divinity on a level with creation on
purely logical and philosophical grounds. Roughly speaking Eunomius
had argued from the meaning of the word ‘ father’ that the Father alone
is divine, while the Son and the Spirit are wholly unlike the Father in this
respect. However, Prochoros’s position, unlike that of Eunomius, was
never thoroughly assessed. If he was wrong, no Basil stood up against him.
It was rather the lesser spirits of his age that rose against ‘ his unerring
assessment of opposing views and concepts ’, as one scholar put it, ‘ his
ability to expose the untraditional centre-pieces behind the delusive
accessories of ambitious but impossible expectations ’.""& However,
doctrinal questions aside, to what extent, if at all, was Prochoros’s position
influenced by Augustine?
The patriarch’s letter of condemnation concluding the trial confirms
that Prochoros cited Augustine as a church Father, a guardian of
orthodox tradition. Interestingly he does not dare to question Augustine’s
authority, but doubts instead Prochoros’s justification in calling upon him
as a witness for his own cause:
And ostensibly (δη θεν) he introduces Augustine as a witness purporting to show
that in one of his writings that church Father says that when the good as well as
the evil will see (ο ψονται) the judge of the living and the dead, then undoubtedly
the evil, too, will not be able to see him in any other way. They will not see him
in the form according to which (κατα τη ν µορ η ν) he is the Son of Man but in
""% See M. Candal, ‘ El libro iv de Pro! coro Cidonio’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica xx
(1µ¸¡), i¡¡–µ¡; Prochoros Kydones : U
W
bersetzung von acht Briefen (introduction), µ; G.
Podskalsky, Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz: der Streit um die theologische Methodik in der
spaWtbyzantinischen Geistesgeschichte (.,\.,. Jahrhundert), seine systematischen Grundlagen und seine
historische Entwicklung, Munich 1µ¡¡, 1i¡–¡¸.
""& Podskalsky, Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz, ioµ. More recently see idem, BZ xc
(1µµ¡), 11¡–1¸.
iµi j os ii io$ s s i
the glory (ε ν τ δο ξ) which reveals him as judge, not in the humiliation (ε ν τ
ταπεινω σει) of one who is judged.""'
It is clear from this that Augustinian thought had entered the discussion
– and led to confusion and tragic misunderstanding. What Prochoros
must have pointed out is that the narrative of the Last Judgement makes
sense only if we imagine all participants, not only the saved, as ‘ seeing’
their judge. In that sense all will have a ‘ vision’ of God, but of course, not
all will have a ‘ beatific vision’. Prochoros’s opponents would not accept
that distinction. For them it was scandalous to speak of ‘ vision’ in such an
ambiguous way. The patriarch’s letter of condemnation even omits
Prochoros’s clarifying distinction, as becomes clear from Prochoros’s own
words extant in his autograph, which read, in addition to what the
patriarch had paraphrased:
What has to be added, of course, is that, obviously, the wicked will not see the
form (µορ η ) of the Son according to which he is equal to the Father.""(
Here Prochoros clearly distinguishes between the judgement in which
Christ is seen in his glory by the wicked as well as by the blessed, and the
beatific vision of the blessed in heaven. But implied in this statement is
another important distinction. What Prochoros is saying here is that even
the blessed in heaven will see God only in their capacity of being his
creatures. They will not participate in his divine nature in the same way
as Christ. The light in which they see God is created. In that respect they
have more in common with the wicked in hell than with God. This is not
just a very Augustinian but a generally orthodox notion, although
Augustine has given the whole idea a new twist through his extended
reflections on the fate of the damned, which is not present in the eastern
tradition. It has to be seen in relation to his notion of divine grace and
human freedom, or indeed God and Man as competing forces and entities.
Not unlike Pelagianism, Augustinianism therefore stood for the de-
velopment of ideas such as human emancipation, secularisation, the
solidarity of the human race in the miseries of history and the eschaton,
and the question whether God has not abandoned humanity, or humanity
God. But these were tendencies which only in the later Middle Ages
developed into full-blown concepts. Augustine himself, in spite of the
differences between eastern and western theology already in his lifetime,
stood for a worldview not unlike that of the Greek Fathers of his time; and
generally the tendency to distinguish sharply between God and creation
is also inherent in the eastern tradition. It was one of the driving forces
behind the Nicene movement and again behind the movement that stood
""' Prochoros Kydones : U
W
bersetzung von acht Briefen (introduction), 1¡; cf. PG cli. ¡o¡A1¸-
B8; Candal, ‘ El libro iv de Pro! coro Cydonio’, i6¡, lines 1o–16.
""( Prochoros Kydones : U
W
bersetzung von acht Briefen (introduction), 1¡; cf. Cod. Vat. gr.
6oµ, fo. i11r, lines ¡–1o.
iµ¸ .iois 1r xi r x nvz.x1r ix
by the formula of Chalcedon. It is this connection which Prochoros tries
to use as a starting point.
Only God has the will and the power (the love) to save, while humanity
is in need of salvation. To speak of a saviour who is not fully divine is a
contradiction in terms. As a Palamite, however, Prochoros faced a
dilemma. If he called the divine energy ‘ created’, he would deny God his
proper attribute. He would fall into a heresy similar to that of the so called
Arians of the fourth century who denied the divinity of Christ. On the
other hand, if he called created matter ‘ uncreated’ and ‘ divine’, he would
commit idolatry, what Augustine, referring to his Manichean past, once
called ‘ superstition’. As a way out of this dilemma Prochoros in this short
passage tried to break down the whole complex along Christological lines.
He applied the concept of the ‘ interchange of the properties ’ (‘ com-
municatio idiomatum’), according to which everything that can be
predicated of the divine nature of Christ can equally be predicated of
human nature, because of Christ’s unity as a person, in a soteriological
context, i.e. as applying, in some respect, to all men. Combining the
Augustinian concept of grace with Chalcedonian Christology he could
relate the created and the uncreated – for example in the instance of
judgement and salvation as illumination by grace, the latter being the
beatific vision of the saved – as two aspects of one process, namely
deification, and still uphold the necessary distinctions between God and
creation, spirit and matter. Quoting from Augustine’s De trinitate i. ¸. ¸o
he writes :
For the same reason [Augustine] teaches that ‘ it is characteristic of the true
believers (τω ν ευ σεβω ν ιδιον) to hear the message of [Christ’s] incarnation in
such a way that they believe in it on the ground that he is equal to the Father
in the form of God (ε ν µορ του Θεου ). Equally true is what follows from this,
as the one who holds it firmly proclaims : As the Father has life in himself, he gives
life to the Son to have it in himself. Then he continues to deal with the vision of
his [Christ’s] glory in which he will come as judge, which will be common to the
wicked as well as the just ’."")
"") Prochoros Kydones : U
W
bersetzung von acht Briefen (introduction), 1¡–1¸; Cod. Vat. gr.
6oµ, fo. i11r, lines 11–1¸; Candal, ‘ El libro iv de Pro! coro Cydonio’, i6¡, lines ii–¡. As
Hunger shows from manuscript evidence, Prochoros cites here more or less exactly from
Planudes’s translation of Aug., De trin. i. ¸. ¸o, omitting only a few phrases. It is a
commentary on Jn v. i¡ (‘ He who listens to my word and believes him who sent me, has
eternal life’): ‘ This eternal life is that sight which the bad have no part in…And this
applies exclusively to loyal believers, who…believe him to be equal to the Father in the
form of God…Then [following Jn v. i¡: ‘‘ And he also gave him authority to do
judgment ’’] he comes to the sight of his splendour in which he will come to judgement, a
sight that will be shared by wicked and just alike…Yes, even the bad will be given a sight
of the Son of man: a sight of the form of God will be granted only to ‘‘ the pure of heart,
because they shall see God’’ (Matt. 8).’ See Plan., Aug. Triad. 1o¡, lines µ¸–1oµ, 1o1 l
Aug., De trin. i. ¸. ¸o. The modern translation is taken from Augustine : the Trinity, intro,
trans. and notes E. Hill, New York 1µµo, 88.
iµ¡ j os ii io$ s s i
Philotheos would have rejected this solution already on the grounds of his
more pneumatological understanding of Palamas’s teaching. But he also
condemned Prochoros for his use of Augustine, although he had only used
a text which had been around in the east for about half a century,
Planudes’s translation of De trinitate. But again, Philotheos did not attack
Augustine directly. He only condemned Prochoros’s ‘ heretical ’ use of
him, when he justified his ruling:
Asked how he understands (νοει) that [expression] ‘ the glory of his glory’ (ε ν τ
δο ξ αυ του η δο ξα) Prochoros answered: ‘ As that of the only-begotten Son of the
Father, which he has together with the Father and the Spirit in regard to
creation, that which has become, and as that which also shows itself in the
countenance (ε ν τ προσω π) of Christ on the Holy Mountain, according to
which the wicked, too, will see him.’""*
For Philotheos ‘ seeing God’ was equivalent to ‘ being saved’. He did not
allow for Prochoros’s distinctions between the divine and the created and
among the latter between the saved and the damned. In his view
Prochoros’s teaching either implied that God was not quite God and the
wicked were also in some respect saved, or salvation, understood as a
vision of God, is not quite what it seems to be, if even the wicked will share
in it.
Conclusion
To what extent Prochoros’s use of Augustine worked against him is
difficult to establish. However, it is remarkable how far he did make use
of him in his attempt to show that it was possible to uphold all the
distinctions required by western doctrine and still remain within the
confines of Palamite orthodoxy. Does this suggest that he felt encouraged
by what he may have known of Palamas in this regard to make use of
Augustine in order to informhis own teaching? We do not know. Palamas
had not signalled his use of Augustine and Prochoros, who did, was
condemned as a heretic. There were attempts after Prochoros to place
Augustine in the Hesychast tradition."#! But as a whole the short-lived
‘ reception process ’ of Augustinian thought in later Byzantine theology, if
indeed it can be called that, was not what one would call a success,
despite the stupendous achievement that Planudes’s translation un-
doubtedly represents. The ambiguity of Augustine’s own relationship to
""* Prochoros Kydones : U
W
bersetzung von acht Briefen (introduction) 1¸. See also PG xli.
¡o¡B8–1¸.
"#! On a hymn in that vein composed by Michael Kritoboulos from Imbros in the
fifteenth century see M. Rackl, ‘ Die griechischen Augustinusu$ bersetzungen’, in Scritti di
storia e paleografia in onore di Francesco Ehrle, i, Rome 1µi¡, 1–¸8 at p. ¸8. Another witness
in that regard is Demetrios Kydones : ibid. io.
iµ¸ .iois 1r xi r x nvz.x1r ix
Greek language and culture, his attempts to establish contacts with
eastern church leaders, the hesitation of the latter to respond to his calls,
and the widespread ignorance and lack of interest in the east of the
implications of his teaching are reflected in that process. Even though
there has been a trickle of Augustinian studies in eastern theology up to
the present day,"#" the impact of Augustinian thought as in the translations
of Planudes and Prochoros Kydones was never reached again.
"#" See Biedermann, ‘ Augustinus in der neueren griechischen Theologie’, and the more
recent literature cited by Podskalsky, BZ xci (1µµ8), 118–io.

   $ displayed a keen interest in and a considerable knowledge of Greek during his later years.$ In consequence scholars have taken different views on the matter. Some have tried to extrapolate from his theological genius and present him as an outstanding classicist and exegete as well. Others have questioned his competence in the latter two fields, especially as compared to Jerome. Against both tendencies Pierre Courcelle has stressed the importance of looking at the gradual growth and development of his interests in Greek during his later life and their connection with his theological concerns. At the beginning of his career as a theologian Augustine was not acquainted with the groundbreaking theological developments in the east a generation before. His approach to Greek patristics was a peculiar one, especially compared to that of Fathers like Marius Victorinus, Hilary, Ambrose and Jerome. His ‘ theological culture was … individual ’ and ‘ his belated reading of the Greek Fathers helped only to confirm and direct the orthodoxy of original views ’.% Indeed we have to remember that well into his thirties he had not much interest in church theology at all. For his personal religion he adhered to Manicheism and his professional aim was to become an accomplished orator. In  it had been rather by accident – or, as he saw it, divine decree – that he had come across some neoPlatonic texts which, in conjunction with Ambrose’s teaching, made him accept the orthodox creed and baptism, and only after he had become a presbyter in Hippo in  or  did he realise the need to learn more about eastern theology. Courcelle stresses that even around  he was still largely ignorant of much of the latter, as he confirms in ep. lxxxii.  to Jerome. Yet ‘ afterwards ’ – and we have to consider that he had still twenty-five years to live – ‘ he made a heroic effort to know the Fathers of the Eastern Church ’.& Augustine was keen to present his theology as in line with eastern orthodoxy. He saw that as his episcopal right and duty. Quite unlike Jerome, who for love of learning did not even exercise his presbyterial functions, Augustine did not study Greek texts for their own sake. He only referred to them when compelled to, especially in controversies, when they were quoted by his opponents in order to show that his teaching was not in line with (Greek) orthodoxy. In such cases, especially during the Pelagian crisis, Augustine tried to retaliate by proving that the Greek theologians cited by his enemies held no other faith than he, and that his
$ Ibid ; G. J. M. Bartelink, ‘ Die Beeinflussung Augustins durch die griechischen Patres ’, Augustiniana Traiectina, Paris , – ; B. Altaner, ‘ Augustinus und die griechische Sprache ’, in his Kleine patristische Schriften, ed. G. Glockmann, Berlin , – ; O. Rottmanner, ‘ Zur Sprachenkenntnis des hl. Augustinus ’, Theologische Quartalschrift (), % Courcelle, Late Latin writers, –, . –. & Ibid. – ; Bartelink, ‘ Beeinflussung ’.

the other passages are cited in C. in Greek and translates it. * See Aug. – . Adversus haereses iv.  . ) – some remarks on the birthplace of Julian of T Eclanum ’. cxcii.( The way. REAug xliv (). SC . .' His method was two-fold. in which he interprets these passages suggests that he lacked an overall understanding of Irenaeus’ theology. iv.. would have it. Williams (ed. ‘ Augustinus und Irenaeus ’. Brox. where Augustine quotes a long passage from John Chrysostom. P. . qui secundum similitudinem carnis peccati in ligno martyrii exaltatus a terra ’). Lossl. –. . Sermones clxvi. . PL xliv.  . See also N. C. Some examples may illustrate each of these points. Iul.  n.  . cliii. in the other that the wisdom of the serpent is overwhelmed by the simplicity of the dove (‘ serpentis prudentia deuicta per simplicitatem columbae ’). nevertheless represented genuine orthodoxy. in R. AntropologıT a de San Ireneo.. in his Kleine patristische Schriften. Latin Latin writers.. PL xliv. J. although. . C. Paris  . Only rarely did he discuss Greek patristic texts in the original language. . although he uses them repeatedly and thus creates the impression that he is rather familiar with the work of Irenaeus. . ' Cf. PL xlv. f. SC c. however. – at pp.  . f. Late Latin writers. nisi credant in eum. W ) The passages are taken from Irenaeus. See . . Aug. He either discussed the source in question on the basis of the (Latin) quotation in his opponent’s text (without checking its authenticity) or. a view fiercely contested by Julian and not endorsed by modern studies : A.  . especially Julian of Eclanum. Wickham. and always for the same narrow purpose : B. Y. but it was always these two passages. Leiden . imp. . de Andia. f. $ Contra Iulianum opus imperfectum vi. Cambridge . –.                    theology. On Julian challenging Augustine for being ‘ Punic ’ see J. ‘ Irenaeus von Lyon ’. Augustine uses both passages to prove that Irenaeus taught a doctrine of original sin similar to his. Intellectus gratiae : die erkenntnistheoretische und hermeneutische $ Dimension der Gnadenlehre Augustins von Hippo. . . Apart from a saying on incarnation and salvation in various sermons Augustine quotes only two passages from Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses in his entire work. Homo vivens : incorruptibiliteT et divinisation de l’homme selon IreneT e de Lyon. cxciv.  . Courcelle. f. Courcelle. – . PL xxviii. Iul. . – . ( On the saying see Aug. iii. . On that basis I cannot agree with Altaner and Courcelle who suggest that Augustine might have had a comprehensive knowledge of Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses. ‘ ‘‘ Te Apulia genuit ’’ (Aug.. ii. Lassiat. – at pp.* Courcelle attributes this to his obsession with accumulating proof texts. . v. Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum xviii (). The making of orthodoxy : essays in honour of Henry Chadwick. ‘ Pelagianism in the east ’. Madrid  . Homilia xxi ad neophytos. as some of his opponents. . He may have repeatedly quoted from it.  . In one it is said that only faith in Christ can heal the wound inflicted by the bite of the old serpent (‘ non aliter saluari homines ab antiqua serpentis plaga. i. . Lossl. discredited by its Latin and African background. Iul.  . That Julian may have had a point is shown by the history of Pelagianism in the east up to its condemnation at the Council of Ephesus in  : L. Orbe. – at pp. i. PL xliv. . if one was in his reach. Altaner. ‘ L’Anthropologie d’Ire! ne! e ’. –. he used a translation of the work from which his opponent had taken his text.. Nouvelle Revue TheT ologique c ().) Against Pelagius and Julian he made a great deal of his knowledge of John Chrysostom.). –. Contra Iulianum i. . .

. ‘ Le ‘‘ De Lazaro ’’ de Potamius ’. $ Intellectus gratiae. Intellectus gratiae. CSEL lx. despite his eagerness to demonstrate his interest in Greek patristics he must have failed to impress as a connnoisseur. Rome . . Lossl. Late Latin writers. AL i ().   $ characteristic for his later years. Once he even confused Gregory Nazianzen with Gregory of Nyssa. –. Bartelink. "% See Aug.-P. . T REAug xvii ().  . ‘ Augustinus und Johannes Chrysostomus ’."% His only source of texts of Gregory Nazianzen may have been Rufinus’ translation of nine of his theological orations. –. Altaner. De natura et gratia . though it has proved difficult in this case to trace the sources exactly. . to Basil of Caesarea. $ Adversus Manichaeos. Altaner. f. J. .. they were ‘ paucissimi libri ’ : Aug.  n. "( Chevalier’s attempt to demonstrate comprehensively that Augustine depends on Basil was soon dismissed by Altaner : I. he picked one whose real author was the Arian Bishop Potamius of Lisbon. too. which was recently."$ Thus. pp. with Serapion of Thmuis. Agostino nel XVI centenario della conversione. "# See A. Revue des Etudes Byzantines xxv (). . B. i. Except in his polemical writings Augustine was not forced to account in detail for his references. Julian of Eclanum. Wilmart. Lossl. Iul.. Altaner. attributed to Serapion of Thmuis. Fribourg . Intellectus gratiae. ‘ Augustinus und Gregor von Nazianz. ‘ Basilius ’. "& See CSEL xlvi . Thonnard.. –. Augustin et la penseT e grecque : les relations trinitaires. thought the work was by Basil. however doubtfully. – . C. – e la polemica anti-agostiniana di Giuliano d’Eclano ’. CCL xxix. PL xliv."( It can also F. $ "! Courcelle.  n. De beata uita . See G. – at pp. Late Latin writers. i. –. B. ‘ Version ine! dite du sermon ‘‘ Ad Neophytos ’’ de s. JTS xix ()."" He seems to have had no direct access to texts or translations of Chrysostom’s works but relied on material in the works of Pelagius and Julian of Eclanum.  . and Lossl.-J. –. calling the former Basil’s brother. S. Lossl. – at p. –.  . PL xliv. . J. On more examples of confusion over authorship in Augustine see Courcelle. Like them they might have had a momentous impact."! But how did he gain access to such texts ? There is no indication that he knew any of Chrysostom’s works before . Late Latin writers. Altaner himself. ibid. – . Atti del congresso internationale su S. . ‘ Saint Jean Chrystostome et saint Augustin dans la controverse T pe! lagienne ’. in his Kleine patristische Schriften."# Similarly he ascribed a text entitled Adversus Manichaeos. Chevalier."' it may have been these few texts which inspired him when writing De trinitate. and when for once he referred to a text he had looked up for himself in a translation of sermons of Chrysostom. Gregor von Nyssa ’. Adversus Manichaeos see N. ‘ L’autore dei testi pseudobasileiani riportati nel ‘‘ Contra Iulianum ’’ i."& Despite their scarcity then. Intellectus gratiae.. B. Courcelle. Jean Chrysostome utilise! e par s. Iul. – at p. Bouhot. Augustin ’. Cipriani. and ‘ La Collection des  home! lies latines de saint Jean Chrysostome ’. in his Kleine patristische Schriften. – . – . – . "" See Aug. in his Kleine patristische Schriften. C. "' Like the Platonic books triggering his conversion in . however. –. On the possibilities of identifying pseudo-Basilius. when he first quoted a passage which he had found in Pelagius’ De natura. i. ‘ Augustinus und Basilius der Grosse ’. $ "$ Though in this case he was supported by tradition. . esp. M. .

from becoming the single most important Father in the west. De Genesi ad litteram (Altaner. who promoted Greek theology in the west and were known for that in the east. ‘ Orthodoxy and heresy from the death of Constantine to the eve of the First Council of Ephesus ’. Garnsey (eds). ‘ always open to the lethal charge of curiositas.  : J. where philosophical analysis was to become an essential part of theological study. They sounded distinctly philosophical.                    at least be said. Courcelle. A. this may have been acceptable. especially compared to the level of his learning on the outset. of course. especially in the field of the psychological Trinity. f. Both the psychological Trinitarian analogies as developed in the speculative parts in the second half of De trinitate and the doctrine of grace as held against the Pelagians are based on a rather subtle concept of divine–human relationship. were later rejected in the east. claiming to know matters which God has not thought fit to reveal ’. Augustine’s efforts in Greek patristics in his later years are admirable and his achievements. cf. and J. if not Gnostic. and later rejected altogether. where theologians increasingly prided themselves on not adding anything new to the sacred tradition such ‘ creativity ’ was greeted with suspicion. after all. . Yet it may explain to some extent why his work and thought had such little subsequent impact tracked down Eusthatius’ translation of Basilius’ Homiliae in HexaeW meron in Aug. Was the psychological teaching of the Trinity a preclusion from the human to the divine ? Was the concept of individual predestination a preclusion from the concept of God to human salvation cutting out the theological virtues of faith and hope ? Augustine’s speculations in these matters transcended the traditional realm of theology.D. it would be misleading to place Augustine on the same footing as Jerome. must be acknowledged. However.). so subtle that the distinction between divine and human intellect and will might have been obscured altogether.. i. XIII : The late empire. – . it actually supported the process which made him. –. – . That did not prevent him. F.. . Callahan identified an heresiological digest of Basilius’ Contra Eunomium as the source of Aug. ‘ A new source of St Augustine’s theory of time ’. ‘ Augustinus und Basilius ’. "* H.") They were. ‘ the father of the west ’ – as opposed to the east. although some of Augustine’s more daring original conclusions. Interestingly. ") Given Augustine’s Manichean past that should not have come as too much of a surprise. however. in Averil Cameron and P."* In the west. F. that prior to any influence of De trinitate on Byzantine theology it was itself influenced by Greek orthodox theology. Conf. as Henry Chadwick wrote recently. Hilary and Marius Victorinus. Late Latin writers. a view strongly held by Julian of Eclanum. – at p. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology lxiii (). Callahan. Chadwick. Ambrose. The Cambridge ancient history. but in the east. On the contrary. Thus the ambiguity remains. the deeper reasons for that and the lack of enthusiasm in the east for Augustine’s theology of grace as opposed to Pelagianism may be closely related.

Z. Orosius. See E. –. – . ‘ Augustinus in der griechischen Kirche bis auf Photius ’.. Altaner. PL xlv. ' 4 0 Revue BeT neT dictine lxii (). – . O. f . .. in his Kleine patristische Schriften. may be a bit too optimistic in that regard. Augustine had ambitions in the east. Mayer. –. H. CSEL xlii. ‘ its originality and profundity were hardly ever recognized ’. Rome and the eastern Churches. He had established contacts there and a reputation. in C. –. $ Nichols. .#! Although it was never entirely unknown. in Latin. ## On Augustine’s interventions in the east (and complaints about lack of response) see O. .#$ Whether some of these ‘ working translations ’ later developed so that in the end whole works of Augustine were translated into Greek. if an ambiguous one.#& At least #! On the traces see B. #" See Plan. Rom und Pelagius : die theologische Position der roW mischen BischoW fe im pelagianischen Streit in den Jahren – .. H.#" Augustine himself as well as his supporters in the west were for a long time unable to accept that. ep. ‘ / Η παρουσι! α του Αυγουστι! νου στην ' 0 Ανατολικη 0 Εκκλησι! α ’. ‘ Les Traductions grecques des e! crits patristiques latins ’. ‘ Neuere Forschungskontroversen um Augustinus und Pelagius ’.  n. . xix*. . some translations were indeed made.  .. –. Wermelinger. Sacris Erudiri v (). CSEL v. Apol. On the dates and circumstances of the letters see M. P. Chelius. Mayer and K. #& See Aug. actually lived in the east. – . . – $ at pp. ‘ Augustinus in der neueren griechischen Theologie ’.. . . #% Altaner. even perhaps during his lifetime. #$ For example at the synods of Diospolis and Jerusalem. the ‘ trilingual man ’. But they were hasty. . Nichols. –. –.  . . –. ‘ Augustinus in der griechischen Kirche ’. ep. . . M. imp. and ‘ Augustinus und die griechische Patristik ’. Wermelinger. Edinburgh . Internationales Symposion uber den Stand der Augustinusforschung W . . A. –. vi. seem to have ended in failure.## But unlike Jerome and in spite of his support he simply lacked the qualifications and the vocation for such a pursuit. – . Stuttgart . See Aug. As the Pelagian controversy went on. ) from  . xlvi-xlviii. – . ). C. ‘ The reception of St Augustine and his work in the Byzantine–Slav tradition’. Wermelinger. catering only for immediate needs and carrying the risk of creating further misunderstandings. vii. f.   $ in the east. \ respectively. ‘ Pelagianism in the east ’. Biedermann. iv* to Cyril of Alexandria . Aug. –. Dekkers. in Signum pietatis : FS C. Augustine tried to get in contact with other eastern dignitaries as well. remains very much an open question. Κληρονοµι! α xiv (). ep.#% Some attempts on Augustine’s side to establish personal contacts with eastern bishops.  .-F. too. ep. Wurzburg . D. Triad. According to Aug. . Julian of Eclanum is quoted as referring to Aug. Jerome. clxxix to John of Jerusalem . Nikitas. On the ecclesiastical dimension in general see A. for example Eulogius of Caesarea. lxxxviii. Wickham. In order to make an impact they had to be translated. Iul. iv. where Latin was about to fall into utter oblivion. vi* to Atticus of Constantinople (CSEL xliv. De gestis Pelagii . With the exception of Jerome no other western Father was as keen as he to make an impact there. Rom und Pelagius. especially during the Pelagian controversy. Wurzburg . –. ep.  to Jerome (CSEL lxxxviii. In Aug. Angelicum lxiv (). Augustine could only send his works. Berrouard. iv*.

*) ’. London . On background and further references see now A. nd edn. forthcoming. #* In  Michael imposed the union on the city. AnneT e TheT ologie xi (). . London . . and God’s decree and man’s destiny : studies on the thought of Augustine of Hippo. PL liii. See D. turned Augustine and his work into one of the major theological obstacles to reunification.#* Among the men at his court ‘ Les Lettres * et * de saint Augustin : leur date et les renseignements qu’elles apportent T sur l’e! volution de la crise ‘‘ pe! lagienne ’’ ’. G. #' The invitation reached Carthage at Easter  : Capreolus. Augustins Briefwechsel mit Hieronymus (l Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum : W $ Erganzungsband ). ACO \ii. actio iii. Divjak.#' He had died in August . for instance. Furst. Munster . Paris . #) Beginning with the schism in  and culminating in the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade and the erection of a Latin empire in . dismissed the Patriarch Joseph and . – (on Michael’s reign). Divjak : traduction et commentaire par divers auteurs Z (l Bibliotheque Augustinienne B). –. REAug xxvii ().-P. Bonner. ibid. Council of Ephesus. – . however. That split. . See also Œuvres de Saint Augustin : lettres *– * : nouvelle eT dition du texte critique et introduction par J. in the peculiar atmosphere of cultural encounter of the high Middle Ages and early Renaissance period a number of significant eastern theologians discovered Augustine the theologian and through the translation and adaptation of some of his works made the world of his thought part of the eastern tradition. ‘ Une Mention de Saint Augustin dans les diptyques de la liturgie grecque de Saint Jacques ’.#( Yet his work continued to be benignly ignored. Paradoxically. ACO \i. Collectio Veronensis xviii. . Naturally one would not expect that situation to change as the relationship between east and west progressively deteriorated during and after the Photian Schism at the turn of the millennium. Paris . cl. this was something entirely new and groundbreaking. Salaville. . W $ #( He is mentioned. – (on the Latin prelude to Michael’s reign).  . in the long run the schism also created a need for dialogue. Nicol. Maximos Planudes and his translation of Augustine’s De trinitate The reconquest of Constantinople in  under Michael  Palaiologos ended two centuries of bitter struggle between east and west. –. Ironically. M. On another instance see S. in Les Lettres de Saint ' Augustin deT couvertes par J. In comparison to what had happened in that respect during Augustine’s lifetime and in the  years after his death. The last centuries of Byzantium – . ep. –.#) In the wake of his victory Michael followed a course of reunion with the west culminating in the Union of Lyons in . See Altaner. J. – . ‘ Some remarks on letters * and * ’.. ‘ Une Lettre d’Augustin d’Hippone a Cyrille d’Alexandrie (Epist. Bouhot. In the following centuries at least his name seems to have been held in high regard.                    no responses are extant. it was too late. xii. on a list extant from the Second Council of Constantinople. which was to last for centuries. ‘ Augustinus in der griechischen Kirche bis auf Photius ’. When at last Theodosius  invited him to the Council of Ephesus in . and ‘ Augustinus im Orient ’.

   $ was the father of a boy who had been born around  in Nicomedia. Triad.$" It might be significant that despite his apparent friendship with Andronikos. Leone. Aug. Nicol.$$ His monastic life enabled him to concentrate on his intellectual pursuits. pp. Oxford . ed. – . completed c. p. Treu. Munich . London . iii. ‘ Planudes. M.. N. N. –. The last centuries. xxvi–xxxiii . xv–clviii . ‘ The scholars and their W books in the late thirteenth century ’. M. It seems that he succeeded in rejecting this offer without further repercussions. Andronikos  Palaiologos. G. . $! On the following see Plan. he became a monk and changed his name to Maximos. rd edn. G. Scholars of Byzantium. Beck. (introduction). The mission turned out to be illfated. P. The translation of Augustine’s De trinitate. Kazhdan and others.$& The ambassadors were imprisoned by the Venetians.$% In  he was asked by the emperor to join an embassy to Armenia to negotiate ecclesiastical union. Cambridge . pp. on Planudes’s biography see his letters (Maximi monachi Planudis epistulae.  and certainly before . Nicol. Kirche und theologische Literatur. one. xix–xx. He was invited to go to Venice to mediate in a political crisis. Triad.$! Educated at court he developed a special interest in Latin and before long he was the most outstanding Latin scholar in the east. reversed Michael’s policy of reunion. xvi–xvii . For Michael’s successor. epp. has to be seen in that context and also in the light of what happened shortly afterwards. For most of the time during the following decade he seems to have been able to stay in the capital and teach and encourage research at ' the Καθολικον Μουσει4 ον. Plan. PG cxli . author of a τοµο πι! στεω against Bekkos. xi.$# Some time after . $" The new emperor dismissed Bekkos and reinstated Joseph. Nicosia . . Paulys Realenzyklopadie xx\ii (). xxii n. M. – . Constantinides. See Plan.. ε3 κφανσι of the Spirit through the Son) introduced to avoid the ‘ filioque ’ : A. –. Breslau ) . Triad. JOB xxxii ().. (introduction). Aug. Wendel. $# On Planudes’s friendship with Andronikos see Plan. C. Maximos ’. A. who was succeeded in !  by Gregory  of Cyprus. more delicate. Triad. Amsterdam . Aug. – . Manuel did not stay on at court. New York  . Aug. (introduction). In  Gregory presided over the ! council in Constantinople which defined the inner-Trinitarian distinctions (ε0 κπορευσι of the Spirit from the Father. C. Crisis in Byzantium : the filioque controversy in the patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus ( – ). probably even after . $$ On the discussion about when exactly Planudes took the habit see ibid. Plan. who had written a work in favour of the union. C. –. iv. pp. L. Constantinides. xxii–xxiii . xix (– Leone edn) . The Oxford dictionary of Byzantium. P. –. H.. See PG cxlii. xx–xxi. $& Cf. D. Byzantium and Venice : a study in diplomatic and cultural relations. –. Michael probably intended to employ Manuel’s skills for his policy of reunion. (introduction). but he ended up accepting another. Beck. Wilson. $% Ibid. Higher education in Byzantium in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries ( –c. the famous high school of the city attached to the imperial Chora monastery. Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich. The boy’s name was Manuel Planudes. who came to power in . ). Papadakis. nearly executed and thrown out of the country without having achieved any replaced him with John  Bekkos. ed. pp. pp. N. – .

Back to his scholarly routine he seems to have spent the remaining eight years of his life partly in his monastery near the modern-day Scutari and partly in ' the academy of the Καθολικον Μουσει4 ον.. or in a systematic way.  . Planudes arrived at home at the end of  after a dangerous and excruciating journey overland. Ps-Donatus. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church. Besides his political involvement Planudes was above all renowned as a master of the classical languages. in F. Finally. $ Schmitt. Triad. $) On other translations besides Aug. xxxiv–xlvi. it also indicates that neither he nor anyone else in Byzantium taught Latin at a higher level. of the Spirit by sending forth. (introduction) p. no matter what exactly the purpose of $' Plan. see Plan. Augustine held the divinity of the Spirit – against the ‘ Arians ’ of the day. ep. O. . Berlin .$* By translating his De trinitate Planudes put Augustine on the map of Byzantine theology. Triad. Aug. Cato. is sent forth by the Father and the Son. Plan. Ovid and ps-Cyprian. They include works of Cicero. v..  (further literature). especially in its library. . cf. . ‘ Pseudo-Cyprians ‘‘ De duodecim abusivis saeculi ’’ in der Ubersetzung des Maximos Planudes ’. $ $( Cf..                    results. Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften. rd edn. De trin. on their way home they were shipwrecked off the Albanian coast. $* The formula can be found in Aug. De trin. . and nobody of similar calibre seems to have shared his interest in the language and its literature. As far as Latin is concerned he was unequalled in the east. O. .. Aug. Schmitt. ‘ Lateinische Literatur in Byzanz : die Ubersetzungen des Maximos Planudes und die moderne Forschung ’. A. Livingstone (eds). as the third person of the Trinity. . flattering as that may sound.. (introduction). –. a gap that had since the mid seventh century acquired a polemical charge. Aug. pp. Triad. an Irish apocryphal writing from the seventh century. at the decline of which he expresses concern in one of his letters. Cross and E. In the east this was contested on the ground that the Father and only the Father may be considered origin and principle. and ‘ Filioque ’. Boethius. the Rhetorica ad Herennium. Oxford . above . Macrobius.  .$( His effort and achievement in translating an impressive body of pagan as well as Christian Latin texts seems to have been widely appreciated and admired but it remained unique and does not seem to have resulted in a surge of Latin studies in the east. W. In the west this was included in the Creed. lxvii . Father and Son being one principle and origin. xxiv n. L. Philosophischhistorische Klasse. The relationship between the Son and the Spirit was expressed in the east by formulae other than ‘ sending forth ’ : ‘ Double procession ’. ill and exhausted. . However. popular in medieval times as a spiritual guide : W. It was the pioneering effort towards bridging the huge gap between Augustine’s paramount role in the west and near oblivion in the east. JOB xvii (). of the Son by begetting.$) In terms of intellectual – and especially theological – impact his greatest achievement was undoubtedly his translation of Augustine’s De trinitate.$' He died in . as Augustine became known in the east as the father of the defamed ‘ filioque ’. De duodecim abusiuis saeculi. xx. Based on John xv. CCL . who taught that the Spirit was the supreme creature – on the ground that the Spirit. See also n.

Triad. . p.%# Did he change his mind. %( Cf. and ep. hier. Aug. %' Cf. that alone was an ambitious enough objective.. l–li. . Triad. %# See the discussion ibid. %% Thus the explanation given in Plan. (introduction). p. Schrenk.. p. CSEL xliv. . pp. as was suggested by Demetrios Kydones (–\) and Cardinal Bessarion (–) ?%$ Did he consider the engagement in Trinitarian speculation as part of his spiritual formation. clxix. Plan. Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe : Humanist und Staatsmann.   $ the translation may have been in the wider context of Emperor Michael’s efforts towards reunion. in Catholicisme.%' He saw himself primarily as a classical scholar and a monk. liv n. xlvii. (introduction). so to speak. ! ! ' ' %" Περι' τη ε0 κπορευσεω του αγι! ου πνευµατο κε α! λαια συλλογιστικα κατα των 4 4 / 4 ! Λατι! νον and Λογο περι' πι! στεω : ibid. CSEL lvii. Aug. Manuel ’. Planudes himself gives only a slight hint when he states in ep. Paderborn $ .. and M. Whatever personal or spiritual interests he may have had. Congourdeau. xlviii. demain. Considering the difficulties and confusions of Trinitarian terminology. within a few years of completing the translation he had written two polemic treatises against the ‘ filioque ’. – at p. pp. %) In Conf. cxiii that he was coerced into writing theology.%& only to wake up to the political and ecclesiastical realities when Andronikos reversed Michael’s policies and reinstated John Bekkos as patriarch ? While there may be some truth in each of these suggestions. Augustine writes that those who claim to have a complete understanding of the Trinity prove by that very claim that they do not possess the light of truth. ‘ Augustine’s De trinitate in Byzantine skepticism ’. xiii. . .. . Triad. ‘ Planudes ’. aujourd’hui. Mohler. CCL xxvii. Aug. –.%) %! Plan. See also L. not as a theologian. –. H. (introduction).%! But can it be said that he ever shared the Latin position ? To be sure. ep. Greek. from the western to the eastern position ? Did he act opportunistically under the new regime ? Was he coerced under Andronikos into writing those treatises. Paris . the primary purpose of his translation was to provide others with a good text as a basis for further study. P. Aug. Planudes was obviously captivated by the unique literary and theological quality of the work and ‘ the fact that he dutifully rendered the Latin doctrine of the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son should bear witness not only to his intellectual propriety but also to his esteem for Latin learning and theology ’. %& Thus Concourdeau. ‘ convert ’. %$ See L. ccxlii. Roman and Byzantine Studies xxx ().%( It also points to two aspects of Augustine’s theological genius in which Planudes may have shared.%" This has puzzled scholars ever since. ‘ Planudes. . none of them reveals the whole picture. . no matter what its doctrinal implications ?%% Had he been fired by a youthful enthusiasm for the Latin language and the prospect of union under Michael  Palaiologos. where Augustine writes that many people use Trinitarian terminology but have little idea what they are talking about. his speculative powers and his reluctance to give assent to positions which he thought he had not fully understood. xi. xlviii–xlix (literature).

Library.&" Parallel to the political conflicts a theological battle raged. especially from  onwards. Rome . Paris  . ‘ Hesychasmus ’. His teaching was focused on the idea that persons who are spiritually exceptionally gifted may through practising the Hesychast way of prayer reach a beatific vision of the divine light. In  Pietro Arcudio in Rome published excerpts of bk  : P. had entered the eastern domain. Introduction a l’eT tude de GreT goire Palamas. he had become a monk on Mount Athos in . . even in the west.                    Such academic detachment made him a role model for later monastic humanists like Prochoros Kydones. Introduction. –. gr. a heated debate with the Calabrian monk Barlaam (–). Its major proponent was Gregory Palamas. In defence of that teaching Gregory maintained. –. for instance. welcome or not. Meyendorff. though a complete critical edition was published only in . In  he was ordained priest of the diocese of Thessalonica. n. If. Triad. (introduction). Gregory Palamas and his use of Planudes’s translation The reign of Andronikos  Palaiologos was followed by an era of civil wars. i. from . Arcudius. –. lv–lvi.. Yet as the number of thirty odd extant manuscripts suggests. Theologische Realenzyklopadie xv (). or Thabor light. where parts of it were printed in the seventeenth century. The last centuries. &# See J. –. the Holy Spirit. &! Ibid. W &$ On the biographical data see Meyendorff. This edition is included in PG cxlvii.  Laud. to %* See Plan. he kept quiet about it. by way of simple prayer. . It was finally settled at the Council of Constantinople of .&# Hesychasm was a certain type of mystical prayer aimed at union of heart and mind and popular among monks. which ended only under John  Cantacuzene (–). which resembles God’s uncreated energy. when Palamitic Hesychasm was declared orthodox. (introduction). Aug. Both Gregory and Barlaam were rooted in Byzantine tradition. Opuscula aurea theologica circa processionem Spiritus Sancti. The oldest extant manuscript is Bodleian &" Nicol.&! With Planudes’s translation Augustine’s theology. Planudes’s translation was widespread.e. Under the influence of the apophatic tradition of pseudo-Dionysian neoPlatonism Barlaam contested Gregory’s distinction between divine essence and energy and his claim that it was possible. Born in Constantinople in &$ of noble Anatolian stock. Fairy von Z Lilienfeld. esp.%* But it earned him little recognition in an era when such detachment was generally eyed with suspicion. . Gregory Palamas little less than a century later had recourse to the text when writing his ‘  Chapters ’. pp. Oxford. The theological consequences now have to be considered. who considered translating theological texts in itself a theological enterprise. –.

. Turnhout  (l CCG xxxi). pp. (For &% On the same grounds Barlaam also turned against western theology. – . whether valid in themselves or not. && On Akindynos see Gregorii Acindyni Refutationes duae operis Gregorii Palamae cui titulus dialogus inter orthodoxum et barlaamitam.&& But Palamas would not recant. –. The last centuries. Introduction. He died in . ‘ Der heimliche Blick nach Westen : zur Rezeption von Augustins De trinitate durch Gregorios Palamas ’. –. They largely fail to recognise the concerns behind the debate in the fourteenth century. Supported by his fellow monks on Mount Athos and the patriarch he was appointed archbishop of Thessalonica in . Barlaam was not the only one to criticise the new teaching on these grounds. – . – at pp. BZ xci (). –. the denial of the fundamental orthodox teaching of cosmic sacredness and of salvation as human and cosmic deification. Palamas and his supporters accused Barlaam of rationalism. a denial which has led in the west to a concept of creation as subject to human domination. are purely modern. 4 esp. In  his teachings were officially recognised as orthodox. Canellas. who sabotaged their efforts towards developing an orthodox doctrine. On Nicephoros Gregoras see Meyendorff. On the following see now also his Theosis bei Palamas und Luther : ein Beitrag zum oW kumenischen Gesprach. N. in – : l’eT glise et les eT glises. which could only grasp what God was not. which were essentially theological. esp. The renewed interest which Palamas’s teaching has attracted since the early days of the twentieth century has shed fresh light on the controversy. See also Nicol. J. The last centuries. ii. –. –. irrationalism. &' For a recent discussion see R. –. His concerns were shared by figures like Gregory Akindynos (c. Nicol.&' Thus the rejection of Palamas’s concept of divine energy has been seen as leading to secularism. nihilism. and the W $ review by G. xiii–xxviii. –) and Nicephoros Gregoras (–). exploitation and destruction. Gottingen . – . Byzantion xxiii ().   $ attain a state in which one could perceive the uncreated divine light with one’s bodily eyes. materialism. Barlaam held that Palamas ignored the fundamental distinctions between creator and creation and between spirit and matter. Flogaus. – (with further literature). ed.  (literature). JOB xlvi (). pp. though some of its aspects may have also been obscured. ‘ Les De! buts ’. While the Palamites saw Barlaam as an enemy of the faith. for example against the epistemologically optimistic ‘ realist ’ scholasticism of St Thomas Aquinas : J. In their view he reduced the working of God’s spirit to the human intellect. and ‘ Un Mauvais The! ologien de l’unite! au xive siecle : ' Barlaam le Calabrais ’. Meyendorff : ‘ Les De! buts de la controverse he! sychaste ’. Chevetogne . for Barlaam it was rather Gregory and his adherents who were throwing overboard such orthodox fundamentals as the principle of tradition founded on Scripture and the doctrine of the primitive Church. atheism. Podskalsky. Such arguments. which also had implications for Palamas’s teaching on the Trinity. –. In return.&% In Barlaam’s view Palamas was going too far in making such definitive statements on the nature of God in relation to his creation in general and to man in particular.

Thessalonica 4 4  . . . The latter now seems less likely. v. irrationalists. the idea that the Spirit is the mutual love between Father and Son is alien to Greek tradition. Didymus the Blind. Interestingly. Pal. in my view convincingly. '% For example the Cappadocians.  n. The view that Palamas may have used Planudes’s translation. – . &* M. –. –. Chrestou and others. '& V. Augustinianum xxxvii (). late medieval nominalism. –.&) was first advanced by Martin Jugie. '$ Flogaus (ibid. moreover. '# See Flogaus. P.. Demetrios Kydones had not finished his translation of the Summa contra gentiles any earlier than Christmas . influenced at the same time by Italian Renaissance humanism. – at pp. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. N. firmly underlines that. be it directly.'& But how did it enter Palamas’s work and. for that matter. Dictionnaire de theT ologie catholique xi (). medieval and early modern Augustinianism and Thomism. a representative less of western than of patristic thought.  (– Chrestou V edn . as has also been claimed). ) ’.&( In reality the controversy between Palamas and his opponents emerged from the heart of Byzantine tradition. It was a homemade affair and the way in which Augustine. '" On the circumstances see Nicol. Saint Gregory Palamas : the one hundred and fifty chapters : a critical edition. translation and study. &( On some examples see Flogaus. ‘ Palamas ’. Jugie. agnostics and materialists. or indirectly via Thomas Aquinas.'$ But could Palamas not have drawn the concept from a Greek source ? To be sure. ) argues. . Flogaus.  nn. cf. '! See Greg. attempts have been made at showing precisely that. Cipriani. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’.  (literature). . that Palamas may have first encountered the work during his arrest at the imperial palace after his excommunication in . ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. ‘ La retractatio Agostiniana sulla processione-generazione dello Spirito Sancto (De trin. especially in his Capita. ! &) Γρηγορι! ου του Παλαµα Συγγραµµατα V. – Sinkewicz edn). Sinkewicz. Palamas’ spiritual father : Flogaus. London .) Yet Palamas had finished his Capita by  at the latest. a renowned expert in Palamite theology. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. not long afterwards his fate changed for the better. was drawn into it (alongside the likes of Basil of Caesarea and Gregory Nazianzen).'" (His was the translation Palamas would have had to rely on. Toronto . ed.&* who argued that Palamas’s reference to the Spirit as love (ε3 ρω ) between the Father and the Son'! could not have originated from any other source but Augustine’s De trinitate. . the discussion about the nature of the Palamite concept of divine energy is reminiscent of the discussion about the divinity of the Logos and the Spirit in the fourth century.  n.                    instance. Lossky. . Gregory of Sinai († ) and Theoleptos of Philadelphia († \).'# By that time he would already have known Planudes’s translation of Augustine’s De trinitate for not less than five years. E. R.) It would be misleading and anachronistic to present Palamas’s opponents as westernised rationalists (or. The last centuries.'% Yet according to Vladimir Lossky. . Cap. .  . The mystical theology of the eastern Church.

London . '* Cf. for example. of Trinitarian relationships) is that it (πνευµα) is ‘ will at its most 5 0 ! effective (ε0 ρρωµενεστε! ρα θε! λησι ). ‘ Augustine’s On the Trinity in Gregory $ Palamas’ One Hundred and Fifty Chapters ’. Cap. Aug. xv.. there are differences between Palamas and Augustine (Planudes). the self-reflecting mind as likeness of the 4 Trinity). Pink (eds). ε0 ρω η αγαπη. –.. Aug. Aug. CCL  A. See also Flogaus. CCL  A. A ! middle position is held by J. Aug..(! But these are found in '' Saint Gregory Palamas : the one hundred and fifty chapters. / ' / ! Triad. . The temptation should be avoided. The relation of the mind to its immanent knowledge is described as ε3 ρω or ε3 εσι . ) Augustine points out that according to  Jn iv. Gregory spoke of the knowledge naturally inherent in the mind. In man this has its foundation in the divine image and likeness to be found in the mind. in M. On parallels between the Augustinian concepts of divine will (inner Trinitarian and in the economic context of the operations of grace) and the corresponding Greek concept of θε! λησι in connection with the concept of the Spirit as ε0 νε! ργεια. sc. '( Ibid. Lossl. Triad.  n. .'( Following Flogaus I have tried to show elsewhere that with this statement Sinkewicz fails to do justice to either Palamas or Augustine.  : ο ε0 ρων και' το ε0 ρωµενον και' ο ε3 ρω . He spoke of the relation of the mind to the knowledge immanent in it as one of love. . as in Maximus the Confessor and John the Damascene (cf.. ‘ amor seu dilectio ’. Expositio fidei ). but he did not describe this as the mind’s intending its self-love (amor sui and voluntas sui). Lison. Pal.   $ what are the consequences ? According to Sinkewicz ‘ Palamas clarified the analogy of the Spirit as love. In De trin. ‘ L’Esprit comme amour selon Gre! goire Palamas : une influence augustinienne ? ’ Studia Patristica xxxii (). . Augustinian Studies xxx (). while when Augustine did he always pointed out either that by doing so he was applying an analogy of the mind.  (CCL  A. Lossl. . see below n.  ..  Palamas did speak of the Spirit as love. ') See Flogaus. and T. J.  (– ' ! 0 ! 4 4 Chrestou V edn . forthcoming. ‘ Augustine $ on the will ’. .  . Plan. he maintains that what can be said about the Spirit in this whole 4 puzzle (αι0 νι! γµα) (sc.’'' But Sinkewicz warns : Because of the similarities with Augustine’s trinitarian analogies there is a great temptation to start reading Augustine’s ideas into the text of Palamas. In De trin.. xv. De trin.  : ‘ amans et quod amatur et amor ’ (Plan. but he did not equate this with the mind’s knowledge of itself (notitia sui). although even here Augustine’s identification of ‘ notitia ’ and ‘ amor ’ . a concept that comes close to that of the Spirit as ε0 νε! ργεια. Above all. The will and theories of human action : from the Stoics to the present day. or better. –. Palamas very clearly did not conclude that the Holy Spirit is the relation of love between the Father and the Son. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’.') For in Cap. idem. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. too. the Spirit 0 ! cannot be identified with αγαπη because God is called so. argues for Palamas’s use of Planudes’s translation but doubts whether that means that Palamas was (heavily) influenced by Augustinian thought. Greg. Plan. Triad. On the importance of this passage in the history of the concept of the will see J. . Lison. xv.'* To be sure. or that what he referred to is ‘ God’s will ’. (! In the case of the Augustinian concepts of ‘ notitia sui ’ and ‘ amor sui ’ Sinkewicz is largely right.  Sinkewicz edn) : το πνευµα … οι9 ον τι ε3 ρω ε0 στι' ν απορρητο του ! ' 0 ' ' 0 ! ! γεννητορο προ αυτον τον απορρητω γεννηθε! ντα λογον. Stone.  .

(" The danger here is not to ‘ read Augustine’s ideas into the text of Palamas ’ but to fail to see Augustine’s text behind the ideas of Palamas. De trin. – . But at the end he changes a significant detail. time was through the concept of ‘ intellectus gratiae ’ makes it possible to relate the concepts of God as the supreme intellect (Augustine) and the supreme goodness (Palamas) respectively and thus point out that there are indeed aspects in which the two theologies converge. ‘ Amor ’. D. Plan. Cap. which he is not ’.. In the case of Cap. Plan. vi. –. xv. Plan.. Aug.  consists largely of a literal rendering of Augustine’s summary in De trin. –.  . To make the point Palamas simply copies a long passage from Planudes’s translation. . Plan. – n. as they relate to something (‘ ad aliquid ’. Triad.  of De trin. ‘ caritas ’ as opposed to φιλι! α. which stands for Latin ‘ amicitia ’. CCL  A. De trin. –. esp. Plan. Aug.. . . cf..  .. But see (in the light of nn – above) the following references with a variety of partly overlapping concepts of love. ‘ Augustine’s On the Trinity ’ –. Only the italicised passages are literally taken from Augustine. CCL  A. CCL  A. Capp. Triad. xv. Aug. Aug. –. Capp. Aug.(# which must not be conceived of as substances but as relations (relative. –. On the rest of the passage see Lossl. De trin. De trin.  . Flogaus. Planudes 0 ! preferred αγαπη as reference to God’s love.. xv.  no literal parallels can be found.(% For him. Pal. xv. partly in his own words. Cap. – mainly refute specific points raised by Gregory Akindynos. De trin. ($ Greg. n. . (# Aug. Hadot. Aug.e. Plan. he adds.  .. Plan.. –. . Aug..  ( Chrestou V edn . . Aug. i. Triad. 0 ! αναφορικω ). συγγε! νεια.. Triad.  . – . . Aug. – . for being Lord is an uncreated energy of God. v. – . Son and creator. CCL . – . distinct from the substance. Triad. For the latter is overwhelming. .($ What is here the decisive difference between Augustine and Palamas ? Augustine had been careful not to give the impression that his teaching required the concept of an eternal cosmos.. Aug. Plan. Triad. CCL  A.  .  . the mutual love between friends : Aug. Flogaus.. . Aug. –.  . especially in Cap. vi. Aug.. AL i (). De trin. . –. xv. not affecting God’s immutable state in eternity. CCL  A. $ (% For example in De trin. cf. . He insisted that God’s lordship could only be conceived of as occurring in time.. Dideberg. or to God as love.. ‘ Amicitia ’. CCL  A  . v. Note also that in archaic Greek ιλι ! α denotes family relation. CCL .  . that this includes God’s lordship over all those who are ‘ in eternity and over the Aeons themselves . On the Augustinian terminology see I. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. Where Augustine states that divine relations to temporal conditions – like God’s lordship over creation – are to be understood strictly as temporal ! (ε0 ν χρον ). – . CCL . (" See Flogaus. Triad.  . v. CCL .  n. xv.                    theological concepts rather than philological evidence. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. Plan. ibid. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. Aug. Triad. De trin. Plan. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’... De trin. – outlines Palamas’s teaching in general. Triad. Aug. De trin.  . as it is spoken of in relation to something else. ibid. Triad. Aug.. Flogaus. προ τι) other than 4 self.. which renders Augustine’s. in which Augustine provides an (anti-Eunomian) analysis of expressions like Father. – Sinkewicz edn) . – . and ‘ Caritas ’. Aug. Aug.  . .

Aug. () See Greg. of the human perception of God. Pal.  draws literally on De trin. – . . De trin. Pal. Oratio xxix. – . ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. for example. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’.  he also singles out the inner-Trinitarian relations as subsisting relations. Gregory Akindynos. suggests that this brings Palamas closer to Thomas Aquinas than to Augustine. . and in particular. – n. . as if either the distinction were not real.. . . since they were not accessible to the human mind by virtue of their very nature. He is right in that in Summa theologiae i. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. But there were also properties which could be applied to God only by way of analogy. SC ccl. but also ‘ in and over eternity ’. SC ccl. Flogaus. v. Cap. . i.  Aquinas counts relations among accidents. he conceded that he understood ‘ relational ’ ‘ somehow ’ (πω ) as accidental rather than substantial. . the cautious remarks on the 0 use of a term like σχε! σι in reference to the ουσι! α of the Father and xxx. . because they referred to God’s presence in time. Plan. the distinction between relative and absolute concepts of God. is Lord in and over an essentially other one. ..  n. God and creation. . –. In his view it is possible for the human mind to perceive with certainty that God is Lord. The distinction between the temporal and the eternal was equivalent to the distinction between God and creation. Flogaus. he declared that the concept of divine energy includes creation. What his opponents actually asked was whether he understood his distinction between God’s essence and God’s energy as a substantial or an accidental one.  (– Chrestou V edn . He replied that in his view it was neither. . Cap.  Sinkewicz edn). v. namely as the distinction between God’s essence and God’s energy. against Saint Gregory Palamas : the one hundred and fifty chapters. 4 (( Aug.e. not only ‘over time ’. Greg.() He obviously 4 (& See in Gregory Nazianzen. such as the Trinitarian relations and the eternity of God’s substance.  ( Chrestou V edn . Asked what that was supposed to mean. The limits of time were the limits of perception. Antirrheticos ii. insofar as it implies that creation is in the process of deification. The relevant passage in Cap. or as if it constituted a division in God himself.. See Flogaus. – (– Canellas edn). Thus the impression is rather that Palamas stood mid-way between them. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’.(( Pressed further as to whether he understood ‘ relational ’ as substantially or accidentally ‘ relational ’. (' As a challenge to Palamas’s concept see. although his opponents would have pressed further the question as to how it can be perceived that God.(' Thus one might concede that he upheld the distinction in some sense.   $ essentially creational. – Sinkewicz edn) . CCL . – n. and whether it might not amount to dropping the distinction between God and creation. But then ibid. With his concept of God’s energy Palamas shifted the boundary between the concepts of the eternal and the temporal. . See also Flogaus..(& From this point of view there were certain properties which could be applied to God in a proper sense on the basis of the biblical faith. i. creation in history. . Triad. for example that he is Lord. even. –. but relational. in himself. .

Triad. relates this to the Augustinian idea. Chrestou V edn .  Sinkewicz edn) . Exp. God was. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’.. In Nicephoros Gregoras’s view it raised a serious question concerning Palamas’s concept of the Spirit as divine energy : If it was / ! ‘ only ’ an ‘ accidens ’. In Palamas’s view therefore. Palamas found his conclusion supported by a passage from the Expositio fidei of John Damascene which contains the concept of ‘ uncreated energy ’ / ! 0 as a middle-term between ‘ divine υποστασι ’ and ‘ created αποτε! λεσµα ’ or ‘ ε0 νε! ργηµα ’. De trin. v. However. turning it into a counter-attack. Greg. he must be thought of as God’s energy. that there is only one centre of action ad extra in God... . .  ( Chrestou V edn . Aug. locational and habitual) categories may be applied to God metaphorically (translate.  (Patristische Texte und Studien xii. . However. .  (– Beyer edn) . . in contrast to Nazianzen’s polemical conclusion. Cap. if the Spirit is conceived in that way. To speak of the Spirit as a ‘ divine accidens ’ meant to say this of the Spirit in respect to God’s substance. Mystical theology of the eastern Church. not as three substances but as one / ! substance. Pal. . αληθε! στατα) : Aug. Everything else might imply that there are several substances in God. . he cannot be thought of as an agent.. ) . Flogaus. fid.  (. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. Greg. CCL . Flogaus. related to the one of God’s lordship over time. . how could it be a υποστασι ? The subsistence and divinity of the Spirit was in question. . Plan. Cap. and acted.)" Repeatedly he insisted on the distinction between God’s (* See Lossky. Only with certain precautions can some of them be called secondary agents. if the Holy Spirit were conceived in that way he would cease to exist as an agent at the very moment at which he begins to exist by being caused by the Father. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. understood the / ! argument as supporting his view. . – . –. not to God’s ways of subsisting.(* He also tried to apply this strategy against an argument of Nicephoros Gregoras based on a quotation from Gregory Nazianzen.)! Nazianzen had argued that if the Spirit is not thought / ! of as a subsisting being (υποστασι ) but only as an ‘ accidens ’. µετα ορικω4 ).  n. 0 the category of action may be applied properly (‘ verissime ’. Other (temporal. the Spirit subsisted precisely as God’s energy proceeding from the Father through the Son.  Sinkewicz edn). Pal. They are effects of substances. The term υποστασι had been introduced precisely in order to avoid substantialism in Trinitarian speculation. )! Cf. Flogaus. Dam. ..  . After all the concept had been developed largely against a tendency towards substantialism in Trinitarian theology. Greg. )" Io. Antirrheticos i. For accidents cannot be causes. Nazianzen obviously intended the argument in this form as a ‘ reductio ad absurdum ’. Nic. however.. –.                    wanted to rule out the assumption that he referred to a split in God’s substance and tried to avoid speaking of God’s energy as if it was a substance. Yet he subsisted in three υποστασει .  n. Palamas.

Pal. where he puts forward his concept of the Spirit as ε3 ρω between Father and Son. In Cap. CCL .)& In his view the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son proceeds from one source only. η προσεστι τ 4 ουσι! … ει0 ' ! 0 0 ! 3 3 0 ' ' 5 ' ' δε προσεστι τ 4 ουσι! . – n. De trin.. . This is thoroughly eastern doctrine. ε0 ξ αναγκη αλλο και' αλλο ε0 στι' ν· ουκ ε3 στι γαρ το ον και' το προσον 0 ! ταυτον.  Sinkewicz edn) Palamas does not even use the term ‘ energy ’. the Father..)' However. Aug. – Sinkewicz edn) . the Father is the sole cause.)% Augustine makes this statement on the assumption that there is no distinction in God between essence and attributes. xv. De trin. . See also Greg. Triad. )' To illustrate this point see ibid n. one God. In other words. Plan. PG vi. αρχη) in two ways. conceived as his primordial energy (besides other energetic properties) communicated through the Son. originating in.. Naz. He relies exclusively on Augustine’s text. v. Or. – . On the basis of traditional teaching established over the centuries in the east he argues that there has to be a clear distinction between God’s will. as Father and Son.  .   $ essence and God’s will on the ground that it is a necessary precondition for the distinction between the begetting of the Son and the creation of the universe. . and God’s essence. Akind. Aug. CCL  A. .. – he develops the notion that God can be thought of as origin 0 ! and cause (‘ principium ’. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. . Hero. but he holds that this one source is the Father and the Son.  . Flogaus.. Triad. xxix. xlii. in the chapters surrounding Cap. not two αρχει! but.  (– Chrestou V edn . A. Pal. )% Aug.  .)# Like Gregory Nazianzen. Flogaus. In De trin. Flogaus. )$ According to Augustine the expression ‘ Father ’ can be used to refer properly to the relationship between God and creation as originating solely in God. )& Cf. Cap. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. Quaestiones ' ! 5 0 5 ! 0 Christianae ad Graecos. Augustine tells a slightly different story. .  B : ‘ το βουλεσθαι η ουσι! α ε0 στι' ν. . C.’ As a possible response see Greg. Palamas agrees that the Spirit proceeds from one source only. ep. and proceeding from. Plan. A 0 divine ουσι! α supposedly prior to all the persons taken together was to be rejected in his view. Cap. observes that in Greg.. Washington . we must confess that the 0 ! 0 Father and the Son are the αρχη of the Holy Spirit. in the second the Trinity is called the αρχη of creation. Flogaus. . . quoting from pseudo-Justin. he seems to make an exception to that rule. In the first way the Father is called the αρχη of the Son and the 0 ! Spirit. cf. Greg. inner-Trinitarian and 0 ! economic. ). ed. v.. .)$ Palamas quotes nearly the entire passage. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. Only where Augustine’s argument comes to its obvious conclusion he suppresses the following passage : If the one who is given is at the same time the one who gives (for he does not receive his proceeding from anyone else but from him).  (– Chrestou V edn . –. ad Lapithem (Letters of Gregory Akindynos. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’.  he states that God is the )# Cf. SC ccl.

–. ! In Cap. is neither like an uttered nor like an unuttered word.*! That he tried it. insight. Flogaus. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. less binding than what had to be accepted in faith from Scripture and tradition. ). ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’.  n. –. *! Sinkewicz (see above n.)* To him such speculation was more of a formal. reason and mystical power. De trin.                    ! supreme good and possesses his goodness not as a mere quality (ποιοτη ) 0 but as a substance (ουσι! α) . But already Barlaam the Calabrian had pointed out that Augustine’s theology was consistent in that respect. What kind of logic forces us to conclude from the likeness of God’s word to the human mind that God’s essence is supreme goodness ? *# De trin. ! ! ! λογο ε0 νδιαθετο (‘ verbum cogitatum ’) . The inconsistency particularly between this concept and the one put forward in Cap. however. *$ See Flogaus.. . . or thought. yet immediately he corrects himself saying that by this he does not mean to separate God and God’s life. – .  .*" An obvious parallel to this can be found in De trin. This seems epistemologically sounder.  is obvious. Aug. Schiro. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. ix. – Augustine holds a similar view.  Sinkewicz edn) . but like the ever present reality of the mind 4 (νου ). ) is of course right in pointing out that by defining God as supreme goodness Palamas is true to church tradition. iii (). Aug. Pal. Cap. – . –. rather than a church doctrine to be accepted by faith. In De trin.  (– Chrestou V edn . i (). and the way in which he tried. or wisdom. xv. ep. . – . . esp. De trin. ε0 ν τ 4 διανοι! λογο (‘ in animo ’). n. xv. in Archivo storico per la Calabria a la Lucania. or beatitude. Plan. for example. xv. De trin. – . in his goodness. –. . is due to Augustine’s influence. ‘ Der ! heimliche Blick ’. ! λογο προ ορικο' ε0 ν θο! γγ (Planudes) ..)) for it enabled Augustine at any moment in his inquiry to put on the brake and point out the limitations of Trinitarian speculation. accessible through speculation. philosophical.  n. ) 0 – that Palamas claimed that his concept of God’s goodness as his ουσι! α is more than just church tradition.e. )) Sinkewicz holds that against him (see n. CCL  A. Barlaam queried it (see above n. CCL . i to Palamas. His need to correct himself in his point on God as the supreme goodness shows that he tried – though in vain – to put forward a concept which would be as formally sound as filled with doctrinal content.*$ 4 )( See Aug. ed. Plan. – . . that it is a necessary truth. . –. all of these are one in God in the highest sense. Flogaus.  Palamas distinguishes four meanings of λογο in an attempt 0 ! to clarify the concept of the Son as ‘ God’s word from heaven ’ (ανωτατω ! λογο ). He maintains that the latter. ' )* See. .. . for example. as far as its likeness to a dimension of being human is concerned. or eternity. Note the expressions προσ ορικο' λογο (Palamas) . The point is – and that is why. Rather. *" Greg. i. xv. xv.)( only he derives God’s properties not from his goodness but from his wisdom.*# especially in Augustine’s assumption that the ultimate level of likeness between God’s word and the human mind lies in γνωσι . or intellect.. Palamas did not make that distinction. Triad. Triad. CCL  A. ‘ verbatim prolativum in sono ’ (Augustine) . Aug. But that is not exactly the point here. G. CCL  A. Flogaus. which in a certain sense can be called eternal. In his view Palamas would run into difficulties trying to prove it wrong : Barlaam. – nn.

The last centuries.. Flogaus mentions particularly Homilia  and Ad Xenam as candidates for rendering further evidence in that respect. with disastrous consequences for some participants in the ongoing theological debate. However. . Podskalsky.   $ In Cap. brilliantly.. and a number of pseudoAugustinian and Augustinian works. ** Not to be mistaken for his brother Demetrios Kydones (–\) who is known for his translations of Aquinas. speaks of an ‘ appetitus ’ 4 3 (ορεξι ) in human beings. In works like that of Prochoros Kydones. Vat. especially from the time after . ix. . gr. vii. –.*) and to be sure. Cap. or whom. He points out that there are works. Triad. Human beings. for example Prosper Tiro. Vat. *& Aug. . . . . *% Greg. –.. gr. ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. – ..  n. which cannot be the image of God’s word. . ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. which nobody has as yet looked into. Aug. in Aug. Liber sententiarum ex operibus Sancti Augustini (autograph in Cod. De trin.*& Cap.  Palamas even goes as far as to combine this with the concept of ‘ supreme ε3 ρω ’ signifying the likeness of the Spirit in humanity. gr. Nicol. Fulgentius of Ruspe.  . and since we can well speak of a reception of Palamite thought in later Byzantine theology. is ultimately intended to be known. fos r–r . . namely God himself. . or Planudes. BZ xci (). De trin. that particular aspect was now perpetuated as well.*% Augustine. Plan. CCL lxviii A) . While we may not be able to speak of a reception of Augustinian theology in Palamite thought. Having been one of Palamas’s most ardent followers during his lifetime he ! – . especially of the Summa contra gentiles.  . See also Palamas’s argument concerning the λογο ε0 ν διανοι! .  ( Chrestou V edn . CCL .*( the fact that the latter is influenced by the former seems now well established . De trin. Vat. Blick ’.  n. Flogaus. . ‘ Der heimliche *' See Flogaus. is not the only one of Palamas’s writings which may be influenced by De trin. Pal. Triad. Prochoros Kydones – an Augustinian Palamite ? The case of Prochoros Kydones** is particularly telling in that respect. he writes. as pointed out in Cap. De fide ad Petrum seu De regula fidei (Cod.. because its perfection needs time. Plan. Triad. fos v–v . Aug. .. we may look for further evidence of that influence. Triad. Aug. it surfaces and is made more explicit. Flogaus. the teaching of the Palamite had emerged in a context of fierce struggle and controversy. *( See the reflections on this by G. –. It can be called a likeness of the person of the Spirit in the human being. have an insatiable thirst (ε3 φεσι ) for γνωσι . *) On the political and ecclesiastical context see. Plan. – at pp. which through the rebirth of human knowledge in the Spirit develops into a genuine divine love for what.*' His studies so far have shown that it may well be worth doing so.  Sinkewicz edn) . –.. CCL . Aug. ix. discussed in the next section.

and has ever since been known as an ‘ anti-Palamite ’. fos r–r) . –. who in his youth translated what is probably Augustine’s most sublime work. r–v . r–v . Vienna . –) . Aug. PL xl. a work depending on Augustine’s Enchiridion . CSEL W xxxiv\ii. fos r–v . fo. cxlvii. . ‘ Der heimliche Blick ’. On paragraphs – see ibid. gr. ep. –) . fo."!" five paragraphs of De beata uita"!# and a large part of the first book of De libero arbitrio. r–v. . H. Stuttgart . r–v. Vat. The work dates from . (Cod.. See Prochoros Kydones : Ubersetzungen von S. fos r–r) . It dates from c. lines – at line ). –. ep. . De lib. Aug. The letters are ordered as follows : ep. ‘ Augustinus im Orient ’. CSEL xliv. "!" Περι' τη αληθου θρησκει! α (Cod. – . –. The second work in this edition is an anonymous compilation formerly ascribed to Augustine and now thought to be a work of Caesarius of Arles (CCL ciii. . 0 ! "!$ Περι τη αυτεξουσιοτητο (Cod. ed. . . Demetrios Kydones : Briefe. "!# Cod. ed. Augustinus. lxxxii. CCL xxxii. –. . $ W "!! See Flogaus.  . he recognises. ep.                    ended up being condemned a heretic."!% In De vera rel. . –. fos v–r . Hunger. –) . in Codices Vaticani Graeci. In contrast to Planudes. 4 0 4 –. Devreesse. gr. xxviii (fo."!$ Only a collection of eight letters contains later material. cf. –) . – (fo. fos r–v. line  ‘ sicut ’) . –). – . CSEL xliv. r–v) and In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (Cod. he insists.-Augustinus. Jugie. has failed. C. CSEL xliv. Hunger. H. . CCL xxix. The Greek title is not extant. ep. Vat. Prochoros Kydones : Ubersetzung von acht Briefen des Hl. gr. The concept of ‘ the one ’. i. line  ‘ et quod ’ – . Tinnefeld. line  . gr. 4 W CCL xxix. cxxxviii (fos r–r . CSEL xliv. –. CSEL xxxiv\i. ‘ The One (unum) : a guiding concept in De vera religione ’. ep. of course. – und Ps. Lossl. Vat. is. Vat. ep. r–v . gr. Augustine puts forward the principle of unity (‘ the one ’) as the guiding principle for religious worship"!& and as a characteristic of Christian teaching and worship as opposed to the plurality of pagan cults and Manichean dualism. Prochoros Kydones : W Ubersetzung von acht Briefen (introduction). cxliii (fos v–r . r . – (fo. De vera rel. gr. Iul. De decem plagis Aegyptiorum. Most of the letters originate from the second decade of the fifth century. –. After some years as a lay ! monk he was ordained and became a ι/ εροµοναχο . v . – (fo. xcii. ‘ De! me! trius Cydones et la the! ologie latine a Byzance aux xive et xve siecles ’. cxxxii (fo.. line  ‘ ut diem dei uideant ’. Prochoros Kydones : Ubersetzung von acht Briefen. CSEL xliv. – at p.e. De beata uita –. still a boy. Aug. –. . He studied Latin and began to apply his knowledge to the works of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. ed.. i. arb. CCL xxxvi) . F. – . Vat. gr. "!% The only surviving  is Cod. Prochoros began his Augustinian studies by translating some fairly basic passages from early works like the first fifteen paragraphs of De uera religione. Vat. iii. line  ‘ posuisse ’) . . Furst. CCL xci A). –. T "!& See J. Soliloquia. . pseudoAugustinus. But Platonism. REAug xl $ (). ep. excerpts from Aug. a work dating from the thirteenth century (Cod Vat. CSEL xxxiv\ii. See also Intellectus gratiae. Vatican City . –) . the last two sentences are missing) . on further details see M. –). cxxxvii (fos r–r . fos r–v . also central to Platonism. Vienna . Augustinus. r–v . De libero arbitrio i. ' ' ' T Echos d’Orient xxvii (). I\i. –.. See R. dating from . not in line with Palamas’s teaching. –."!! Palamas was still struggling with his opponents when Prochoros joined ! the µεγι! στη λαυρα on Mount Athos.

De vera rel. What he means is that Christianity has attracted and empowered more people in history than Platonism to do the good. i. the intellect. De beata uita – contains a similar account. Thus. Now he recognises Christianity as the ‘ true philosophy ’ and believes it will lead him to a beatific intellectual life. was acceptable. has traits that appealed to Palamism and others that did not. To focus on the latter : Augustine has no concept which would suggest an eventual integration of the mind soul into an ‘ ultra-intellectual ’ dimension in which the divine light is visible with bodily eyes and in which the beatific vision is ‘ more ’ than ‘ just ’ intellectual perfection. states the existence of an individual mind soul as opposed to the body and dwells on the idea that the soul needs to be nourished with intellectual food as the body needs to be fed with material food. $ "!) Idem. of a person who wills evil into one whose free will for the good is sustained by divine grace. find the truth and reach perfection in an intellectual beatific vision of God. The attractions as well as the problems of this model for Palamism are clear. Conversion is the change."!) Here divine grace and human freedom are for the first time opposed. –. De lib. by implication. arb. For by their very nature evil wills cannot ‘ learn ’ (‘ improve ’."!( Augustine recalls his attraction to philosophy during his youth. In order to feed the soul the intake of bodily food has to be lessened. –. Theologie und Philosophie lxx (). The road to salvation is the way from the senses to "!( See Lossl. The stress in the latter part of the argument lies on ‘ intellectual ’ as opposed to ‘ sensual ’. only in autobiographical terms. triggered by his reading of Cicero’s Hortensius. –. – deals with the phenomenon of the will. The ensuing dialogue underlines that. This account. soteriologically as well. no matter how intrinsically interwoven one imagines divine grace and "!' See esp. Thus human beings need to have their good and free will reinstituted by God. become ‘ better ’) or do the good by choice and reach the intellectual beatific vision. God creates everything good. It refutes sceptic positions. although there are again a number of affinities. – at pp."!' One paragraph earlier he had stressed the distinction between creation and the ‘ creatrix trinitas ’. Intellectus gratiae. too. salvation as a progress towards unity in the One.   $ historically and. The mystical aspect. his errant years as a Manichean and his conversion through books of Plotinus. . by the intervention of divine grace. His will turns evil and loses its freedom. One cannot be mistaken for the other. the Augustinian model falls short of the Palamite concept of deification. But the scholastic distinction between creator (‘ creatrix ’) and creation and physical and intellectual vision was a source of conflict. Man chooses to reject God’s goodness. The possibility of perceiving the uncreated divine light with one’s bodily eyes was a crucial concept of Hesychasm and Prochoros was going to criticise it. ‘ Wege der Argumentation in Augustinus’ De libero arbitrio ’.

                    human free will to be in the process of conversion and in the state of beatific vision. are added on as nos  and . Volusianus’ response. although not interested in the historical circumstances of the controversy. in particular the links Augustine draws between "!* Epp. Like ep. too. cxxxv and cxxxvi may be omitted because they are addressed to Augustine and do not contain any material relevant for Augustinian thought which could not be better obtained from one of Augustine’s own letters. stressing the superseding role of grace under the condition of original sin and refuting what was later to become ‘ Pelagianism ’. The oldest extant manuscript of that group is Munich. written by Marcellinus. cf. Prochoros’s collection of eight letters of Augustine is ordered along the lines of one of the most widespread medieval collections. –. These discrepancies may not be entirely accidental. Epp. clm. lxxxii and cxlvii do contain such material. Finally. xli–ii (Goldbacher edn).""" Obviously. cxlvii. Furst. Ep. Lossl. CSEL xliv. cxlvii and lxxxii. cxxxvii. $ ""# See M. ep. It has been transmitted in separate manuscripts and often in a fragmentary state. Ep. xi (Goldbacher) . cxlvii to Paulina are letters addressed to ascetic aristocratic women in Italy during the harrowing time of the Gothic invasions in the years shortly before the sack of Rome in . there are a number of reasons why epp. is one of the letters omitted by Prochoros. Augustins Briefwechsel mit Hieronymus. cxxxii is addressed to Volusianus. is none the less fascinated by its theological implications. cxxxii. – . Epp. Ep. Encouraged by Marcellinus and Volusianus. Epp.  (s. cxxxvii and cxxxviii are Augustine’s responses to epp. lxxxii is addressed to Jerome. second and third in the western collections. as the omission of epp. xcii to Italica and ep. ""! See CSEL lviii. lxxxii. The correspondence between him and Augustine has a reception history of its own. ‘ Le Dossier Marcellinus dans la correspondance de saint Augustin ’. $ . cxlvii is also known as Liber de uidendo deo. cxxxv. they are closely related to epp. as also in Prochoros’s collection. xx–i (Divjak edn). ep. cxxxv and cxxxvi. Moreau. cxliii is also addressed to Marcellinus. xxviii and xcii respectively and they have their own reception histories. –. found much later in the western collections. Augustine’s correspondence with Marcellinus is of particular importance. Prochoros. Intellectus gratiae. x) . cxxxviii. cxxxv and cxxxvi. cxliii. xii. There is also some internal coherence in Prochoros’s collection. vii. xxviii. Epp.""# It marks the beginnings of the Pelagian controversy. on the reception of the text see also CSEL lxxxiii. xxxix. Moreover. Recherches Augustiniennes ix (). xxviii. """ See A. xcii.""! Epp. are omitted by Prochoros. lxxxii and cxlvii could have moved up from nineteenth or even fifty-seventh position in the medieval western collections to seventh and eighth in Prochoros’s Kydones. Augustine expounded his soteriological epistemology and hermeneutics."!* with two exceptions. cxxxv and cxxxvi shows. Epp.

Prochoros’s association with such ideas raised the suspicion of his fellow monks. cxxxii contains instructions on a soteriologically relevant and intelligent reading of Scripture. Kelly. cxxxviii discusses two questions : How can the God of the Old Testament reject the sacrifices of the Old Testament but accept new sacrifices ? Does Christ’s teaching contradict the ethical teaching of non-Christian human societies ? Augustine always discussed such questions at a very fundamental level. xxviii contains questions concerning the canon of the Old Testament. xcii. or virtues. spiritual and physical eyes. Earlier Fathers had played it down and declared it a sham. Ep. stressing how all this is related to an epistemic notion of salvation. Furst. writings and controversies. Conflicts. arb. Prochoros would follow him in that – and run into trouble with his religious authorities. however. He then went on to discuss his doctrines of original sin and predestination in the light of the concepts of the immortality of the soul and freedom. xcii discusses scriptural passages on God’s visibility. Pelagius had claimed that it endorsed his own. once more. In the meantime Palamism had been accepted as orthodox and Palamas himself had died. cxxxvii reflects on the hermeneutical difficulties of speaking about the Incarnation against the background of the philosophical problem of speaking about God. or hypocritically denied and suppressed but tackled in brotherly love and care. as Jerome did. spiritual and physical light and. In his view everything depended on how one defined the relationship between divine grace and human nature in the context of one’s theological epistemology. lxxxii also discusses Galatians ii. arb. In Augustine’s view this calls. When Prochoros discussed some of the theological problems he had left behind he was accused of heresy. this refers to the concept of free will. insisted that it was a real conflict. for the distinction between God and creation. London . N. must not be overlooked. relating to ep. $ . Augustine denied that but insisted that even if it were so it would still leave the possibility that his teaching had improved since writing De lib. cxlvii. correspondingly. Augustine. Ep. Ep.""$ Again he treated it as a challenge to soteriological epistemology and hermeneutics as well as to Christian ethics and spirituality. The ""$ See J. Ep. In  John i. cxliii contains Augustine’s famous saying that he would rather make mistakes than not improve in life. In addition ep. of faith and striving towards moral perfection.  God is called ‘ light ’. –. Ep. Jerome : his life. Ep. which is also a central concern of Palamite Hesychasm. D. Augustins Briefwechsel mit Hieronymus.   $ epistemics and salvation. he insisted. In the context of De lib. Ep. also addresses the question of how to so acquire knowledge and insight (with the help ultimately of God himself and his will) that it included the basic Christian attitudes.  about the quarrel between Peter and Paul in Antioch. – .

In an attempt to understand their reaction one might imagine that to them his position might have looked as Eunomius’ position had seemed to Basil of Caesarea : an attempt to put divinity on a level with creation on purely logical and philosophical grounds. no records are extant. –. Philotheos Kokkinos. . unlike that of Eunomius. He did not refute Palamas’s teaching as a whole.""% For his opponents that alone was sufficient to put him on trial. However. while the Son and the Spirit are wholly unlike the Father in this respect. It was rather the lesser spirits of his age that rose against ‘ his unerring assessment of opposing views and concepts ’. Unlike Palamas and his opponents a generation before. seine systematischen Grundlagen und seine W historische Entwicklung. a guardian of orthodox tradition. no Basil stood up against him. –. doctrinal questions aside. ""& Podskalsky. Interestingly he does not dare to question Augustine’s authority. was never thoroughly assessed. Munich . but doubts instead Prochoros’s justification in calling upon him as a witness for his own cause : 4 And ostensibly (δηθεν) he introduces Augustine as a witness purporting to show that in one of his writings that church Father says that when the good as well as 3 the evil will see (οψονται) the judge of the living and the dead.  . If Prochoros was allowed to speak at the trial at all. too. They will not see him ' ' in the form according to which (κατα την µορ η! ν) he is the Son of Man but in ""% See M. G. to what extent. BZ xc (). If he was wrong. Jahrhundert).""& However. Prochoros Kydones : Ubersetzung von acht Briefen (introduction). as one scholar put it. if at all. Podskalsky. . Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz. but rejected the notion that the physical ! Thabor light was uncreated. ‘ his ability to expose the untraditional centre-pieces behind the delusive accessories of ambitious but impossible expectations ’. Therefore it is not possible to establish his position exactly. encouraged his fellow monks to put him on trial. More recently see idem. he never had the chance to trigger and sustain a controversy. But to judge from his extant writings it is unlikely that this would have been his intention. Candal. He died shortly after.                    patriarch. Orientalia Christiana Periodica xx W (). The proceedings took place in . Prochoros’s position. was Prochoros’s position influenced by Augustine ? The patriarch’s letter of condemnation concluding the trial confirms that Prochoros cited Augustine as a church Father. will not be able to see him in any other way. ‘ El libro iv de Pro! coro Cidonio ’. In his view it was created (κτιστον) and he tried to prove his point by resorting to scholastic methods in logic and dialectic. – . Prochoros himself was excommunicated. Roughly speaking Eunomius had argued from the meaning of the word ‘ father ’ that the Father alone is divine. Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz : der Streit um die theologische Methodik in der spatbyzantinischen Geistesgeschichte ( \ . Prochoros’s teachings were anathematised. then undoubtedly the evil.

stood for a worldview not unlike that of the Greek Fathers of his time . and generally the tendency to distinguish sharply between God and creation is also inherent in the eastern tradition. What Prochoros is saying here is that even the blessed in heaven will see God only in their capacity of being his creatures. This is not just a very Augustinian but a generally orthodox notion. In that respect they have more in common with the wicked in hell than with God. Prochoros’s opponents would not accept that distinction. and the question whether God has not abandoned humanity. Not unlike Pelagianism. not only the saved. But implied in this statement is another important distinction. not in the humiliation (ε0 ν τ 4 ! ταπεινωσει) of one who is judged. For them it was scandalous to speak of ‘ vision ’ in such an ambiguous way. .   $ ! the glory (ε0 ν τ 4 δοξ ) which reveals him as judge. It was one of the driving forces behind the Nicene movement and again behind the movement that stood W ""' Prochoros Kydones : Ubersetzung von acht Briefen (introduction).  . Vat. cf. . Cod. The patriarch’s letter of condemnation even omits Prochoros’s clarifying distinction. PG cli. They will not participate in his divine nature in the same way as Christ. as ‘ seeing ’ their judge. of course. obviously. lines –. the wicked will not see the form (µορ η! ) of the Son according to which he is equal to the Father. lines –. fo.""' It is clear from this that Augustinian thought had entered the discussion – and led to confusion and tragic misunderstanding. Augustinianism therefore stood for the development of ideas such as human emancipation. as becomes clear from Prochoros’s own words extant in his autograph. What Prochoros must have pointed out is that the narrative of the Last Judgement makes sense only if we imagine all participants. or indeed God and Man as competing forces and entities. gr. It has to be seen in relation to his notion of divine grace and human freedom.  . r. in addition to what the patriarch had paraphrased : What has to be added. and the beatific vision of the blessed in heaven. is that. In that sense all will have a ‘ vision ’ of God.""( Here Prochoros clearly distinguishes between the judgement in which Christ is seen in his glory by the wicked as well as by the blessed. in spite of the differences between eastern and western theology already in his lifetime. The light in which they see God is created. but of course. although Augustine has given the whole idea a new twist through his extended reflections on the fate of the damned. Candal. W ""( Prochoros Kydones : Ubersetzung von acht Briefen (introduction). which read. not all will have a ‘ beatific vision ’. AB . Augustine himself. But these were tendencies which only in the later Middle Ages developed into full-blown concepts. or humanity God. ‘ El libro iv de Pro! coro Cydonio ’. which is not present in the eastern tradition. . secularisation. cf. the solidarity of the human race in the miseries of history and the eschaton.

 (‘ He who listens to my word and believes him who sent me. i. De trin. .  : ‘‘ And he also gave him authority to do judgment ’’] he comes to the sight of his splendour in which he will come to judgement. has eternal life ’) : ‘ This eternal life is that sight which the bad have no part in … And this applies exclusively to loyal believers. lines –. If he called the divine energy ‘ created ’.. He would fall into a heresy similar to that of the so called Arians of the fourth century who denied the divinity of Christ. to all men.’ See Plan. Candal. . because they shall see God ’’ (Matt. On the other hand. intro. if he called created matter ‘ uncreated ’ and ‘ divine ’. New York .e. who … believe him to be equal to the Father in the form of God … Then [following Jn v. He applied the concept of the ‘ interchange of the properties ’ (‘ communicatio idiomatum ’). As a way out of this dilemma Prochoros in this short passage tried to break down the whole complex along Christological lines. because of Christ’s unity as a person. according to which everything that can be predicated of the divine nature of Christ can equally be predicated of human nature. . Equally true is what follows from this. namely deification. what Augustine. omitting only a few phrases. while humanity is in need of salvation. however. – .. lines – . and notes E. Triad. which will be common to the wicked as well as the just ’. . gr. in some respect. Quoting from Augustine’s De trinitate i. . The modern translation is taken from Augustine : the Trinity. Only God has the will and the power (the love) to save.  l Aug. Combining the Augustinian concept of grace with Chalcedonian Christology he could relate the created and the uncreated – for example in the instance of judgement and salvation as illumination by grace. even the bad will be given a sight of the Son of man : a sight of the form of God will be granted only to ‘‘ the pure of heart. . . he would commit idolatry. fo. ‘ El libro iv de Pro! coro Cydonio ’. Aug. It is a commentary on Jn v. As Hunger shows from manuscript evidence. as applying. It is this connection which Prochoros tries to use as a starting point. r.                    by the formula of Chalcedon. referring to his Manichean past. . Hill. Prochoros cites here more or less exactly from Planudes’s translation of Aug."") W "") Prochoros Kydones : Ubersetzung von acht Briefen (introduction). lines –. once called ‘ superstition ’. As a Palamite.  he writes : For the same reason [Augustine] teaches that ‘ it is characteristic of the true 0 believers (των ευσεβων ι3 διον) to hear the message of [Christ’s] incarnation in 4 4 such a way that they believe in it on the ground that he is equal to the Father 4 4 in the form of God (ε0 ν µορ 4 του Θεου). spirit and matter. and still uphold the necessary distinctions between God and creation. trans. i. he would deny God his proper attribute. in a soteriological context. i. To speak of a saviour who is not fully divine is a contradiction in terms. . Vat. Then he continues to deal with the vision of his [Christ’s] glory in which he will come as judge. Cod. a sight that will be shared by wicked and just alike … Yes. ). . the latter being the beatific vision of the saved – as two aspects of one process. Prochoros faced a dilemma. as the one who holds it firmly proclaims : As the Father has life in himself.. he gives life to the Son to have it in himself. De trin.

He only condemned Prochoros’s ‘ heretical ’ use of him. if indeed it can be called that. . The ambiguity of Augustine’s own relationship to W ""* Prochoros Kydones : Ubersetzung von acht Briefen (introduction) . But again. Another witness in that regard is Demetrios Kydones : ibid. Rome . "#! On a hymn in that vein composed by Michael Kritoboulos from Imbros in the fifteenth century see M. which he has together with the Father and the Spirit in regard to creation. according to which the wicked.’""* For Philotheos ‘ seeing God ’ was equivalent to ‘ being saved ’. was not what one would call a success. despite the stupendous achievement that Planudes’s translation undoubtedly represents. There were attempts after Prochoros to place Augustine in the Hesychast tradition. Philotheos did not attack Augustine directly. Palamas had not signalled his use of Augustine and Prochoros. and as that which also shows itself in the ! countenance (ε0 ν τ 4 προσωπ ) of Christ on the Holy Mountain. – at p. Conclusion To what extent Prochoros’s use of Augustine worked against him is difficult to establish. Planudes’s translation of De trinitate. However. when he justified his ruling : Asked how he understands (νοει4 ) that [expression] ‘ the glory of his glory ’ (ε0 ν τ 4 ! 0 4 / ! δοξ αυτου η δοξα) Prochoros answered : ‘ As that of the only-begotten Son of the Father. i. that which has become. is not quite what it seems to be. understood as a vision of God. But he also condemned Prochoros for his use of Augustine. Does this suggest that he felt encouraged by what he may have known of Palamas in this regard to make use of Augustine in order to inform his own teaching ? We do not know. Rackl.   $ Philotheos would have rejected this solution already on the grounds of his more pneumatological understanding of Palamas’s teaching. it is remarkable how far he did make use of him in his attempt to show that it was possible to uphold all the distinctions required by western doctrine and still remain within the confines of Palamite orthodoxy. will see him. in Scritti di $ storia e paleografia in onore di Francesco Ehrle. if even the wicked will share in it. ‘ Die griechischen Augustinusubersetzungen ’. although he had only used a text which had been around in the east for about half a century. See also PG xli. He did not allow for Prochoros’s distinctions between the divine and the created and among the latter between the saved and the damned. or salvation. In his view Prochoros’s teaching either implied that God was not quite God and the wicked were also in some respect saved. B–. . too. who did. . was condemned as a heretic."#! But as a whole the short-lived ‘ reception process ’ of Augustinian thought in later Byzantine theology.

. Even though there has been a trickle of Augustinian studies in eastern theology up to the present day. ‘ Augustinus in der neueren griechischen Theologie ’. the hesitation of the latter to respond to his calls. and the widespread ignorance and lack of interest in the east of the implications of his teaching are reflected in that process. "#" See Biedermann. his attempts to establish contacts with eastern church leaders. –. and the more recent literature cited by Podskalsky. BZ xci ().                    Greek language and culture."#" the impact of Augustinian thought as in the translations of Planudes and Prochoros Kydones was never reached again.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful