The Byzantine Politics of Byzantine Mysticism

From the accession of Constantine in 306 to the final fall of Constantinople in 1453, what is both curious and clear is that Byzantine mysticism was closely connected to politics, sometimes frustratingly so. Often it is difficult to distinguish a mystical tradition from a theological position that became aligned with a political faction. Byzantine mysticism itself is difficult to define. Certainly, even a cursory study of the hesychast movement reveals that it was clearly mystical.1 What about other movements? Was devotion to icons connected to mysticism? The intellectual history of Byzantium is theology, and it is usually systematic theology. Mystical treatises, when they do appear, often come from monastic circles. Mysticism, as in a direct personal encounter with the divine, was distrusted by most Byzantine theologians and always had the whiff of heresy. Mysticism could lead one to dangerous ideas, as in the case of Origen. In fact, there is no Greek word for mysticism, although it is derived from the Greek word mysticos, which means “hidden” or “secret.” Many texts, which a modern reader might find to be mystical, for example, some of the writings of Gregory of Nyssa or the theological poetry of Gregory Nazianzen (fourth-century contemporaries), might more readily be classified as speculative theology or even pastoral theology. For most Byzantine theologians, it was best to accept the received tradition of the church fathers and ecumenical councils. Originality and innovation were not seen as intellectual virtues. Proclaiming one’s own personal encounter with the divine could lead to conflict with the established ecclesiastical authorities.The problem is made more complex by the question itself: Does mysticism have a politics? What were Byzantine politics? Politics may be much easier to define or identify: court factions, attempted coups, banishments and exiles—there are numerous cases. The Byzantines, however, could not conceive of a separation of church and state. The emperor was to uphold orthodoxy as well as defend the oecumene.2 Of course, there were also church politics and politics within monastic communities, but for the sake of this overview, we must consider whether mystical movements were involved in politics outside the monastery and if they had an impact on the history of the Byzantine state and society.Byzantine mysticism almost always occurred in a monastic milieu. Monks were expected to be ascetics, even if some monasteries were more ascetic than others. Monasticism and asceticism do not necessitate mysticism, but certainly there is a connection, since monks engaged in asceticism to conquer the passions and have mystical experiences. If we look at the Life of Antony, one of the mostly widely read books in the late antiquity and medieval Mediterranean, we clearly see someone who had mystical experiences. His experiences, however, are relayed by Athanasius, who did have a political ax to grind. The Arian controversy may indeed have been a real theological controversy, but it became a political one once the emperor Constantine became interested.3 The Life of Antony can be interpreted as a response to and critique of Eusebius’s Life of Constantine. For Athanasius, the real Christian champion is the monk Antony, who clearly takes the side of Nicene orthodoxy, and whose mystical experiences led him to the truth. However, the letters of Antony himself reveal a mystic with primarily pastoral concerns rather than theological or political ones. He directly imitated the epistles of Paul and frequently quotes them, and of course Paul also wrote about mystical experiences (2 Cor. 2:12).4 Antony’s letters, although they imitate Paul’s, are wisdom literature, and there is certainly the hope that the recipient, always referred to as “my son” or “my children,” will acquire divine knowledge. The expectation is that the seeker will have a mystical encounter with the divine.So Antony, a model for so many, sets a precedent for the relationship between Byzantine mysticism and politics. Mysticism does not seem to have an inherent politics, but politics often tried to co-opt or intervene in mysticism. Surveying the Byzantine period makes it clear that mysticism often became connected to politics, and the following illustrates this development. While there are many instances, I focus on three notable examples: iconoclasm in the early Byzantine period, the controversy surrounding Symeon the New Theologian in the middle Byzantine period, and the Palamite controversy in the late period.It is difficult to say what role mysticism played in the iconoclast controversy in the eighth and ninth centuries. There is ample evidence, from the writings of John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite to the persecution of the Graptoi brothers, that monks took an interest in the controversy. The writings in defense of icons are all systematic theology about the nature of Jesus and why he can be portrayed in a picture made by human hands. Defense of icons was not based on mystical experience, although it is easy to imagine that mysticism could have played a role. To this day, icons are primarily objects of devotion. The ultimate mystical experience—to see the divine light, which is described by the two mystics considered below, Symeon and Gregory Palamas—was ironically aniconic, an experience of light and supersensory disembodiment. A recent study of iconoclasm makes the bizarre claim that it had nothing to do with religion, even though most primary sources on iconoclasm are theological texts written by theologians.5 Regardless, in the coups and countercoups of the period, various political factions aligned themselves with either iconophile or iconoclast parties. The reason is not so clear. Persecution of Byzantine monasteries took place in the reign of Constantine V from 765 to 772, and again, the reasons cannot be easily explained but seem mostly to do with Constantine’s goals for social and military reform and a failed coup against him in 765. One would expect monks to have appealed to mystical experiences, such as visions or encounters with the divine through an icon, but these are largely absent. Certainly, the iconoclast controversy was political, since it dealt with the emperor’s power over and within the church. Still, it can be hard to discern why certain factions supported one side or another. Perhaps iconophiles wanted to control the populace by appealing to folk piety. For iconoclasts, it may have been because iconoclasm seems to have been more popular with the military. What is surprising is that most people appear to have accepted either position, and many monks and nuns supported iconoclasm and then the veneration of icons when they were restored.Symeon the New Theologian (949–1022) was a monk, then an abbot and monastic reformer, and he also wrote of mystical visions and the mystical experience in which he believed one could have a direct encounter with God.6 For many, he is the Byzantine mystic par excellence.7 He is a forerunner of Gregory Palamas, who also speaks of an encounter with divine light. Symeon was of aristocratic background and had a promising career at court, cut short by the accession of Basil II. It was then that he turned to the monastic and then mystical life. Symeon’s insistence that a direct encounter with God was the only basis of spiritual authority naturally led him into conflict with the church. This position also certainly had the greatest potential to have a political dimension, since it questioned the very basis of authority within the church and therefore within society at large. The dispute began over the veneration of Symeon’s spiritual father but quickly included Symeon’s teachings. He had faced a rebellion from monks before, and many monks did not agree with his views on mystical experience, especially his strict version of monastic discipline. The court theologian Archbishop Stephen, another aristocrat, led the intellectual opposition to Symeon and persuaded the patriarch Sergius II to have him exiled. We do know that Symeon had many aristocratic supporters, who eventually persuaded Sergius to invite Symeon back, apparently because Sergius wanted to avoid intervention by the emperor. So here we see a similar pattern to that established by Athanasius and Antony: mysticism could undermine clerical authority. It was best to co-opt it early before the secular authorities were concerned.My final example is the Palamite controversy in the late fourteenth century, in the twilight of the empire.8 Gregory Palamas had gone further than Symeon in describing and analyzing the direct mystical experience one could have with God, seeing his uncreated energies but not his essence. The teaching was criticized by the Italian-Greek theologian Barlaam, who had been trained in the scholastic tradition. The controversy quickly became part of the wider pro-Latin/union and anti-Latin/union parties in the Byzantine court and society. In the civil war between John VI Kantakouzenos and John V Palaeologus (1341–47), the controversy played a role, but there were supporters and opponents of Palamas on both sides of the political conflict. There is no indication that Palamism caused the civil war or that the war would not have happened but for the Palamite controversy. It seems that many members of the anti-Latin faction, whether political or theological, embraced Palamism as a cause to defend and justify an anti-Latin stance. This controversy highlights the point I made at the beginning. Byzantine mystical traditions almost always had a politics, not inherently but because church and political power were so closely connected—the emperor was the defender of orthodoxy—that it seems inevitable that any mystical tradition that led to controversy would somehow involve political authority.The Palamite controversy reveals another paradox of Byzantine mysticism already mentioned above: mystical experiences cannot be merely individual. Hesychasm was and remains a tendentious practice within monastic circles. For some, it is the highest form of prayer, while others view it as potentially dangerous. It is supposed to be done only under spiritual direction, that is, under the guidance of a spiritual elder, usually in a monastery. Individual mystical experiences were distrusted, and true mystical experience had to be confirmed by the proper ecclesial and spiritual authorities. Hesychasm as an independent practice was and is still regarded as potentially dangerous, as illustrated vividly by J. D. Salinger in Franny and Zooey (1961).Throughout Byzantine history, theology and spiritual writings remained the primary intellectual output of Byzantine civilization. Mysticism had a place in monastic circles, but because theology always became a political issue in Byzantium, it is difficult to point out where mysticism had a politics. Rather, politics often co-opted mysticism. Byzantine mystics were supposed to be above politics, in this world but not of this world, but they rarely found that the world was prepared to leave the mystic out of its political disputes. Byzantine politics embraced mysticism, not because Byzantine mysticism had a politics but because it was a source of spiritual authority in a deeply religious society

Art · Byzantine architecture · Heresy · Literature · Mysticism · Poetry · Politics · Theology · Byzantine Studies and History · Classics · History · Law · Philosophy

• Mysticism and the Postanarchist Symbolic

  Keith Lewis•Cultural Politics an International…•2024

  Add to list

• Constantine and the Bishops

  T D Barnes, H A Drake•Phoenix•2000

  Add to list