THE TEACHING OF THE ENERGIES IN “DE OMNIFARIA DOCTRINA” OF MICHAEL PSELLOS

Authors

  • Georgi KAPRIEV Ancient and Medieval - Latin and Byzantine – Philosophy, St. Climent Ochridski University, Sofia, Bulgaria. Email: g.kapriev@gmail.com

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24193/subbto.2021.1.04

Keywords:

teaching of energies, essence, power, activity/energy, perichoresis, participation, causality, Michael Psellos, Nicetas from Maroneia, Gregorius Palamas, Prochorus Kydones.

Abstract

The paper gives an answer to the question if and in what way the doctrine of energies is present in De omnifaria doctrina of Michael Psellos, and compared to the background of self-evidence and even simplification of the doctrine in the twelfth century (using the example of Nicetas from Maroneia). It is mainly represented in the form of a valid element of conventional philosophy and theology. It is pointed out that the only model of this doctrine usually considered is the version promoted by Gregorius Palamas in a systematic form, forming the basic axis of his system of thought, which is to serve as the basis for the explanation of all phenomena that can be an object of philosophical and theological reflection. Psellos’ version shows some differences in comparison with this model. It is proven (using the example of Prochorus Kydones) that even in the course of the Hesychast controversy most of Palamas’ opponents do not question the doctrine. The theory of energy proves to be a philosophical instrument that is valid for all philosophers in Byzantium, regardless of the line of thought they represent. It is a specific feature of philosophy in Byzantium, which characterizes its peculiarity in a comparison with the western medieval philosophical paradigms. It is decidedly emphasized that the theory of energy does not have a clearly defined, “essential” constitution, but rather demonstrates a variety of forms of appropriation and use, so that each philosopher applies it according to the peculiarity of his own philosophy program.

References

Primary sources

Aristotle [Arist.] Metaphysica [Metaph] W.D. Ross, Aristotle's metaphysics, 2 vols., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924.

Michael Psellos [Psell.] De Omnifaria Doctrina [Omn.] Michael Psellus. De omnifaria doctrina, ed. L. G. Westerink (Utrecht: Beijers, 1948).

Dionysius Areopagites [Dion. Ar.] Celestis Hierarchia [CH] G. Heil and A.M. Ritter, Corpus Dionysiacum ii: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De coelesti hierarchia, de ecclesiastica hierarchia, de mystica theologia, epistulae [Patristische Texte und Studien 36. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1991].

Nicetas of Maroneia [Nicet. Maron.] De processione Spirtus Sancti [Process. Spir.] J. Hergenröther, first Λόγος and excerpts from the other dialogues in Patrologia Graeca – PG 139, 169-222; N. Festa (ed., in collaborazione con A. Palmieri), “Nicétas de Maronée (ou de Thessalonique): Λόγοι διάφοροι πρὸς διάλογον ἐσχηματισμένοι περὶ τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος (β'-δ'),” in Bessarione. Rivista di studi orientali, 28 (1912), 93-107; 29 (1913), 104-13 et 295-315; 30 (1914), 55-75 et 243-259; 31 (1915), 239-246; C. Giorgetti, Niceta di Maronea e i suoi dialoghi sulla processione dello Spirito Santo anche dal Figlio (Roma: Pontificia Università Lateranense, 1965).

Photius [Phot.] Amphilochia [Amphil.] Patrologia Graeca 101.

Prochoros Cydones [Prochor. Cydon.] De essentia ed Operatione [Essent. Oper.] Patrologia Graeca 151.1191-1242.

Secondary Literature

A. K. Demetrakopulos (A. Δημητρακοπούλος, Ορθόδοξος Ελλάς: ήτοι περί των Ελλήνων των γραψάντων κατά Λατίνων και περί των συγγραμμάτων αυτών (Leipzig: Metzger und Wittig, 1872), 36-37)).

A. Barmin, “Une source méconnue des Dialogues de Nicétas de Maronée,” in Revue des études byzantines, 58 (2000), 231-43).

L. Benakis, Texts and Studies on Byzantine Philosophy (Athens: Parousia, 2002).

D. Bradshaw, Aristotle East and West. Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

J. A. Demetracopoulos, “Palamas Transformed. Palamite Interpretations of the Distinction between God᾽s ‘Essence’ and ‘Energies’ in Late Byzantium,” in Greeks, Latins and Intellectual History 1204-1500, eds. M. Hinterberger and C. Schabel (Leuven – Paris – Walpole: Peeters, MA, 2011), 263-372.

G. Kapriev, Philosophie in Byzanz (Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2005).

G. Kapriev, Lateinische Rivalen in Konstantinopel: Anselm von Havelberg und Hugo Eterianus (Leuven: Peeters, 2018).

G. Kapriev, “Gibt es eine richtige Dionysius-Interpretation?,” in The Dionysian Traditions, ed. G. Kapriev (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021).

G. Kapriev, “Gregory Palamas and George Scholarios: John Duns Scotus' Differentiation between Substance and Energy and the Sources of the Palamite Tradition,” in Analogia: The Pemptousia Journal for Theological Studies, 5 (2018), 35-56.

J.-C. Larchet, La théologie des énergies divines : des origines à saint Jean Damascène (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2010).

F. Lauritzen, “Psello discepolo di Stetato,” in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 101/2 (2008): 715-725.

N. Loudovikos, Analogical Identities: The Creation of the Christian Self. Beyond Spirituality and Mysticism in the Patreistik Era (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019).

A. Riebe, Rom in Gemeinschaft mit Konstantinopel. Patriarch Johannes XI. Bekkos als Verteidiger der Kirchenunion in Lyon (1274) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005, 235-243).

D. Walter, Michael Psellos: Christliche Philosophie in Byzanz (Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter, 2018).

И. Христов, “Πρόνοια и Σοφία в дискурса на енергиите според гръцките схолии към Ареопагитския корпус,” in Sine arte scientia nihil est. Изследвания в чест на проф. дфн Олег Георгиев, съст. Г. Каприев (София: Университетско издателство, 2019).

Downloads

Published

2021-06-30

How to Cite

KAPRIEV, G. (2021). THE TEACHING OF THE ENERGIES IN “DE OMNIFARIA DOCTRINA” OF MICHAEL PSELLOS. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Theologia Orthodoxa, 66(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.24193/subbto.2021.1.04

Issue

Section

Articles