Disappearance of Red

Iznik's main street, east of Hagia Sophia, is shaded by plane trees and lined with fountains, hairdressers, cafes and pharmacies. Even in the most modest Turkish towns there is always an incredible number of pharmacies. Following this abode of shade and commerce, on the left hand there is a park where Nilufer Hatun Imaret is located. The word "imaret" is usually translated as a soup kitchen or hospice, but in fact it applies to any charitable organization that exists at a mosque. This beautiful building was intended for the life and activities of traveling scholars and pious people. With its cluster of softly rounded red-tiled domes, the tallest of which is occupied by the inevitable stork, and alternating layers of brick and stone masonry, the imaret could easily be mistaken for a late Byzantine structure. It is more than likely that Greek craftsmen had a hand in the construction, which was very suitable for them, for this building was built in 1388 by Sultan Murad I in memory of his mother. Her Turkish name Nilufer Hatun (meaning "lady water lily") conceals that she was the daughter of a Greek nobleman, perhaps one of the Akrites, whose alienation from the Byzantine government led them to an alliance with the Ottomans.
Nilufer was not the only Greek in the harem of Murad Orhan's father. In 1346, Orhan married Theodora Cantacuzene, daughter of Emperor John VI Cantacuzene. This marriage provoked much commentary from moralizing historians, who entertained each other with grim images of a sobbing princess left to languish in a Turkish harem for the rest of her days. He was seen as a vivid symbol of the pitiable state to which the empire had been reduced, but John Cantacuzene and his energetic daughter apparently saw things differently. John VI was one of the most reasonable of the later Byzantine emperors, and he consistently favored his Turkish neighbors over the unreliable and selfish Westerners. Orkhan was a loyal ally of John. He did not oppress his Christian subjects and even spoke a little Greek. He was a barbarian, but a gentleman. We cannot say that it was a purely political union: both Byzantine and Turkish sources insist on Orhan’s passionate love for Theodora. The Turkish poet Enveri claims that of the three daughters of John
- 32 –

Cantacuzene, “beautiful as houris,” Theodora was the most captivating.
For John, no doubt, it was a matter of great sadness that his otherwise wonderful son-in-law was a Muslim and a polygamist, but the emperor was doomed to put on a good face, despite the circumstances. The wedding was celebrated on the outskirts of Selimvria to the sounds of choirs, trumpets, flutes and violins. The Greeks and Turks had fun together for several days. Only after this Theodora and her husband sailed to Asia, where the city of Bursa became her residence. Whether Orhan was in love with his young bride or not, he treated her with emphatic respect. She was not faced with the need to convert to Islam and, instead of bemoaning her own fate, devoted herself to improving the living conditions of Christians and the poor.
The Imaret now houses the Iznik Museum. It stands in the center of a stone courtyard, where sarcophagi, gravestones, columns and capitals are neatly stacked in rows on carefully trimmed lawns, and only these fragments can give any idea of ​​​​the richness and variety of vanished Byzantine architecture. This is most clearly seen from the transformations of the capitals. In Constantine's time, the Corinthian order still imparted a standard splendor to imperial public buildings. Then the form was slightly changed: the leaves of the Corinthian acanthus were depicted as if petrified at the moment when they were agitated by the wind, or they were cut so deeply and worked so carefully that they began to resemble lace. But by the sixth century, masters dared to abandon acanthus completely. Motifs of wicker baskets with fading Ionic volutes, examples with intertwining vines and bold rosettes in high relief appeared. Variants became noticeable with shoots of foliage pouring out from the central vase, which are almost identical to the examples of capitals excavated from the ground in the Church of St. Polyeuctus. This creates the impression of an almost uncontrollable imagination of the sculptor, who seemed to devote his whole life only to making these shoots: the fresh Asian wind gave life to the heavy colossus of late classicism.
The ceramics in the Iznik Museum are not as impressive as expected. More interesting examples of Iznik faience can be found in London or New York, but, instead of the anticipated praises, it is interesting to note that Seljuk, Byzantine and early Ottoman pottery are often indistinguishable. The glaze is brown or green, and the motifs are often figurative. Animals, birds and horsemen are most common, and some Byzantine fragments bear images of funny, almost cartoonish birds catching worms. However, all these are only vague harbingers of the Iznik faience that acquired its classical form shortly after 1514. In this year, Sultan Selim, aptly nicknamed "the merciless," invaded Persia, captured Tabriz and, as part of his spoils of war, removed from there many potters, whom he stationed in Iznik. It would be a mistake to consider Iznik faience as an exclusively imported art, since this famous red color did not exist in Tabriz. Perhaps it corresponded to the Turkish love for extremely contrasting shades, or perhaps it was a happy discovery in the artist’s experimental search. Be that as it may, this brilliant period was surprisingly short.
The power of the Ottoman Empire and the beauty of Iznik faience reached their apogee during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent (1520 - 1566). However, this sultan, for reasons difficult to explain, ordered the death of two of his most talented sons, which caused irreparable damage to the succession to the Ottoman throne. At the end of the sixteenth and early years of the seventeenth century it was occupied by a completely unimaginable range of alcoholics, parasites, sadists and imbeciles. The decline was not immediately obvious. Suleiman's surviving son Selim II, also known by his nickname - the drunkard, devoted his time only to wine and poetry, leaving government in the hands of the great Bosnian vizier Sokol Mehmed Pasha. The mosque built by Sokolu in Istanbul contains the most significant Iznik tiles known, but in 1578 the vizier was assassinated and the sultanate quickly fell into anarchy. Anatolia was constantly in a state of rebellion. During a popular movement called the Great Flight, thousands of peasants tried to reach Europe, driven from their lands by roving bands of Turkic and Kurdish bandits.

At the same time, the economy was undermined by massive inflation caused by the influx of gold from Spanish possessions in America. In such conditions one could not expect the flourishing of such a delicate and expensive art as the making of Iznik faience. The decline became evident at the beginning of the seventeenth century, when the color red lost its original purity. The unrest continued until the middle of the century. Part of Iznik was destroyed by fire, and the potters scattered throughout Istanbul, Kutahya and Rhodes. The color red became more and more boring. Then life left the green and blue colors. The weakened colors faded, as if too much water had been added to the glaze, and by the end of the century what had once been compared to the brightest tulips or tomatoes had turned into a brown blur. The secret was lost, never to be revealed again and, with the disappearance of its red color, Iznik lost any meaning to the outside world.

It would be a mistake to say that Alexander was distinguished by cruelty. In some ways he resembled a hunter who is interested not in prey, but in the process of hunting itself. He was always very prudent and never in a hurry. The exception to the rule was his relationship with Theodora. Alexander had several months left to agree on the ransom, receive the money and remember to comply with various formalities. The journey from Foka to the Sultan's palace and back alone will take weeks. So it was possible to slowly win the beauty’s heart; but he behaved with her like an impetuous and inexperienced young man in love.

Theodora lived a quiet, measured life in his palace. After the night spent with Alexander, she decided to stop communicating with him, or rather, reduce it to a minimum, which, I must say, she easily succeeded. At night, Irina slept in her bedroom, whom she strictly forbade to drink wine. She only went out for walks surrounded by maids, whom she did not let go of her for a second. These precautions deprived the pirate leader of any opportunity to be alone with her.

The only thing that bothered her was the absence of her son. Khalil became very friendly with Alexander’s illegitimate sons, even slept with them, and almost never visited his mother, and she was embarrassed to ask the owner of the palace where she could find her son. In her mind, she understood that sooner or later this had to happen and Khalil simply stopped needing her care, but her heart did not want to come to terms with it.

Irina tried to reassure the mistress, saying that sons always move away from their mothers early and that this is only good for them: in order to become real men, they must early learn to make decisions and be responsible for their actions.

Several weeks passed like this. One evening, Alexander walked into Theodora’s bedroom, holding a box of chess in his hand.

“I came to play with you, madam,” he said, putting the chess set on a small table.

How do you know that I can play? - she asked with a smile, because she realized that Alexander had caught her: that night Irina should not have spent the night in her bedroom.

You are the daughter of a man who loved this game; he couldn’t help but teach you how to play it. Besides, I would be very surprised if you, with your logical mind, did not practice chess while living in Turkey. This game is held in high esteem there!

What if I still don’t know how to play it?

Then I'll have to teach you.

Well, I confess - I really love chess. You, Alexander, arrange the figures, I will now order wine and cakes to be brought to us.

But he saw through Theodora's trick.

Of course, give orders,” he said with a smile, “but just, please, don’t call the maids for help, otherwise I’ll think that you’re such a bad player that you don’t hope to beat me alone and call for help.” Let the servant bring at least a roasted elephant, but I ask you, let her leave later. Let me at least be alone with you this evening.

Alexander took chess pieces out of the box, placed them on the board, and Theodora was amazed at the art with which they were made. Each figurine was carefully carved and covered with the finest carvings. The white figures made of coral contrasted sharply with the black ones made of onyx.

Alexander beat Theodora quite easily in the first game, but already in the second she proved to him that it was not for nothing that he considered her an intelligent woman. This game lasted for a very long time, and eventually Alexander gave up.

Tell me, were you just judging me when we played the first game? - he asked laughing, as if accidentally ceasing to address her with exaggerated respect.

I should have studied my opponent. “She put a double meaning into her words, and Alexander could not help but notice this.

“I’ve never been against beautiful, seductive women,” he said half-jokingly.

Theodora suddenly wanted to tease the pirate leader:

So you are not my opponent: you are a loser. If you continue to play with me and even if you try very hard, you will still not succeed. I have already studied your style of play and I can say that I will always win against you.

Alexander looked at Theodora with genuine admiration:

You now sound like a real Roman Empress. Not the modern Roman Empire, but the ancient one, the one that conquered the whole world.

I don’t understand you, Alexander - either you admire me, or you laugh.

I bow to you. I was born in Greece, where I loved women with high intelligence - I was always interested in being with them. But then I lived in the East for a long time and I can say that I like the Asian type of women: they are created only for physical pleasure and awaken in a man not admiration, but desire. You combine both of these types. You are very smart and very seductive. Right now I admire your mind, but at the same time I want your body. Sometimes it seems to me that your mind lives separately from your flesh; she was created to belong entirely to a man, and your mind, on the contrary, so that everyone belongs and worships you. Your mind is an emperor and your body is a slave. Sorry if I said too much.

I have nothing to be offended by. You said what it really is.

Theodora saw that Alexander was seriously excited by this course of the conversation; she was pleased to feel her power over this independent person, and she did not want to stop this unusual conversation.

Answer me one question, madam: would you like to change your life? Aren't you tired of this Sultan's harem, where you are forced to spend time among the Janissaries and stupid women, whom your husband often prefers to you?

First of all, there are two questions. Secondly, my whole life now is my son. Thirdly, what can I change with my desire?

But what will you do when your son is taken away from you?

Theodora shuddered. Alexander touched upon a question that she herself had been puzzling over.

I don’t know... I hope Sultan Orhan will allow me to live with Khalil, although, of course, I won’t be able to raise him. To be honest,” she added after a moment of confusion, “I think they won’t allow me to live with my son, but I hope...

You are thinking right. The boy is almost seven, and it’s time to transfer his upbringing into the hands of a man. Remember that in Ancient Sparta, at the age of seven, boys were taken away from their mothers and raised in special boys' schools. Understand that your guardianship now can only harm Khalil.

Theodora lowered her head. She understood that Alexander was right and could not object to him.

“My lady,” Alexander interrupted her thoughts, “why would you return to a husband who doesn’t love you?” Stay here with me,” his eyes sparkled, “I love you and will do everything to make you happy with me!”

Theodora smiled; it was clear that she was pleased with Alexander’s recognition.

Thank you for such an unexpected offer,” she said. - But you didn’t think about one thing. If I stay with you, you may lose not only all your livelihood, but also your life itself. The Sultan will never forgive such an insult.

She looked at him and saw tears on the face of this proud man!

Can I come to your place again to play chess with you? - he asked in a quiet voice. She nodded in agreement:

Of course, come.

Then I’ll leave the chess here,” he said and left.

Left alone, Theodora sat for a long time without moving. Her heart was beating wildly. “He really wants me to stay at his house. He was ready to go into conflict with one of the most powerful sovereigns in the world in order for me to stay with him. He loves me not as a sultan's wife or a Byzantine princess, but as an ordinary woman. Knowing that this is madness, he is ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of his love,” she thought.

She felt goosebumps run through her body; she was not used to the fact that in a world where all people put power first in life, one could love so much. And she, Theodora Cantacuzene, princess of the Byzantine Empire, wife of the Turkish Sultan, mother of the heir, perhaps even of two thrones - Byzantine and Turkish, was happy that such a strong feeling was felt for her, and not for someone else.

John Cantacuzenus [Greek. ᾿Ιωάννης Καντακουζηνός] (c. 1295-15.06.1383, Mystras, Peloponnese), monk Joasaph (from 4 or 10 Dec. 1354), Byzantine emperor (John VI Cantacuzene; 26 Oct. 13 41-4 or 10 Dec. 1354) , state activist, theologian, writer (lit. pseudonym Christodulus, Χριστόδουλος). Father I.K., possibly also John, is mentioned only in the “History” of I.K. (Cantacus. Hist. Vol. 1. P. 85). At the age of 21, he received the position of governor of the Peloponnese and held it for 8 years until his death. After the death of his father, I. K. was raised by his mother Theodora Paleologina Angelina Cantacuzina, aunt of Andronikos the Younger (later Emperor Andronikos III Paleologina; 1328-1341). I.K. was not only the cousin of Andronik the Younger, his peer, but also, as F. Dölger suggests (Dölger. 1938), he performed the rite of brotherhood with the young Andronik. I. K. married Irina Asanina, daughter of Andronikos Palaiologos Komnenos Asan (governor of Morea in 1316-1321 and Thrace in 1341-1343), sister of Manuel Komnenos Raoul Asan. Thus, I.K. became related to the powerful Asan clan, relatives of the kings of Bulgaria. The marriage produced sons Matthew (c. 1325-1383 or 1391; co-ruler I.K. in 1353-1357, despot of Morea in 1361-1382), Manuel (c. 1326-1381; despot of Morea from 1349), Andronicus (c. 1334-1347); daughters Maria († after 1379; from 1339 married to the ruler of Epirus Nicephorus II Orsini), Theodora († after 1381; from 1346 married to Emir Orhan), Elena (1333-1396; from 1347 married to the Byzantine Emperor John V Palaiologos) .

I.K. received the usual imp. blood classical education at the imperial court. Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282-1328), brought up together with Bud. imp. Andronikos III; The mentor of both young men was Senator Constantine Palamas, father of St. Gregory Palamas. It is possible that St. Gregory (born in 1296) also studied with I.K.; if this is so, then Theodore Metochites could have been their teacher. In any case, I.K. and St. Gregory Palamas had known each other since youth. The style of the historical work of I.K., written under the pseudonym Christodoulus, reveals familiarity with the Greek. classics, limited to popular authors: Appian, Plutarch, Euripides, Thucydides, as well as Greek. myths and proverbs. True, Byzantine. historian Nikifor Grigora contradicts himself, noting either I.K.’s inclination towards education or his lack of education (Niceph. Greg. Hist. Vol. 2. P. 919, 966). Nevertheless, I.K. knew Thucydides’ “History” very well, which probably greatly influenced the formation of his worldview and political culture.

I.K. spoke Italian well. (or Catalan.?) language, because he personally communicated with his mercenaries. The information about the knowledge of I.K. tour is plausible. language, but proficiency in Latin is unlikely, which, at the request of I.K., was studied by his nominee Demetrius Kidonis. I. K. occupied a prominent position in the intellectual life of Byzantium, communicated with all the significant philosophers and theologians of that time (Mikhail Gavra, Nikifor Khumnos, Nikifor Grigora, Demetrius Kidonis, Metropolitan Matthew (Manuel) Gavala of Ephesus, Theodore Irtakin). Manuel Phil and Simon Atuman dedicated poems to him, and Thomas the Master dedicated a political treatise. Nicephorus Grigora, Demetrius Kydonis, Thomas Magister, and Nicholas Kavasila glorified him as an ideal ruler in their encomia and treatises. I.K. willingly supported intellectuals. In particular, he ordered Nikifor Grigora to comment on the work of Synesius of Cyrene “On Dreams”. I.K. cordially received the philosopher Barlaam of Calabria ca. 1330 and contributed to organizing a dispute between him and Nikifor Grigora in his capital house in the winter of 1331/32. Nikifor Grigora and Dimitri Kidonis noted I.K.’s passionate love for books, which he maintained throughout his life.

Military professionalism and good health shaped the image of an aristocrat of that era. For the first time, only at the age of 53, I.K. became seriously ill with nervous fever, for which he was treated for a whole year. I.K., together with his relative Sirgian, received military training from John the Angel (Cantacus. Hist. Vol. 1. P. 274; apparently, this is I.K.’s uncle John Sennacherim Angel, the great stratopedarchus (military leader); cf.: PLP , N 25146). According to I.K.’s personal confession, his examples were Scipio Africanus, Pompey the Great and Sulla, information about whom, of course, was gleaned from Plutarch. A distinctive feature of I.K.’s talent was the ability to notice the merits of others and rely on capable people, although often I.K.’s nominees became his opponents (John XIV Cripple, Alexei Apokavkos, Nikifor Grigora, Demetrius Kidonis).

Along with other aristocrats, such as Theodore Sinadin, John the Angel, Mikhail Monomakh, I.K. entered the retinue of the warlike and decisive emperor. Michael IX Palaiologos, son and co-ruler of Andronikos II, and aged c. At the age of 25, he received the honorary court rank of 22nd rank “Great Papius” (μέγας παπίας), which at that time did not imply specific duties. I.K.'s political career begins in 1320/1, when he, together with his relative Sirgian Palaeologus, received military and administrative commission. control of a small region of Thrace around Adrianople.

Civil War 1321-1328

The accidental murder of Andronikos III of his brother Manuel in September. 1320 accelerated the death of the seriously wounded Michael IX Palaiologos (Oct. 12, 1320) and led to a dynastic crisis, because imp. Andronikos II officially removed the fratricide from succession to the throne. The governors of Thrace came out in support of the young Andronicus. On the night of April 20. 1321 Andronicus the Younger fled from K-field to Adrianople, where an army had already gathered under the command of Sirgian. I.K. headed the office and was in charge of finances with the help of Alexey Apokavka. Taking advantage of the unpopularity of Andronikos II among the population, promising the residents a complete abolition of taxes, the troops of the governors took control of Thrace and Macedonia. On June 6, 1321, the conflict ended with reconciliation; All of Thrace came under the control of Andronikos the Younger. On Nov. 1321, as a result of the heated rivalry between I.K. and Sirgian, the latter went over to the side of Andronikos II, which again escalated the conflict. Having set out on a campaign with I.K., Andronikos III entrusted his wife and court in the city of Didymotych to the care of I.K.’s mother Theodora Cantacuzina. In July 1322, the confrontation ended with the conclusion of peace in Epivates; according to its terms imp. the courtyard of Andronikos III in Didymotykh was taken over by the state. content. Feb 2 1325 Andronikos III was officially proclaimed co-ruler of Andronikos II. It was probably at that time that I.K. received the highest military position of grand domestic (Nicol. The Byzantine Family... 1968. P. 36), although perhaps this only happened at the end of the civil war (Guilland. 1938. P. 58, 64, 72). According to Pseudo-Codin (Ps.-Codin. De offic. // Verpeaux. 1966. P. 136), this position was granted to I.K. even before the war by Andronikos II, and Andronikos III granted him the highest rank of Caesar (Weiss. 1969 . S. 10-11). In Oct. 1326 Andronikos III married Anna of Savoy for the second time. During the return of the married couple from K-field to the court in Didymotych, they were attacked by a tour. marauders. I.K. almost died while organizing the defense of the wedding procession (Cantacus. Hist. Vol. 1. P. 206-207).

In the beginning. 1327 The internecine struggle resumed. The Bulgarian side took the side of Andronikos III. Tsar Michael III Shishman, and the Serbian corr became an ally of Andronik II. Stefan Uros III. During the period of hostilities, I.K.’s mother again led the court and defense of Didymotykh. It was probably then that in the relations between imp. Friction arose between Anna of Savoy and Theodora Cantacuzina. In the winter of 1327/28, the inhabitants of Thessalonica rebelled in support of Andronikos III; the city soon came under his control. Andronikos III and I.K. captured the Serres, after which the resistance of the army of Andronikos II was broken. On May 24, 1328, troops under the command of Theodore Sinadin broke into K-pol and began reprisals against the followers of Andronikos II. Historian Nikifor Grigora reports that much of the loot by soldiers in the capital was directly sent to the treasury of Andronikos III. I.K. was the only one who refrained from vilifying the old emperor and his supporters (Niceph. Greg. Hist. Vol. 1. P. 432).

Reign of Andronikos III (1328-1341).

In con. 20's - 30's XIV century on key government the posts were occupied by people from I.K.’s entourage. Finance was headed by Alexey Apokavk, who took the post of mesadzon; until 1330, Theodore Sinadin was the eparch (mayor) of K-pol, then this post also passed to Apokavka. Apocaucus later also became commander of the fleet. But since Andronikos III and I.K. were often absent from the capital, the real executive power ended up in the hands of Apokavkos, who conducted current affairs together with the imp. Anna and Theodora Cantacuzina. I.K. focused on military and diplomatic activities and was the first, although not the only, adviser to the emperor.

In his “History” I.K. portrays himself as the main organizer of the military-political enterprises of the Byzantines of this period, which, naturally, must be taken with caution, since the emperor had other advisers. In June 1329, Emperor. Andronik and I.K. undertook a campaign to Asia to help Nicaea, besieged by the Ottoman emir Orhan I. Despite a number of victories, the campaign ended in disaster at the Battle of Philocrine, where Andronikos was seriously wounded, and I.K. barely escaped death, retreating with the remnants of the army. Nicaea surrendered to the Ottomans on March 2, 1331. The consequences of the civil war were manifested in the fact that the supporters of Andronikos II did not bring their troops to the rescue when they learned of the wounding of Andronikos III. In con. In 1329, the Byzantines successfully recaptured the island of Chios from the Genoese, Genoese Phocaea recognized the suzerainty of K-pol, and Lesbos managed to defend itself from the attack of the Latins. In 1330, after the defeat of the coalition of Mongols and Bulgarians by the Serbs, Andronik III, under the pretext of revenge for the expulsion of his sister Theodora (the wife of the deceased Bulgarian Tsar Michael III Shishman) from Tarnovo, declared war on Bulgaria, capturing Bulgarian strongholds on the border with the Byzantine Empire. Thrace, as well as the ports of Anchial and Mesemvria; According to the peace treaty in Rusokastro in 1332, the seizures were legalized.

In 1330, during a serious illness, Andronik III bequeathed power to the emperor. Anna of Savoy, who was expecting a child, under the regency of I.K., which could actually eliminate the Palaiologan dynasty from power, since it was unknown what gender the child would be. At the same time, Theodore Ducas Sinadin (after I.K. the second most influential person in the empire), fearing a rebellion by supporters of the Palaiologos, imprisoned Andronikos II in the monastery in order to prevent his return to the throne. There Andronikos II died on February 13. 1332

Riots tour. pirates forced Byzantium in Aug.-Sept. 1332 to form a maritime alliance with Venice and the Johannites of Rhodes. On March 8, 1334, on the initiative of Pope John XXII, an agreement was reached in Avignon on the creation of a naval anti-Turkish alliance with the participation of Venice, Byzantium, the Hospitallers, Cyprus and the Papal Throne. In this political context, the question of renewing the debate about the union of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Churches arose with renewed vigor. In 1334, despite the resistance of the K-Polish Priest. Synod, I.K. achieved the installation on the K-Polish Patriarchal throne of John XIV Kaleki (1334-1347), who was part of the circle of close associates of I.K. Antitur. the union collapsed already in 1335, after the capture of the Byzantines by the Genoese. Lesvos. In Aug. 1335 Andronikos and I.K. were forced to start a war against the Genoese, attacking their fortresses in Lesbos and Phocea. Because the Genoese in Lesvos captured the sons of the Tur. Emir Sarukhan, I.K. entered into a secret alliance with the emirs Sarukhan, Khidin and Umur. Probably in 1337, during the joint campaign of the Byzantines and Turks against the Albanians, friendly relations began between I.K. and Umur in the Balkans. At the request of I.K. Umur freed Christ from tribute. population of Philadelphia (M. Asia). From this time to Byzantium. politics becomes predominant protur. orientation, the bet is on an alliance with the Ottomans and their vassals.

Civil War 1341-1347

The reason for the war was the issue of guardianship over the minor imp. John V Palaiologos (born 1332) after the sudden death of Andronikos III on June 15, 1341. I.K. justified his right to guardianship by family relations with the deceased emperor (thus claiming primacy over the entire family of Palaiologos), his status as a co-ruler, to ry allegedly granted him de facto Andronikos III by placing royal robes on I.K. But first of all, I.K. counted on the wealth of his clan. The post of great domestic did not give him any benefits and did not add authority, since the army was commanded by the emperor himself (although in “History” I.K. exaggerates his military exploits in every possible way). Unlike I.K. Alexey Apokavk not only personally commanded the fleet he created (partly with his own money), but also enjoyed the support of numerous sailors. As manager of the treasury, Apocaucus had the cash to hire troops, while the Cantacuzene clan's real estate wealth could easily be confiscated. Andronikos III did not leave a clear order regarding guardianship, but the imp. Anna by this time hated Theodora Cantacuzina so much that she dreamed of getting rid of her in any way, in panic fear of secret killers. Throughout the summer of 1341, there was an intense hidden struggle between parties in K-field. Apokavkos first encouraged I.K. to seize the throne, then tried to kidnap John V from the capital, was captured, but was forgiven by the empress at the request of I.K. (or the patriarch). At the meetings of the Synclite, Apokavk showed himself to be a clever demagogue, easily “outplaying” I.K.

In July 1341, I.K. was present at the Council (RegPatr, N 2212), to which Gregory Akindinus was summoned by Patriarch John XIV as an accused, making accusations against St. Gregory Palamas after the condemnation of Varlaam at the June Council of the same year. The July Council of 1341 condemned Akindinus, but the decision was not recorded in writing (see the sections “Controversy with Barlaam of Calabria” and “Controversy with Gregory Akindinus” in Art. Gregory Palamas). As at the June Council of the same year against Varlaam, I.K. sought to extinguish the conflict that threatened to split the Church.

23 Sep. 1341 I.K. set out to prepare an army for a campaign to help the barons of Achaia, who agreed to recognize the suzerainty of the empire. In the absence of I.K., Patriarch John and Alexei Apokavkos attracted to their side I.K.'s father-in-law Andronikos Asan with his brothers Isaac and Constantine and raised the capital against the supporters of I.K. Theodore Kantakouzin, as well as I.K.'s daughter-in-law Elena, wife eldest son Matthew, were captured and thrown into prison, where Theodora died in difficult conditions on January 6. 1342 The property of the family and its supporters in the capital was confiscated. 42 supporters of I.K. with their families and servants fled from K-field. I.K. received orders to disband the army and leave the post of great domestic. In response to I.K. Oct 26 1341 in Didymotykh proclaimed himself emperor. In his decree, he mentioned first of all the imp. Anna with John V and only after them himself with his wife Irina, thereby recognizing the legitimacy of the Palaiologos. Oct 29 he put aside his ceremonial clothes and put on mourning for the late “brother and emperor,” that is, for Andronicus III. I.K. stated that he was not fighting against the legitimate imp. John V, but against the “dictator” Alexei Apokavkos. Despite the fact that I.K. was Andronikos’s closest ally, the head of the government was Apokavkos, and traditionally the empress and the patriarch were considered regents during the emperor’s childhood, so I.K.’s claims did not correspond to the legal consciousness of the Byzantines. I.K. initially did not find widespread support; Only the cities of Thrace Didymotikh, Pamphylos, Koprinos, as well as the fortress of Empitium, remained loyal to him. All other cities of the empire followed the example of Adrianople, where the national assembly on October 27. 1341, convened by supporters of I.K., actually developed into a rebellion against I.K. Patriarch John excommunicated I.K. from the Church, and on November 19. 1341 crowned John V. In March 1342, I.K. undertook a campaign against Thessalonica, leaving Manuel Asan's wife and son-in-law in Didymotikh with a small garrison (the city was besieged by the Bulgarians). The campaign ended in failure, because the governor of Thessalonica, Theodore Sinadin, who was on the side of I.K., went over with the army to the side of Apokavkos, having learned that I.K., who was coming to his aid, did not have the means to purchase food and pay the soldiers, who grumbled because of the delay in salary (Niceph. Greg. Hist. Vol. 2. P. 633). I.K. abandoned the conquest of Thessalonica due to the fierce resistance of the population.

In 1342, I.K. was supported by the Serbs and the nobility of Thessaly (his cousin John the Angel became its ruler). In the beginning. 1343 IK's ally, Emir Aidina Umur I, began active operations with a large fleet and army against the Bulgarians who were besieging Didymotikh. The Bulgarians were invited to help against the troops of K-Pole by Irina, I.K.’s wife, but the Bulgarian army. Tsar John Alexander, having driven away the Constantinople, she herself besieged the city. The help of the Seljuks prompted I.K. to resume the attack on Thessalonica in the spring of 1343, but the Serbs went over to the side of John V and the regents. I.K. was again forced to retreat towards Verria, the environs of which were terribly devastated by the Tur. allies of the Polish government. At the same time, Alexey Apokavk tried to outbid Umur by any means. I.K. believed that Umur rejected K-field’s proposals, because he recognized the legitimacy of the imp. title I.K. Sovrem. researchers (Werner. 1965. P. 255-276) see selfish calculation in Umur’s behavior: an alliance with I.K. allowed the Seljuks to participate in further inciting the civil war and hunt for captives in the territories of Serbia, Bulgaria, and Byzantium for the slave trade. Nevertheless, any attempts by the Apokavka government to recruit the Turks against I.K. ended either in their defection to I.K.’s side or in the loss of control over them, which shows the high authority of I.K. among the Seljuks and Ottomans.

In Aug. 1343 Pope Clement VI revived the anti-tour. union and, together with the Johannites, Cyprus and Venice, continued the fight against the tour. piracy. Oct 28 In 1344, the Latins took the fortress at the entrance to the harbor of Smyrna and the Umur fleet was locked in the harbor. I.K., acting on the side of Umur, in 1344 gave him plans for the west. coalition. Despite the return of Smyrna to Umur in January. 1345, the military power of the Aydin Emirate was undermined by the Latins and I.K. entered into negotiations on an alliance with Orhan I, emir of the Ottomans, enemies of the Seljuks of Umur. The emir put forward a marriage with I.K.'s daughter Theodora as a condition for the alliance with I.K. In his “History,” I.K. is silent about the circumstances of this marriage, but Nikifor Grigora reports “pressure” on I.K., because the marriage did not comply with church rules. Theodora retained Orthodoxy, but did not become the first wife in the emir's harem, since this place was already occupied.

In the beginning. In 1345, the troops of I.K., in alliance with Umur and Suleiman (son of Orkhan), took Adrianople and appeared at the walls of K-field. I.K. sent 2 Franciscan monks to the court of John V with an offer of peace, but received a categorical refusal. On June 11, 1345, Alexei Apokavk was unexpectedly killed. The son of the murdered man, John Apokavkos, tried to go over to I.K.’s side and surrender Thessalonica, which cost him his life, because it caused an uprising of zealots in the city, led by Andrei Paleologus, and the beating of I.K.’s supporters.

Taking advantage of the civil war, the Serbs captured one Byzantine. fortress after another, despite the protests of I.K. After the occupation of Serre, Serbian Patriarch St. Ioannikios II and the Bulgarian Patriarch Simeon in Skopje crowned Stephen IV Dusan as “emperor of the Serbs and Greeks” (April 16, 1346). It was in response to the Serb. imperial claims I. K. hastily organized his crowning in Adrianople, which was held on May 21, 1346 by the titular Patriarch of Jerusalem Lazarus (an opponent of John XIV). To legalize the coronation, the Council of Metropolitans and Bishops there also decided to depose the K-Polish Patriarch John XIV Kalecki.

3 Feb 1347 a detachment of Ottoman Turks helped I.K. capture the K-field. For several hours before this, the Council of Bishops in K-pol, chaired by the imp. John V in the presence of the Emperor. Anna also deposed Patriarch John XIV. 8 Feb. In 1347, the Council of Blachernae was held, where, in addition to the condemnation of Varlaam and Akindinus, an agreement was reached on the division of power. I. K. became the sole ruler for a period of 10 years (in 1357 John V turned 25 years old, which according to Roman law was the age of majority). The principal point of the agreement was I.K.’s demand that the young John V treat him like a father. This point was reinforced by the wedding of Helen, the daughter of I.K., and John V. Thus, I.K. became the father-in-law of the emperor and the head of the Palaiologos clan.

Over the next 3 years, Helen gave birth to 3 children to John V, which greatly strengthened this union. Official the coronation of I.K. and his wife Irina Asanina was carried out on May 21, 1347 in K-pol by Patriarch Isidore I Vukhir; On this occasion, a general amnesty was declared. Emir Orkhan did not understand I.K.’s concern for the legitimation of power and sent an assassin to John V in 1349, who was neutralized by I.K. himself.

Sole rule of I.K. (1347-1354)

I.K. found himself in an ambiguous situation, because after the end of the civil war in Byzantium, Western. The alliance continued the war against Umur (he died in battle in 1348) and, under the threat of an attack by the Latins on K-pol, Byzantium was forced to join them. In Chrysobulus to Pope Clement VI of September 22. 1347 I.K. justifies his previous policy, claims that he allegedly did not seek an alliance with the Turks, but was forced to do so, approves of plans for a crusade against the Turks and is ready to join it. Werner (1966, p. 120) evaluates I.K. as an experienced political tactician, concerned with “concluding a Byzantine-Turkic alliance against the Genoese and Ottomans,” who promised the West participation in the coalition against the Turks and at the same time secretly collaborated with Umur , playing a double game.

The most pressing problem facing I.K. is supplying the capital with bread from the North. Black Sea region. For the safety of the state, I.K. reduced import duties on food and stopped distributing ransoms to the Genoese, and in the fall of 1347 he convened a people's meeting at the Polish hippodrome to approve new taxes on the construction of the fleet, which undermined his authority among the people . The beginning of the construction of the fleet provoked an attack by the Genoese of the Galata community at the shipyard on August 15. 1348 and caused the "Galatian War".

1 Oct. 1348 I.K. again convened a popular assembly to obtain the approval of the “demos” to continue the construction of the fleet and the war with Genoa. Direct appeals to the people indicate that I.K. has actually exhausted his own power resources. In 1348, I.K. sent the embassy of George Spanopul and Nicholas Siger to Avignon to the papal court for negotiations on the union of the Churches, and in 1349 he received 2 papal legates in K-field, since the papal curia, together with Venice, supported I.K.’s efforts to eliminate the Genoese monopoly on trade in the Black Sea region. The "Galatian War" ended in the defeat of the Byzantines. fleet on March 5, 1349 and confirmation of all trading privileges of Genoa. The Genoese turned Galata into an impregnable fortress and effectively controlled the Golden Horn.

After the death of Patriarch Isidore in February. 1350 I. K., in the hope of finding peace in the Church, offered the rank of patriarch to Nicephorus Grigore (Niceph. Greg. Hist. Vol. 2. P. 1037-1042), but he resolutely refused to compromise and, with the help of his disciples, continued active campaigning against Palamism. The rector of the Athos monastery, Iviron, a student of St. Gregory Sinaita Callistus, who also unsuccessfully tried to find a compromise with Grigora. I.K. in “History” mentions that it was after the death of Isidore that he and his wife first had a serious intention to transfer power to John V and retire to the monastery of St. Moms with their best friends: Nikolai Kavasila and Dimitri Kydonis (Cantacus. Hist. Vol. 3. P. 105-111). But the conflict that arose between the archons of Thessalonica awakened I.K.’s hopes for the city to come under his rule and forced him to go on a campaign together with John V, son Matthew and the Ottoman cavalry of Suleiman (son of Emir Orhan). Thessalonica was governed by the archons Andrew Palaiologos and Alexios Metochites Palaiologos, appointed by John V. In 1349, the archons refused to receive St. Gregory Palama to the metropolitan see, because they did not recognize I.K. as the legitimate emperor and did not accept his proteges. However, soon, due to the growing Serbian danger, Alexey Metochit himself turned to I.K. for help. At the beginning of the campaign, the Turks were suddenly sent to M. Asia by order of Orhan, and I.K. was forced to hire 22 pirate ships to strengthen his army (Ibid. P. 114-117; Niceph. Greg. Hist. Vol. 2. P. 876). St. Gregory Palamas soon occupied the Thessalonian See, although it was still not possible to achieve complete control over the city of I.K.

The military conflict that flared up in 1350 between Genoa and Venice led to the blockade of Galata by the Venetian-Aragonese fleet in the spring of 1351. Suspecting I.K. of assisting the Venetians, the Galatians began shelling the K-field with throwing guns. Byzantium was forced to enter the war on the side of Venice; The Ottoman emir Orhan came out on the side of Genoa. But 13 Feb. In 1352, the Venetian fleet was defeated, and Byzantium found itself face to face with the powerful Genoa. The Byzantines were unable to take the fortifications of Galata and signed a peace treaty, which actually placed the supply of food to the capital under the complete control of Genoa. These events, which contemporaries directly associated with I.K.’s reign, significantly undermined his authority in the capital.

On May 27, 1351, a Council was opened in K-pol, chaired by I.K. and Patriarch Callistus I, which was supposed to resolve the issue of Orthodoxy in the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas. As a result, the theology of St. Gregory Palamas was recognized as Orthodox and in agreement with the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, and a conciliar tomos was promulgated (see section “Controversy with Nicephorus Gregoras” in Art. Gregory Palamas).

In 1352, John V was sent from the capital to Didymotych. The conflict between the Palaiologos and Cantacuzenes flared up with renewed vigor. John V, encouraged to war by Stefan Dusan and the Venetians, dissatisfied with I.C.’s peace with Genoa, received money from Venice for the war with I.C. on the terms of the cession of the island of Tenedos. I.K. managed to extinguish the conflict through the mediation of Anna of Savoy; John V was given Didymotych as an inheritance, and Adrianople was given to Matthew Cantacuzenus. Hostilities immediately began between the governors. In June 1352, the Ottomans again acted as allies of I.K., who moved an army to help his son Matthew, blocked in Adrianople by John V. The Turks ravaged Pythion near Didymotykh. In the fall, Patriarch Callistus I unsuccessfully tried to quell the conflict between the emperors. In the same year, Orhan's son Suleiman occupied all the fortresses of Thrace; Byzantium did not have the strength to resist.

In the beginning. 1353 I.K. presented Patriarch Callistus with a demand to crown his son Matthew and no longer commemorate the Palaiologan dynasty during the liturgy, i.e., to sanctify with the authority of the Church the final transfer of power to the Cantacuzenes. Despite persuasion, the patriarch rejected the demands, left the residence and retired to the monastery in K-pol, from where he continued to carry out his ministry. I. K. unsuccessfully tried to persuade Patriarch Callistus to return, sending prominent bishops to him, as well as Philotheus Kokkin (K-Polish Patriarch in 1353-1354, 1364-1376). To substantiate the rights of I.K., an anonymous author wrote a special treatise (Failler. 1973), where he emphasized that the patriarch does not have the right to choose the emperor; the choice is made by “the army, the senate and the people,” and the patriarch is the “priest” who performs the coronation. Soon Callistus was officially deposed and fled first to the Latins in Galata, and then to John V on the island of Tenedos, where he published numerous accusations against I.K. and the Polish clergy. Callistus's indictment against I.K., reported by Nikifor Grigora, among other reproaches, contained a mention of cash payments to the tour. Orhan's mercenaries in 1347 from the amounts received for the repair of St. Sophia from the Moscow prince. Simeon Ioannovich the Proud (Niceph. Greg. Hist. Vol. 3. P. 200).

In Feb. 1354 Matthew Cantacuzenus was crowned in the Church of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary in Blachernae (K-pol) by I.K. and Patriarch Philotheus Kokkin. The turning point for the Ottoman expansion into Europe was the year 1354, when they captured the city of Gallipoli, abandoned by the population as a result of an earthquake, settled it and turned it into their stronghold. In 1354, Metropolitan was captured by the Ottomans. Thessalonian St. Gregory Palamas, who was supposed to mediate the negotiations between I.K. and John V. Patriarch Philotheus Kokkin reports in detail why I.K. did not have the money to ransom St. Gregory η, 1985. Σ. 552). I.K.'s abdication in 1354 prevented the implementation of these plans; St. Gregory Palamas was ransomed by the Serbs in July 1355.

22 Nov 1354 John V, with the help of the Genoese corsair Francesco Gattilusi, entered K-pol with a small detachment, which caused a popular uprising against the Cantacuzini. I.K. sent for help to his son Matthew, the Turks and Andronik Asan. I.K. himself with a detachment of Catalan mercenaries was blocked in the palace. 24 Nov A new agreement took place between the emperors on the continuation of joint rule, the division of treasury revenues and the appointment of Matthew Cantacuzenus as ruler of Adrianople and Rhodope with unlimited power. 27 Nov Catalan mercenaries conspired to leave I.K. The general hatred of the population, irritated by exorbitant taxes, made it impossible for I.K. to remain emperor. 4 or 10 Dec. 1354 I.K. abdicated the throne, took monastic vows with the name Joasaph and retired to the Polish monastery of Mangana. John V forbade I.K. from leaving for the monastery of Vatopedi on Athos, despite the significant contributions to the monastery of the Holy Mountain made by I.K.’s mother and himself. Patriarch Philotheus Kokkin fled from the capital, and Callistus returned to the Patriarchal throne. Despite I.K.'s departure from power, John V needed the experience and connections that his father-in-law had, therefore, even after the abdication, I.K.'s political weight was enormous.

After renunciation

Matthew Cantacuzenus continued the civil war with the support of Orhan, but in 1356 he was captured by the Serbs and was handed over to John V. To save his son’s life, I.K. advised him to abdicate the throne and take an oath of allegiance to John V. On Dec. In 1357, the war between the Palaiologos and Cantacuzenes ended with the renunciation of Matthew. Matthew was sent to Mystras to his younger brother Manuel, a loyal supporter of John V. A conflict soon arose between the brothers, which I.K., who went to Mystras in 1361 or 1362, was forced to resolve.

The most important event in the political life of I.K. after his abdication was the dispute on the issue of the union of the Churches with the papal legate Paul, lat. titular patriarch of K-pol, held in 1367. Topics for conversation arose from current politics. In 1365 cor. Louis of Hungary, waging a war with the Bulgarians, subjected the inhabitants of the conquered regions to forcible rebaptism into Catholicism. John V, who made a diplomatic visit to Hungary in 1366, protested to the king about this. For a solution they turned to Pope Urban V, who approved the use of violence in matters of faith, citing the example of Michael VIII Palaiologos (after the conclusion of the Union of Lyons in 1274, persecution of its opponents began in Byzantium). In 1367, on official discussions in the Blachernae Palace in the presence of the entire imp. family, metropolitans of Ephesus, Iraklia, Adrianople, and the synclite of I.K. publicly condemned the violence that occurred during the Union of Lyons. The fundamental thesis of I.K.’s speech is that the unification of Churches is possible only on the basis of consent, i.e., subject to the convening of a new Ecumenical Council. In the debate, Legate Paul also cited traditions. the argument that all the disasters of Byzantium are due to the Great Schism of the Churches (see Division of the Churches), to which the answer was received that there were disasters before the schism. Controversy also arose on the issue of Christ. faith in Muslims lands. I.K. stated that, following the example of the first Christians, it is possible to maintain the true faith even when surrounded by the enemies of Christ, but Catholics denied this. As a result of the discussion, an agreement was reached on the convening of an Ecumenical Council in the period from May 1, 1367 to June 1, 1369. Between the K-field and the Catholic. the world began an active exchange of embassies and letters. As a result, in 1369 John V signed the Catholic Church. Symbol of faith. One of the issues discussed during contacts was Palamism. In correspondence with legate Paul ca. 1367 I.K. outlined the essence of the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas. Around the same time, he polemicized with the disciple of Nikephoros Gregoras, the theologian John Kyparissiot. At the Council of 1368, Gregory Palamas was canonized by the Polish Church, and Prochorus Kydonis, who criticized Palamism, was condemned as a heretic, which cast a shadow on his brother Demetrius Kydonis. I.K. began a polemic with Prokhor Kidonis, as a result of which he soon spoiled his relationship with Demetrius Kidonis.

In his declining years, I.K. again found himself involved in a dynastic struggle. In 1379-1381 he was taken hostage by his grandson Andronikos IV Palaiologos, whom John V blocked in Galata. The rebellious son took hostage, in addition to his grandfather, his mother and two aunts. In 1381, I.K.'s son Manuel died, and I.K. went to Mystras, where he actually ruled the Despotate of Morea until his death.

“History” by I.K.

One of the most significant Byzantine monuments. literature, combining 3 lit. genre: history, memoirs and one of the first attempts at secular autobiography. The work was created, most likely, in the 1st decade after I.K.’s abdication from the throne (1354-1364); It was then that a relatively calm period began in his life, there was time for reflection in the monastic solitude and summing up. The latest date for completion of the work is 1369, since the earliest manuscript of the “History” dates back to this year.

The work is distinguished by clarity of presentation and proportionality of parts. In the 1st book. events since 1320 are outlined and the civil war of the two Andronikis is described in detail; in the 2nd - the reign of Andronikos III; in the 3rd - the events of the civil war of 1341-1347. before I.K. joined the K-pol; in the 4th - the independent reign of I.K. (1347-1354), and the events of 1354-1356 are described in detail. and some information about the period from 1356 to 1362. Books 1, 2 and 4 are approximately equal in volume. 3rd book. exceeds each of them almost twice, which shows the importance that the author attached to the presentation of his own version of the history of the Civil War. I.K.’s work differs from the works of Nikifor Grigora both in its simplicity of style and description, and in its well-thought-out composition. Noticed by P. Loenertz (Loenertz. 1964) is the “disorder” in the presentation of the events of the 30s. XIV century, apparently, is the “merit” of an anonymous editor, to whom I.K. handed over his notes for rewriting. Supporter of the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas, I.K., however, does not consciously fill his work with details of complex theological discussions, as Nikifor Grigora did. Thus, when describing the K-Polish Council of 1351, I.K. refers all those interested in theological details to the documents of the Council, which shows a good sense of style, which does not allow turning a historical work into a theological treatise. At the same time, I.K., when describing the events of 1351, explains in detail the need for repressive measures against opponents of St. Gregory Palamas, which the emperor was forced to do by circumstances, and also refutes certain accusations against himself and Athonite monasticism, convicting opponents of slander.

The inspiration for writing the 1st book. “History” became the archbishop. Thessalonica St. Neil Kavasila, who in one of his letters to I.K. encouraged him to describe the events of his life. In the response message, which is included at the beginning of the 1st book. (Cantacus. Hist. Vol. 1. P. 8, 10), I.K. (under the pseudonym Christodoulus) sets out his writing credo - to write impartially only about what he was an eyewitness, and in order to create the illusion of verisimilitude in the reader, talk about yourself in the 3rd person. This technique makes I.K.’s self-praise invisible to the reader. So, already imp. Andronikos II, because of I.K.’s outstanding achievements, wants I.K. to become his successor (Ibid. P. 186); the patriarch praises his unsurpassed piety (Ibid. P. 318, 319); in battles, I.K. invariably finds himself in dangerous situations and is saved only thanks to personal courage (Ibid. P. 207, 353; Vol. 2. P. 430, 431); he invariably expresses his thoughts in brilliant speech, and his advice always turns out to be the best and decisive in political and military crises (Ibid. Vol. 1. P. 252, 253, 273, 274, 350, 352; although Nikifor Grigora notes that I.K. had poor diction - Niceph. Greg. Hist. Vol. 2. P. 755); the author endures his nervous fever with unparalleled courage (Cantacus. Hist. Vol. 3. P. 67, 68); after an unsuccessful attempt on his life, he generously forgives the killer (Ibid. Vol. 2. P. 377, 379); from his own funds he pays for the troops of young Andronicus (Ibid. Vol. 1. P. 137); builds a fleet with his own money and is always ready to donate personal property for the public good (Ibid. Vol. 2. P. 68). During the night assault on the capital in 1328, the ladder that John Paleologus used to climb the wall broke, and only I.K.’s ladder survived, which ensured the success of the whole affair (Ibid. Vol. 1. P. 303).

In addition, Nikifor Grigora’s “History of the Romans” served as a kind of challenge to I.K., encouraging him to present an alternative view of modern history. events. At the beginning of the 1st book, without naming names, I.K. talks about those historians who do not love the truth and do not have sufficient knowledge (Ibid. P. 12). I.K.’s favorite means of creating an imaginary “objectivity” of presentation is an appeal to the “common sense” of the reader (Hunger. Literatur). Naturally, everyone who shared the views of I.K. is classified by them as “sensible” or “very sane.” Of course, I.K. manipulates not only words, but also silence about inconvenient facts. Nowhere did he mention the unworthy behavior of Andronikos III, did not mention the sad fate of Andronikos II, the Sirgian conspiracy, the details of which were undoubtedly known to him, he did not say a word about the capture of Nicaea and Nicomedia by the Turks, as well as about many others. other facts that would make the reader doubt the author’s sincerity.

In addition to personal memories, I.K.’s “History” contains citations of the most valuable documents and letters that have not reached us, among which, for example, a letter from the inhabitants of Didymotichos to Alexei Apokavkos from 1342, Chrisovul about the appointment of John Angelos as ruler of Thessaly (1342) , letter from Sultan Nasreddin Hassan to I.K. Naturally, due to his high position, I.K. was a participant in many. political negotiations and private conversations at the highest level, the content of which he preserved in his work. The method of using the ancient heritage in I.K.’s “History” (despite Nicephorus Gregoras’ skepticism, he knew Thucydides perfectly) has been little studied. According to H. Hunger (Hunger. 1976; Idem. Literatur), I.K. deliberately used the stylization of his presentation “like Thucydides” in suitable cases (description of the plague, the beginning of the civil war between the “demos” and “aristocrats”, the spread revolutions by changing the consciousness of the people through the manipulation of words, etc.). These allusions to Thucydides were easily recognized by every educated Byzantine, although I.K. significantly adapted the text of the ancient classic to depict the events of his time.

I.K. is forced to defend himself from 2 serious accusations brought against him by his contemporaries: from accusations of usurpation of power because of his exorbitant ambition (a similar work was written in the 13th century by Emperor Michael VIII Paleologus), as well as from accusations of using tour . military aid that ruined the country. Denying the accusation of ambition, I.K. extols his high moral qualities: moderation and restraint, manifested in his repeated refusal of the imp. crown (Cantacus. Hist. Vol. 1. P. 365, 368, 557; Vol. 2. P. 78, 610; Vol. 3. P. 308). I.K. dedicated his property and his very life to serving the “common cause” - the restoration of the greatness of Byzantium, and his defeat in this field is perceived by him as a great tragedy. A.P. Kazhdan (Kazhdan. 1980) notes that I.K. is the first to introduce Byzantine. literary “poetics of heroic defeat”, portraying himself as a “tragic hero” of the historical process. Emphasizing his peacefulness and gentleness, I.K. indicates that it was his opponents who forced him to armed struggle (Cantacus. Hist. Vol. 1. P. 160, 221; Vol. 3. P. 35, 261). The main motives for the actions of I.K.’s opponents are “envy” and “slander.” It is “envy” that is the main reason for the war between the Palaiologos and Cantacuzenes (Ibid. Vol. 2. P. 12, 386). Reporting in detail about the manipulation of the opinion of the synod and fraud during the election of his protege John Kalecki to the Patriarchal throne (Ibid. Vol. 1. P. 431), about the development of an insidious plan to kill a relative of Sirgian (Ibid. P. 452), I.K. issues these immoral facts for the manifestation of diplomatic art. V. Parisot (Parisot. 1845) believes that he did not quite understand the essence of his actions; Hunger (Hunger. Literatur) believes that we are talking about Hellenic political culture, about the love of “agon” and election manipulations.

Imbued with Byzantium. imp. ideology, I.K. emphasizes the advantage of imp. power over other forms of government (Cantacus. Hist. Vol. 1. P. 195); devotes a lot of space to describing the intricacies of court ceremonial. His depiction of the coronation of Andronikos III in 1325 coincides in many ways. parts describing coronation rituals in the treatise of Pseudo-Codin (Ps.-Codin. De offic.); it is assumed that both authors used some unsurvived document imp. office. The greetings of foreign ambassadors to the emperor are reproduced verbatim. The official ceremony is conveyed in detail. meeting between two emperors (Andronikos II and his grandson), the funeral ceremony for Andronikos III, which I.K. arranged at his own expense, is described in detail.

I.K.’s work contains a large number of remarkable facts and scenes, which are introduced for the reader’s entertainment and edification. In the description of the plague epidemic in Byzantium (Cantacus. Hist. Vol. 2. P. 49-52), the author imitates Thucydides, but unlike the ancient author gives a moral assessment of the disaster, which is an “admonition” sent by God to man (Hunger. 1976; Miller. 1976). I.K. describes in detail the destruction of a certain fortification by fire, the miraculous healing of Andronikos III, the cruelty of the zealots in Thessalonica, the collapse of the dome of St. Sophia in K-pol in 1346, a huge siege engine near Philippopolis, painful suffering in the prison of his mother, political Byzantine intrigue and corruption. yard True, I.K. does not give lit. portraits of contemporaries, limiting oneself to reporting their individual characteristic features, according to which the reader must imagine the personality (Hunger. Literatur). Hunger notes that I.K. most likely did not believe in dreams and premonitions (the dream of Matthew Cantacuzenus described by him remains without any consequences for the course of further events). As a true Byzantine, I.K. believed in Divine Providence, which guides not only nations, but also individuals, helps them on the battlefield and in politics, saves their favorites from danger, to which he counts himself.

Despite the subjectivity, the historical work of I.K. provides completely reliable information about the historical situation of that time, about the foreign and domestic policies of the Byzantine Empire. government during the era of civil wars.

Lit.: PLP, N 10973; Parisot V. Cantacuzène: homme d"état et historien où examen critique comparatif des mémoire de l"empereur Jean Cantacuzène. P., 1845; Krumbacher. Geschichte. S. 298-300; Dr ä seke J. Kantakuzenos" Urteil über Gregoras // BZ. 1901. Bd. 10. S. 106-127; Dölger F. Johannes VI Kantakuzenos als dynastischer Legitimist // SK. 1938. T. 10. P. 19- 30; Guilland R. Le grand domesticat à Byzance // EO. 1938. Vol. 37. P. 53-64; Politis L. Jean-Joasaph Cantacuzène fut-il copiste? // RÉB. 1956. T. 14. P. 195-199; Meyendorff J. Introduction à l "étude de Grégoire Palamas. P., 1959; Ostrogorsky. Geschichte. 1963. S. 412-445; Loenertz R.-J. Ordre et désordre dans les Mémoires de Jean Cantacuzène // RÉB. 1964. T. 22. P. 222-237; Werner E. Johannes Kantakuzenos, Umur Paša und Orhan // BSl. 1965. T. 26. N 2. P. 255-276; idem. Die Geburt einer Grossmacht: Die Osmanen (1300-1481). B., 1966. S. 120-138; Litavrin G.G. Internecine struggle in Byzantium and the neighbors of the empire (1320-1341) // History of Byzantium. M., 1967. T. 3. P. 123-134; aka. Byzantium during the civil war and the Zealot movement (1341-1355) // Ibid. pp. 135-160; Nicol D. M. The Abdication of John VI Cantacuzene // ByzF. 1967. Bd. 2. S. 269-283; idem. The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzeni), ca. 1100-1460. Wash., 1968; idem. A Paraphrase of the Nicomachean Ethics attributed to the Emperor John VI Cantacuzene // BSl. 1968. T. 29. P. 1-16; idem. The Doctor-Philosopher John Comnen of Bucharest and his Biography of the Emperor John Kantakuzenos // RESEE. 1971. Vol. 9. P. 511-526; Schmalzbauer G. Prosopographie zum Geschichtswerk des Johannes Kantakuzenos: Diss. W., 1967; Frances E. Quelques aspects de la politique de Jean Cantacuzène // RSBN. N. S. 1968. T. 5. P. 167-176; Lutrell A. John Cantacuzenus and the Catalans, 1352-1354 // Martinez Ferraro, archivero. Barcelona, ​​1968. P. 265-277; Prokhorov G. M. Journalism of John Cantacuzene 1367-1371. // BB. 1969. T. 29. P. 318-341; aka. Rus' and Byzantium in the era of the Battle of Kulikovo: The Tale of Mityai. St. Petersburg, 2000. P. 37-38; aka. Hesychasm and social thought in Eastern Europe in the 14th century. // Rus' and Byzantium in the era of the Battle of Kulikovo: Articles. St. Petersburg, 2000. pp. 17-22; Weiss G. Johannes Kantakuzenos - Aristokrat, Staatsmann, Kaiser und Mönch in der Gesellschaftsentwicklung von Byzanz im 14. Jh. Wiesbaden, 1969; Matschke K.-P. Fortschritt und Reaktion in Byzanz im 14. Jh.: Konstantinopel in der Bürgerkriegsperiode von 1341 bis 1354. B., 1971; idem. Johannes Kantakuzenos, Alexios Apokaukos und die byzantinische Flotte in der Bürgerkriegsperiode, 1341-1355 // Actes du XIVe congrès intern. des études byzantines. Bucur., 1974. Vol. 2. P. 193-205; Voordeckers E. La “Vie de Jean Cantacuzène” par Jean-Hierothée Comnène // JÖB. 1971. Bd. 20. S. 163-169; idem. Un empereur Palamite à Mistra en 1370 // RESEE. 1971. Vol. 9. P. 607-615; Kyrris C. John VI. Cantacuzenus, the Genoese, the Venetians and the Catalans // Βυζαντινά. 1972. T. 4. Σ. 331-356; Failler A. La deposition du patriarche Calliste I (1353): Edition d "une Apologie avec traduction et commentaire // RÉB. 1973. T. 31. P. 5-163; Teoteoi T. La conception de Jean VI Cantacuzène sur l" état byzantin vue principalement à la lumière de son Histoire // RESEE. 1975. Vol. 13. P. 166-185; Fatouros G. Textkritische Beobachtungen zu Johannes Kantakuzenos // BSl. 1976. T. 37. P. 191-193; Hunger H. Thukydides bei Johannes Kantakuzenos: Beobachtungen zur Mimesis // JÖB. 1976. Bd. 25. S. 181-193; idem. Literatur. Bd. 1. S. 465-476; Bd. 2. S. 497; Miller T. S. The Plague in John VI Cantacuzenus and Thucydides // GRBS. 1976. Vol. 17. P. 385-395; Vries-Van der Velden E. A propos d"une lettre inexistante de Jean VI Cantacuzène // Byz. 1976. T. 46. P. 330-353; idem. L"élite byzantine devant l"avance turque a l"époque de la guerre civile de 1341a 1354. Amst., 1989. P. 117-147, 162-167, 293; Polyakovskaya M. A. Dimitri Kydonis and John Kantakouzin // VV. 1980. T. 41. P. 173-182; Kazhdan A. P. L "Histoire de Cantacuzène en tant qu"œuvre littéraire // Byz. 1980. T. 50. P. 279-335; Gill J. John VII Cantacuzenus and the Turks // Βυζαντινά. 1985. T. 13/1. Σ. 56-76; Beyer H.-V. Der Streit um Wesen und Energie und ein spätbyzantinische Liedermacher // JÖB. 1986. S. 255-282; Tinnefeld F. H. Idealizing Self-Centered Power Politics in the Memoirs of Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos // ΤΟ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟΝ: Studies in Honor of Sp. Vryonis. New Rochelle (N.Y.), 1993. Vol. 1. P. 397-415.

S. Ya. Gagen

Theological works

The study of I.K.’s theological heritage noticeably lags behind the study of him as a historical and political figure and represents one of the urgent tasks of the late Byzantines. patrolology. The main body of I.K.’s theological texts was written with the aim of protecting and popularizing the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas. In addition, I.K.’s independent development of anti-Islam deserves special evaluation. polemics, as well as a certain revision of the Palamite teaching in correspondence with the legate.

I.K.’s theological works can be classified as genre dogmatic-polemical. The most important of them are 2 series of anti-Islam. treatises, 2 “Refutations (Anti-ritiques) of Prochorus Kydonis” and “Dialogue with the Jew Xenus” in 9 Words.

I. Anti-Islam. I.K.’s treatises are divided into 2 series of 4 treatises each. The 1st series is called “Four Apologies in Defense of the Christian Religion against the Mohammedan Sect” (PG. 154. Col. 371-584), the 2nd - “Four Speeches against Mohammed” (Ibid. Col. 584-692). Both series are connected by a single concept.

In the 1st series of treatises, I.K. tried to answer the main questions that Muslims have when meeting Christ. dogmas: how can one worship the three Divine Persons - Father, Mother and Son? (Ibid. Col. 376); how can God have a Son without a wife? (cf.: Σωτηρόπουλος. 1983. Σ. 75. 214-216); if God has a Son, then there must be division between Them (σχίσμα); how and in what way is it possible for God to become a man?; “Why didn’t Christ save man with one word, if He is God?”; why Christ suffered, being God, “for God is not subject to suffering” (PG. 154. Col. 376-377).

In the 2nd series, the subject of presentation is mainly the personality of Muhammad and the moral law established by him. The sharp critical tone of the 2nd series of treatises, which was written later than the 1st, differs markedly from the restrained and moderate tone of the 1st series. The time of writing of both series (between 1360 and 1370/73) is determined due to the clear indication of the author (“1360 years have passed since the Crucifixion of the Lord” - Ibid. Col. 389) and the dating of the oldest manuscripts of the treatises: Vat. gr. 686 (1373) and Paris. gr. 1242 (1370/75), as well as Tigurinus C 27 (1374) (Todt. 2001. P. 101).

According to K. P. Todt, I. K.'s goal was to write “a reference manual for bishops, priests and monks,” as well as for all the faithful who lived in the territories conquered by the Turks and were subjected to varying degrees of forced Islamization (Ibidem).

II. “Dialogue with the Jew Xenus” in 9 Words (Σωτηρόπουλος. 1983), created approximately between 1361 and 1373. (the time of writing the oldest RKP. Vat. gr. 686; see: Prokhorov. 1997. P. 37; Todt. 1991. P. 123), i.e. in the same years as 2 series of anti-Islam. Words The dialogue is a traditional one. in spirit, a manual on the typological interpretation of the OT (Todt. 1991. S. 126) and at the same time on the Orthodox-Jewish polemic (Prokhorov. 1997. P. 33-35). E. Voordeckers, who studied the text of the “Dialogue,” considers it possible for Xenus to convert to Christianity (see: Todt. 1991. S. 132). In the manuscript Ath. Vatop. 346 (XIV-XV centuries) the text of the dialogue is placed after anti-Islam. treatises by I.K. (Prokhorov. 1997. pp. 38-39).

In the 1st Word, having stated that the world is supported by Divine love and providence (Σωτηρόπουλος. 1983. Σ. 71. 69-89), I. K. puts forward fidelity to the words of the prophets and faith in the miracles of Christ as criteria for the truth of further reasoning (Ibid Σ. 76. 227 - 77. 254).

From the 2nd Word the presentation of the main arguments begins: like Adam in the Fall, the Jews “did not maintain the true faith” (Ibid. Σ. 79. 31-38). God established (διέθετο) the law for the purpose of saving the Jews (Ibid. Σ. 81. 91-97). However, the law is transitory, for the prophets clearly predict the New Testament (Isa. 2.3; Jer. 31.31-34; Σωτηρόπουλος. 1983. Σ. 84.208 - 86.244). The gospel and the law are related to each other; between them one can see “complete harmony (ἐμμέλειαν) and agreement... The Law can be called an incomplete Gospel, and the Gospel a complete and complete Law” (Ibid. Σ. 86. 251-259). In comparison with the Gospel, the law appears as a prototype and only a partial manifestation of the Truth: “For the Law contained in itself, as it were, a shadow (Heb. 10.1) and unclear images (τύπους) of what Christ and the Gospel subsequently revealed” (Σωτηρόπουλος. 1983. Σ 86. 268-269).

The 3rd Word opens with the theme of the Church as the New Israel, since the old Israel has lost faith (Ibid. Σ. 109. 24-43; cf. Iust. Martyr. Dial. 11). Traditionally, for anti-Jewish polemics, the emphasis is on the Trinitarian interpretation of Gen. 1. 26 (Σωτηρόπουλος. 1983. Σ. 118. 317 - 119. 333). The mystery of the Incarnation “preceding all centuries of the Divine plan... began to be revealed in prototypes, beginning with the creation of Adam” to the fathers and prophets (Ibid. Σ. 124-125).

Words 4 and 5 are devoted to proving the Deity of Christ. By the power of Christ, the apostles conquered the world, spreading the teachings of Christ everywhere (Ibid. Σ. 128.44 - 130.108); Who else among the dead, besides Christ, had a body that did not know decay, which the psalmist predicted (Ps 15.10) (Σωτηρόπουλος. 1983. Σ. 134. 205-213). On the issue of the appearance of Christ to Abraham, I.K. continues a tradition that has been stable since the first centuries of Christianity, according to which one of the 3 angels who appeared to Abraham is the Son of God (this tradition is presented by St. Justin the Philosopher (Iust. Martyr. Dial. 56), St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and in the Latin West - Novatian (“2nd type of interpretation”, according to L. Thunberg; see: Thunberg. 1966. P. 563-565)).

The 5th Word is an exegetical treatise dedicated to the explanation of Ps 71 (see: Σωτηρόπουλος. 1983. Σ. 149-156). As H. Sotiropoulos notes, in the Christological interpretation of this psalm I.K. follows Theodoret, bishop. Kirsky (Theodoret. Interpr. in Ps. 71 // PG. 80. Col. 1429 sqq.). Thus, Ps 71.5 indicates the co-origin of God the Father and God the Son; Ps 71.6 - on the Incarnation; Ps 71. 12 - for the redemption of the human race by Christ (Σωτηρόπουλος. 1983. Σ. 150. 73-75; 151. 83-90; 153. 163-166).

Starting from the 6th Word, I.K. begins a detailed analysis of the Old Testament proclamations and omens of New Testament events, as well as Old Testament indications of the Holy Trinity. Thus, Isaiah 11.1 points to the Nativity of the Lord Jesus Christ (“colors”) from the Virgin Mary (“branches”) (Ibid. Σ. 161. 136-139; cf.: Ioan. Damasc. In Nativ. B. V. M.). The remainder of the Word is occupied by a lengthy interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 due to the importance of this verse for understanding the economy of Christ as a whole (Σωτηρόπουλος. 1983. Σ. 167. 306 -173. 458).

In the 7th Word, I.K. interprets a number of verses from the Psalter and prophetic books, pointing to the mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God, among them: Ps 84.11; Hab 3.3; Isa 28. 16. I. K. also touches on the topic of prototypes of the Cross of the Lord: Jacob’s blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen. 48. 14; Σωτηρόπουλος. 1983. Σ. 200. 703-707), stretching out of hands by Moses in the battle with Amalek (Ex. 17 11-16; Σωτηρόπουλος. 1983. Σ. 201. 728-730), Feast of Tabernacles (Deut. 16. 16; 31. 10; Σωτηρόπουλος. 1983. Σ. 201. 736-740).

The 8th Word continues the interpretation of the Christological passages of the OT (Ibid. Σ. 215-246). A number of verses from the Psalter and prophetic books predict the Savior’s way of the cross to Golgotha ​​and the Crucifixion: for example, Isa 53.7-8 (Ibid. Σ. 221.346 - 228.518). Particularly notable is the interpretation of the image of the pious thief (Luke 23.40-42; see: Σωτηρόπουλος. 1983. Σ. 229. 549 - 233. 642). His repentance is greater than the repentance of a publican or a harlot: after all, the publican had deep faith in God, the woman saw the miracles of Christ, and the reason for the thief’s repentance was “the correction (τὸ κατόρθωμα) of his soul in its purest form” (Ibid. Σ. 230. 559- 561) and the belief that the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world (Ibid. Σ. 231. 582-586). This faith is even greater than that of the apostles before Pentecost, with the exception of the faith of St. John the Theologian (Ibid. Σ. 231. 601-610).

I.K. collected a number of passages from the Old Testament, covertly pointing to the resurrection of Christ: Is 42.6; 45. 2-3; Ps 9.7; 15.10; 43.24, 27; 81. 8 and others (Σωτηρόπουλος. 1983. Σ. 236. 736 - 237. 755). He also gives rational arguments in favor of the truth of the Resurrection (Ibid. Σ. 239.815 - 243.915). So, if Christ had not been resurrected, why would the apostles begin to endure much suffering for Him? (Ibid. Σ. 242. 882-884). Finally, a number of psalms speak about the ascension of Christ: Ps 23. 7-10; 46.6; 107. 4-6 (see: Σωτηρόπουλος. 1983. Σ. 244. 940 - 245. 977).

The 10th Word opens with indications of the Old Testament prophecies about the apostles: Ps 18.4-5 and others (Σωτηρόπουλος. 1983. Σ. 247.5 - 249.71), as well as about the persecution and persecution of Christians by the Jews. The Jews were abandoned by God “for their insolence towards Christ” (Ibid. Σ. 251. 105-106), and God’s wrath against them will last “until the coming of the Antichrist” (Ibid. Σ. 252. 140-141; 254. 189-190 ).

III. “Tomos issued by Patriarch John and the council against the perverse opinion of Varlaam, compiled by the monk Christodoulus” (publication of the fragment: PG. 154. Col. 694-710). Full title: “Words of refutation (antirritics), composed by the monk Christodoulos...” (Ibid. Col. 700-701). This is the most important treatise by I.K. in defense of the theology of St. Gregory Palamas (Todt. 1991. S. 117). In fact, these are fragments of the essay “Against John Cyparissiot” by I.K. (see: IAB. P. 364), dedicated to the refutation of the main work of this anti-Palamite thinker - “Palamite Crimes” (books I 1 and I 4 publ.: PG 152. Col. 663-738; the 2nd book is devoted to the refutation of the cathedral tomos of 1351 - Todt. 1991. S. 115; see also there for the contents of the remaining books). According to V. Dendakis, the time of creation of the treatise of John Kyparissiot is 1359 - after 1363; Accordingly, Todt proposes to date I.K.’s work to the time “soon after 1365.” (Ibid. S. 115-116). The published fragment includes a historical preface (PG. 154. Col. 694-699), signatures of bishops (Ibid. Col. 699-700) and beginning chapters (Ibid. Col. 700-710). When working on “Antirritics,” I.K. relied on the works of St. Nikephoros, Patriarch of Poland, dedicated to the refutation of the iconoclasts and preserved in the Paris manuscript. gr. 910 (Todt. 1991. S. 116).

The historical introduction of the “Tomos...” reveals the role of Barlaam of Calabria at the beginning of the hesychast disputes. Varlaam is a fan of “external,” Hellenic wisdom, which led him away from Orthodoxy (PG. 154. Col. 695). His knowledge of hesychasm is far from perfect, since he asked an inexperienced novice monk about hesychast (Ibid. Col. 696), after which Barlaam began to ridicule the hesychasts, calling them Messalians (Ibid. Col. 697). One of the anti-Palamite opinions refuted by I.K. was the accusation of St. Gregory Palamas in idolatry, “mental iconoclasm” and Messalianism (Ibid. Col. 705), which is consistent with the known fact of Varlaam’s compilation of the treatise “Against the Messalians” (i.e., hesychasts), which was burned by decision of the June Council of 1341. Researchers recognize the importance historical section of “Antirritics” (see: Todt. 1991. S. 116).

IV. Two “Refutations” by Prochorus Kydonis (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 3-172), written in 1367-1369/70. (PLP, N 10973; Prokhorov. 1997. P. 22), preserved in 11 manuscripts, including the illustrated manuscript Paris. gr. 1242 (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. XLV-LXXI; Prokhorov. 1997. P. 18-22; about this rkp. see: Guran. 20017 P. 73-121). After “Antirritiki” this is the most extensive work of I.K., aimed at defending the theology of St. Gregory Palamas (Todt. 1991. S. 117). The 1st “Refutation” was written after the expulsion of Prochorus from the Great Lavra of St. Athanasius on Mount Athos in the summer of 1367 (Ibid. 1991. S. 118) and, according to the publishers, “undoubtedly” it was completed before the Polish Council in April. 1368, Crimea was anathematized by Prokhor Kydonis and canonized by St. Gregory Palamas (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. XV-XVI; see critical edition of the tomos of the Council: Rigo. 2004. P. 99-134). In “Antirritiki” I.K. refutes the treatises of Prochorus Kydonis “On Essence and Action” (books 1-2 with erroneous attribution to Akindinus, ed.: PG. 151. Col. 1192-1241; ed. book. 6: Candal. 1954) and “Refutation of the cathedral tomos of 1351” (not ed.). The 2nd treatise contains excerpts from the unsurvived treatises of Prokhor (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. XXIX-XXXII; Todt. 1991. S. 118-119).

Both treatises were written ca. 1367 (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. XV). I. K. sets as his goal the conversion of Prokhor to Palamism (Todt. 1991. S. 118), as indicated by the rather calm tone of the treatises. They were created with broad sections of the church community in mind; the text was sent, according to the testimony of Demetrius Kidonis, to Cyprus, Crete, Palestine, Egypt, Trebizond, etc. (Mercati. 1931. P. 339-340). The “Refutations” were actively rewritten immediately after they were written and sent to various parts of the empire after the Polish Council of 1368. At least 5 manuscripts of the “Refutations” were rewritten by Manuel Tsikandilis in 1369-1370. (Mondrain. 2004. P. 253-254).

In the 1st “Refutation” (see: Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 3-105; Russian translation of the preface see: Prokhorov. 1997. P. 292-295; 1st ed. preface on the RKP. State Historical Museum Syn. No. 233 see: Same. 1969. pp. 334-335) I.K. touches, in addition to the topic of the uncreatedness of the Tabor light, issues of epistemology, the relationship between reason and faith, Christology and angelology. In the preface, I.K. touches on the history of hesychast disputes and lists the main anti-Palamites (in chronological order): Barlaam of Calabria, Gregory Akindinus, Nicephorus Grigora and certain people who also expressed “blasphemous words about the Light of God,” i.e., statements about its creatureliness (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 5. 20; allusion to Prochorus Kydonis). I.K. calls St. the defenders of Orthodoxy. Gregory Palamas and the Patriarchs of the K-Polish saints Callistus I and Philotheus Kokkin (Ibid. P. 3. 11-12; 4. 14 - 5. 16; 5. 23-24, 35-28).

The 2nd “Refutation” (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 109-172) is devoted to the refutation of 14 theses of Prochorus Kydonis about the identity of essence and energy in God; compiled immediately after the Council of 1368. However, these theses are not found in Prokhor’s published works and, perhaps, go back to a draft or manuscript destroyed in the light of the Council’s decisions (Ibid. P. XVII). The main theme of the treatise is the difference between the Divine essence and Divine energy (Ibid. P. 168. 6-7; cf.: Ibid. P. 193. 2-5, 194. 2 - 195. 9). God is known by energy, which, based on (ἐξ) essence (Ibid. P. 177. 42-43, 201. 54-55), is divided, according to the Apostle (1 Cor. 12), so that each of the members of the Church is given his own gift (χάρισμα) (Ibid. P. 133. 35-40; cf.: Ibid. P. 135. 50 - 136. 55) and “the energy of the All-Holy Spirit” (Ibid. P. 134. 69).

Essence differs from energy in that the first does not allow communion to itself, while the second does (ἀμέθεκτον, μεθεκτόν); essence is “completely incomprehensible”, and energy is partially comprehensible (ἐκ μέρους ληπτόν) (Ibid. P. 142. 21-23). There are a number of parallels in the “Theological Rule” of Archbishop. St. Nila Kavasila (1351 or a little later; see: Kislas. 1998. P. 66, 75): “... the essence of God does not allow communion (ἀμέθεκτον), while the energy of God allows communion for itself (μεθεκτόν)” (ap. Candal Argiro, 1957, p. 248, 11; compare: p. 250, 7); “...various types of unity prevail over differences and precede them” (Ibid. P. 256. 15). If we take into account that St. Neil Kavasila was one of the authors of the cathedral tomos of 1351 (Kislas. 1998. P. 25, 48-49), one can more fully imagine the influence of St. Nile on I.K. Thus, the teaching of I.K. about the difference between the natural and hypostatic properties of the Holy Trinity (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 142. 26-30), in addition to the fact that it follows the main line of development of Orthodoxy. triadology, starting with the Council of Alexandria in 362, most likely focuses on the “Anti-Latin Words” of St. Gregory Palamas (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 1. Σ. 44) and “Theological Rule” of St. Nile (Candal. Argiro. 1957. P. 252. 17-22).

The most important idea, which I.K. apparently borrows from the archbishop. Nile Kavasila, is that unity in God “is seen in reality itself (πράϒματι θεωρούμενον)”, and “divine distinction (διάκρισις) and difference (διαφορά) ... mentally (κατ᾿ ἐπίνοιαν)" (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987 P. 142. 39-43; cf.: Ibid. P. 188. 15 (ἐπίνοιᾳ); 196. 17-21, 232. 58). Compare, however, the idea that the distinction between essence and energy really exists in God (Ibid. P. 232. 60-62). Wed. at St. Nila: “...essence and energy are not identical to each other; but the distinction (διάκρισις) between them is mental (ἐπινοίᾳ), and the unity is real (πραγματική) and inseparable” (ap. Candal. Argiro. 1957. P. 254. 28 - 256. 1; cf.: Ibid. P. 2 56. 13-14).

The will of God is also His energy, otherwise creations would be consubstantial and coeternal with the Creator (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 142. 43-45; 143. 55-62). The volitional principle in God is His essence, volition is the energy of God, and creations are products (ἀποτελέσματα) of energy (Ibid. P. 143. 61-63; cf.: Greg. Pal. Triad. III 3. 7 // ΓΠΣ. Τ 1. Σ. 685. 21-22).

At the end of the “Refutation,” I.K., calling on his opponent to be philological and dogmatic in precision (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 171. 50-55), lists theological authorities, especially highlighting the epistles of St. Basil the Great and “Disputation with Pyrrhus” by St. Maximus the Confessor (Ibid. P. 172. 85-89; 143. 2 - 145. 59). It is noteworthy that the same treatise was given to Prokhor Kydonis to read for enlightenment by the K-Polish Patriarch Philotheus Kokkin (Rigo. 2004. P. 114. 425-426).

V. “Dispute with the Latin Patriarch [of Constantinople] Paul” in 7 letters (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 175-239; Russian translation of the preface see: Prokhorov. 1997. P. 296). Paul of Calabria, titular Catholic since 1366. Patriarch of K-Poland and representative of Pope Urban V (about Paul, see: Meyendorff. 1960. P. 152-153; He. 1997. P. 154-157), in 1367 he took part in negotiations with I.K. on the issue of convening an Ecumenical Council; the results of the negotiations were reflected in the “Conversation with Legate Paul” written by I.K. Returning to K-pol on Sept. 1368 after an embassy to Italy (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. XIX-XX), Paul inquired from I.K. whether what the Anti-Palamites were saying about the Orthodox was true or not. In response, I.K., as he writes in the preface, invited Paul to the palace, where, during long conversations, he opened his eyes to the fallacy of the dogmatic views of the anti-Palamites, as well as to the methods they used to combat their opponents (for example, damage to patristic texts) ( Ibid. P. 175. 7-20). This happened after writing 2 “Refutations” (Ibid. P. XXI). I.K.’s first letter was sent to Pavel with a trusted notary, after which the anti-Palamites spread a rumor that I.K. was not a Palamite at all, but was only pretending to be a Palamite in order to attract Pavel to their side. I.K. refutes these accusations in the 2nd letter. Meanwhile, Paul writes a letter to I.K., asking 2 main questions: are those who have and are possessed identical in God? Is everything that differs in reality (τὸ πράγματι) also different in thinking (ἐπινοίᾳ)? (Ibid. P. 190). I.K. responds to this letter and to further rumors in the 3rd letter. The 4th and 5th letters are detailed treatises on the nature of the Tabor light and its contemplation with transfigured eyes. Probably, Pavel, having never received the 4th letter (it might not have been sent for various reasons), wrote a 2nd letter, to which I.K. responded with the 5th letter. Thus, letters 4 and 5 echo each other, as evidenced by the repeated long quotations in both letters, for example. from the homily “On the Transfiguration of the Lord” by St. John of Damascus (see: Ibid. P. 206. 2 - 208. 106, 220. 2 - 221. 44; Ibid. P. XXI-XXII).

VI. “Conversation with Legate Paul” (Meyendorff. 1960; Russian translation: Prokhorov. 1997. pp. 44-58). Negotiations between I.K. and Legate Paul about the union took place in the Blachernae Palace with the participation of John V, his children, the highest dignitaries and clergy. I. K. insisted that the question of union could be canonically resolved only by convening an Ecumenical Council, “at which the bishops under the authority of the ecumenical patriarch would gather in Constantinople” (Meyendorff. 1960. P. 173. 127-129) , both Greek and other Orthodox. countries: the Metropolitan of Russia “with several of his bishops”, the Metropolitans of Trebizond, Alania, Zikhia (a region in the Northern Black Sea region, in the Abkhazia region), the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, the Catholicos of Iveria, the Patriarch of Tarnova (Bulgaria) and the Archbishop of Serbia, as well as representatives of the pope, according to ancient order and custom. Otherwise, an even worse schism between the Churches will begin, because already now, he noted, the Latins are rebaptizing those who convert from Orthodoxy; but there is no second baptism, therefore such people lose the Church and God. At the same time, there is nothing worse than schism, since “he who wants to split the Church splits the very Body of the Lord and is himself the one who crucified the Lord and pierced His side with a spear” (Ibid. P. 171. 70-72). In this regard, I.K. continues the main line of patristic ecclesiology, starting with the apostolic men, apologists, and saints. Irenaeus of Lyon and Sschmch. Cyprian of Carthage, at the turn of the XIII and XIV centuries. represented, in particular, by 2 Words against the Arsenites of St. Theoliptus of Philadelphia.

I.K. seeks to prevent a repetition of what happened under the tyranny of Michael VIII Palaiologos (Ibid. P. 173. 161 - 174. 171). In response, Paul compares I.K. to a spit, on which everyone hangs like pieces of meat (Ibid. P. 174. 172-175). I.K. indicates that Orthodox. The Church does not depend on secular rulers and in recent years local Councils have met three times (i.e., the Palamite Councils of 1341, 1347 and 1351) (Ibid. P. 174. 189-195). I.K. ironically declares his readiness, for the sake of the reunification of the Churches, to go on foot to the pope and kiss not only his “foot”, but also “the ground on which he walks” (Ibid. P. 176. 258-260). In response to the promise of military assistance and gifts (the legate says that the pope will give the emperor his ring) if the “fair and good” will of the pope is fulfilled, I.K. expresses doubts about the benefit of such a step (Ibid. P. 176. 267- 270): if the pope adheres to the true dogmas, “we will accept them on our own without any help or gifts” (Ibid. P. 176. 271-274). I.K. expresses the hope that the upcoming Council will be similar to the ancient Ecumenical Councils (Ibid. P. 177. 311-313).

As a result of the negotiations, the parties agreed that the Council would take place in K-Pole between the beginning. June 1367 onwards May 1369 (Ibid. P. 177). Patriarch Philotheus immediately sent out invitations to this Council (Prokhorov. 1997. P. 15-16), which was not destined to take place due to the negative attitude of Pope Urban V to the idea of ​​the Council (Meyendorff. 1960. P. 160-161).

VII. Letter from Bishop John to Cyprus (Darrouz ès. 1959), written in 1371 (Prokhorov. 1997. P. 316), contains a brief historical background on the development of the anti-Palamite heresy and the struggle against it by the Orthodox. Church, as well as a listing of 19 theses, of which the anti-Palamites accuse the hesychasts (Darrouz et s. 1959. P. 15-21). A number of theses of this letter (theses 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 18) were published and translated into Lat. language of M. Jugie (Jugie. 1933. T. 2. P. 115-116; Russian translation: Prokhorov. 1997. P. 297-306; 1st publication: Same. 1969. P. 337-341) . The addressee is “the bishop of Karpasia, prohedron of Constantia and Amokhost (i.e. Famagusta. - Author)” (Darrouz et s. 1959. P. 15; Prokhorov. 1997. P. 297). The story about the activities of Varlaam and his condemnation at the June Council of 1341 is shorter than the “Tomos...”. The central role of Akindinus in the dogmatic struggle of heretics against the Orthodox Church is emphasized. Churches in 1341-1347 Among the later Antipalamites, bishops are mentioned. Arseny of Tire (about him, see: Polemis. 1993) and mon. Anfim Kaliva. Antipalamites call the Orthodox polytheists for the doctrine of the uncreatedness of both the essence and energy of God (cf. theses 1, 2, 4; theses 8 and 9 bring the doctrine of energies closer to the Gnostic doctrine of the eons as demigods). The Body of the Lord, taught in the Eucharist, seemed to sanctify the lower, immaterial Deity, and not the Deity that sanctified the Body of Christ on the Cross (thesis 15). God the Word was born from the Most Holy. Virgins are supernatural, and not according to the law of nature, as the Anti-Palamites slander (thesis 16).

Some debatability remains in I.K.’s answer to the 6th thesis (anti-Palamites accuse the Orthodox of teaching that the natural energy of God is visible - Prokhorov. 1997. P. 302). I.K. replies that natural energy “in itself does not represent anything” (Ibid.), that is, it is invisible and indistinguishable from the essence of God, thereby coming into conflict with the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas, set out in the Triads. It can be argued that by the turn of the 60s and 70s. XIV century I. K. is trying to carry out a certain moderate (and according to Jugie, radical, see: Jugie. 1933. T. 2. P. 116) revision of Palamism in the direction of making the teaching more conservative on the issue of energy.

VIII. “Against Isaac Argyre about the 7 Spirits.” The treatise is preserved in 4 manuscripts (Todt. 1991. S. 121-122). G. Mercati published the prologue of the treatise (Mercati. 1931. P. 274-275) based on the Paris manuscript. gr. 1242. Judging by the fact that in the inscription of the treatise (Paris. gr. 1242. L. 9 vol.) there is no addition, usual for the later works of I.K.: “in the divine and monastic form of the monk renamed Joasaph,” according to Mercati, the treatise was created before the abdication of I.K., i.e. in 1347-1354. (Ibid. P. 274). Nicephorus Gregory's student Isaac Argir reproached I.K. for considering the 7 spirits mentioned by Isaiah (Isaiah 11:2) to be uncreated. By participating in this grace, righteous people and angels directly commune with God. How can one teach in God about the highest and the lowest, about something that God possesses, and about God Himself as the possessor? - Argir asked. I.K. undertook to answer these questions in writing, without bringing anything of his own into the answer, but relying on the prophets, apostles and teachers of the Church. From the published prologue of the treatise, it becomes clear that I.K. understood the 7 spirits as 7 Divine energies. This understanding goes back to the ideas of St. Maximus the Confessor (Maximus Conf. Quaest. ad Thalas. 29), which in turn relied on 1 Cor. 12.13; Rome 12. 6-8, as well as on the works of Saints Gregory the Theologian and Cyril of Alexandria (T ö r ö nen. 2007. P. 145-148).

Unpublished treatises

The treatise “On the Light of Tabor” is addressed to Raul Paleologus (probably a relative of Manuel II (c. 1391-1425); it is possible that the addressee is identical to Manuel Raul, who sent I.K. 3 letters in 1355-1362) (Todt. 1991. S. 119-120). It is very likely that Raoul handed over the treatise to I.K. Isaac Argir, who wrote a refutation of it. This is indicated by the location of 2 treatises by I.K. (“Against Isaac Argir...” and “On the Light of Tabor”) in the manuscript Vat. gr. 1096. Fol. 65-148 (Ibid. S. 120).

I. K.’s treatises testify to the author’s fairly deep knowledge of the Palamite tradition, so that Jugie called him “theologiae palamiticae studiosissimus,” that is, “the most diligent in Palamite theology” (Jugie. 1933. T. 2. P. 115). I. K. is characterized by a desire to popularize the Palamite teaching; he tried to convey the content of this teaching to as many thinking people as possible in the Church (hence the wide dissemination of Prochorus Kydonis’s “Refutations”). At the same time, there was no less a threat to Orthodoxy in the Byzantine Empire of the 14th century, which was heading towards collapse. I.K. saw in Islam and Judaism. At the center of I.K.’s worldview is Christ; Christology occupies a significant place in his works. He also sets out the foundations of triadology, angelology and asceticism. The spiritual and typological exegesis of the Holy Spirit has a fairly high level. Scriptures in I.K. The development of the doctrine of the Tabor light towards greater conservatism follows from a comparison of the “Refutations” of Prochorus Kydonis and correspondence with legate Paul. In general, I.K.’s treatises were written in the spirit of fidelity to the Holy One. Scripture and Tradition of the Orthodox Church. The opinions and ideas of I.K. in the overwhelming majority of cases agree with Tradition. Written in simple and accessible language, I.K.’s works played a major role in the multifaceted apologetics of Orthodoxy in the face of external and internal threats.

The doctrine of the Tabor light as the energy of God

In the 1st "Refutation"

I. K. conveys anti-Palamite views on the nature of the Tabor light with the help of the concepts κτίσμα, παραπέτασμα, φάσμα (creature, veil, ghost) (Ibid. P. 8. 36-37, cf.: R. 38-39; R. 202. 26-27; 215. 21-22; 223. 16-17). All 3 terms are found in the tomos of the Polish Council of 1351 (PG. 151. Col. 726). With Orthodox same t.zr. this Light is uncreated and divine, “the beginningless Kingdom of God, the natural lordship (λαμπρότης) of God and the timeless ray of the Divine” (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 8. 39-43; cf. extracts from the homily “On the Transfiguration of the Lord” by St. John of Damascus in the final treatise of the florilegia: Ibid. P. 99. 13; 100. 35-36; 101. 69); Divinity (θεότης) and the natural property of the Holy Trinity (Ibid. P. 56-57; cf. R. 29), “the timeless glory of God, the eternal Light and the natural ray of God” (Ibid. P. 58. 11-12) , therefore, those who try to declare the Light of Tabor as a creature consider the Son of God to be a creature (Ibid. P. 58. 25-28; cf. R. 28. 1-29. 20, where this view is identified with the heresies of Origen and Eunomius) . The name “ray” means that this Light is not a creation of itself, and not the essence of God (as Prochorus Kydonis argued, see: Ibid. P. 50. 9-17; 51. 36-37), and not an angel (Ibid. P. 61. 36-39), but the origin of the essence (Ibid. P. 52. 36-46).

The light of Tabor is not the light emanating from the body of Adam assumed by Christ, that is, human nature without sin (Ibid. P. 79. 19-22). In a similar teaching, the antipalamite Isaac Argir accused the mentioned I.K. in this “Refutation” of Theodore Dexius, a student of Nikephoros Gregoras (Polemis. 1993. P. 247). At the same time, Argir himself shared the doctrine that the Tabor light is “that primitive and natural beauty with which the first man was created by God” (Candal. 1957. P. 100. 11-12). Probably I.K. meant Prokhor and Dexius, but it is possible that Argyra as well.

The Light of Tabor is the Light of the Hypostasis of Christ (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 79. 26-27), which became the Light of the Body of the Lord thanks to the unity of the Hypostasis of the God-Man (Ibid. P. 95. 11-15). The Lord glorified and enlightened His Body from the moment of conception and incarnation, but moderated the rays of this Light, revealing them only at the moment of Transfiguration (Ibid. P. 79. 27-34, 80. 11-14). After the Second Coming, Christ will not hide this eternal Light and will appear in all its splendor, when the righteous, having achieved a state of transformed physicality, cast off the current plumpness of the flesh (Ibid. P. 80. 14-26). The understanding of the Transfiguration as an indication of the glorified state of Christ and the righteous after the Second Coming is typical of Origen and patristic literature (McGuckin. 1986. P. 123-125).

The name “light” for the Tabor light is conditional, “since there is no object or name brighter than this name” (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 41. 21-22) and since He was seen in his entirety (ὅλως ὀφθῆναι) by the blessed, i.e. e. enlightened by the Holy Spirit, through the eyes of the apostles (Ibid. P. 41. 23-24); No one knows what He really is (Ibid. P. 41. 25-26). It is incomprehensible as a property of the nature of God (Ibid. P. 41. 27-30). The Apostles comprehended this Light thanks to Divine revelation (Ibid. P. 41. 25-27), incomprehensibly uniting with it (Ibid. P. 41. 31-32) and being transformed in “divine ecstasy” (θείαν ἠλλοιώθησαν ἔκστασιν ) (Ibid. P. 41. 35-36). To open spiritual eyes, it is appropriate to change by divine change (τὴν θείαν ἀλλοίωσιν) (Ibid. P. 48. 39; 75. 34-37; about the Palamite and earlier (St. Diadochos of Photikie) origins of this concept, see: Makarov. 2009. With 54, 56-57). Grace bestows “a certain divine feeling that surpasses the bodily and mental feelings” (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 81. 40-41; about the similar concept of “mental feeling” (νοερὰ αἴσθησις), used by St. Gregory Palamas in the 1st of “The Triad in Defense of the Sacredly Silent”, see: Sinkewicz. 1999, as well as in the article by Gregory Palamas, section “The Doctrine of the “Intelligent Sense””; cf.: PG. 151. Col. 428).

Tabor light is the energy of God. Energy is understood by I.K. in the spirit of St. Maximus the Confessor, St. John of Damascus, Gregory of Cyprus and St. Gregory Palamas (cf. reference to these fathers: Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 64. 12-15) as “an active and essential movement of nature” (Ibid. P. 60; on the history of the term “energy” cf. comment. in ed.: Fakrasis. 2009. pp. 62-66, 70-72, 74-78, 82-84, 96-100, 103-104, 107, 111; cf. Tomos of the Polish Council of 1351: PG. 151. Col. 732, 736). Thanks to the connection with the energy of God, it is possible for an angel or a person to achieve deification: “Such energy is capable of deifying the deified” (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 60. 7-8; 64. 15-16; cf.: Maximus Conf. Opusc. // PG. 91. Col. 33). Righteous people are deified and become saints (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 64. 16) thanks to the condescension of the Holy Spirit (Ibid. P. 64. 23-24), the perception of the radiance of God (Ibid. P. 67. 60-67) , the image of which is a burning tree or red-hot iron (soteriological use of Christological analogy: Ibid. P. 61. 12-19; ​​cf.: Ibid. P. 68. 79-89). Just as the plurality of rays does not violate the unity of the sun, so the plurality of energies does not threaten the simplicity of the essence of God (Ibid. P. 68).

The problem of unity and multiplicity of energies is solved by I.K. tradition. for followers of St. Gregory Palamas in the following way: on the one hand, only one of the Divine energies is “that which deifies and sanctifies angels and men” (Ibidem); on the other hand, the energy of God “in itself is one and indivisible, but it is divided in accordance with the dignity of the recipients” (Ibid. P. 70. 81 - 71. 82). In this I.K. follows the tomos of the Council of 1351: “[Essence and energy] differ from each other... in that the Divine energy participates and is divided inseparably...” (PG. 151. Col. 739). Energy, according to I. K., is the sacrament and participles (μετοχὴ κα μετοχαί), and the sacrament is a relation (σχέσις), as, for example, thinking is the relation of the thinker and the thinkable, and vision is the relation of the visible and the seer (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 70. 61-70). Likewise, the righteous will be enlightened through communion (μετοχή) with the Light of God (Ibid. P. 94. 15-17). In this case, I.K. reproduces one of the commonplaces of the Middle Ages. Christianized Aristotelianism (cf. the discussion of St. Maximus the Confessor on fantasy as a relationship, quoted by Theophan of Nicaea: Maximus. Conf. Ambigua // PG. 91. Col. 1233-1236; Σωτηρόπουλος. 1983. Σ. 232. 158-166; doctrine Gregory of Cyprus and St. Gregory Palamas on energy as a relative reality (in the Aristotelian sense - “presupposing a relation”): Gregorius Cypriensis. De processione Spiritus Sancti // PG. 142. Col. 289; Greg. Pal. Capita. 142 // Sinkewicz. 1988. P. 246. 16 - 248. 2. (Studies and Texts; 83)). To teach about the appearance of God is essentially a sign of the Messalian heresy (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 68. 92-93; cf. St. Gregory Palamas: PG. 151. Col. 448; about the problem as a whole, see: Hinterberger 2004. S. 211-248).

Partial revision of doctrine

The contents of the letters of the “Dispute with the Latin Patriarch [of Constantinople] Paul” testify to some change in I.K.’s views on the issue of the nature of the Tabor light and the energy of God. I.K. gives a typology of the views of the anti-Palamites on the nature of the Tabor light (Ibid. P. 202. 22-28). Contrary to some of them (a hint to Nicephorus Gregoras, cf.: Nicephorus Gregoras. Λόγος ἀντιρρητικὸς πρῶτος / Einl., Textausg. Ubers. u. Anm.: Hrsg. H.-V. Beyer. W., 197 6.S. 311. 3; 313. 12; 317. 13-14; 321. 1, etc.; Makarov. 2008) there is nothing intermediate between God and creation (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 183. 1-2), since God fulfills everything according to essence and energy (Ibid. P. 179. 2-4; cf.: Phot. Ad Amphilochium. 75 // PG. 101. Col. 464-468; the corresponding fragment is quoted with approval by Gregory Akindinus: Nadal Ca ellas 1995. P. 278. 10-28; cf. commentary Akindina: Ibid. P. 278. 28-32). God is known from the natural properties that exist around Him (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 182, 183), but the name Divinity (θεότης) is applicable to essence and energy, although more energy is appropriate (Ibid. P. 179; cf. characteristic quote from St. Basil the Great: Ibid. P. 239. 9-16). Essence in God is the cause, and energy is the effect (αἰτιατόν). Energy exists (ὑφεστῶσα) in the essence of God (Ibid. P. 234. 23-26).

The content of the 5th letter (Ibid. P. 215-239) of I.K. is revealed in 8 theses about the uncreatedness of the Tabor light. This letter is an extensive theological treatise. I.K. takes a more conservative position here than in the “Refutations”: the essence of God is invisible to creation, however, the saints did not call this Light energy, and we do not want to (Ibid. P. 215). The apostles contemplated the Tabor light with both their bodily eyes and the eyes of the soul (that is, both sight and mind), “emerging from every natural action (energy) ... according to the predominance of divine change and transformation into the best” (Ibid. P. 219 12-18). After all, our nature can contemplate God only if it is transformed, goes beyond its limits and approaches the Contemplated (Ibid. P. 219. 18-21). This transformation (ἡἀλλοίωσις) of mental powers and bodily feelings will become a reality in the next century, when after the general resurrection a “spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15.44) will arise, that is, incorruptible, clothed in Divine glory and lordship (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld 1987. P. 219. 45-49). Before the resurrection, the Lord’s body was corruptible and mortal (Ibid. P. 225. 15 - 226. 19). Thus, the apostles on Tabor saw the Light of God “with bodily eyes, which, however, became spiritual and were transformed by this Divine transformation” (Ibid. P. 222. 32-34). After this, they returned to their natural state again and their feelings acted in accordance with nature (Ibid. P. 222. 43-46). At the Second Coming, the apostles will see the glory of Christ more fully than other righteous ones, for everyone will perceive this glory to the extent of their own knowledge of God (τῆς... θεοειδίας) (Ibid. P. 229. 19-23).

We, writes I.K., do not invent two Deities - a higher and a lower, contrary to the slander of the anti-Palamites (Ibid. P. 232. 11-18). All of God is both “participating” in one respect and “non-participating” in another (in essence) (Voordeckers, Tinnefeld. 1987. P. 235. 29-32, 35-37). We participate in “Divine gifts and endowments (ταῖς... δωρεαῖς τε κα χάρισι)” (Ibid. P. 235. 37-38), becoming “partakers of the Divine nature” (2 Peter 1.4; see the important scholium for this verse: Ibid. P. 236. 32-36).

Turning to Christology, I.K. emphasizes that with the mutual communication of the properties of the two natures of the Savior, both the Body and Blood do not become uncreated, and the Light of Tabor does not become created (Ibid. P. 225. 24-32). Each nature remains within its own limits even after unity (Ibid. P. 225. 32-36). The words of the saints must be interpreted in accordance with the meaning that they put into them, and not arbitrarily (Ibid. P. 227. 61-64). Antipalamites, notes I.K., forge patristic texts, for example. The word on the Transfiguration attributed to St. John Chrysostom (Ibid. P. 229. 1-5), Word of St. John of Damascus on the same holiday, “forcing” the saint to assert that the Tabor light is a sensually perceived (i.e. natural) lightness (Ibid. P. 230. 36-49).

Despite the deep dogmatic disclosure of the issue of contemplating the Tabor light with transfigured eyes, I.K. turns out to be more conservative in this treatise than the rest of the Palamites; Thus, by denying the legitimacy of calling the Tabor light the energy of God, he contradicts St. Gregory Palamas.

Cit.: Contra sectam Mahometicam pro Christiana religione Apologiae quatuor, ex editione Basileensi anni 1543, apud Joannem Oporinum // PG. 154. Col. 371-584; Contra Mahometem orationes quatuor // Ibid. Col. 584-692; Contra Barlaam et Acindynum, sub ficto nomine Christodulo monachi // Ibid. Col. 693-710; Mercati G. Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, Manuele Caleca e Teodoro Meliteniota ed altri appunti per la storia della teologia e della letteratura bizantina del secolo XIV. Vat., 1931. P. 274-275. (ST; 56); Darrouz è s J. Lettre inédite de Jean Cantacuzène relative à la controverse palamite // RÉB. 1959. Vol. 17. P. 7-27; Meyendorff J. Projets de Сoncile Oecumenique en 1367: Un dialogue inédit entre Jean Cantacuzène et le légat Paul // DOP. 1960. Vol. 14. P. 147-177 (repr.: Idem. Byzantine Hesychasm: Historical, Theological and Social Problems. L., 1974. N XI); Prokhorov G.M. Journalism of John Cantacuzene 1367-1371 // VV. 1969. T. 29. P. 318-341; aka, preface, trans. and comment. Conversation with the papal legate. Dialogue with a Jew and other writings. St. Petersburg, 1997, 20082; Σωτηρόπουλος Χ. Γ. ᾿Ιωάννου ΣΤ´ Καντακουζηνοῦ Κατὰ ᾿Ιουδαίων Λόγοι ἐννέα (τὸ πρῶτον ν ῦν ἐκδιδόμενοι). Εἰσαγωγή - Κείμενον - Σχόλια. ᾿Αθῆναι, 1983; Voordeckers E., Tinnefeld F., ed. Refutationes duae Prochori Cydonii et Disputatio cum Paulo patriarcha latino epistulis septem tradita. Turnhout; Leuven, 1987. (CCSG; 16).

Lit.: IAB. pp. 364-369; Jugie M. Theologia dogmatica christianorum orientalium ab Ecclesia Catholica dissidentium. P., 1933. T. 2; Candal E., ed. Nilus Cabasilas et theologia S. Thomae de processione Spiritus Sancti. Vat., 1945. (ST; 116); idem. El libro VI de Prócoro Cidonio (sobre la luz tabórica) // OCP. 1954. Vol. 20. P. 247-297; idem. Argiro contra Dexio (sobre la luz tabórica) // Ibid. 1957. Vol. 23. P. 80-113; idem. La “Regla teológica” de Nilo Cabásilas // Ibid. P. 237-266; Beck. Kirche und theol. Literatur. S. 731-732; Meyendorff J. Byzantine Views of Islam // DOP. 1964. Vol. 18. P. 113-132; idem. Grecs, Turcs et Juifs en Asie Mineure au XIVe siècle // ByzF. 1966. Bd. 1. P. 211-217 (repr.: Idem. Byzantine Hesychasm. N IX); aka. [Meyendorff I.] Life and works of St. Gregory Palamas: Introduction. into study / Trans.: G. N. Nachinkin; ed.: I. P. Medvedev, V. M. Lurie. St. Petersburg, 1997; Thunberg L. Early Christian Interpretations of the Three Angels in Gen. 18 // StPatr. 1966. Vol. 7. P. 560-570; Podskalsky G. Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz: Der Streit um die theol. Methodik in der spätbyzant. Geistesgeschichte (14./15. Jh.), seine systemat. Grundlagen und seine hist. Entwicklung. Münch., 1977; McGuckin J. A. The Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition. Lewiston (N.Y.), 1986; Sinkewicz R., ed., transl. and study. Gregory Palamas: The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. Toronto, 1988. (Studies and Texts; 83); idem. The Concept of Spiritual Perception in Gregory Palamas" First Triad in Defense of the Holy Hesychasts // ХВ. 1999. T. 1(7). R. 374-390; Σωτηροπούλος Χ. Γ. Θεοφάνους Γ´ ἐπισκόπου Νικαίας: Περ θαβωρίου φωτός λόγοι πέντε. ᾿Αθήνα, 1990; Todt K.-P. Kaiser Johannes VI. Kantakuzenos und der Islam: Politische Realität und theol. Polemik im Palaiologenzeitlichen Byzanz. Würzburg, 1991; idem. The Theological Works of Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos (ca. 1295-1383) // XXe Congrès Intern. des Études Byzantines: Pré-actes. P., 2001. Vol. 3. P. 101; Polemis I. D. Arsenius of Tyrus and his Tome against the Palamites // JÖB. 1993. Bd. 43. P. 241-282; Tinnefeld F. Ein Text des Prochoros Kydones in Vat. gr. 609 über die Bedeutung der Syllogismen für die theologische Erkenntnis // Philohistôr: Miscellanea in honorem C. Laga septuagenarii / Ed. A. Schoors, P. Van Deun. Leuven, 1994, pp. 515-527. (OLA; 60); Nadal Cañellas J., ed. Gregorii Acindyni Refutationes duae operis Gregorii Palamae cui titulus Dialogus inter Orthodoxum et Barlaamitam. Louvain, 1995. (CCSG; 31); Nicol D. M. The Reluctant Emperor: A Biography of John Cantacuzene, Byzantine Emperor and Monk, c. 1295-1383. Camb., 1996; Kislas P.-T. Nil Cabasilas et son traité sur le Saint-Esprit: Introd., ed. critique, trad., not.: Thèse de doctorat. Strasbourg, 1998; Guran P. Jean VI Cantacuzène, l"hésychasme et l"empire. Les miniatures du codex Parisinus graecus 1242 // L'empereur hagiographe: Culte des saints et monarchie byzantine et post-byzantine / Ed. P. Guran, B. Flusin. Bucur., 2001. P. 73-121; Hinterberger M. Die Affäre um den Mönch Niphon Skorpios und die Messalianismus-Vorwürfe gegen Kallistos I. // Gregorio Palamas e oltre: Studi e documenti sulle controversie theologiche del XIV secolo bizantino / A cura di A. Rigo. Firenze, 2004. P. 211-248; Mondrain B. L "ancien empereur Jean VI Cantacuzène et ses copistes // Ibid. P. 249-298; Rigo A. Il Monte Athos e la controversia palamitica dal Concilio del 1351 al Tomo Sinodale del 1368 (Giacomo Trikanas, Procoro Cidone e Filoteo Kokkinos) // Ibid. P. 1-177; T ö r ö nen M. Union and Distinction in the Thought of St Maximus the Confessor. Oxf., 2007; Makarov D.I. Glory of God or glory of angels?: Some aspects of the controversy about angels at the third stage of hesychast disputes // ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΟΣ: Sat. Art. in honor of V.V. Kuchma. Armavir, 2008. pp. 71-94; aka. On the problem of understanding the Eucharist by Theophan III, Met. Nicene // Vestn. Rus. Christ humanist academy. St. Petersburg, 2009. T. 10. Issue. 1. pp. 53-61; Fakrasis G. Dispute of St. Gregory Palamas with Grigora the philosopher. Philosophical and theological aspects of Palamite disputes: Trans. from Greek / Rep. ed.: D. S. Biryukov. Holy Mount Athos; M., 2009.

D. I. Makarov

Byzantine empress, wife of Emperor John V Palaiologos

Origin

She came from the famous Byzantine family of Cantacuzines. She was the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor John VI Cantacuzenus and Irene Aseni, and the sister of the Byzantine Emperor Matthew Cantacuzenus and the Despot of the Morea Manuel Cantacuzenus. Her sisters Maria and Theodora were, in turn, the wives of Nikephoros II Orsini and Orhan I.

Biography

Her father, then still the great domestic John Cantacuzenus, and her future husband, the young emperor John V Palaiologos, were rivals during the civil war in Byzantium (1341–1347). In 1347, John Cantacuzene entered Constantinople and the parties entered into a settlement agreement, according to which John Cantacuzene was recognized as the senior co-emperor of John V Palaiologos until he came of age. In order to seal the contract, Elena Cantacuzene was married to John V Palaiologos. The wedding took place on May 28–29, 1347. At that time, Elena was thirteen years old, and her fiancé would turn fifteen only a month later. The peace between her husband and father continued until 1352, when John V Palaiologos renewed the war against his co-ruler. In April 1353, John VI Cantacuzene proclaimed her brother Matthew his and John V Palaiologos co-emperor. Patriarch Callistus I refused to crown his son Cantacuzenus and was removed from the patriarchal throne by the emperor. The coronation of Matthew took place only in February 1354 under the new Patriarch Philotheus. On December 4, 1354, John V Palaiologos forced John VI Cantacuzenos to abdicate and become a monk. Matthew spent another three years repelling the onslaught of John V and his allies - the Serbs, Bulgarians and Turks. In 1357, the Serbian commander Voikhna managed to take Matthew prisoner. John V Palaiologos demanded Matthew's abdication from the throne in Adrianople. Palaeologus left his rival alive, satisfied with his abdication of the throne.

last years of life

In May 1373, the son of Helen and John V Palaiologos, Andronikos, and the son of the Turkish Sultan Murad I, Sanji Celebi, jointly raised an uprising against their fathers, which Murad I quickly suppressed. Andronicus, together with his son John, were captured, but soon fled from captivity to Galata. After this, John V made his other son Manuel co-ruler. With the help of the Genoese and the Serbian ruler Marko Kralevich, Andronik and his son managed to overthrow John V from the throne. Elena, with her husband and son Manuel, ended up in prison, where she remained for three years. On August 12, 1376, Andronicus, together with his son John, were crowned emperors of Byzantium. However, thanks to Sultan Murad I, on July 1, 1379, John V Palaiologos managed to regain his throne, and Andronikos IV and John VII again fled to the Genoese-controlled Galata quarter, taking their mother, Helena Cantacuzene, hostage with them. She remained in captivity with her son until 1381, when John V forgave Andronicus and gave him cities on the northern coast of the Sea of ​​Marmara as his inheritance. The conflict between John V and Andronikos IV continued until the death of the latter in 1385. Andronikos IV was succeeded by his son John VII Palaiologos, who also managed to briefly dethrone his grandfather John V Palaiologos in 1390. Helen's role in this conflict was minor, as several sources do not even mention her. John V was restored to the throne, but died soon after on February 16, 1391. He was succeeded on the throne by Manuel. Helen outlived her husband and retired to the monastery of St. Martha, taking the name Hypomona (“Patience”). She died on December 10, 1396.

Children

In the marriage of Helena Cantacuzene and John V Palaiologos were born:

• Andronikos IV (1348–1385) - Byzantine emperor 1376–1379.
• Manuel II (1350–1425) - Byzantine emperor 1391–1425
• Michael (died c. 1376/1377)
• Theodore I Cantacuzenus (1355–1407) - Despot of the Morea
• Irina (1349–1362) - wife of her cousin Khalil, son of Sultan Orhan and Theodora Cantacuzene.
• Maria (died c. 1376). She was betrothed to Murad I. She died before marriage.
• An unknown daughter, she was engaged to Peter II of Cyprus.
• Unknown daughter, became a monk in 1373.
• Second unknown daughter, who also took monastic vows in 1373.

John Cantacuzene and his mother Theodora in their nobility and wealth could easily compete with the Palaiologans who occupied the throne. During the civil war of 1321 - 1328. For a long time, Cantacuzene supported the army of Andronicus the Younger at his own expense. The center of their possessions was the powerful Thracian fortress of Didymotika, in the vicinity of which there were numerous castles and estates of this family.

In defending his interests, Cantacuzene relied on large landowners and his own exceptionally combat-ready army. “Richly endowed with the gifts of nature and adorned with a deep mind,” wrote Nikifor Grigora, “this man was loved by the entire army; so that there was not a single warrior who did not prefer his life to his own."

At the very beginning of the regency under the young John V, Cantacuzenus quarreled with a temporary worker at the court of Anna of Savoy, Duke of the Navy Alexei Apokavkos, a man of humble origin, but thanks to his considerable abilities he achieved a high position. Once Alexei suggested to John that he should rebel against Andronicus III, he was refused and after that he never trusted Cantacuzinus again. The quarrel led to an outbreak of intrigue at court, the situation around the young basileus and his mother became extremely nervous, and Cantacuzene was already thinking about giving up the regency, since his influence in Byzantium was already significant. Apokavk, meanwhile, prepared a real putsch. One night, the houses of many noble supporters of John Cantacuzenus in the capital were plundered by soldiers and well-organized groups of citizens, and they themselves died or were imprisoned. John managed to escape to Didymotika, and there, on October 26, 1341, he was proclaimed emperor by the assembled large landowners who asked for his protection from Apocaucus. Contemporaries and Cantacuzene himself argued that he agreed to this without any desire, since he was alien to the love of power and, with his already enormous power, did not see the point of taking on the dangerous burden of ruling the Roman power.

John Cantacuzene had many virtues. Energetic and intelligent, he can undoubtedly be recognized as the most outstanding Byzantine sovereign of the 14th century, and, probably, of the entire Byzantium of the Palaiologos. One can only regret that, for many reasons, the talents of this monarch ultimately did not bring good to Byzantium.

Apokavkos, who became the main figure in the government of Anne of Savoy, organized the coronation of the young John V (November 19, 1341). After some time, the clash between the two court factions turned into a war, which, according to the widespread opinion among later historians, had a distinctly class character. Officials, city nobility, trade and craft circles were on the side of Palaeologus; large landowners supported Kantakouzin. A confrontation developed, typical of the European Middle Ages.

Since John VI Cantacuzene himself belonged to the hesychasts, the situation was aggravated by the newly flared up church struggle.

In a country surrounded on all sides by enemies, a civil war began - the most difficult and devastating in its entire history.

As a result of new pogroms in Constantinople, the palaces of the Cantacuzenians, which had recently suffered, were burned. By the spring of 1342, the landowning nobility had been expelled from the next two largest cities of the empire - Thessalonica and Adrianople. A pronounced anti-feudal (taking into account the traditions of the empire, it is better to call it anti-Dynat) union of the cities, the peasantry with the legitimate imperial power, which was represented by the government of Anne of Savoy, took shape. Over time, popular protests often began to take place under the slogan of beating all the rich. Revolutionary anarchy began in the country. John VI himself, already in his declining years, wrote in his “History”: “Many wanted to use this movement of the people in their own interests. Many who were owed money were accused by the debtors of cantacuzenism... The rebels consisted of the poor and robbers. Prompted by poverty, they decided to do anything and pushed the people to do this, hypocritically showing their affection for Paleologus and calling themselves his most faithful servants. It was as if a malignant, most terrible disease had engulfed the entire empire... Those who hated Cantacuzinus and spoke out against him with accusations and curses were considered loyal citizens... All prudent, moderate speeches were immediately taken under suspicion.”

In Thessalonica, power was in the hands of the social movement of “zealots” - “zealots”, who defended the interests of trade and craft circles. The city was headed by the archons Michael Paleologus and the relative (son or brother) of Alexei Apokavkos, John. The most influential zealots belonged to the intelligentsia and average townspeople. Rich citizens and monasteries were subjected to sequestration with the consent of the people in favor of the poor and for the needs of the treasury. “What’s special,” one of the zealots wrote, justifying the confiscation of part of the church property, “is that, taking from the monastic property, we will feed several poor people, and even the priests [of churches that did not have land. - S.D.] deliver what you need and decorate the churches? There will be no harm to the monasteries from this, there will be enough left for their needs, and the will of the donors, who intended to please God and feed the poor, will not be violated... If we use this income to arm soldiers who go to death for these shrines, laws and [city] walls, then isn’t this better than if the monks and priests wasted them in vain...”

At first, stunned by the universal hatred, Cantacuzene and his comrades tried to negotiate peace. John VI behaved surprisingly correctly, recognized Anna and her son, and always signed his decrees with their names. Apocaucus, on the contrary, took an irreconcilable position, even ordering the envoys and ambassadors of Cantacuzene to be killed or chained.

In 1342, after the unsuccessful siege of Thessalonica, John VI suffered several serious defeats and with the remnants of his army went to Serbia, under the protection of the despot Stephen Dusan. In Didymotika, surrounded by enemies, his wife Irina remained to rule. In the spring of the following year, Cantacuzene resumed his attack on Thessalonica, but was unable to take it this time either. His relations with Dusan deteriorated, the Serbs crossed the Macedonian border, and the Bulgarians, taking advantage of the opportunity, besieged Didymotika. The troops of John VI, pressed to the coast, were preparing to die in battle, but unexpectedly help arrived - three hundred ships with the mercenaries of Umur, the ruler of the Turkish emirate of Aydin. At the end of autumn, the Cantacuzenists and Turks went on the offensive and captured many Thracian cities and castles, ruining them. Despite the fact that part of the Turkish forces were diverted by the naval war then started by Pope Clement VI against the Muslims, by the summer of 1345 the government of Anna of Savoy was left with only Constantinople, the Gallipoli peninsula and Thessalonica, which, however, strongly gravitating towards independence, fought more against John VI, rather than for John V. Part of Thrace, devastated by the Turks, was captured by Cantacuzene, and its northern and southeastern regions found themselves under the rule of Serbs, Bulgarians, Turks and all sorts of dubious robbers who had their own troops and did not recognize anyone over them. Anna, seeing the terrible consequences of the war, was inclined to make peace with Cantacuzenus, but Apocaucus, for whom recognition of John VI was tantamount to suicide, refused. In alliance with his like-minded Patriarch John XIV Cripple, Alexei resorted to a fierce reign of terror against the remaining nobility and the Cantacuzenists. Despite Anna's protests, even old Theodora Cantacuzene died in prison.

On June 11, 1345, Alexei Apokavk wanted to look at his enemies in prison. The prisoners, taking advantage of the negligence of the guards, attacked him and killed him with chains. In response, the townspeople staged the third, most powerful pogrom of the nobility and their houses in the city. At the same time, unrest began in Thessalonica; John Apokavkos, who wanted to surrender the city to Cantacuzene, and hundreds of his like-minded people, representatives of the city nobility, died. The townspeople did not want to hear about any peace with the Cantacuzenists. Since Cantacuzene's old ally Umur was firmly bogged down in military campaigns in Asia Minor (and died there in a battle with the Latins in 1348), John VI found himself new comrades. And again it turned out to be the Turks - this time the Ottomans under the leadership of Emir Urhan. In an effort to enlist his further support, John VI gave his beautiful daughter Theodora to the harem of the emir - “an infidel and a barbarian.”

On May 21, 1346, the patriarch, brought from Jerusalem, crowned John VI in Adrianople, and the bishops who gathered there declared the capital’s Patriarch Kaleka deposed “for the imprisonment of many bishops.” However, Constantinople was not going to give up, calling the surrounding poor under the banner of Paleologus. According to Gregoras, Cantacuzene, who did not expect such a stubborn struggle, exclaimed in anger: “If not I, then let him [John V] not reign! Let there be no one to reign over at all!” Hordes of Turkish soldiers, used by both sides, again poured into Thrace, bringing horror and death everywhere. Anna, in search of money for her mercenaries, pawned the precious stones of the imperial diadem to Venetian bankers (later Byzantium was never able to redeem them). But the resistance of the Palaiologos was coming to an end. Famine was raging in Constantinople, and on February 3, 1347, approaching the Golden Gate of the city, John VI Cantacuzene found it open. Showing worthy firmness, the emperor kept the victorious army from plunder and declared an amnesty to all those who opposed him. On May 13, the official coronation took place in the Blachernae Church. John VI promised to lay down the diadem after a certain period of time - ten years.

After the confirmation of John VI on the throne, the hesychasts won another victory over their opponents - the council, which elected the new patriarch Isidore, condemned the views of Varlaam and his followers as heretical.

The civil war depleted both the treasury and the funds of Cantacuzene himself (his wealth could be judged by the enumeration of losses: thousands of bulls, oxen, mares, hundreds of mules, camels and much more). In the imperial palace, table gold and silver were replaced by tin and clay, and multi-colored glass shone in the imperial crown instead of stones. Depopulated Thrace lay in ruins, native and foreign robbers were rampant on the roads, Byzantium lost most of the islands of the Aegean Sea. Thessalonica did not submit to Cantacuzene, it did not recognize the new Patriarch Isidore, and residents opposed to the hesychasts did not allow Gregory Palamas, who was appointed Metropolitan of Thessalonica, into the city.

If the war of the two Androniki seriously shook the empire, then the war of the two Johns finally undermined its strength, and in 1348 the “Black Death” reached Byzantium - the largest plague epidemic, in 1347 - 1353. which killed twenty-four million people in Europe; the empire lost up to a third of its population.

In 1349, the Genoese of Galata demanded that the hill behind the northern wall of Constantinople be transferred to them for the construction of new fortifications. Cantacuzinus, who was lying sick in Didymotica, conveyed his refusal. Then the Galatians occupied the disputed area, burned the houses and warehouses of the Greeks on the coast of the Golden Horn, and in the bay itself they destroyed the shipyard and those several dilapidated warships that were proudly called the Roman fleet. The returning emperor convened a meeting of the most prominent citizens and convinced them to donate money - the treasury was empty - for the construction of a new fleet to curb the Genoese. On March 5, nine ships built with this money, literally in front of the townspeople, were burned in a naval battle with the Galata squadron. Then the tireless emperor increased the duty on goods of Italian merchants (and reduced it fivefold for domestic ones). With the proceeds, they built another, more powerful fleet, and the Genoese themselves hastened to make peace.

The mainstay of the Thessalonian Zealots, the city's sailors, was destroyed by the rebellious poor, whom Archon Alexius Metochites, a secret Cantacuzenist, set against their corporation. In the autumn, Thessalonica, weakened by internal strife, fell - Metochites surrendered it to the approaching troops of both emperors John V and John VI.

Taking advantage of the difficult situation of the country, Dushan took Thessaly from it. In 1351, Cantacuzene allowed himself to be drawn into the war between Venice and Genoa and, like Andronikos II in his time, found himself a loser and paid a large indemnity.

John VI began an active struggle against the forces of decentralization, rooted among the ruling class of the empire by the mores of the feudal freemen. “Cantacuzinus, the head of the 14th-century empire, could not combine his interests with Cantacuzinus, the head of a large landowning aristocracy.” The dissatisfied moved from him to the opposition camp, grouping around the young John V Palaiologos. In 1352, Palaiologos rebelled, claiming the possessions of the imperial son Matthew - Adrianople. His attempt to take possession of the city failed, he fled first to Didymotika (and the “family nest” of the Cantacuzines gave him shelter!), and then to the Italians on the island. Tenedos and, based there, began to capture the islands of the Aegean Sea. Patriarch Callistus, who supported the young emperor, lost his chair. Cantacuzene still counted on Muslim help and began to settle Turkish mercenaries around the capital. To pay their salaries, all the funds from the treasury, church utensils, and even money granted by the Moscow prince Simeon the Proud for the repair of St. Sophia were spent (even under Androniki, extensions began to be erected near the main building, playing the role of buttresses, since two walls of the temple sank dangerously). Calls for the overthrow of the usurper, who spoke Turkish, who married his daughter to a Turk and sold the country to the Turks, grew louder and louder among the Greeks. The last reproach was unfair, but not unfounded. The Ottomans, whom John Cantacuzene, not actually a “Turkophile,” attracted as military partners, had by that time emerged from under his ephemeral power and began to take over the lands of Byzantium. Back in 1352, they captured the Tsimpe fortress on the European shore of the Dardanelles. Two years later, an earthquake destroyed the city of Gallipoli. The inhabitants and the garrison fled, and their empty houses were occupied by the Turks, who were hastily transported across the strait by Urhan's son, Emir Suleiman. Horrified by how his yesterday's intercessors were establishing themselves in Europe in a masterly manner, the emperor went to Nicomedia to Urhan with a ransom for Gallipoli. Neither for ten nor forty thousand depreciated Roman yperpirons, the emir agreed to go back, and did not accept the basileus himself, saying he was ill. Depressed by what had happened, Cantacuzene returned to the capital. The genie of the Turkish threat had escaped from the bottle, and there was not the slightest possibility for the Greeks to drive it back, and the West, in its political myopia, was not eager to help them... Soon Suleiman captured Kipsela and the environs of Redesto.

In the summer of 1354, John VI decided to cope with at least internal enemies. However, the attempt to capture Tenedos failed, and Cantacuzene returned to the capital. In November, John V Palaiologos, on the ships of the Italian Francesco Gattilusi, approached the walls of Constantinople. Their friends opened the gates at night, Palaiologos' soldiers entered the city and occupied the arsenal. The Catalan squad of John VI was cut off from the palace, and the beating of relatives and friends of the elder emperor began once again in the capital. Tired of countless bloody civil strife, John VI did not want to use the available opportunities for resistance, abdicated the throne and took monastic vows.

Even in the monastery, Cantacuzene continued to follow the most important events in the political life of Byzantium. When, for example, the hesychast leader Palamas was captured by the Turks, he collected money and ransomed him. Over time, Joasaph - this is the name the ex-emperor received when he was tonsured - reconciled with John V, and the considerable influence of Cantacuzene at the court of Palaiologos had to be taken into account by both the Greek courtiers and foreign diplomats (see “John V”). In addition, he took up writing, brilliantly proving that he could wield not only a sword and a pen with red ink. Cantacuzene left behind treatises in defense of hesychasm, against Muhammad and the pagans, as well as a “History” in which he described contemporary events. This man, amazing in his talents, died in Mystras