This volume contains the first critical edition and translation of Barlaam of Seminara's fourteenth century treatise Ethics According to the Stoics , along with a series of interpretative essays explaining its content and context. Barlaam's text is the earliest interpretative work written on Stoic ethics, a product of the burgeoning Italian Renaissance but also drawing on Barlaam's experience in the Byzantine intellectual world of Constantinople. Intriguingly, it offers a radically different account of the Stoic theory of emotions (...) to the one known from other sources, possibly taken from sources accessible to Barlaam but now lost. The volume includes interpretative essays on each of the two books of Barlaam's treatise, along with a biographical introduction and an essay setting out the wider context of the reception of Stoicism in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance. (shrink)

The contribution concentrates on the graphic representation of asceticism and ascetic life forms as it is perceived in a late medieval version of the legend of ‘Barlaam and Josaphat’. The legend was handed down from a Buddhist text version first in Byzantium and later in the West; the often illustrated German vernacular version of Rudolf von Ems forms the basis of the contribution. Asceticism served as a self-compulsatory voluntary decision for the acquisition of divine mercy in all of these (...) works. Here the indefatigable striving for welfare corresponded to the indefatigable occupational work culminating in actions conferring with God’s ultimate will. However, this could hardly be represented by means of detailed illustrations, but had to be communicated in a sign-like fashion through actions such as putting away of one’s clothes etc.; indeed, even an emaciated body was a sufficiently clear sign denoting asceticism. (shrink)

This paper gives a critical edition of the Treatise on the Easter Computus of Barlaam of Seminara, with a French translation and commentary. Written around 1333 this treatise demonstrates systematically and scientifically why the Easter Canon used at that time by the Church is superseded. Nevertheless Barlaam advises that the usual Canon should not be changed. In spite of its objectivity, Barlaam's treatise must be seen in the context of his rivalry with Nicephorus Gregoras, who had already (...) proposed to modify the Canon. The paper analyses Gregoras' text and gives a comparison with Barlaam's treatise. At the scientific level, both scholars rely on Ptolemy for the date of the spring equinox and the length of the Solar year, but Barlaam introduces a supplementary argument, which is the inexactness of the 19 year cycle. (shrink)

I find two lines of interpretation of the philosophical status of “Palamism” and “Barlaamism” in the Russian thought of the late 19th to early twentieth centuries. One of these lines links Palamism with Aristotelianism and nominalism, and Barlaamism with Platonism and realism. The other line, conversely, connects Palamism with Platonism and Barlaamism with nominalism. I trace in detail the development and transformation of these lines in the course of the Name-Glorifiers controversy of the 1910s. I show the impact of the (...) academic Byzantine studies of that time on the course of the theological debate. (shrink)

Der Titel der vorliegenden Studie mag verwundern, gilt doch die Erbauliche Geschichte von Barlaam und Ioasaph als „dogmatischer Roman oder eine in Form eines Romans eingekleidete Dogmatik“ bzw. als „der berühmteste und beste geistliche Roman des Mittelalters“. Von seinem eigentlichen Ursprung an – einer Lebensbeschreibung Buddhas – weist der Barlaam jedoch verschiedene Passagen von im weitesten Sinn medizinischer Thematik auf, und diese sind eine zu Vergleichszwecken vorzüglich geeignete überschaubare Auswahl, die den Blick auf einige durchaus beachtenswerte Details zu (...) lenken vermag. (shrink)

A. Fyrigos, professor of Patristic and Byzantine Philosophy at the «Universitas Gregoriana» and specialist on Barlaam the Calabrian (ca. 1290–1348), has recently edited B.'s anti-Latin works —twenty one works in number—written on the occasion of the ecclesiastical-political negotiations he held in Constantinople with the legates Francesco da Camerino and Richard of England during 1334 and 1335, focused on the Filioque and intended to promote some sort of union between the Eastern and Western Church. This edition, which is prefaced by (...) a highly erudite philological and historical «Introduction», has been unanimously received by the scientific community as «an excellent, exemplary work» and «un contributo so stanziale alla storia degli studi barlaamiti» and the study of the first half of the Byzantine 14th century in general; and rightly so, because, at long last, due to the la borious and succes sful efforts of its author —who devotedly concentrated himself during the past three decades upon the famous Calabrian—, it enables us to approach and appraise B.'s Orthodox thought through his own writings, by putting aside the distorting exposition of it by Gregory Palamas. As far as I know, F.'s masterpiece has been reviewed no fewer than eight times. On my own part, I shall try to shed more light on B.'s texts by focus ing my attention on an aspect of great interest to philologists as well as historians of theological and philosophical ideas, namely, the question of the sources and literary patterns of B.'s Κατά Λατίνων. F. prudently notes (vol. I, p. VII) that in editing the texts «ha volutamente con centrato la sua attenzione sull'aspetto filologico e storico di essi», by putting aside the philoso phicotheological one, which, albeit closely related with the former, represents a clearly distinct aspect of any text. The parallels (marked by «cf.») as well as the cases of dependence (noted by «see») and imitations of various ancient, Patristic and Byzantine Greek texts noted here have primarily to do with the latter aspects, although it goes without saying that they often reveal hidden sides of the former. Let it be said in advance that B.'s texts are so rich in explicit or implicit encapsulations of ancient Greek as well as Patristic expression modes and ideas that a reader who is eager to scrutinize them more than F. and I have will certainly find many others. (shrink)

Through the Manichaeans, the Islamic world, and the Christian East, the story of the Buddha became known to the Christian West. If the teachings of the Buddha reached the West in an attenuated form, his life and the ascetic ideal which it symbolized were a positive force in the spiritual life of Christendom. It is one of the vicissitudes of history for which Christianity and Buddhism can both feel grateful. For the Legend of Barlaam and Josaphat demonstrates powerfully the (...) intimate connections between these two traditions to the extent that they both pursue the spiritual life and the ascetic ideal. As Max Müller has aptly put it Whatever we may think of the sanctity of saints, let those who doubt the right of Buddha to a place among them read the story of his life as it is told in the Buddhist canon. If he lived the life which is there described, few saints have a better claim to the title than Buddha; and no one either in the Greek or in the Roman Church need be ashamed of having paid to Buddha's memory the honour that was intended for St Josaphat, the prince, the hermit, and the saint. (shrink)

Die vorliegende Arbeit besteht, von Beigaben wie Indizes und Bibliographie abgesehen, aus einer 124 Seiten umfassenden Einleitung und einer 328 Seiten umfassenden vollständigen Werkausgabe des bisher wenig bekannten Antipalamiten Theodoros Dexios. Seine Schriften, eine von POLEMIS (P.) als „Appellatio“ bezeichnete Beschwerde über die Voreingenommenheit des Ioannes Kantakuzenos auf dem Konzil von 1351, zwei Briefe und ein von P. so genannter „Tractatus brevis de Christo ipso splendente in Transfiguratione“ sind anonym überliefert, zudem auch ohne Überschriften. Zu Beginn der Einleitung wird G. (...) MERCATIs Annahme, daß die Schriften von Dexios verfaßt wurden, gegen J. MEYENDORFF, der sie dem Arsenios von Tyros zuwies, überzeugend verteidigt. Der Autor des 1. Briefes vertrat die merkwürdige Meinung, daß das Thaborlicht mit dem menschlichen Körper Christi identisch gewesen sei (XVI). Diese Ansicht kritisierte Isaak Argyros in seinem Brief an Gedeon unter Namensnennung des Dexios, wie Mercati bereits feststellte (XXIII f.). Daß die genannten Schriften, die teils in Vat. Gr. 1111, teils in Vat. Gr. 1823 überliefert sind (XIII), auf denselben Autor zurückgehen, ist daraus zu erschließen, daß der Schreiber von Vat. Gr. 1823 in Vat. Gr. 1111 Autorenkorrekturen vornahm (XV f.). Ein wichtiger Punkt der Widerlegung Meyendorffs besteht auch darin, daß dieser die Worte des Dexios, die sich auf den Schluß des vom „seligen Gregoras“ inspirierten Glaubensbekenntnisses der Antipalamiten im Jahr 1351 beziehen, nämlich „an letzter Stelle war in ihm (dem Bekenntnis) folgendes zu lesen: ‚Hinsichtlich des Kalabrers Barlaam und des Akindynos sagen wir, daß wir damit einverstanden sind, was die heilige Kirche Gottes entschieden und festgelegt hat‘ (220), indem wir auf unseren Patriarchen verwiesen“, auf Ignatios von Antiochien, den Vorgesetzten des Arsenios, bezog, dieser schmähliche, wenn auch wohl postume Verrat an Akindynos (so unsere Meinung) aber laut P. eine Anerkennung des Tomos von 1341 bedeutet, mit dem Patriarchen demnach Kalekas gemeint ist (XX f.). P. weist nach, daß der Brief des Dexios, auf den sich Argyros in seinem Brief an Gedeon bezieht, trotz gleicher Thematik nicht mit dem von ihm herausgegeben Brief I identisch ist, sondern etwas früher (XXVI versehentlich „later“) geschrieben wurde (XXVI–XXVIII). Die Datierung der „Appellatio“ auf die Zeit zwischen 1351 und 1354 (Sturz des Kantakuzenos) ist sicherlich richtig. Da Gregoras in seinen zweiten „Antirrhetikoi“ wie Dexios von der Nichtveröffentlichung des Tomos von 1351, der Unvollständigkeit der erworbenen Abschrift wie auch von der Gefahr spricht, durch den Herrscher ermordet zu werden (s. JÖB 36, 1986, 263 f. 276), ist laut meiner Datierung (s. JÖB 27, 1978, 146, Nr. 70) 1353 als wahrscheinliches Datum der Abfassung anzusehen. P. verfaßte eine bemerkenswerte Anmerkung zu Georgios von Pelagonia (XXXI f., A. 65). Die Identifizierung des Georgios Gabrielopulos mit Georgios, dem Philosophen, geht auf R.-J. LOENERTZ und F. TINNEFELD zurück, die mögliche Identifizierung des Georgios von Pelagonia mit Gabrielopulos auf mich (s. PLP II, Nr. 3433 und Talbot in ODB II 838 f., die PLP ausschreibt). Inzwischen bin ich zu dem Schluß gekommen, daß Georgios von Pelagonia, der an Akindynos Kritik übt, auf Grund seiner guten Informiertheit kein anderer sein kann als Akindynos, der wegen seiner Voreingenommenheit gegen Barlaam im Jahr 1341 Selbstkritik übt. Akindynos stammte aus der Region von Pelagonia. Möglicherweise ist er nach seiner Flucht aus Konstantinopel 1347 mit Hilfe Stefan Dušans sogar Bischof von Pelagonia geworden. (shrink)

Im Grunde stellt das Buch eine neue (die dritte) Ausgabe, diesmal die echt kritische Ausgabe, der sogennanten Chronik der Meteora (nach den ungenügend bearbeiteten Ausgaben von L. Heuzey und F.I. Uspenskij im 19. Jh.) dar. Außer der Ausgabe mit italienischer Übersetzung (S. 122–139) bietet aber der Herausgeber auch eine ausführliche Einführungsstudie (S. 13–120), sowie ebenso ausführliche historische Kommentare (S. 143–173). Die Ausgabe ist auf Grund der Handschriften aus dem Kl. Barlaam (heute Petrop. Gr.251.I) und Kl. des Hl. Stefan entstanden. (...) Die beiden Handschriften bestehen aus dem Text der Chronik von Ioannina, einem Horismos des Sinan-pasha und dem hier herausgegebenen Text, wobei in der Handschrift Barlaam noch verschiedene Notizen am Ende beigefügt sind. (shrink)

In this study, focusing our attention on Gregory Palamas’ treatise under the title Περί θείας ενώσεως και διακρίσεως, we attempt to investigate, first of all, the volitional nature and the polymorphism of the divine energies and their relation to the divine essence. We also attempt to approach the divine distinction as a good “procession” and to prove, relying exclusively on the Christian thinker’s text, the inconsistencies according to his view that arise from the positions supported by Barlaam and Akindynos (...) regarding the fact that the (divine) distinction is a creature. Regarding the matter on distinction, we conclude that it is a concept with a clearly different meaning when it comes to divine matters from the meaning that it gets when it concerns the created reality. From the gnoseological point of view, we focus our attention on the fact that the created beings are a source of knowledge for the revealed divine power-energy. (shrink)

For Byzantium, the XIV century was the time of its last elevation in culture, which was called "Paleologic Renaissance." His main content was "hesychast disputes", which lasted for thirty years and took frequent political forms. The main subjects of this discussion were, on the one hand, the Calabrian monk Barlaam, who came from Italy, where he received Latin education, and on the other hand, the Thessalonian Metropolitan Gregory Palam, who spoke on behalf of the Athos monks. The followers of (...) Palami received the name "Palamit". Varlaam and Palama were representatives of two opposite directions in Byzantine culture of the XIV century. - "anti-knitting" and monastic-church. (shrink)

The debate over the possibility of Christian philosophy remains largely intractable because of the modern assumption of a sharp distinction between philosophy and theology. The metaphysical basis of this assumption is an understanding of the world's relationship to God that emphasizes efficient causality and thus introduces a hiatus between the world and God. This contrastive understanding of transcendence parallels insistence on the disciplinary distinction between philosophy and theology. ;St. Gregory Palamas , in his two major works, the Triads and One (...) Hundred and Fifty Chapters, articulates a metaphysics according to which all beings participate in God as their formal principle. This metaphysics maintains God's transcendence in a non-contrastive manner such that it coincides with divine immanence. The possibility to be explored is whether this metaphysics may support an alternative approach to the Christian philosophy debate. ;In Chapter One I argue that the prevailing, anti-philosophical reading of Palamas is misled by his rhetoric and therefore fails to recognize that the target of his criticism is not philosophy in general, but a nascent Byzantine modernism. Chapter Two details the nature of this target as presented by Palamas's main opponent, Barlaam of Calabria. In Chapter Three I examine the metaphysics of participation, which presents the coincidence of transcendence and immanence that is the basis both of Palamas's well-known distinction between God's ousia and activities and of Palamas's radical Dionysian apophaticism. ;In Chapter Four I develop the implication of this metaphysics: the world is radically and thoroughly theophanic or symbolic. The proper comportment of one's soul before such a reality must be contemplative. Therefore, I argue in Chapter Five, the soul must be transformed by the spiritual exercises that constitute philosophy as such a way of life. For Palamas, philosophy is intrinsically constituted by the soul's eros for God. In Chapter Six I argue that once philosophy is understood in this way, the assumed disciplinary distinction between philosophy and theology disappears. Palamas's antimodern stance, then, undermines the modern presuppositions of the Christian philosophy debate and thus may provide an alternative solution. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Dialogue Between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite, and: The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and PalamasDavid BradshawSaint Gregory Palamas. Dialogue Between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite. Translated by Rein Ferweda with Introduction by Sara J. Denning-Bolle. Binghamton, NY: Global Publications/CEMERS, 1999. Pp. 108. Paper, $17.00.A. N. Williams. The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Pp. 222. Cloth, (...) $49.95.Gregory Palamas (1296-1359) was a Byzantine monk who rose to become Archbishop of Thessalonica and a leading theologian of the Orthodox Church. He is best known for his role in the hesychast controversy. The hesychasts (from hesychia, silence) were monks of Mount Athos who claimed that through prayer and ascetic struggle they had been enabled to see God with their bodily eyes. More precisely, they claimed to see a kind of divine radiance permeating all things, including their own bodies. They insisted that this light was not a created reality but was God himself as he manifested himself to them.When the hesychasts were attacked by an Italian monk named Barlaam, Palamas rose to their defense. The challenge he faced was that of explaining how the transcendent God could be visible to human eyes. His answer was to adapt two terms long in use in other areas of theology, ousia (substance, essence) and energeia (activity, operation). He held that whereas the ousia of God is unknowable to any created intellect, the divine energeiai can be shared in by creatures, who are thereby deified. The "uncreated light" of the monks is simply the divine energeia as it had become visible to the monks through the purification of the heart achieved by prayer, asceticism, and obedience to the divine commandments. Gregory's defense of the hesychasts was endorsed by a series of synods at Constantinople, and to this day he is commemorated in Orthodox churches on the second Sunday in Lent.The importance of Palamas for the history of philosophy lies in the fact that he presents a version of Christian thought that is deeply rooted in tradition, and by most standards fully orthodox, yet owes nothing to western scholasticism. A quick comparison [End Page 586] with Aquinas reveals several points of divergence. (1) Whereas Aquinas holds that all the divine attributes and activities are identical with the divine essence, the distinctions among them being merely quoad nos, Palamas holds that the distinction between the divine ousia and energeia is not just imposed by our perspective but is truly present in God. (2) Whereas Aquinas says little about deification and explicitly reserves the vision of the divine essence to the afterlife, Palamas insists that deification is possible in this life and that the condition of those who experience it is similar (though of course not identical) to that of the blessed after the resurrection. (3) Whereas Aquinas allows that the blessed ultimately do attain a vision of the divine essence, Palamas holds that the divine ousia is intrinsically unknowable to creatures.Whether these differences are as sharp as they seem is a matter that requires careful investigation. The first of the two works under review, Palamas's Dialogue Between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite, is to be welcomed for the clarification it provides of Palamas's views. It is the third of his major works to be translated into English, the others being Triads in Defense of the Holy Hesychasts and One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. I confess to finding it less engaging than the other two; it lacks the freshness and vigor of the Triads (Palamas's earliest work) and the wide-ranging systematic character of the Chapters. Nonetheless, it does provide a helpful elaboration of the ousia -energeia distinction, particularly in the argument (88-90) that such a distinction does not compromise divine simplicity.The second work, The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas by A. N. Williams, is the first book-length comparison of these two pivotal figures. It is a revision of the author's doctoral dissertation, and has a certain plodding dryness characteristic of the genre; nonetheless, it is clear and well-informed, and Williams is... (shrink)

The interest of this Georgian ancestor of the Barlaam and Josophat romance lies in the relative nearness of the Christian version in time and in its ethical attitudes to the probable Buddhist Sanskrit original.--R. P.