Fr. Maximos (Constas)

The Philokalia: An Annotated Bibliography (Sample Pages)

1782

The first edition of the Philokalia was published in Venice, in the autumn or winter of 1782,1 at the printing workshop of Antonio Bortoli.2 Printed with continuous pagination, it was made available both as a single folio volume and in two separate volumes. The text had been approved the previous year by Agapios Loverdos, official censor of Greek books for the Venetian Republic.3

1793 Slavonic translation of the Philokalia (Moscow, Synodal Press, 1793), 11 years after the appearance of the Greek edition, largely due to the efforts of Gabriel Petrov, the Metropolitan of Novgorod and Petersburg, a close friend of Paisios Velichkovsky. The work was quickly sold out, and two subsequent editions followed in rapid succession: 1822 and 1823 (these being the work of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow).

1851

Νηπτική Θεωρία = Xenophontos, ms. no. 202, written (or copied) in 1851. This manual of hesychastic prayer was found in the library of Xenophontos by the present abbot, Archimandrite Alexios, who sent a photocopy of it to Athanasios of Konstamonitou; it was afterwards given to Kemedzetzidis, who published it (Ὀρθόδοξος Κυψέλη). It has since gone through several editions. Marginalia indicate that it had previously belonged to a former monk of Gregoriou, who had become a hermit at a skete belonging to Xenophontos. After his death in 1877, the MS entered the monastery’s collection (according to a note written in the book by the then librarian). Theoklitos Dionysiatis, in his introduction to the 1978 edition, believes that the MS was copied by Papa-Chariton, a well-known Athonite copyist, who lived in the cave of St. Athanasios. However, little

1 “If the permission to print [the Philokalia] was issued in October 1781, then the completed weighty and lengthy tome of xvi + 1207 pages could not have appeared but by the end of the following year at the earliest,” Kitromilides, “First Journey” (2000): 346. 2 The standard catalog reference is É. Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique. Dix-huitème siècle, ed. L. Petit and H. Pernot (Paris, 1928), II, pp. 391-94. 3 See the Archivo di Stato di Venezia/Riformatori dello Studio di Padova, no. 343: Registro Mandati di Licenze per Stampe (March 1781 - June 1791), f. 22v (cited in Kitromilides, above, n. 1, 342, n. 3). See also P. Kitromilides, “The Identity of a Book. European Power Politics and Ideological Movements in Agapios Loverdos, Historia ton duo eton (Venice, 1791),” Thesavremata 28 (1998): 433-49. 4 According to R. M. French, the 1884 edition was the only edition of the work until 1930, and “exceedingly difficult to get. There appear to be only three or four copies in existence outside Russia” (p. viii-ix). 5 R. M. French notes that: “Of the Pilgrim’s identity nothing is known. In some way his manuscript, or a copy of it, came into the hands of a monk on Mount Athos, in whose possession it was found by the Abbot of St. Michael’s Monastery at Kazan. The Abbot copied the manuscript, and from his copy the book was printed at Kazan in 1884” (p. viii) 6 In the pamphlet He Doxa tou Theou, John of Kronstadt is quoted as having said that “the Name of God is God, and thus we should be exceedingly fearful of using it in vain” (p. 9). 7 Cf. V. Poggi, “Saint Jean Climaque et saint Ignace de Loyola,” Proche Orient chrétien 32 (1982): 50-85 8 Fedotov, Treasury (1950), p. 501, notes that R. M. French’s translation appeared in 2 vols, published in London, in 1931 and 1943 (although Fedotov does not say so, it seems that vol 2 comprises part 2: The Pilgrim Continues

2 The standard catalog reference is É. Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique. Dix-huitème siècle, ed. L. Petit and H. Pernot (Paris, 1928), II, pp. 391-94. 3 See the Archivo di Stato di Venezia/Riformatori dello Studio di Padova, no. 343: Registro Mandati di Licenze per Stampe (March 1781 - June 1791), f. 22v (cited in Kitromilides, above, n. 1, 342, n. 3). See also P. Kitromilides, “The Identity of a Book. European Power Politics and Ideological Movements in Agapios Loverdos, Historia ton duo eton (Venice, 1791),” Thesavremata 28 (1998): 433-49.

2

seems to be known about the actual author, who records a vision concerning the Philokalia: “Another brother who was praying noetically had a similar vision. He saw before him two angels who were carrying an open book called the Philokalia. Pointing with their fingers, the angels indicated to the brother the place in the Philokalia concerning noetic prayer where it says, ‘It is profitable for the monk to say one prayer, slowly and clearly, with each breath’ [cf. St. Gregory of Sinai, On Stillness 3 (The Philokalia, vol. 4, 265)]. As soon as he read this sentence, he immediately came to himself.” The work has recently been translated into English by Fr. George Dokos under the title, The Watchful Mind.

1857 Russian translation of the Philokalia, by Ignatius Brianchaninov (d. 1867), published in St. Petersburg, 1857.

1865 Ignatius Brianchaninov, On the Prayer of Jesus (1865) (2nd ed. 1905); cf. below, 1952.

ca. 1870 First Russian edition of The Way of a Pilgrim (no information available).

1881 Russian publication of The Way of a Pilgrim (Kazan, 1881); cf. Aimé Solignac, DC 12A (1984) 886, who notes that a second edition appeared in 1884, and that the latter “affirmed that the work was reproduced from a manuscript copied on Mt. Athos by the monk Paisios, abbot of the monastery of Tcheremisses.” These two editions contained only the first four narratives. The second part of the work, containing three new narratives, discovered among the papers of starets Ambrosii, was published in 1911, by the monks of the Trinity/St. Sergius Monastery. The fifth is a continuation of the first four, but the sixth and seventh are entirely different in genre and structure (and considered apocryphal). Fedotov, Treasury of Russian Spirituality (1950) 280-81, notes that the Way of a Pilgrim “soon became a rare book, considered to be almost esoteric and held in high esteem by all searchers into the ways of Orthodox mysticism.4 Only recently, through reprinting in Western Europe and translation into English, has this precious little book become accessible to the wide circle interested in Russian religious life.” “Nothing is known of the author. Written in the first person singular, the book presents itself as the spiritual autobiography of a Russian peasant who lived at about the middle of the nineteenth century, related in intimate conversations. The social conditions depicted in the story represent Russia during the last decades of serfdom, under the autocratic government of Nicholas I. The mention made of the Crimean War (1835-54) permits an exact chronological placement.” “There are, however, many factors which do not allow us to accept literally the anonymous author’s description of himself. Although the style of the book has somewhat the flavor of the popular Russian 4 According to R. M. French, the 1884 edition was the only edition of the work until 1930, and “exceedingly difficult to get. There appear to be only three or four copies in existence outside Russia” (p. viii-ix).

3

idiom, it is essentially in the elaborate literary manner characteristic of the Russian spiritual writing of the middle of the nineteenth century. There are even many traces of the epoch of Alexandrian mysticism (Alexander I, 1801-25) which deeply influenced the religious mentality and style of the Russian Church. Quite apart from the style, we come across many profound theological and philosophical digressions and comments which would be inconceivable in the mouth of a Russian peasant, even one well read in the Philocalia. The traces of a romanticism of Western origin are undeniable.” (280) “On the other hand, the many incidents related in detail, and even the confused order of the narrative, prevent us from dismissing the autobiographical form of the narration wholly as a literary convention. Probably a real experience of the pilgrim is the basis of the composition. Some educated person may have worked over the original oral confessions, either his actual ‘spiritual father,’ a priest or monk in Irkutsk (Siberia), or some monk on Mount Athos, whence the manuscript is supposed to have been brought to Kazan by the abbot Paisios.”5 “These critical remarks are intended to warn the reader not to accept the mystical life of the Pilgrim as reflecting Russian popular religion. On the contrary, it is the product of a fine spiritual culture, a rare flower in the Russian garden. Its main value consists in a convincingly detailed description of mental prayer as it was or could be practiced, not in a monastic cell, but by a laymen, even under the peculiar conditions of a wandering life.” “From another point of view, the book is a work of propaganda, designed to popularize in lay circles the mystical prayer of the Hesychasts as embodied in an ascetic-mystical anthology entitled the Philocalia. The first Greek edition of this anthology, the work of an anonymous compiler (probably Nicodemus of Mount Athos), was printed in Venice in 1782. The Slavonic translation by Paisios Velichkovsky was printed in 1793. Most of the Greek Fathers in this collection were already known in Russia to Saint Nilus Sorsky in the fifteenth century. But from the sixteenth century onward, the mystical movement in Russia was suppressed until the time of the revival effected by Paisios.” (281) “The wandering life (this is a more correct English equivalent of the Russian phrase than “pilgrimage”) is characteristic of Russian spirituality. Very often, as in the case of the present author, the wandering has no visit to a place of devotion as its object but is a way of life in which the early Christian ideal of spiritual freedom and detachment from the world is grafted onto the Russian feeling for the religious significance of nature as Mother Earth, and the truly Russian rejection of civilization out of religious motives. Yet, reading the tales of the Pilgrim, we realize that the mystical life of the author is moving against a background of the external manifestations of Christian charity. Some of his tales have little or nothing to do with the prayer of Jesus, but portray ideal types of the evangelical life, found in all strata of society - among the gentry, the army, the clergy, the simple peasantry. These portraits of secular, uncanonized, and even unknown, lay saints are, is it were, a counterpoint to the scenes of cruelty, violence, and despotism which we are not spared. What is lacking is rather the average level of Russian life. The author has not the intention of depicting life around him as it is, but that of selecting instructive examples of Christian virtue.”

5 R. M. French notes that: “Of the Pilgrim’s identity nothing is known. In some way his manuscript, or a copy of it, came into the hands of a monk on Mount Athos, in whose possession it was found by the Abbot of St. Michael’s Monastery at Kazan. The Abbot copied the manuscript, and from his copy the book was printed at Kazan in 1884” (p. viii)

4

“A reader who would like to get a more adequate idea of Russian life under Nicholas I can be guided by many of the classical works of Russian literature: Gogol’s Dead Souls, Turgenev’s Memoirs of a Sportsman, the short stories of Leskov. The anonymous pilgrim gives us rather exceptional specimens of Russian piety, authentic in themselves, but inadequate as a basis for generalization.” (p. 282)

1893 2nd Greek edition of the Philokalia (Athens: Panagiotes A. Tzelatis, 1893), 2 vols, with the following addition: after no. 28, the 2nd edition inserts “supplementary chapters” (= nos. 15-83), which are ascribed to the same patriarch Kallistos, although they are likely the work of Kallistos Angelikoudes (no. 29). (Simonopetra has three complete sets, cf. Karras, p. 372-73, cat. no. 2171).

1898 L. Petit, “La grande controverse des colybes,” Echoes d’Orient 2 (1898-1899): 321-331.

1907 Schemamonk Ilarion, Na gorakh Kavkasa (In the Mountains of the Caucasus) (Batalpashinsk, 1907). The author had been a monk on Athos before becoming a hermit in the Caucasus. His book, based in part on hesychastic and Palamite ideas, claimed that the invocation of the name of Jesus in prayer brought about the presence of the Divine Person. See Catherine Evtuhov, The Cross and the Sickle, chap. 11; Constantine Papoulides, Oi Rosoi onomatolatriai tou Hagiou Orous (Thessaloniki, 1977). Ilarion’s work was initially greeted more or less positively (a 1913 statement by the Russian Synod declared the book “spiritually helpful”), but criticism arose on Athos and soon spread abroad. This encouraged another monk, Antonii Bulatovich, to publish a more extreme statement of Ilarion’s position (An Apology for the Belief in the Name of God and the Name of Jesus, Moscow 1913; much the same material is reprinted in He doxa tou Theou einai ho Iesous, Thessaloniki, 1913, reprinted in its entirety by Papoulides). The controversy reached such a pitch that over 800 Russian monks were forcibly removed from Athos by the Russian Navy in 1913. The controversy continued in Russian theological journals, and had not let up by the time of the Revolution in 1917. The chief opponent of the “name-worshippers” was the Metropolitan of Kiev, Antonii Khrapovitsky (at that time Archbishop of Volhynia, and later head of the Church in Exile), along with S. V. Troitsky, a senior seminary academic (author of several articles and two books on the subject). Florensky, however, wrote the introduction to Bulatovich’s book, and Evgenii Trubetskoi a supportive article (Florensky also wrote a study: “Name-worshipping as a Philosophical Premise,” for the collection: Materials on the Controversy over the Veneration of the Name of God, Moscow, 1913). The “name-worshippers” appealed to the memory of St. John of Kronstadt (d. 1908), whose support for Ilarion had given the movement considerable credibility and influence.6 Bulgakov defended them, and published an article on the subject (“The Athos Affair”) in 1913; posthumously published was his The Philosophy of the Name (Paris, 1953) (for a summary of his views on thee question, see Evtuhov, 214-15; and Williams, Bulgakov, 11-12). For Bulgakov the name is the carrier of the energeia, the active presence of God, and is thus the divine essence in action in a particular context (similar arguments are put forward by Bulatovich). See Hilarion Alfayev, “Elder Sophrony as a Theologian of the Divine Name,” in Gerontas Sophronios, 145-63. 2008. (Sophrony arrived on Athos shortly after the controversy, and was influenced by it. He

6 In the pamphlet He Doxa tou Theou, John of Kronstadt is quoted as having said that “the Name of God is God, and thus we should be exceedingly fearful of using it in vain” (p. 9).

5

does not use the phrase ‘The Name of God is God Himself,’ but acknowledges that the Name of God is a divine energy and can be called theotis.)

1913 Removal of Russian “name-worshippers” from Athos. Alfayev, 2008, notes that 833 monks were removed by two Russian warships (621 went on the “Cherson,” and 212 on the “Chikhachev”). Other monks left earlier, on their own. Daubray, J. “Les onomatolâtres,” EO 16 (1913): 455-56. Lecombe, J. “Les moines onomatolâtres,” EO 16 (1913): 555-556; 17 (1914): 265-266. Antonios Hieromonachos, Ἡ Δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Thessaloniki: N. Christmanos, 1913). A Greek paraphrase of Antonii Bulatovich, An Apology for the Belief in the Name of God and the Name of Jesus (Moscow, 1913). Chap. 1: Under the heading of “The Neo-Barlaamite Heresy of the Onomatomachoi,” the pamphlet begins by reminding the reader of the 14th-century heresy of Barlaam, who “denigrated the value of noero-cardiac prayer” (p. 3). The heresy has received new life, thanks to the monk Chrysanthos, from the Skete of the Prophet Elias, who “denigrates the divine dignity (ἀξιοσύνη) of the Name of God, opining that it is not proper to say that the Name of God is God Himself.” Chrysanthos dared to say that 1) the Name of God is not God Himself; 2) that to honor the Name of God as God Himself is atheism, and akin to Hindu pantheism; 3) that the Apostles did not work miracles through the Name of Christ, since the latter does not itself possess divine power, but is rather a “mediating power” (μεσιτική δύναμις); 4) that it is not mandatory to invoke the Name of Christ in prayer, one may pray without it; 5) that the Name “Jesus” refers only to Christ’s human nature, and thus is not the Name of God, but only a human name (p. 4). These blasphemies first circulated in hand-written tracts and then in published form, upsetting first the monks in the “Thebaid” Skete attached to St. Panteleimon, who were the first to read of them. From there reports quickly spread to St. Panteleimon and the Skete of St. Andrew. The Thebaid monks sought the help of their colleagues at St. Panteleimon, although the latter were swayed by the teaching of Chrysanthos, and thus the abbot Misael censured the deacon Marinos, for having refused to concelebrate with the priest Alexios, who was an associate of Chrysanthos. Just as Barlaam named the hesychasts “ditheists,” so too do these onomatomachoi (p. 5) call their opponents “tetratheists,” having added a “fourth name - that of Jesus - to the Holy Trinity.” In their mockery they told the monks to go to Kapsala, and there to venerate a monk called “Iesous,” saying “that monk is your God,” and calling them “Iesousianites.” They also wrote the name of Jesus on paper, and then tore the paper in two, casting it disdainfully to the wind, saying: “Look at your God Jesus!” Chrysanthos was further able to win the support of Anthony, the Archbishop of Valinsky and Zitomirsky, who published the accusations in his paper (in 1912) (p. 6) On August 20th, the Russian Monastery issued a decree against the name-worshippers, saying that, yes, we are saved in the name of Jesus, but we must venerate (προσκυνεῖν) only one God. To this the pamphlet asks: are we to venerate Christ’s icon and not his name? (p. 7). Given the fact that the Russian and Greek monks did not have a good grasp of each other’s language, slanders and false reports were easily circulated: thus we were necessitated to translate the charges, along with our own confession of faith in the Divine Name. Chap. 2 responds to the “blasphemies of Chrysanthos” (as they appeared in Metropolitan Anthony’s journal). Chrysanthos first deals with the remark of John of Kronstadt (cited above), which “should not be taken literally, but spiritually” (pp. 9-10). To this the pamphlet writer agrees: we do not

6

consider as God the letters of the alphabet, but Chrysanthos goes still further and overturns even the spiritual meaning. John of Kronstadt, misunderstanding the Hesycasts, was ascribing a power to the name which in fact belonged elsewhere: the name has only a “mediating power” (p. 10). But this is, by analogy, to confuse the taste of food with the fork that brings the food to the mouth: the Name of Jesus is not a mere, created means for the divine presence. Christ is not separated from His name. John Climacus tells us to “enclose our minds in the words of the prayer,” and St. Gregory of Sinai says that “the prayer is God Himself.” Church hymns call the Name of Jesus “most sweet,” not because the letters of the alphabet are themselves sweet (p. 11). It seems that Kronstadt said that the “essence” of God was in the name, and this was attacked by Chrysanthos. By denying the presence of the divine essence in the name, the pamphleteer charges him with limiting the extent of the infinite essence. God’s essence is everywhere present, even though it is invisible and not susceptible to sensory perception by creatures; it remains incommunicable: we communicate only in energy and grace (p. 12). But he accuses us of confusing energy with essence (pp. 12-13). He says the names of God are “creations.” But every name of God is a true revelation of God, it is the word of God, and names such as “Jehovah” and “Sabaoth,” are not names imposed by men but names revealed by God (cites example of divine name revealed to God at burning bush) (p. 13). The claim is made that not only should God’s essence be named God, but so too his energy, referring the reader to the fifth anathema against Barlaam in the Triodion: in fact, the text says that both can be called “divinity” [θεότητα], not “God”) (p. 14). Chrysanthos - like Calvin and the reformers - does not take the Bible literally, but, like the devil in paradise, would have us take God’s words in some other, more metaphorical way (p. 15). This is followed by several scriptural texts, supported by extracts from Chrysostom, Commentary on Acts; Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Lord’s Prayer; Athanasios, On Ps 53; Gregory of Nyssa; Symeon the New Theologian, Hom. 59 and 62; Theophylact of Bulgaria; Tychon of Zadonsk; and a troparion from the canon chanted on 30 June (pp. 16-22). Chrysanthos clearly rejects all of these, reduces the name of “Jesus” to something merely human, dividing Christ into “two persons, since a division of names necessarily requires a division of persons” (p. 22). Chrysanthos claims that “we believe that, in the name of Jesus, there exists some other sort of self-existing power (αὐθύπαρκτον δύναμις), a charge which the writer rejects: “We do not believe in some other God existing in the name of God, but the One and the Same God, Who is indivisible in his properties, energies, and names, thus we are not permitted to call the divine name a ‘mediating’ or ‘self-existing’ power” (p. 25). Chap. 3: The Praktikon of St. Panteleimon. The monastery issued a “confession of faith” stating that the name of Jesus should not be venerated, but only the “divine essence of God.” (p. 27). The monks were all obliged to sign it, but the monk Dositheos (who was the monastery’s electrical engineer), refused to do so until he read it. After he did, he found it heretical (p. 28). The text of the praktikon is given on pp. 28-35 (interrupted by insertions from the “refutation by Dositheos”), and seems to have emanated from the council of elders, who had cause for concern since the community appears to have been deeply divided. On pp. 30-31, Dositheos states that the divine name of Jesus carries a more intensified form of His presence than does his icon, since it is “non-material; and if the ‘word’ of God is unchangeable and eternal, and ‘spirit and life’ (Jn 6.63) how much more so His name?” The praktikon avers that “we do not separate the name from the essence, neither do we confuse them” (p. 31). Dositheos: “we agree, since it is impossible to separate or confuse the properties and energies of God with His essence. But even though His energies, by means of which we name Him, are not His essence, the latter is not separated from His properties. Thus when we say God, we do not signify merely His essence, but also his properties and energy. Neither is ‘divinity’ simply a name for the essence, but for the energies, too. To separate the name of God from God is heretical; the Church has never known a distinction between venerating God or His name (examples from liturgical prayers: “We call upon your holy Name”). The authorities at St. Panteleimon “have separated the

7

Name of God from God,” and in this they have become Barlaamites. Dositheos shared his comments with the elders, who promptly expelled him (p. 35). He afterwards sent them a letter, containing his “Confession of Faith” (pp. 35-38). “I believe that God exists inalienably in His name Jesus. I confess that the Name ‘Jesus’ is God Himself, not dividing God from His Name” (p. 35). “I confess that the Name of Jesus is θεοϋπόστατον, and refers both to his human and divine natures” (p. 36). Chap. 4: Concerning Archbishop Anthony. He is criticized, not simply for supporting the heretical views of Chrysanthos, but for making the controversy public, and thereby spreading it further. The pamphleteer responds to the statements and accusations published in the Archbishop’s newspaper. Chap. 5: “The Truth about the Truth.” Theological discussion of the question, in the form of questions and answers. The author wants it both ways: the “Name” of God is the name of the “Paternal Essence,” otherwise unknown to creatures, but also the name bestowed (by creatures) on the divine attributes. It is the vehicle of revelation (which seems to support the contrary position), and the “glory” of God (pp. 46-47). Scripture says we are to have “faith” in the Name of God (with a long argument). The “Name” is held to be an energy, or activity of God: when Barlaam denied the “divine” [element] of noetic prayer, he also denied the “divine energy which comes forth (προέρχεται) from the invocation of the divine name of Jesus” (earning him the epithet of πνευματομάχος). Thus, the “Name” is identified with the energy (and or property or attribute), which is then identified with the essence, and to deny any of these connections is to bring down the entire (admittedly shaky) structure. The author clearly denies that creatures have any share in the divine essence: experience of grace in prayer, in study of scripture, in church, is an experience of divine energy, which is God Himself [true, but the author consistently neglects to add that this is not God in His essence, not God as such, but God “for us” - even though for him such a distinction might not make much difference]. [The debate seems as old as the arguments put forward in Plato’s Cratylus, and those between Eunomius and the Cappadocians, followed by the teaching of Dionysios the Areopagite on the divine names, and the use of the latter by the fourteenth-century hesychasts: bringing these moments together would make for a wonderful study. On p. 52, the author takes up an almost Eunomian, positivistic notion of language: “human logoi are mutable and vain, but the word of God, i.e., the Θεοαποκάλυπτον Name, by means of which men name God, is living, and ἐνυπόστατος, and active, [being] True God” (for these notions, the author regularly cites Symeon the New Theologian, from the 1886 edition). Other examples are found in liturgical prayers and hymns. Chap. 6: “The Meaning of the Name of God: Jesus” (historical, biblical survey). The pamphlet concludes with an excerpt from St. Demetri Rostov’s sermon on the circumcision. The two concluding pages (78-79), note that, on 2 December, 1912, the brotherhood of the Skete of Thebaid (belonging to St. Panteleimon), held a synaxis and condemned the heretical teachings of Chrysanthos, and that the whole brotherhood recognized the “divine worth” of the Name of Jesus Christ, which is itself holy and inseparable from the Lord, and they asked forgiveness for having been previously deceived by the teachings of Chrysanthos. On 12 January, 1913, a feast was held in honor of the Divine Name of Jesus in the skete of St. Andrew, and the former abbot, Hieronymos, who was allied with Chrysanthos, was obliged, by unanimous vote, to step aside, along with his supporters. The remaining brotherhood signed the following confession: “We believe and confess that the divine Name of Jesus is Holy in and of itself, and inseparable from the essence of the Lord, and is God Himself, as the multitude of holy fathers confesses. But the blasphemers and despisers of the divine Name of Jesus Christ we cast out as heretics.” On 23 January, the author states that the abbot of St. Panteleimon, who had formerly been a follower of Chrysanthos, repented of his error and asked the brotherhood for forgiveness, and thus the monastery came to accept the position of the skete of St.

8

Andrew. Those who continued to side with Chrysanthos were chased from the monastery, and their “blasphemous praktikon, of 20 August, was torn to pieces.”

1924 M. Viller, s.j., “Nicodème l’Agorite et ses emprunts à la littérature spirituelle occidentale. Le Combat Spirituel et les Exercises de S. Ignace dans l’Église byzantine,” Revue d’Ascétique et de Mystique 5 (1924): 174-177.7

1925 German translation of The Way of a Pilgrim, by R. von Walther (Berlin, 1925).

1927 Irenée Hausherr, La Méthode d’oraison hésychaste, Orientalia Christiana 9.2 (Rome, 1927). Hausherr’s early work was extremely critical of heyschasm, which he dismissed in sarcastic and condescending terms. For this, he would be verbally punished in the 1957 prologue to the Greek Philokalia.

1928 Irenée Hausherr, Un grand mystic byzantine. Vie de Symeon le Nouveau Theologien, Orientalia Christiana 12 (Rome: Vatican City, 1928). The first critical edition of the life of St. Symeon the New Theologian.

1930 English translation of The Way of a Pilgrim, trans. R(eginald). M. French, with a Foreword by the Bishop of Truro (Philip Allan: London, 1930; 2nd ed. 1952).8 There is a reproduction of the title page in Sobornost 14.2 (1992) 7. French translation of The Way of a Pilgrim (Récits du pèlerin Russe) (Paris: YMCA Press, 1930; repr. 1948, 1973); cf. Aimé Solignac, “Pèlerin Russe,” DS 12A (Paris: Beauchesne, 1984) 885-87.

1931 Martin Jugie, “Les origines de la méthode d’oraison des hésychastes,” Echoes d’Orient 30 (1931) 179-85.

1934 Zacharias L. Papantoniou, The Holy Mountain (Athens, 1934). According to 60’s generation writer G. Theotokas, Ταξίδι στή Μέση ᾿Ανατολή καί στό ῞Αγιον ῎Ορος (᾿Αθήνα, Εστίας, 1961), p. 142: Papantoniou was “for decades the most widely read book in Greece on the subject of Hesychasm,” although he was profoundly ignorant of the subject.

1935 Irénée Hausherr, “Les grands courants de la spiritualité orientale,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 1 (1935) 121-28. This essay is perhaps the modern, scholarly foundation for the distinction made between the two eastern schools or currents of spirituality, namely, the “mind” and the “heart,”

7 Cf. V. Poggi, “Saint Jean Climaque et saint Ignace de Loyola,” Proche Orient chrétien 32 (1982): 50-85 8 Fedotov, Treasury (1950), p. 501, notes that R. M. French’s translation appeared in 2 vols, published in London, in 1931 and 1943 (although Fedotov does not say so, it seems that vol 2 comprises part 2: The Pilgrim Continues His Way).

9

associated primarily with Evagrius and Makarios, respectively. Though the author himself subsequently qualified several points in this article, the distinction continues to inform both academic and popular thinking.

1936 Martin Jugie, “Note sur le moine hésychaste Nicéphore et sa manière d’oraision,” Échos d’Orient 35 (1936): 409-412.

1937 Gustave Bardy, “Apatheia,” DS 1 (1937): 727-46.

1939 J. Gouillard, “Un auteur spirituel byzantine du XIIe siècle. Pierre Damascène,” Échos d’Orient 38 (1939). Aldous Huxley, After Many a Summer Dies the Swan (1939). At the novel’s outset, Jeremy Pordage, a British scholar, is visiting the United States and Los Angeles. As he is being driven to his Malibu destination, the narrator notes that: “Most of the girls, as they walked along, seemed to be absorbed in silent prayer; but he supposed, on second thought, it was only gum that they were thus incessantly ruminating. Gum, not God.” (Chap. 1, p. 5, in the 1993, Ivan R. Dee/Elephant Paperbacks, Chicago edition).

1941 Hans Urs von Balthasar, Kosmische Liturgie: Das Weltbild Maximus’ des Bekenners (Einsiedeln: Johannes Verlgan, 1941); 2nd ed. 1961; 3rd printing, 1988. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Die Gnostische Centurien des Maximus Confessor (Freiburg, 1941) = translation of the chapters.

1942 Nadejda Gorodetzky, “The Prayer of Jesus,” Blackfriars 23 (263) (1942) (February) 74-78..

1943 French translation of The Way of a Pilgrim, by J. Laloy [under the pseudonym of Jean Gauvain], coll. Cahiers du Rhône, série blanche 12 (Neuchâtel, 1943) Biasiotto, P. R., History of the Development of the Devotion to the Holy Name (New York, 1943).

1945 Franz Dölger, Mönchland Athos (Munich: F. Bruckman, 1945), pp. 303; 183 pl. (b & w); and 1 map. This volume contains some of the results of the Nazi-sponsored survey of Athonite treasures, undertaken during the German occupation of Athos (on which, see Tsamis, below, 1986). The Nazi occupation of Athos is a topic that has not received the treatment it deserves. It does not seem that German state archives, or those of the Dölger Institut, have ever been searched or even consulted. Dölger’s work undoubtedly went beyond the samples presented in the 1945 publication, and awaits study and commentary. Note also the large album that Dölger published, with plates reproducing Byzantine Foundatioin Charters and other Athonite documents.

10

1947

A Monk of the Eastern Church (Lev Gillet), “La Prière de Jésus,” Irénikon 3-4 (1947), which was thereafter published as a separate book, (La Prière de Jésus, Chevtogne) a reprint of which included a supplemtary chapter from Irénikon (1952): 371-382; later translated into English: The Prayer of Jesus: Its genesis, development and practice in the Byzantine-Slavic Religious Tradiion (New York: Desclee Company, 1967). E. Behr-Sigel, “La Prière de Jésus ou le mystère de la spiritualité monastique orthodoxe,” Dieu Vivant 8 (1947) 69-94. M. J. Marx, OSB, Incessant Prayer in Ancient Monastic Literature (Vatican City, 1947).

1948 Récits d’un pélerin russe (Neuchâtel: Éditions de la Baconnière, 1948).

1949 Italian translation of The Way of a Pilgrim, trans. Divo Barsotti (Florence, 1949); a second Italian translation appeared in 1972, by A. Pescetto (Milan, 1972).

1950 A Monk of the Eastern Church (Lev Gillet), On the Invocation of the Name of Jesus (London: Fellowship of St.Alban and St. Sergius, 1950) (reprinted SLG Press, 1970). G.P. Fedotov, A Treasury of Russian Spirituality (London: Sheed and Ward, 1950) 85-133 (= “St. Nilus Sorsky: The Teacher of Spiritual Prayer”); 280-82 (= “The ‘Pilgrim’ on Mental Prayer”) Nina A. Toumanova, trans., The Way of a Pilgrim, in Fedotov, Treasury, 283-345.

1951 G.E.H. Palmer and E. Kadloubovsky, trans., Writings from the Philokalia on Prayer of the Heart (London: Faber and Faber, 1951). Bacht, H. “Das ‘Jesus-Gebet,’ seine Geschicthe und Problematik,” Geist und Leben 24 (1951) 326-338.

1952 Brianchaninov, Ignatius, On the Prayer of Jesus (1865), trans. Father Lazarus, intro. by Alexander d’Agapeyeff (London: John M. Watkins, 1952) (with later reprintings and editions: 1965, 1987, 1995). 2nd edition of: The Way of a Pilgrim, trans. R. M. French (1952). (Gillet, Lev) A Monk of the Eastern Church, “L’Invocation du nom de Jésus dans la tradition byzantine,” La Vie spirituelle (1952) 38-45. Gardet, L. Un problème de mystique comparée: la mention du nom divin (dhikr) dans la mystique musulmane,” Revue Thomiste lii [52] (1952) 642-79; liii [53] (1953) 197-216; repr. in G.-C. Anawati

11

and L. Gardet, Mystique musulmaine: aspects et tendances - expériences et techniques (Paris, 1961) 187-256. Gardet also draws attention to parallels in the Buddhist practice of nembutsu. Guillaumont, A. “Le sens du nom de coeur dans l’Antiquité,” Études carmélitaines (1950) 41-81. Ivanka, E. von, “Hesychasmus und Palamismus. Ihr gegenseitiges Verhältnis und ihre geistesgeschichtliche Bedeutung,” JÖB 2 (1952) 23-34.

1953 Hausherr publishes his important essay on “Contemplation” in the Dictionnaire de Spiritualité 2.2 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1953) 1643-2193. Gouillard, Jean trans., Petite philocalie de la prière du coeur (Paris, Éditions des Cahiers du Sud, 1953; repr. Éditions de Seuil, 1968) = collection of texts the majority of which are from the Philokalia, on the subject of the prayer of the heart. To these Gouillard has added: sayings of the Desert Fathers, excerpts from the Macarian corpus (including the Coptic cycle), excerpts from Barsanuphios and John, Isaac the Syrian, a late, anonymous text, a chapter from Nikodemos, Encheiridion, and an Islamic text (= a 14th century tract by Sheikh Mohammed Amin al-Kurdi al-Shafi al-Naqshabandi, from the Tanwir alqulub). He notes in the introduction that the translation of the Way of a Pilgrim into French (1943) “revealed the Philokalia to a large public.” [German translation: 1957] [Hungarian translation: 2004]. Bloom, A. “L’Hésychasme, yoga chrétien?” in Jacques Masui, ed. Yoga, science de l’homme intégral, Cahiers du Sud (Paris, 1953) 177-95. Guillaumont, A. “Le ‘coeur’ chez les spirituels grecs à l’époque ancienne. Cor et cordis affectus,” DS 2 (1953) 2281-2288.

1954 Palmer, G.E.H., and E. Kadloubovsky, trans. Early Fathers from the Philokalia (London: Faber and Faber, 1954). Καρανικόλας, Παντελεήμων, “Ἡ Φιλοκαλία τῶν Ἱερῶν Νηπτικῶν καί τά ἐν αὐτη περιεχόμενα ἔργα,” Ἐκκλησία 31 (1954), pp. 45 (also circulated as a small offprint/booklet). The author compiled the extensive indices to the Astir [1957] edition of the Philokalia, and later became the Metropolitan of Corinth. Note that this article is one of many which, following Lous Petit, “Macaire de Corinthe,” Dictionnaire de théologie catholique 9:1449-1452, mistakenly claims that an edition of the Philokalia was published in Constantinople in 1861, which is the year when an edition of the Evergetinos (and not the Philokalia) was published in Con/ople. See the notice by Παπουλίδης, “Σύμμεικτα περί Φιλοκαλίας και Εὐεργετινοῦ,” Μακεδονικά 10 (1970): 291-293. Karanikolas’ article provides cross references between works in the Philokalia and Migne’s Patrologia, along with other bits of information about the patristic authors and early editions. The same information is given at the article’s end, in the form of a convenient chart. Irenée Hausser, “Les Exercises Spirituels de saint Ignace et la méthode d’oraison hésychaste,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 20 (1954): 7-26. Mircea Elidade, Le Yoga, Immortalité et Liberté (Paris: Librairie Payot, 1954); Eng trans. Willard R. Trask, Yoga: Immortality and Freedom, Bollingen Series LVI (Princeton: Princeton University Press,

12

1958, 2nd ed. 1969, with corrections and bibliographical notes). Note that an earlier version of this work appeared in 1936, under the title, Yoga. Essai sur les origines de la mystique indienne. Eliade mentions hesychasm and the Jesus Prayer, citing the work of Hausherr (“La méthode d’oraison,” 1927), along with a passage from Nicephorus the Solitary (by way of Gouillard’s anthology, Petite Philocalie, 1953); Nikodemos Hagioreites, Ἐγχειρίδιον (via Hausherr, above); and Symeon the New Theologian (via Gouillard). His conclusion: “We must not be deceived by these external analogies . . . Among the Hesychasts respiratory discipline and bodily posture are used to prepare mental prayer; in the Yoga-sutras these exercises pursue unification of consciousness and preparation for meditation, and the role of God (Isvara) is comparatively small. But it is nonetheless true that the two techniques are phenomenologically similar enough to raise the question of possible influence of Indian mystical physiology on Hesychasm. We shall not enter upon this comparative study here” (pp. 63-65). Death of Fr. Seraphim Papacostas; beginning of disunity and fragmentation within the “Zoe” brotherhood.

1955 J.D. Salinger first publishes his short story, “Franny,” in The New Yorker (January, 1955). The “small, pea-green clothbound book” that she is holding in her “left hand” when she first makes her appearance at the train station, is (we later learn) the Way of the Pilgrim. As she explains later: “I got it out of the library. The man that teaches this Religion Survey thing I’m taking this term mentioned it.” This is followed by a fairly detailed summary (in Franny’s inimitable style), which mentions the Philokalia, “which apparently was written by a group of terribly advanced monks who sort of advocated this really incredible method of praying.” At one point she recommends it to her interlocutor, the vapid Lane Coutell, who shows no interest in it or anything she’s said. She nevertheless proceeds to describe the Jesus Prayer and how to go about practicing it. Her analysis includes (apologetically, we suspect) a bit of comparative religious study, with a gesture toward the “Nembutsu sects of Buddhism . . . the same thing happens in ‘The Cloud of Unknowing,’ too. [. . .] Did you ever hear anything so fascinating in your life, in a way?” Lane asks her what the point of such “mumbo-jumbo” is, deconstructing her enthusiasm with his smug, psychologizing cynicism, and offers a condescending warning: “I don’t know if you know it, but you could do yourself, somebody could do himself a great deal of real - [she cuts him off and says:] “You get to see God.” After that, she excuses herself, and collapses in front of the cocktail bar. And then the closing sentence: “Alone, Franny lay quite still, looking at the ceiling. Her lips began to move, forming soundless words, and they continued to move.” This remarkable story is said to be the first time that the Philokalia makes an appearance in western prose literature. It would be interesting to know more about Salinger’s relationship to this material. He may have seen Palmer and Kadloubovsky, Writings from the Philokalia on Prayer of the Heart (1951), and had obviously read The Way of a Pilgrim.

1956 Θεόκλητος Διονυσιάτης, Μεταξύ Οὐρανοῦ και Γῆς. Ἁγιορειτικός Μοναχισμος (Athens: Aster, 1956; 2nd rev. ed., 1967): “Defense of Dionysius the Areopagite,” 159-63; “Orthodox Mysticism and Platonism,” 164-169 (a defense of the Areopagite’s historicity and Orthodoxy against charges of Platonism); “Elements of Mysticism,” 216-19 (“Mysticism is a συναίσθημα, and thus not susceptible to rational analysis”); “Athonite Mysticism,” 220-24; “The Contexts of Mysticism,” 225-28; “The Power of Mystical Union,” 233-37. The author does not seem to use the language of experience

13

anywhere in these essays, which are more intellectually oriented discussions of historical and theological problems dealing with “mysticism.” Irenée Hausherr, “L’Hésychasme: étude de spiritualité,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 22 (1956): 5-40, 247-85.

1957 New (3rd) edition of the Philokalia (Athens: Papademetriou, Astir, 1957). The editors note that the Philokalia is the reflection of the ascetic “experience” (βίωμα) of Orthodox patristic figures, and they seem unsettled (and obviously motivated) by the earlier appearance of a Romanian trans. (1946), the more recent Eng. translations of Kadloubovsky and Palmer (1951, 1954), and the French by John Gouillard, which they criticize. German translation of Gouillard by G. Frei, Kleine Philokalie zum Gebet des Herzens (Zurich, 1957) [Partial Hungarian translation: 2004]

1957 J.D. Salinger publishes Zooey in The New Yorker (May, 1957),9 a short story which picks up where “Franny” left off. We learn that Franny has separate copies of The Pilgrim and The Pilgrim Continues his Way, and that her intense devotion to the Jesus Prayer has triggered a minor collapse (which we saw at the conclusion of Franny). The books had been sitting on Seymour’s desk, the eldest brother who exposed the siblings to religious truths, but who later committed suicide. He will ultimately be the key to resolving not merely Franny’s problems, but Zooey’s as well, and bringing the two of them closer together. Zooey provides Bessie (his mother) with a fairly detailed and lengthy account of the book and its teaching about the Jesus Prayer. “The main idea is that it’s not supposed to be just for pious bastards and breast-beaters. You can be busy robbing the goddam poor box, but you’re to say the prayer while you rob it” (p. 113). As Franny had done in her effort to explain the Prayer to Lane, Zooey indulges in a bit of comparative religion, identifying the region of the heart as one of the body’s seven shakras, which, when activated, in turns activates the shakra located between the eyebrows, or the pineal gland, known as the “third eye” (ibid.). Zooey later has a confrontation with Franny (who continues to utter silently the words of the prayer), in which he unleashes his rage and confused feelings: he acknowledges that he may very well be envious of her commitment to prayer, and, among other things, tells her: “You’re not the first one who ever thought of saying it, you know. I once went to every Army & Navy store in New York looking for a nice, pilgrim-type rucksack. I was going to fill it with bread crumbs and start walking all over the goddam country. Saying the prayer. Spreading the Word. The whole business” (p. 158). He is also angry at Seymour, for having made them religious “freaks” (but also for abandoning them by taking his life). He thus delivers what seems like a speech vaunting practical ethics over “mysticism.” His main point, though, seems to be his concern that Franny’s spirituality is motivated by ego, avoidance, acquisitiveness, and that she really doesn’t even have a clear idea of who Christ is (and thus the prayer as such is not important to her, but rather what she can gain from it): “I’d love to be convinced that you’re not using it as a substitute for doing whatever the hell your duty is in life, or just your daily duty” (p. 169). He thereafter says that: “The Jesus Prayer has one aim, and one aim

9 Around the same time, The New Yorker was also publishing short stories by Harold Brodkey (e.g., “The Abundant Dreamer,” 23 November, 1963), whose rejection of plot and narrative in favor of massive, excruciating attention to sensual feeling and experience, would seem to be the polar opposite of the efforts of members of the Glass family to free themselves from maya.

14

only. To endow the person who says it with Christ-Consciousness. Not to set up some cozy, holier-than-thou trysting place with some sticky, adorable divine personage who’ll take you in his arms and relieve you of all your duties and make all your nasty Weltschmerzen go away and never come back” (p. 172). After this comes the scene in Seymour’s old room, where Zooey studies the philosophical and religious extracts that cover the back of the door. They are all significant, such as the first, which distinguishes “work” from the “fruits” of work, and insists that we have no right to the latter (i.e., we are to pray, and not seek religious experiences or other forms of compensation). (Later on he says: “You can say the Jesus Prayer from now till doomsday, but if you don’t realize that the only thing that counts in the religious life is detachment, I don’t see how you’ll ever move an inch,” p. 198). This is a remarkable scene: Zooey has not only failed to help Franny, but has wounded her still further. Realizing his failure, he drifts into Seymour’s room, reads the back of the door, and ultimately takes on the persona of his older brother Buddy, in order to call Franny on the phone and comfort her. She sees through the facade, but they continue talking. He tells her that she’ll never be religious if she “doesn’t even have enough sense to drink when somebody brings you a cup of consecrated chicken soup” (p. 196) [a reference to Bessie’s attempts to get Franny to eat something]. But then he tells her how Seymour had insisted that he always shine his shoes before going on the air, and that he needed to do that “for the fat lady.” This is a moment of recognition, and union, since Seymour had said virtually the same thing to Franny. And both Franny and Zooey had imagined the fat lady in very similar terms. So Seymour is alive, in a sense, as the Augustinian, “surpassing third,” i.e., as the “spirit of the relationship,” and not the cause of their problems, but the source of their healing. The final disclosure is that “everyone” is the fat lady, who is none other than Christ himself. Bloom, Anthony, “Asceticism (Somatopsychic tecnhiques),” The Guild of Pastoral Psychology, Guild Lecture 95 (1957) (HAB, p. 62, no. 234).

1958 Duprey, P. “Note brève à l’occasion d’une nouvelle édition de la Philocalie,” Proche-Orient chrétien 8 (1958) 26-29.

1959 600th anniversary of the death of St. Gregory Palamas. This event provided impetus for a number of significant projects, above all a critical edition of the saint’s works, the first volume of which would appear in 1962. (At the urging of Athanasios of Parios, St. Nikodemos had submitted a MS of the ‘collected works’ of Palamas to a printer in Vienna, but the work was lost when the shop was destroyed for publishing revolutionary pamphlets.) [Lev Gillet] Une Moine de l’Eglise d’Orient, La Prière de Jesus (Chevtogne, 1959 = 3rd edition). Lefebvre, G. Prière pure et pureté de coeur d’après S. Grégoire le Sinaite et Jean de la Croix (Paris, 1959).

1960 Foundation of “Soter,” definitive break-up of the “Zoe” Brotherhood. Le Guillou, M.-J., “La renaissance spirituelle du XVIIIe siècle. I. Aux sources des mouvements spirituels de l’Église Orthodoxe de Grèce,” Istina 1.7 (1960): 95-128.