| Early in the 1950s Orthodox scholars began to make a concerted effort to edit the unpublished writings of Gregory Palamas. John Meyendorff and Panagiotes Chrestou were two of the prime movers in this enormous undertaking. 6 As these new texts were published, the Capita 150 understandably faded into the background of scholarly attention. But even during the time that this work had received some serious study, the focus was almost exclusively on the sections that were more concerned with the detailed issues of the Palamite controversy; the earlier chapters were largely ignored. Only two scholars, Kiprian Kern and George Mantzarides, treated the introductory section of the Capita 150 with any seriousness. 7 However, they turned to these chapters as a source for the theological anthropology of Palamas, but failed to see their essential connection with the rest of the work. Two other factors have militated against a better understanding of the significance of the Capita 150. Firstly, the editors of the Philokalia had removed from the text all the references to Barlaam and Akindynos. But even more seriously, they had relied on a very inferior manuscript. The omissions and erroneous readings frequently leave the meaning obscure and at times indecipherable. 8 Secondly, the Capita 150 cannot be properly understood without an appreciation of the literary character of the work. Only when it is seen in relation to the earlier writings of Palamas can its structure be readily discerned and its significance evaluated. This book is an attempt to remedy the situation and restore The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters to its rightful place in Palamite theology. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to the Most Revd Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia and the Revd Joseph Gill, S.J. who inspired and guided me in my first studies of Gregory Palamas. The microfilms that made this edition possible were purchased with the help of a minor grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Abbreviations |
| 104. All beings participate in God " s sustaining energy, but not in his substance. 105. Those worthy of divinization participate in the divine energy in another way. 106. The transcendence of the divine nature and the problem of attributing names to it. 107. The substance is imparticipable; the energy is participable. 108. Absurdities that would result from participation in God " s substance. 109. Participation in God " s substance would render the latter multi-hypostatic. 110. Because it is indivisible, the substance of God is imparticipable. 111. Participation in a substance implies a certain identity of substance. 112. The divine energy, the three persons and the one God. VII. The Reply on Cyril (113–121) 113. There is one life and power of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 114. The triune God possesses life absolutely, while being also our life by cause. 115. The Son is the sole uncreated energy. 116. The Son is called life and bestows life, but the life he bestows is not the divine substance. 117. The one divine substance and its many attributes are not identical. 118. The positive attributes of God do not divulge the divine substance from which they are distinct. 119. Identification of substance and attributes would introduce composition in God. 120. The Sabellianism of the Akindynists. 121. In effect, the Akindynists attempt to show that Cyril contradicts himself. VIII. The Contra Acindynum (122–131) 122. The enhypostatic energy and power of the Spirit. (CA) 123. Apophatic and cataphatic theology. 124. The Akindynists and the Eunomians. (CA) 125. Similarities in their arguments. (CA) 126. Their similarities – continued. (CA) 127. The divine energy is neither substance nor accident. (CA) 128. Gregory Nazianzen on the same subject (CA) 129. The witness of John Damascene. (CA) 130. A false interpretation of Gregory Nazianzen by the Akindynists. (CA) 131. No disagreement between John Damascene and Gregory Nazianzen. (CA) IX. Distinction of the Divine Substance and the Divine Energy (132–145) |
| B. The Manuscripts and the Constitution of the Text D=Mount Athos, ερ Μον Διονυσου, ms 194 (Athon. 3728). 460 Fourteenth century (a.d. 1363), paper, 414 folios, 210x145 mm. Since the Catalogue of Lambros, the order of the folios has been disturbed, perhaps in the course of rebinding: the Λγος διασαφν (Meyendorff #52) which was n° 43 in Lambros now appears at the head of the ms, and the dated colophon together with Psellos» treatise addressed to Michael Doukas (n° 48 in Lambros) have disappeared. 461 The ms contains a non-systematic collection 462 of Palamite and anti-Latin writings. 463 The principal Palamite works in the ms are the following: Palamas, Λγος διασαφν (fols. 1r-12r) Palamas, Reply On Cyril (fols. 13v-16v) Phakrases, Dialogue (fols. 17r-23v) Matthew Blastares, On Divine Grace (fols. 41r-61v) 464 David Dishypatos, Against Barlaam and Akindynos (fols. 61v-93v) 465 Neilos Kabasilas, ντγραμμα Against Nikephoros Gregoras (fols. 95r-95v) 466 7. Palamas, Against Bekkos (fols. 97r-102v) 8. Synodal Tome 1341 (fols. 161r-172r) 9. Palamas, Hagioretic Tome (fols. 172r-177r) Synodal Tome 1351 (fols. 177r-208r) Palamas, Dialogue of an Orthodox and a Barlaamite (fols. 209r-228v) Neophytos Prodromenos, Refutation of Barlaam and Akindynos (fols. 327r-338r) and Against Akindynos (fols. 338r-352v) 467 Z=Mount Sinai, Monastery of St. Catherine, ms gr. 1671. 468 Fifteenth century, paper, 343 folios, 211x 145 mm. Meyendorff has suggested that the ms originally belonged to the Great Lavra on Mt. Athos. It is an important witness to the text of the Triads. The ms contains the following works of Gregory Palamas. Apodictic Treatises (fols. 1r-118v) Against Bekkos (fols. 119r-129r) Reply On Cyril (fols. 129v-134r) Triads (fols. 136r-327v) Treatise on the Economy (i.e., Hom. 16; fols. 328r-343r) In addition to the two mss D and Z there is a further witness to the text, namely Palamas, Cap. 113–121 (=Pal). Wherever D and Z are in agreement (even if Pal is not) I give this as the text. The one exception is 3.4 τ Pal recte: τ DZ. When the Reply On Cyril was incorporated into the Capita 150 the various sections of the work were rearranged and the text was altered in minor ways, and so many of the variations between DZ and Pal are stylistic and intentional. D is the older of the two mss but it does not always carry the best readings: e.g., |
| The present study has arrived at a number of interesting conclusions that contribute to a fuller understanding of the works of Gregory Palamas. In spite of his hearty polemic against profane wisdom Palamas had considerable familiarity with the scientific revival of his time and was capable of discoursing on such subjects at least on the popular level. The inspected Augustinian elements in his Trinitarian theology derive not from Augustine but from the hesychast theology of the Jesus Prayer, particularly as it is found in the writings of Theoleptos of Philadelpheia. Finally, in composing the Capita 150 Palamas drew extensively on his earlier writings and even incorporated an entire work, namely, the Reply On Cyril. The critical edition of the text is based on a detailed study of all the available manuscripts and represents a great improvement over the text of the Philokalia. A translation is offered both as an aid for the understanding and interpretation of the Greek text and also for the benefit of the general reader with an interest in Eastern Christian theology. Preface Until recently the Capita 150 was one of the few readily available published sources for the theology of Gregory Palamas. There were indeed other texts published in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but their circulation had been limited and many of these books have become now very rare. 1 Jacques Paul Migne made the text of the Capita 150 widely available for the first time when he included the Philokalia edition of it in his Patrologia graeca. 2 Martin Jugie gave the work further notoriety by using it as one of the principal sources for his analysis of Palamite theology. 3 Jugie was an eminently learned scholar and Roman Catholic theologian who did much to make Eastern Christian theology better known in the West. Although he made extensive soundings in the manuscript sources and had some familiarity with the unpublished works of Palamas, Jugie saw his frequent recourse to the Capita 150 as justified by the fact that this was a work, «in quo totius suae doctrinae philosophicae, theologicae ac asceticae summam auctor conclusit.» 4 Because of his considerable stature as a scholar and as a theologian, Jugie " s opinions and judgements on Palamite theology have had a lasting influence on Roman Catholic attitudes even to this day. 5 |
| St. Gregory said that the Holy Fathers and the prophets had a greater knowledge of God, because they had actually seen or heard God Himself. He taught that modern ideas about human thought and reason had no place in the Church. When asked how it is possible to have knowledge of the unknowable God, he showed the difference between knowing God in His essence or person and knowing God in his energies or being. It became clear that one could not find God in the logic of this world. He taught the Orthodox knowledge that it remains impossible to know God in His essence or person. However, with sufficient prayer and fasting and turning oneself over to God, through purification of one " s soul, anyone can come to know Him in His energies and being. The Barlaam heresies spanned many years and two phases. Due to acts of political power struggles in Constantinople, Gregory was imprisoned to prevent him from speaking the Truth. As the political struggle increased, his accusers multiplied because he would not yield to their heresies, and he opposed the new emperor due to the emperor " s acceptance of the heresies. When St. Gregory criticized Barlaam " s rationalism, Barlaam replied with a vicious attack on the hesychastic life of the Athonite monks. Gregory " s rebuttal was the Triads in defense of the Holy Hesychasts (c. 1338), a brilliant work whose teaching was affirmed by his fellow Hagiorites, who met together in a council during 1340-1341, issuing a statement known as the Hagioritic Tome, which supported Gregory " s theology. A synod held in Constantinople in 1341 also supported St. Gregory " s views, condemning Barlaam. Later, in 1344, the opponents of hesychasm secured a condemnation for heresy and excommunication for Gregory, but the saint " s theology was reaffirmed at two further synods held in Constantinople in 1347 and 1351. Collectively, these three synods in Constantinople are held by many Orthodox Christians and several prominent theologians to constitute the Ninth Ecumenical Council. Between the latter two synods, Gregory composed the One Hundred and Fifty Chapters, a concise exposition of his theology. |
| 214 If then the soul is universal, why is the heaven alone moved by the nature of this soul but not by its own nature? But how is the soul not rational which according to them moves the celestial body, if indeed the same soul according to them is the source of our souls? But if it were not rational, it would be sensible or vegetative. But we see no soul of any kind moving a body without organs and we see no member serving as an organ, either for the earth, or for the heavens, or for any other of the elements in them, since any organ is composed of different natures, but each of the elements and also the heaven especially consists of a simple nature. 215 «The soul then is the actuality of a body possessed of organs and having the potentiality for life.» 216 But since the heaven has no member or part to serve as an organ, it has no potentiality for life. How then could that which is incapable of life ever possess a soul? «But those who became foolish in their reasonings» have fashioned «out of their senseless hearts» 217 a soul which neither exists, has existed, or will exist. And this they proclaim the Creator, the guide and the controller of the entire sensible world, and of our souls, or rather, all souls, like some sort of root and source which has its generation from mind. And that so-called mind they say is other in substance than the highest one whom they call God. 218 The most advanced in wisdom and theology among them teach doctrines such as these. They are no better than those who deify beasts and stones; rather they are much worse in their cult, for beasts and gold and stone and bronze are real, though they are among the least of creatures, but the star-bearing World Soul neither exists nor possesses reality, for it is nothing at all but the invention of an evil mind. 219 4. Since, they say, the celestial body must be in motion but there is no further place to which it might proceed, it turns back upon itself and its advance is a revolving motion. 220 Well enough, Then, if there were a place, it would be borne upwards just as fire is and even more so than fire itself, since it is naturally still lighter than fire. |
| The Capita 150 of Gregory Palamas is found on fols. 35v–41r. This work is followed on fols. 41v–46v by another work by Palamas, Triad 1.2–3, ed. J. Meyendorff, Défense, pp. 71–223. As Fr. Meyendorff decided not to collate the entire text of Paris gr. 2381 in his edition, he failed to note that Triad 1.3 in this manuscript carries the florilegium missing from all other known manuscripts of the Triads. Cf. Meyendorff, Défense, pp. xlix and 222 n. 5. The moral and theological interests of the scholar-owner of the codex are represented elsewhere in the manuscript: Pseudo-Aristotle, De virtutibus et vitiis (fol. 99r–v), ed. F. Susemihl, Aristoteles, Ethica Eudemia (Leipzig, 1884; repr. Amsterdam, 1967), pp. 181–194; several unidentified theological texts on fols. 108v-109v; there are also theological scholia on several of the Capita 150 of Palamas and in one instance there is a series of invocations addressed to the Mother of God (fol. 39v, mg. inf.). Unfortunately, water damage, faded ink and the tight binding of the codex make these scholia almost impossible to decipher in their entirety. Beyond the fact that they indicate that the owner of the codex had Palamite theological interests, these scholia are not especially significant in themselves. The following examples give some idea of their general tenor. My transcription is tentative at best. Scholion on c. 108 (fol. 39r, mg. inf., partial transcription): ς γρ μετχων φωτς ατς τε φωτεινς και τος ρσιν τοιοτος ρται και μ μνον ς τοσοτον, λλ και ντιλμπει προσελαγγζον () κ τς διαυγεας το κατ μθεξιν νντας ατ φωτς. οτος λγος πατρικος συζν λοσχερς. «For he who participates in light is himself luminous and appears as such to those who can see, not only to this extent, but he also reflects the flash of brilliance of the light inhering in him by participation. This statement is in complete accord with the sayings of the Fathers.» Scholion on c. 109 (fol. 39v, mg. ext., complete): ς τ πρ λλο και ατο πστασις λλη, οτως ρα και θεα οσα λλη πως και λλαι α ποστσεις μακριαι γνονται, ν ας μα οσα ατ τις και θετης, μλλον δ μα στν ατη και οκ λλη. |
| That from creatures we acquire an understanding not of the divine substance but of the divine energies; and Akindynos, in denying this and in thinking creatures arc coeternal with God, is under the same charge as the Hellenes and Eunomius. 15 In one sense the first 63 chapters of the Capita 150 have much the same intention as the opening section of the first Triad, namely to demonstrate the superiority of spiritual gnosis and to point out the error arising from an exclusive reliance on natural science for attaining certain knowledge either about God or even about creation. However, in the Capita 150 the treatment of certain areas of Hellenic learning is much more specific and detailed. The fourteenth century witnessed a revival of several areas of study among which were Platonism, astronomy and natural philosophy. Palamas may well have been concerned with the dangers and temptations which this revival posed for the Christian and so wrote a kind of mini-treatise Περ Κσμου (c. 1–14). According to the long established definition of the word, «Cosmos means a system composed of heaven and earth and the natures contained in them.» 16 The schema has, of course, its parallel in the Judaeo-Christian worldview described in the Hexaemeron where God is said to have created heaven and earth and all that is in them. About 1315 Nikephoros Choumnos had written his Refutation of Plotinus On the Soul. 17 Unfortunately, the reasons and circumstances of its composition are not known. Sometime before 1335 Nikephoros Gregoras wrote a commentary on the De insomniis of Synesius of Cyrene, a late fourth to early fifth century pagan convert to Christianity. 18 The commentary demonstrates Gregoras’ familiarity with some of the mure arcane interests of the Neoplatonists, and in particular, the Chaldean Oracles. Gregoras derived much of his material from Michael Psellos, the great Neoplatonist antiquarian of the eleventh century. 19 In fact, the writings of Psellos must have enjoyed considerable popularity in the time of Gregoras, since over one hundred manuscripts of his works date from the late thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries. 20 Even Proclus himself was read with some frequency in this period. 21 |
| Reply on Basil (fols. 241vb-244ra) Capita 150 (fols. 244rb-294va) Hagioretic Tome (fols. 296va-302rb) 13. Synodal Tome 1341 (fols. 302va-?) 14. Unidentified text (fols. ?–378) 174 G=Mount Athos, Μον τν βρων 386 (Athon. 4506). 175 Sixteenth century, paper, 274 folios. The text was transcribed by one copyist throughout except for 2 folios in a later hand between 125 and 127. Throughout the manuscript there are frequent marginal quotations, also in a later hand, set out to signal the subjects under discussion. The Palamite documents in the manuscript appear in the following order: Apodictic Treatises 1–2 (fols. 7r-31v) Against Bekkos (fols. 68v-74v) Capita 150 (fols. 74v-117r) Hagioretic Tome (fols. 117v- 121r) Synodal Tome 1341 (fols. 121v-132v) Ep 1 Akindynos (fols. 135r-145r: note separation from preceding texts) Ep 2 Akindynos (fols. 145v-149r) Ep 1 Barlaam (fols. 149r-169v) 9. Phakrases, Dialogue (fols. 208r-219r: note separation) 10. Ep 2 Barlaam (fols. 219v-243v) The manuscript bears also two works by George Gennadios Scholarios, Against Gemistes Plethon (fols. 193v-l96r) and On the Difference between Venial and Mortal Sins (fols. 196v-198r), ed, L. Petit, X A. Siderides, M. Jugie, Œuvres complètes de Georges Scholarios, 8 vols. (Paris, 1928–1936) 4:155–172 and 4:274–284 respectively; selections from the works of Maximus the Confessor and his pseudonym(s) (fols. 169v-174r, 198v-199r, 200r-201r, 244r-274r); anon,. Capita geographica et alia (fols. 132v-134v); gnomic texts (fols. 174v- 193r). Brief and miscellaneous theological texts without apparent significance occupy the remainder of the manuscript. A table of contents is found on fols. 3v-5v but this bears little relation to the actual contents of the codex. Five Palamite documents are listed: Apodictic Treatises 1–2, Capita 150, Hagioretic Tome; John Cantacuzene, Antirrhetics Against Prochoros Kydones; George Gennadios Scholarios, Reply to John of Trebizond On a Quotation from Theodore Graptos used by the Akindynists and also On their Opinions regarding the Holy Spirit (Œuvres 3:204–288). The remaining works in the list are mostly anti-Latin treatises by Scholarios (2:269–87, 3:1–21), Matthew Monotropos, Manuel the Great Rhetor of St. Sophia (Refutation of Friar Francescus, O.P., of Old Rome), Andronikos Doukas Sgouros, and Niketas of Byzantium. |
| The first section can be read at several different levels. On the first level, it constitutes a general introduction to the work as a whole, placing the later, more detailed questions, within the wider context of the divine economy of creation and salvation. Starting with the temporal origin of the universe, Palamas treated in turn the material and rational cosmos, discussed their relation to the Creator, and then produced a lengthy exposition of the Fall, its consequences and the process of salvation. Palamas may well have been concerned that the debate about the relation between God " s substance and his energies had become too divorced from the rest of theology and from soteriology in particular. On another, but closely related level, the first section deals with the question of knowledge and the distinction between natural science and theological science. The first twenty chapters cover what can be learned about the world and God through man " s own natural powers. Chapters 21 to 63 discuss those truths «about God, about the world, about our own selves» 11 which can be known with certainty only through the teaching of the Spirit. The problem of knowledge had been an important one in the period prior to 1341 when Barlaam had raised certain questions about the nature of man " s knowledge of God. 12 Although Barlaam had long departed from the scene by the time the Capita 150 was written, Palamas still had in mind the dangers posed by the Calabrian " s views and their place at the origin of the debate on the divine substance and the energies. There is one further level where Palamas, in certain chapters at least, envisaged a number of particular problems or problematic tendencies which he felt compelled to address. 13 The first fourteen chapters are devoted to the question of whether the world had a beginning, and to an examination of the two great spheres of the heaven and the earth. Behind this there are clearly detectable a number of the τποι of the traditional Christian polemic against profane or Hellenic learning. The eternity of the world and the existence of a World Soul are two such τποι and they appear not only here but also in a longer list of Hellenic errors in Palamas» first Triad. 14 The implication is not that Barlaam or Akindynos explicitly professed such doctrines; rather, Palamas believed that an inordinate pursuit of secular learning would inevitably lead to these or similar heretical errors. Or alternatively, an unorthodox theological position might have the same result. Thus in the Contra Acindynum Palamas demonstrated how Gregory Akindynos had fallen unwittingly into the Hellene error of an eternal cosmos: |
|
|
