UL morro xommaior lll mma Oe —_ OOPEIA BYZANTINON APXAIOTHTON @EEZAAONIKEE EPHOREIA OF BYZANTINE ANTIQUITIES - THESSALONIKT ATIOE NIKOAAOZY OP®ANOZ i Torxoypaptes AYIOS NIKOLAOS ORPHANOS The Wall Paintings “EstupdAcia, X. Mraxipttns eroypagies, Bastins Tadvns Edited by Ch. Bakirtzis Photographs by Vasilis Tsonis ®) EKAOZEIZ AKPITAE - AKRITAS PUBLICATIONSPHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY IN 14ra CENTURY THESSALONIKI Demetrios N. Moschos 1. THESSALONIAN WRITING IN THE FiRst HALF OF THE 147H CENTURY after the fall of Constantinople to the Latins in 1204 and the subsequent ‘occupation of Thessaloniki by the Franks, the city retained its strategic com- mercial position and a continuing involvement with international trade, never ceasing to produce exceptional examples of education and culture. Through a com- plex social structure, consisting of state officials, large landholders and citizens (mesoi-middle class), there was a recognized demand for higher education that would produce new cadres for the various administrative areas in the city (poli- tical functionaries, Church officials, notaries, teachers and so on). The institution al framework within which education worked at that time usually took the form of private schools - which we also find in Constantinople - such as that of Theo- doros Metohitis (1270-1332) in the Monastery of Hora, which was renovated in about 1316, We know of at least one such school in Thessaloniki, that of Bar- laam the Calabrian, after 1330.1 may be that financially these schools were also supported by the state, since there was an older legal provision for this, but we should probably accept Tafrali’s assertion that as things were they were more likely to be run privately! It is also interesting to consider the necessary infra- structure which allowed such schools to function. Since we are discussing a cur- riculum of higher studies, which (as we shall see) included the study of and com- mentary upon philosophical and scientific texts, as well as observation and ex- D espite the political and military realignments in the Byzantine territories 1. O.Tafralt, Tessalonigue au quatorsiéme siete, Paris 1918, p. 164periment, itis clear that, as with research in our time, a good library is essential. Indeed immediately after 1204, a difficult time for scholarship, Nikephoros Vien ‘yds, who inspired the rebirth of learning in Nicaea, had visited Northern Greece and Thessaloniki and found previously unknown rare books?. A catalogue of many rare books has also survived from early 14th century Thessaloniki, from the private library of someone who was clearly an important doctor in the city’. ‘We also have solid evidence for large-scale involvement in the copying of texts We know of two book copyists from Thessaloniki, who copied for the scholar Georgios Kyprios, later (as Gregorios ID) Patriarch of Constantinople. These were Toannis Stavrakios, Archivist of the Metropolis of Thessaloniki, and Kavasilas. We also know that Aristotle's "Organon" was copied by one Ioannis Kavasilas in 1285/86, and of the existence of Demetrios Kaniskis Kavasilas. In all likeli- hood, this would have been a copying workshop (something like a publishing house today), run by the Kavasilas familys The fundamental social, economic and structural requirements for a flowering of letters and sciences in Thessaloniki at that time are clear. Indeed we can be sure that this Flowering occurred, for we have the rise to prominence of outstand- ing pupils of outstanding teachers, cither born and bred in Thessaloniki or active ‘here for more or less extended periods, or else influencing it from afar through their writings. From 1284, Ioannis Pothos Pediasmos was active in the city. He was probably born in Thessaloniki and completed his higher education in Con- stantinople, where he taught philosophy and thus bore the ttle Consul of the Phi- losophers. He was ordained in 1270 and served as Archivist of the Metropolis of Ochrid. From 1284 onwards he taught philosophy, as well as higher mathema- tics and Law, in Thessaloniki, until his death some time between 1310 and 1314. His work also gains importance from the circle of friends and scholars who sur- rounded him, such as the Dikatophylax (Jurist) Georgios Fovenos, Ioannis Sta- vrakios, who has already been mentioned, and others. At this time the throne of the Metropolis was occupied by Takovos, a scholar and teacher of Matthaios Vla- staris (see below)°, Another important personality, born in Ithaca about 1260, but ‘ho studied and settled in Thessaloniki, Constantinople and then the Holy Moun- tain, was Iosiph the Philosopher, who died in about 1330. He produced an exten sive encyclopedia of the existing knowledge of the time (rhetoric, logic, physics, four mathematical sciences, ethics and theology), was a model for the important ‘Thessalonian philologist and scholar Thomas Magistros (ob. after 1346), and con- 2. C.N.Constantinides, Higher Education in Byzantium in the thirteenth and carly fourteenth centuries, (1204-ca.1310), Nicosia 1982, p.13. Constantinides, op. cit. p. 143, Constantinides, op-et.p. 46. Constantinides, op et. pp. 116-129,versed on philosophical matters with the great Theodoros Metohitis, who was also living in Thessaloniki from about 1308 to 1305. Thomas Magistros taught the next generation of scholars, such as Gregorios Akyndinos (1300-1348) and Philotheos Kokkinos (1300-1377), later Patriarch, who actually came from a pro- minent Jewish family. Another important personality, also a pupil of Magistros (although of the same generation, roughly 1280-1340), was Demetrios Triklinios. He lived in Thessaloniki, where he became known as an outstanding philotogist. His critical reconstructions of verses by Pindar, Sophocles and Euripides, which he produced thanks mainly to his remarkable knowledge of ancient metrics, have today been triumphantly confirmed by written versions of the same texts discov- cred on papyri. Finally, a great personality, who combined political activity with philosophy and learning, was Nikephoros Chumnos (1261-1327), who was also active in Thessaloniki for many years Passing on to the next generation (scholars who were active after the third de- cade of the 14th cent), we should add Barlaam the Calabrian (1290-1348) and kephoros Gregoras (1296-1361), rivals between 1330-1332. Although the former, as already mentioned, setled in Thessaloniki after 1332, the latter was never active there, but he has left a long correspondence with close friends and admirers in the city, and there is evidence of the existence of a society (omilos), which distributed his texts and discussed his views. Such "lesser" Thessalonian scholars were (Ste- anos?) Valsamon, who corresponded with Gregoras; the cleric Gregorios Vryen- nios, treasurer (sakellion) from 1328 to 1346 and probably jurist (dlikaiophylax) after 1346, who in his letters bears witness to the great esteem in which Gregoras ‘was held in Thessaloniki; the lawyer Theodoros Koutalas; the protonotarios Ni- kolaos Lambinos, author of a homily to Saint Demetrios; the cleric and keeper of public records (tabullarios) Nikitas Sotiriotis, who also served as judge-gener- al in Thessaloniki in 1374-1375, as well as Michail Synadinos, Maximos, the abbot of the Monastery of Hortatis (Hortiatis), and others®. So, in a certain sense Gregoras was present in the intellectual life of Thessaloniki, Finally, inthe same period we have lawyers of note, such as Konstantinos Armenopoulos who, in 1345, wrote the "Hexabiblos', a legal collection of laws which served as the basic legal ‘manual for Byzantium and the bordering Christian states, as well as for the whole period of Ottoman rule. Another was Matthaios Vlastaris, who in 1335, wrote the “Constitution of Canons”, an alphabetical index of Church canons. 6, For the relative correspondence PAM. Leone, Nicephori Gregorae Epistle, Rome 1982- 88, vols. LIT and brief information on the persons inthe older edition ofthe leters of Gre- goras by R. Gullland, Correspondance de Nicéphore Gregoras, Paris 1927, pp. 304-879. For the most complete documentation, see the corresponding entries (always under the sumame!) in Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, Vienna 1977 ft.In order to keep more strictly to the theme of this essay (since we are con- cerned mainly with ideas rather than the biographies of particular individuals), we shall deal in the next unit with writers of theological works (Gregory Palamas and Nikolaos Kavasilas among others). We should be aware, however, that in terms of “the sociology of knowledge” there was no sharp social or educational divide between theologians and philosophers. Clerics and monks were great philosophers and scholars, while intellectuals and politicians wrote theological works (even edifying ones such as Lives of the Saints). Likewise, the reader should not be mis- led by the concept of a school, as this was very often located in a monastery. Mon- asteries in Byzantium were institutions of considerable flexibility. They were char- table organizations, "financial backers" for a variety of works, enterprises, legal entities, places for outstanding personalities to gather and make contacts, and, not least, places of prayer and worship. We ought, perhaps to consider the school of the Monastery of Hora in Constantinople, which was renovated by Theodoros Me- tohitis and where Gregoras taught, more as an early form of "Academy", such as those of the Italian princes, rather than as an ecclesiastical institution. Clearly the schools in Thessaloniki must also have been an "Academy" of this sort. Finally, they were not even divided socially, for we find individuals with entirely different world views brought together as teacher and pupil, or else as fellow students under the same teacher. 2. Ta: Domtvant QUESTIONS IN PHILOSOPHY Historical research has so far treated Byzantine thought as an imperfect im- itation and painstaking reproduction of Ancient Greek models. The Byzantines ‘were considered to be non-productive descendants: the administrators or "libra- rians” of a universal heritage (N, Baynes), whose content they were unable to under- stand, because of their Christian conservatism and the emphasis in thetr educ- ation on form (rhetoric, language learning etc). The change of attitude inaugurat- ed by V. Tatakis, which encouraged the study of Byzantine philosophy, has led to the publication of many Byzantine texts, but there is still a long way to go. Our initial impression, however, of the texts available so far might be presented in terms of the three great questions which arose at this time: reassessment of the old classical authorities, the quest for an eternal foundation for the present world (cither as an ontological or epistemological principle) and finally the attempt to form- ulate a social imperative, an anthropological and ethical model. a. The reassessment of classical authorities A telling example of the reservations late Byzantine intellectuals had towards the classical authorities and the established way of thinking is the way in which lexts were treated. Whether we consider one extreme - the impressive results (re- ferred to above) of Demetrios Triklinios’ attempts at critical reconstructions, orthe other ~ the blatant distortion of Plato on the part of Theodoros Metohitis in order to make the astronomical model of the great philosopher compatible with Ptolemaic astronomy”, we can see the independent, fearless and free manner in ‘hich people dealt with the transmitted texts. The distortions committed by Me- tohitis naturally did not escape the acerbic criticism of Nikephoros Chumnos in the course of their famous conflict (which also touched on a good many other mat- ters), but he himself also declared that the results of every piece of research should be tested by every researcher, without "bile, “abomination” or “indignation” towards anyone, The ancients too, while enjoying the glory of their enduring fame, should be treated as equals by later scholars, without excessive reverence for the classi- cal authorities®. In a work written in about 1331, called "Rebuttal of the Absence of Humility among Men’, Gregoras, the student of Metohitis, condemned the dis- dainful attitude of many of his contemporaries towards anything new. ‘These reservations, as well as the demand for new knowledge, were shown prac- tically in the way that scientific research was conducted. Even from the time of ‘Theodoros Smymaios, the annotation of older texts (particularly Aristotle), had be- ‘come outmoded as a way of writing scientific manuals, Particularly with the "Phy- sles" of Nikephoros Vlemmydis (written about 1258-1260), the ordering of sci- entific material into chapters according to subject became the preferred method, as it has remained to this day'°, Observation and experiment increasingly became the basis for the mathematical and natural sciences. Demetrios Triklinios, the same remarkable philosopher we have already met, wrote an astronomical manual on the ‘motions of the moon, in which he is clearly setting out the results of experiments he has conducted himself!.In discussions on matters of physics, such as the nature of air, the function of sight etc, Nikephoros Gregoras based his arguments on his ‘own observations! 7. The passage in the Epimonis, 990a5-b2, which refers to “the seven periods’ ofthe heavens, {s transmuted into "the august periods" (eptasepta) so as not to contradict Polemy (and the observations of Metohitis) which demanded they be eight! Sevéenko, Etudes sur la polémique entre Theodore Metockite et Nicéphore Cehumnos, Brussels 1961, pp. 98.99). 8. Nikephoros Chums, "Against the Ancient Philosophers." ed. J-F. Boissonade, Anecdota Gracca e codictous regis, Paris 1880 (repr, 1962), vol I, pp. 398-39. 9, Nikephoros Gregoras, Rebuttal, pub. PAM. Leone, “Antilogia et Soluiones quaestionum", Byzantion 40(1970) 488, pp. 115-116. 10. W, Lackner, "Zum Lehrbuch der Physik des Nikephoros Blemmyles", Byzantinische For- schungen 4(1972), pp. 157-169, 11. A, Wasserstein, “An Unpublished Treatise by Demetrios Trilinlus on Lunar Theory", Jahrbiicher der Ostereichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft 16(1967), pp. 158-174, 12, In one such analysis on the function of sight he argues on the basis of the observation of the function of eye-glasses, witich was also the first reference to spectacles (or long sight) in Byzantium!‘What was the reason for this remarkable change? Beyond economic and soc- ial factors, at the level of ideological and scientific reorientation a decisive role ‘must have been played by the influx of astronomical and mathematical know- ledge from Persia and the Arabs via Trebizond into the state of Nicaea in the 13th century. During the 14th century, and later in the 15th!8, new astronomical works multiplied, as did copies of older ones. In about 1300, Georgios Pahymeris (who lived between 1240 and 1310 and on whose work the Encyclopedia of Iosiph the Philosopher was based) wrote the work "The Four Lessons Arranged”, where astro- ‘omy is promoted from a branch of physies to the position it held in the ancient "Quadrivium’ (arithmetic, music-ie, the science of proportions-, geometry and astro- nomy). Thereafter, in about 1316, Theodoros Metohitis wrote the "Document- ation of the Science of Astronomy", in which he attempted to direct the study of astronomy towards its authentic Greek roots. His pupil Gregoras vied with his equally erudite rival Barlaam in predicting eclipses, and delivered a speech in 1322/ 1323 on the adjustment of the calendar on the basis of astronomical observations (ome 260 years before the same work was carried out in Italy) and wrote the "Es- say on the Construction of an Astrolabe", an instrument which was to prove es- sential to the voyages of discovery a century later. All this activity in turn affect- ced the method used to interpret the world. The traditional Aristotelian* “qualitative model of the scientific method (interpretation of physical alterations by their in- ‘duction into a typology, an “index”, one might say, of types of alterations, such as the one introduced by Aristotle) was replaced by the Platonic* "quantitative" mo- del (the physical changes are perceived as alterations of their mathematical pro- 18, Cf, A. Tihon, “Liastronomie Byzantine (du Ve au XVe sitle)", Byzantion 51(1981), pp. 603-624, * Aristotelian Philosophy: Plato's great disciple, Aristotle, disagreed with Platonic philoso- DPhy and claimed thatthe material world was not an image, but realty, which we know first through our senses and then through logical development. But why should the world exist? ‘hy is there a collection of motives (causes) which lead from simple, unformed essence, potential” existence, to "active" existence? The most important ofthe causes isthe Final Duurpose, the aim. For this reason, all reality isto be understood from the point of view of the purpose it serves. Aristotle wanted to produce a deep, substantial study of all ares of the natural world (physics, astronomy, biology, psychology etc) inorder to show that these ‘nate causes in the world (a kind of internal prograraming) and the particular changes they Produce are able to explain the whole of reality. Knowledge means sorting these changes into more general and permanent logical categories. In this way, the formalization of the laws of thought (ogic) came into being. In the Middle Ages, this final part of Aristotle's work, Aristotctian logic, was considered the only way to obtain scientific knowledge “* Platonic Philosophy: The basic element in the philosophy of Plato (4th cent. BC) ts the bellef that the world we inhabit is an imperfect, material copy (mage) of an immaterial, femal word, that of ideas. Every material objet corresponds to lts own idea, which existed ‘stemally before the object came into being. The same Is true of people the idea inthis easeportions ~ a legacy from the Pythagoreans). The Chumnos-Metohitis controversy was also about precisely this dispute. In terms of logical method, the classic A- ristotelian syllogism "was transformed” into a geometric theorem, which was now ‘considered the absolute criterion for scientific knowledge. This transition was given its characteristic formulation in Metohitis’ astronomical work referred to above, where Neoplatonism is also enlisted, and particularly in Iamblichus’ work "On the ‘Common Mathematical Science”. As a result of these changes, the world would no longer be the same. . From the transitory world to the eternal ‘Why should the "mathematization” of the world describe it better than the qua- litative Aristotelian model? To answer this question, the philosophers created radically new frameworks. The old Platonic response, that the world of mathe- ‘matical concepts was more “real” than the one in which we live, took on new signi- ficance in Late Byzantium. Pahimeris wrote that mathematics functions as a bridge from things perceived, thought and experienced, towards things foreign to per- ception, things which, because they are immaterial and everlasting, are more akin to our souls, and, in particular, are a priori closer to their reasoning capacity'4, Gregoras spoke of the "logot (inner principles, universals or ideas) of beings’ which are inherent in the intellect. I do not know whether the accumulation of math- ematical knowledge led to the revitalization of Platonism and Neoplatonism or vice-versa - whether Platonism, which had been ever present since the time of Michael Psellos, imposed the mathematical model. What is certain is that, as a epistemological principle, real knowledge was separated from feelings and perce- Ptions and linked to the intellect, which has this knowledge "by its nature” and. ‘comes to it either through ecstatic illumination” or the application of mathematics. being the sul. Knowledge of all things is, in reality, a “recollection” oftheir ideas on the part, of the soul, which once lived with them there, ln the sphere of ideas, but which, having forgotien everything from the moment it entered the material world, is eapable of only the vaguest of memories. Man's sim should be to know the real world and not the images. In this he should be guided by memories of the ideas which are awakened in him by education: ‘hus he wil become good by acquiring knowledge of the good. A basic role in obtaining this ‘enowledge is played hy the philosopher, who liberates the humats soul. The philosophy of Plato was a general outline, which was systematzed to 8 greser extent by the school which he founded, the Academy. Later (in the early Christian period), it was formulated with logical arguments and acquired religious overtones, ecomlng & widespread religious and philoso phlcal system known as Neoplatonism. 14, "om the.. alien to the senses, by thelr immateralty and everlastingness are more akin to (ur souls and much more soto the reasoning capacity within them" Georgios Pahymeris, ovens ed. P. Tannery, Quadhvum de George Packymére, Cit del Vaticano 1940, rp 7, 25.8Real knowledge of the intelligible world also guarantees its existence (and vice- versa).It exists in the Intellect ofthe Creator, and, atthe same time, through things, in the intellect of people'®, Moderate semantic realism, together with the Platonic concept of the originv/image relationship between the eternal, heavenly, intellect- ual world and this transitory one, is the refuge of the intellectual fearful ofthe in- comprehensible shifting vicissitudes of political life. Writing about the import- ance of astronomy, Metohitis extols the tranquility which prevails among the sphe- res, in contrast to the human plane, And did not Christianity also talk about an. etemal world? Is not "darkness" ("the cloud") - within which inexpressible know- ledge isto be found - linked t0“cestasy"? Palymeris wrote an extensive paraphrase of the Areopagite writings. In his haglographic works (among which was a homi- |y much admired in Thessaloniki on Saint Demetrios), N. Gregoras also wrote about, the visions the saints experienced, awake or asleep, since these were evidence of "in- ner” knowledge not acquired through the senses. It remains now to see by what manner of life this eternal world was approached. ¢. The quest for an imperative It is clear that secular education, and in particular knowledge of mathematics, ‘was a first class exercise for elevating the intellect towards knowledge and, in the end, towards its participation in the eternal world, Le. knowledge of itself. So the educated person, to the widest possible extent, was part of this imperative towards Participation in the eternal world. The learning and diverse interests of the scho- lars of the time - involvement in such different pursuits as rhetoric and astrono- ‘my, as well as the philosophy of friendship, the intellectual pleasure of intercour- se between educated people, were characteristic of this type of person. Such people, however, despite the demands imposed by their high social position (Chumnos, ‘Metohitis) were also supposed to seek “inaction” and the "contemplative life". This was the model of life advocated by Metohitis, and there is a distinct possibility that, ‘we find here a convergence with corresponding views held by Iosiph the Philoso- pher, views which possibly crystallized in Metohitis atthe time he became acquainted with Iosiph in Thessaloniki between 1303 and 1305%®, Nevertheless, Metohitis still, considered "political virtue" to be a necessity. From the point of view of the scholarly, “inactive” person, the course of histo- ry, and the inevitable distressing social conflict which marks tt, gradually lose their significance. History becomes the romantic evaluation of isolated individuals and universal cosmic events, and thus remains eternal. This kind of extreme view, both 15, Nikephoros Vienmydis, ‘Exrrouh Ovawes, PG 142, 760C-761C. 16, See. Theodoros Metohitis, HOubs f sepl seabetas, ed. ID. Polemis, Athens, 1995, pp. 26- 32aristocratic and fatalistic, is characteristic of the work of Metohitis' pupil, Nike- Phoros Gregoras, who was also the leading historian of the period. His unremitting aversion towards "living by pick and mattock” and, at the same time, his fatalistic acceptance that the fortunes of the Byzantine state were linked to astrological ‘omens - so incongruous in a scientist who knew very well how to interpret astro nomical phenomena - can be explained only by that aristocratic nostalgia for an eternal, non-historic foundation on which to secure the rhythm of the cosmos. 3. REPERCUSSIONS AND CHALLENGES IN THEOLOGICAL THOUGHT Itis clear that such views directly affected the way in which the Christian faith. ‘was experienced in Late Byzantine times, Orthodox Christian theological thought, as the theoretical expression of what the Church lives in practice as the people of God, is always expressed and discussed in terms of the interests and concems of the age in which if lives. The theological response was mainly given in places which were more “open” to new challenges, such as Thessaloniki. It was not by chance that Barlaam opened his school there after he left Constantinople, Nor, indeed, was the reaction that this particular individual provoked, which resulted. in the emergence of a genuinely new theology known today as hesychasm. Initially, there was in Thessaloniki at the beginning of the 14th century a group of socially active Christians who were engaged in welfare provision, prayer and the study of Holy Scripture. Chumnos calls them "Abrahamic men" and testifies that they ‘were faithful Christians who attended Church services frequently, were gen- erally highly esteemed and were inter- ested in the social problems of the city (Problems such as those confronting many Late Byzantine cities) providing hospitality and charity for poor unfort- '0 anos Tonyépios Tedayas, 1508 at, Aenvycpav, Movecto Kaki Texviv, Saint Gregory Palamas, 15¢h cent. Saint Petersburg, Musoum of Fine Artsunates"’, Engaged in the same, or a similar, attempt was Isidoros Vouheir, later (afier 1347) hesychast Patriarch of Constantinople, who urged people to live a Christ- ian life when he was teaching in the “fellowship” to which he belonged before he became a monk. Besides, on neighbouring Athos, individuals and groups were act- ively transforming their deeply lived experience of Orthodox theology into prayer. ‘These were men such as Gregory the Sinaite and Gregory Palamas (who lived from 1296 to 1357 or 1359, settled in Thessaloniki itself in about 1325, then briefly in Verroia for a short time, and on Athos from 1331).'These movements were not content with a conventional, formal theology. Barlaam’s attack in 1337 on the hesychast monks, in which he derided their method of prayer and also the nature of the ecstatic experiences they had, was the spark which ignited the great con- flict® In consultation with his friends in Thessaloniki, Gregory Palamas produc- ed his response in three Triads entitled "Defence of the Holy Hesychasts". Here he defended ascetic experience as a foretaste of the Kingdom of God in this life, «a foretaste which was not an experience of certain symbols through the senses, but of the actual presence of God, in which the whole of creation participates to varying degrees. This teaching on the distinction between the uncreated Essence and uncreated Energies of God was developed gradually. Creation participates fully in the latter, but not at all in the former. The controversy was then played out in Constantinople, with an intense written polemic condueted on both sides and stormy synods in 1341, 1347, 1351 and 1368, at which the hesychasts were vindicated, while their successive rivals, Barlaam, Gregorios Akindynos (a form- er friend of Palamas who lived in Thessaloniki) and Nikephoros Gregoras, were con- demned. 17. N.Chumnos, @scaatonxedor cuufoueveds zept Sixatootvns, ed. J-F. Bolssonade, 0 vol. I, pp. 146-147. * The hesychast controversy: The theological controversy in the Orthodox Church, which lasted roughly from 1937 to 1368. At is heart was the question of how people could par ‘take in the sanctfying grace of God. The hesychast, with Gregory Palamas at their head, aimed that God could be experienced totally, not only with the intellect and after death, but by the whole person and in some cases even inthis life through the practice of the com. ‘mandments of the Gospel. This participation began in s complete and hypostatic manner with the union of God and man found in the person af Jesus Christ. In order to explain this union, Gregory Palamas turoduced the distinction berween uncreated Essence and uncreated. Energies (or uncreated Energy inthe singular) in God. Man (and with him the whole ofthe sfeated world), partakes totally in the Energies, but not at all in the Essence, so thet God 's "completely other” yet at the same time intimately known. Many theologians and thinks «ers have taken positions for or against Palamie theology. Palamas’ most significant oppor cents were the Calabrian Barlaam, Gregorios Akindynos and Nikephoros Gregoras. However, {extended synods in Constantinople in 1841, 1847, 1351 and 1368, the Church vindicated Gregory Palamas and proclaimed him a saint after his death, Palamize theology and the hesychasts were also vindicated shortly afterwards by the autonomous Churches of Bulga va and Serbia‘The hesychast controversy used to be thought of as a conflict between the rationalism of the West and the mysticism of the East. Despite painstaking re- search by J. Meyendorff in the historico-critical field and also in the area of the study of ideas, as well as the reconstruction and publication of texts and assoc- iated literary work carried out by the team led by P.Christou in the mid-20th cent- ury, the nature of the controversy continues to be the subject of passionate de- bate. Let us be clear from the beginning that a) the matter at the heart of the con- troversy was mot the technique of prayer and b) the views of Barlaam were not imported from the West, despite superficial similarities, and his own Ttalian origins. Apart from Aristotelian logic, Barlaam also taught astronomy and Platonic phi- losophy in Thessatoniki!®, Until 1332, his philosophical rival was Nikephoros Gregoras, who after 1347, however, found himself inthe same camp as Barlaam, Gregoras formulated views similar to those of the Calabrian, though more me- ‘hodically and with greater recourse to Greek philosophical (and Christian) sources. No anti-hesychast denied the possibility of a relationship with God. What was at stake in the hesychast controversy was how this was to be achieved, and con- sequently who this relationship referred to. Barlaam started things off by break- ing the “moratorium” that had existed between philosophers and theologians. He describes the relationship with God in precisely the same philosophical terms we saw employed above: instead of prayer, “contemplation’, instead of enlightenment, ecstatic “illumination”, instead of renunciation and asceticism, “inaction”. All of these, according to him, also characterized ancient non-Christians, such as Plo- tinus. Gregoras later stressed (to Thessalonian friends among others) that "the vision of God" cannot have any relationship to the senses, because true know- ledge is essentially internal, from the intellect, and i in the inal analysis, know- ledge of yourself, since itis this which participates in the divine through the "Logoi (universals or Platonic ideas) of beings". Sensory experiences are merely symbols which “raise” the intellect towards knowledge of itself. The distinction between Essence and Energies tarnishes the simplicity of God, Who as the Neo- Platonic ineffable One, produces the world of images by emanation. In their strug- ale they made use of texts by Gregory the Theologian and Dionysios the Areopa- site and other Fathers of the Church and interpreted them Neoplatonically. This cutline of their positions is sufficient to indicate that the anti-hesychasts were ‘ot Western imports, but rather representatives of precisely that secular philoso- Phical thinking which had emerged in Thessaloniki, as we have already shown. 18, Serious arguments forthe fact that the starting-point of Barlaaim’s ideas was NeoPlatonic thinking on the log of beings et. in other words the same staring-polnt forthe views of the other Byzantine thinkers, see in A. Fyrigos, "Barlaam Calabro tra Varistoelismo scolar stico © it neoplatontsmo bizantino", I! Veltro 27(1983), pp. 185-195,‘0 lwdvms ST Kavrawougnvds mpoedpevet ‘ov odvob0 100 1351 ué voUs dvruazopevoUs viv hovjacruck Eovba Taxpideyn KéAhioro A’, Tonyipro Taaaua Gekia) xa PuAdie0 xat ‘Apacvio Gprotepd). Muxpoypagia xeipoyodgou t00 1400 al (lapies, ‘EOvuen Bipaiodrien). Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos presiding ‘at the synod of 1351 with the opposing factions in the hesychast dispute: Patriarch Kallistos I, Gregory Palamas (ight) and Philotheos and Arsenios (lef). Miniature from a manuscript ofthe 14th cent. aris, Bibtiochéque Nationale) What did hesychast theology set against all the above? In the first place, "access to the eter- nal world’, the vision of uncreated light, was wn- derstood by the hesychasts as a foretaste of the kingdom of God, which begins in history and has at its centre Jesus Christ "and from Him, the truly effulgent sun Who came in the flesh among us, did there not come a Church of angels and men, as many as truly believed? And this will be made most clear in the age to come". I follows, then, that the history we are liv- ing through is not an irrelevant secular game. The kingdom of God is participat- ion, not in Platonic "ideas" which are inherent in nature in the relationship of modeVimage but in personal energies (since they are “envisaged” in the persons of ‘the Trinity?®), Even though they are inherent in the Essence of God and are com- ‘mon to the three Persons, the energies have a personal basis [exactly as the two energies in the two natures of Christ had a hypostatic foundation which “has made use of the Energies" (kechretaitais energeiais); here the Christology of the 6th Ecumenical Synod and of John the Damascan was brought to bear]. It is the clement of freedom that distinguishes this from ideas of a more Platonic hue. The world is an "arbitrary" creation on the part of God and, as a result, neither God nor the world is obliged to be in any mutual relationship. This in turn leaves room for an understanding of the existence of evil, which is not to be explained by the philosophical production of a world of images from an eternal archetype: 19, Gregory Palamas, Against Gregoras II 28, ed. P Christou, F.Tadaua Suyypduera, vo TV, Thessalonilt 1988, p. 387 20, St. Yiangazoglou, Hpoieyousva cis wv Gcatoylay vay dutiorev évepyerav, Kateini 1992."because, if, as they say, the images of the “logoi”, of the creative intellect, are with- {in us, then what is it that initially rendered the images worthless? Was it not sin and ignorance or contempt for what should be done? Why do we not sce these images clearly within us, since (supposedly) they are imprinted upon us?"21, The freedom and positivism in history which arise from the teaching on Essence and Energies also create a different social imperative, Access to the Kingdom of God is open to all, not only to the learned. A pre-condition for participation in this is participation in the gifts of the Spirit and, at a personal and collective level, a change in history as it has been until now, through repentance and the observ- ance of the commandments of the Gospel: "You truly have God within you when ‘you acquire the divine state in your soul - and the divine state is love for God. And the only way to acquire it is by the sacred practice of the divine commandments", Despite what is believed to the contrary, it is not the hesychast position which encourages mysticism and passivity. As we saw above, the hesychast circle in ‘Thessaloniki included individuals like Isidoros Voucheiras who were engaged ‘with social concerns, All the hesychasts, when they took up ecclesiastical office, ‘were directly involved with the social problems of the time. When Gregory Pala. mas came to the city as Archbishop of Thessaloniki, he spoke repeatedly about the need for social harmony, since during the second Civil War from 1341 to 1347 the city had been tom apart by the Zealot insurgency. Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos, who was also a hesychast, tried to reform the clergy at the Patriarch- ‘ate so they would respond better to the pastoral demands of the time. Much has already been written about the effect on art In our context, what should be clear from the "relatively conservative” style of the wall paintings of Saint Nikolaos Orphanos (which date from before the hesychast controversy) is an attempt to teach the theology of participation in the Kingdom of God. The direct reference to the name of the Mother of God in the icon ofthe bush in flames® and the clear labelling of the icons of the saints (seldom abbreviated) are an attempt to pass on to less educated and simple people the message of participation in the Kingdom through the flow of historical events and personalities, the arena in which God's plan is enacted, the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. The Mother of God and the Saints are "stations" on the way to the Kingdom, to which all are invited. 21. Gregory Palamas, Defence of the Holy Hesychasts 1, 1, 3:P.Christou, Tonyoptov Takaya, ‘Amavia ve Soya, (ELIE 54) Thessaloniki 1982, vo, 2, p. 64 22. J.Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas, 1974 (st edtion 1964) p. 165, 28. A. Tsitourdou, ‘0 gwypapueds Sidioouos 109 Avion Nwahdov 100 Oppavod xt Oco- ‘oatovixn, Thessaloniki 1986.Hesychast thought was not yet complete, however. The next step was taken by another famous Thessalonian, Nikolaos Kavasilas (1322/3-c.1371), who was also ‘engaged in social works (as shown in his treatise "Against those who charge in- terest"). He applied this dynamic theology to everyday duties, in his work entitled "On the Life in Christ", Here, participation in Christ through the Holy Spirit by ‘way of the sacraments led to a new immediate moral and anthropological example, with social dimensions. But the storm that ensued, which ravaged Byzantine cult- ture, moved this way of thought into the background. It continued to smoulder, how: ever, and to warm the hearts of enslaved Christians, until it bore fruit much later (as in the Philokalic renaissance of the18th century), 4, THe CONTRIBUTION OF THESSALONIAN REFLECTION To RENAISSANCE THOUGHT What became of the philosophers of Thessaloniki and of the rest of Byzan- tium? Following Barlaam’s example, they made their way at different times to rN: a H eC 0 ‘0 Apovordins Aemroutpeia toypypaplas ors KaBolixé Tis poviis PiravOpoxnviv, 1560, Naat lwavvin), 4 Aristotle etal from a wall paintings inthe main church of the Monastery of the Philanthropinon, 1560, the Isle of Ioannina).the West. Other famous sclons of the capital of Macedonia, however, such as Demetrios Kydonis, brought Scholastic thought to the East in the form of trans- lations. Byzantine thought was, indeed, influenced for a time by Scholasticism, ‘mainly in the first half of the 15th century, and the year 1345, when the Summa ‘Theologiae was translated, is mourned as the beginning of spiritual enslavement to the West. In fact, however, Scholastic thought had litle long-term influence in the Bast, as indicated by the limited number of copies produced of this work. is clear that Byzantine thought influenced the birth of the Italian renaissance, and hence of modernity, more than the other way round, Leaving aside Barlaam teaching Greek to Petrarch and, later, the activity of Plethon among others, we shall restrict ourselves here to matters which are purely systematic. In the (now emerging) study of the philosophy of the Renaissance, its special contribution to later thought can be seen at two points: a) in the combining of the geometric theo- rem and Aristotelian syllogism into a comprehensive criterion of knowledge; and >) in the transition from the sterile medieval question of the nature of things (real- ism-nominalism) to that of the relationship between things (functional ontolo- gism).Francisco Patrizi, Girolamo Cardano and others contributed to the former, ‘while Nicolaus Cusanus did to the second. It was on this that the *mathematiz. ation” of the world was based, which in turn produced the new logic, the sun-centr- ed universe of Copernicus, and so on. As we have seen, however, all these deve- lopments were already hatched and formulated as early as Late Byzantium, and, to a great extent, in the Byzantine Thessaloniki of the beginning of the 14th cen- tury. Even that moral and social model, the noble humanist of the Renaissance, can already be found in the Late Byzantine philosophers. What are Chumnos, Me- tohitis, Barlaam and Triklinios if not examples of the homo universalis, identical to their Italian counterparts? And was not the philosophy of friendship, the cult- Ure of intellectual intercourse between educated men, already present in the Late Byzantine world? And so the reception which 15th century Italy gave to the know- ledge, manuscripts and lectures of the scholars is not at all accidental, ‘This leads us to the conclusion that the West did not "come" to the East, but rather first saw the light of day there, and later continued westwards, when the ravages of the Turks, the attendant decline in population and the breakdown in administration and public finances shattered at its foundations the last vestiges of the Roman Empire, In our own context, however, this assessment is more valu- 2A. See mainly 8. O10, Renaissance und die frie Neuzeit, Stuttgart 1984, pp. 10-80..A host ‘of details could be given about the contribution to the Italian Renaissance, eg. Greck astro. ‘omical texts which were copied abundanily in Italy, and so on), but this would be beyond ‘ur scope, See also K. M. Seton, “The Byzantine Background to the talan Renaissance", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 100(1936) 1, pp. 1.78able, for the answer given by Orthodox theology in the East to the "Westen" rationalism of Platonic "mathematization” of the world and its attendant meta- physics is of greater significance. This answer was provided by Palamite theolo- gy, of which we should attempt to gain a deeper understanding. The West was answered by Orthodox theology from within Byzantium, and this answer was not a reversal or rejection of the question, a sterile invocation of tradition, but rather ‘@ new point of view based upon tradition, Even if Wester rationalism is today experiencing its apogee, Orthodox theology has not come to an end, because it remains the dynamic continuation of the living reality of "implanting" the world in Christ through the Holy Spirit. This implanting reshapes the whole of creation and history, without abrogating either man or his civilization. On the contrary, it brings him to his greatest possible fulfillment and endows him with greater mean- ing. Without rejecting or ignoring evi, it struggles to defeat it, something which the Statle universe of "proportions" is unable to do, since it cannot envisage corrup- tion and evil in its view of the world. It is no accident that the revival of Ortho- ox theological thought in all Orthodox countries has been described as a "neo- Palamite" synthesis. This synthesis still has much to offer and it was in Thessa- loniki that it was given flesh historically and produced its first fruits. Itis in this context that the artistic language of the wall paintings of Saint Nikolaos Orpha- nos should be understood.