?
Historical Memory of Byzantine Iconoclasm in the 14th c.: the Case of Nikephoros Gregoras and Philotheos Kokkinos
Owing to the studies of J.-B. Pitra (1852), H.-V. Beyer (1976), J. Featherstone (1983) and
A. Rigo (1989) we know that the hesychast controversy (at least from 1347) was the most
intense period in the afterlife of the byzantine iconoclasm. The both sides brought upon their
opponents charges of unwilling or intentionally masked iconoclasm. It is also widely accepted
that the main source of information concerning the iconoclast controversy for the partisans of
hesychasm and their adversaries constituted the theological works of 9 th -c. Patriarch of
Constantinople Nicephorus (these treatises however accidentally were known as the works of
Theodore Graptos).
Working on the theme of perception of Nicephorus’ works in 9–14 th c., I managed to
distinguish exact quotations from his treatises Apologeticus atque Antirrhetici and Contra
Eusebium in the works of at least six 14 th -c. theologians: Nicephorus Gregoras (1 st Antirrhetica,
The Roman History), Philotheos Kokkinos (11 th Logos against Gregoras), Gregory Palamas (3 rd
Logos against Gregoras), John VI Kantakouzenos (1 st Refutation of Prochorus Cydones), John
Kyparissiotes (Decades), and Manuel Kalekas (De essential et operatione). Naturally enough the
proportion varies from text to text: if Palamas, Kantakouzenos, Kyparissiotes and Kalekas
borrow only several lines, the quotations made by Gregoras and Kokkinos are extensive and
offer abundant material for the study of the historical memory of byzantine iconoclasm in the 14 th
c.
My contribution will focus primarily on the question of distortion of this memory. As the
philological analysis shows, the choice of marginal and rhetorically overloaded Nicephorus’
works as a source for reconstruction of the history of the iconoclast controversy proved to be
ambiguous. On the one hand, the argumentative method employed by Nicephorus was actualized
and found a new life. On the other, it was due to these very Nicephorus’ treatises that in the
opinion of the 14 th -c. polemists the iconoclastic teaching reduced to the Eusebius’ of Caesarea
spiritualistic doctrine of Resurrection and Eusebius himself transformed into a central figure of
the iconoclast controversy replacing such actual leaders as Constantine V.