In the time of brilliant authors (5th century AD) a “shining star”1 shone in the marginality of the Epirus Vetus. In the same century in which Leo the Great and Cyril of Alexandria developed their mission, and the Council of Chalcedon took place, and the same century that the security established since Constantine was eroding rapidly in the face such threats as the barbarian irruption, an Epirus Vetus bishop wrote about the inner world as torn between two opposing presences, battling in a contest that is waged through discernment. This is the subject of the present study: the doctrine of “discernment” (
“Sheltered from the waves” is a quality. In fact, it could be a translation of the Greek adjective
I chose the paradigmatic expression “sheltered from the waves” (
When dealing with the theme of “discernment”, it is certainly difficult to consider any originality; nevertheless, there are still aspects to be explored. Part of the novelty of this study is precisely the presentation of discernment as a hermeneutical key to Diadochus’s work. The dedication to the study of the images of discernment is as well another novelty, which tries to examine with due attention the symbolic theology of the author.
The Works of Diadochus
In order to form a suitable status quaestionis, I will first introduce the following corpus: One Hundred Gnostic Chapters, Sermon on the Ascension, Vision of St. Diadochus and the Catechesis. It is remarkable to find four different literary genres (centuria, homily, scenic dialogue and catechesis), and it already indicates a particular richness to this corpus.
The main work, the One Hundred Gnostic Chapters, is composed of a proem with ten definitions ‒ based on the virtues ‒ and then the hundred chapters themselves3, showing a certain systematic articulation. The deepening and reasoning of this initial approach will also be my aim. The direct tradition about this work is remarkable, because of its quality and quantity4. In fact, the oldest testimony is prior to the 12th century.
In 1570, Francisco de Torres presented the Latin translation: Capita centum de perfectione spirituali published in Florence, by Pectinari in 1570, and with the second edition by Sermartelli in 15735. It is interesting to underline the incorporation of titles for each chapter and explanatory notes; both elements show a particular interpretation of the text and also represent a pedagogical effort. In the first edition, Sancti Nili Capita Centum quincuaginta and Oratione ad Deum were published in the same volume. Later, in 1627, a new edition was published, also with works by Nilus, and Hesychius’ Ad Theodulum (translated by A. Sallyus) was added.
Francisco de Torres (1509–1584), a Spanish priest of the Society of Jesus, appointed by Pius IV as pontifical theologian at the Council of Trent, devoted himself particularly to the translation of various works of the Greek fathers6. His knowledge of Diadochus ‒ prior to the translation of 1570 ‒ is recorded in his work: Devotis Monasticis of 1566. In Book II, under the title “On our strength and spiritual armour”, he quotes chapter 82 (of the centuria): “in quo possitis omnia tela nequissimi ignea extinguere”7. It is significant to note that, in the same work, when offering a list of the great authors on the “disciplina spirituali”, Diadochus is placed between Marcus and Ioannes Carpatianus8. Three years before his death in 1584, Torres again alludes to Diadochus of Photike in his Epistola to Iacobum Amiotum9.
In the introduction to the Capita centum de perfectione spirituali Torres points out:
Let us then investigate the time in which St. Diadochus lived. Although he was one of the ancient fathers, he is attested in St Maximus the Confessor, who together with the emperor Heraclius and Pope Honorius, fought and wrote against the Monothelites. In fact, he recalls this saintly author in Responsis de obscurioribus locis Scripturae, ad Thalassium, and from this book one hundred chapters, he quotes and interprets in De igne purgatorio, which is what entrusts no little authority to Diadochus. Moreover, he calls Diadochus a father of honour ‒ as it truly seems to me ‒ and an authority of reverence. Then Photius recalls it in his Library (…)10
Torres’ introduction and translation were published by Migne, PG 65, coll.1167–121211 (the volume contains the complete works of Proclus of Constantinople). After the opuscle De Melchisedech, attributed to Sancti Marci Eremitae, the Sermo de Ascensione follows, clearly by Diadochi Episcopi Photices in Epirus. He then introduces a work by Beati Marci Diadochi, the Sermo contra Arianos. He continues with the Latin text of the centuria attributed to Diadochi Episcopi Photices. Confusion arises on the following pages, because at the top of each folio there is an indication of authorship: B. Marci Diadochi. The following work belongs to Marci Diaconi, Vita S. Porphyrii Episcopi Gazenzis.
The editio princeps dates from 1782, and is located in the whole of the
K. Popov, in 1903, published the first critical edition:
In 1912, J. E. Weis-Liebensdorf presented the edition Sancti Diadochi episcopi Photicensis de perfectione spirituali capita centum, Leipzig 1912. It belongs to the vast production of the Bibliotheca Teubneriana and was called “editio critica et quasi princeps”16. After a brief introduction, he presents the critical edition of the Greek text of the One Hundred Gnostic Chapters and its Latin translation (taken from F. Torres).
É. des Places, in 1943, offered his critical edition: Diadoque de Photicé, Œuvres Spirituelles, SCh 5bis, Paris, pp.84–163. He collates manuscripts dating to before the 12th century, again (AB, abc) and for the first time (FGHNSTV), except for M (used in Popov’s edition), and P. Basically, his text rests in MNBAa17. The edition divides Diadochus’ work into twenty-five thematic sections.
To visualise the importance of des Places’ publication, it is useful to quote some reviews of its critical edition. H-C. In 1946, Puech assessed the content of Diadochus’ work and presented a brief status quaestionis, while praising the excellence of the translation18. In 1957, P. Canivet asserted that this edition would replace previous editions (Popov, Weis-Liebersdorf), which overlooked the manuscript of St. Nilus (N)19. He emphasises the preference for the older originals, even though there are great differences between the various manuscripts, in some cases forcing a choice to be made (e.g. in chapter 13). J. Pépin, in 1959, catalogued it as a first-rate edition, emphasising the publication of the corpus, and not only of the One Hundred Gnostic Chapters20. He recognises the importance of the introduction for understanding the richness of the texts in question.
In 2000, J. E. Rutherford presented her critical edition: Diadochus of Photike, One hundred practical texts of perception and spiritual discernment, Northern Ireland, 2000. The motivation for her work was prompted by the discovery of the manuscript (R) Athos Lavra
The importance of the One Hundred Gnostic Chapters is also reflected in the numerous translations into modern languages22.
Then the Sermon on the Ascension follows, which consists of five points, and is explicitly polemical against Jews and Monophysites23. It reflects the Christological theology of Chalcedon regarding the two natures of Christ. The editio princeps was prepared by A. Mai, Spicilegium Romanum, IV, Rome 1840, pp.98–106. Subsequent editions are in Migne (PG 65, coll.1141–1148) and Popov. The Sermon was already included in the 1943 edition of É. des Places. It is found in many modern language translations as well24.
The Vision of St. Diadochus can be described as a scenic dialogue between the author and St. John the Baptist with a dynamic of questions and answers25. The work opens by addressing ascetical issues and continues with Christological concerns, circumscribed to the Baptism of the Lord, and finally devotes itself to the contemplation of the angels26. The editio princeps of the Vision was prepared by Beneševič, Memoirs of the Imperial Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg, vol. VIII/11, St. Petersburg 1908. We also consider the edition published a year later: Ioustinos Bithynos, Néa Siôn 9, 190927. Some translations of this text exist in modern languages28.
The Catechesis consists of nine points, also in the form of questions and answers, in this case between anonymous characters. Its content addresses God’s relationship with creation, angelic knowledge, and salvation. Its textual transmission presents a double tradition; six manuscripts attribute it to Diadochus, for example the oldest: A, Athos, Vatopedi 605, from the 13th century (ff. 326v-328r). However, there are other testimonies that designate it as a dialogue of a scholastic with Symeon the New Theologian. Therefore, its attribution to Diadochus has been problematic29.
The Latin translation of Pontanus in PG 120, coll.709–712, under the title Scholastici cuiusdam dialogus de Deo, ad Symeonen Theologum, can be recognised as the editio princeps. The Greek text seems not to have been edited until the second edition of É. des Places (1953)30. There are some translations in modern languages31.
A Brief History of Diadochean Studies
The complexity of the secondary bibliography is reflected in the various articles that propose a status quaestionis, seeking to set out an itinerary of antithetical approaches32. É. des Places presents modern studies using the periodisation: “before and after Dörr’s book”33. I must also note the critical edition of É. des Places as a fundamental point in the present itinerary. It is pertinent to consider that most modern studies agree in recognising Diadochus as a “synthétiseur”34. Notwithstanding this common note, I will start from the approach of a dialectical synthesis (mostly in the early twentieth century) towards an organic synthesis (preferably in studies after É. des Places, 1943).
I will now introduce the bibliography, which is more of a “dialectical synthesis”. The enquiries concern the recognition of Diadochus’ adversaries, i.e. the Messalians, and their identification with the Pseudo-Macarius35.
In 1916, Reitzenstein devoted chapter 6 of his Historia Monachorum to “Evagrius und Diadochus von Photike”36. The section on our author begins with a general presentation of the One Hundred Gnostic Chapters, and then makes a comparison with Evagrius, focusing on terms such as
Villecourt, in 1920, in a comparative study, noted that a group of Messalian propositions, quoted by John Damascene, were to be found in the Homilies of Pseudo-Macarius37. In his comment, he also suggests that Diadochus would have known this strong Messalian imprint38. The Homilies probably date from a time before the condemnations of the nascent sect, so they must date from before 390. Thus, Villecourt concludes that the author of the Homilies must be considered a Messalian39.
In 1930, Viller referred succinctly to the current issue on the basis of Villecourt’s study, presenting the Pseudo-Macarius Homilies as the inspiration taken by Diadochus. In fact, his arguments respond directly to the Homilies. Consequently, one can find the same biblical quotations on both sides, as well as the same expressions. At the same time, Diadochus was also opposed to the other theses of Pseudo-Macarius40.
Hausherr, in 1935, highlighted how Diadochus fought against the Messalians while remaining orthodox, especially in relation to visions, although he was later misinterpreted41. He defines Messalianism as a “mystical materialism” (matérialisme mysthique), and he states in a synthetic way that Diadochus holds the middle ground between Evagrius and Pseudo-Macarius. Thus, he introduces the designation of a new school which assumes the character of a synthesis: with Diadochus we enter fully into the mysticism of the “conscious supernatural” (surnaturel conscient), that is: “Man is no longer primarily an intelligence, nor primarily a will; he is psychological consciousness, an apperception which satisfies all inner reality, and understands grace”42.
In 1937, Dörr introduced a “struggle” (Kampf) between false and true mysticism, thus manifesting a dialectical view between Diadochus and the Messalians43. One of his peculiarities is the comparative analysis with the homilies of Pseudo-Macarius, concluding that Diadochus would have taken them as an opportunity to combat Messalianism. He presents the texts of the Homilies and the One Hundred Gnostic Chapters in a synoptic way, in reference to the fundamental theses of the Messalians: the coexistence of grace and sin; the two characters in the soul; divergent actions of grace and sin44. Towards the end of his study, he postulates that the Homilies are certainly Messalian45. Dörr’s work is divided into three parts:
“The Adversaries” (Die Gegner), dealing with the problem of the Messalians and the homilies of Pseudo-Macarius;
“The Theology of Diadochus” (Die Theologie des Diadochus), especially the efficacy of Baptism. “The psychology of proof” (Psychologie der Versuchung) as a subtitle;
“The Discernment of Spirits” (Die Unterscheidung der Geister).
D. B. Capelle’s review of Dörr’s monograph in 1938 attributed two merits to his study: first, his determination that the adversaries indicated by Diadochus are the Messalians, and second, his demonstration that the mystical doctrines are found in function within a developed theology46. Consequently, although this is still a stage of dialectical synthesis, Dörr offers elements for discovering a fundamental aspect of organic synthesis, namely the link between theology and mysticism ‒ a link that is undoubtedly synergetic ‒ but has been ignored as such in various epistemological approaches.
On his part, K. Rahner, in another review issued the same year (1938), after briefly presenting the structure of Dörr’s study, pointed out as a still-reserved historical-literary result the identification of Pseudo-Macarius Homilies as Messalian. However, they can be considered as a “refined” (verfeinerte) and “moderate” (gemilderte) form of this pseudo-mysticism47.
Rothenhäusler, in 1937, wrote about the concept of
Then, in 1941, Dörries associated Diadochus with Messalianism, identifying him as a disciple of Pseudo-Macarius51. One of the fundamental tasks of this study was to identify the author of the Fifty Homilies, specially by researching Pseudo-Macarius by identifying him with the Symeon of Mesopotamia, whom Theodoret mentions a leading Messalina. His critical study is developed on the basis of the Asketikon, and the Homilies of Pseudo-Macarius, in collections B, H, T, V and other testimonies.
In short, the studies of this period, attentive to a rather philological analysis, tended to identify our author with Pseudo-Macarius or even with the Messalians themselves. On the one hand, Dörr recognises a clear distinction; others such as Rothenhäusler and Dörries move from a moderate to a more radical identification, ultimately placing him within this group.
Des Places, in 1943, considered the various influences related to Diadochus, and presented him as a bishop, polemicist and spiritual teacher. While noting the complexity of the link with Pseudo-Macarius, he argued that certain expressions of Diadochus could suggest that the “enemy” of the Messalians had been influenced by him52.
Dörries, in 1965, again analysed the link between Diadochus and the Homilies of Pseudo-Macarius53. He begins the chapter by defining the One Hundred Gnostic Chapters as a “polemical writing” (Streitschrift) of the Greek church’s struggle against the great spiritual heresy of Eastern Christianity, Messalianism. He repeats his conclusion about the possible discipleship of Diadochus to the Pseudo-Macarius54. By means of a detailed textual comparison, for example in chapter 37 (of the Diadochian centuria), Dörries recognises a quotation from the Messalian text of the Asketikon and compares it with Homily 13 of the Pseudo-Macarius55. He develops the following themes: asceticism, the old man, and grace in the depths of the heart.
In 1970, des Places responded to Dörries by underlining the opposition between Diadochus and Messalianism56. As a starting point he cites W. Jaeger’s comparative study of Gregory of Nyssa’s De Instituto Christiano and the Great Epistle, the results of which established that the former predate the Great Epistle which it paraphrases, and would therefore be an originally Messalian composition57. He also cites Daniélou’s study of Gregory of Nyssa and Messalianism, which, after analysing the condemnations ‒ of the movement in question ‒, demonstrates how, toward the end of the fourth century, a reform movement developed to such an extent that a “reformed Messalianism” (messalianisme réformé) emerged58. From this perspective, É. des Places points out some aspects in common between Diadochus and Symeon (the same as those analysed by Dörries): vision, renunciation of medicine, and the charism of theology. However, there remains a fundamental point of divergence: while Symeon increases the part of the
Then, in 1970, Meyendorff also responded to Dörries’ research. He admits that the consensus favouring the Messalian interpretation of Pseudo-Macarius met the scepticism of many scholars who interpreted it instead in the context of the spirituality of the East59. He approaches the problem of Pseudo-Macarius through a disjunctive question: Messalianism or Anti-Messalianism? He warns that identifying the Pseudo-Macarius as Messalian has repercussions for the whole tradition of Eastern Christian spirituality because if, in fact, Pseudo-Macarius is Messalian, then the whole tradition is also Messalian. After presenting some central points of Messalian theology alongside those of Pseudo-Macarius, he concludes that there is no evidence to support this hypothesis. Thus, he responds to Dörries’ fundamental postulate by arguing that his quotations are not accurate. Towards the conclusion, he observes that the later patristic Greek tradition ‒ and here we can recognise an implicit allusion to Diadochus ‒ having integrated Pseudo-Macarius and Evagrius, will witness a free and dynamic relationship between human nature and divine grace.
In 1976, Dörries published his last work on Pseudo-Macarius, in this case on his theology60. The title itself “Makarios/Simeon” reflects a search for synthesis, later expressed in the development of the theological thought of Pseudo-Macarius. As for his monastic background and context, the German scholar suggests that his outlook and knowledge are reminiscent of the Apophthegmata patrum. It should be noted that the only literary authority is the Bible; the Fathers are not cited. Dörries presents the following topics: evil (chap. I), prayer (chap. II), the Holy Spirit (chap. III), the charismatic teacher (chap. IV), Church and Christianity (chap. V), Symeon in his time (chap. VI). Concerning Diadochus, only one relevant mention is recorded, designating him as “the independent disciple of Symeon”61.
Frank, in 1982, admitted that one cannot understand the One Hundred Gnostic Chapters without considering the Messalian movement. At the same time, Diadochus warns that the teachings and practices of this heretical group contain dangerous errors, which can destroy true spiritual life. The Messalians with their asceticism and their ideal of poverty in spirit posed different questions to the Church, and Diadochus’ answer was an orthodox reformation62.
In 1984, Polyzogopoulos formulated his uncertainty about Diadochus’ direct knowledge of Homilies of Pseudo-Macarius, and at the same time pointed out a greater dependence on Evagrius63. While paraphrasing I. Hausherr, he argued that Diadochus had assumed a “middle” position, trying to take the best from Evagrius and Pseudo-Macarius.
Stewart, in 1991, presented a study on Messalianism and Pseudo-Macarius, paying special attention to the analysis of fundamental terms64. After a historical survey of Messalianism (chap. II), he examines the spiritual vocabulary of Pseudo-Macarius (chap. III), deepening this perspective with the study of Greek and Syriac terms (chap. IV) and metaphors (chap. V) of Christian spiritual experience. At the same time, he criticises the lack of studies that delve into the vocabulary itself; in particular, he attributes this weakness to Dörries’ studies. Stewart suggests that the Syriac context of Pseudo-Macarius can be demonstrated by examining its spiritual vocabulary. This language sounded unusual, excessive and even dangerous when translated for a Greek audience. The author highlights terminological parallels between the Pseudo-Macarius and Diadochus, in particular:
Joest, in 1992, analysed and criticised both Dörr’s thesis and Dörries’ response, pointing out some polemical statements and oversights. He concludes that “experience and dogma are one for him”65. He analyses the possible influences of Evagrius and Pseudo-Macarius and draws conclusions regarding “
In 1996, Rutherford suggested in her doctoral thesis that Diadochus’ arguments were directed specifically against the Homilies of Pseudo-Macarius67. In a later study, she proposed that a close engagement with the Homilies was intended to preserve the orthodox elements that might be valued in this ascetical literature68. Following the same argument, in the introduction to her critical edition, she postulates that Diadochus attacked Messalian errors using their own language, i.e. that the confusion arose from a misunderstanding of his apologetic method. She also notes that the bishop of Photike sought to preserve the value of his various sources, including the Homilies of Pseudo-Macarius, which ultimately contributed to later misunderstandings69.
Fitschen, in 1998, presented his study on Messalianism, adopting a conjunctive approach “Messalianismus und Antimessalianismus”. From this initial assessment we can discern his distance from Meyendorff, who ‒ as previously noted ‒ developed his analysis from a disjunctive interrogation. Undoubtedly, Fitschen’s work constitutes a clear contribution to our study70. Characterised by an exhaustive “history of research” (Forschungsgeschichte) on Messalianism and the Homilies of Pseudo-Macarius, his study begins with the birth of Messalianism (chap. II), explores its connections with related movements (chap. III), and then examines the identity of Pseudo-Macarius (chap. IV). Fitschen does not recognise him as a Messalian heresiarch or even as a Messalian theologian, but rather as an unwitting source of inspiration for the movement. Messalianism and anti-Messalianism are inseparably connected, each belonging to the other. Further, an “overview” (Überblick) on the history of Pseudo-Macarius’ reception demonstrates the innovative character of the writings transmitted under the name of Macarius the Egyptian. Concercing Diadochus, he mentions a positive reception of pseudo-Macarian thought. Regarding the coexistence of the devil and grace after Baptism, he indicates that this is a central theme. He explains that the “change of government” (Herrschaftswechsel) in the soul is a process, a “struggle” (Kampf) which begins with the arrival of the Holy Spirit. Fitschen deals with the problem of visions at the end of his study of Diadochus.
In 1998, Argárate published an article on Diadochus spiritual theology71. In his study, he offers a synthesis of the status quaestionis and concludes that both Pseudo-Macarius and Diadochus represent an effort to rescue what is valid in Messalianism: its longing for an evangelical Christianity and its awareness of the fundamental character of the taste of God and the sensitive experience of the Spirit, which causes the soul to overflow with peace and joy. In short, Macarius-Symeon would serve as a corrective of Messalianism, and the same is true of Diadochus.
Plested, in 2004, contributed to the conception of an organic synthesis by framing the study of Pseudo-Macarius within an integral analysis, paying due attention to the authors linked to his theological tradition: Mark the Monk, Diadochus himself, Isaiah, and Maximus the Confessor. He asserts the continuity of a single and unique current of Eastern spirituality and presents the anthropomorphite dispute as a hermeneutical key, in which the Messalians and Evagrius are involved. Regarding Diadochus, he states that he represents a conscious and creative synthesis of the spiritual traditions of Evagrius and Pseudo-Macarius, from whom he suggests a possible discipleship, or at least knowledge of his work. However, he warns that this is a critical reading, revising, for example, the theory of coexistence. Such an observation is not a criticism of the Messalians, but rather a “refinement” of Pseudo-Macarius’ response to the Messalian interpretation of grace. Nevertheless, the work of Diadochus, taken as a whole, is clearly situated within the tradition of Pseudo-Macarius72.
In 2006, Desprez offered a synoptic view of the status quaestionis: he began with a synthesis of the years 1935–1970, then focusing on the 1985 rereading, and finally proposed his own perspective73. His thesis centers on the “organic” aspect, extending the analysis of Diadochus beyond the main influences: Evagrius and Pseudo-Macarius74. Desprez prefers not to exaggerate the polemical purpose against the Messalians, arguing that Diadochus would have known them only indirectly, i.e. through the writings of Pseudo-Macarius75. He particularly argues that the points of connection with Pseudo-Macarius corpus strongly indicate that Diadochus knew and assimilated it, but of course this influence alone does fully account for his thought.
Bîrzu presented an essential hermeneutical key by pointing out that the work and spirituality of Diadochus lie at the heart of the tradition, creating an organic synthesis not only between the Messalian and Evagrian spiritual currents, but also between numerous tendencies arising from the common controversy: the content of grace and the communion of the soul with God, through grace76. His research is also inspired by A. Golitzin and his studies on the centrality of the anthropomorphic dispute in defining Christian spirituality; and by G. Bunge, especially in the Evagrian sphere, where he challenges certain unfounded or exaggerated accusations concerning Evagrian intellectualism77. His analysis of the texts moves beyond a dialectical synthesis to propose an organic one.
In 2025, Pavlou devoted an entire study about the remembrance in Diadochus78. The aim of this work is to elucidate the link between memory and “divine eros”. In this sense, a profound analysis about the remember of God is presented, trying to integrate the philosophical and pshycological aspects with theological ones. According to this monograph, the novelty of Diadochus consisted especially in a harmonious synthesis with the thought of the Greek philosophers. At the same time, Pavlou affirms the complex relantionship between Diadochus and the Messalianism, and claims that the Epirot bishop cannot be considered as one more of that sectarian group, since there is a substantial difference: Diadochus focuses on the sense of the soul, without giving more importance to the presence of evil after baptism. Diadochus could be recognised as the singer of the energies of the Holy Spirit’, and creator of a new philosophy, cause of hesychia79.
Diadochus of Photike and the Concept of διάκρισις
First of all, we should consider the study by Ch. Joest: Gott lieben in voller Empfindung des Herzens: Diadochus von Photike und seine Lehre der Unterscheidung80.
Dörr devotes the third part of his study to this topic: “Die Unterscheidung der Geister”81. It is particularly in Diadochus’ rejection of visions (as advocated by the Messalians) that we find a “middle position” (Mittelstellung) between the severe “intellectualistic mysticism” (intellektualistischen Mystik) of the school of Evagrius and the “sentimental mysticism” (sentimentalen Mystik) of the Messalians.
É. des Places, in the introduction to his critical edition: les discernements des esprits, analyses general principles, visions and dreams and the two desolations82.
A reference is also found in H. U. von Balthasar’s Herrlichkeit, in the first volume: “Seeing the Form”83, in the context of theological aesthetics. When developing the theme of the experience of faith, the Swiss theologian points to the teachings of some of the Church Fathers. Explicitly addressing the “discernment of the spirits”, he states: “What Diadochus has to say in this connection is classical and has not subsequently been surpassed (…) He already anticipated the questions and solutions later posed by hesychasm”84.
Lienhard traces an itinerary of the concept of discernment, beginning with its biblical roots, and then concentrating on its development in tradition. In it, he devotes a section to Evagrius Ponticus and Diadochus of Photike85.
In addition, from a general perspective, M. Ruiz Jurado includes a section dedicated to Diadochus86 in his study on spiritual discernment.
Plested, in his study of Pseudo-Macarius, includes a chapter on Diadochus, and he presents a section titled: “Discernment, dreams and visions”87.
Plan of the Work
In Part I, I will raise some introductory issues, such as the author’s identity, his historical context, life, and thought88. The last section is devoted to the Messalian controversy, which provides key elements for understanding of Diadochus’ thought, and, thus, his teaching on “discernment” (
Part II consists of an analysis of
In Part III, I explore the systematic development of the doctrine of the
I paraphrase Victor of Vita’s reference to the works of Diadochus, which stand out like “shining stars” (astra lucentia); cf. Vit., Historia persecutionis Africanae prouinciae Prol. (CSEL 7, p.2, lin.3).
The Philokalia was published in 1782, being oriented towards the Orthodox world. However, in the second half of the 20th century it achieved maximum success in the West; cf. T. Špidlík, L’attualità della Filocalia oggi, in Amore del bello, Studi della Filocalia, Bose 1991, pp.11–24.
With regard to the Proem, Frank warns that it does not relate to the context of the work; cf. S. Frank, Einführung, in Diadochus von Photike, p.48 (n.1). Joest notes that Frank is irritated by this mathematical precision of Diadochus and points out how the definitions are actually linked to the context of Diadochus’ work; cf. Ch. Joest, Gott lieben in voller Empfindung, p.149. I agree with Joest’s observation that the definitions assume a systematic value in the centuria. I will study the literary genre of the centuria in more detail in Chapter 1, pp.26–27.
See the Appendix, pp.317–320.
Diadochus is one of the spiritual authors recommended by the novice masters in the list of books suitable for their consultation; cf. Institutum Societatis Jesu, t.3, Florence 1893, p.121. Quoted in: É. des Places, Introduction, in Diadoque de Photicé, Œuvres, p.68 (n.1). Also: H. Rahner, Werdet kundige Geldwechsler: Zur Geschichte der Lehre des hl. Ignatius von der Unterscheidung der Geister, in Gregorianum 37/3 (1956), pp.444–483, pp.473–474.
Cf. C. Gutiérrez, s.v.: Torres F., in Diccionario de Historia Eclesiástica de España, Madrid 1975, p.2580. For a detailed list of his works (58 in all): cf. C. Sommervogel, s.v.: Torres F., dans Bibliothéque de la Compagnie de Jésus 8 (1898), pp.113–126.
F. Turriani, Deuotis Monasticis, Rome 1566, pp.39–42. It is a possible response to the Messalian heresy. Thus, the author shows a strategic choice: he underlines an apologetic content in a mystical work. Torres’ polemical character, manifested in various works, makes him an apologist at times.
F. Turriani, Deuotis, p.50. In the Philokalia as well, John of Karpathos is found after Diadochus; in the Migne edition, Mark the Monk precedes our author.
Cf. F. Turriani, De Definitione propria peccati originalis, ex Dionisyo Areopagita, et de Conceptione uirginis et Matris Dei, sine peccato, ex scriptura Angelicae Salutationis et testimoniis antiquorum Patrum, Ingolstadt 1581, B 2.
F. Turriani (PG 65, col.1167). This brief exordium is headed by the reference of the edition, that is to say the same as that of Francisco de Torres, the Library of Lyon: “Bibliotheca PP. Lugdun, V, 884”; cf. PG 65, col.1167.
Migne omits Torres’ explanatory notes (at the foot of the page); and although he retains the titles assigned to each chapter, they are modified (with respect to the 1570 edition).
It is interesting to note that the texts of the
Blessed Diadochus, Bishop of Photice in ancient Epirus, and his works, t. 1, Kiev 1903.
A. Jülicher, Sancti Diadochi episcopi Photicensis de perfectione spirituali capita centum, in Teologische Literaturzeitung 38 (1913), pp.13–14.
Cf. É. des Places, Introduction, in Diadoque de Photicé, Œuvres, pp.76–77.
Cf. Diadoque de Photicé, Œuvres. Le compte-rendu a été fait par H.-C. Puech in Revue de l’histoire des religions 131/1–3 (1946), pp.208–211.
Cf. Diadoque de Photicé, Œuvres. Le compte-rendu a été fait par P. Canivet dans RTAM 70/331–333 (1957), pp.549–553.
Cf. Diadoque de Photicé, Œuvres. Le compte-rendu a été fait par J. Pépin dans Revue des Études Anciennes 61/1–2 (1959), pp.253–254.
Cf. J. E. Rutherford, Introduction, in Diadochus of Photike, One hundred practical texts, pp.8–10. The translations I will quote belongs to this edition.
Scholars have the controversy between Diadochus and the Messalians, but little attention has been given to his harsh reproaches against the Jews. In order to formulate an explanation that properly responds to the author’s Sitz im Leben, it would be necessary to delve deeper into the Christian-Hebrew links in Epirus and Greece during the 5th century; cf. V. Bîrzu, La cristallisation de la spiritualité orthodoxe aux IVᵉ et Vᵉ siècles. L’émergence de l’œuvre de Saint Diadoque. On the technical terminology of the Council of Chalcedon assumed in the Sermon and also on the anti-Jewish polemic: J. Leemans, Anti-Jewish Polemic, Christology and the Reception of Chalcedon, Diadochus of Photice on the Ascension of the Lord, in Questions Liturgiques 92/4 (2011), pp.324–339.
Diadoque de Photicé, Œuvres Spirituelles, ed. É. des Places, SCh 5bis, Paris 1943, pp.164–168. Diadoque de Photicé, La perfection spirituelle, ed. M. H. Congourdeau, Paris 1990, pp.77–82. Diadoco de Fótice, Obras completas, ed. P. Argárate, Madrid 1999, pp.159–164. Following the Footsteps of the Invisible, The Complete Works of Diadochus of Photiké, ed. Ermatinger, Collegeville 2010, pp.131–135. Diadoco di Fotica, Opere spirituali, ed. M. B. Artioli, Roma 2016, pp.265–273.
It is an expression of the Frage-Antwort-Schema (Erotapokrisis); cf. K. Fitschen, Einleitung, in Pseudo-Makarios, Reden und Briefe, ed. K. Fitschen, Stuttgart 2000, p.1.
The One Hundred Gnostic Chapters refer forcefully to the danger of visions and dreams (chs. 36–40), which is paradoxical since this small project is based on a night vision. Nevertheless, it is a pedagogical device belonging to a certain literary genre.
Cf. V. Desprez, Diadoque de Photicé et le Pseudo-Macaire, un état des questions, in Universum Hagiographicum, Mémorial R. P. Michel van Esbroeck s.j., New Jersey 2009, pp.114–135.
Diadoque de Photicé, Œuvres Spirituelles, ed. É. des Places, SCh 5bis, Paris 1943, pp.170–179. Diadoco de Fótice, Obras completas, ed. P. Argárate, Madrid 1999, pp.167–177. Following the Footsteps of the Invisible, The Complete Works of Diadochus of Photiké, ed. Ermatinger, Collegeville 2010, pp.139–148. Diadoco di Fotica, Opere spirituali, ed. M. B. Artioli, Roma 2016, pp.274–295.
In 1952, É. des Places postulated that the Catechesis belonged to Diadochus and not to Symeon the New Theologian, basing his hypothesis on the fact that in some manuscripts (14th century and later) the “dialogue” (a provisional designation of the Catechesis to distinguish it from the Vision of St. Diadochus) was found among the writings of Diadochus. This is also supported by its agreement in tone and style with the rest of the corpus of the bishop of Photike; cf. É. des Places, Une Catéchèse inédite de Diadoque de Photicé, in Melanges J. Breton, Recherches de Science Religieuse XL (1952), pp.129–138. In 1954, Krivocheine confronted des Places’ position, with A. Wenger, concluding that the Catechesis should rather be attributed to Symeon the New Theologian. His arguments focus on the attribution by the majority of the ancient manuscripts. With regard to the other arguments of des Places, he objects that they constitute a very loose interpretation of the Greek text; cf. B. Krivocheine, The Writings of St. Symeon the New Theologian, in OCP 20/2 (1954), pp.301–327, p.301 (n. 2). In 1957 Darrouzès argued that the attribution to Diadochus derived from an error in copying and transmission. Among the manuscripts containing the Dialogue of a scholastic with Symeon, a distinction must be made between those which have the Dialogue alone, and those which report to have the Dialogue together with the centuria (of Symeon). The first group has little authority while the second group refers to different archetypes; however, they show that there is no link between the Dialogue and Diadochus. On the other hand, once the relationship of the Dialogue with Symeon is admitted, some expressions and ideas can be explained; cf. J. Darrouzès, Notes d’histoire des textes, in Revue des études byzantines 15 (1957), pp.169–175, pp.172–175. B. In 1985, Fraigneau-Julien presented both positions without defining his opinion. At the beginning of his study, he does not mention the Catechesis among the works of Symeon; but on the other hand, he points out that most manuscripts attribute it to Symeon; cf. B. Fraigneau-Julien, Les sens spirituelles et la vision de Dieu selon Syméon le Nouveau Théologien, Paris 1985, pp.11.71.
Cf. É. des Places, Introduction, in Diadoque de Photicé, Œuvres, p.81.
Diadoque de Photicé, Œuvres Spirituelles, ed. É. des Places, SCh 5bis, Paris 1953, pp.180–183. Diadoco de Fótice, Obras completas, ed. P. Argárate, Madrid 1999, pp.181–184. Following the Footsteps of the Invisible, The Complete Works of Diadochus of Photiké, ed. Ermatinger, Collegeville 2010, pp.151–154. Diadoco di Fotica, Opere spirituali, ed. M. B. Artioli, Roma 2016, pp.296–303.
The following articles offer a synoptic view of modern studies in various periods: É. des Places, Un père grec du Vᵉ siècle, pp.61–80. Most recent: V. Desprez, Diadoque de Photicé et le Pseudo-Macaire, pp.114–135.
É. des Places, Un père grec du Ve siècle, pp.61–80.
V. Bîrzu, Au cœur de la Tradition, La spiritualité des IVᵉ et Vᵉ siècles et œuvre de Saint Diadoque dans le contexte doctrinal de l’époque, p.339.
The controversy revolves around the One Hundred Gnostic Chapters, as they lack explicit mention of the opponents. “One of the factors which has made Diadochus so difficult to interpret over the centuries is the fact that he makes no explicit reference either to his sources or to his opponents; even Messalians are referred to obliquely as Some People”. J. E. Rutherford, Sealed with the likeness of God: Christ as Logos in Diadochus of Photike, in Studies in Patristic Christology, Dublin 1998, p.79.
R. Reitzenstein, Historia monachorum und Historia Lausiaca, Göttingen 1916, pp.124–142. In F. Drexl’s bibliographical index, after detailing the studies on “Markos Eremites”, he goes on to note “Diadochus von Photike”, publishing only the work of R. Reitzenstein; cf. F. Drexl, Zehn Jahre griechische Patristik (1916–1925), II. Teil: Die Jahrhunderte IV und V, München, pp.253–254.
Cf. L. Villecourt, La date et l’origine des Homélies spirituelles attribuées à Macaire, in Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1920), pp.250–258. For a survey of studies prior to Villecourt, see K. Fitschen, Einleitung, in Pseudo-Makarios, Reden und Briefe, ed. K. Fitschen, Stuttgart 2000, p.2.
Cf. L. Villecourt, La date et l’origine des Homélies, p.254.
Cf. ibid., p.257.
Cf. M. Viller, Diadoque de Photiké, in La spiritualité des premiers siècles chrétiens, Paris 1930, pp.129–130.
Cf. I. Hausherr, Les grands courants de la spiritualité orientale, in OCP I (1935), pp.114–138, pp.126–127.
Ibid., p.127.
Cf. F. Dörr, Diadochus von Photike und die Messalianer, Ein Kampf zwischen wahrer und falscher Mystik im fünften Jahrhundert, in: Freiburger Theologische Studien 47 (1937).
Cf. ibid., pp.15–21.
Cf. ibid., p.135.
Cf. F. Dörr, Diadochus von Photike und die Messalianer. Le compte-rendu a été fait par D. B. Capelle dans Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 10 (1938), pp.406–407.
Cf. F. Dörr, Diadochus von Photike und die Messalianer. Rezension von K. Rahner in Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 62/2 (1938), pp.291–292.
Cf. M. Rotheuhäusler, La doctrine de la “Theologia” chez Diadoque de Photice, in Irenikon XIV (1937), pp.536–553.
Cf. ibid., p.547.
“Gemässtigen Messalianismus”; cf. M. Rotheuhäusler, Zur Asketischen Lehrschaft des Diadochus von Photike, in Heilige Überlieferung, Festschrift für Herwegen, Münster 1938, p.95.
Cf. H. Dörries, Symeon von Mesopotamien. Die Überlieferung der Messalianer “Makarios” Schriften, Liepzig 1941.
Cf. É. des Places, Introduction, in Diadoque de Photicé, Œuvres, pp.20–21.
Cf. H. Dörries, Wort und Stunde, Gesammelte Studien zur Kirchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts, Göttingen 1966, pp.352–422.
“Diadochus hat in Symeon seinen Lehrer verehrt, und sein Wort galt ihm viel, auch wenn er nicht vermochte, es voll aufzunehmen”. Ibid., p.365.
Cf. ibid., p.354.
Cf. É des Places, Diadoque de Photicé et le Messalianisme, in Kyriakon, Festschrift für J. Quasten 2 (1970), pp.591–595.
Cf. W. Jaeger, Two Rediscovered Works of Ancient Christian Literature: Gregory of Nyssa and Macarius, Leiden 1965, pp.233–301.
Cf. J. Daniélou, Grégoire de Nysse et le messalianisme, in Recherches de science religieuse 48 (1960), pp.119–134, p.128.
Cf. J. Meyendorff, Messalianism or Anti-Messalianism? A Fresh Look at the Macarian Problem, in Kyriakon, Festschrift für J. Quasten 2 (1970), pp.585–590.
Cf. H. Dörries, Die Theologie des Makarios/Symeon, Göttingen 1978. This is a posthumous edition. Dörries died in 1977.
“Symeons eigenständiger Schüler”. Ibid., p.349.
Cf. S. Frank, Einführung, in Diadochus von Photike, Gespür für Gott, Hundert Kapitel über die christliche Vollkommenheit, ed. S. Frank, Freiburg 1982, pp.29–30.
Cf. T. Polyzogopoulos, Life and writings, p.782.
Cf. C. Stewart, Working the Earth of the Heart, pp.70–233.
“Erfahrung und Dogma sind ihm eins”. Ch. Joest, Gott lieben in voller Empfindung des Herzens: Diadochus von Photike und seine Lehre der Unterscheidung, in Ostkirchliche Studien 41/2–3 (1992), pp.149–186, p.59.
Cf. ibid., p.168.
Cf. J. E. Rutherford, An Imperative of Longing: Apprehending God in the
Cf. J. E. Rutherford, Sealed with the likeness of God: Christ as Logos in Diadochus of Photike, in Studies in Patristic Christology, Dublin 1998, pp.69–70.
Cf. J. E. Rutherford, Introduction, in Diadochus of Photike, One hundred practical texts, pp.3–5.
Cf. K. Fitschen, Messalianismus und Antimessalianismus, ein Beispiel ostkirlicher Ketzergeschichte, in Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 71, Götingen 1998.
Cf. P. Argárate,
Cf. M. Plested, The Macarian Legacy, Oxford 2004, p.174.
V. Desprez, Diadoque de Photicé et le Pseudo-Macaire, pp.114–135.
Most modern scholars emphasise that Diadochus is indebted to Evagrius. For an introduction to the similarities and differences between the two authors: T. Polyzogopoulos, Life and Writings, pp.777–779.
Cf. V. Desprez, Diadoque de Photicé et le Pseudo-Macaire, p.119.
Cf. V. Bîrzu, Au cœur de la Tradition, La spiritualité des IV et V siècles et œuvre de Saint Diadoque dans le contexte doctrinal de l’époque, pp.334–335.
Cf. V. Bîrzu, La cristallisation de la spiritualité orthodoxe dans les IVᵉ et Vᵉ siècles. L’émergence de l’œuvre de Saint Diadoque, p.3.
Cf. T. Pavlou, La Memoria dell’Eros divino, Pensiero filosofico-psicologico e mistico-teologico di Diadoco di Foticea, Padre dell’esicasmo e della preghiera del cuore (Teologia e spiritualità 6) Lugano 2025.
In this study, we find a complete introduction on Diadochus, in which his relationship to Messalianism, and dependence on Evagrius and Pseudo-Macarius, are discussed. In this regard, Pavlou states that an important difference of Diadochus was his orthodoxy, ensuring his influence in the following centuries. The analysis of Diadochus’ philosophical background is one of the main contributions of this study; cf. T. Pavlou, La Memoria dell’Eros divino, pp.17–126.
Cf. Ch. Joest, Gott lieben in voller Empfindung des Herzens, pp.149–186.
F. Dörr, Diadochus von Photike und die Messalianer.
Cf. É. des Places, Introduction, in Diadoque de Photicé, Œuvres, pp.42–48.
H. U. von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord, I, Seeing the Form, Edinburgh 1998 [orig. Herrlichkeit, I, Schau der Gestalt, Einsiedeln 1961].
Ibid., pp.279. 282.
Cf. J. T. Lienhard, “Discernment of spirits” in the Early Church, in Theological Studies 41 (1980), pp.522–524.
Cf. M. Ruiz Jurado, El discernimiento espiritual. Teología. Historia. Práctica, Madrid 1994, pp.81–85.
Cf. M. Plested, The Macarian Legacy, pp.144–150.
With regard to the translation of Diadochus’ work, I will follow the critical edition: Diadoque de Photicé, Œuvres spirituelles, ed. É. des Places (1943). The English translations are taken from the following sources: Diadochus of Photike, One Hundred Practical Texts of Perception and Spiritual Discernment, ed. J. E. Rutherford (Belfast, 2000). The Sermon on the Ascension: Following the Footsteps of the Invisible, The Complete Works of Diadochus of Photiké, ed. Ermatinger, Collegeville 2010, pp.131–135. The Vision of St. Diadochus: ibid., pp.139–148. The Catechesis, ibid., pp.150–154.