Saint Nicodemos of Mount Athos, the Kolivari Movement and the revival of Palamism

Introduction

In the 18th century, Mount Athos and the islands of the Aegean Sea were at the centre of a remarkable revival of Orthodox theology and spirituality that continues to influence the Orthodox world to this day. This revival, and, above all, the broader movement it set in motion, can be divided into two distinct phases. Firstly, the emphasis was placed particularly on preserving the Church’s liturgical tradition, an issue initially reflected in a dispute over the order of the service for the commemoration of the departed and, subsequently, in a wider-ranging controversy concerning the interval of time during which people may receive the Holy Eucharist. On the other hand, however, the movement was based on a massive revival of interest in the writings of Saint Gregory Palamas (†1359), brought to the fore by the publication of the Philokalia in 1782. This revival, viewed as a whole, is known as the ‘Philokalian Revival’, even though the Philokalia represented the first compilation, in a single, comprehensive volume, of the entire works of Saint Gregory Palamas. The revival of his writings was achieved in particular by Saint Nicodemus of Mount Athos (1749–1809), who edited the Philokalia and whose contribution to Orthodox theology is discussed in this article.

As the leader of this movement, Saint Nicodemos did not work alone, but was assisted by several learned monks and clergymen, whose work extended throughout the Balkans and the eastern Mediterranean 1. They were known amongst the people as ‘colivari’ (the meaning of which we shall explain in detail later), and their story is recounted below.

Despite the fact that the early medieval period is known as a ‘dark age’ in the history of the Orthodox Church, the 18th century was a ‘golden age’ for Mount Athos. There was a widespread, if not complete, return to cenobitic monasticism, whilst the smaller sketes contributed to the transcription and publication of manuscripts. At the newly established Athonite Academy, mathematics, philosophy, the sciences and other subjects were taught by leading scholars and intellectuals. Well-known Athonite authors of religious works published books that found a wide readership amongst the laity. Communities following the Athonite way of life flourished in Romania and Russia, providing opportunities for the transport and exchange of experience 2. Of course, this revival was not without its critics, and attempts to halt it led to an increase in the support offered by its advocates, who have since been canonised as saints.

The ‘Philokalic Revival’ took place in response to the challenges posed by the European Enlightenment and the French Revolution, political and cultural movements that opposed religious faith and whose proponents were active in Greece and the Balkans. In response, Orthodox thinkers, such as Saint Nicodemos and his like, opposed the principle that Christians living under Ottoman occupation – or in other circumstances – could achieve absolute freedom through revolution. Nor could true unity be achieved through the secular ideology of nationalism, which runs counter to the universal mission of the Church 3. Nevertheless, Christians were urged towards spiritual renewal, convinced that the only true form of ‘enlightenment’ is that brought about by the grace of God, bestowed upon the faithful through baptism, Holy Communion and Hesychast prayer, as revealed to us throughout the Philokalia.

The ‘Colivari’ Movement

The term ‘colivar’ derives from the Greek κόλλῠβον, an offering made in memory of the departed, prepared from boiled wheat and distributed to those present (John 12:24; 1 Corinthians 15:36). When, around the year 1757, these services—contrary to ancient tradition—were moved from Saturday (the day of death) to Sunday (the day of the Resurrection), widespread discontent arose. These monks who opposed the innovation were unjustly labelled ‘colivari’ (‘those who prepared coliva’), a name attributed to them by their persecutors, who continued to use it long after the issue of the memorial services had come to a head. Saint Nicodemos regarded this as “false and defamatory”, as the opponents deliberately omitted the true principles of the ‘4’ movement.

To clarify, it was not the coliva itself that was the cause of the controversy, but rather it was used as a pretext to accuse the monks. The real issue was considered to be the choice of Sunday as the day for celebrating the Divine Liturgy, together with the refusal to demean or compromise such a powerful Christian symbol as the ‘5’. Some have dismissed the controversy as a meaningless issue, raised by narrow-minded monks; yet we cannot say that the dispute over the date of Easter – which has persisted for over a century and has not been resolved by any authority other than the First Ecumenical Council – was merely a disagreement amongst religious fanatics preoccupied with liturgical minutiae. Matters of faith are not meaningless for the simple reason that the Orthodox Liturgy is not an exercise in narrow ritualism, but the concrete expression and practical manifestation of Orthodox theology, being the existential means of its realisation in the life of the believer.

The change to the canonical order caused a scandal and provoked a strong response from Neophytus the Peloponnesian (1713–1784), a hierodeacon at the Monastery of Kavsokalivia, regarded as the founder of the Kolivari Movement 6. Neophytus had, not long before, headed the Athonite Academy (1749–1753), where he became known for his confrontational and uncompromising nature. He condemned innovation, branding it a flagrant deviation from Holy Tradition, and succeeded in winning others over to his side, including one of his students, Athanasios Parios (1722–1813), who later became one of the leaders of the ‘7’ movement.

The issue of frequent communion

Although the disagreements over koliva gave the entire movement its name, this was overshadowed by another controversy concerning the frequency of communion 8. The latter caused greater division than the issue of the memorial service for the departed, coming to the fore. Communion had been in decline since the 16th century, but for clergy and monastic brothers it had become customary to receive the Holy Eucharist four times a year: at Easter, Christmas, the Dormition of the Mother of God and the Feast of the Holy Apostles, feasts preceded by many days of fasting 9. A baseless attempt to confer canonical authority on this custom 10 provoked a further harsh reaction from Neofit, who wrote an essay in response entitled ‘On Frequent Communion’, published anonymously, most likely to avoid ecclesiastical censorship. The work was completed in 1772 and published in 1777, although many drafts had in the meantime been sent for publication 11. In a series of 37 ‘Objections and Replies’, which provided ample scope for his by no means tempered criticisms, Neofit strongly rejected the practice, asserting that it stood in stark contrast to what the the Church actually teaches. At the same time, he denounced the bishops for failing to resolve the issue, through a complete abdication of responsibility, but also for their “corruption, simony, usury, idleness and ignorance”, which in fact made them “schismatics and heretics”. He concluded, in accordance with their own customs, that they were already ‘self-excommunicated’ and that, under their dysfunctional leadership, the Church had lost its sanctifying vocation 12.

The publication of the treatise On Frequent Communion proved controversial, but the real issue, hidden amongst Neophytus’s explosive accusations, was too important to be overlooked. Thus, after the book had been in circulation for several years, Saint Nicodemus completely revised it and made additions that doubled the book’s content (for example, a Eucharistic commentary on the Lord’s Prayer closely related to Saint Maximus the Confessor’s work On the Lord’s Prayer13). The revised edition was published anonymously in 1783 14.

In his revised study On Frequent Communion, Saint Nicodemus set out to write in a more accessible style by better organising the content and reinforcing the ideas presented with quotations from the Holy Fathers and later theologians, such as Saint Nicholas Cabasilas (†1392), Saint Symeon of Thessalonica (†1429) and Gennadius II of Constantinople (†1473). His main aim was to produce a version that would not provoke so much controversy and would not directly attack the Patriarchate – even though he could not entirely ignore the chronic inability of the hierarchs to maintain canonical order and preserve the integrity of the Church’s doctrine. Nevertheless, the shortcomings of the first edition had not been forgotten, and in 1785 the work was discredited by Patriarch Gabriel IV (1780–1785).

The Controversy over Holy Communion and the Patriarchate’s Interventions

It is unclear which version of the work the patriarch condemned, but it appears to have been Neophytus’s 1777 edition. The controversy continued for several more years, coming to an official close in August 1819, during the third patriarchate of Gregory V (1797–1798, 1806–1808, 1818–1821). In an encyclical addressed to the abbots and monks of Mount Athos, Patriarch Gregory approved frequent communion for those who had prepared themselves to receive it, but noted that the frequency itself had ‘never been defined and was not the subject of an apostolic canon’15).

Although Neophytos Kavsokalivitis was the founder and principal leader of the Kolivites Movement in its early phase, his controversial personality and polemical style left him increasingly isolated. His departure from Mount Athos in 1759 led to a decline in the movement’s influence on the peninsula 16. By 1760, leadership of the movement had passed to his disciple Athanasius of Parios, then to Macarius of Corinth and Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite 17. The revision of the work On Frequent Communion is emblematic of the new leadership’s interest in moving beyond the reactionary tactics of its founder. Without rejecting the movement’s deeper concerns, Athanasius Parios, Macarius and Saint Nicodemus redirected their collective energy towards a vision of Orthodoxy inspired by the 14th-century Hesychast movement. This change of direction followed a series of interventions by the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The Patriarchate’s Response

When reports of the growing controversy reached Constantinople, Patriarch Theodosius II (1769–1773) responded with two encyclicals: the first was issued in July 1772, and the second in June 1773. These letters proposed a compromise, arguing that ‘those who hold memorial services on Saturdays do well, whilst those who hold them on Sundays are not subject to condemnation, since they do not mourn, but offer prayers of intercession to God’18). A third letter, undated but probably written towards the end of 1773, instructed the monks to observe the regulations (typikon) of their hermitages, and the hermitages to observe those of their monasteries 19. As regards the issue of Holy Communion, Patriarch Theodosius once again attempted to satisfy both sides, stating that ‘the issue is not the frequency of Communion, but preparation through repentance and confession’20

All three letters sought reconciliation between the two camps, but neither side was willing to compromise. It appears that the Patriarchate had not yet grasped the depth of the division and the real potential for conflict, which was to be revealed by the brutal murder of one of Neophytus’s oldest and most loyal disciples, the hieromonk Paisie, who, together with his elder, Theophanes, were beaten and drowned off the coast of Mount Athos on 25 May 1773 21.

As the situation continued to escalate, two synods were convened: the first, in April 1774, at Cutlumuș Monastery on Mount Athos, and the second, in June 1776, in Constantinople. Both were hostile towards the Colivari. With the clear intention of demonstrating its strength, the synod at Cutlumuș brought together two former patriarchs, four former metropolitans, two serving metropolitans and two bishops from Thessaloniki. Also present were around 200 monks from the surrounding hermitages and cells. The Colivari were invited but did not attend. The synod reaffirmed the Patriarchate’s position and excommunicated all those who had not accepted the encyclical of 1773. No real resolution was reached, and the synod concluded with a hierarchical liturgy on Sunday morning, followed by a memorial service for the departed 22.

Two years later, a second synod was convened in Constantinople, presided over by Patriarch Sophronius II (1774–1780). After numerous failed attempts to resolve the issue, the Patriarchate was now determined to put an end to the movement. The synod decreed that memorial services could be held either on Saturday or Sunday, and explicitly anathematised a number of colivari, including Athanasius Parios, whom it condemned as a heretic, defrocked and excommunicated. In its final ruling, the Synod declared the matter closed and that it could no longer be discussed 23. Parios’s dismissal was a blow to the movement, but, four years later, following the death of Patriarch Sophronius, he successfully defended himself before the new patriarch, Gabriel IV (1780–1805), who restored him to communion and reinstated him to the priesthood.

The Synod of 1776 marked the end of the first phase of the controversy. Neophytus was no longer present, and the radical wing of the movement had been eliminated by the deaths of two of its members. The survivors, such as Parios, were punished and forced to leave Mount Athos. Leadership of the movement subsequently passed to Macarius of Corinth and Saint Nicodemus, who arrived on Mount Athos in the years immediately following the Synod of Cutlumuș. As mentioned above, Macarius and Saint Nicodemus had no interest in continuing the radical wing’s short-sighted attacks on the Patriarchate. Instead, they redirected their efforts towards reviving the Hesychast theology of Saint Gregory Palamas, which for them was the highest expression of Orthodox Christianity and the only true alternative to a secular movement that ostentatiously promoted itself as ‘Enlightenment’. Before going into the details of the Palamite revival, it will be useful to examine more closely the life and work of Saint Nicodemus.

Saint Nicodemos of Mount Athos: Life and Work

Saint Nicodemos was born in 1749 to devout and wealthy parents on the island of Naxos. His baptismal name was Nicholas. He received his primary education from a learned priest on the island, and at the age of 16 he enrolled at the School of Smyrna, a theological academy where he excelled in classical philology. Blessed with an exceptional visual memory, he possessed the astonishing ability to recall entire passages from the books he had read, along with the chapters and page numbers, which naturally made him stand out throughout the school 24.

After his return to Naxos in 1770, Saint Nicodemus served as secretary to the local bishop and would probably have pursued a conventional career within the Church had it not been for his memorable encounter with three Athonite hieromonks: Gregory of Nisyros, Neophytus of Chios and Arsenius the Peloponnesian, members of the Kolivari Movement, who had fled Mount Athos and settled on Naxos. They introduced Saint Nicodemus to the practice of Hesychast prayer and urged him to meet Macarius, the former Metropolitan of Corinth (1731–1805), who at that time (c. 1773–1774) happened to be on the island of Hydra. Macarius had recently (1770) been forced to abdicate his see following a failed Greek revolt against the Turks 25.

At the time of their meeting, Macarius was about 43 years old, and Saint Nicodemus about 25. Macarius shared with Nicodemus his plan to compile the patristic texts that were to become the first printed edition of the Philokalia, alongside other publishing projects, and invited the young man to support him. These meetings had a decisive influence on Saint Nicodemus and were to shape, to a large extent, the course of his subsequent life and work. Macarius’s invitation drew Saint Nicodemus into the work of a scholarly editor of texts, at which he excelled to such an extent that, ultimately, he surpassed his mentor. Thus, Macarius’s greatest work, the Philokalia, and the broader movement it represented, are still associated in the public consciousness with Saint Nicodemus.

Whilst on the island of Hydra, Saint Nicodemus met another Athonite monk, Sylvester of Cappadocia, who was also a member of the Kolivari movement. Silvestru had left Mount Athos following the deaths of the two monks, escaping by boat to the island of Hydra 26. On his arrival, he informed Macarius of the events on Athos and provided him with materials documenting the history of the controversy 27. It so happened that Silvestru played an important role in guiding Saint Nicodimus towards the monastic life. Later that same year (1775), at the age of 26, Saint Nicodimus – bearing a letter of recommendation from Silvestru – boarded a ship bound for Mount Athos and presented himself at the Monastery of Dionysius. Silvestru was in contact with a group of monks there who were part of the Kolivari Movement, and Saint Nicodemus was welcomed into the community and tonsured as a monk, serving as a reader in the main church, before eventually becoming the abbot’s secretary. With the exception of a single year, which he spent in ascetic retreat on a nearby deserted island, Saint Nicodimus remained on Mount Athos for the rest of his life, as a simple monk, never having been ordained.

Two years later, in 1777, Macarius travelled to Mount Athos and sent word to Saint Nicodemus to meet him in a cell near the Athonite capital. Macarius had with him a preliminary version of the Philokalia, which he handed to Saint Nicodemus, asking him to correct and revise the text for publication. It may seem unusual that, although he was only 28 years old and had been on Mount Athos for just two years, Saint Nicodemos was entrusted with the monumental task of editing the Philokalia, for which he also wrote the prologue.

However, thanks to his remarkable intelligence, his visual memory, his training in Classical Greek and his experience of Hesychast prayer, Saint Nicodemus was among the most qualified of his contemporaries to undertake such a project, which he completed in two years. The result was the first edition of the Philokalia, which was published five years later, in 1782 28.

The Publications of Saint Nicodemus

From 1782 until his death in 1809, Saint Nicodemus authored an impressive number of books, many of them in collaboration with Macarius of Corinth 29. Saint Nicodemus’s body of work was vast and covered the entire spectrum of theological subjects: dogmatic, liturgical, patristic, moral, apologetic, hermeneutical, homiletic, hagiographic, pastoral, canon law and, last but not least, ascetic and spiritual works. He was undoubtedly the most prolific writer and editor to have worked on Mount Athos, a title he still holds to this day. His major publications include over 25 books, some of which run to over 1,000 pages. These include extensive verse-by-verse biblical commentaries on the Psalms (Constantinople, 1819–1821), on the Epistles of Saint Paul the Apostle (Venice, 1819) and on the Ecumenical Epistles (Venice, 1806). For these works, Saint Nicodemus drew heavily on the commentaries of Byzantine exegetes, including Theophylact of Bulgaria (†1107) and Euthymius Zigabenos (†1120), which he adapted and freely reworked, translating them into Modern Greek, broadening their scope of interpretation and enriching them with abundant annotations, most of which appear to have been written from memory.

From the writings of the Church Fathers, Saint Nicodemus published the first edition of the writings of Saint Symeon the New Theologian (†1022) (Venice, 1790), the first edition of the more than 800 Questions and Answers of Saints Barsanuphius and John (6th century) (Venice, 1816) and the multi-volume work Evergetinos (Venice, 1783), a thematically organised collection of moral teachings drawn from the apophthegms of the Desert Fathers and the Lives of the Saints, originally compiled in the 11th century by Paul Evergetinos. Saint Nicodemus also produced a three-volume edition of the complete works of Saint Gregory Palamas in 1796, which we shall discuss in detail below.

In addition to the Philokalia (Venice, 1782) and recognising the need for popular works on asceticism and spirituality, Saint Nicodemus also published: A Manual of Spiritual Guidance (Vienna, 1801); The Unseen War (Venice, 1796); and Spiritual Exercises (Venice, 1800). The latter two works were the subject of controversy for a long time, as both are based on Roman Catholic devotional books, namely Combattimento Spirituale by Lorenzo Scupoli (1610) and a version of Esercizi Spirituali di S. Ignazio Loiola by the Jesuit priest Giovanni Pietro Pinamonti (1632–1703). It was long believed that Saint Nicodemus himself had translated these works from Italian into Greek, but it has now been established that the translator was in fact Emmanuel Romanitis († c. 1760)30. A native of Crete, Romanitis spoke Greek and Italian fluently, and in the early 18th century he settled at the Monastery of St John on Patmos, where he translated 11 Roman Catholic devotional works. There is no evidence that Saint Nicodemus ever visited Patmos, but Macarius of Corinth spent a considerable amount of time there studying the manuscripts in the monastery’s library. Consequently, we can be fairly certain that Macarius was the link that connected Saint Nicodemus to the translations from Patmos and that he gave him these translations (or copies of them) during his next visit to Mount Athos in 1784. Thus, Saint Nicodemus had no direct contact with the original Italian works, which he received in Greek translations that had already been amended. And, far from simply transcribing and printing these translations, Saint Nicodemus completely revised them in terms of their form, content and language, to such an extent that they bear very little resemblance to their Roman Catholic originals 31.

In using these sources, Saint Nicodemus worked on the principle that ‘we must detest and turn away from the heterodox beliefs and unlawful customs of the Latins and other heretics, but whatever is found in them to be correct and affirmed by the canons of the Holy Councils, we must not detest or turn away from, lest we detest and turn away from the canons without realising it’32”. Other publications include important collections of saints’ lives: Synaxaristes (650 lives), in three volumes (Venice, 1819), the New Selection [Ekloge] of Saints’ Lives (36 lives) (Venice, 1803) and the New Martyrology (85 lives) (Venice, 1799), the latter comprising accounts of the martyrs who were killed after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Saint Nicodemus also published a large volume entitled Christian Morality (Venice, 1803), followed by a manual on Orthodox doctrine known as the Exomologetarion (Venice, 1794) and an exhaustive collection of the canons of the local and ecumenical councils known as the Rudder (Leipzig, 1800), as well as On Frequent Communion (Venice, 1783)33, and, finally, The Confession of Faith* (Venice, 1819). The Confession is Saint Nicodemus’s response to his critics regarding the issue of frequent communion and the celebration of memorial services on Sundays. It provides a comprehensive justification of the Kolivari Movement and was probably the last thing he wrote, as his health had already begun to deteriorate in 1805.

In addition to the above, Saint Nicodemus was also a remarkable hymnographer and composed around 40 church services (akolouthiai) for various saints and feasts, including the Service of the Holy Fathers of Athos (Hermoupolis, 1847), a feast whose establishment he had championed. For a further 40 services that were incomplete, he composed the missing hymnographic text. He also composed the Theotokarion, a collection of 56 canons to the Most Holy Mother of God, the Theotokos, one for each day of the week in all eight tones (which continue to be sung in Orthodox monasteries)34; then a voluminous work entitled Heortodromion, which is a detailed biblical, theological and philological commentary on the canons (the hymns sung during Matins) of the great feasts (Venice, 1836); a commentary on the nine biblical odes entitled The Garden of Graces (Venice, 1819) and The New Ladder, a commentary on the ‘Hymns of Exaltation’ sung at Sunday Matins (Constantinople, 1844). These works were intended to introduce the faithful to the profound theological significance of the hymns sung throughout the liturgical year and, in particular, on Sundays. They are remarkable examples of the teaching of Orthodox theology through hymnography.

In 1805, at the age of 57, Saint Nicodemus’s health began to fail, and in early July 1809 he suffered a stroke. On 13 July, he requested that the relics of Macarius of Corinth (†1805) be brought to him so that he might venerate them. That night, the monks kept vigil by his side; at dawn he received Holy Communion, and shortly afterwards he passed away. Over the course of 28 years (1777–1805), Saint Nicodemos produced an exceptional body of work which was the principal expression of the Colivari Movement: 16 major publications appeared during his lifetime, whilst a further nine of his projects were published by the Colivari in the years following his passing 35. Despite the great thematic diversity of these publications, their aim was to gather, define and teach the Orthodox faith and way of life, which entailed a comprehensive return to tradition in its entirety. Just over a century after his passing, and in response to a letter from the monasteries of Mount Athos, Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople (†1972) officially recognised Saint Nicodemus as a saint on 31 May 1955 36, with his feast day falling on 14 July.

In Naxos, where Saint Nicodemus was born, this feast is preceded by a week-long period of celebration (7–14 July) and, furthermore, he is honoured once more on 2 September, when the Feast of All Saints takes place in Naxos.

Saint Nicodemus is also celebrated in a special way on Mount Athos, on the first Sunday in October, together with all the Athonite saints 37.

The edition of the works of Saint Gregory Palamas

Interest in the writings of Saint Gregory Palamas declined after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, but did not disappear entirely. The publication of three works by Saint Gregory in the Tomos Agapes of Patriarch Dositeus II of Jerusalem (Iași, 1698) is a well-known example of this interest, to which many others might be added 38. However, it was not until the second half of the eighteenth century that a coordinated effort emerged to make the theology and spirituality of Saint Gregory Palamas a central element of the life of the Orthodox Church. This unprecedented revival of the Hesychast tradition found its greatest exponent in Saint Nicodemus, who was dubbed ‘the Gregory Palamas of the eighteenth century’39). Both Macarius of Corinth and Athanasius Parios recognised the importance of having the complete works of Saint Gregory Palamas available in a single printed edition, and in 1784, they discussed the project with Saint Nicodemus, who began work on it in 1795 40.

In a remarkable feat of scholarship, Saint Nicodemus succeeded in completing the edition, but it was never published. As we shall see, a political event led the authorities to raid the printing house where the complete work was to be printed, and in the ensuing commotion, the manuscript was lost. Although it was never published, Saint Nicodemus’s work remains edifying, and the history of the project deserves to be widely known. Let us therefore examine, from the outset, the course of this extraordinary endeavour.

When Saint Nicodemus began gathering material for the new edition, only a small number of Saint Gregory Palamas’s works were available in print: Apodictic Treatises on the Descent of the Holy Spirit (Constantinople, 1627); Prefaces (Antepigraphai) for Bekkos (Rome, 1629); The Confession of Faith (Paris, 1672; Jassy, 1698); The Tomos of the Holy Mountain (The Hagioritic Tomos) (Iași, 1698); An Exposition of the Impiety of Varlaam and Akindynos (Iași, 1698); The Life of Saint Peter of Mount Athos (Antwerp, 1698); 10 Homilies (Moscow, 1776); and The Dialogue of Theophanes and Theotimitos (Leipzig, 1779)41. With the exception of the Tomos of the Holy Mountain, these works were of relatively limited interest to the Colivari, and some of them – such as the edition of the Titles of Replacement, published in Rome by a Catholic – were written from a decidedly anti-Palamite perspective. Thus, the need for a complete edition of the writings of Saint Gregory Palamas had become evident, and, to this end, Macarius of Corinth took the first steps.

Macarius of Corinth made his first attempt sometime in the second half of the 18th century – the exact date is unknown – when he discovered a manuscript at the Great Lavra 42 containing a collection of 70 works by Saint Gregory Palamas: 10 theological works and 60 homilies. At the head of these was The Life of Saint Gregory Palamas by Philotheos Kokkinos 43. Macarius edited these works and prepared them for publication. In his brief preface to the edition, he compares the writings of Saint Gregory Palamas to ‘flowers in a garden that until now had been hidden behind a locked door’, concealed as they were in ‘old and inaccessible manuscripts’44. Aware that many of his readers would find Saint Gregory Palamas (even in print) challenging in terms of both his language and his concepts, Macarie encourages them as follows: ‘read these works consistently and do not use the difficulty of the Greek language as an excuse to ignore them, for the language of these works is such that, if you read them continuously, earnestly and attentively, their meaning will become clear and the door to your understanding will open’45

Excerpts from the original handwritten version of Macarius’s edition are held at the University of Illinois, but the edition itself has never been printed 46. In the preface, Macarie acknowledges that there may be other unpublished works by Saint Gregory Palamas of which he is unaware 47. It is therefore possible that when Macarie invited Saint Nicodemos to work on the Philokalia, he may also have learnt of other manuscripts containing further works by Saint Gregory Palamas and abandoned or postponed his own (incomplete) edition until the entire Palamite corpus could be reassembled 48. Although Macarius’s project was never completed, it contributed directly to the compilation of the Philokalia (Venice, 1782), which reproduced five works by Saint Gregory Palamas from Macarius’s edition: To the Most Pure Nun Xenia, A New Testament Decalogue, Three Texts on Prayer and the Purity of the Heart, The 150 Chapters and the Tomos of the Holy Mountain 49. With the exception of the Tomos, this was the first time these works had appeared in print. To these articles, the Philokalia added a single work: Saint Gregory Palamas, In Defence of Those Who Practise a Life of Silence (Triads I.2).

In his preface to Saint Gregory Palamas’s work in the Philokalia, Saint Nicodemus explains that these works are merely ‘fragments of a much larger corpus’, alluding, presumably, to plans for a complete edition 50.

Athanasios Parios: The Need for an Edition

Two years after the publication of the Philokalia, Athanasius Parios published a volume dedicated to Saint Gregory Palamas, which he titled Ὁ Παλαμᾶς ἐκεῖνος (Vienna, 1784). In it, he included a translation into Modern Greek of Kokkinos’s Life of Saint Gregory Palamas, together with a complete service for the saint and two canons of repentance. This was followed by the official recognition of Saint Gregory Palamas’s sanctity by the Synod of 1368 51; the Decalogue of the New Testament (reproduced from the 1782 Philokalia); The Confession of Faith of Saint Gregory Palamas (reproduced from Dositheos’s 1698 version); and an Eulogy on Gregory Palamas by Nilus of Constantinople (†1388)52. As the choice of texts suggests, this was a popularisation collection, offering readers a comprehensive account of the life and miracles of Saint Gregory Palamas, and encouraging his veneration as a saint of the Church through the celebration of the services dedicated to him. In the introduction to the volume, Parios mentions the need for an edition of the works of Saint Gregory Palamas, but acknowledges that the task is beyond his capabilities, presumably given the limited number of manuscripts available to him in Thessaloniki at that time: ‘I know that both those who seek knowledge and those who possess it have asked me to prepare an edition of the writings of Saint Gregory, which is indeed a desirable undertaking. However, I must ask for your forgiveness, as such a task cannot be carried out here in Thessaloniki. If, however, elsewhere, God should wish to stir up the zeal of another, let him inform me of his pious intention, and I shall gladly make available to him all the copies of Palamas’s works that I have in my possession’53’. Parios wrote these words towards the end of his tenure as a professor in Thessaloniki (1777–1783), and it seems clear that he had Saint Nicodemus in mind. This is confirmed by Saint Nicodemus’s disciple and biographer, Euthymius, who recounts that: ‘In Nicodemus’s life, Parios reflects on him: Nicodemus was asked by Athanasius Parios, who was teaching in Thessaloniki at the time, to undertake the task of gathering together all the works of our father Saint Gregory Palamas and to prepare them for publication, as he saw fit. Nicodim gladly accepted the request, not least because of his love for Saint Gregory. When he had completed his work, he sent it to Vienna to be printed’54’. Whilst Saint Nicodimus was well aware of Parios’s enthusiasm for the edition, it seems likely that Macarius played a key role in this project. He would certainly have discussed the project with Parios in Thessaloniki, before 1783, or in Chios, in 1794, and then conveyed Parios’s wishes to Saint Nicodemus, who completed the edition in 1796 and, as Euthymius informs us, sent it to a printing house in Vienna 55.

Saint Nicodemus and the edition of the works of Saint Gregory Palamas

This was the most ambitious and, certainly, the most challenging project that Saint Nicodemus had ever undertaken. It was also the first time that an edition of such scope and difficulty had been undertaken by a monk working on Mount Athos. Among the challenges was the sheer volume of material involved. Saint Gregory Palamas was a prolific writer, and his corpus comprises 50 often lengthy works, which fill six large volumes in the modern critical edition. To these, Saint Nicodemus added another lengthy work, The Life of Saint Gregory Palamas by Philotheos Kokkinos, which runs to 160 pages in the modern edition 56. Although Saint Nicodemus had obtained a list of Saint Gregory Palamas’s writings, locating the texts themselves proved difficult. His first task was to search a select number of libraries on Mount Athos – a process that took many months – looking for manuscripts containing the works of Saint Gregory Palamas. Once he had found one, the next step was to copy the works by hand directly from the manuscript. In a footnote to the prologue he wrote for the edition, Saint Nicodemos tells us that some of the works were copied from the manuscripts he found at the Great Lavra and at Vatopedi. Another manuscript was sent to him from the Monastery of Saint Anastasia (outside Thessaloniki), and yet another from a library in Kydonies (Ayvalik) on the western coast of Asia Minor. Here he also mentions the works of Saint Gregory Palamas, reprinted from the Philokalia. At the Monastery of Simonopetra, Saint Nicodemus found an important manuscript which he was given permission to borrow. In a rather unusual move, the manuscript was not copied, but was sent directly to the printers, where it was to provide most of the material for the first volume of the planned three-volume edition 57. Saint Nicodemos completed the project in 1796, having previously established the first edition of the complete works of Saint Gregory Palamas 58. All that remained to be done was to choose a publisher – and here a certain degree of caution was required. Saint Nicodemus would have known that under Cyril Loukaris (1572–1638), copies of Saint Gregory Palamas’s anti-Latin writings had been printed at the patriarchal press in Constantinople, which the Latins – having bribed the Ottomans – managed to throw into the sea 59. Venice would not have been a good choice, as new books had to be approved by Roman Catholic censors, who would not have looked favourably upon anti-Latin material published by the Greeks. This is most likely the reason why, ten years earlier, the names of Varlaam and Akindynos were removed from Palamas’s 150 Chapters printed in the Philokalia and replaced with words such as ‘adversaries’ and ‘evildoers’. Following his dispute with Saint Gregory Palamas, Varlaam (†1348) converted to Catholicism and became a bishop in Calabria, and the Venetian censors had no intention of approving works bearing Varlaam’s name in the title, accusing him of heresy 60.

Consequently, Saint Nicodemus sent the edition to a printing house in Vienna, where there was no censorship and where the government was religiously tolerant. Vienna was also home to a large Greek community, with an active printing house run by two Greek brothers. Saint Nicodemus was probably unaware that the brothers were close associates of Rigas Feraios (1757–1798), a Greek political thinker and revolutionary. The brothers were committed to Feraios’s programme, and their printing press became the main venue for the dissemination of his revolutionary ideas. In August 1797, Feraios was in Vienna, initially to liaise with Bonaparte and subsequently to oversee the publication of a series of his revolutionary treatises. The Austrian authorities became concerned, and Feraios was arrested on 8 December, after which the police raided the printing works’ offices, confiscating its equipment, manuscripts and stock. In the chaos and confusion that followed, Saint Nicodemus’s edition of the works of Saint Gregory Palamas was lost 61.

Upon hearing the news of the manuscript’s loss, Saint Nicodemus fell into a state of profound melancholy that lasted two months. The Hesychast revival was founded on the writings of Saint Gregory Palamas, and the publication of his works was to have been the crowning achievement of the movement. But it was all in vain. The numerous attempts to recover the work also proved fruitless 62. All that survived from the edition was Saint Nicodemus’s prologue, a handwritten copy which was found in his cell and published almost a century later in a journal of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 63. One cannot help but wonder how different Orthodox theology would be today had a complete edition of the works of Saint Gregory Palamas been available in the 18th century.

Conclusion

The 18th-century Philokalic Movement made a vital contribution to the life of the Orthodox Church in Greece in the years leading up to and following the War of Independence (1821). The movement’s main aim was to renew and strengthen Orthodox identity during a period of internal ecclesiastical decline and external social and political upheaval 64. It was, without doubt, the greatest theological and spiritual movement the Orthodox Church had experienced since the flourishing of Hesychasm in the 14th century, and it was no coincidence that it drew its inspiration directly from the Hesychastic tradition. The effect was to reorient the Church towards its Orthodox roots and towards a way of life centred on the Liturgy and ascetic prayer. Although the movement originated on Mount Athos, its impact was far-reaching, not only in Greece and the Balkans but also in the Slavic world, beginning with the Slavonic translation of the Philokalia in 1793, whose teaching on the Jesus Prayer was popularised in The Way of a Pilgrim (Kazan, 1884) and became a central element of the Russian religious revival of the late nineteenth century 65. In Greece, the canonisation of Saint Nicodemus in 1955, followed by a new edition of the Philokalia in 1957, enabled a new generation of theologians to return to traditional Orthodox sources and move beyond the Western theological teachings that had come to dominate theological education 66.

As we have seen, the movement began as a small group of zealous monks and evolved into an intellectual network of writers, researchers and publishers. The change began with the initiative of Macarius of Corinth and Saint Nicodemus. Macarius came from a powerful family; he was a bishop and a charismatic leader. As the successor to Neophytos Kavsokalivitis, Macarius was a young, socially prominent hierarch who, within the spiritual revival movement, took the place of an elderly, isolated and quarrelsome deacon. Unfamiliar with the isolated environment of Mount Athos, Macarius travelled freely to Chios and Smyrna, which were thriving centres of trade, industry and education. He worked closely with Saint Nicodemus, suggesting or initiating projects which his younger friend would then bring to fruition. Saint Nicodemus was not merely a calligrapher, but an extremely creative theologian who was deeply rooted in the patristic and Byzantine sources. Many of the publishing projects he undertook were truly monumental, and one cannot help but marvel at his seemingly inexhaustible energy. Alongside the Philokalia, the edition of the collected works of Saint Gregory Palamas was to have been the crowning achievement of the movement, but its publication was thwarted. It is difficult to quantify the loss suffered by the Orthodox world due to the prolonged unavailability of the Palamas corpus. It was not until 165 years later, in 1962, that the first volume of the modern critical edition of Saint Gregory Palamas appeared, and a further 53 years passed before the publication of the sixth and final volume of the series, in 2015.

The Colivari movement challenged the established power structures on Mount Athos and within the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The focus on the issue of infrequent communion was, in fact, an indictment of contemporary monastic decadence and hierarchical indifference. Although the Colivari were persecuted on Mount Athos, they managed to spread their message throughout the wider Orthodox world. Their expulsion and subsequent dispersal across the Aegean Sea brought greater cohesion to their movement and ensured its growth. However, the hierarchy was unwilling to recognise the authority of the learned monks and refused to share its institutional hegemony. With the change of direction initiated by Macarius and Saint Nicodemus, the movement regained its legitimacy through publications and academic projects, which revealed the true masters of the Orthodox theological and spiritual tradition 67. Furthermore, their message was now being communicated to a wider and more educated audience, to whom they addressed themselves directly through their publications. Inspired by the theology and spirituality of Saint Gregory Palamas, they called upon the faithful to delve deeper into the mystery of the Church and provided them with the means to do so. The true spirit of the movement is very much alive in the Orthodox Church today and for many remains a vital option in a world illuminated, ‘radiating with triumphant disaster’68).

Imagine

• 1

  Christos Arabatzis, ‘18th-century scholarly correspondence networks. The Kollyvadian Movement in Correspondence’ in: Mount Athos and Scholarship. Conference Proceedings, Thessaloniki, Mount Athos Centre, 2014, pp. 169–76; Tasos Gritsopoulos, ‘Nikodemos the Athonite and the Kollyvadian Movement’ in: Annual Report of the Society for Cycladic Studies 16, 1996–2000, pp. 49–63; Manolis Patiniotis, ‘The Burden of Translation: Eugenios Voulgaris and the Circulation of Knowledge in Eighteenth-Century Europe’ in: Journal of History of Science and Technology 8, 2013, pp. 53–56; Michael Loy, ‘Early Modern Travellers in the Aegean: Routes and Networks’ in: The Annual of the British School of Athens, 114, 2019, pp. 371–378.

• 2

  Panayiotis K. Chrestou, Mount Athos. Athonite Society, History, Art, Life, Epopteia, Athens, 1987, pp. 181–264; Paschalis M. Kitromilides, ‘Athos and the Enlightenment’ in: Mt Athos and Byzantine Monasticism, ed. Anthony Bryer and Mary Cunningham, Variorum, Aldershot, 1996, pp. 257–62.

• 3

  Paschalis M. Kitromilides, ‘The Legacy of the French Revolution: Orthodoxy and Nationalism’ in: The Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 5, ed. Michael Angold, Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 233–237; Paschalis M. Kitromilides, ‘The Enlightenment and the Orthodox World: Historiographical and Theoretical Challenges’, in: Enlightenment and Religion in the Orthodox World, Voltaire Foundation, Oxford, 2016, pp. 5–16.

• 4

  Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, Confession of Faith, or a Most Just Apology, Venice, 1819, pp. 9–10. George Dokos, St Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Confession of Faith, Uncut Mountain Press, The Dalles, OR, 2007, p. 29; Amphilochios Radovich, The Philokalic Revival of the 17th and 19th Centuries and Its Spiritual Fruits, Goulandris-Horn Institute, Athens, 1984.

• 5

  Nikodemos Skrettas, The Divine Eucharist and the Privileges of the Lord’s Day according to the Teaching of the Kollyvades, Pournara, Thessaloniki, 2006, pp. 436–462.

• 6

  Ioannis Zelepos, Orthodox Zealots in Ottoman South-Eastern Europe. The Kollyvades Movement (1750–1820) and its Contribution to the Debates on Tradition, the Enlightenment and Identity, Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2012, pp. 186–196; Tzogas, 1969, pp. 16–28; Christos Arabatzis, ‘Saint Athanasios of Paros in Historical and Theological Research’ in: Saint Athanasios of Paros. Proceedings of the Academic Conference (Paros, 29 September – 4 October 1998), Sacred Metropolis of Paronaxia, Paros, 2000, pp. 73–86.

• 7

  I. Zelepos, Orthodox Zealots in Ottoman South-Eastern Europe…, pp. 134–136, 223–232.

• 8

  Patapios Barker, Chrysostomos Gonzalez, Manna from Athos: The Issue of Frequent Communion on the Holy Mountain in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries, Peter Lang, Oxford, 2006.

• 9

  N. Skrettas, The Divine Eucharist and the Privileges of the Lord’s Day…, pp. 309–310.

• 10

  Vassa Kontouma-Conticello, ‘On Frequent Communion: The Greek Case (1772–1887)’ in: Rites of Communion. Saint-Serge Lectures, 5th Week of Liturgical Studies. Paris, 23–26 June 2008, Monumenta Studia Instrumenta Liturgica 59, ed. André Lossky and Manlio Sodi, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 2010, pp. 191–192; Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, Βιβλίον ψυχωφελέστατον περὶ συνεχοῦς μεταλήψεως τῶν ἀχράντων τοῦ Χριστοῦ μυστηρίων, Antonio Bortoli, Venice, 1783, pp. 278–289; George Dokos, St Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Concerning Frequent Communion of the Immaculate Mysteries of Christ, Uncut Mountain Press, Thessaloniki, 2006, V. Kontouma-Conticello, ‘On Frequent Communion: The Greek Record (1772–1887)’, pp. 169–173.

• 11

  Theodoretos Hagioreitis, On the Continuous Reception of Neophytos, the Hierodeacon of Kausokalyvites, Tinos, Athens, 1976, pp. 7–33; N. Skrettas, The Divine Eucharist and the Privileges of the Lord’s Day…, pp. 314–408; pp. 185–197.

• 12

  Theodoretos Hagioreitis, On the Continuous Reception of Neophytos, Deacon of Kausokalyvi, Tinos, Athens, 1976, pp. 111, 214; Gerhard Podskalsky, Greek Theology under Ottoman Rule 1453–1821, trans. George D. Metallinos, Cultural Foundation of the National Bank of Greece, Athens, 2005, pp. 444–453; Tzogas, 1969, pp. 29–42.

• 13

  Nikodemos, Confession of Faith, or rather, a most just defence…, pp. 76–94; G. Dokos, St Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Confession of Faith…, pp. 96–109. It should be noted that St Maximus’s work is included in the Philokalia.

• 14

  V. Kontouma-Conticello, ‘On Frequent Communion: The Greek Case (1772–1887)’, pp. 200–201; N. Skrettas, The Divine Eucharist and the Privileges of the Lord’s Day…, pp. 316–317.

• 15

  Manuel Gedeon, Canonical Provisions. Letters, Decrees, decrees of the Most Holy Patriarchs of Constantinople from Gregory the Theologian to Dionysius of Adrianople, vol. 2, Patriarchal Printing Press, Constantinople, 1899, p. 154, cf. V. Kontouma-Conticello, ‘On Frequent Communion: The Greek Case (1772–1887)’, pp. 201–204.

• 16

  Tzogas, 1969, p. 19; cf. I. Zelepos, Orthodox Zealots in Ottoman South-Eastern Europe…, pp. 192–193.

• 17

  Constantine Manafis, Christos Arabatzis, ‘Athanasius of Paros, Defence of the Treatise On Continuous Communion. An unpublished epistolary treatise’ in: Annual of the Society for Byzantine Studies, 55, 2018–2019, pp. 123–200; G. Podskalsky, Greek Theology under Ottoman Rule 1453–1821…, pp. 461–464.

• 18

  Philipp Meyer, Die Haupturkunden für die Geschichte der Athosklöster, J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig, 1894, p. 229; cf. I. Zelepos, Orthodox Zealots in Ottoman South-Eastern Europe…, pp. 149–151.

• 19

  Ph. Meyer, Die Haupturkunden für die Geschichte der Athosklöster…, pp. 234–236.

• 20

  Ph. Meyer, Die Haupturkunden für die Geschichte der Athosklöster…, p. 229; cf. I. Zelepos, Orthodoxe Eiferer im osmanischen Südosteuropa…, p. 150.

• 21

  Symeon Paschalidis, The Holy Choir of the Saints of Mount Athos, Mount Athos Centre, Thessaloniki, 2013, pp. 291–293. The story is described in detail by Athanasios Parios, Declaration of the Truth Concerning the Disturbances on the Holy Mountain, ed. Theodoretos Hieromonachos, Athens, 1988, pp. 93–100.

• 22

  Tzogas, 1969, pp. 152–161.

• 23

  The Synod’s decision can be found in Ph. Meyer, Die Haupturkunden für die Geschichte der Athosklöster…, pp. 236–241, cf. I. Zelepos, Orthodox Zealots in Ottoman South-Eastern Europe…, pp. 154–158.

• 24

  Theokletos Dionysiatis, Saint Nicodemus the Mount Athos Monk, Papadimitriou, Athens, 1959, pp. 30–31.

• 25

  I. Zelepos, Orthodox Zealots in Ottoman South-Eastern Europe…, pp. 196–209; Stylianos Papadopoulos, Saint Macarius of Corinth: The Forerunner of Philokalia, Athens, 2000, pp. 17–40; Antonios Charokopos, Saint Macarius the Notaras, Metropolitan of Corinth (1731–1805), Athens, 2001, pp. 76–78; Achilleas G. Chaldaeakes, ‘Saint Makarios Notaras: The Journey from the See’, in: Saint Makarios (Notaras). Founder of the Philokalist Movement, Metropolitan of Corinth and his circle, ed. Stylianos Papadopoulos, Doukas, Athens, 2006, pp. 48–71.

• 26

  A. Parios, Declaration of the Truthful Uprisings on the Holy Mountain…, pp. 93–94.

• 27

  Christos Arabatzis, ‘Unknown details concerning Saint Makarios Notaras from the unpublished correspondence of Saint Athanasius of Paros” in Ὁ Ἅγιος Μακάριος (Νοταρᾶς). Founder of the Philokalist Movement, Metropolitan of Korinth and his circle, ed. Stylianos Papadopoulos Doukas, Athens, 2006, pp. 399–400.

• 28

  Chrysostomos Savvatos, ‘The Philokalia Collection and the Contribution of Saint Makarios the Notaras to its Compilation’ in: Saint Macarius (Notaras), Founder of Philokalia, Metropolitan of Corinth. Conference Proceedings, ed. Stylianos Papadopoulos, Doukas, Athens, 2006, pp. 145–58; Paschalis M. Kitromilides, ‘Philokalia’s first journey?’ in idem, An Orthodox Commonwealth: Symbolic Legacies and Cultural Encounters in South-Eastern Europe, Variorum, Aldershot, 2007, pp. 341–360.

• 29

  Christos Krikonis, ‘The Collaboration between Makarios of Corinth and Nikodemos of Mount Athos. The Beginnings of the Publication of Works on Neptic Asceticism” in: Saint Macarius (Notaras), Founder of Philokalia – Metropolitan of Corinth. Conference Proceedings, ed. Stylianos Papadopoulos, Doukas, Athens, 2006, pp. 159–179. For a complete list of works, see: Elia Citterio, ‘Nicodemo Agiorita’ in: Byzantine Theology and Tradition, vol. II, ed. Carmelo Giuseppe Conticello and Vassa Conticello, Brepols, Turnhout, 2002, pp. 905–940.

• 30

  Emmanuel Frangiskos, ‘Invisible War (1796), Spiritual Exercises (1800). The Authorship of Nikodemos Agioritis’ ‘Translations’” in: Eranistis 19, 1993, pp. 102–135. Ibid., ‘The Question of Nikodemos the Hagiorite’s Linguistic Proficiency’ in: Eranistis 23, 2001, pp. 173–190; cf. Norman Russell, ‘St Nikodemos the Hagiorite and the Spirituality of the Catholic Reformation’ in: The Way, 56, 2017, pp. 83–95.

• 31

  I. Zelepos, Orthodox Zealots in Ottoman South-Eastern Europe…, pp. 217–218.

• 32

  Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, Heortodromion, or a commentary on the hymnal canons of the Despotic and Theotokos feasts = Heortodromion, Nicholas Glykys, Venice, 1836, p. 584, n.1.

• 33

  George Dokos, Made for Union: The Sacramental Spirituality of St Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, Newrome Press, Columbia, MO, 2020, pp. 105–153.

• 34

  Constantine Karaisaridis, ‘Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite as a Liturgist’ in: Proceedings of the First Scientific Conference on Saint Nikodemos the Mount Athos Monk: His Life and Teachings, 21–23 September 1999, vol. 2, Holy Monastery of St Nikodemos, Goumenissa, 2006, pp. 18–22.

• 35

  Constantine Manafis, ‘A Report on the Publications of the Works of Nikodemos the Athonite from Unpublished Documents in the Archives of the Holy Monastery of Megistis Lavra of Athos” in: Annual of the Cycladic Society, 16, 1996–2000, pp. 309–335; Nikodemos Lavriotis, ‘The Record (Diary) of Hieromonk Stefanos of Skourta 1834–1836 concerning the publication of the works of Saint Nikodemos of Mount Athos’s” in: Annual Report of the Cycladic Society, 16, 1996–2000, pp. 168–192.

• 36

  Theokletos Dionysiatis, Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite, Papadimitriou, Athens, 1959, pp. xii–xiii.

• 37

  Manolis Varvounis, ‘Contemporary Naxian Popular Devotion to Saint Nodemos of Mount Athos’, 2020, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341233520_Synchrone_naxiake_laike_latreia_tou_agiou_Nikodemou_tou_Agioreite, pp. 3–5, accessed on 29 May 2023.

• 38

  Klaus-Peter Todt, ‘Dositheos II of Jerusalem’ in: Byzantine Theology and its Tradition, vol. II, eds. Carmelo Giuseppe Conticello and Vassa Conticello, Brepols, Turnhout, 2002, pp. 659–711; cf. Tikhon Pino, Essence and Energies: Being and Naming God in St Gregory Palamas, London and New York, 2022, pp. 11–12.

• 39

  Saint Nicodemus, Prologue to the Writings of Our Holy Father Gregory Palamas, Kollyvadic Secretariat, 4, Tinos/Sacred Monastery of Panagia Chrysopodaritissa, Athens, 2021, pp. 13–23.

• 40

  Ibid., pp. 37–45.

• 41

  For full references, see: Ibid., 27–28; Robert Sinkewicz, ‘Gregory Palamas’ in: La théologie byzantine et sa tradition, vol. II, ed. Carmelo Giuseppe Conticello, Vassa Conticello, Brepols, Turnhout, 2002, pp. 138–155; cf. Norman Russell, Gregory Palamas and the Making of Palamism in the Modern Age, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2019, pp. 25–32 and T. Pino, Essence and Energies…, pp. 11–13.

• 42

  M. Lavra 1907 Ω 95 cf. Sophronios Eustratiades, Spyridon Lavriotes, Catalogue of the Codices of the Great Lavra on Mount Athos, Mount Athos Library, 2–3, Libraire ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris, 1925, pp. 348–350.

• 43

  N. Russell, Gregory Palamas and the Making of Palamism in the Modern Age…, pp. 52–210.

• 44

  St Nicodemus, Prologue…, p. 507.

• 45

  Ibid., pp. 507–508.

• 46

  C.G. Lowe, ‘A Byzantine Manuscript of the University of Illinois’ in: Speculum 4 (1929), pp. 327–328.

• 47

  St Nicodemus, Prologue…, p. 508.

• 48

  Ibid., p. 116.

• 49

  Antonio Rigo, ‘Nicodemo Aghiorita and his edition of the works of Gregory Palamas’ in: Paisij, the Elder. Proceedings of the Third International Ecumenical Conference on Russian Spirituality ‘Paisij Velickovskij and his spiritual movement’, Bose, 20–23 September 1995, ed. Adalberto Mainardi, Edizioni Qiqajon, Bose, 1997, pp. 165–182; St Nicodemus, Prologue…, pp. 28; 98–119.

• 50

  Philokalia of the Sacred Neptic Fathers, vol. 4, Aster Papademetriou, Athens, 1966, p. 90.

• 51

  N. Russell, Gregory Palamas and the Making of Palamism in the Modern Age…, pp. 417–447.

• 52

  St Nicodemus, Prologue…, p. 33, n. 53.

• 53

  A. Rigo, ‘Nicodemo Aghiorita and his edition of the works of Gregory Palamas’…, p. 168.

• 54

  Nikodemos Bilalis, ‘The Original Life of Saint Nicodemus the Mountain-dweller’ in: Proceedings of the First Scientific Conference on Saint Nikodemos the Athonite: His Life and Teachings, 21–23 September 1999, vol. 1, Holy Monastery of St Nikodemos, Goumenissa, 2006, p. 60.

• 55

  St Nicodemus, Prologue…, p. 43.

• 56

  Demetrios G. Tsamis, The Hagiographical Works of Philotheos of Constantinople the Red, vol. 1, Centre for Byzantine Studies, Thessaloniki, 1985, pp. 427–591; cf. N. Russell, Gregory Palamas and the Making of Palamism in the Modern Age…, pp. 52–210.

• 57

  Nikodemos of Mount Athos, Prologue to the Writings of Our Holy Father Gregory Palamas, Ecclesiastical Truth 4.7, 1883, p. 100, n. 23; text revised in Prologos, 2021, pp. 182–184; cf. A. Rigo, ‘Nicodemo Aghiorita and his edition of the works of Gregory Palamas’…, pp. 45–46.

• 58

  Although, without the Letter to Menas, which Saint Nicodemus was unable to find, cf. Antonio Rigo, ‘L’epistola a Menas di Gregorio Palamas a gli effetti dell’orazione’ in: Cristianesimo nella storia 9, 1988, pp. 58–66.

• 59

  Paschalis M. Kitromilides, ‘Orthodoxy and the West: From the Reformation to the Enlightenment’ in: The Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 5, ed. Michael Angold, Cambridge University Press, 2014, p. 196. Ettore Perrella, ‘Gregory Palamas and the West’ in: Theology 83(3), 2012, p. 73; Prologos, 2021, p. 77, n. 146.

• 60

  Panayiotis K. Chrestou, The Writings of Gregory Palamas, vol. 5, Kyromanos, Thessaloniki, 1992, pp. 33–34 cf. Prologos, 2021, pp. 77–78.

• 61

  Prologue, 2021, pp. 74–88.

• 62

  C. Manafis, ‘A Report on the Publications of the Works of Nicodemus the Mountaineer…’, pp. 309–335; N. Lavriotis, ‘Record by the Hieromonk Stefanos of Skourta (diary) 1834–1836 concerning the publication of the works of Saint Nicodemus of Mount Athos”, pp. 168–192.

• 63

  Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, Prologue to the Writings of Our Holy Father Gregory Palamas… pp. 94–101, cf. Prologue 2021, pp. 121–128; 142–185 = critical edition.

• 64

  Dimitrios Moschos, ‘An Alternative “Enlightenment”: The Philokalia’ in: Enlightenment and Religion in the Orthodox World, ed. Paschalis Kitromilides, The Voltaire Foundation, Oxford, 2010, pp. 66–70.

• 65

  Graham Speake, ‘St Paisy Velichkovsky (1722–1794): Reviver of Hesychasm’ in Ibid., A History of the Athonite Commonwealth. The Spiritual and Cultural Diaspora of Mount Athos, Cambridge University Press, 2018, pp. 213–233; Irina Paert, ‘Monasticism and Elders between Reform and Revival, 1721–1801’ in: Spiritual Elders. Charisma and Tradition in Russian Orthodoxy, Northern Illinois University Press, Dekalb, 2010, pp. 41–70.

• 66

  Stavros Yiangkazoglou, ‘The Presence of Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite in 20th-Century Theological Thought’ in: Proceedings of the Second Scientific Conference: Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite – 200 Years Since His Dormition, Monastery of St Nikodemos, Pentalophos, 2011, pp. 131–160; Panayiotis K. Chrestou, ‘Neohellenic Theology at the Crossroads’ in: The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 28, 1983, pp. 39–54.

• 67

  Socrates D. Petmezas, ‘On the Formation of an Ideological Faction in the Greek Orthodox Church in the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century: The Kollyvades’ in: Bulletin de correspondence hellénique moderne et contemporaine 2, pp. 5–6, 2020, https://journals.openedition.org/bchmc/416?lang=en, accessed on 29 May 2023.

• 68

  Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, trans. Edmund Jephcott, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2002, p. 1.