|Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries||Essays about Orthodoxy|
The Importance of Hesychasm in the
history of the Roman nation
By protopresbyter George Metallinos
I am compelled to limit myself to only a few general notes, which are indicative of Hesychasm’s unabashed fusion with Romanity (otherwise referred to as Orthodoxy).
Hesychasm* comprises the quintessence of Roman (=Orthodox) tradition, having related itself to everything that the term “Orthodoxy” embodies and expresses. Orthodoxy outside the Hesychastic tradition is unthinkable and nonexistent. Besides, Hesychasm itself is the “philosopher’s stone” by which one can recognize the genuine Christian image. In the Orthodox tradition, the “divine charismas” are acquired through fasting, vigils and prayer. And it should be clarified, that Hesychasm is understood first of all as the course towards theosis and the experience of theosis, and only secondly, as a (theological) recording of this method of experience. In Christianity –the authentic Christian mentality- we know that textual recordings are basically pursuant to practice and that they comprise descriptions of that practice; they do not however comprise a substitute. Saint Gregory Palamas’ “successors” are not located in academic theology; they can only be found in the continuance of his ascetic lifestyle.
«Hesychasm, as an ascetic therapeutic treatment, was at the core of Orthodoxy, even from the time of the Apostles (1), and it prevailed throughout the entire Roman kingdom, in the East and in the West.» (2). This was the responsible verification of one of the most reliable researchers of Hesychasm and of Saint Gregory Palamas, i.e., father John Romanides. In the framework of a tradition that was spiritually uplifted by Hesychasm, it is easy to understand and to interpret the national, social and (even) political history of Romanity (3). It is precisely within this framework that one can also properly evaluate the contribution of Saint Gregory Palamas. “Being a continuation of the ancient Fathers”, of the united and indivisible patristic tradition, he “expressed –according to the venerable Geron, father Theocletos Dionysiatis- the eternal spirit of the Orthodox Church, by reviving its experiences, its practices, its teachings and its promises.»(4). He contributed decisively in this way, towards the preservation of the Church’s overall identity (5).
It is –of course- a fact, that the consequences of the various ideological disputes of the 14th century, both spiritual and social, had visibly weakened the [Eastern Roman] Empire, which was already reduced in size from the 13th century, leaving it unshielded from the expansionist dispositions of its neighbors, and mainly the Ottomans. In 1354, the Ottoman Turks seized Callipolis, planting themselves firmly on its European side. The Empire was heading towards a predetermined decline, and it did gradually end up a pitiful relic of its former self (6).
However, while the frequent civil uprisings, the social dissents and the enemy assaults were progressively weakening the Empire, the spiritual powers of the Nation, being perpetually re-baptized in the Hesychast patristic tradition, averted the danger of Romanity (“Byzantium”, see: www.romanity.org ) being transformed into a Frankish protectorate, at the same time preserving the inexhaustible fountain of mental prowess, stalwartness and spiritual vigor, throughout the prolonged period of slavery. And yet, after the Latin (1204) and the Ottoman (1453) sieges, the thing affected most of all was only the political aspect of the Nation, not its spirituality. The absolute center of Romanity continued to be those who had attained theosis; they were the ones who could attain theosis «at any point in history, in any situation, whether social or political»(7).
The Saints of the period of slavery, and all the sacred relics like those of Saints Gerasimos and Dionysios -especially in the Venetian-occupied regions- are the most powerful reassurances, even according to Eugene Bulgaris (8), that the spiritual acme of the Nation was not extinguished during its enslavement, nor did anyone succeed in alienating it; not even in those territories that were strongly inclined in this direction, as were the Latin-occupied ones. Hesychast spirituality, with the Holy Mountain (9) at its center, permeated the collective conscience of the Nation, and it deposited here and there the wholesome fruits of its presence, its efficacy and its power. «The Hesychast patristic tradition remained [...] the most powerful force of the Nation»(10). «The Hesychast Fathers –according to the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos- were Romans who […] with their efforts preserved the essence of Romanity. The anti-hesychasts were strangers to Romanity» (11). I fully agree with him, when he asserts that «the Hesychast discourse (he meant during the 14th century) and the victory of the Orthodox Tradition were blessings from God, for the oncoming enslavement of our Nation […]. That Hesychast way of life was what had sustained the Nation, by preserving it with an ethnic and orthodox conscience, and it had also brought forth the martyrs (12) and the confessors of the faith; furthermore, it was that same Hesychast way of life, which had created the organized communities and associations; it preserved the inner freedom of the soul, and it gave rise to the 1821 Revolution. As verified by researchers, we know that all the heroes of the Revolution were shaped by this Orthodox Roman tradition and were not in the least driven by Western Illuminism. In the tradition of our Nation, we had our own Enlightenment –the illumination of the Intellect (called “nous”, the `eye of the spiritual heart') – as declared and described by Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, by General Makryiannis (one of the “founding fathers” of the modern Greek state, at 1821) and others.»(13).
We have allowed the voice of the learned Hierarch to be heard, and not a professional historian’s, who nevertheless unreservedly agrees with these observations. Hesychasm, as the existential form of Orthodoxy, shaped the conscience of the Nation and its ideology, which were both realized creatively, throughout its historical duration.
The Nation survived, thanks to the preservation of the patristic therapeutic method, which, having being preserved in its fullness in the person of the Saints, drew constantly from the collective conscience of the broader basis of the laity, through its collectively accepted (albeit sometimes inadequate) practices. The centrifugal trends continued of course, and were located mainly in the realm of intellect that was influenced by the West (14). This trend has been contributing towards the gradual estrangement from the Orthodox Tradition, a phenomenon that is reaching its climax in our day (15), with a steadily widening gap, between Patricity and the boom in anti-Patricity that is observed in the entire spectrum of daily life (for example, the western perception of a “dual” spirituality : monastic and secular).
But it was the persistence in Hesychast tradition that also defined the stances opposite the Christian –but no longer Orthodox– West, as well as opposite ancient Hellenism, or, more specifically, opposite the unsettling phenomena observed in the monistic turn towards antiquity, in the guise of worship of the ancient Greek ideals. By comparing eastern tradition with the western one, it became apparent that the West not only was no longer unanimous with the East, but it had actually become a threat to the very historical existence of the East.
In the 14th century, the first in-depth confrontation between East and West took place, in the field of ecclesiastic-theological tradition. For the first time, the opportunity presented itself in the East, to document the radical differentiation and the lack of coincidence between East and West, in the person of an authentic “western” theologian –a bearer of Augustinian theological tradition and method (16).
It became evident that in the West, another kind of Christianity had formed, hypostatized as a civilization at the antipodes of the Roman East. The mentality embraced by Barlaam later reached its apex with the English historian, Gibbon (1737-1794), who expressed in a classical manner the West’s perception of the Roman East, and who, together with the rationalist ecclesiastic historian Mosheim (18th century)(17), prepared Adamantios Korais (: one of the “founding fathers” of the modern Greek state, at 1821 ) accordingly, as the patriarch of “Westernizers”.
The inner light of the Hesychasts was, in Gibbon’s opinion, “the product of a capriciousness that is in bad taste; it is the product of an empty stomach and a vacant brain”. To him, Hesychasm was the culmination of “the religious nonsense of the Greeks”(18). These prejudices, embedded in the European collective conscience through their education, have from that time onwards been shaping the Western stance towards the Orthodox East -and especially towards Hellenism- even up to this day. Consequently, the “astonishment” over the stance of western Leaderships towards Greece and the Balkan countries in general is –among other things- a display of their ignorance of history.
On the other hand, the “Hellenicity” that was embodied in the scholastics of “Byzantium”(=Romanity) such as Nikeforos Gregoras who proclaimed unreservedly that he was a “Hellene”, diametrically differentiated itself from the “Hellenicity” which had been assimilated by the Patristic lifestyle and comprised the natural continuation of Hellenic antiquity, except that it was only the Patristic synthesis of “Hellenicity”-Christianity that led to the cultural reality of Romanity (19).
Hesychasm however had also played an important, unifying role during the culturally disturbed and disintegrated (due to their adventures) Balkans; The Hesychasts moved freely throughout the Orthodox East, from land to land, transcending whichever ethnic differences.
Mention was made by a major theologian, Fr. Halkin, of an “Hesychasm International”; nowadays, when one makes mention of an “Orthodox arc” in the sense of a rampart against Islam, one should not omit to keep Hesychast spirituality in mind, which is the only element that can ensure a genuine unity within the boundaries of the supra-national and hyper-racial Roman unanimity. Our inter-Balkan unity is founded in just that Hesychast tradition. (19a).
The unity of our Nation, in its Balkan diffraction, has been threatened, but it had also been broken up at times, by the party of anti-hesychasts, called “Latin-Hellenes” (according to Saint Gregory Palamas) and “Graeco-Latins” (according to Saint Mark of Ephesus), who had aligned themselves with Franko-Latin metaphysics and had continued the spiritual dualism of the “Byzantine” (: Eastern Roman) intellect that was embodied programmatically by Psellos and Italos. To the “Westernizing” anti-hesychasts, the fact that the East had no scholastic theology was looked upon as a form of decadence, so they made sure that it was introduced into the life and the education of our Nation.
The abandoning of Hesychasm, and the turn towards metaphysical theologizing gradually altered the identity of the Nation, which, after the founding of the Hellenic State, may have been liberated from “Turkish”slavery, but was not freed of “Frankish” slavery. According to father Romanides, “with the expulsion of the Hesychasts from the Neo-Hellenic ideology, and with the prevalence of Koraism, catharsis was replaced by ethics, and enlightenment was replaced by catechesis. Thus, the Hesychast spiritual Fathers were replaced by moralizing organizers of catechist schools, who burdened the young with a system of morals that only a hypocrite can give the impression that it is being implemented. As a result, even the bios of the Saints ended up mostly as a kind of mythology»(20). Hesychasm was displaced by metaphysical pondering and dogmatism in the field of theologizing, but also by pietism, in place of lay religiousness. Thus, monasteries began to lose their true therapeutic calling, now being substituted by secular missionary formations and an attempt to further transform them, into activity centers destined for public benefit services.
The publishing of the works of Saint Gregory Palamas under the supervision of a memorable professor, the late Mr. Panagiotis Christou, but also the profoundly traditional approach towards Hesychasm by monks of the Holy Mountain (such as the reverend father Theocletos Dionysiates) as well as by theologians (with father John Romanides at the lead), all contributed towards the re-discovery of the Hesychast tradition; in other words, our patristic foundations.
«Today, more than ever before, we are coming to realize the true worth of the Roman-Hesychast tradition»(21). Contemporary man is seeking to be cured of his psychological and existential problems. The presence however of an “ideologicalized” or “religionized” Orthodoxy rather complicates these problems instead of solving them, thus rendering Orthodoxy a seemingly repulsive and useless thing. The reverend Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and myself saw this for ourselves recently, in the United States. Our Hesychast tradition however, can most assuredly cure “the core of man’s existence”(22).
In conclusion therefore, and in concurrence with the reverend Metropolitan of Nafpaktos: «Hesychasm, as expressed by Saint Gregory Palamas and preserved by the Orthodox Church as “the apple of Her eye”, is truly the life of the contemporary world.»(23) and the only means of salvation, or in other words, theosis.
* Hesychasm: A lifestyle whereby a person withdraws away from secular distractions, to a “quiet” (Greek: hesychos) and mostly isolated place, in order to live in a truer Christian manner.
1. Fr. J. Romanides, “Ecclesiastic Synods and Civilization”, Theology vol.66 (1995) p.646-680 [in English, vol.63 (1992) p.421-450]. By the same author, “Religion is a neuro-biological sickness, while Orthodoxy is its cure”, in the volume “Orthodoxy and Hellenism”, Holy Monastery of Koutloumousion publications, Vol.Â, p.67-68.
2. Fr. J. Romanides, “Roman or roman Fathers of the Church”. Gregory Palamas, Works, 1: For those pursuing sacred Hesychasm, Trias Á’. Thessaloniki 1984, p12
3. The sam as above, p. 32
4. Blooms of Athos, vol.1 (1962) p. 79 (=The Orthodox Church and Sain Gregory Palamas).
5. Fr. G. Metallinos, “Orthodox and European civilization: mutually supplementary, or mutually eliminating magnitudes?” -Athens 1996.
6. Notes by Fr. G. Metallinos, “Hellenismos Machomenos” (Hellenism Combatting) ,0thens 1995 (here: p. 13-40: Hesychasts and Zealots. Spiritual acme and social crisis in the Byzantine 14th century).
7. Fr.J.Romanides, “Roman or roman Fathers of the Church”…, p. 32
8. From the Epistle of Eugene Bulgaris to Peter Claircion, On the post-Schism Saints of the Orthodox Eastern Church, and the miracles recorded in it, Athens 1844
9. Archmandrite Hierotheos S. Vlachos (Metropolitan of Nafpaktos), Saint Gregory Palamas as a Holy Mountain monk, Levadia, 1992. Also according to fr. J. Romanides (“Roman or roman Fathers of the Church”, p. 31) : «The therapeutic course of enlightenment and theosis was moved from the secular Diocese, where it had weakened, into the Monastic Diocese […]. Monkhood became a kind of medical school, where the candidate bishops studied apostolic therapeutics. At the same time,the mission of every secular diocese was to emulate the monastic diocese as best they could».
10. Fr. J. Romanides, “Roman or roman Fathers of the Church”, p. 80.
11. As above, p. 242.
12. «The neo-Martyrs during the Turkish occupation repeatedly proved that this power (of enlightenment) of the praying Holy Spirit inside the heart of the faithful was far greater than the worst torture that the Turks could ever contrive» (Fr. J. Romanides, “Roman or roman Fathers of the Church”, p. 26).
13. As above, p. 244-45.
14. Especially since the appearance of Hellenic Enlightenment.
15. This was already discerned by fr. Theocletos Dionysiatis (as before, p. 77) : «Admittedly, the course of our theology today is far from Orthodox, both in the application of Orthodox prerequisites, as well as the constant reminiscing of Divine Grace and man’s exhausting all his potential for its sake, until he has reached that theosis, which comprises the promised and mandatory good».
16. Fr. J. Romanides clearly highlighted the source of Barlaam’s teaching, i.e. the blessed Augustine (see “Roman or roman Fathers of the Church” as above, p. 111e), The results of his extensive research are published on the internet nowadays. In this specific area, the question is posed: What possibility of dialogue can there be, when the West continues to insist on «gratia creata»?
17. Johann Lorenz Mosheim (1694-1755), creator of the so-called “factual” history. [RGG 4(1960), 1157/8 (Ě. Schmidt and LTK 7(1962) 656/7 P. Meinhold).
18. Fr. G. Metallinos, “Hellenism Combatting”, as above, p. 23.
19. Fr. G. Metallinos, “Orthodoxy and Hellenicity. Athens 1992, p. 13. It must be stated that the representatives of the ancient-worshipping trends of our time –as I have come to know from the public dialogues with them- “accept” Barlaam as the representative of a supposed “Hellenizing” tradition, while they reject Palamas as an anti-Hellene (echoing the position of the late fr. J. Meierdorf) , regardless –of course- of either one’s theology which they naturally reject.
19á. It is precisely for the sake of Orthodox unity that it is necessary for the church of Russia to rescind the anathematizing of Hesychasm in the person of Saint Maximus of the Holy Mountain (or the Greek), even though his sainthood had been ecclesiastically proclaimed (in 1988), and to also rescind the lifting of the anathema against Barlaam, which was effected during the reign of Katherine II..
20. Fr. J. Romanides, “Roman or roman Fathers of the Church”, p. 25
21. Achmandrite Hierotheos Vlachos, “Saint Gregory Palamas”, p. 245.
22. The same.
23. The same.
Arweihler-Glykatzi, Helen, The political ideology of the Byzantine Empire (transl. T.Drakopoulos),Athens 1977.
Beck, H-G. Humanismus und Palamismus. Xlle Congres International des Etudes Byzantines, 3 Belgrade 1961, p. 63-82.
Charanis P., Observations on the “Anti-Zealot” Discourse of Cabasilas. Revue des Etudes Sud-Est Europeenes. IX(1971), p. 369-76.
Charanis P., Internal Strife in Byzantium during the fourteenth century, Byzantion, XV(1940-41) p. 208-230.
Christou P., article «Zealots» in TH.H.E. 6 (1965). vs. 461-64.
Giannaras Chr., Orthodoxy and the West in Latter-day Hellas, Athens 1992.
Guilland R., Essai sur Nicephore Gregoras. L’ home et l’ oeuvre. Paris 1926.
Hrochava (V), La revolte des Zelotes a Salonique et les communes italiennes.
Byzantinoslavica 22 (1961) 1-15. History of the Hellenic Nation (Ekdotiki Athinon publishers) Č (1980), p. 152 also., 375 also (Angel.. Laios and M.Anastos).
Jugie M., “Palamas Gregoire” and “Palamite Controverse” , in the Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, XI (Paris, 1932), p. 1735-1818.
Kordatos G., The last years of the Byzantine Empire, Athens 1931.
Kordatos G., The commune of Thessaloniki, 1928.
Mantzarides G., Palamika, Thessaloniki 1983.
Mantzarides G. Participation in God, Thessaloniki 1979. Orthodox spiritual life, Thessaloniki 1993.
Meyedorff J. Introduction a l’ Etude de Gregoire Palamas. Paris 1959.
Meyedorff J, Byzanine Hesychasm, Historical, Theological and Social problems, London 1974.
Meyedorff J, Gregory Palamas and orthodox spirituality, N. York 1974.
Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, Advisory Handook, Volos 1969.
Nicol D.M., Church and Society in the last centuries of Byzantium. Cambridge 1979.
Nicol D.M., The last centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453, London 1972.
University of Cambridge, The history of the Byzantine Empireň, «Melissa» publications, vol.Á, 1966. Papadopoulos St., The meeting of orthodox and Scholastic Theology, Thessaloniki, 1970.
Feidas Vl.. Ecclesiastic History. Vol.. Â, Athens 1970.
Feidas Vl. The Byzantine Theocracy, Athens 1982.
Fr. Romanides J., Romanity-Romany-Rumeli, Tessaloniki 1981.
Fr. Romanides J., Franks, Romans, Feudalism and doctrine. An Interplay between Theology and Sosiety, 1981.
Fr. Romanides J., Roman or roman Fathers, Vol. É. Thessaloniki 1984.
Sevcenko I., Nicolas Cabasilas “Anti-Zealot” Discourse: A Reinterpretation, D.O.P. 11(1957) 79-171.
Sevcenko I., Alexios Makrembolites and his “Dialogue” between the Rich and the Poor,
Zbornik, Radova 6 (1960) 187-228.
Setton, Kenneth M. (transl. P.P.Panagiotou). The Byzantine setting of the Italian Renaissance. Athens 1989.
Sotiropoulos Ch., Theological Themes of the 14th century. Athens 1987.
Tafrali, O., Thessalonique au XIVe siecle, Paris 1913.
Vassiliev A.A., Éóôďńßá ôçň ÂőćáíôéíŢň Áőôďęńáôďńßáň. 324-1453 (ěĺôáöń. Ä. ÓáâńÜěç), ÁčŢíá 1954.
Vlachos, Fr. Hierotheos. Orthodox Psychotherapy, Edessa 1986.
Vlachos, Fr. Hierotheos. Saint Gregory Palamas as a monk of the Holy Mountain.
Vlachos, Fr. Hierotheos. Minor Eisodos, Athens 1992.
Weiss. G., Joannes Kantakuzenos – Aristocrat, Staatsmann, Kaiser and Monch – in der Geselischaftsent-wicklung von Byzanz im 14. Jahrhundert, Wiesbaden 1969.
Werner E., Gesellschaft und Kultur im XIV Jahrh, “Sozial Okonomischen Fragen”. Acts du XIVe Congres International des Etudes Byzantines. I. Bucarest 1974, 93-110.Zakynthinos D., Ideological conflicts in besieged Constantinople, Í. Estia 47 (1950) p.794-99.
Supervision: Thomas F. Dritsas
Translation by A.N.
Article published in English on: 22-2-2006.
Last update: 22-2-2006.