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
