Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/345

 HESYCHASM

301

HESYCHASM

Hesychasm (Gr., ijiri'xos, quiet). — The story of the system of mysticism defended by the monks of Athos in the fourteenth century forms one of the most curi- ous chapters in the history of the Byzantine Church. In itself an oliscure speculation, with the wildest form of mystic extravagance as a result, it became the watchword of a political party, and incidentally in- volved again the everlasting controversy with Rome. It is the only great mystic movement in the Orthodox Church. Ehrhard describes it rightly as "a reaction of national Greek theology against the invasion of Western .scholasticism" (Krumbacher, Byzant. Litt., p. 43). The clearest way of describing the movement will be to explain first the point at issue and then its history.

I. The Hesychast System. — Hesychasts (^<ruxo<rT^s — quietist) were people, nearly all monks, who de- fended the theory that it is possible by an elaborate system of asceticism, detachment from earthly cares, submission to an approved master, prayer, especially perfect repose of body and will, to see a mystic light, which is none other than the uncreated light of God. The contemplation of this light is the highest end of man on earth ; in this way is a man most intimately united with God. The light seen by Hesychasts is the same as appeared at Christ's Transfiguration. This was no mere created phenomenon, but the eternal light of God Himself. It is not the Divine essence; no man can see God face to face in this world (John, i, 18), but it is the Divine action or operation. For in God action (ivipyeia, actus, operatio) is really distinct from essence (oiirla). There was a regular process for see- ing the uncreated light; the body was to be held im- movable for a long time, the chin pressed against the breast, the breath held, the eyes turned in, and so on. Then indue time the monk began to see the wonderful light. The likeness of this process of auto-suggestion to that of fakirs, Sunnyasis, and such people all over the East is obvious.

Hesychasm then contains two elements, the belief that quietist contemplation is the highest occupation for men, and the assertion of real distinction between the divine essence and the divine operation. Both points had been prepared by Greek theologians many centuries before. Although there was comparatively little mysticism in the Byzantine Church, many Greek Fathers and theologians had maintained that knowl- edge of God can be obtained by purity of soul and prayer better than by study. The quotations made by Hesychasts at the councils (see below) supply many such texts. Clement of Alexandria was most often invoked for this axiom. Pseudo-Dionysius seems to have brought the statement a step nearer to Hesychasm. He describes a medium in which God may be contemplated ; this medium is a mystic light that is itself half darkness. But it was Simeon, "the new theologian" (c. 1025-c. 1092; see Krum- bacher, op. cit., 152-154), a monk of Studion, the "greatest mystic of the Greek Church" (loc. cit.), who evolved the quietist theory so elaborately that he may be called the father of Hesychasm. For the union with God in contemplation (which is the highest object of our life) he required a regular system of spiritual education beginning with baptism and pass- ing through regulated exercises of penance and ascet- icism under the guidance of a director. But he had not conceived the grossly magic practices of the later Hesychasts; his ideal is .still enormously more philo- sophical than theirs. There seems also to have been a strong element of the pantheism that so often accom- panies mysticism in the fully developed Hesychast system. By contemplating the uncreated light one became united with God so intimately that one be- came absorbed in Him. This suspicion of pantheism (never very remote from neo-Platonic theories) is constantly insisted on by the opponents of the system.

The other element of fourteenth-century Hesy-

chasm was the famous real distinction between essence and attributes (specifically one attribute — energy) in God. This theory, fundamentally opposed to the whole conception of God in the Western Scholastic system, had also been prepared by Eastern Fathers and theologians. Remotely it may be traced back to neo-Platonism. The Platonists had conceived God as something in every way unapproachable, remote from all categories of being known to us. God Himself could not even touch or act upon matter. Divine action was carried into effect by demiurges, interme- diaries between God and creatures. The Greek Fathers (after Clement of Alexandria mostly Platon- ists) had a tendency in the same way to distinguish between God's unapproachable essence and His action, energy, operation on creatures. God Himself tran- scends all things. He is absolute, unknown, infinite above everything; no eye can see, no mind conceive Him. What we can know and attain is His action. The foundation of a real distinction between the un- approachable essence (oiicrla) and the approachable energy (iv^pyaa) is thus laid. For this system, too, the quotations made by Hesychasts from Athana- sius, Basil, Gregory, especially from Pseudo-Dionysius, supply enough examples. The Hesychasts were fond of illustrating their distinction between God's essence and energy (light) by comparing them to the sun, whose rays are really distinct from its globe, although there is only one sun. It is to be noted that the philo- sophic opponents of Hesychasm always borrow their weapons from St. Thomas Aquinas and the Western Schoolmen. They argue, quite in terms of Latin Aristotelean philosophy, that God is simple; except for the Trinity there can be no distinctions in an actui purus. This distinct energy, uncreated light that is not the essence of God, would be a kind of demiurge, something neither God nor creature; or there would be two Gods, an essence and an energy. From one point of view, then, the Hesychast controversy may be conceived as an issue between Greek Platonist philos- ophy and Latin rationalist Aristoteleanism. It is significant that the Hesychasts were all vehemently Byzantine and bitter opponents of the West, while their opponents were all latinizers, eager for reunion. II. History of the Controversy'. — The leaders of either side were Palamas the Hesychast and Barlaam, from whom the other side is often called that of the Barlaamites. Gregory Palamas (d. about 1360; Krumbacher, op. cit., 103-105) was a monk at Athos, then from 1349 Bishop of Thessalonica. He wrote no less than sixty works in defence of Hesychasm, one especially against the Scholastic identification of God's essence and attributes. He found fifty heresies in his opponents. He was also vehemently anti-Latin, wrote a refutation of John Beccus's latinizing work, and did his duty by Orthodoxy in supplying the usual treatise against the double procession of the Holy Ghost. Naturally his opponents call him a ditheist, while he considers them Arians, Sabellians, and Epi- cureans. Barlaam (Krumbacher, op. cit., 100), his chief adversary, was a monk from Calabria who came to Constantinople in the reign of Andronicus III (1328-1341). At first he opposed the Latins, but eventually he wrote in defence of reunion, of the Filioque, and the papal primacy. In 1348 he left Constantinople and became Bishop of Gerace in Cala- bria. The date of his death is unknown. It was from this Barlaam that Petrarch learned Greek. Gregory Akindynos, a friend and contemporary of Barlaam, also a monk, wTote a work against the Hesychasts "Ucpl oiala^ Kal ivepydas," in six books, of which the first two are nothing but translations from St. Thomas's "Summa contra Gentes". Nicephonis Gre- goras (ib., 101, 29.3-298), the historian (d. after 1,359), was also one of the chief opponents of Hesychasm. He came to the emperor's court as a young man, was edu- cated by the most famous scholars of that time the