55

to be a gift of God.” Do you see the slanders that have been put forward revealed? For of these, one he says against the hesychasts, the other against our words. But of the hesychasts among us he says, the other against our words. But of the hesychasts among us we have known no one who, having learned his letters, does not attend to the sacred words, and one might see those who do not know letters as other living books, reciting from memory most of the sacred words with skill. Since, therefore, these men are clearly such, his argument seems to be directed against the fathers; for one of them, he says, “labors and not tablets,” and another, “the heart of one who reads merely from many pages is stripped bare,” and another, “a monk who reads for the sake of knowledge and not for compunction acquires conceit.” Whether, therefore, the argument is against these or against those, it is a clear slander. For such things were not said by them for the slander of Holy Scripture (p. 280); but knowing that it is practice, not knowledge, that saves, and having learned from the apostle who says that not the hearers of the law, but the doers will be saved, they themselves also exhort their hearers to this through such words.

And I continually say, being mindful, after “dividing and casting away” all that is mythical and of evil opinion from secular wisdom, that knowledge from outside education “could not thus be called a spiritual gift, but a natural one, given to us by God through nature and led to advancement by study, a clear proof of which, that it is a natural and not a spiritual gift, is that it comes to no one at all without study; for the divine wisdom which is ours is properly a gift of God given in the Holy Spirit, not a natural one, which even if it descends upon fishermen from above, makes them sons of thunder.” For just as “the earth is the Lord’s and all who dwell in it,” but few are God’s, even if all are His creations, in the same way surely it is God who provides man with knowledge, but few are they who have acquired the wisdom of the Spirit, even though all have by Him been made rational by nature and receptive of knowledge. Does not, then, he who says that to call it a natural gift is to say it is in no way a gift of God, openly slander the one who says it? For whose gift is nature? Is it not God’s? Why then does he say it is in no way from God, what one says is given from God through nature?

But then that man tries to show, or rather asserts without proof, that he agrees with the great Dionysius, but we do not. And the slander is immediately at hand, bringing forward for him certain things it was in no way able to establish; “For this reason you do not agree,” he says, “with the divine Dionysius, because you maintain that philosophy appeared from demons and leads to demons (p. 282).” After this again, as if forgetting himself, “Concerning this philosophy,” he says, “which we ourselves honor, you have uttered the same pronouncements to us.” How could one show himself to be more self-contradictory? But from where have you gotten this, that I maintain philosophy appeared from demons and leads to demons? “Because,” he says, “you bring forward the most eminent of the Greeks saying very clearly that they received their knowledge from the inspiration of demons.” What, then, do we conclude from this there? Do you wish that we set forth the very words? Will we then say “you have the wisdom of God” to those who say such things about themselves? No, so long as we are in our right minds and servants of the true wisdom, which does not enter into a soul that devises evil and is a friend to demons; and even if it has already entered, when the soul changes for the worse, it flies away; for the holy spirit of discipline will depart from thoughts that are without understanding, according to Solomon who was blessed with the wisdom of God and wrote concerning it. And what is more witless than those who are proud of demons

55

εἶναι δόσιν Θεοῦ». Ὁρᾷς ἀνακεκαλυμμένας τάς συκοφαντίας προβεβλημένας; Τούτων γάρ τό μέν κατά τῶν ἡσυχαζόντων λέγει, τό δέ κατά τῶν λόγων τῶν ἡμετέρων. Ἀλλά τῶν μέν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν ἡσυχαζόντων λέγει, τό δέ κατά τῶν λόγων τῶν ἡμετέρων. Ἀλλά τῶν μέν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν ἡσυχαζόντων οὐδένα ἔγνωμεν ὅς τοῖς λογίοις οὐ προσανέχει, γράμματα μεμαθηκώς, καί τούς μή γράμματα εἰδότας ἴδοι τις ἄν βίβλους ἄλλας ἐμψύχους ἀπό στήθους τά πλείονα τῶν λογίων εὐφυῶς ἀπαγγέλοντας. Ἐπεί τοίνυν οὗτοι σαφῶς τοιοῦτοι, πρός τούς πατέρας τείνειν ἔοικεν ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ˙ ὁ μέν γάρ αὐτῶν, φησί, «κόπους καί μή δέλτους», ὁ δέ «τοῦ ἐν πολλοῖς φύλλοις ἀναγινώσκοντος ψιλῶς ψιλοῦται ἡ καρδία», καί ἕτερος «μοναχός διά γνῶσιν καί μή διά κατάνυξιν ἀναγινώσκων οἴησιν κτᾶται». Εἴτε τοίνυν πρός τούτους εἴτε πρός ἐκείνους ὁ λόγος, συκοφαντία σαφής. Οὐ γάρ ἐπί διαβολῇ τῆς ἱερᾶς Γραφῆς (σελ. 280) τοιαῦτ᾿ ἄττα παρ᾿ ἐκείνων εἴρηται˙ τήν πρᾶξιν δέ εἰδότες, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τήν γνῶσιν σώζουσαν, καί τοῦ ἀποστόλου πυθόμενοι μή τούς ἀκροατάς τοῦ νόμου, τούς δέ ποιητάς σωθήσεσθαι λέγοντος, ἐπί τοῦτο καί αὐτοί τούς πυθμένους διά τῶν τοιούτων λόγων προτρέπονται.

Κἀγώ δέ εἰπών διατελῶ μεμνημένος, μετά τό «διελεῖν καί διαρρίψαι» πᾶν ὅ τι τῆς θύραθεν σοφίας μυθῶδες καί κακόδοξον, ὡς ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἔξω παιδείας γνῶσις «πνευματικόν μέν δῶρον οὐδ᾿ οὕτως ἄν κληθείη, φυσικόν δέ, διά τῆς φύσεως δεδομένον ἡμῖν παρά Θεοῦ καί μελέτῃ πρός ἐπίδοσιν ἀγόμενον, ὅ καί τεκμήριον ἐναργές ὡς φυσικόν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πνευματικόν ἐστι δῶρον, τό μή μελέτης ἄνευ μηδενί τῶν ἁπάντων παραγίνεσθαι˙ Θεοῦ γάρ κυρίως δῶρον ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι δεδομένον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ φυσικόν, ἡ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς θεοσοφία, ἤ κἄν ἁλιεῦσιν ἄνωθεν ἐπιπτῇ, βροντῆς υἱούς ἀπεργάζεται». Καθάπερ γάρ «τοῦ Κυρίου μέν ἐστιν ἡ γῆ καί πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν αὐτῇ», ὀλίγοι δέ οἱ τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἰ καί πάντες πλάσματα τόν αὐτόν δήπου τρόπον καί Θεός μέν ἐστιν ὁ παρέχων ἀνθρώπῳ γνῶσιν, ὀλίγοι δέ εἰσιν οἱ τήν σοφίαν κτησάμενοι τοῦ Πνεύματος, εἰ καί πάντες ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ φύσει λογικοί καί ἐπιστήμης δεκτικοί γεγόνασιν. Ἄρ᾿ οὖν οὐ συκοφαντεῖ περιφανῶς τόν λέγοντα φυσικόν δῶρον ὁ λέγων μηδεμῶς εἶναι λέγειν δόσιν Θεοῦ; Τίνος γάρ ἡ φύσις δόμα; Οὐχί τοῦ Θεοῦ; Τίνος οὖν οὐδαμῶς ἐκ Θεοῦ λέγει, ὅ διά τῆς φύσεως φησιν ἐκ Θεοῦ δεδομένον;

Ἀλλ᾿ ἐκεῖνος ἔπειτα πειρᾶται δεῖξαι, μᾶλλον δέ ἀποδείκτως ἀποφαίνεται, ὡς αὐτός μέν τῷ μεγάλῳ ∆ιονυσίῳ ὁμολογεῖ, ἡμεῖς δ᾿ οὔ. Καί ἡ συκοφαντία εὐθύς ἐγγύς, παριστῶσα αὐτῷ ἄττα παραστῆσαι οὐδαμῶς ἴσχυσε˙ «διά τοῦτο γάρ οὐχ ὁμολογεῖς», φησί, «τῷ θείῳ ∆ιονυσίῳ, ἐπειδή τήν φιλοσοφίαν ἐκ δαιμόνων τε φανῆναι καί εἰς δαίμονας (σελ. 282) φέρειν διισχυρίζῃ». Μετά τοῦτο δ᾿ αὖθις, ὥσπερ ἐπιλαθόμενος αὐτός ἑαυτοῦ, «περί τῆς φιλοσοφίας ταύτης», φησίν, «ἥν αὐτοί πρεσβεύομεν, τάς αὐτάς ἡμῖν ἀφῆκας φωνάς». Πῶς ἄν τις μᾶλλον δείξειεν ἑαυτῷ ἀντικείμενος ὤν; Ἀλλ᾿ ἐκεῖνο πόθεν ἔχεις λαβών, ὡς ἐκ δαιμόνων φανῆναι καί εἰς δαίμονας φέρειν τήν φιλοσοφίαν διισχυρίζομαι; «Ὅτι», φησί, «τῶν Ἑλλήνων τούς ἄκρους παράγεις λέγοντας ἀριδήλως ἐκ δαιμόνων ἐπιπνοίας τήν γνῶσιν δέξασθαι». Τί οὖν δία τούτου συμπεραίνομεν ἐκεῖ; Βούλει προθῶμεν αὐτά τά ρήματα; Ἆρ᾿ οὖν «Θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐροῦμεν ἔχεις τούς τοιαῦτα περί σφῶν αὐτῶν λέγοντας; Οὐχί, ἕως ἄν ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ὦμεν καί τῆς ὄντως σοφίας θεραπευταί, ἥτις εἰς κακότεχνον καί δαίμοσι φίλην οὐκ εἰσέρχεται ψυχήν˙ κἄν εἰσελθοῦσα φθάσῃ, μεταβαλούσης ἐπί τό χεῖρον, ἀφίπταται˙ Πνεῦμα γάρ ἅγιον παιδείας ἐπαναστήσεται ἀπό λογισμῶν ἀσυνέτων, κατά Σολομῶντα τόν Θεοῦ σοφίαν εὐμοιρηκότα καί περί αὐτῆς συγγραψάμενον. Τί δέ ἀσυνετώτερον τῶν μέγα φρονούντων ἐπί τῷ δαίμοσι