Barlaam of Calabria

← Encyclopedia

Barlaam of Calabria was a Greek-speaking monk and scholar, born around 1290 as Bernardo, in the Greek south of Italy at Seminara, and active in fourteenth-century Constantinople — best remembered as the man Gregory Palamas argued down, the rationalist adversary in the Byzantine dispute now called the Hesychast controversy. The label is his opponents’; what survives of his own thought is more interesting than the role he was assigned. He belonged to the Italo-Greek world of Calabria, where Basilian monks still kept the Greek rite and the Greek tongue under Latin rule, and he carried that double inheritance — Greek learning, Roman obedience — into every quarrel he entered, on each side in turn.

Formation: Aristotle and the dark of Dionysius

He came east already learned. His training was in the logic and natural philosophy of Aristotle — he could reckon eclipses, paraphrase Euclid, write a Logistic in six books — and in the negative theology of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, the anonymous sixth-century author whose treatises taught the Greek East that God is named best by un-naming, approached through a darkness brighter than any light the mind can hold. From the Areopagite, and through him from the Neoplatonism that the Christian Neoplatonist tradition had absorbed, Barlaam took the conviction that orders his whole career: that the first cause stands beyond being and beyond knowing, and that everything the mind can say of it is said by way of removal. This is the apophatic theology — the way of negation — that he shared with the very monks he would later attack, and with a Western mind like Johannes Scotus Eriugena, who four centuries earlier had carried the same Dionysian darkness into Latin and built from it a cosmos that goes out from God and returns. Barlaam read the Areopagite as a philosopher reads — for its epistemology. If God is genuinely beyond the categories, then no chain of reasoning can reach him; the highest matters are not objects of proof.

That single premise has two edges, and Barlaam pressed them in opposite directions. Turned outward against the Latins, the unknowability of God became a rule about argument. Turned inward against the contemplatives, it became a rule about experience. The same man wielded both, and they cut his name in two.

Against the Latins: God past demonstration

Arriving in the capital around 1330, Barlaam entered the intellectual life of the court, won the favor of the emperor Andronikos III Palaiologos, and was set to teach. His first polemics were aimed not at the monks but at the Latin West. When envoys of the Roman Church came to negotiate the long-sought union of the churches in the early 1330s, Barlaam composed a sequence of treatises — some twenty-one in number — against the Latin case, opposing the claim of papal primacy and, above all, the doctrine of the filioque: the Western teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, against the Greek confession of procession from the Father alone.

His argument was characteristically oblique. He did not chiefly contend that the Latin doctrine was false; he contended that it could not be proved. The Latin schoolmen, trained in the recovered Aristotle of the West, framed the procession as a conclusion to be demonstrated — drawn by apodictic syllogism from premises held to be evident. Barlaam answered that the inner life of the Trinity is not the sort of thing a demonstrative syllogism can reach. Demonstration, in the strict Aristotelian sense, proceeds from premises more certain than its conclusion, premises drawn finally from the senses and from common notions; but God in his highest reality is the cause of those notions, not an instance under them. Of God one has only dialectical reasoning — probable, persuasive, never coercive — and knowledge of his existence and operation by way of his effects in the world. The Greeks, on this reckoning, need not refute the filioque by a counter-proof; it is enough to show that neither side commands a demonstration, and that the Latins have mistaken a probable theology for a science. It was a position of real subtlety, and it would have served Greek diplomacy well. It also contained, fully formed, the weapon that would be turned against him.

The turn against the Hesychasts

For the same conviction, carried inward, brought Barlaam into collision with the contemplative monks of Mount Athos. The Hesychasts — practitioners of the disciplined prayer of stillness tended in the Athonite monastic tradition — reported that at the height of inner prayer they perceived a light without created cause: the very radiance, they held, that the disciples saw stream from Christ on Mount Tabor at the Transfiguration. To Barlaam the report was both an error and a presumption. If God in his essence is unknowable — the premise he had just used against Rome — then no monk in this life perceives God. Whatever light a praying man might see could only be a created thing, a glow within the sensory or imaginative faculty, mistaken for the uncreated. To claim otherwise was to claim to see the very being of God, and so to break the apophatic rule at its root.

He pressed the charge on the bodily side as well. Some of the monks, following the thirteenth-century manuals that had codified the prayer, joined the invocation to a fixed posture and a slowed, attended breath, the gaze drawn down toward the place of the heart. Barlaam fastened on this and mocked it: he called the monks omphalopsychoi — those who lodge the soul in the navel, navel- gazers — and the jeer stuck to the whole tradition as ridicule. To his eye the technique was a crude materialism dressed as contemplation, men who imagined they could see God by staring into their own bodies. What he was assailing — the architecture of stillness, watchfulness, and the breath-joined name — was a discipline the monks understood as the slow turning of the whole person, body included, toward grace; Barlaam saw only a method confusing a sensible event for the divine.

Palamas’s answer: essence and energies

The reply came from Gregory Palamas, then a monk of the Holy Mountain and later archbishop of Thessaloniki, who between 1338 and 1341 defended the contemplatives in the nine treatises known as the Triads. Palamas met Barlaam first on his own ground, the ground of argument: he granted the apophatic premise entirely — the divine essence is beyond participation and beyond knowing — and then denied that it forbids real communion with God. To save both the inaccessibility of the essence and the reality of the saints’ experience, he drew the distinction that would become Orthodox doctrine: between God’s unknowable essence (ousia) and his uncreated energies (energeiai), the operations by which God acts outside himself — light, glory, grace. The essence remains forever hidden; the energies are God himself, genuinely communicated and genuinely seen. The Tabor light is the paradigm case: neither a created symbol nor the naked essence, but the uncreated energy of God shining through the transfigured flesh. Where Barlaam had divided the field into the unknowable essence and the merely created world, Palamas inserted a third term — God as he gives himself — and the whole quarrel turned on whether such a term could exist.

Beneath the dispute over light lay a dispute over how anything of God is known at all. Barlaam held theology to dialectic and effect; Palamas grounded it in the suprarational experience of prophets and saints, a knowledge that does not run through the syllogism because its object is not a thing among things. The man who had told the Latins that the highest matters lie past demonstration now heard the same apophatic instrument used to defend an experience he thought impossible. The argument he had built returned on him intact.

The council of 1341 and the journey west

The church sided with Palamas. A council convened in Hagia Sophia on 10 June 1341, under the emperor Andronikos III and the patriarch John XIV Kalekas, condemned Barlaam’s position; he submitted and recanted. The emperor died five days later, and the controversy ran on through further synods and a civil war that the contemplatives’ cause ultimately won — but that later architecture belongs to the movement, not to the man, for Barlaam had already turned his back on the East.

He left the Byzantine world for good and returned to Italy, where he was received into the Latin Church he had earlier attacked — the obedience, not the theology, reversed. Settled again in the West, he was consecrated bishop of Gerace in his native Calabria, and was sent in 1346 on a papal embassy back to Constantinople, a final and unsuccessful errand of union. In the years between he did the thing for which the Latin world remembers him kindly: at Avignon, around 1342, he taught the rudiments of Greek to Petrarch, who had hungered for the language and owned a manuscript of Homer he could not read. Barlaam set him to construe Plato. The lessons did not last; when the Calabrian bishopric fell vacant Petrarch himself, in a stroke he came to regret, recommended his teacher for it, and the monk’s departure left the poet without a grammar, a lexicon, or anyone to ask. The thread of Greek instruction snapped, but it had been picked up — a small hinge between the Byzantine learning Barlaam carried and the recovery of Greek letters that the Italian Renaissance would soon make its own. He died in 1348, at Gerace, in the first sweep of the plague.

The works behind the role

The figure of the rationalist Barlaam rests on writings, most of them now read only through his opponents. His anti-Latin treatises survive and have been edited; his treatises against the Hesychasts are lost and reconstructed chiefly from the quotations Palamas made in order to refute them — so that the most cited of Barlaam’s polemics reaches the modern reader already inside the mouth of his enemy. Beside the controversial works stands a body of learning that owes nothing to the quarrel: an Ethica secundum Stoicos in two books, among the earliest recoveries of Stoic moral philosophy, arguing that happiness lies in virtue alone; treatises computing the solar eclipses of 1333 and 1337 after Ptolemy; the Logistic and the Euclid paraphrase; and the Solutions addressed to the Cypriot scholar George Lapithes, in which Barlaam ranges across optics, harmonics, astronomy, and theology in the manner of a working philosopher rather than a heresiarch. Taken together they show a mind formed where Byzantine Neoplatonism met Aristotelian logic, equally at home with the geometry of an eclipse and the darkness beyond the divine names.

Research and sources

The textual recovery of Barlaam runs through the same scholarship that reconstructed his great opponent. John Meyendorff’s edition of Palamas’s Triads and his A Study of Gregory Palamas (1964) remain the historical basis for the controversy and preserve, in Palamas’s citations, the shape of Barlaam’s lost antihesychast case. Antonis Fyrigos gathered the surviving anti-Latin corpus in Barlaam Calabro: Opere contro i Latini and traced the indirect transmission of the lost works in Dalla controversia palamitica alla polemica esicastica (Rome, 2005). Robert E. Sinkewicz edited and set in context the Solutions in The Solutions Addressed to George Lapithes by Barlaam the Calabrian and Their Philosophical Context (Mediaeval Studies 43, 1981, 151–217), the study that most firmly established Barlaam as a philosopher in his own right rather than a foil. The deepest reading of his metaphysics — his debt to the Areopagite, his blend of apophasis with Aristotelian demonstration — is developed in the essay The Neoplatonism of Barlaam the Calabrian in K. Parry and E. Anagnostou’s Later Platonists and their Heirs among Christians, Jews and Muslims (Leiden, 2023, 244–278). The Dionysian source he read so closely is available in English in John Parker’s The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite (1899), and the philosophical profile of the Areopagite himself is mapped in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The double afterlife

His afterlife is double. In Orthodox tradition he is the type of the overreaching rationalist, the philosopher who trusted argument where he should have trusted prayer; his name was written into the Synodikon of Orthodoxy among the condemned, read aloud each year on the First Sunday of Lent, and the controversy that bears his opponent’s name treats his defeat as the vindication of a truth. In the Latin West he is something nearer the reverse — a learned bishop, one of the first to carry Greek back across the sea to a Europe that had nearly forgotten it, counted among the distant fathers of humanism. Historians read him with less verdict: a capable thinker formed by the same apophatic tradition as his rivals, who drew from the shared premise that God is beyond knowing the opposite conclusion about what contemplation could reach. The two men agreed that the essence of God lies past the mind. They divided over whether anything of God comes the rest of the way down.

→ In the library: Pseudo-Dionysius — The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite (Parker, 1899)

→ Related: Byzantine Hesychasm · Neoplatonism · Gregory Palamas · Mount Athos · Pseudo Dionysius The Areopagite · Aristotle · Apophatic Theology · Christian Neoplatonism · Johannes Scotus Eriugena · Athonite Monasticism