ΚABASILAS’S DE VITA IN CHRISTO AND ITS CONTEXT

Kabasilas’s position in the Palamite controversy has yetto be clarified. Most scholars still maintain that he wasa supporter of Palamas, some argue that he was anopponent1. A few years ago I pointed out that Kabasilas,in a short treatise composed by him, directly attackedthe positions of Palamas concerning the utility ofsecular knowledge2. Ηοwever, all Orthodox scholarsmaintain the view that Kabasilas was a typicalrepresentative of Palamite theology in spite of all theevidence that has been gathered indicating precisely theopposite3.

1 Οne of the key studies concerning the positions of Kabasilas versusPalamas is that of H. MÜLLER-ASSHOFF, Beobachtungen an denHauptschriften des Gregorios Palamas und Nikolaos Kabasilas, BZ 79(1977), 22-41. The status quaestionis is summarized by M.-H. CONGOURDEAUin her very good article, Nicolas Cabasilas et le Palamisme, in A.RIGO [ed.], Gregorio Palamas e oltre. Studi e documenti sullecontroversie teologiche del XIV secolo Bizantino, Orientalia VenetianaXVI, Firenze 2004, 191-210. See also ID., Nicola Cabasilas e il suotempo, in H. LENGRAND, CH. SAVVATOS, IOANNIS DI THERMOPYLI, H. WYBREWE AA. VV., Nicola Cabasilas e la divina liturgia. Atti del XIVConvegno ecumenico internazionale di spiritualità ortodossa sezionebizantina, Bose, 14-16 settembre 2006 a cura di S. Chialà e L.Cremaschi monaci di Bose, Edizioni Qiqajon, Comunità di Bose 2007,35-37. In the same volume, J. GETCHA, Nicola Cabasilas e i suoiscritti: Un laico che scrive per dei laici, 59-64, expresses the viewthat Kabasilas’s teaching on the deification of man is exactly thesame as that of the hesychasts. Y. SPITERIS – C.G. CONTICELLO, NicolaCabasilas Chamaetos, in C.G. CONTICELLO/V. CONTICELLO [eds.], Lathéologie byzantine et sa tradition II, Turnhout, Brepols 2002, 315-410 do not examine this problem. Especially pertinent is the analysisby W. VÖLKER, Die Sakramentsmystik des Nikolaus Kabasilas, F. SteinerVerlag, Wiesbaden 1977, 160-167, who is inclined to the view thatKabasilas is not a Palamite, but at the same time does not believethat he should be counted among the humanists. 2 I. POLEMIS, Notes on a short treatise of Nicolas Cabasilas, REB 51(1993), 155-160. 3 S. YANGAZOGLOU, Γρηγόριος Παλαμᾶς καὶ Νικόλαος Καβάσιλας. Ἡ σύνθεσημυστηριακῆς καὶ ἀσκητικῆς ζωῆς στὴν ὀρθόδοξη παράδοση, Θεολογία 81/3(2010), 159-179. This article does not contain anything of merit. Thesame applies to the article by V. PSEUTONGAS, Ὁ Νικόλαος Καβάσιλαςἦταν ἡσυχαστὴς ἢ ἀντιησυχαστής; in Πρακτικὰ Θεολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου εἰςτιμὴν καὶ μνήμην τοῦ σοφωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου καὶ τοῖς ὅλοιςἁγιωτάτου ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Νικολάου Καβάσιλα τοῦ καὶ Χαμαετοῦ, Ἱερὰ

It is true that there are some indications thatKabasilas maintained friendly relations with certainmembers of the Palamite circle. He composed an epigram onthe death of the Palamite patriarch Isidoros Boucheiras,and another one praising a canon of Palamas himself. Ashort treatise against Gregoras is preserved under thename of Nikolaos Kabasilas, but there is some doubt as towhether it was written by Nikolaos himself or by hisuncle Neilos, an author whose pro-Palamas leanings arewell-known4. Nikephoros Gregoras in his History refers tothe discussions he had with a certain Palamite Kabasilaswhile imprisoned, but it is not at all certain that thisman was identical to Nikolaos5. In this paper I shallattempt to compare Kabasilas’s positions as expounded inhis main work De vita in Christo with the relevant positions ofboth Gregory Palamas and his opponent Gregory Akindynos.I think that this procedure may help us define moreaccurately Kabasilas’s views on the controversy thatdivided Byzantine society in the mid XIV c. The viewexpressed by some theologians that Kabasilas took aneutral stance in this controversy must be rejected outof hand. Even a “neutrality” towards the doctrines ofPalamas at a time when they had to be officiallysanctioned by the Byzantine church is tantamount to theirrejection. In other words, when someone in the mid XIV c.wrote on the central theme of union with Christ and choseto remain silent on the relevant theories of Palamas, weshould take this as indicating disapproval of suchtheories.

I. The main tenets of Kabasilas’s teaching on the life inChrist

I shall attempt here to give the main characteristics ofthe life in Christ according to Kabasilas: Life in Christ is notsomething belonging only to the future; it is of the present time, too, and itmakes its appearance in the saints, who experience that life and act

Μητρόπολις Θεσσαλονίκης, Thessaloniki 1984, 203-221. 4 TH. ZISIS, Θεολόγοι τῆς Θεσσαλονίκης, Thessaloniki 1989, 170, n.13, attributes this short text to the uncle of Nikolaos Kabasilas,Neilos, whose name before he became a monk was Nikolaos too.5 ZISIS (as footnote 4 above).

accordingly6. Kabasilas stresses the fact that the creator of‘that life’ is Christ himself (276): Christ himself by hispresence implants the essence of that life in our souls7.

The author explains how the life in Christ isimplanted in our souls: The way in which that life is drawn into oursouls lies in the initiation into the mysteries of the church. I mean baptism,unction, and partaking of the Holy Eucharist. In this way Christ comes into us,dwells in us, and is united with us, and destroys sin, injecting his own lifeinstead as a prize; he makes us partakers of his own victory: he puts a crownon our heads after we have bathed, and he proclaims us victors after we havedined. What a goodness!8 As a result, man abandons his ordinaryway of life and becomes God-like: We come out of ourselves,abandoning our own life, and devote ourselves to God; in other words, webecome God-like, shedding our old form9.

The meaning of life in Christ, in spite of allappearances, is not mystic, but strictly ethical10.Christ, being united with us through the mysteries,creates in us a certain mental disposition, enabling usto abandon sin once and for all and follow the preceptsof God: Man cannot destroy any one of the powers of his soul with whichwe have been endowed by nature; even more impossible for us is to destroythe power put into our soul by God himself at the time of our baptism.Baptism transforms the leading part of our soul, whatever that may be,

6 M.-H. CONGOURDEAU [ed.], Nicolas Cabasilas, Le Vie en Christ. Livres I-IV.Introduction, texte critique, traduction et annotation, SChr. 355, Paris 1989, I, 15,1-4 (p. 90): ἡ ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ ζωὴ οὐκ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος μόνον, ἀλλ’ ἤδηκαὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος πάρεστι τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ ζῶσι κατ’ ἐκείνην καὶἐνεργοῦσι.7 CONGOURDEAU (as footnote 6 above), Ι, 17, 1-3 (p. 92): τήν γεοὐσίαν αὐτὴν τὴν ζωὴν αὐτὸς παρὼν ὁ Χριστὸς ἄρρητόν τινα τρόπονφυτεύει ταῖς ἡμετέραις ψυχαῖς. 8 CONGOURDEAU (as footnote 6 above), I, 53, 7-548 (p. 124): Ἀνθ’ ὧνμὲν οὖν ἡ ἀληθινὴ ζωὴ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ Σωτῆρος εἰς ἡμᾶς διαβαίνει,ταῦτά ἐστιν. Ὁ δὲ τρόπος ὅπως ταύτην ἕλκομεν εἰς τὰς ἡμετέρας ψυχάς,τοῦτό ἐστι, τὸ τελεσθῆναι τὰ μυστήρια, τὸ λούσασθαι, τὸ χρισθῆναι, τὸτῆς τραπέζης ἀπολαῦσαι τῆς ἱερᾶς. Ταῦτα γὰρ ποιοῦσιν ὁ Χριστὸςἐπιδημεῖ καὶ ἐνοικεῖ καὶ συνάπτεται καὶ προσφύεται, καὶ τὴν ἁμαρτίανἐν ἡμῖν ἀποπνίγει, καὶ τὴν ζωὴν ἐνίησι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀριστείαν,καὶ κοινωνοὺς ποιεῖται τῆς νίκης. Ὢ τῆς ἀγαθότητος; Λουoμένουςἀναδεῖ καὶ δειπνοῦντας ἀνακηρύττει.9 CONGOURDEAU (as footnote 6 above), ΙΙ, 27, 7-9 (p. 154): Καὶ ἡμεῖςγὰρ τῆς οἰκείας ζωῆς καὶ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ἐξιστάμεθα τῷ Θεῷ. Τόδε ἐστὶ τὸπαλαιὸν ἀποβαλόντας εἶδος, ὁμοίους αὐτῷ γενέσθαι.10 In spite of the spiritual character of the ethical life, see VÖLKER(as footnote 1 above), 130.

whether the independent movement of our soul and our disposition, orsomething else which all the other powers of the soul obey, moving under itsguidance. But that leading part of our soul does not give orders, not being ina position to transform anything, not even itself, since nothing is better thanitself. Not even God can transform it, since it is not possible for him to takeaway from us our gifts11. The mysteries of the church are theonly means to give and safeguard the life in Christ: It isthrough Christ, who is the mediator between God and men, that all goodthings came to men after they were reconciled with God; and it is onlythrough the mysteries that we find Christ and we become partakers12.Another passage that makes clear the ethical dimension ofKabasilas’s thought is the following: The cleansing of the souland the effort to sanctify our souls is the result not so much of our asceticstruggle, of our eagerness, or of our labours, as of the thoughts I havedescribed above, and of our study ... First of all, we must have good thoughtsand avoid bad ones: this is the cleansing of our heart13. But the mosteloquent passage clarifying the thought of Kabasilas isthe following: What is the power of the mysteries of the church? Theyprepare us for the life of the future; they are powers belonging to the future,as Paul writes. And what is the only way preparing us for the future? It is theobservance of the commandments of the Lord, who is in a position to rewardor to punish us in the future; this is what makes God dwell in us. “Anyone who11 CONGOURDEAU (as footnote 6 above), ΙΙ, 59, 5-15 (p. 188): Εἰ γὰρτῶν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ δυνάμεων, μεθ’ ὧν ἡμᾶς ἡ φύσις ἐγέννησεν, οὐδ’ἡντινοῦν δυνάμεθα λύειν, ἥκιστα δὴ πάντων, ἣν ἡμῖν ἀναγεννῶν αὐτὸςἀμέσως ἐνέθηκεν ὁ Θεός, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν ἡγούμενον, ὅ τι ποτέἐστι πλάττει καὶ διατίθησι τὸ λουτρόν, εἴτε λόγου καὶ γνώμηςαὐτονομίαν, εἴθ’ ἕτερον ὁτιοῦν χρὴ τοῦτο νομίσαι, ᾧ πᾶσα μὲν εἴκειδύναμις τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνου φέρεται κίνησιν, ἐπιτάττει δὲοὐδὲν οὐδὲ δύναται μεταβάλλειν, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ αὐτὸ ἑαυτό-κρεῖττον γὰροὐδὲν γένοιτ’ ὰν ἑαυτοῦ-καὶ μὴν οὐδὲ τὸν Θεὸν εἰκός. Οὐ γὰρ ἀφέλοιτ’ἂν ὧν ἡμῖν κατέθετο δώρων οὐδέν.12 CONGOURDEAU (as footnote 6 above), ΙΙΙ, 18, 1-16 (p. 254): Ὅλωςγὰρ οὔτε ἔστιν, οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν ἀγαθόν, ὃ τῷ Θεῷ διαλλαγεῖσιν ὑπῆρξενἐκεῖθεν ἀνθρώποις, ὃ μὴ διὰ τοῦ καταστάντος Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἡμῖνπαρεσχέθη μεσίτου, οὔτε τὸν μεσίτην εὑρεῖν καὶ λαβεῖν καὶ τῶν ἐκείνουτυχεῖν ἄλλο τι δίδωσιν ἡμῖν τῶν ἁπάντων ἢ τὰ μυστήρια.13 M.-H. CONGOURDEAU [ed.], Nicolas Cabasilas, La Vie en Christ.Livres V-VII. Introduction, texte critique, traduction, annotation etindex, SChr. 361, Paris 1990, VI, 79, 1-80, 3 (pp. 110-112): Tό γε μὴνκαθᾶραι καρδίαν καὶ πρὸς ἁγιασμὸν τὴν ψυχὴν ἀσκῆσαι, τίνος ἀγῶνος ἢσπουδῆς ἢ τίνων ἱδρώτων μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν ἐννοιῶν τούτων καὶ τῆς μελέτηςγένοιτ’ ἂν ἔργον; ὅ γε οὐδ’ ἔργον ἄν τις εἴποι τῆς περὶ Χριστοῦμελέτης, ἀλλ’ αὐτὴν ἄντικρυς εἶναι τὴν μελέτην σκοπῶν ἀκριβῶς. Πρῶτονμὲν γὰρ τὸ συνεῖναι τῶν λογισμῶν τοῖς ἀρίστοις τῶν φαύλων ἐστίνἀφεστάναι, τοῦτο δέ ἐστι, τὴν καρδίαν καθαρὸν εἶναι.

loves me” says Christ, “will keep my commandments, and my father will lovehim too, and we shall come and will dwell inside him”... Therefore, if weexamine the mental disposition of the man who lives in Christ, we shall findthe life in Christ shining in him.14

Αs far as this mental disposition is concerned,Kabasilas argues that it consists in the love we feel forGod, which is reciprocated: The life of the saints is blessed evennow, so far as they enjoy beatitude through their faith and their hope; butafter they die, they enjoy blessedness in a greater degree, because thepossession of these things is much more important than the mere hope forthem, and the pure contemplation of the Good itself is far more precious thanbelief in its mere existence. This life is founded upon something provided byGod himself and something given by ourselves. God gives the spirit ofadoption, out of which a pure love is born, the real foundation of the blessedlife. God gave us the opportunity to become partakers of the mysteries ofChrist; to those who partook in these mysteries God gave the opportunity tobecome his own children. On the other hand, the children of God offer as acontribution their perfect love ... This true love is implanted in the souls ofthose initiated in the mysteries by the divine grace15. One sees onceagain that Kabasilas is not interested in any form ofmysticism. What he wants to stress, is that the mainquality of a man living in Christ is his love for God andhis trust in him. In another passage Kabasilas becomeseven more explicit, pointing out that the miraclesperformed by someone do not comprise sure proof that such

14 CONGOURDEAU (as footnote 13 above), VI, 9, 1-11, 8 (pp. 138-140):Ὅλως δὲ τί ποτε ἡμῖν αἱ τελεταὶ δύνανται; Πρὸς τὸν μέλλοντα βίονπαρασκευάζουσι. «Δυνάμεις γάρ εἰσι τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος», ᾗ φησιΠαῦλος. Τί δέ ἐστιν ᾧ μόνῳ παρασκευαζόμεθα; Τὸ τηρῆσαι τὰς ἐντολὰςτοῦ στεφανοῦν καὶ κολάζειν ἐπὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος δυναμένου. Τοῦτο γὰρ τὸνΘεὸν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν εἰσοικίζει. «Ὁ γὰρ ἀγαπῶν με, φησί, τὰς ἐντολάς μουτηρήσει καὶ ὁ Πατήρ μου ἀγαπήσει αὐτόν, καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐλευσόμεθα καὶμονὴν παρ’ αὐτῷ ποιήσομεν» ... Οὐκοῦν εἰ τὴν γνώμην ἀναπτύξομεν τοῦκατὰ Θεὸν ζῶντος, ἐν αὐτῇ λάμπουσαν εὑρήσομεν τὴν μακαρίαν ζωήν. 15 CONGOURDEAU (as footnote 13 above), VIΙ, 91, 1-92, 11 (p. 206):Τοιαύτη τῶν ἁγίων ἡ ζωὴ καὶ οὕτω μακαρία, νῦν μὲν ὥσπερ ἀκόλουθοντοὺς ἐλπίδι καὶ πίστει τὴν μακαριότητα καρπουμένους, ἐπειδὰν δὲἀπαλλαγῶσιν, οὕτως ἄμεινων ὅσο τοῦ μὲν ἐλπίζειν τελεώτερον αὐτῶν τῶνπραγμάτων λαβέσθαι, τοῦ δὲ πιστεύειν ἡ καθαρὰ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θεωρία.Ταύτης τῆς ζωῆς τὰ μὲν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας, ὅθεν ἡ τελείαἀγάπη καθ’ ἣν ἡ μακαρία ζωή (τὰ μὲν γὰρ μυστήρια τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρέχειλαβέσθαι, «τοῖς δὲ ἐκεῖνον λαβοῦσιν ἔδωκε, φησίν, ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦγενέσθαι), τῶν τέκνων δὲ ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη, ἧς ἅπας ἀπελήλαται φόβος ...Καὶ οὕτω τὴν ἀγάπην ἀληθινὴν ἡ χάρις ἐντίθησι ταῖς ψυχαῖς τῶνμεμυημένων.

a man lives in Christ: Let us not pay any attention to the other giftsadorning the man who lives in Christ. Even if such a man shines with the giftof wonder-working, let us pay no attention. Let us examine instead the pureadornment of his soul, which is something truly belonging to him. Miraclesare an unsafe measure of a man’s true quality; on the basis of some miracleswe can only guess that a certain man may be virtuous. On the other hand, ifwe examine his behaviour, we will gain a sure glimpse of that man’s true self.Is there any need to ask for miracles (I Cor.1, 22) when we are in a positionto examine things themselves? Miracles are not sufficient evidence of virtue.Not all virtuous men perform miracles; and those who do perform them arenot always virtuous. Men who were true men of God did not performmiracles. By contrast, wicked men have managed to perform miracles: theyhave invoked Christ and accomplished whatever they wished without anydifficulty, not because they were of good character, but because in this waythe power of Christ they invoked was revealed16. In other words,according to Kabasilas, a wonder-worker is notnecessarily virtuous, and is not necessarily a man livingin Christ! And he makes this claim in an age whichexalted the traditional ascetic qualities of mensupposedly living in communion with God and who, becauseof this, supposedly performed miracles (one has only tothink of the biographies of contemporary asceticscomposed by the ardent Palamite Philotheos Kokkinos). Onewonders how this “protestant” attitude of Kabasilaspassed unnoticed under the scrutiny of those prelates ofthe Orthodox Church who rushed to proclaim Kabasilas asaint six centuries after his death.

There can be little doubt that what really countsfor Kabasilas, as he seeks to define the chiefcharacteristics of life in Christ, is true love for God,the desire of man to follow his precepts obediently: The

16 CONGOURDEAU (as footnote 13 above), VIΙ, 2, 7-3, 10 (pp. 132-134):σκεψόμεθα δὲ τῶν μὲν ἄλλως αὐτὸν κοσμούντων οὐδέν, οὐδ’ εἰ θαύμασιλάμπει καὶ τοιαύτην εἴληφε χάριν, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸν τοῦτον καθαρῶς καὶ τὸνοἴκοι κόσμον τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀρετήν. Ἐκείνως μὲν γὰρ εἰκάσαι τις ἂν τὸνσπουδαῖον, καὶ τοῦτ’ αὐτὸ μόνον ἀρετῆς ἂν εἴη τεκμήριον, τὸ δ’ αὐτῶνπειρᾶσθαι τῶν τρόπων, αὐτόν ἐστι γινώσκειν τὸν ἄνθρωπον. Τί οὖν δεῖ,παρὸν αὐτόθεν μανθάνειν, τεκμαίρεσθαι καὶ σημεῖα ζητεῖν, ὅταν αὐτῶνἐξῇ τῶν πραγμάτων ἅπτεσθαι; καίτοι οὐδὲ σημεῖον τοῦτο γένοιτ’ ἂνἀποχρῶν ἀρετῆς. Οὔτε γὰρ πᾶσι ταῦτα τοῖς σπουδαίοις ἀκολουθεῖ, οὔθ’οἷς ὑπῆρξεν, ἐργάται πάντες εἰσὶν ἀρετῆς. Καὶ γὰρ πολλοὶ τῶν μεγάλαπαρὰ Θεῷ δυνηθέντων οὐδὲν ἐπεδείξαντο τοιοῦτον, καὶ αὖθις τῶν πονηρῶνἐνίους ἐδέησε τοιαῦτά ποτε δυνηθῆναι, καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν καλοῦσι οὐδὲνἀμήχανον ἦν, οὐ τῶν τρόπων τοῦτο διδόντων ἀλλ’ ἵν’ ὁ καλούμενος φανῇ.

blessed life is a result of this love. Love takes our will away from everythingelse, even away from ourselves, and attaches it to Christ. Everything inourselves follows our will; everything moves in the direction taken by our will– I mean our bodily desires, the activity of our thought, our every act andwhatever belongs to our human nature; our will governs our behaviour; if ourwill is fixed to a certain point, everything else is fixed to that point too; andwhoever who controls our will, controls our whole mind as well17.

Kabasilas does not deny the possibility of a certainvision of some divine realities even before our death.But such a vision is very limited and of no trueimportance: Blessed men can be considered perfect with respect to thethings belonging to God because of their will, but they are not yet perfect asfar as the function of their mind is concerned. And this is because you mayfind in them a perfect love (which belongs to their will), but notyet a perfect vision of God (which can be attained only throughtheir mind). Although the future is present to them as long as they livewithin their bodies, and they have already a taste of the rewards awaitingthem in the life to come, this taste is neither continuous nor perfect; bodily lifedoes not permit such a continuous vision. As Paul says, we are happy becauseof our hope. “We walk in faith, having no vision” and “our knowledge ispartial”. Paul saw Christ in this life, but he did not enjoy this visioncontinuously. Continuous vision is reserved for the future. Paul himselfaffirmed this, when speaking of the presence of Christ, since he added thephrase “we shall be with Christ forever”. Therefore, if somebody lives in Christat the time of his bodily existence and manages to enjoy the eternal life in theway suggested by Paul, he enjoys this life as a mental disposition, since byway of his love he comes to the ineffable pleasure: the perfect (beatific)vision through his mind is reserved for the future; now his faith leads him tothe divine love; this is shown by the blessed Peter who says: “although you donot see Christ yet, you feel an ineffable and glorious pleasure, because of yourfaith”. In that love and that faith consists the blessed life (in Christ)18. 17 CONGOURDEAU (as footnote 13 above), VΙΙ, 96, 1-9 (p. 210): Ταύτηςδὲ τῆς ἀγάπης ἔργον ἡ μακαρία ζωή. Τὴν γὰρ θέλησιν πανταχόθενσυνάγουσα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀπάγουσα πάντων καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ θέλοντος, τῷΧριστῷ συνίστησι μόνῳ. Τῇ θελήσει δὲ τὰ ἡμέτερα πάντα ἀκολουθεῖ καὶὅποι φέρει χωροῦσι, καὶ σώματος ὁρμὴ καὶ λογισμοῦ κίνησις καὶ πᾶσαπρᾶξις καὶ πᾶν ὁτιοῦν ἀνθρώπινον, καὶ ὅλως ἡ θέλησις τὸ καθ’ ἡμᾶςἄγει καὶ φέρει, κἂν ἐκείνη κατασχεθῇ που, πάντα ἐκεῖ δέδεται, καὶ ὁταύτης κρατήσας ὁλόκληρον ἔχει τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 18 CONGOURDEAU (as footnote 13 above), VIΙ, 101, 3-103, 2 (pp. 212-214): ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ παρόντος τῆς μὲν θελήσεως ἕνεκα τέλειοι τὰ πρὸς τὸνΘεὸν οἱ μακάριοι, τῆς δὲ κατὰ νοῦν ἐνεργείας οὐκέτι. Ἀγάπην μὲν γὰρπαρ’ αὐτοῖς τελείνα εὑρήσεις, Θεοῦ δὲ θεωρίαν καθαρὰν οὐδαμῶς. Εἰ γὰρκαὶ πάρεστιν αὐτοῖς ἔτι καὶ μετὰ σώματος ζῶσι τὸ μέλλον καὶ πεῖραν

One further point should be stressed: the virtuesimplanted into the soul of those living in Christ arecreated, unlike the doctrine of Palamas, who believes thatthe gifts of God are uncreated. Towards the end of histreatise On life in Christ Kabasilas writes: Our life is hidden,because we do not know what the divine grace that bears and shapes that lifereally is, or in what way it transforms that life19. That Kabasilasbelieves that the divine gifts are creatures isdemonstrated by the following passage of hisInterpretation of the Divine Liturgy (40): That whichhappens during the ceremony of the gifts refers to the economy of ourSaviour; the contemplation of the divine economy sanctifies the souls andprepares them for partaking of the holy gifts. The divine economy at the timeof the Incarnation resurrected the whole world; in the same way now thecontemplation of the divine economy deifies the soul of those contemplatingit. Even at the time of the Incarnation the divine economy would not havebeen of any profit to men, if they had not believed and thoroughlycontemplated it; that was the purpose of its solemn proclamation. Godemployed an immense number of stratagems, so that men came to believehis economy; this economy could not have accomplished its purpose, i.e. thesalvation of mankind, if those men who were to be saved did not take noticeof it at the time of the Incarnation. At the time of its proclamation theeconomy of God created out of nothing reverence for Christ, belief in him, andlove for him within our souls. Now, the contemplation of this economy bythose who have come to believe in it does not create blessed sentiments in oursouls, since they have already been created; it preserves them, renovates andmakes them grow. In this way, we become more steadfast in our faith, ourpiety and love become more ardent. It was far easier for the economy topreserve and renew what it had created out of nothing in the past. Piety, faith

ἔσχον ἤδη τῶν ἄθλων, ἀλλ’ οὐ συνεχῶς οὐδὲ διηνεκῶς οὐδὲ τελείως, τοῦβίου τούτου μῆ συγχωροῦντος. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο, «τῆ ἐλπίδι χαίρομεν» φησὶΠαῦλος, καὶ «διὰ πίστεως περιπατοῦμεν, οὐ διὰ εἴδους», καὶ «ἐκ μέρουςγινώσκομεν», καίτοι τὸν Χριστὸν εἶδεν, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ ἑκάστοτε τῇ θεωρίᾳταύτῃ συνῆν. Τὸ γὰρ ἀεὶ τοῦτο τὸ μέλλον ὄψεται μόνον, καὶ τοῦτο αὐτὸςἔδειξεν ἐπὶ περὶ τῆς παρουσίας ἐκείνης διεξῆλθεν ἐπαγαγών, «καὶ οὕτωπάντοτε σὺν Κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα». Ὅθεν εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ μετὰ τοῦ σώματοςζῇ καὶ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς, ᾗ Παῦλος ἐκέλευσεν ἐνθένδε ἠδυνήθη λαβέσθαι,ἐν τῇ γνώμῃ ταύτην ἔχει, δι’ ἀγάπης ἐπὶ τὴν χαρὰν ἀφικνούμενος τὴνἀπόρρητον, τῆς μὲν τοῦ νοῦ καθαρᾶς ὄψεως εἰς τὸ μέλλον ταμιευομένηςαὐτῷ, τῆς δὲ πίστεως ἐπὶ τὴν ἀγάπην χειραγωγούσης. Ὃ δεικνὺς ὁμακάριος Πέτρος, «εἰς ὃν ἄρτι μὴ ὁρῶντες», φησί, «πιστεύοντες δὲἀγαλλιᾶσθε χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ». Ἐν ταύτῃ δὲ τῇ ἀγάπῃ καὶτῇ χαρᾷ ἡ μακαρία ἐστὶ ζωή. 19

and love for God are most necessary for those approaching the divinemysteries; no one who does not possess these virtues should ever dare to lookat these mysteries20.

Τhe conceptual framework of Kabasilas becomes clear:life in Christ is granted to all the faithful through themysteries of the Church; it consists in the mutual lovebetween man and God; it is a result of divine graceentering man’s soul through the mysteries; this gracecreates in man’s soul total trust in God. The beatificvision is reserved for the future life, although someglimpses into the future are given to some elect personsin this life. But the distinguishing feature of thoseliving in Christ is their love for God and nothing else(miracles, supernatural experiences, etc.).

II. Kabasilas and Gregory Akindynos: a) The created gifts of the Holy Spirit

It is necessary to investigate whether there are anyother authors of the same period who depict theexperience of the life of Christ in the same way asKabasilas. I believe that one such author is GregoryAkindynos. Akindynos presents a similar theory,contrasting it with the respective theories of GregoryPalamas. By studying the way Akindynos refutes the

20 In another passage Kabasilas employs the words πλάττοντος andκτίζει, see CONGOURDEAU I (as footnote 6 above), II, 79, 9-80, 6 (pp.206-208): Γενομένου δὲ αὐτοῖς τοῦ βαπτίσματος καὶ τοῦ Παρακλήτου ταῖςψυχαῖς αὐτῶν ἐμπεσόντος, αὐτοί τε ἐγένοντο καινοὶ καὶ ζωῆς ἐπελάβοντοκαινῆς καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἡγήσαντο καὶ τὸν περὶ Χριστὸν πόθον καὶἑαυτοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀνῆψαν. Εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῷ ἡλίῳ παρῆσαν καὶδιαίτης ἐκοινώνουν καὶ λόγων, ἀλλ’ ἦν αἴσθησις αὐτοῖς ἀκτῖνος οὔπω,μὴ δεξαμένοις ἐκεῖνο τὸ πνευματικὸν λουτρόν. Τὸν ἴσον δὴ τρόπον καὶτοὺς ἁγίους ἑξῆς ἅπαντας ἐτελείωσεν ὁ Θεὸς καὶ ἐπέγνωσαν αὐτὸν καὶἐφίλησαν, οὐ λόγοις παρακληθέντες ψιλοῖς ἀλλὰ τῇ τοῦ λουτροῦ δυνάμειδιατιθέντες, αὐτοῦ πλάττοντος καὶ διατιθέντος τοῦ φιλοῦντος, ὃςκτίζει καρδίαν καθαρὰν καὶ ἀφαιρεῖται μὲν τὴν λιθίνην, δίδωσι δὲκαρδίαν σαρκίνην, τὴν ἀναισθησίαν ἐκβάλλων, καὶ οὐ νόμον ἁπλῶς ἀλλὰτὸν νομοθέτην, αὐτὸς ἑαυτόν. That passage has been published by A. A.ANGELOPOULOS, Νικόλαος Καβάσιλας Χαμαετός. Ἡ ζωὴ καὶ τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ.Συμβολὴ εἰς τὴν Μακεδονικὴν Βυζαντινὴν Προσωπογραφίαν, ἈνάλεκταΒλατάδων 5, Thessaloniki 1970, 114-115 as an independent treatise ofKabasilas! Even SPITERIS (as footnote 1 above), 337 (n. 22) believesthat it is an independent treatise indeed.

doctrinal positions of Palamas, we may be able tounderstand better the anti-Palamite background of thesimilar theories of Kabasilas.

Akindynos, quoting a text of Maximus the Confessor,stresses the fact that God creates virtue inside man:(Palamas) did not realize that by adding that “God is the creator of all life,immortality, sanctity and virtue” Maximus means all those qualities hementioned above, and not something else. This addition marks the conclusionof what was stated before: all those things that are shared by us or those whopartake of those gifts are creatures of God. However, Palamas did not takeinto account what the purpose of the whole passage had been, and did notunderstand the way the whole argument was constructed or, rather, did notintend to understand these things. But more importantly, he did notunderstand that all these are evidently creatures of God; he did not realizethat the truth is that all creatures of God have a starting point in time; thereare even creatures to which the adverb “eternally” may be applied. StDionysius argues that we are not permitted to consider all those calledeternal as being coeternal with God21.

Commenting on a passage from a spurious work of JohnChrysostom on the baptism, Akindynos takes theopportunity to present his theory on the impact of holygrace within man: “You confessed your faith in the name of the Father,the Son and the Holy Spirit; you were baptized in the name of the Father andof the Son and of the Holy Spirit; you were blessed in the name of the Fatherand of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. We obtained these gifts through holygrace and you dare to utter blasphemous words against that grace? The HolySpirit gave us freedom and you dare to say that you are slaves to the Spirit. Ohow stupid, how disgraceful you are!” Do you see what the gifts are and whatthe grace safeguarding them is? The grace is the Holy Spirit, which is alwaysactive, never passive. The gifts are faith, baptism, freedom, which are not

21 J. NADAL CAÑELLAS [ed.], Gregorii Acindyni, Refutationes duaeoperis Gregorii Palamae cui titulus Dialogus inter orthodoxum etBarlaamitam, nunc primum editae, CCSG 31, Turnhout, Brepols-LeuvenUniversity Press 1995, III, 17, 20-36 (p. 193): οὐχ ὁρῶν τὸ συνεχές,ὅτι Πάσης ζωῆς καὶ ἀθανασίας, ἁγιότητός τε καὶ ἀρετῆς, δημιουργόςἐστιν ὁ Θεός, αὐτῶν τῶν προλεχθέντων, οὐκ ἄλλων. Κατασκευὴ γάρ ἐστιτοῦ προαποδοθέντος, ὅπερ ἦν ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα, τὰ μεθεκτά τε καὶ τὰμετέχοντα, Θεοῦ προδήλως καὶ τὴν τοῦ προλαβόντος κατασκευήν, μᾶλλονδὲ οὐκ ἠθέλησεν, οὔτε πρὸ τούτου γε αὐτὸ τοῦθ’ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα Θεοῦπροδήλως ἔργα τυγχάνουσιν, οὐδ’ ὅτι μὴ πάντα χρονικῶς ἠργμένα τὰ τοῦΔημιουργοῦ τῶν πάντων δημιουργήματα ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀληθείας οἶδεν, ἀλλὰκαὶ αἰωνίως, τὰ γοῦν αἰώνια, ὧν πάντων δημιουργὸς ὁ Θεός, ὁ καὶ αὐτῶνποιητὴς τῶν αἰώνων. Οὐ χρὴ γάρ φησιν ὁ σοφὸς Διονύσιος, συναΐδιανομίζειν Θεῷ τῷ πρὸ αἰῶνος τὰ αἰώνια λεγόμενα.

uncreated divinities without beginning, but are given by the Spirit to thoseworthy of them and are created by it, at the time of the Incarnation, when theWord of God dwelled in us, and at the time of the dispensation of the Spirit tothe apostles, who were filled with it, when the only uncreated and mostblessed Trinity was revealed through the Incarnation of the Word22. Thereis a striking similarity between the thought of Akindynosand Kabasilas. Both affirm that the possibility of faithwas given to men at the time of the Incarnation and bothstress that the gifts of divine grace are created.

Another important passage of Akindynos which bears acertain similarity to the views expounded by Kabasilas isthe following: The relation of men to God makes those enjoying thatrelation abandon everything else in order to become partakers of the meal;they are unable to survive if they do not breathe God himself; accordingly,this relation may be called “aschetos”. This relation made the divine Paul say:“I am living no longer, Christ is living inside me”... To such an extent was Paulpossessed by Christ dwelling in him, who set in motion this whole process,creating a new creation in a miraculous way ... In this way our love for God issomething that has no relation to anything else, but is a relation absolutelywith God; it is a gift making us gods; we have explained the reasons above: ithas nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, but is a result of the workings of theHoly Spirit inside the soul of every man loving wisdom; it is a movement of thesoul emanating from the love for God23. Love for God is created22 ΝΑDAL (as footnote 21 above), I, 23, 14-27 (pp. 24-25): Ἑν ὀνόματιΠατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος, φησίν, ὡμολόγησας πιστεύεινἐβαπτίσθης ὁμοίως εἰς Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, ἡ εὐλογίαὁμοίως ἐν ὀνόματι Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος. Ἡμῖν τὰ δῶραπαρὰ τῆς χάριτος, καὶ παρ’ ὑμῶν ἡ βλασφημία τῇ χάριτι; Παρὰ τοῦ ἉγίουΠνεύματος ἡμῖν ἡ ἐλευθερία, καὶ παρ’ ὑμῶν δουλεία τῷ Πνεύματι; Ὢ τῆςἀπονοίας. Ὢ τῆς ἀγνωμοσύνης. Ὁρᾷς τὰ δῶρα καὶ τίς ἡ ταῦτα παρεχομένηχάρις. Ἡ μέν, αὐτὸ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ μὴ ἐνεργούμενον, ἀλλ’ἐνεργοῦν τὰ πάντα, τὰ δέ, ἡ πίστις, τὸ βάπτισμα, ἡ ἐλευθερία, οὐκἄναρχοι θεότητες ὄντα καὶ ἄκτιστοι, ἀλλὰ τότε διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῖςἠξιωμένοις κεχαρισμένα καὶ γεγονότα, ὅτε ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον ἑαυτοῦ τοὺς θείουςἀποστόλους ἐπλήρωσε, καὶ τοῖς πιστεύσασιν ἅπασιν ἡ μακαρία Τριὰςπεφανέρωται, ἡ μόνη ἄκτιστος καὶ ἀγέννητος, διὰ τῆς ἐνσάρκουπαρουσίας τοῦ Λόγου.23 ΝΑDAL (as footnote 21 above), ΙΙ, 32, 7-30 (p. 131): Καὶ ἡ σχέσιςτοίνυν ἡ πρὸς Θεὸν τῶν ἐχόντων, τοὺς ἔχοντας αὐτὴν οὕτω πρὸς αὐτὴνἔχειν παρασκευάζουσα καὶ διατίθεσθαι, ὡς πάνθ’ ὑπὲρ ἐκείνου προΐεσθαικαὶ ἀκορέστως ἔχειν τῆς τραπέζης ἐκείνης, καὶ ζῆν ἄνευ τοῦ πνεῖνἐκεῖνον μὴ δύνασθαι, ἄσχετος αὐτὴ λέγοιτ’ ἂν προσηκόντως, ἢ καὶ τὸνθεῖον Παῦλον ἐποίει λέγειν, Ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός,ὁ ταύτην ἐνεργῶν ἐν αὐτῷ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ παρουσίᾳ. ... Ταύτην καὶ τοσαύτηνεἶχε τὴν κατοχὴν ὁ μακάριος Παῦλος πρὸς τὸν ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικοῦντα

inside man’s soul by holy grace, according to bothAkindynos and Kabasilas.

A similar passage οf Akindynos runs as follows: Giftsare what we call those principal offerings that are created by the Holy Spiritsetting everything in motion; the first and most important of them is theillumination of holy baptism according to the holy fathers; it is a bath ofrenovation which is accomplished by water and the most divine Spirit. ThisSpirit together with the Son recreates the whole creation, and is the cause ofthe resurrection, and of spiritual renovation24. Once again, Akindynosinsists on the createdness of the gifts of the HolySpirit. A similar passage occurs in his Parva Refutatio: Thedivinity is uncreated, but the reception of the divinity by men through baptismand their faith has a beginning (i.e. is created)25.

b) Τhe total immersion in Christ

In a passage of Kabasilas cited above, the totalityof the union with Christ accomplished by the mysteries isstressed : Christ comes into us, dwells in us (ἐνοικεῖ) and is unitedwith us (συνάπτεται καὶ προσφύεται)26. Τhe same experience isdescribed by Akindynos, who, on the basis of Lev. 26, 12and II Cor. 6, 16, where the verb ἐνοικήσω occurs, pointsout that God himself, i.e. his own essence, and not anuncreated energy that is supposedly distinct from him,Χριστὸν καὶ ταύτην ἐνεργοῦντα καὶ οὕτω καινὴν ἀποτελοῦντα καὶπαράδοξον καὶ ὑπερφυᾶ καὶ θειοτάτην κτίσιν, ἣν πολὰ μὲν ὑμνεῖ καὶ ὁθεσπέσιος Μάξιμος, ἑνὸς δὲ ἡμεῖς τῶν εἰς αὐτὴν μνημονεύσωμεν. Ὅταντῷ ἔρωτι, φησί, τῆς ἀγαπῆς ὁ νοῦς πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐκδημῇ, τότε οὔτεἑαυτοῦ οὔτε τινὸς τῶν ὄντων παντάπασιν ἐπαισθάνεται. Οὕτω δὴ σχέσιςκαὶ ἄσχετος ἡ πρὸς Θεὸν ἀγάπη καὶ δῶρον θεοποιὸν καὶ τοῦτο διὰ τὰεἰρημένα, οὐχ ὡς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄκτιστον, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐνέργημα Πνεύματος ἐνφιλοσόφου ψυχῆς φιλοθέῳ κινήσει.24 ΝΑDAL (as footnote 21 above), III, 58, 53-61 (p. 247): Tὰ δὲ κυρίωςδιδόμενα καὶ οἰκείως ἑαυτοῖς, ἀλλ’ οὐ ταπεινότερον, χάρισμα καὶ δῶραὀνομαζόμενα, τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ πάντα ἐνεργοῦντός ἐστι δημιουργούμεναΠνεύματος, ὧν πρῶτον καὶ κάλλιστον τὸ τοῦ θείου βαπτίσματος φώτισμα,κατὰ τοὺς θείους πατέρας, τὸ λουτρὸν τῆς παλιγγενεσίας, ὃ δι’ ὕδατοςκαὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ θεαρχικωτάτου Πνεύματος ἀποτελεῖται. Τοῦτο γὰρ τὸΠνεῦμα συνδημιουργεῖ μὲν Υἱῷ καὶ τὴν κτίσιν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν,δημιουργεῖ δὲ τὴν πνευματικὴν ἀναγέννησιν.25 ΝΑDAL (as footnote 21 above), 568-572 (p. 429): Ἀλλ’ ἡ μὲν θεότηςἄκτιστος, τὸ δὲ χαρισθῆναι ταύτην τοῖς δεξαμένοις, αὐτὸ τὸ χαρισθῆναίτε καὶ δεχθῆναι καὶ ὑποδεχθῆναι διὰ τῆς πίστεως καὶ τοῦ θείουβαπτίσματος καὶ ἡ ταύτης κοινωνία πρὸς τοὺς μετόχους αὐτῆς, ἤρξατο.26 CONGOURDEAU (as footnote 6 above), I, 54, 4-5 (p. 124): Tαῦτα γὰρποιῦσιν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐπιδημεῖ καὶ ἐνοικεῖ καὶ συνάπτεται καὶ προσφύεται.

takes his abode inside man, sanctifying him. This issupported by several patristic passages: Gregory of Nyssa says“Nothing is greater for a man than to be measured according to the measureof the divine size. The great God, who is so large, who holds in his hand thewhole of creation, is contained by you, and inhabits your soul. And he doesnot feel boxed in such a small place, because he has said: I will walk insidethem and I shall dwell in them”. And the divine Maximus, speaking aboutthose who saved themselves and became prudent in a manner befitting theone who created them, writes: “The whole God is united with them (ὅλοςπεριφὺς ὁ Θεός) as a soul with the body and he employs them inwhatever purpose he thinks befitting, like the parts of a body, which will beuseful to their master”27. Οne could argue, perhaps, thatKabasilas is employing here conventional phrases, used byAkindynos too, without denying that what inhabits man isan uncreated energy. But his explicit, though discreet,denial of the Palamite theory that the gifts in man’ssoul are uncreated makes such a view untenable.

c) The ethical dimension of the life in Christ

Like Kabasilas, Akindynos argues that God comes intous by way of faith and love for him: In whom may we trust? Inyou, transforming us into atheists with your theories, or in the holy fathers,who make the triune God, whatever he may be, inhabit us, and who arguethat we are united with him through our love for him and our faith? Thefathers have handed down to us this doctrine in the confession of faith wesubmit during holy baptism. Basil the Great says that “wherever the Spiritcomes, Christ comes too. Wherever Christ is, the Father is there too. Beingsanctified by the Holy Spirit, we receive into ourselves Christ together with theFather; the Father and the Son dwell inside those worthy of them together.The tradition of baptism and the confession of our faith confirm that this isso28. It should be noted that for both Akindynos and27 ΝΑDAL (as footnote 21 above), ΙΙΙ, 5, 46-57 (pp. 172-173): Καὶ ὁθεῖος Γρηγόριος ὁ Νύσσης, Οὐδὲν οὕτω τῶν ὄντων μέγα, ὡς τῷ θείῳπαραμετρεῖσθαι μεγέθει. Ἀλλ’ ὅμως ὁ τοσοῦτος, ὁ τοιοῦτος, ὁ πᾶσαν τὴντῇ παλάμῃ περισφίγγων τὴν κτίσιν, ὅλος σοι χωρητὸς γίνεται καὶ ἐν σοὶκατοικεῖ, καὶ οὐκ ἐνστενοχωρεῖται τῇ φύσει ἐνδιοδεύων ὁ εἰπών,Ἐνοικήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω. Καὶ ὁ θεσπέσιος Μάξιμος, περὶτῶν ἀξίως τοῦ πεποιηκότος αὐτοὺς διασωσάντων ἑαυτοὺς αὐτῷ καὶσεσωφρονηκότων. Τούτοις διόλου ὅλος περιφὺς ὁ Θεός, φησί, τρόπονψυχῆς, ὥσπερ μέλη εὔχρηστα τῷ Δεσπότῃ γενησομένους, πρὸς τὸ δοκοῦνμεταχειρίζεται.28 ΝADAL (as footnote 21 above), III, 67, 1-15 (p. 264): Τίνιπεισθῶμεν καὶ τίνι πιστεύσωμεν; Σοὶ ταῦτα λέγοντι καὶ ἀθέους ἡμᾶς τό

Kabasilas baptism plays a central role in the wholeprocess of man’s sanctification by God. This positionseems to be at variance with the Palamite theory of man’ssanctification, which comes as a result of man’s personaleffort to be united with God, where the mysteries of thechurch play a rather small role, if any at all. Inanother passage Akindynos, interpreting Ps.-Dionysius theAreopagite, writes: Dionysius says of divine baptism: “The priestsperform the rite of the chrism on him, and they call this man into the holystruggles in an allegorical way; in these struggles Christ himself distributesthe rewards, since he has created them by his divine power; being wise, heinvented the rules of the games, and being beautiful himself, he made thoserewards beautiful too”. Do you see now that all these are both gifts of Godand created by him?29

The ethical dimension of life in God we observed inKabasilas is stressed by Akindynos as well: The dwelling of thedivinity within us should be understood as something that takes place in amanner befitting God. The divinity does not move from one place to another,but comes into us in an ineffable manner; this is what the holy fathers teachus. Basil the Great and his brother say: “The inhabitance of God in us istantamount to our having God in our memory always through our faith andour love for him”30. Accordingly, both for Akindynos and

γε σαυτοῦ μέρος καθιστάντι παντάπασιν, ἢ τοῖς θείοις πατράσι τοῖςἡμῖν μὲν τὸν Θεὸν εἰσοικίζουσιν, ὁτιδήποθ’ ὑπάρχει, τὸντρισυπόστατον, ἡμᾶς δὲ ἐνιδρυομένους τὸν ἀπόρρητον τρόπον, ἀμφότεραδι’ ἀγάπης καὶ πίστεως, καὶ τοῦτο ἐν τῇ τῆς θείας πίστεως ὁμολογίᾳπαραδιδοῦσι καὶ τῷ θείῳ βαπτίσματι; Ὅπου γὰρ Ἁγίου Πνεύματοςπαρουσία, φησὶν ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος, ἐκεῖ καὶ Χριστοῦ ἐπιδημία, ὅπου δὲΧριστός, ἐκεῖ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ πάρεστι δηλονότι, Ἁγιαζόμενοι οὖν ὑπὸ τοῦΠνεύματος, δεχόμεθα τὸν Χριστὸν εἰς τὸν ἔσω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπον καὶ μετὰτοῦ Χριστοῦ τὸν Πατέρα, κοινὴν ποιούμενον τὴν μονὴν παρὰ τοῖς ἀξίοις.Ταύτην οὖν τὴν συνάφειαν δηλοῖ καὶ ἡ παράδοσις τοῦ βαπτίσματος καὶ ἡὁμολογία τῆς πίστεως.29 NADAL (as footnote 21 above), I, 24, 97-105 (p. 31): Καὶ ἐν τοῖςπερὶ τοῦ θείου βαπτίσματος. Οἱ δὲ ἱερεῖς, φησίν, ἐπ’ αὐτῷ τελοῦσι τὴντῆς χρίσεως ἱερουργίαν, ἐπὶ τοὺς ἱεροὺς ἐν τύπῳ τὸν τελούμενον ἀγῶναςἐκκαλούμενοι καθ’ οὓς ὑπ’ ἀθλοθέτῃ Χριστῷ γινόμενος, ἐπειδὴ ὡς Θεόςἐστι τῆς ἀθλοθεσίας δημιουργός, ὡς σοφὸς δὲ τοὺς νόμους αὐτοῖςτέθεικεν, εἰργάσατο δὲ ὡς καλὸς εὐπρεπῆ τοῖς νικῶσι τὰ ἔπαθλα. Ὁρᾷςταῦτα πάντα, καὶ θεῖα χαρίσματα καὶ Θεοῦ δημιουργήματα;30 ΝΑDAL (as footnote 21 above) II, 48, 13-19 (p. 150): Ἐνοικίζεσθαιδὲ καὶ ἐνοικεῖν τὸ Θεῖον ἡμῖν θεοπρεπῶς νοοῦμεν, οὐ περιγραπτῶς, οὐδὲμεταβατικῶς, ἀλλ’ ἀπορρήτως, ὡς ἡμᾶς οἱ θεῖοι πατέρες διδάσκουσι καὶὁ μέγας Βασίλειος, Τοῦτό ἐστι, λέγων, ἐνοίκησις Θεοῦ, τὸ διὰ τῆςμνήμης ἐνιδρυμένον ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν Θεόν, καὶ ὁ τούτου ὁμόγνιος,δι’ ἀρετῆς τε καὶ πίστεως.

Kabasilas the passages of Lev. and II Cor. areinterpreted in an ethical, not in a mystical sense: whatcounts for them is not the mystical immersion of man inthe uncreated energies of the divinity, but an awarenessof God’s presence in them, which is a result of theirabsolute trust in him and love for him. Interpreting I Cor.3, 16 (ναὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστε) and Acts 17, 28, Akindynospoints out: (we believe) that we live in God, and move within himaccording to the holy apostle, through our faith, our piety, our fear of God,our love for him and the other virtues31.

Akindynos believes that the imitation of Christconsists in the total subordination of our own soul tothe divine mind taken by the Word of God at the time ofhis Incarnation; the most important manifestation of thisis our love for God: What else can be the imitation of God and of thatadmirable and blameless mind taken by the Word of God than thefunctioning of a clean soul which is full of love for God? This soul movestowards God by virtue of its own rational decision; it is under God’s guidance;it grows steadily, always moving towards the peak of its love for God. To put itdifferently, that love rises and falls, since those who imitate God may not befirm; their will, their faith in God, their diligent effort, their love may waver;from these elements this relationship takes its beginning and proceedsonwards32.

III. Τhe differences of Kabasilas from Palamas: aninvestigation

As we have already seen, Kabasilas considers love of Godas the most important evidence of someone living inChrist. At the beginning of book VII of his treatise Devita in Christo he denies the validity of miracles performed31 NADAL (as footnote 21 above), III, 3, 22-25 (p. 170): καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐναὐτῷ καὶ ζῆν καὶ κινεῖσθαι καὶ εἶναι, κατὰ τὸν θεῖον ἀπόστολον, διὰπίστεως καὶ εὐσεβείας καὶ φόβου Θεοῦ καὶ ἀγάπης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν.32 NADAL (as footnote 21 above), II, 31, 41-51 (p. 130): Τί δ’ ἂνἕτερον ἡ μίμησις εἴη Θεοῦ κἀκείνου τοῦ νοῦ τοῦ ἀχράντου καὶθαυμαστοῦ, ὃν ὁ Λόγος ἀνέλαβεν, ἢ ψυχῆς ἐνέργεια φιλοθέου καὶκαθαρᾶς, κινουμένη μὲν πρὸς Θεὸν λογικῇ προαιρέσει, ἐνεργουμένη δ’ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐξομένη καὶ πρὸς ὕψος ἀεὶ τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν ἀγάπηςἀναγομένη, μᾶλλον δὲ νῦν μὲν ὑψηλοτέρα ἑαυτῆς γινομένη, νῦν δὲ καὶἐλαττουμένη, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἄτρεπτον τῶν μιμούμενων, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἂν αὐτῶν ἡπροαίρεσις ἔχοι καὶ πρὸς τὸ Θεῖον πίστις καὶ σπουδὴ καὶ ἀγάπη, καθ’ἃς ἡ σχέσις αὕτη καὶ ἀρχὴν ἐνεργεῖται καὶ ἐπιδίδωσι;

by virtuous men, since many men living in Christ did notperform any miracles, while some miracles were performedby men who were not virtuous: Is there really any need to ask formiracles, when we can learn (who the man living in Christ is) by examininghim in a direct manner? Miracles are not a proof of real virtue, since not allvirtuous men perform miracles, nor do all those who perform miraclesnecessarily practise virtue. And men who possessed great power derivingfrom God did not perform miracles at all. On the other hand, sinners didperform miracles by necessity; they even invoked Christ and Christ made hisappearance, not because such sinners had a virtuous character; thishappened simply so that the one who was called might appear33. Thisview of Kabasilas presents a striking similarity with anopinion of Barlaam the Calabrian, expounded in a fragmentof one of his lost treatises, preserved (and refuted) byGregory Palamas. Barlaam writes the following: The gifts ofGod are most perfect; it is far more important for the soul to pray, beingdetached from the world of the senses, than to function according to thesenses; accordingly, since all the activities of our soul, functioning accordingto the senses, cannot be considered as most perfect, since there is somethingbetter, these activities cannot be regarded as divine gifts”34. According toPalamas, the elaborate argument of Barlaam has certainsinister implications: Surely you do not mean to imply that becausethe gift of speaking in tongues is inferior to the gift of prophecy it does notcome from God? Or that because the gift of love is the most perfect of all gifts

33 CONGOURDEAU (as footnote 13 above), VIΙ, 3, 1-10 (p. 134): Τί οὖνδεῖ, παρὸν αὐτόθεν μανθάνειν, τεκμαίρεσθαι καὶ σημεῖα ζητεῖν, ὅταναὐτῶν ἐξῇ τῶν πραγμάτων ἅπτεσθαι;καίτοι οὐδὲ σημεῖον τοῦτο γένοιτ’ ἂνἀποχρῶν ἀρετῆς. Οὔτε γὰρ πᾶσι ταῦτα τοῖς σπουδαίοις ἀκολουθεῖ, οὔθ’οἷς ὑπῆρξεν, ἐργάται πάντες εἰσὶν ἀρετῆς. Καὶ γὰρ πολλοὶ τῶν μεγάλαπαρὰ Θεῷ δυνηθέντων οὐδὲν ἐπεδείξαντο τοιοῦτον, καὶ αὖθις τῶν πονηρῶνἐνίους ἐδέησε τοιαῦτα ποτὲ δυνηθῆναι, καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν καλοῦσιν οὐδὲνἀμήχανον ἦν, οὐ τῶν τρόπων τοῦτο διδόντων, ἀλλ’ ἵν’ ὁ καλούμενοςφανῇ. It is true that Kabasilas could have invoked earlier asceticauthors who stressed this particular point, such as Isaac the Syrian(Oratio 23, Τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ Σύρου τὰ εὑρεθένταἈσκητικά, ἀνατυπούμενα ἐπιμελείᾳ Ἰωακεὶμ Σπετσιέρη, Thessaloniki1997, 93: Μὴ συγκρίνῃς τοὺς ποιοῦντας τὰ σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα καὶδυνάμεις ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τοῖς ἡσυχάζουσιν ἐν γνώσει). 34 Pro sacrum in modum quiescentibus, P.K. CHRESTOU [ed.], Γρηγορίου τοῦΠαλαμᾶ, Συγγράμματα. Τόμος Α΄. Λόγοι ἀποδεικτικοί, Ἀντεπιγραφαί,Ἐπιστολαὶ πρὸς Βαρλαὰμ καὶ Ἀκίνδυνον, Ἔκδοσις Β΄, Thessaloniki 1988,2, 2, 11 (p. 516, 19-22): Πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι «τὰ ἐκ θεοῦ δῶρα τελεώτατα,βέλτιον δὲ τὸ ὑπὲρ αἴσθησιν εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν έν ταῖς προσευχαῖς ἢ κατ’αἴσθησιν ὁπωσοῦν ἐνεργεῖν. Ἐπεὶ τοίνυν μὴ τελεώτατα ἐκεῖνα, καὶ γάρἐστιν αὐτῶν τι βέλτιον, οὐδ’ ἐκ θεοῦ ἄρα».

it is the only gift that comes from God? Are not prophecy, miracles, the gift ofhelping our fellow-men, the governance of souls, the gift of healing, speech ofwisdom and knowledge inspired by the Holy Spirit, the discernment of thespirits derived from God. It is true that we can proceed to a certainclassification of all those men who have been gratified by the Holy Spirit, Imean the prophets, those men healing their fellow-men, and those possessingthe grace of discernment, in respect of the greater or lesser value of theirgifts. Paul expressed his gratitude to God because he possessed the gift ofspeaking in tongues to a greater extent than all others. But even someone inpossession of a less important gift had obtained it from God as well35. Thedifference between Palamas and Barlaam grows as marked asthe difference between Palamas and Kabasilas. BothBarlaam and Kabasilas diminish the value of supernaturalgifts, such as the miracles performed by certain saints,which, however, were of the outmost importance accordingto Palamas’s line of reasoning. This fact can be provedby another passage of Palamas, where he argues that thespecial gifts of the saints are closely connected withthe possession by them of the energies of the HolySpirit: The saints are instruments of the Holy Spirit, since they have takenits energy. And what I say can be readily demonstrated by the gifts of healing,the performing of miracles, the gift of prophecy36. Supernatural giftsare an essential characteristic of men who enjoy aspecial relationship with God according to Palamas, andaccordingly in his theology there is no place for anyreduction in their importance, as implied by Barlaam andKabasilas. It is true that Palamas in his seventhAntirrhetic against Akindynos argues that the performing

35 CHRESTOU I (as footnote 33 above), 2, 2, 11 (p. 516, 23-517, 3): Τίοὖν, ἐπειδὴ τὸ προφητεύειν μεῖζον ἢ τὸ λαλεῖν γλώσσαις κατὰ τὸνἀπόστολον, ἆρα τὸ χάρισμα τῶν γλωσσῶν οὐ δῶρον θεοῦ. Καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἡἀγάπη τῶν χαρισμάτων τὸ τελεώτατον, μόνον τοῦτο καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερονθεῖόν ἐστι δώρημα. Οὐχ ἡ προφητεία αὐτή, οὐχ αἱ δυνάμεις, αἱἀντιλήψεις, αἱ κυβερνήσεις, οὐ τὰ χαρίσματα τῶν ἰαμάτων, οὐχ ὁ ὁ τῆςσοφίας καὶ γνώσεως ἐν πνεύματι λόγος, οὐχ ἡ τῶν πνευμάτων διάκρισις.Κἀν τοῖς προφητικοῖς δὲ καὶ ἰαματικοῖς καὶ διακριτικοῖς καὶ ἁπλῶςτοῖς κεχαριτωμένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ θείου πνεύματος ἅπασι, κατὰ τούτωνἕκαστον τῶν χαρισμάτων ἐστὶ μείζων τε καὶ ἐλάττων, ὡς καὶ ὁ Παῦλοςεὐχαριστεῖ τῷ θεῷ, πάντων μᾶλλον γλώσσαις λαλῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ τὸἔλαττον ἔχων, δῶρον ἔχει θεοῦ. 36 CHRESTOU I (as footnote 33 above), 3, 1, 33 (p. 645, 17-20): Διὸκαὶ ὄργανα εἰσὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος οἱ ἅγιοι, τὴν αὐτὴν ἐκείνῳπροσειληφότες ἐνέργειαν, καὶ ἡ τῶν λεγομένων πίστις ἑτοίμη, τὰχαρίσματα τῶν ἰαμάτων, τὰ ἐνεργήματα τῶν δυνάμεων, ἡ πρόγνωσις.

of miracles and the foreseeing of future events is aresult of the divine union and not an end in itself:Results of the divine union are all the other miracles performed by thosedeified and the gift of seeing into other men’s hearts and of foreseeing eventsand of speaking of things that happen far away as if taking place before theirown eyes. It is important that the purpose of these most blessed men is not toattain such supernatural powers; the same applies when someone looks atthe rays of the sun; inevitably some particles of dust may be visible inside therays, although he who is looking at the rays does not intend to observe them.In the same way those who look at the divine rays in a perfect way have theopportunity to see everything within the rays. In this way all things, not onlythings of the past or of the present time, but future events as well, arerevealed to them; this knowledge is a by-product of their union with God; it isproportionate to their purity37. The theory that the performance ofmiracles is not the purpose of those living in Christwould seem to bring Palamas nearer to Kabasilas. ButKabasilas explicitly argued that the purification ofvirtuous men has nothing to do with the performing ofmiracles. A virtuous man does not necessarily performmiracles. Palamas, however, believes that supernaturalactivities are proportionate to a saint’s purity; themore virtuous a saint is, the greater the miracles heperforms; miracles are a necessary, though secondary,consequence of a saint’s deification. The differencebetween Palamas and Kabasilas becomes evident.

Kabasilas had dealt with the problem of the saintsearlier on in his letter to the ostiarios of ThessalonikiSynadenos, where he argues that no illiterate saint can37 Contra Acindynum, CHRESTOU, Γρηγορίου τοῦ Παλαμᾶ Συγγράμματα. Τόμος Γ΄.Ἀντιρρητικοὶ πρὸς Ἀκίνδυνον, Τhessaloniki 1970, 7, 11, 40, (p. 491, 26-492, 10): Ἐντεῦθεν ἡ κατ’ ἀρετὴν θεοειδὴς καὶ ἀπαράμιλλος ἕξις καὶ τὸπρὸς κακίαν ὅλως ἀκίνητον ἢ δυσκίνητον, ἐντεῦθεν ὁ διατρανῶν τοὺς τῶνὄντων λόγους λόγος καὶ ἀνακαλύπτων οἴκοθεν ἐκ καθαρότητος τὰ τῆςφύσεως μυστήρια, δι’ ὧν ἀναλογίας λόγοις πρὸς κατάληψιν τῶν ὑπὲρφύσιν τὸ διανοούμενον ἀνιμᾶται τῶν πιστῶς ἀκροωμένων, ἣν αὐτὸς ὁ τοῦλόγου πατὴρ ἀύλοις ἐπαφαῖς κατείληφεν, ἐντεῦθεν αἵ τ’ ἄλλαι ποικίλαιθαυματοποιίαι καὶ τὸ διορᾶν τε καὶ προορᾶν καὶ περὶ τῶν πόρρω πουσυμβαινόντων ὡς ὑπ’ ὀφθαλμοὺς διαλέγεσθαι, καὶ τὸ δὴ μέγιστον, ὡςοὐδὲ περὶ ταῦθ’ ὁ σκοπὸς τείνει τῶν μακαριωτάτων ἐκείνων, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερεἴ τις ὁρῴη πρὸς ἡλιακὴν ἀκτῖνα καὶ τῶν ἀερίων ἀτόμων αἰσθάνεται, κἂνμὴ τοῦτ’ αὐτῷ τυγχάνῃ σκοπός, οὕτως ἐκείνοις ταῖς θείαις ἀκτίναιςκαθαρῶς ὁμιλοῦσιν, αἷς φύσει πρόσεστιν ἡ πάντων ἀποκάλυψις, οὐχὶ τῶνὄντων μόνον καὶ γεγενημένων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἔπειτ’ ἐσομένων, ὁδοῦπάρεργον ὡς ἀληθῶς ἡ τούτων προσγίνεται γνῶσις κατὰ ἀναλογίαν τῆςκαθαρότητος.

be considered perfect. On the basis of the relevantteaching of Aristotle, he points out that man is a livingbeing capable of knowledge, therefore a man withoutknowledge cannot be considered perfect: men are in a position toobtain wisdom, since they are capable (by their nature) to think and learn. Itis possible, of course, that some saints obtain wisdom as a gift of the divinegrace; this was the case with the apostles; these holy men are not imperfect.However, all the other virtuous men who have no wisdom are indeed saints,having trained the passive part of their souls, but not yet being wise, theycannot be considered perfect38.

It is noteworthy that the scriptural passages citedby Kabasilas in order to prove that the Father and theSon inhabit the soul of the man living in Christ (e.g. Jo.14, 23), filling it with love for God, are also cited byPalamas, who interprets them in a mystical sense: Haviingplaced our trust in the one who took our own (human) nature and gave as areward the glory of his own (divine) nature, let us endeavour to find outhow we may attain and behold that glory. How indeed? By observing hiscommandments. Indeed, the Lord has promised that he will be manifested tothose who observe his commandments; proceeding further, he even calledthis manifestation of himself as the dwelling place of his Father and himself;he said: “if one loves me, he will keep my word, and my father will love him;both my Father and I will come to him and dwell within him” and “I willmanifest myself to him” (Jo. 14, 21)39. By the term glory of his

38 Correspondence de Nicolas Cabasilas. Textes traduits et commentes par M.-H.Congourdeau, Paris, Les Belles Lettres 2010, 61 (Letter 11): ἐνδυνάμει γὰρ οἱ ἄνθρωποι πρὸς τὴν σοφίαν εἰσί, καθόσον εἰσὶ νοῦ καὶἐπιστήμης δεκτικοί, εἰ μή που λάβοιεν διὰ τῆς χάριτος τὴν σοφίαν καὶτὴν διδασκαλίαν, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐγένετο. Οὗτοι γὰρ οὐκέτιεἰσὶν ἀτελεῖς. Οἱ δὲ μὴ οὕτω δεξάμενοι τὴν σοφίαν, ἅγιοι μὲν εἰσί, τὸπαθητικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς παιδεύσαντες, σοφοὶ δὲ οὐκέτι, καὶ οὕτως εἰσὶνἀτελεῖς. It is noteworthy that this argument of Kabasilas is repeatedby Matthaios Kantakouzenos in his short treatise Περὶ φιλομαθείας,see I. Sakkelion, Ματθαίου τοῦ Καντακουζηνοῦ Λόγοι δύο, Παρνασσὸς 11(1888), 275: τοῦτο γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἰδιαίτατον, τὸ νοῦ καὶ ἐπιστήμηςδεκτικὸν εἶναι, καὶ ὅσῳ πλείους οἶδε τὰς ἐπιστήμας, τοσούτῳ τῆςἀλογότητος διενήνοχε. Τὸ γὰρ τέλειον ὅσῳπερ ἂν εἴη τελειότερον,τοσούτῳ γε τῶν ἀτελεστέρων καὶ τιμιώτερον. Εἰ δὴ τοῦτ’ ἄν τις ἐν ἡμῖνσυνεργὸν εἰς τελειότητα λάβοι, ὅπερ ἂν δι’ ἐπιστήμης καὶ μαθήσεωςγίγνοιτο, ὅσῳ πάντως μαθήσεως ἀποδέομεν, τοσούτῳ τῆς τῶν ἀλόγωνκεκοινωνήκαμεν φύσεως. In all probability Matthaios Kantakouzenosdrew his argument from Kabasilas, who was a close friend of hisfamily.39 Pro sacrum in modum quiescentibus, CHRESTOU I (as footnote 33 above), 2,3, 16 (p. 553, 3-11): πιστεύσαντες δὲ τῷ μεταλαβόντι τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν

nature Palamas implies the uncreated light of God, anenergy emanating from his unapproachable divine essence.

As we have seen, Kabasilas places great emphasis onthe observance of the commandments of the Lord and onfaith, which create inside the soul of the man living inChrist the gift of love for God; his perspective isclearly ethical. Palamas stresses the importance ofobserving the commandments of the Lord too. But thepurpose of this is the attainment of mystical union withGod, not the ethical transformation of man’s inner self:By keeping his soul removed from all relations with this world, and leavingeverything behind him by observing the commandments of the Lord, therebyensuring his complete inner tranquility, man surpasses all his cognitivefaculties through immaculate, continuous prayer, which focuses on nothingmaterial; in this way he is unconsciously united with God and theunapproachable light shines upon him in a mysterious manner; then thewhole man becomes light: he enjoys the light and is able to discern throughthe light another light; thus he comes to know the unknown God who isbeyond all light40. This passage of Palamas, where his debt tothe pseudo-Dionysian corpus is evident, makes it clearthat Palamas’s perspective is totally different from thatof Kabasilas. All the thoughts of Palamas focus on themystical union of man’s love with God. The love for Godand faith in him are not ends in themselves, as forKabasilas, but only the means to bring us closer to thatunion. This is explicitly stated in the following passageof Palamas: The purpose of the true faith, attained through theobservance of the commandments of the Lord, is not only to teach us the

καὶ μεταδόντι τῆς δόξης τῆς φύσεως αὐτοῦ ζητήσωμεν πῶς κτᾶταί τιςτοῦτο καὶ ὁρᾷ. Πῶς οὖν; Τῇ τῶν θείων ἐντολῶν τηρήσει. Τῷ γὰρ τηροῦντιταύτας τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἐμφάνειαν ἐπηγγείλατο ὁ κύριος, ἣν ἐφεξῆς προϊὼνκαὶ «μονὴν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς» ὠνόμασεν εἰπών, «ἐάν τις ἀγαπᾷ με,τὸν λόγον μου τηρήσει καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ἀγαπήσει αὐτὸν καὶ ἐλευσόμεθαπρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ μονὴν παρ’ αὐτῷ ποιήσομεν» καὶ «ἐμφανίσω αὐτῷἐμαυτόν». 40 Ιbd. CHRESTOU I (as footnote 33 above), 2, 3, 57 (p. 591, 14-22): Ὁδὲ πᾶσαν τὴν πρὸς τὰ κάτω σχέσιν τῆς οἰκείας ἀφελὼν ψυχῆς καὶ ἐκπάντων ἀπολυθεὶς διὰ τῆς τῶν ἐντολῶν τηρήσεως καὶ τῆς ἐκ ταύτηςἀπαθείας, καὶ ὑπερβὰς πᾶσαν γνωστικὴν ἐνέργειαν δι’ ἐκτενοῦς καὶεἰλικρινοῦς καὶ ἀύλου προσευχῆς, κἀκεῖ δι’ ἑνώσεως ἀγνώστου καθ’ὑπεροχὴν ὑπερλαμφθεὶς τῷ ἀπροσίτῳ φέγγει, μόνος οὗτος, φῶς γεγονὼςκαὶ διὰ τοῦ φωτὸς θεώμενος καὶ φῶς ὁρῶν ἐν τῇ τοῦ φωτὸς ἐκείνου θέᾳτε καὶ ἀπολαύσει, καὶ τὸ ὑπερφαὲς καὶ ἀπερινόητον ὄντως γινώσκει τοῦΘεοῦ.

knowledge of God through created beings, whether known to us or unknown;it is also to impart to us the knowledge of God through the uncreated light,which is the glory of the Father, and of the Son, our Christ; this glory belongsto those who have died and have reached the kingdom of Christ as well41. Thesame is stressed in the same treatise of Palamas lateron, commenting on a passage of Ps.-Dionysius theAreopagite, where the passage Jo. 14, 23 is interpreted:Do you see what the meaning of the term “knowledge of beings” is? It is theimplementation of the divine commandments. And what its purpose is? It is tobe united with God, to become like with him. And why did he call thatequation with God love? Because love is the apex of all virtues and love, beingmolded in the image of God, preserves the utmost similarity to him. ... But ifobservance of the commandments of the Lord alone is sufficient for theattainment of true knowledge and for our union with God, then thatknowledge is false42. According to Palamas, love is not anethical virtue, as for Kabasilas; it is equated with themystical union with God.

We have already examined the meaning of “life inChrist” in Kabasilas, which is equivalent to the love forGod, which prepares man for his future life. For Palamas,life takes on a supernatural sense, being equated withunion with God attained in this life: The divine and heavenlylife of those men living in a God-befitting manner by partaking in the life ofthe Spirit, like Paul who, according to Maximus, lived the life of the one whohad inhabited him, is eternal; it belongs by nature to the Spirit, which candeify men for eternity; that life can rightly be called by the saints “divinity”and “spirit” as well, since it is a deifying gift, inseparable from the Spiritoffering it; it is also light, shining in an ineffable manner; only those deemedworthy of it may realize it ... The Spirit is beyond that deifying life, since that

41 Ibd., CHRESTOU I (as footnote 33 above), 2, 3, 66 (p. 598, 26-599,1): Κοινὴ μὲν οὖν αὕτη πᾶσι τοῖς εἰς Χριστὸν πεπιστευκόσιν ὑπὲρἔννοιαν γνῶσις. Τὸ δὲ δὴ τῆς ἀληθοῦς πίστεως ταύτης τέλος, ὃ διὰ τῆςτῶν ἐντολῶν ἐργασίας προσγίνεται, οὐκ ἐκ τῶν ὄντων μόνων καὶ γνωστῶνκαὶ ἀγνώστων τὴν θεογνωσίαν παρέχεται-ὄντα γὰρ ἐνταῦθα τὰ κτιστὰπάντως λέγομεν-ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ ἀκτίστου φωτός, ὃ θεοῦ ἐστι δόξα καὶΧριστοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τῶν τῆς χριστοειδοῦς ἐφικομένων λήξεως.42 Ιbd., CHRESTOU I (as footnote 33 above), 2, 3, 74-75 (p. 607, 8-28):Ὁρᾷς ποίαν λέγει γνῶσιν τῶν ὄντων ἀληθῆ; Τὴν ἐργασίαν τῶν ἀρετῶν. Τίδὲ τὸ ταύτης τέλος; Ἡ πρὸς θεὸν ἕνωσίς τε καὶ ἀφομοίωσις. Πῶς δὲ ἐκεῖἀγάπην εἶπε ταύτην τὴν ἀφομοίωσιν; Ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη ἐστὶ τῶν ἀρετῶν τὸπλήρωμα καὶ αὕτη τῇ εἰκόνι προσχρωσθεῖσα τελείαν τὴν πρὸς θεὸνἀποσώζει ἐμφέρειαν ... Εἰ γοῦν διὰ μόνης τῆς τῶν ἐντολῶν τηρήσεως ἡἀληθὴς προσγίνεται γνώσις καὶ ἡ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἕνωσις καὶ ὁμοίωσις,ὅπερ ὁ φιλόσοφός φησιν γνῶσιν, ψευδογνωσία ἐστίν.

life is an energy belonging to it by nature43. In other words, life isan uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit, not somethingcreated by God inside the soul of those living in Christ,as Kabasilas maintains.

The connection of the uncreated light with the lifein Christ is stressed in another passage of Palamas: Thislight is an eternal life, implanted into the deified man; it cannot be separatedfrom God; this is why Paul said: “I do not live anymore, Christ is living insideme”. In his third Antirrhetic against Akindynos Palamasrepeats this view: those deified live an eternal, divine life, becomingpartakers of that which proceeds out of the Holy Spirit, but is not divided fromit, like the one who said “I do not live anymore, Christ lives inside me” 44. Inhis second Antirrhetic against Akindynos Palamas pointsout (98): The divine life, consisting in the partaking of all good things byall those worthy of them, is the shining of the divine nature45.

The difference between Palamas and Kabasilas isevident in the interpretation of a difficult passage fromLetter 101 of Gregory of Nazianzus in the same chapter.Palamas interprets the passage in question as referringto the light that is equal to life: That light is divine; this isconfirmed by John in his Revelation and by all the saints. Gregory thetheologian says: Christ with his body will come in the way I have described,and will be seen as he was seen by his disciples on the mountain, or rather hewas seen in an incomplete way, because the vision of the divinity surpassedthe cognitive faculties of the disciples46. Kabasilas uses the samepassage of Gregory, but in connection with the rebirth of43 Ιbd., CHRESTOU I (as footnote 33 above), 3, 1, 9 (pp. 622, 27-623,2): Καὶ τοίνυν ἡ τοιαύτη θεία καὶ οὐράνιος ζωὴ τῶν θεοπρεπῶς ζώντωνἐν τῷ μετέχειν τῆς ἀχωρίστου τοῦ πνεύματος ζωῆς-ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ Παῦλοςἔζη «τὴν τοῦ ἐνοικήσαντος θείαν καὶ ἀίδιον» κατὰ τὸν θεῖον Μάξιμον«ζωήν»-, ἡ τοιαύτη τοιγαροῦν ζωὴ ἀεὶ μὲν ἔστι, φυσικῶς ἐνυπάρχουσα τῷπνεύματι θεοποιεῖν ἐξ ἀιδίου πεφυκότι. 44 Contra Acindynum, CHRESTOU III (as footnote 36 above), 3, 4, 8 (p.166, 15-18): ... οἱ τεθεωμένοι ζωὴν ζῶσι θείαν τε καὶ ἀίδιον, τῆςπροϊούσης μέν, μὴ χωριζομένης δὲ τοῦ θείου πνεύματος μετεσχηκότεςζωῆς, κατὰ τὸν εἰπόντα, «ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός».45 Ιbd., CHRESTOU III (as footnote 36 above), 2, 7, 18 (p. 98, 24-25):Ζωὴ δὲ πάντως θεία καὶ παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ μετουσία τοῖς ἠξιωμένοις ἡ τῆςθείας φύσεως λαμπρότης.46 Pro sacrum in modum quiescentibus, CHRESTOU I (as footnote 33 above), 3,1, 10 (p. 624, 18-24): Tοῦτ’ ἄρα θεϊκόν ἐστι τὸ φῶς, ὡς καὶ Ἰωάννηςἐν τῇ Ἀποκαλύψει ἔφη καὶ τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσι συνδοκεῖ. Γρηγόριος δὲ ὁτῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος, «ἥξει μέν», φησί, «μετὰ σώματος, ὡς ὁ ἐμὸςλόγος, τοιοῦτος δὲ οἷος ὤφθη τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐν τῷ ὄρει, ἢ παρεδείχθη,ὑπερνικώσης τὸ σαρκίον τῆς θεότητος».

man at baptism: After we emerge from the water, we bear the Saviorinside our souls, in our heads, in our eyes, even in our intestines, in all ourlimbs; the Savior has no sin, he is uncorrupted; he is in the condition he wasat the time of his resurrection, as he was seen by his disciples, and at the timeof his assumption; he is in the condition he will be seen at the time of hissecond and glorious coming, when he will come to retrieve the treasure heoffered us through holy baptism47. One could object that noreference to the story of the Transfiguration on themountain is to be found in the text of Kabasilas; thismay be true. What is certain, is the employment by him ofthe text of Gregory of Nazianzus, interpreted in a mannerconsistent with his views on the mysteries as the meansby which our life in Christ is accorded and safeguarded.

Palamas was very critical of the views of Kabasilas.Of course, he was not aware of the treatise of Kabasilas,but knew perfectly well the treatises of GregoryAkindynos, where views identical to those of Kabasilaswere expounded. In his fifth Antirrhetic againstAkindynos he makes a distinction between human virtuethat is a creature, and the virtue that is uncreated,implanted in our souls by the divine grace: Virtue is a divineenergy; I do not mean the virtue existing by nature in creatures, but truevirtue, which is given to divine men at the time of their union with God, whoare able to live in a divine manner ... That is why the divine Maximus says that“all virtue has no beginning” ... Therefore, love, happiness, peace andpatience, and all other virtues may be present in all rational beings in anatural way, i.e. as creatures ... But they may also be present in asupernatural way; these belong to the Holy Spirit alone48. We have seenthat neither Akindynos nor Kabasilas make such adistinction, insisting instead that virtue is a naturalphenomenon, though it is certainly a feature of the life47 CONGOURDEAU I (as footnote 6 above), I, 61, 1-6 (pp. 128-130): Καὶτὸ ὕδωρ ἀναδύντες, αὐτὸν τὸν Σωτῆρα φέρομεν ἐπὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν,ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς, ἐπὶ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν, ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς σπλάγχνοις, ἐπὶ τῶνμελῶν ἁπάντων, ἁμαρτίας καθαρόν, φθορᾶς ἁπάσης ἀπηλλαγμένον, οἷοςἀνέστη καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς ὤφθη, καὶ ἀνελήφθη, οἷος ἀφίξεται πάλιντοῦτον ἀπαιτήσων τὸν θησαυρόν.48 Contra Acindynum, CHRESTOU III (as footnote 36 above), 5, 28, 119 (p.377, 17-25): Τοιοῦτόν ἐστι καὶ ἀρετὴ πᾶσα, οὐχ ἡ φύσει προσοῦσα τοῖςκτιστοῖς, ἀλλ’ ἥ γε ὄντως οὖσα καὶ τοῖς ἐνθέοις τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ ἑνώσεικεχορηγημένη, καθ’ ἣν καὶ ζῶσι θείως ... Διὸ καὶ ὁ πολὺς τὰ θεῖαΜάξιμος, «ἄναρχος πᾶσα ἀρετή», φησί, «μὴ ἔχουσα τὸν χρόνον ἑαυτῆςπρεσβύτερον, ἅτε τὸν θεὸν ἔχουσα τοῦ εἶναι μονώτατον ἀιδίωςγεννήτορα».

in Christ. Palamas, on the other hand, argues that lovemay lead man to divine enlightenment (3, 485): Diadochusurges us to have love; love in due time may lead to supernaturalenlightenment; in its turn, this light makes love perfect. That is why saintDiadochus in another passage says that the perfection of love will be realizedby us as a result of the enlightenment49. Quoting a passage ofAkindynos, Palamas says that it is evidence of hismaliciousness: The following argument of Akindynos is evidence of hismaliciousness. He says: “the only true and perfect enlightenment is love,peace, and apathy, joy, comfort and sweetness, which is based on theobservance of the divine commandments50. But this is the view ofKabasilas too. Palamas’s answer is the following: Light isnot only knowledge; virtue can also be called light; in any case, not evenvirtue can be perfect without the contribution of the (uncreated) light51.Further on, Palamas says: You used to say that the true andimmaterial vision of light is the observance of the divine commandments. Youdid not pay any attention to the promise of the Lord, who said that he wouldcome and make himself manifest, dwelling inside those who heeded hiscommandments52.

There is only one point where Kabasilas’s thoughtseems to converge with that of Gregory Palamas. In bookII of his De vita in Christo Kabasilas quotes a long passagefrom John Chrysostom (PG 61, 448-449) where there areseveral references to the impact of divine grace insideman’s soul; the vision of Stephen the protomartyr ismentioned, too, as an example of the glorification of the49 Ibd., CHRESTOU III (as footnote 36 above), 7, 10, 33 (p. 485, 26-31): Προτρέπεται δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἀγάπην, ὡς ἐκείνης καρποφορούσης ἐνκαιρῷ προσήκοντι τὸν ὑπερφυᾶ τοῦτον φωτισμόν, ὑφ’ οὗ αὖθις αὕτητελειοῦται. Διόπερ ὁ ἅγιος Διάδοχος ἀλλαχοῦ τῶν κεφαλαίων, «τὸτέλειον τῆς ἀγάπης ἐκ τοῦ φωτισμοῦ γνωσόμεθα», φησίν.50 Ibd., CHRESTOU III (as footnote 36 above), 7, 12, 42 (p. 493, 32-36): Ἐπιβεβαιοῖ δ’ ἑαυτῷ τὴν κακόνοιαν διὰ τῆς ἐφεξῆς κατασκευῆς.«Μόνη» γάρ, φησίν, «ἀπλανὴς φωτοφάνεια καὶ μόνη τελεωτάτη, ἡ ἐν ταῖςἐντολαῖς τοῦ θεοῦ ἀγάπη καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀπάθεια καὶ χαρὰ καὶ τρυφὴ καὶγλυκύτης».51 Ibd., CHRESTOU III, (as footnote 36 above) 7, 12, 47 (p. 497, 9-11):Φῶς μὲν γὰρ οὐχ ἡ γνῶσις μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ ἀρετὴ κληθείη ἄν. Ἀλλ’οὐδ’ αὕτη τελειοῦται χωρὶς ἐκείνου τοῦ φωτός.52 Ibd., CHRESTOU III (as footnote 36 above), 7, 14, 53 (p. 501, 27-32): Ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ταύτην διώκοντας ἀγνοεῖν ἔλεγες, ὡς αὐτὴ καθ’ἑαυτὴν ἡ τῶν θείων ἐντολῶν πρᾶξις, ἡ ἀνείδεός ἐστι καὶ ἀπλανὴςφωτοφάνεια, μηδὲ τὴν τοῦ ἐντειλαμένου δυσωπηθεὶς ἐπαγγελίαν, ἥξεινκαὶ ἐμφανίσεσθαι καὶ ἐνοικήσειν ὑπεσχημένου τοῖς τετηρηκόσιν τὰςαὐτοῦ θείας ἐντολάς.

human soul by the grace of God through baptism.Explaining this passage Kabasilas writes: Those who arebaptized are not only able to think about God, understand him and believe inhim, but in those waters they are able to discover something greater andmore close to reality itself. It is incorrect to identify the light of God withknowledge of our intellect and to consider it just an enlightenment of ourreason, because such knowledge may disappear after a day or two because ofthose daily cares disturbing the mind of initiates. But true faith cannot beforgotten, however much the faithful may be in distress, and it cannotdisappear so quickly; it is possible for him to speak properly about God,although he is in trouble; he may suffer, but he never forgets the word ofsalvation and true philosophy. Accordingly, it is evident that all these are theproduct of a direct perception of God, who shines his rays inside our soul in away not understood by us53. This is the only passage ofKabasilas where the author speaks in a mystical tonereminiscent of Palamas. But one should be careful not tobe misled into seeing any Palamite influence in thephrase αἴσθησιν ἄμεσον εἶναί τινα ταῦτα τοῦ Θεοῦ. True,Palamas speaks about the νοερὰ αἴσθησις which enables manto come into contact with the uncreated energies of God,but this is not to be confused with the much more generaland rather vague statement of Kabasilas who does nothingmore than stress, in conventional terms, the faithful’ssense of the divine presence and of his innertransformation. If Kabasilas was a Palamite, he would notavoid speaking about the union of our soul with theuncreated energy of God. The mystical passage ofKabasilas may be used as an argument against hisbelonging to the Palamite party.

53 CONGOURDEAU I (as footnote 6 above), II, 97, 1-16 (p. 226-228):Oὐκοῦν οὐ μέχρι τοῦ διανοηθῆναι καὶ λογίσασθαι καὶ πιστεῦσαι τὸν Θεὸντοὺς βαπτιζομένους ἔξεστι γνῶναι, ἀλλά τι καὶ μεῖζον καὶ τοῦπράγματος ἐγγίον έν τοῖς ὕδασι τούτοις ἔστιν εὑρεῖν. Τὴν γὰρ ἀστραπὴνἐκείνην Θεοῦ τιθέναι γνῶσιν ἐν διανοίᾳ, καὶ λόγου τινὰ δᾳδουχίανεἶναι νομίζειν, οὐκ ἂν εἴη λόγον σῶζον, ὅτε τὴν μὲν ἀφανίζεσθαισυμβαίνει μετὰ τὴν μίαν καὶ δευτέραν ἡμέραν ὄχλων καὶ θορύβων τοῖςμεμυημένοις περιχεθέντων, τὴν πίστιν δὲ οὐδείς ἐστιν ὃς ἠγνόησεμεριμνήσας, ἐν οὕτω καὶ ταῦτα χρόνῳ βραχεῖ, ἀλλ’ ἔστι καὶ πράγματαἔχειν καὶ θεολογεῖν εἰδέναι καλῶς, καὶ τὸ μεῖζον, πάθεσιπροσκειμένους εἶναι πονηροῖς καὶ τὸν τῆς σωτηρίας καὶ τῆς ἀληθοῦςφιλοσοφίας λόγον οὐκ ἀγνοεῖν. Ὅθεν δῆλον αἴσθησιν ἄμεσον εἶναί τιναταῦτα τοῦ Θεοῦ, τῆς ἐκεῖθεν ἀκτῖνος τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῆς ἀφανῶς ἁπτομένης.

IV. An attack by Kabasilas on the patriarch?

The so-called Anti-Zealot Discourse of Nikolaos Kabasilas wasexamined in depth by I. Ševčenko, who pointed out thatthe author attacks certain political and ecclesiasticalauthorities that confiscated the goods of other clerics,monasteries, suffragan bishops and so on. TentativelyŠevčenko argued that Kabasilas sought to castigatecertain officials of the period of the patriarchate ofthe anti-Palamite John Kalekas54. Dennis, believing thatthe work was not written during Kabasilas’s youth,pointed out some similarities of the text with an orationof Isidore Glabas written at the time of Manuel IIPalaiologos’s governorship of Thessaloniki55. Later on,Dennis changed his mind and interpreted the treatise as atheoretical investigation of the matter of theexpropriation of ecclesiastical property, without beingaimed at any particular target56. However, this text iscertainly not theoretical; its censorious language is notfitting for a theoretical treatise.

I shall comment on a passage of this text that dealswith the metropolitans misappropriating the goods ofbishoprics under their jurisdiction, and consider thepossibility that our author had as a target none otherthan the ecumenical patriarch himself, whoever this mayhave been at the time. I give a free translation of thepassage here: My opponent says that the property of the suffraganbishoprics belongs to him and those denying to give it to him are unfair tohim. He argues: I am the pastor of all bishoprics, as every bishop is a pastorof his own bishopric; accordingly, even if I seize the property against their will,I am not unfair to them”. But even in this case you are unfair. You cannot taketheir property against their will: this is prohibited by law. You are the bishopof the metropolis but this does not give you the right to misappropriate theproperties of the bishoprics under your jurisdiction. The law does not applyeither to the people or to those (laymen) who are unfair towards their fellow-countrymen; it applies only to you, who are superior to them, being the

54 I. ŠEVČENKO, Nicolas Cabasilas’ “Anti-Zealot” Discource: AReinterpretation, DOP 11 (1957), 162-170.55 G. DENNIS, The Reign of Manuel II Palaeologus in Thessalonica,1382-1387, OCA 159, Roma 1960, 90-91.56 ID., Nicholas Cabasilas Chamaetos and his Discource on AbusesCommitted by Authorities against Sacred Things, Byzantine Studies/ÉtudesByzantines 5 (1978), 80-87.

bishop of the metropolis; it orders you not to misappropriate the holyproperty belonging to the bishoprics under your jurisdiction. Accordingly,whether you rightfully call yourself bishop of those bishoprics or youmisappropriate that name wrongly, the situation does not change at all: aslong as the law is in force, you act illegally. If your dignity was reallysomething different, superior to anything else from the beginning, and youproved that you were not one of those (metropolitan) bishops referred to bythe law, your contention would be true and the punishments of the law wouldnot apply. But since you are not in a position to prove that you are reallysuperior to the bishop of a metropolis, as he is referred to by the law-givers,you are obliged to admit that you act illegally; otherwise, if you really wish tojustify your behavior, you must argue that the law, which you swore toobserve, is unjust; but this would be perjury; so it is better to admit that weact illegally57.

Ševčenko has pointed out that “the metropolitan whoanswers such a description (i.e. pastor over all thecities) may be the Patriarch of Constantinople”58. This ispossible, but far from certain. Ιt is evident that theopponent of Kabasilas calls himself “pastor of all”(ποιμὴν γὰρ ἁπασῶν ἐγώ), not defining the word whichshould be governed by the word «ποιμὴν» any further,while Kabasilas himself calls him “bishop of themetropolis”. Both the words πόλεων and ἀποικιῶν can beexplained. In the second case Kabasilas’s opponent may bean ordinary metropolitan, not the ecumenical patriarch.

57 ŠEVČENKO (as footnote 52 above) 39, 1-18 (p. 113-114): Ἀλλ’ ἐμά,φησιν, ἐκεῖνα καὶ οἱ μὴ διδόντες ἀδικοῦσι. Ποιμὴν γὰρ ἁπασῶν ἐγώ,καθάπερ ἕκαστος τῆς αὐτοῦ. Κἂν λάβω παρ’ ἀκόντων, οὐκ ἀδικῶ.-Μάλισταμὲν καὶ οὕτω παρανομήσεις. Καὶ ὧν γὰρ εἶ ποιμήν, οὐδὲ τούτους βιάσῃ,τοῦ νόμου τοῦτο κελεύοντος. Ἔπειτα, εἰ καὶ τῆς πόλεως ἐπίσκοπος εἶ,τί μᾶλλον διὰ τοῦτο τὰς ἀποίκους καρποῦσθαι πόλεις δίκαιος εἶ; Ὁ γὰρνόμος οὐ πρὸς τοὺς πολλοὺς οὐδὲ κατὰ τῶν τοὺς ὁμοφύλους ἠδικηκότων,ἀλλὰ τὸν ὑπὲρ τούτους, τὸν τῆς μητροπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον, σὲ τοῦτον, τῶνἐν ταῖς ἀποίκοις χρημάτων ἀπέχεσθαι κελεύει τῶν ἱερῶν. Εἴτε οὖνἐπίσκοπον τούτων σαυτὸν ἀξιοῖς εἶναι δικαίως, εἴθ’ οὗ μὴ προσῆκενὀνόματος ἀντιποιῇ, πρὸς τὴν αἰτίαν ταύτην οὐδέν. Ἀλλ’ ἕως ὁ νόμοςοὗτος κύριος, παρανόμων ἁλίσκῃ. Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλο τι σχῆμα τοῦτο τὸσόν, καὶ τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς τεθέντων οὐδενὸς ὅμοιον, οὐδὲ τούτων αὐτὸςεἶναι τῶν ἐπισκόπων τῶν νόμῳ ἐδείκνυς ὁριζομένων, καλῶς ἂν εὗρες, οἷςἂν τὰς δίκας τοῦ νόμου τούτου διέφυγες. Ἐπεὶ δ’ οὐδὲν ἕτερον εὑρήσειςσαυτόν, κἂν σφόδρα ζητήσῃς, ἢ ὃν ἐπίσκοπον μητροπόλεως οἱ νομοθέταικαλοῦσιν, ὑπόλοιπον ἢ παρανομεῖν ὁμολογεῖν, ἢ σαυτῷ βουλόμενονἀμύνειν, τοῦ νόμου κατηγορεῖν ἀδικίαν, ὃν σέβειν ὀμώμοκας. Εἰ δὲ τὸδεύτερον ἐπιορκία καὶ παρὰ τὰς συνθήκας, ἑλοῦ τὸ πρῶτον. 58 ŠEVČENKO (as footnote 52 above), 169.

Kabasilas’s argument is that even if we accept hisopponent’s claim that he is “pastor of all bishoprics”,he is not entitled to lay hands on the property of hissuffragans, because the canons explicitly prohibit anymetropolitan from misappropriating the goods of hisbishoprics. But what comes next is rather puzzling:Kabasilas says that even if the dignity of his opponentis not to be compared to anything else (εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλοτι σχῆμα τοῦτο τὸ σόν, καὶ τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς τεθέντων οὐδενὸςὅμοιον), and even if he claims that he is not one of themetropolitan bishops referred to by the relevant laws,his case cannot be justified; even if he tries, he willnot be able to prove that he is something greater than ametropolitan bishop. Accordingly, the opponent ofKabasilas did not count himself among the ordinarymetropolitans, believing that he is something greater,because of his dignity. What kind of dignity was theschema possessed by the opponent of Kabasilas? It is clearthat he claims that his dignity is quite elevated (τῶν ἐξἀρχῆς τεθέντων οὐδενὸς ὅμοιον). Τhe only plausible answerto this question is that Kabasilas had in mind thepatriarch of Constantinople, as Ševčenko argued, unlessKabasilas is speaking hypothetically. If Ševčenko isright, the objections of Kabasilas to the arbitraryactions of his opponent may be interpreted as one moreinstance of the perennial controversy of the ecumenicalpatriarch with his suffragans. In such a case the initialphrase of the passage quoted above ποιμὴν γὰρ ἁπασῶν ἐγώis one of the stock phrases of those juridical Byzantinetexts dealing with the universal jurisdiction of thepatriarch59, while the phrase ἄλλο τι σχῆμα ... οὐδενὸςὅμοιον may be compared to other traditional phrasesdescribing the patriarchal dignity. For example, Nicetasof Amasea, a strong supporter of the patriarchalprerogatives, writes: Ἐγὼ δὲ τὴν τοιαύτην ἐξουσίαν ἔλαβονδιὰ τὸ εἶναι πρόεδρος τῆς βασιλευ σ ούσης , ἧς ἅπαντα δοῦλακαὶ ὑποχείρια, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἰκότως ἔλαβον τὸ κατάρχεινμητροπολιτῶν, ἀνάλογον τῇ πόλει ἀξίωμα καὶ ἔλαχον «ὄνοματὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα», ὁ οἰκουμενικὸς πατριάρχης60. This text

59 ŠEVČENKO (as footnote 52 above), 169.60 J. DARROUZÈS, Documents inédits d’ecclésiologie Byzantine. Textesédités, traduits et annotés, Archives de l’Orient Chrétien 10, Paris 1966,

of Nicetas of Amasea of the late tenth or early eleventhcentury makes another point which may help us clarify thetext of Kabasilas. One of the arguments of the opponentsof Nicetas is that the patriarch of Constantinople has noright at all regarding the bishopric left vacant by thedeath of his bishop: Θῶμεν δὲ τῷ λόγῳ ὅτι ὁ πατριάρχηςοὔτε τοῦ χηρεύοντος θρόνου ἐστὶν οὔτε τῆς χειροτονίαςκύριος61. Κabasilas is also concerned about the illegalacts committed by several metropolitans towards theirsuffragan bishops after they die. He says: καὶ τὰς ἀπὸτοῦ κοινοῦ προσόδους ἁρπάζετε, τῶν νόμων κελευόντων τὰςμὲν τηρεῖσθαι τοῖς ἐκδεξομένοις αὐτούς, τὰς δὲ τοῖςκληρονόμοις τῶν ἐπισκόπων, εἴ τινές εἰσι, συγχωρεῖν, ἀλλ’ὑμεῖς οὔτε τούτων πατουμένων φροντίζοντες, χρῆσθε ὅ,τιβούλεσθε62. Kabasilas does not approve of themetropolitans laying hands on the moneys of theirsuffragan bishoprics when a bishop dies.

The views expounded by Kabasilas are quite similarto the theories of an earlier anonymous text of the tenthcentury published by Darrouzès. The author of the textgoes so far as to maintain that the patriarch ofConstantinople has no suffragan bishops, themetropolitans are superior to him as far as thegovernment of their metropolis is concerned, believingthat in some respects the patriarch is not superior to anordinary bishop! I quote a relevant passage from histext: Διὸ οὐδὲ ἔξεστι τοὺς περὶ τῶν μητροπολιτῶνἐκφωνηθέντας κανόνας εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἕλκειν τὸνΚωνσταντινουπόλεως, ἀλλ’ ἢ τοὺς περὶ αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένουςκαὶ τοὺς κοινῶς περὶ παντὸς ἐπισκόπου ἐγκειμένουςμόνους63. This is how he formulated his argument: Tὸ δὲαὐτὸ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων διοικήσεων καὶ τῶν ἁπανταχοῦἐπαρχιῶν παραφυλαχθήσεται, ὥστε μηδένα τῶν θεοφιλεστάτωνἐπισκόπων ἐπαρχίαν ἑτέραν, οὐκ οὖσαν ἄνωθεν καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆςὑπὸ τὴν αὐτοῦ, ἤγουν τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ χεῖρακαταλαμβάνειν ... Ἐξ οὗ δῆλον ὅτι ἐλευθέραν εἶναι δεῖπᾶσαν ἐπαρχίαν καὶ τὰς τούτων ψήφους καὶ χειροτονίας,ἀλλὰ μὴ παρὰ τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως κατεξουσιάζεσθαι64.166, 20-24.61 DARROUZÈS (as footnote 58 above), 168, 18-19.62 ŠEVČENKO (as footnote 52 above), 38, 2-4 (p. 112). 63 DARROUZÈS (as footnote 58 above), 140, 17-20.64 DARROUZÈS (as footnote 58 above), 136, 28-138, 12.

Later on he remarks that οὐδαμῶς οἶμαι λόγον ἔχειν τὸὑποτελεῖς καὶ ἐπεχομένους εἶναι τοὺς μητροπολίτας τῷΚωνσταντινουπόλεως65. According to the anonymous author,the patriarch of Constantinople has no right to trespassupon the canonical rights of the other metropolitans,being bound by the canons concerning simple bishops.Although I am aware of the fact that the anonymous authorrefers to the problem of ordinations, which is quitedifferent from the point discussed by Kabasilas, theirposition looks strikingly similar.

If our interpretation is correct, Kabasilas ismaking a direct attack on the patriarch ofConstantinople. Unfortunately we are not in a position todetermine the date of the treatise. If it is not a workof Kabasilas’s youth (i.e. after 1347), and Kabasilas isindeed attacking a patriarch of Constantinople, thatpatriarch must have been a Palamite. Isidore Boucheiras(1347-1350) was a man admired by Kabasilas, so it isunlikely that he was the target of Kabasilas criticism.Kallistos I (1350-1353, 1355-1363) and PhilotheosKokkinos (1353-1354, 1364-1376) are, however, twopossible candidates for Kabasilas’s criticism. PhilotheosKokkinos was accused of his financial dealings with thepowerful of his day by Demetrios Kydones. According toDemetrios Kydones, his brother Prochoros was an honestman οὐδένα μὲν κολακεύσας, αἰδοῖ δὲ τὴν παρρησίαν μιγνύς,οὐ δασμολογεῖν τοὺς ἄρχοντας ἀξιῶν καὶ τῶν αὐτῷ διδομένωντὴν ἐν οὐρανοῖς ἀποδιδόμενος βασιλείαν, οὐδ’ ὀβολῶνὀλίγων τὰ ἀπόρρητα φαίνειν μεγαλαυχούμενος οὐδ’ ἐπὶθεολογίᾳ καὶ δόγμασι μεμισθαρνηκώς ... οὐδὲ τὸν πώγωνατὴν ἄλλως ἀσκῶν καὶ τῆς σεμνότητος μόνον τῶν ἱματίωνἐπιμελούμενος, καὶ μισθὸν τούτων τὴν ἐπισκοπὴνἀπαιτῶν ... οὔτε γὰρ βλασφημούντων ἀκούσεται οὔτε τὰ θεῖακαπηλευόντων, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τὸν αὐτὸν ὄψεται δημοσίᾳ τεἐπάρατον ὄντα καὶ τῆς ἱερωσύνης γεγυμνωμένον καὶ τὰςκοινὰς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους θυσίας προσάγοντα66. It is clearthat Demetrios Kydones is comparing his honest brotherProchoros with the dishonest patriarch Philotheos. Οne is65 DARROUZÈS (as footnote 58 above), 138, 30-31.66 G. MERCATI, Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, Manuele Caleca eTeodoro Meliteniota ed altri appunti per la storia della teologia edella letteratura Bizantina del secolo XIV, StT 56, Città del Vaticano1931, 335, 57-336, 85.

tempted to cite some passages from the Anti-Zealotdiscourse of Kabasilas where the author refers to theillegal and uncanonical financial dealings of certainhigh-ranking clergymen67. Βut even if Kabasilas did nothave in mind the ecumenical patriarch of that time, hisremarks about the overwheening behavior of themetropolitans towards their suffragans did not ingratiatehim with the Palamite ecclesiastical establishment of histime.

IOANNIS POLEMIS

67 See, for example, ŠEVČENKO (as footnote 52 above), 45, 1-11 (p.117): Tί οὖν ὁ Χριστός, εἴ γε τὸ μισθοφορεῖν τοσούτων αἴτιον γίνεταικακῶν, ἐκ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ζῆν ἐπιτρέψας μισθὸν ὀνομάζει τὸ πρᾶγμα; ...μισθωτὸς ἀκούσει καὶ κάπηλος καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ὀνείδη.