Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VOL. LXXIII
JANUARY, 1983
No. 1
ransom was yet offered, a period of captivity began which was to take
Palamas and the members of the entourage through a number of cities
of North-Western Asia Minor, or Anatolia. Palamas' captivity lasted
for over one year, from March 1354 to July 1355.
Palamas found in these former Byzantine strongholds not only size
able Christian communities, but also Muslims who were eager to
debate with him matters of religious persuasion. Palamas describes
three such encounters: one with Ishmael, the grandson of the Great
Emir Orkhan; a Dialexis, or debate, with a selective group of Jewish
converts to Islam, identified as "Chiones"; and a dialogue with a
Muslim imam in Nicea. The events which led to his captivity, his
journey through the conquered Christian cities, his contacts with the
Christians, his impression of the Turks and his debates with Muslims,
Palamas himself4 describes in a rather lengthy pastoral letter5 which he
most likely wrote in Nicea toward the end of his captivity and which
4
Philotheos, Patriarch of Constantinople (1354-55, 1364-76) who is the main source of
information of Palamas' life, gives only a minimal account of the captivity, Migne, G,
CLI, cols 626-27
5
The latter is known from various manuscripts The Athonite MS of St Panteleimon
Monastery, No 215, was copied by A Adamantios on August 3, 1895 at the instruction
of Sp Lambros who verified the accuracy of the transcript, and published by
Dyovouniotes in Neos Hellenomnemon (Athens), XVI (1922), 7-21 (hereafter referred to
as Letter) A second manuscript of the letter is in Codex 1379 of the National Library of
Athens, between leaves 408b-415b, cf A I Sakkehon in Soter (Athens), XV (1892), 238
A third manuscript is that of Codex No 2409 of the National Library of Pans
mentioned by M Treu (Deltion of the Historical and Ethnological Society of Greece
[Athens], III [1889], 227) on information from notes in Fabncius' Library Cf Migne,
G, CL, cols 777-78 (VI) A fourth manuscript appears to be that of the Parisian
Codex Coislin No 97 & 98, Migne, G, CL, col 808 (LXVI) It seems that Philotheos
had originally included in his extensive Encomion (Migne, G ,CLl, cols 551-656) the
text of the letter itself, or that he was at least aware of its content, namely "the struggles
of the captivity
and the victories
and the triumphs over the error"a fair
summary of what the letter is all about The edition of Migne has omitted the letter from
the Encomion (cf G, CLI, col 626B-C "Thus in the letter to his own Church he is
writing the following
") To our knowledge there has been no serious challenge to
the authenticity of the letter, even M Jugie does not press the issue beyond raising it as
an open question " plusiers reprises, il a l'occasion d'exposer aux musulmans les
mystres de la Trinit et de l'Incarnation, comme il le raconte lui-mme dans une lettre
adresse son glise, si toutefois la piece est authentique ", Dictionnaire de Theologie
Catholique, XI (Pans, 1932), 1740 (italics, ours)
For an English translation of the Letter with the Dialexis see Daniel J Sahas,
"Captivity and Dialogue Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the Muslims," The Greek
Orthodox Theological Review, XXV (1981), 409-36 For a French translation with an
extensive Introduction and Commentary see Anna Philhpidis-Braat, "La captivit de
Palamas chez les Turcs, Dossier et commentaire," Travaux et Mmoires, VII (1979),
109-221 I received this work too late to be able to include its findings in this article
Two manuscripts indicate in their titles that Palamas "sent this letter to his Church
from Asia while captive." The Parisian one has it that Palamas ". . . wrote this letter
. . . ." The letter was, indeed written in Nicea and most likely sent to Thessalonica after
Palamas' release and his arrival in Constantinople. It is otherwise difficult to explain
how such a long letter, containing very negative and at times harsh derogatory
expressions against the Turks and their religion, would have been allowed to leave
Anatolia and how it could have reached Thessalonica safely.
7
The credit of drawing attention to the existence and to the historical significance of
this letter belongs to G. Georgiades Arnakis in his Hoi Prtoi Othmanoi, No. 41 of the
Beihefte of the Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbcher (Athens, 1947) where he lists all
three documents related to Palamas' activity (p. 204); see also "Gregory Palamas among
the Turks and documents of his Captivity as Historical Sources," Speculum, XXVI
(1951), 104-18. The letter was unknown even to Papamichael, who, although he mentions
the Dialexis and a letter of Palamas about his captivity to David Disypatos, makes no
reference to the letter to the Thessalonians, cf. bibliography of sources in his St. Gregory
Palamas, .(^. and 142.
8
Or, according to the MS. of the National Library of Athens, "to his own Church, the
bishops and the presbyters and the people." Soter, XV (1892), 238.
9
Published by A. I. Sakkelion in Soter, XV (1892), 240-46, from MS. No. 1379 of the
National Library of Athens, f. 415b-418a.
10
Demetrios Cydones, the famous Byzantine scholar-theologian, wrote an "Advisory
speech on Kallipolis, demanded by Murat" (Migne, P.G., CLIV, cols. 1009-1036). In it
he defends the thesis that the Byzantines must resist the demands of Murat to deliver the
city, in spite of its weakness after the exodus of the population and the destruction of its
fortification because of the earthquake. "We always considered it [Kallipolis] to be the
most precious of all our possessions," he writes (col. 1012B), and he reminds the
Byzantines that although itself small, Kallipolis protected the greatest metropolis, that is
Constantinople (col. 1024D).
the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire in the third century A.D.: the Persians were
the old time adversaries of the Greeks and later of the Byzantines. The ferocity of the
Turks as well as the general geographical area of their advances made the equation
Achaemenidae-Turks plausible for the Byzantines. The struggle between the Byzantines
and the Persians was viewed by many as a struggle between faith in God and unbelief.
(Consider the struggles of Heraclius with the Persians and the events related to the
conquest of Jerusalem by the Persians, and the subsequent capture and recovering of the
cross.) Ironically enough, the Qur'n itself portrays this struggle as one between faith
and unbelief, and it predicts that the Byzantines, as the force of faith, will ultimately be
victorious; Srat al-Rum (30): 1-5.
16
Of particular interest regarding the history of Anatolia during the period under
study is the work of Speros Vryonis, Jr., The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia
Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971).
17
a . Vryonis, Decline pp. 242, 254 n. 687.
18
Letter, p. 11. In the early fourteenth century Parium was given to the Bishop of
Pegae because of the poverty of the latter. In the same year that Palamas arrived at
Pegae (1354), its bishop, by a decision of the council of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, received the metropolitanate of Sozopolis as an epidosis, i.e., for
support. The statement dealing with that grant gives a grim picture of a city "that has
been reduced into nothing and it is unrecognizable even by its remnants," and where "its
most pious bishop is in need of even the bare necessities of livelihood." Fr. Miklosich
and Jos. Mller, Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, I (Vindobonae: Carolus
Gerold, 1860), 330.
19
Letter, 11 The "Great Hetenarch" in the imperial court was the officer
responsible for receiving guests and those who were fleeing to the imperial court,
especially the foreigners and friends among them Cf D Du Cange, Glossarium ad
scriptores mediae et infimae graecitatis (Vratislaviae, 1891), I, col 439 It seems that
Mavrozoumis was given a similar responsibility with regard to the Greek captives or
refugees who arrived at Pegae Such an hetenarch m Anatolia had, perhaps, additional
duties, such as being the spokesman of the local Greek population to the Osmanli
authorities Arnakis characterizes Mazvrozoumis as "a collaborationist Byzantine
general,
[whose] name
should be added to those of Kose-Mikhal, Evrenos, and
Markosprominent Greeks who threw in their lot with the rising star of the Osmanhs",
Speculum, XXVI (1951), 115
20
The city had capitulated to Orkhan on April 6, 1326 Cf H Inalcik, "The
Emergence of the Ottomans" in the Cambridge History of Islam (Cambridge Cambridge
University Press, 1970), I, 268-74
21
One may note here that the journey from Lampsakos to Pegae lasted for three days,
while the one from Pegae to Prusaat least three times the distancelasted for four
days That particular journey from Lampsakos to Pegae Palamas characterized as a most
painful one "Even if I wanted to tell you in detail the sufferings of this journey, neither
the ink nor the paper that I have now available would suffice [On arrival at Pegae]
we were utterly exhausted from the walk and from what they did to us during the
journey
" Letter, 11
22
Letter 12
Letter, p. 14.
In Byzantion, XXII (1952), 309.
27
In Speculum, XXVI (1951), 114. For a more extensive discussion and bibliography
on the subject see his Prtoi Othmanoi, pp. 110-24.
28
"Chiones," Byzantion, XXI (1951), 122. Interestingly enough, Arnakis himself
describes in his Prtoi Othmanoi, p. 18, the Chiones as "Ottoman theologians."
29
In Byzantion, XXI (1951), 123. Du Cange {Glossarium, II, col. 1752) gives as the
meaning of the word Chionades: Legis doctor, apud Persas, seu Turkos but he did not
know the Akhis, and simply attributed to the Chiones "a meaning that was more or less
apparent from the context." It must be noted that Du Cange's sources for the word are
Palamas' Letter and his contemporary, George Chrysophocas. The commonnot
necessarily most learnedopinion is that the Chiones were Turcarum doctores, as
Combefisius notes in Migne, P.G., CLI, col. 722, n. 3.
26
Arnakis has rebuffed Wittek's arguments and has reaffirmed his belief
that Chiones is a corrupted derivative of the plural akhiyn, usually
denoting the Akhi community, or a group of representative individuals
belonging to the Brotherhood.30 What both Arnakis and Wittek seem
not to have taken into account are two matters. First, that the Chiones
were Muslim converts of Jewish origin. They themselves make this
disclosure, and Palamas had the same information from other
sources.31 Second (and this is implied rather than explicitly stated), that
these Chiones appear to be Greek-speaking. There is no indication that
Palamas used a translator in conversing with them, as was the case
later with the tasimanes in Nicea. The Chiones were not only eager, but
insisted not to converse with Palamas in the presence of Orkhan. When
at the end of the disputation they apparently had been defeated, one of
them insulted and even assaulted the Archbishop physically. It is
obvious that their reputation and their alliance with Orkhan were
secure as long as their competence in matters of faith was not
challenged and the question of their loyality to the Ottomans was not
raisedboth of which their dialogue with Palamas did. The Dialexis
seems to give the impression that the religious differences between the
Chiones and the Ottoman Muslims were sharper and more decisive
than the Chiones had claimed or had Orkhan believe. Palamas seems
to treat the Chiones with some contempt, possibly because he had no
sympathy for people who became converts to any religion for reasons
of personal convenience and expediency. For Palamas the Chiones
were:
men who had studied and had been taught by Satan nothing else
but blasphemies and shameful things about our Lord Jesus the
Christ, the Son of God.32
As it becomes evident in these documents, Arnakis writes,
religion was one of the main concerns of the Osmanlis. From
Gregory's epistle we gather that, from Orhan's grandson down to
the last hangers-on at the Eastern gate of Nicea, they were keenly
30
10
33
Speculum, XXVI (1951), 114 In the search for the identity of the Chiones one may
wonder whether they are at all related to those whom Vryonis (Decline, 176) describes
as mixobarbaroi hellnizontes, people of mixed marriages, Turks and Christians, who
spoke Greek although they were Muslims One could also raise the question whether the
term "Chiones" might be related to the name of the city of d u s (Chius7), a place near the
city of Pythia, possibly (see note 23 above), "the place of the ambassadors "
34
See note 9 above
35
Arnakis identifies him with Balaban, "one of the most prominent of Osman's
associates, usually mentioned as Balabangik, who is connected with the blockade of
Brusa" Speculum, XXVI (1951), 112-13
36
Sakkehon informs us that at the end of the MS edition of the Dialexis there is a
note that on the date given for the Dialexis Patriarch Arsenios (9) was ordained deacon,
and that the Patriarch of Bulgaria, Leo, ordained that day John as presbyter and, a week
later, as Bishop of the diocese of Urbens Cf Soter, XV (1892), 238
37
Wittek's suggestion in Byzantion, XXI (1951), 122, 2, that the "Epistle and the
Dialexis
belong strictly together" and that "the date which figures at the end of the
Dialexis
seems therefore to be that of the epistle" is, indeed, unfounded Cf
Charanis is Bvzantinoslavica, XVI (1955), 116 Sakkehon also was wrong in stating that
the Dialexis was given in Nicea, in 1355 Soter, XV (1892), 239 Meyendorffs calculation
that Palamas spent a short time at the place of the ambassadors in June 1354 and was
transferred during the next month to Niceawhere he remained for almost a year
seems also questionable in the context of the Epistle and of the Dialexis Cf A Stud\ of
Palamas, 107
11
12
13
wrath for their iniquities;47 the Muslim position that the conquest and
the defeat for the "unbelievers" represents a proof that God rewards
the Muslims for their authentic faith;48 and, finally Palamas' own
conviction that political upheavals which result from the use of human
force are manifestations of the world living in evil. On the personal
level, Palamas perceives his misfortune as an opportunity to expiate his
own sins, and to bring the message about Christ to the Turks:
For it seems to me that it is through this dispensation that the
truth about our Lord Jesus Christ, the God over all, becomes
manifest even to those most barbaric among the barbarians, so
that they may be without excuse in front of His most fearful
tribunal, in the age to come, which is already at hand.49
During his captivity Palamas experiences and becomes part of the
antagonism between two rival theocratic states and two religious
cultures, the Muslim and the Byzantine. He employs harsh adjectives
when he refers to the Muslim Turks as adversaries of the Byzantine
nation and particularly of the Byzantine religious tradition, calling
them "this impious and God-hated and all-abominable race"one of
the strongest expressions found in the letter.50
Palamas' knowledge of Islam is limited to a few basics which he
seems to derive from popular Christian sources. In describing Islam
and the religious behavior of the Turks he begins from the Christian
assertion that Christ is the God-man Word, as well as from the
presupposition that although the Muslims know him, they do not
honor and worship him as such. Here is a characteristic statement in
which Palamas introduces Islam to the Thessalonians:
They, too, although they knew Christfor they confess that he is
word and spirit of God, and also that he was born from a virgin,
and that he did and taught like God, that he ascended into
heaven, that he remains immortal, and that he is going to come
47
Consider also the initial reaction of the Christians to the Arab conquests in the
seventh and eighth centuries. Cf. D.J. Sahas, John of Damascus on Islam, the "heresy of
the Ishmaelites" (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972), p. 23.
48
"Thus, this impious and god-hated and all-abominable race boast that they
dominate the Romans on account of their own love for God. . . . " Letter, p. 10.
49
Letter, p. 8. Philotheos echoes Palamas* words when he describes him as "an
evangelist and preacher, mediator and counciliator" for the Achaemenidae (the Turks),
"so that they may be led to the true freedom and kingdom." Cf. Migne, P.G., CLI, col.
626AB.
50
Letter, p. 10.
14
15
Ibid., p. 13.
16
tion. . . . Therefore all three are one and the one is three"54; not that
Christ is this Word of God. "God only spoke, and Christ, too, was
made," they maintained, in an obvious paraphrase of the Qur'n.55
Palamas then talks about the righteousness of God, the creation of
man and his dignity, the failure of man, and God's initiative in taking
the fallen nature upon Himself by the incarnation of His word:
Since man obeyed and submitted himself to the devil willingly
and sinned by transgressing the divine will and was, justly,
sentenced to death, it was not appropriate for God to redeem
man from the devil by force; that way He would have been unjust
to the devil, having pulled out from his hands by force man
whom he [the devil] did not get by force. Also man's own free
will would have been destroyed by the force and the power of
God as He would be freeing man; and it is not like God to
destroy His own work. . . . For this reason the only sinless word
of God becomes a son of man . . . [and] he takes upon himself
the passions of us who were responsible. . . ,56
As to the creation of Christ, Palamas gives the following answer:
How is it, then, that the Word is made again by another word? In
such a case it will mean that the word of God is not co-eternal
with God Himself. But I showed you this at the beginning and
you, too, confessed that God has a Word and a Spirit co-eternal
with Him. . . .If Christ is the Word and Spirit of God because he
was made by the Word of God, then the stone, the herb and
every one of the reptiles is also word and spirit of God because
in their case also He spoke and they were made.57
The conversation then turns to the issue of Muhammad as prophet,
and moves to circumcision and veneration of icons. The Chiones
questioned Palamas as to why the Christians do not practice
circumcision. Palamas answered with a pointed reversal of the question
to the effect that they do so for the same reason that the Chiones and
the Muslims have abolished a number of religious practices which go
back to the early times, even to the time of Moses. Taronites remarks
54
17
that neither the Chiones nor the Turks had any response to this.58
The opponents then raise the question how Christians can justify
their practice of making and worshipping representations and icons
since this is clearly prohibited by the Mosaic law. Palamas responds in
the classical fashion by making a distinction between "worship"
(latreia) and "veneration" (proskynsis), stressing that worship indeed
belongs to God alone. In reversing the argument he reminds his
opponents that Moses "left almost nothing of which he did not make a
representation"referring to the tabernacle and the Cherubim.
Taronites writes: "Then the Turks said again: 'Did, indeed, Moses
make these things thenT Answered many of them, 'Yes, he did all these
things'."59 With this unanimous response the meeting was called to an
end, as Taronites reports:
At this point the officials of the Turks stood up, greeted with
respect the bishop of Thessalonica and they started leaving. One
of the Chiones, however, stayed behind, insulted the great bishop
of God, attacked him and beat him in the eye. The rest of the
Turks who saw him, got hold of him, rebuked him severely and
brought him in front of the emir to whom they said whatever
they said. What the Turks said to the emir we did not hear
exactly. As to what we have written down we have been earwitnesses. We wrote down what we saw and heard as if God
Himself was seeing.60
The third dialogue took place in Nicea between Palamas and a
Muslim imam. By that time Palamas' fame and his self-confidence in
dealing with Muslims had increased considerably.61 The central theme
of this debate is a comparison between Jesus and Muhammad. For
Palamas, Jesus is the Christ, indivisible from the Father, who will
return to judge all men. For the imam, Christ is only a "servant of
God"62 and a prophet whom the Muslims accept as one of the prophets
of written revelation contained in the Gospel, one of the "four
books."63 Why then is it that the Christians do not accept Muhammad
s Ibid., 245.
59
Ibid., 246.
60
Ibid.
61
". . . it would have been something very pleasant, indeed, to the ears of Christians, if
one had the time to record . . . simply all the conversations we had. . . . " Letter, p. 14.
62
Cf. S. 4:172; 19:30, (93); 43:59.
63
Obviously the Tawrat of Moses, the Zabr of David, the Injil of Jesus, and the
Qur'n.
18
or "the Book that came down from heaven?" For Palamas the
reliability of Jesus, attested to by previous witnesses and the
64
extraordinary deeds and signs he performed, is also confirmed by the
fact that he is
the only one ever born of a virgin, and the only one who ever
ascended into heaven and remains there immortal, and the only
one who is ever hoped to come back thence to judge the living
and the dead who will be raised. I say about him only what you,
65
the Turks, also confess.
For the imam the reliability of Muhammad is attested to by the
testimony of Jesus himself, recorded in the Gospel 6 6 and later deleted
by the Christians. The Muslim teaching of the tahrlf, or "corruption"
of the Scriptures by the Christians in order to conceal the prophesies
foretelling the advent of Muhammad, is raised. Palamas, apparently
unprepared for this argument which he had not encountered earlier,
makes the startling remark that "If there were anything good written in
the Gospel about Muhammad, this would have been also in the books
of the Prophets."67 Another tangible proof of this authenticity of
Muhammad according to the imam was his military success. Palamas
disassociates such success from claims of divine mission and cites the
case of Alexander the Great who, in spite of his military success, was
never proclaimed as prophet or savior of souls by his contemporaries.
The last statement of Palamas is a violent attack on Muhammad, "who
even though he resorted to violence and suggested licentious things, did
not take into his fold even one whole portion of the world."68 The
hostility this kind of remark aroused is understandable, and, noticing
it, Palamas quickly changed his tone. But it was especially due to an, in
this situation, conciliatory remark of a Muslim that the conversation
64
In my "The Formation of Later Islamic Doctrines as a Response to Byzantine
Polemics The Miracles of Muhammad," The Greek Orthodox Theological Review,
XXVII (1982), 307-24 I have indicated that there is ample evidence that the
embellishment of the life of Muhammad with miracles was the result of, among others, a
direct challenge of the Muslims by early Byzantine polemicists
65
Letter, 17
66
The reference here is to S 7 157 and 61 6, as well as to the Gospel according to John
15 23-26 and 16 7-15, in regards to the Paraclete, Counsellor, or Comforter Ahmad of S
61 6 is equated with the Paraclete
67
Letter, 18
68
Ibid , 19
19
69
70
71
Ibid.
Ibid., pp. 20-21.
Meyendorff, A Study of Palamas, p. 115.
20
Ibid., p. 91.
21
Rather than ending with a critical remark about this fourteenthcentury instance of an in many respects unimaginative use of
arguments and counter-arguments it seems appropriate to admit that
even in our time we have made in many circles little progress towards a
more open-ended and truly common search for the truth.
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
DANIEL SAHAS
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.