The hesychast controversy was a theological dispute in the Byzantine Empire during the 14th century between supporters and opponents of Gregory Palamas. While not a primary driver of the Byzantine Civil War of 1341, it influenced and was influenced by the political forces in play during that war. The dispute concluded with the victory of the Palamists and the inclusion of Palamite doctrine as part of the dogma of the Eastern Orthodox Church as well as the canonization of Palamas.
About the year 1337, hesychasm attracted the attention of a learned member of the Orthodox Church, Barlaam, a Calabrian monk who had come to Constantinople some seven years earlier. Reacting to criticisms of his theological writings that Gregory Palamas, an Athonite monk and exponent of hesychasm, had courteously communicated to him, Barlaam encountered hesychasts and heard descriptions of their practices. Trained in Western Scholastic theology, Barlaam was scandalized by the descriptions that he heard and wrote several treatises ridiculing the practices. Barlaam took exception to, as heretical and blasphemous, the doctrine entertained by the hesychasts as to the nature of the uncreated light, identical to that light which had been manifested to Jesus' disciples at the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, the experience of which was said to be the goal of hesychast practice. His informants said that this light was not of the divine essence but was contemplated as another hypostasis. Barlaam held the concept to be polytheistic, inasmuch as it postulated two eternal beings, a visible (immanent) and an invisible (transcendent) God. He accused hesychasm to be a variant of Bogomilism.
Gregory Palamas, afterwards Archbishop of Thessalonica, was asked by his fellow monks on Mt Athos to defend hesychasm from Barlaam's attacks. Well-educated in Greek philosophy (dialectical method) and thus able to defend hesychasm with methods in use also in the West, Palamas defended hesychasm in the 1340s at a series of synods in Constantinople, and wrote a number of works in its defense.
In 1341, the dispute came before a synod held at Constantinople, which, taking into account the regard in which the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius were held, condemned Barlaam, who recanted and almost immediately returned to Calabria, afterwards becoming bishop of a Byzantine Rite diocese in communion with the Pope. Five other synods on the subject were held, at the third of which the opponents of Palamas gained a brief victory. However, in 1351, at a synod under the presidency of Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos, Palamas' real Essence-Energies distinction was established as the doctrine of the Orthodox Church.
Gregory Akindynos, who had been a disciple of Gregory and had tried to mediate between him and Barlaam, became critical of Palamas after Barlaam's departure in 1341. Another opponent of Palamism was Manuel Kalekas who sought to reconcile the Eastern and Western Churches. After the decision of 1351, there was strong repression against anti-Palamist thinkers. Kalekas reports on the repression as late as 1397, and for theologians in disagreement with Palamas, there was ultimately no choice but to emigrate and convert to union with the Latin Church, a path taken by Kalekas as well as Demetrios Kydones and John Kyparissiotes.
Background Monasticism and hesychasm Hesychasm is a form of constant purposeful prayer or experiential prayer that, from at latest the 13th century, took the form of "a particular psychosomatic technique in combination with the Jesus Prayer".Kallistos Ware, Act out of Stillness: The Influence of Fourteenth-Century Hesychasm on Byzantine and Slav Civilization ed. Daniel J. Sahas (Toronto: The Hellenic Canadian Association of Constantinople and the Thessalonikean Society of Metro Toronto, 1995), pp. 4–7. Cf. Daniel Paul Payne, "The Revival of Political Hesychasm in Greek Orthodox Thought: A Study of the Hesychast Basis of the Thought of John S. Romanides and Christos Yannaras" , chapter 3. Even before the adoption of that technique, hesychasm, as "the practice of inner prayer, aiming at union with God on a level beyond images, concepts and language", with or without use of the Jesus Prayer can be traced back much earlier.
This form of contemplation by focusing the mind on God and praying to God unceasingly looks for its inspiration to the Bible, (the pure of heart will see God), and to the compilation Philokalia. The tradition of contemplation with inner silence or tranquility, having its roots in the Egyptian traditions of monasticism exemplified by such monastics as St Anthony of Egypt, is shared by Christian ascetics.
In the early 14th century, Gregory Sinaita learned from Arsenius of Crete the form of hesychasm that is "a particular psychosomatic technique in combination with the Jesus Prayer" and spread the doctrine, bringing it to the monks on Mount Athos. These stated that, at higher stages of their prayer practice, they reached actual contemplation-union with the Tabor Light, i.e., Uncreated Divine Light seen by the apostles in the event of the Transfiguration of Christ and by Saint Paul on the road to Damascus.
Dimensions of the conflict
Scholars such as Christopher Livanos and Martin Jugie have argued that there are many widely held generalizations and stereotypes that are only partly true and often only applicable to certain individuals and specific periods during the controversy.
Christopher Livanos debunks a number of stereotypes often held regarding Palamism. For example, Livanos takes aim at the West's criticism that the Orthodox are irrational and oppose the use of logic in theology. Livanos asserts that "considering Byzantine, rather than modern Orthodox, polemics it is quite rare for a Greek writer to criticize the Latins for using logic in theology." According to Livanos, "Palamas and Barlaam both claimed Aristotelian logic could support their arguments."
Martin Jugie suggests that many scholars have imprudently indulged in quick generalizations, panoramic overviews and systematic constructions when discussing the hesychast controversy. He lists the following conflicts which have been employed to characterize the controversy:
a struggle between two philosophical movements, baptized under the names of Aristotelianism and Platonism, or nominalism and realism; or about an opposition between two cultures, Latin culture represented by Barlaam and those who, after him, opposed Palamas, and Byzantine culture per se, represented by the Palamites; or about an antagonism between two ecclesiastical parties, the party of the monks and that of the secular clergy; or, finally, about a rivalry between opponents of union with the Latins and those who were called Latinophrones, i.e., those who had unionist tendencies.
Jugie asserts that none of these generalizations is completely true and yet none is completely false. As the various phases of the conflict and the various persons who were involved in it succeeded each other by turn, one or another of these perspectives predominated, though not to the complete exclusion of the others.
Knowledge of the nature of God
Andrew Louth writes that "[t]he controversy between St Gregory Palamas and Barlaam the Calabrian is now seen by some scholars as less a conflict between Western influences (represented by Barlaam) and authentic Orthodox spirituality, as a conflict within Greek Christianity about the true meaning of Dionysian language about the nature of God: Barlaam interpreting his apophatic theology as intellectual dialectic, and Gregory seeing it as concerned with the ineffable experience of God.
Scholasticism
Barlaam is typically characterized as having been a Thomist scholastic who valued pagan philosophy over the revelations of the Church Fathers. Juan Nadal Cañellas asserts that "[i]t does not seem possible to affirm, purely and simply, that Barlaam placed reason above revelation or that he accorded more authority to pagan authors than to the Fathers of the Church." According to Nadal, it was Palamas who laid this charge against Barlaam; a charge which Barlaam vehemently denied.
Aristotelianism vs. Platonism
According to James Hankins, it is sometimes asserted that the Hesychasts represent the native, "Platonic" tradition of the Orthodox Church, while their opponents represent the Aristotelian West. Hankins argues that, "the original debate between Barlaam and Palamas was not a matter of Aristotelianism versus Platonism, but rather grew from a methodological dispute about the best way to defend Orthodoxy against the attacks of the Western controversialists."
Similarly, John Meyendorff asserts that the "widespread view that Eastern Christian thought is Platonic, in contrast to Western Aristotelianism" is erroneous. According to Meyendorff, Byzantine universities taught Aristotelian logic as part of the "general curriculum" but the children of pious families withdrew rather than continuing on to the higher levels where Plato was taught. Meyendorff posits that the target of Byzantine monks in general and Palamas in particular was actually "secular philosophy" and so-called "Hellenic wisdom". He conjectures that the validity of Greek philosophy remained an open question in Byzantine society precisely because the Byzantines were "Greek-speaking" and "Greek-thinking". In stark contrast to this Hellenic culture, Byzantine monastic thought continually emphasized that theirs was a "faith preached by a Jewish Messiah" and that their destiny was to become a "new Jerusalem".
Nominalism vs. realism
According to Robert E. Sinkewicz, Palamas' only goal was to "preserve the realism of man's participation in the life of God." Characterizing Barlaam as a nominalist agnostic, Meyendorff writes that, "[i]n his flight from the intellectual realism of Western Thomistic scholasticism, Barlaam clashed with the mystical realism of the Eastern monks."
According to Meyendorff, this confrontation between Barlaam's nominalism and Palamas' realism began with a dispute over the best way to address the Filioque controversy with the Latins but quickly spilled over into a conflict over hesychasm. Among his criticisms of Meyendorff's presentation of the hesychast controversy, John Romanides reserves his harshest criticism for Meyendorff's characterization of Barlaam as both a nominalist and a Platonist/Neo-Platonist on the grounds that the histories of philosophy and theology had up to that point presented the two views as mutually exclusive. Romanides proceeds to argue that Barlaam was clearly a Christian Platonist and not a nominalist.
Monastic vs. secular clergy
Meyendorff characterized the hesychast controversy as a conflict between the Byzantine intellectuals (lovers of secular "Hellenic" learning) and the Palamites (upholders of the mystical monastic tradition).Meyendorff, John. Theology in the Thirteenth Century: Methodological Contrasts from Kathigitria: Essays Presented to Joan Hussey, Porphyrogenitus Publishing, 1988. https://jbburnett.com/resources/meyendorff_theol-13thc-e%26w.pdf Throughout the history of the Byzantine Empire, there were two factions that took opposing views regarding the relative value of mysticism and secular rationalism. The monastic faction was conservative and staunchly opposed to secular learning. The faction often referred to as the "Byzantine intellectuals" was more liberal and supported a synthesis between ancient Greek philosophy and Christian theology. This latter faction included many of the higher secular clergy). Nick Trakakis cites the hesychast controversy as one of the most significant examples of conflict between these two factions.
Latin vs. Byzantine cultures