Essays on Russian historiography of Palamism (1860–1998)

The teachings of Gregory Palamas and his followers had a far from accidental influence on the historical destinies of Rus'. Another first rise of ancient Russian monastic spirituality, associated with the founding of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra by St. Anthony (1030s), was inspired, according to some researchers, by the movement of the so-called “proto-hesychasm”, i.e. reviving the practice of performing mental prayer on Mount Athos. 1 “Proto-hesychasm” this period is called in relation to the era of “classical” hesychasm, which after the works of Fr. John Meyendorff is considered to be from the 14th century. - the time of life and activity of St. Gregory Palamas, his supporters and opponents. By this time, the hesychast movement had become “pan-Orthodox” 2. All the more justified is the interest in this phenomenon in modern historiography, which has become a worldwide noticeable phenomenon since the early 1960s, after the publication of the famous book by Fr. John Meyendorff “Introduction to the Study of Gregory Palamas” (R., 1959). Currently, science has a number of bibliographic summaries and at least three detailed historiographical reviews of late Byzantine hesychasm in connection with the teachings of Palamas 3. The authors of these reviews portray the study of Palamism from a worldwide perspective. Here we would like to set ourselves a more modest task: to propose a periodization of the study of Palamism by domestic science (as opposed to the works of the Russian Orthodox diaspora in emigration) and to briefly characterize the views on Palamism of the authors of the most important works about it, published at each of the identified stages. The proposed sketch is intended to complement the picture of Palamism research that has been created on a worldwide scale. Study of Palamism in Russia in 1860–1998. We would divide it into three stages. 1. 1860–1917. Interest was formed in church circles (abbot Modest Strelbitsky, bishop Porfiry Uspensky) and by the end of the 19th century. pours into secular science (K.F. Radchenko, F.I. Uspensky). However, a powerful stream of church Byzantine studies remains (Bishop Arseny Ivashchenko, Bishop Alexy Dorodnitsyn, I.I. Sokolov). In this regard, the conclusion of G.E. seems very important. Lebedeva and M.A. Morozova 4 about the “tendency towards interaction” and - moreover - about the inseparability of secular and ecclesiastical Byzantine studies in Russia in the late 19th - early 20th centuries. This synthesis provided the research of Russian scientists with a worthy place in world science. 2. 1917 – late 1980s The period of Soviet historiography, divided into two sub-stages: a) 1917–1947. Prohibition of ecclesiastical Byzantine studies. The only serious work where the themes of Palamas and hesychasm are discussed is “Essays on Ancient Symbolism and Mythology” by A.F. Loseva (M., 1930; M., 1993). b) 1947–1990. Rejection of Palamism and similar spiritual phenomena prevails (V.N. Lazarev, B.T. Goryanov, Z.V. Udaltsova, etc.). The position of M.Ya. stands apart. Syuzyumov, which deserves special consideration. Superficial criticism of hesychasm by non-specialists (in works of a popular or educational nature) or even biased reproaches from professionals (B.T. Goryanov) has become commonplace. Along with this, another stream was maturing, close to the traditions of classical Russian Byzantine studies - a respectful attitude towards hesychasm and Palamas (I.P. Medvedev) and a fairly deep analysis of issues related to this - in a veiled form of literary and art criticism studies (D.S. Likhachev, G.M. Prokhorov, T.V. Popova, N.K. Goleizovsky). 3. 1990s For the first time, the classical works of V.N. are becoming a fully historiographical fact of Russian science. Lossky, I.F. Meyendorff, archim. Cyprian Kern, archbishop. Vasily Krivoshein and other outstanding researchers of Palamism and Eastern Christian spirituality in general. At the same time, not much that is truly new appears. As before, researchers prefer to only briefly touch on Palamas’s work. The works of A.I. deserve special attention. Sidorov and V.M. Lurie, themselves of a historiographical nature; works of philosophers (V.V. Bychkov); Finally, we should point out the popular work of Abbot Ioann Ekontsev, in the early 90s. which played an important role in awakening interest in Palamas. Let us take a brief look at these works, believing that the interdisciplinary interaction of scientists and theologians can shed light on new aspects of spiritual phenomena of paramount importance, which include the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas. The first Russian monograph on Gregory Palamas is the work of Abbot Modest (Strelbitsky) “Saint Gregory Palamas, Metropolitan of Thessalonica, champion of the Orthodox teaching about the Light of Tabor and the actions of God” (Kyiv, 1860). The book is distinguished by its lively and imaginative presentation, and therefore I. Ekontsev’s opinion that it is hopelessly outdated seems untenable. The dating of Ig is outdated today. Modestus of the Life of Palamas (1297–14.11.1360) 6 , but the essence of Palamas’ teaching is set out by the author accurately and vividly, as well as the controversial place of Palamas in the spiritual situation of his time and subsequent centuries: “Not a single... champion of the Faith and piety of the Orthodox Greek Church has ever experienced so many slander and unfair accusations of deviating from Orthodoxy and the rules of asceticism, as St. Gregory Palamas" 7. The conclusions of the game also look relevant. Modestus about the importance (according to Palamas) of the cognitive activity of the mind for comprehending the Divine: “Reason, science, knowledge of visible nature constitute the true path to knowledge of the essence of God” 8. One can only note that it would be more accurate to say “knowledge of the Divine through His energies,” for for Palamas it was self-evident that the essence of God could not be comprehended. Also interesting is the author’s conclusion (which may have influenced Father Ioann Ekontsev) that the world and man for Palamas are the works of one Artist - God, and man surpasses the world in intelligence, and the world of man - in “enormousness” 9. All this allows us to conclude that the fact of the depth and persuasiveness of the game produced. Modeste's first scientific interpretation of Palamas' legacy (far from fully known at that time) is beyond doubt. Let us highlight three other most significant interpretations of Palamas’ worldview during this period. They will be books by K.F. Radchenko (1898), bishop. Alexia (Dorodnitsyna) (1906) and I.I. Sokolov (1913). Let's look at them in more detail in chronological order. In the monograph by K.F., published in 1898 in Kyiv. Radchenko “The Religious and Literary Movement in Bulgaria in the Era before the Turkish Conquest” has an extensive Second Chapter “The religious and moral state of Byzantium in the 14th century and the influence of its philosophical and theological ideas that developed at that time on the spiritual life of Bulgaria” (pp. 51–168). The book is written in detail and at a high professional level. However, a number of conclusions in Chapter Two raise certain objections. They appear already when Radchenko expounds his understanding of mysticism at the beginning of the chapter: “The goal of every mystic is to achieve such a unity with God, in which we lose all consciousness of personal existence and one Divinity acts in us... The starting point and final conclusions of all mysticism coincide with pantheism” 10. With this – more Protestant than Orthodox – understanding of the nature of mysticism, any spiritual and cultural activity based on mystical experience, sobriety, and to some extent even the religious feat itself lose meaning. And under this preconceived concept, Radchenko adapts the views of Palamas: “Like other mystics, Gregory recognizes the complete passivity of man as a necessary condition for unity with God” 11. Radchenko would like to bring the teachings of Palamas closer to Western mysticism, to present them as “the reduction of religion to inner feeling”, “aversion from dogmatic subtleties” 12, from which, it seems, both the teachings of Palamas and Catholic authors suffer (for example, such a subtle mystic as Bernard of Clairvaux did not shy away from dogmatism). This desire to exaggerate the significance of the processes of internalization of spiritual experience in Byzantine Orthodoxy of the 14th century is combined in Radchenko’s book with a presentation of such significant aspects of this experience as a diagram of its three stages: praxis (activity), contemplation (theory) and mental prayer. Also important is the section on the gifts of contemplation (according to Palamas), among which are foreknowledge of the future, comprehension of the sacraments and the hidden 13. These valuable analyzes are, unfortunately, somewhat obscured by the author's general critical conclusions. If Radchenko is not always mentioned in the works of modern Byzantinists and patrolologists, then the same cannot be said about Bishop. Alexia (Dorodnitsyna). His book, “Byzantine Church Mystics of the 14th Century (St. Gregory Palamas, Nikolai Kavasila and St. Gregory of Sinai)”, published in 1906 in Kazan (Bishop Alexy was the rector of the Kazan Theological Academy), was accepted both by the theological thought of that time (S.N. Bulgakov) and by modern science (M.A. Polyakovskaya, V.V. Bychkov) and named A.I. Sidorov “a noticeable phenomenon in Russian patrol science” 14. Noting, like Radchenko, the general flourishing of mysticism in Europe in the 14th century, Bishop. Alexy emphasizes the philosophical and anthropological significance of Palamas’s works: “St. Gregory Palamas takes the entire universe of existence and, almost without touching on the Church in his teaching, talks about man, who, like everything in the world, is under the direct influence of the Divine, subject to man’s own free participation in the matter of approaching the Divine” 15. Ep. Alexy notes (according to Palamas) the participation of all creation in the actions of God. Man (a rational creature) can participate in the Creator’s plan freely, supporting His creativity through the efforts of his animating spirit. His spirit is animating for the reason (and this is one of the central provisions of Palamism, repeatedly discussed in scientific literature) that the human soul is connected with the earthly body, thanks to which man is higher than the angels. Possessing such an animal nature, a person “has life not only in essence, but also as an action” 16. The author clearly expresses the cosmism and energeticism of Palamas’ views. After this Bp. Alexy describes in detail (following Palamas) the stages of a person’s salvation in earthly life and comes to the conclusion about the synergy (according to Palamas) of the grace of the Holy Spirit with the fruits of love and a contrite human heart (pp. 30–32). Expounding (as did Radchenko) Palamas’s teaching on the four types of poverty, the author concludes that Palamas “...gives preference to prayer and a secluded life in solitude as the best cures for all passions and the means to purify oneself and achieve bliss” 17. In prayer, the mind ascends to God and returns to itself, being cleansed and transformed, after which the convergence of the mind in the heart begins. This is the first stage of purification of the soul, after which follows the performance of good deeds and illumination with grace, elevating the soul and body of the ascetic to the contemplation of the ever-present light of the Divine (pp. 43–47). Based on the analysis carried out by Bishop. Alexy, anticipating the classic work of Archbishop. Vasily Krivoshein, comes to the conclusion that the teaching of Gregory Palamas combines the speculative and practical sides of mysticism 18. All these provisions prepare the modern era of studying the views and activities of Palamas. Ivan Ivanovich Sokolov’s brochure “St. Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, his works and teaching on hesychia” (St. Petersburg, 1913), which is a review of the book by the Greek scientist G. Papamikhail. The author says about Palamas that he had “... an impact on the self-determination of the system of late church Byzantinism” 19. In the context of the science of that time, this concept had a set of different meanings, 20 but in this case it seems possible to identify it with the concept of “Byzantine Orthodoxy” (as opposed, for example, to Russian or South Slavic). But that's not the main point. Sokolov, like Bishop. Alexy, emphasizes the unity of practice and theoretical teaching in the life of Gregory Palamas. 21 But the hesychast ascends from practice to an abstract state: “in order to achieve contemplation, the mind must free itself from any concrete content up to and including the very activity of thinking” 22. The ecstasy achieved in this way is higher than anything – even prayer. The mind admires above the world and becomes riveted to God as the object of contemplation (p.11). Continuous prayer (at the previous stage) leads to the illumination of grace (p. 40). With this insight, the ascetic is rewarded with a vision of the Tabor Light (p. 41). These are the main points of Palamas’ teaching, revealed by Sokolov. Many of the author’s observations echo the conclusions of modern science. Thus, revealing the teaching of Palamas about unceasing prayer and the self-transcendence of the ascetic through mental contemplation of the Tabor light, I.I. Sokolov anticipates to some extent the criticism of Fr. I. Romanidis theories about. I. Meyendorff on the “existential” nature of Palamas’ theology 23 . Formulating his main reproach that existence transcends itself in the act of contemplating divine energy, Romanides could rely on the research of I.I. Sokolova. Thus, in the pre-revolutionary period, Russian Byzantine studies achieved considerable success in mastering the heritage of Palamas. Perhaps we can say that Russia was the leading country in the study of this heritage. Everything changed after the tragic events of 1917. Problems of religious culture disappeared from the pages of domestic scientific publications (at least their official part), like the city of Kitezh under the waters of Lake Svetloyar. The only (and unofficially published) most serious philosophical work touching on the issues of Palamism was created by Alexei Fedorovich Losev 24. We are talking about “Essays on Ancient Symbolism and Mythology” (M., 1930), republished today (M., 1993). In connection with our topic, § 14 of Section VI “The Social Nature of Platonism” (pp. 865–873) deserves special consideration. Losev shows that in Platonism, with its idea of ​​a single substance of the world, which includes both gods and people, deification by grace is impossible, i.e. in energy, since all people are already “substantial, hypostatic incarnations of the deity” (emphasis added by the author) 25. Therefore, prayer, repentance and confession are impossible in Platonism. This means that he does not need salvation, and “...the Barlaamites could only be anathematized” 26 as revivalists, representatives of a different spirit and culture, a different mystical hemisphere. This analysis anticipates further study of the connections of Palamism with the spiritual movements of the era that accompany (and contradict) it - in particular, the statement of I.F. Meyendorff and a number of other researchers of the problem of differences between hesychasm and humanism. The full development of these ideas in domestic science occurs at the third stage. After the resumption of Byzantine studies in our country in 1947, the first specialist to turn to the legacy of Palamas was Boris Timofeevich Goryanov. In the 1st volume of the new series of the Byzantine Temporary (1947), he published a short note about the First Homily of Gregory Palamas 27. This was the first article in Russian post-revolutionary science devoted to the consideration of homiletics as a genre. Its immediate content was the analysis of the text of the manuscript of the State Historical Museum 69, containing the text of the homily and not taken into account by J.-P. Minem in his "Greek Patrolology". From an examination of the source, Goryanov concludes that the “Party of Palamas” has a pro-Cantacousinist orientation 28 . When the Zealots did not accept Palamas as an appointee of the capital group hostile to them (Patriarch Isidore and John Cantacuzenus), he had to somehow justify himself to Constantinople. According to Goryanov, homilies served this purpose. The idea expressed by him here about the connection between the contents of the homily and the uprising of the Zealots was confirmed in further historiography 29 . Unfortunately, the subsequent experience of B.T. Goryanov’s approach to Palamas’ legacy was not successful in everything. In his main work “Late Byzantine Feudalism” (Moscow, 1962), he very inaccurately characterizes the teaching of Palamas: “The leader of militant hesychasm, Gregory Palamas, develops in the 14th century. mystical teaching about the contradiction between body and soul..." 30. In fact, the opposite is true. Goryanov evaluates the activities of Palamas and Nikolai Kavasila as “the defense of reactionary idealism against the strengthening in the 14th century. attacks from elements of Byzantine society grouped around progressive rationalist teachings" 31. It is unlikely that the concept of “reactionary idealism” can be considered strictly scientific. And what is considered a reaction in an era when the warring parties changed at the helm of power every few years, bringing their own methods of management, their own authorities and their own ideology? It is unlikely that, say, the Latinophile activity of Demetrius Kidonis can be called reactionary in relation to Orthodox Byzantium, for he performed the noble task of introducing his compatriots to the outstanding achievements of Western culture, and the polemics of his brother Prokhor with the Palamites were reactionary in relation to hesychasm. No, life is much more diverse, and in Goryanov’s words one can recognize the characteristic flavor of pseudo-scientific polemics with opponents, not uncommon in the Soviet era. Understanding that palamism is more than a side topic in this book, I would still like to note that it was precisely from the statements of those individuals for whom its study was not a direct specialty (V.N. Lazarev, Z.V. Udaltsova, etc.) 32 that it suffered most in the scientific works of Soviet times. However, at that time, a different, respectful attitude towards hesychasm and Palamas was formed, coupled with the desire to better understand and adequately evaluate this complex spiritual, theological, cultural and socio-political phenomenon, considering it historically, in the context of time and against a broad social background. The exponent of this trend among historians was Mikhail Yakovlevich Syuzyumov (1893–1982), a bright and original scientist who did not fit into the official picture of Soviet science 33 . In his work V.M. Lurie brilliantly analyzed Syuzyumov’s review of Meyendorff’s book “Introduction to the Study of Gregory Palamas” 34, leaving aside another interesting work of the scientist - the chapter “Philosophy and Theology” in the third volume of “History of Byzantium” (Moscow, 1967). We will turn to her. Syuzyumov considers the era of the 1340s–1420s as a single stage in the development of Byzantine thought, associated with a surge of hesychasm and sentiments of escapism. He considers foreign intervention and the defeat of the Zealot movement to be a prerequisite for the triumph of the hesychasts. The people were drained of blood, so the mystical trends were supported by the feudal nobility. She brought to philosophy the taste of “independent daring, expressed in a fierce theological and dogmatic struggle” 35. Such an interweaving of philosophical and theological polemics was completely natural for the Middle Ages. At the same time, Syuzyumov is inclined to view theology itself as a science of knowledge of God and His laws. He gives a definition of mysticism similar to those common in Western science: “Mysticism is based on the idea of ​​religion as the direct unity of human essence with the essence of the Divine...” 36. This unity is achieved in hesychasm through volitional ecstasy, which at the theoretical level corresponds to negative (apophatic) theology. In the spirit of the Cappadocian fathers, Syuzyumov speaks of the knowledge of God (according to the Hesychasts) as the self-deepening of the knower and his unity with the Known (p. 246). At the same time, a person is affected by the energy of the Divine, realizing the action of which, he begins to know God. Energy is capable of giving such knowledge because it is connected without beginning with the essence of God. On the path of knowledge, the mind ascends to God in mental prayer and returns to itself, having acquired this knowledge thanks to the synergy of divine energy and human efforts (the role of synergy is especially emphasized by Syuzyumov). This is (in general terms) the theory of Palamas in “Triads”, outlined by Syuzyumov logically flawlessly. Perhaps the only thing worth noting is the author’s slight lack of attention to the mystical side of things. Isn’t his definition of mysticism, in particular, dissonant with Palamas’s stated teaching about divine energy, thanks to which knowledge is achieved? And yet, one cannot help but admit that the most complex issues are presented by Syuzyumov with his characteristic penetration and depth of thought. The author demonstrates a high intellectual level and the ability to penetrate into the core of the eras under study, which distinguish him as a famous virtuoso specialist, the “Nestor of Russian Byzantine studies” (P. J. Alixander). Speaking about this period, it remains to add that a similar intention to “rehabilitate” hesychasm in the 1960–70s also arose among Russian philologists and art historians (D.S. Likhachev, G.M. Prokhorov, T.V. Popova, N.K. Goleizovsky). Common to them is the idea of ​​hesychasm’s discovery of man and his mental, emotional and spiritual world, of hesychasm and palamism as the spiritual focus of the Pre-Renaissance era 37 . Let us remember that S.S. Averintsev called the 14th century. "Byzantine revival" 38. T.V. Popova is also inclined to believe that the glorification of man, which is considered the defining feature of Western humanism, began in Byzantium. In this regard, extensively citing the texts of Palamas (and especially his homilies), she highlights Palamas’ statements about man’s ability to know nature and God, the “epistemological optimism” of the saint 39 . This allows us to more fully illuminate the historical place and role of the Palamite heritage, which is also a more than complicated problem. N.K. Goleizovsky tried to clarify the question of the possible influence of the ideology of late hesychasm on ancient Russian religious painting. Summarizing the main provisions of Palamas' teaching, the author points out its orientation against pantheism and, in connection with this, considers the concept of energy. The author’s characterization of energy as “a material manifestation of the immaterial Deity” 40 raises objections, since energies, according to Palamas, are uncreated, like essence (there is no need to cite the relevant passages). Perhaps it would be more accurate to say “real (or “really perceived”) manifestation,” for Palamas’ teaching is aimed precisely at substantiating the possibility of personal communication with God and, therefore, real, and not symbolic, action of energy in the world and human soul. Regardless of the value of the main hypothesis, 41 this article played a stimulating role in arousing interest in Palamism and continues to be taken into account in works on hesychasm (for example, by A.E. Petrov). The pinnacle of the special study of Palamas’ works at this stage was (along with the publications of M.Ya. Syuzyumov) articles inspired by Meyendorff by Gelian Mikhailovich Prokhorov, a deep and thoughtful scientist, whose work “The Tale of Mityai” (L., 1978) has already been mentioned. Two articles 42 deserve special attention. In the hesychast movement, says Prokhorov, Byzantine culture is being revived in its deepest essence - as church culture 43 . The hesychast disputes were a clash between this culture and the emerging humanistic worldview. They did not resolve some abstract issue, but defined a holistic understanding of God and the world - either the abstract God of Barlaam, knowable through creation and Scripture, or the living God of Palamas - and, accordingly, the animated world, permeated with the energies of God, carrying with it the very Kingdom of God, participation in which is the pinnacle of knowledge and earthly life. In his teaching about essence and energies, Prokhorov places special emphasis on the fact that energy is an adoring gift, through the participation of which a person can become a god by grace. Without recognition of the energies of God, a gap remains between him and the world; in Orthodoxy, thanks to the efforts of Gregory Palamas, the idea of ​​the interpenetration of the poles of being and peace reigns. A special aspect of the topic is the perception of hesychasm on Russian soil. The authors who studied it (A.I. Klibanov, V.A. Plugin and others) proceeded from the sound premise that “in Rus' in the second half of the 14th – early 15th centuries. there were the same philosophical and theological trends that determined the social life of the Byzantine Empire” 44. But if Byzantine hesychasm, writes V.A. Plugin, relying on G.M. Prokhorov, developed a developed theological system (which was the teaching of Palamas) and was able to doctrinally substantiate what was comprehended in mystical experience, then Russian hesychasm was less theoretical and more addressed to the real life practice of monastics (this very separation of “theory” from life’s work is quite conditional; all the monuments of hesychast spirituality - shall we take the “Method of holy prayer and attention” (Pseudo) Simeon, “Monastic speeches” of St. Theoliptus of Philadelphia or “Triads in defense of the sacredly silent” by St. Gregory Palamas - indicate the opposite, i.e. their complete and inextricable interdependence). Therefore, the author’s general conclusion – in the light of today’s knowledge – should be taken with caution: “So, Russian hesychasm emerges as a method of practical asceticism, as a new style of spiritual and cultural life, and much less as a system of conscious views, as a system of philosophical thinking” 45. Russian philosophy (the time of its origin is a controversial issue) will accept the legacy of hesychasm only in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries, although the influence of hesychasm on the spiritual feat of St. Nile of Sorsky, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, St. Seraphim of Sarov and the Russian spiritual revival of the 19th century associated with the Optina Hermitage, undoubtedly 46. It cannot be ignored when considering the spiritual life and culture of Russia in modern times. Thus, in the Soviet era, the germs of a different - not negative - attitude towards Palamas and Palamism were emerging (with the prevailing rejection of phenomena of this kind). However, they were destined to produce any tangible results only with the onset of the third stage - from the 1990s. The works of Igor Pavlovich Medvedev, based on the works of Fr., are adjacent to this stage in their spiritual and intellectual orientation. John Meyendorff, and first of all the widely known monograph “Byzantine humanism of the 14th–15th centuries.” (L., 1976; 2nd ed.: St. Petersburg, 1997). As already noted by V.M. Lurie 47, Medvedev’s works are devoted primarily to the anti-Palamite worldview; but in the indicated book - in Chapter IV “The Concept of Man in the Worldview of Byzantine Humanists” - Igor Pavlovich makes very valuable comments about Palamism. Medvedev argues with statements periodically repeated in historiography about a special “Christian humanism” present in the anthropological views of Palamas (G.M. Prokhorov, R.E. Sinkevich, L. Uspensky, A. de Halle, etc.) He believes that “the so-called “Orthodox Revival” and the Western European Renaissance have a certain common foundation - the problems of the human personality, but nevertheless It is obvious that many things look completely different from these two positions” 48. Medvedev quite rightly points out that the teaching of Palamas is not a philosophical concept and “has a mystical and theological rather than a philosophical meaning” (ibid.). In agreement with the views of theologians (for example, Archimandrite Cyprian Kern), he believes that the anthropology of Palamas is “the highest point in the development of religious Orthodox Christian anthropology” 49, but it has little in common with humanistic ethics. The mysticism of the light of the hesychasts is not related to the scientific “enlightenment” of humanists, but calls for humility and sobriety of spirit - the ideal of a human citizen. And in all these provisions, Medvedev’s concept remains unshaken. Close to it, in particular, are the works of Prof. H.-F. Bayer, specifically dedicated to clarifying the essence of Byzantine humanism 50. But Palamism attracted the attention of not only historians and philologists. The works of Viktor Vasilyevich Bychkov are permeated with the Orthodox perception of the key points of Palamite teaching, who tried to build a holistic concept of the history of Byzantine aesthetics, which in its main points is inseparable from theological thought as a whole; This is also the case with Palamas' views. For Bychkov’s interpretation, two works of the scientist are indicative - the final chapter “Between Light and Reason. Hesychasts and humanists of the XIII-XV centuries" in his "Small History of Byzantine Aesthetics" (Kyiv, 1991) and the chapter "Byzantine Aesthetics in the XIII-XV centuries." in the book “Culture of Byzantium. XIII - first half of the XV century." (M., 1991). The conclusions of these works are interrelated and largely complement each other, so it would be appropriate to consider them in their inextricable unity. Bychkov's main idea as a specialist in the history of aesthetics is that Gregory Palamas most fully expressed the aesthetic ideal of Orthodoxy in the entire patristic tradition 51 . The features of this ideal are revealed in the process of spiritual contemplation of the Tabor light, which is accompanied by “indescribable spiritual pleasure” 52 and leads to ontological transformation, i.e. transformation of the contemplator, so that “a person who surrenders to it (contemplation - D.M.) reshapes (our italics - D.M.) himself... in a moral and spiritual sense...” 53. Thanks to this contemplation of light associated with the beauty and glory of God (doxa) 54, it becomes possible for the contemplator to “communion with the transcendental divine essence” 55. Let us add – communion in energy and likeness to God in the energy of God, which is light, glory and beauty. All these are completely inseparable concepts for Palamas, which is well demonstrated by Bychkov. His thorough analysis of Palamas’ worldview constitutes the scientist’s undeniable merit and contribution to the study of late Byzantine hesychasm and Palamism as its final conceptualization. It is worth mentioning the pioneering article by Abbot Ioann Ekontsev, “Hesychasm and Revival (Hesychasm and the Problem of Creativity)” 56. In it about. John shows (cf. similar analyzes of Fr. I. Meyendorff, G.M. Prokhorov, A. de Halleux and other authors) that the doctrine of energies is “the only opportunity to explain, without falling into pantheism, the emergence of God from his transcendence, the facts of divine creativity... and the actions of the Holy Spirit” 57. Understanding energy as a creative force, Fr. John concludes that the problem of creativity is the “core element” of Palamas’ anthropology (p. 179). Modernized in the spirit of Berdyaev (for which Ekontsev got it from V.M. Lurie, see note 10), this concept still makes it possible to explain that “...creativity for a person is kenosis, self-exhaustion, it is a sacrifice, an ascent to Golgotha” 58. It seems, however, that the concepts of creativity and ecstasy should be more clearly distinguished from each other (in relation to Palamas, and to patristics in general, in its difference - which is precisely what Economists obscure - from the latest European philosophy). And it is hardly doctrinally impeccable to say that “... the state of creative ecstasy is a state of deification” 59 . The author’s doctrinaire statement that “...the teaching of hesychasts about the transfiguration of man, about the contemplation of the uncreated divine light, ὀ θείωσις, deification is, in essence, a teaching about the creative process” smacks of man-divinity. But the Gospel says: “...you cannot make a single hair white or black” (Matthew 5: 36). How can this proud statement be reconciled with what is revealed in the works of St. Gregory's teaching on synergy (p. 181)? A.E.’s attempt also raises doubts. Petrov portray the theology of Palamas as a doctrine of the “splitting of the transcendental” 61. Palamas does not operate with the category of abstract transcendental being - in his reasoning we are talking about a personal God. Repeating the old attacks of the anti-Palamites, the author declares that Palamas “... does not overcome the ontological dualism of Christianity... It is outside the essence that deification occurs, which means that the transformation of created nature... in energy is not brought to the ontological level of the ultimate foundations of being (? - DM.).” 62 Not to mention the fact that connection with the essence of God in Orthodoxy is fundamentally impossible, we note that here we reproduce what was formulated by Varlaam and Akindinus and recently repeated by V.V. Bibikhin's reproach is that the introduction of the concept of energy threatens the integrity of the Divine. But it is energies, according to Palamas, that serve as a mediator between the Creator and creation, carrying within themselves the deifying power and brilliance of the Kingdom of God (see Triads. 1.3; 3.1; cf., in particular: “And how can you not be convicted of equating God with creation, when you declare His essential energies created?” (3.1.23)). The work of A.E. also tends to confuse the created with the uncreated. Petrova. Without thus responding to the reproaches Palamas himself put forward against his opponents, the author does not reveal the topic in its entirety and the complexity of its internal relationships. We have to admit that this article is a throwback compared to Ekontsev. Thus, the “modernization” view of the work of Gregory Palamas is not without serious shortcomings. Perhaps the main one is a break with the theological thought of previous periods (patristic and pre-revolutionary) and an attempt to create new concepts that are not confirmed either in the experience of the Fathers or in the scientific tradition. This can be seen as the main flaw of “modernism” in Byzantine studies and patrolology, that, having lost the authenticity of its own spiritual experience, modernism seeks to draw this experience in a renewed form from sources alien to Tradition (and sometimes even opposite to it, such as the philosophy of Heidegger). Vladimir Nikolaevich Toporov also hesitates in his assessment of Palamism, whose most thorough work examines the teachings of Palamas against the broad historical background of Russian (and to a lesser extent Byzantine) spirituality and culture of the 14th–15th centuries. 63 In response to this kind of reproach and doubt, we note, together with Vasily Mironovich Lurie (who is today the most profound expert on Palamism in Russia), that Palamas organically continued the tradition of the “Philokalia” that preceded him. “However, the asceticism of the Philokalia in its undistorted form, attested by the experience of the saints, is only the dogmatics of Orthodoxy expressed in the language of a way of life, obligatory for all those seeking salvation. St. wrote his “Triads in Defense of the Sacred and Silent” about this. Gregory Palamas" 64. In conclusion, we can say that in Russian historiography there have been four main directions in the study of Palamism: scientific historical (K.F. Radchenko, M.Ya. Syuzyumov, I.P. Medvedev, G.M. Prokhorov); theological (pre-revolutionary stage, interrupted until the mid-1990s - the time of the appearance of the works of A.I. Sidorov and V.M. Lurie); philosophical (revealing the continuity of tradition - from A.F. Losev to V.V. Bychkov); finally, quasi-theological, or modernist (I. Ekonomitsev, S.S. Khoruzhy), fraught with inaccuracies and hasty conclusions, which is associated with the “growing pains” of the new pathological science in Russia. And yet, it seems, what has been said shows that the phenomenon of Palamism in its entirety and diversity of its spiritual-historical connections and relationships with accompanying phenomena (hesychasm, humanism, rationalism...) can be comprehended in more detail by the combined efforts of a union of representatives of various humanitarian professions - historians, philologists, philosophers, theologians - on the basis of a common fidelity to the Church Tradition, a living component of which is the Palamite heritage they study. See: Nikon, hieromonk. Monasteries and monasticism in Rus' (X–XII centuries) // VI. 1991. No. 12. pp. 25–27. Wed. about the visit of Rev. Anthony on Athos: Moshin V. Russians on Athos and Russian-Byzantine relations in the 11th–12th centuries. //BS. 1947. T. IX. 1. pp. 58–61. Tachiaos A.-E. Le mouvement hésychaste pendant les dernières décennies du XlV-e siècle // Κληρονομία. 1974. T. 6. Pt. 1. P. l 14. Compare, in particular: Prokhorov G.M. The Tale of Mityai. Rus' and Byzantium in the era of the Battle of Kulikovo. L., 1978. pp. 9–13. Brief bibliographic summaries: Medvedev I.P. Modern bibliography of hesychast disputes in Byzantium in the 14th century. // ADSV. 1973. Vol. 10. pp. 270–274; Krishtaleva L.G., Khoruzhy S.S. Bibliography of the mystical-ascetic (hesychast) tradition of Orthodoxy // Synergy. Problems of asceticism and mysticism of Orthodoxy. M., 1995. pp. 295–361. Detailed and commented historiographical reviews: Stiernon D. Bulletin sur le palamisme // REB. 1972. T. 30. P. 231–341; Sidorov A.I. Archimandrite Cyprian Kern and the tradition of Orthodox study of late Byzantine hesychasm / Cyprian (Kern), archimandrite. Anthropology of St. Gregory Palamas. M., 1996. pp. VIII–LXXVIII; Lurie V.M. Afterword // Meyendorff John, protopresbyter. The life and works of St. Gregory Palamas. Introduction to the Study/Ed. I.P. Medvedev and V.M. Lurie. St. Petersburg, 1997, pp. 327–372. See: Lebedeva G.E., Morozov M.A. From the history of domestic Byzantine studies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries: I.I. Sokolov // ADSV. 1998. Vol. 29. P. 140. More economical John, abbot. Hesychasm and revival (Hesychasm and the problem of creativity) // Orthodoxy, Byzantium, Russia. M, 1992. P. 168. Modest, abbot. St. Gregory Palamas, Metropolitan of Thessalonica, champion of the Orthodox teaching about the Light of Tabor and the actions of God. Kiev, 1860. P. 7. Right there. pp. 1–2. Compare: Sidorov A.I. Archimandrite... S. XIX. Modest, abbot. St. Gregory Palamas... P. 60. Cf. from Palamas: “...life, freed from anxiety by hope in God, naturally moves the soul to comprehend God’s creations...” (St. Gregory Palamas. Triads in defense of the sacredly silent / Translated by V.V. Veniaminov (Bibikhina). M., 1996. P. 33.) Modest, abbot. St. Gregory Palamas... P. 93. Cf. about God the Artist: Economtsev John, abbot. Hesychasm and revival... P. 179. This whole concept is sharply criticized by V.M. Lurie: Lurie V.M. Afterword... P. 355. Note. 53. Radchenko K.F. Religious and literary movement in Bulgaria in the era before the Turkish conquest. Kiev, 1898. P. 53. Right there. pp. 115–120. For a similar scheme between Evagrius and the Cappadocians in connection with the teachings of the Hesychasts, see: Clucas L.M. Eschatological Theory in Byzantine Hesychasm: A Parallel to Joachim da Fiore? // BZ. 1977. Bd. 70. Hf. 2. P. 337–339. Sidorov A.I. Archimandrite... P. XXIV. Alexy, bishop Byzantine ecclesiastical mystics of the 14th century (St. Gregory Palamas, Nicholas Kavasilas and St. Gregory the Sinaite). Kazan, 1906. P. 5. Right there. P. 48. In 1936 V. Krivoshein will write about Palamas: “All the traditional ascetic and theological problems were experienced and posed anew by him... the traditional ascetic-mystical teaching of the Orthodox East not only finds in his works its final and systematic expression, but also its theological and philosophical justification” (Krivoshey Vasily, Archbishop. Theological Works. Nizhny Novgorod, 1996. P. 206–207.) Sokolov I.I. St. Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, his piles and the doctrine of hesychia. St. Petersburg, 1913. P. 3. About the author, see: Lebedeva G.E., Morozov M.A. From history... This work is not mentioned in this article. See: Polyakovskaya M.A. Interpretation of the concept of “Byzantinism” in Russian scientific literature of the late 19th – early 20th centuries. // Byzantium: cumulation and transmission of cultures. Ekaterinburg, 1997. P. 43. Sokolov I.I. St. Gregory Palamas... P. 15. Compare: Romanides J Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics. Part 211 The Greek Orthodox Theological Review. 1963–1964. Vol.9. P. 267–268. About Romanidis, see: Lurie V.M. Afterword... pp. 351–352. About Losev in this regard: Sidorov A.I. Archimandrite... P. XXVIII–XXXI. Losev A.F. Essays on ancient symbolism and mythology. M., 1993. P. 869. Goryanov B.T. The first homily of Gregory Palamas as a source on the history of the uprising of the Zealots // VV. 1947. T.1. pp. 261–266. Right there. P. 264. Compare: Polyakovskaya M.A. Social and political thought of Byzantium (40–60s of the 14th century). Sverdlovsk, 1981. pp. 42–49 (“Attitude towards Palamism as a manifestation of a political credo”). Goryanov B.T. First Homilia... P. 264. Compare: Werner E. Popular heresy or movement for socio-political reforms? Problems of the revolutionary movement in Thessaloniki in 1342–1349. // BB. 1960. T. 17. P. 172; Polyakovskaya M.A. Socio-political thought... P. 21, 23, 49, 50; Nicole D.M. Church and society in the last centuries of Byzantium. Cambridge, 1979. P.25. Goryanov B.T. Late Byzantine feudalism. M. 1962. P. 327. See, for example: Udaltsova Z.V. Some unresolved problems in the history of Byzantine culture // VV. 1980. T.41. P. 66. About him: Udaltsova Z.V. Soviet Byzantine studies for 50 years. M., 1969. P. 53–55, 67–70, 79–81, 85–88, 96–100, 111, 148, 151, 166–167, 169–172, 176–183, 188–189, 191, 198–199, 201–205, 212, 213, 216, 223, 257, 263, 284, 288, 298. 342; Pihoya R.G. Mikhail Yakovlevich Syuzyumov (To the 80th anniversary of his birth) // ADSV. 1973. Vol. 10. P. 4–20; Polyakovskaya M.A. Assessment of the period of genesis of Byzantine feudalism in the works of M.Ya. Syuzyumova (To the 95th anniversary of her birth) // ADSV. Issues of social and political development. Sverdlovsk, 1988. pp. 7–19; and other works by M.A. Polyakovskaya (in “Izvestia of Ural State University”), as well as articles by A.P. Kazhdan (in “Revue des Études Byzantines”). Wed. also: Serov B.B. “Theory of taxes” in Byzantium in the works of M.Ya. Syuzyumova/Byzantium: Cumulation and transmission of cultures. Abstracts of reports. Ekaterinburg, 1997. pp. 46–47. Lurie V.M. Afterword... pp. 352–353. Note 48. Syuzyumov M.Ya. Philosophy and theology // History of Byzantium. M., 1967. T.Z. P. 238. Right there. P. 244. Cf., for example: Chadwick O. Die Geschichte des Christentums.Darmstadt, 1996. P. 126: “Mysticism is the experience of direct communication with God.” Likhachev D.S. Russian Pre-Renaissance in the history of world culture (Concise presentation of the concept) // Historical and philological studies. Collection of articles in memory of academician. N.I. Conrad. M., 1974. P. 20. Same. Reflection of pre-Renaissance features in hesychasm // Him. Selected works. L.. 1987. T. 1; Popova T.V. Classical literature in the era of Palaiologos // Freyberg L.A., Popova T.V. Byzantine literature of its heyday (IX–XV centuries). M., 1978. S. 223, 226; Wagner G.K. On the issue of the Byzantine-Russian Pre-Renaissance // Literature and art in the cultural system. M.. 1988. P. 304–310. Averintsev S.S. Literature // History of Byzantium. M., 1967. T. 1. P. 431. Popova T.V. Classical literature... P. 227. Goleizovsky N.K. Hesychasm and Russian painting of the 14th–15th centuries. // BB. 1968. T.29. P. 1 9 8 . Compare: Alpatov M.V. The Art of Theophanes the Greek and the Teachings of the Hesychasts // VV. 1972. T.33. pp. 190 ff., 196, 199 ff. Extensive literature on art history (on the Pre-Renaissance, etc.) remains beyond the scope of this article. Prokhorov G.M. Hesychasm and social thought in Eastern Europe in the 14th century. // TODRL. 1968. T. 23. Him. Debate of Gregory Palamas with the “Chions and Turks” and the problem of “Jewish wise men” // TODRL. 1972. T. 27. The latest work is accompanied by the publication of an Old Russian version of the source. Prokhorov G.M. Hesychasm and social thought... P. 86. Plugin V.A. Worldview of Andrei Rublev (Some problems). Old Russian painting as a historical source. M., 1974. P. 47. Plugin V.A. Worldview of Andrei Rublev. P. 51. See: Semaeva I.I. Traditions of hesychasm in Russian religious philosophy of the first half of the 20th century. M., 1993; cf., however, about the influence of hesychasm on ancient Russian philosophy and spiritual life: Zamaleev A.F. Philosophical thought in medieval Rus' (XI–XVI centuries). L., 1987. His own. Lectures on the history of Russian philosophy. St. Petersburg, 1994. Part 1. pp. 21–30; Rigo A. Preghiera di Gesù // Parole, spirito e vita. 1992. Vol. 25. P. 276–279; on the Russian spiritual revival of the 19th century: Kartashev Anton. Historical frame of the image of St. Seraphim // Literary studies. 1991. Book one. January-February. pp. 135–137; Lurie V.M. Notes // Khomyakov A.S. Essays. M., 1994. T. 2. Works on theology. P.385 Lurie V.M. Afterword... P. 354. Medvedev I.P. Byzantine humanism XIV–XV centuries. St. Petersburg, 1997. P. 111. Medvedev I.P. Byzantine humanism. P. 111 ff. We will limit ourselves to pointing to the article: Beyer H.-V. Studien zum Begriff des Humanismus und zur Frage nach dessen Anwendbarkeit auf Byzanz und andere vergleichbare Kulturen // Βυζαντινά. 1989. T. 15. By the way, Medvedev rates this article highly. See: Medvedev I.P. Byzantine humanism... P. 12 pp. (the encomium turns into polemics). Bychkov V.V. A short history of Byzantine aesthetics. Kyiv, 1991. P. 376. His own. Byzantine aesthetics in the XIII-XV centuries. // Culture of Byzantium, XIII - first half of the XV century. M., 1991. P. 430. Bychkov V.V. Byzantine aesthetics... P. 430. His own. Small history... P. 363. His own. Byzantine aesthetics... P. 430. His own. Small history... P. 381. Economtsev John, abbot. Hesychasm and revival... P. 168–196. Petrov A.E. Byzantine Hesychasm and the traditions of Russian Orthodoxy in the 14th century // Ancient Rus': the intersection of traditions. M., 1997. P. 397. Petrov A.E. Byzantine hesychasm. pp. 397–398. His reproaches are close to anti-Palamite ones and concern the relationship between the essence and energy and the nature of the Tabor light. The author focuses on the positive significance of the anthropology of Palamas and its possible influence on the prayerful feat of St. Sergius of Radonezh. (Toporov V.N. Holiness and saints in Russian spiritual culture. M., 1998. T. 2. P. 580–582.) Lurie V.M. Publications from the Bose Monastery on the history of the hesychast tradition among the Greeks and Slavs. 1–2 // BB. 1997. T. 57 (82). P. 314.