65

he will cleanse his own soul from the passions and from false opinions, invoking aid from above for both purifications, and himself also doing whatever is advantageous for the end. Therefore, he will wish to learn throughout his life and to converse with all who profess to know anything. For it will make no difference to him who the teacher is, if only he contributes to his knowledge; for this is the one who has attained the perfection befitting men, who has harmonized his own mind with the truth that is through all things, in a permanent union».

He had said these things and more than these sporadically in his work *On Human Perfection and the Acquisition of Wisdom*. He says, therefore, that our soul needs two purifications, that from the passions and that from ignorance of disposition, and he says that the observance of the commandments provides only the purification from the passions, and this he barely concedes, as he himself says, to the commandments of God; but learning, he says, gives purification from ignorance, not the learning of the divine Scriptures, for the learning of these is included in the observance of the commandments. However, if he had meant this, no harm would have followed, since the great Maximus also says something of this sort, distinguishing the practice of virtue from the divine dogmas, and we (p. 334) sometimes say that through the divine commandments the soul is purified from the passions, while by pure prayer all knowledge is transcendently laid aside. But such things are said in this way by way of pre-eminence, just as the angel of the Lord's resurrection said to the myrrh-bearing women: «Tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee». As, therefore, Peter is of the company of the disciples, even if, being named pre-eminently, he is distinguished from them, in the same way both prayer and the reading of the holy Scriptures are commandments of God, even if by way of pre-eminence they are distinguished from them, but not so the undertaking of philosophical studies; and if this were also said pre-eminently, what absurdity.

But this man says that it is not the learning of the divine Scriptures that perfectly purifies the soul, but that of the Hellenic studies; wherefore he also adds that the one who is to be purified must learn, if anyone professes to know anything, whether he be godly or not, and he declares impure and imperfect the one who has not acquired the knowledge of beings, in order to show that this learning is salvific, purifying, and perfecting. That the one who says these things, therefore, holds opinions contrary to all the fathers and to the God of the fathers, I think is evident to all who are of sound mind; but let the revealer of God from the Areopagus, Dionysius, come forward as a witness for us on behalf of all, with whom, more than with all others and in all things, this man boasts of agreeing, more perfectly than the divine commandments. For he says in the first chapter of the *Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*: «Likeness and union with God, as the divine oracles teach, are perfected only by the love and sacred performance of the most venerable commandments». Is it possible to find anything more perfect than likeness to God? Certainly not, not even to say it, nor to conceive it. And so that this most perfect one might agree with us on this point, we shall recall the beginning of what he wrote (p. 336) in his *On Human Perfection*: for there he says, «a perfect man is he who has made his own soul, as far as is possible for man, like unto God».

If, therefore, likeness to God is perfection, and this is perfected only by the sacred working of the divine commandments through love, where is the purification and perfection that comes from knowledge and studies and from wishing to learn throughout one's life and hastening to converse with all who profess to know anything and contribute to knowledge, whether they be Egyptians or Scythians or Greeks? And how does the one who says purification comes from these things not openly contradict the divine oracles and the fathers who confess them? And how does the one who says that from the observance of the commandments only dispassion is gained—it not being purificatory of ignorance nor illuminative of the truth in existing things, as he in turn thinks—and this only with difficulty, and the one not being purified by the commandments of God

65

τῶν παθῶν καί τῶν ψευδῶν δοξῶν τήν ἑαυτοῦ καθαριεῖ ψυχήν, καί τήν ἄνωθεν μέν ἀντίληψιν πρός ἀμφοτέρας τάς καθάρσεις ἐπικαλούμενον, πράττοντι δέ καί αὐτῷ ὅσα προὔργου πρός τό τέλος ὑπάρχει. Οὐκοῦν διά βίου μανθάνειν βουλήσεται καί ὁμιλεῖν πᾶσιν ὅσοι εἰδέναι τι ἐπαγγέλλονται. Οὐδέν γάρ αὐτῷ διοίσει τίς ὁ διδάσκων, ἄν μόνον πρός γνῶσιν αὐτῷ συμβάλληται˙ οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ τῆς προσηκούσης ἀνθρώποις τελειότητος ἐπήβολος, ὅς τῇ διά πάντων ἀληθείᾳ τόν ἑαυτοῦ ἐνήρμοσε νοῦν καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν μόνιμον».

Ταῦτα καί πλείω τούτων ἔν τε τῷ Περί τελειότητος ἀνθρωπίνης καί Σοφίας κτήσεως σποράδην εἰρήκει. ∆ύο τοίνυν φησί καθάρσεων τήν ψυχήν ἡμῶν δεῖσθαι, τῆς τῶν παθῶν καί τῆς κατά διάθεσιν ἀγνοίας, καί τήν μέν κάθαρσιν μόνην τῶν παθῶν τήν τήρησιν τῶν ἐντολῶν παρέχειν φησί, καί ταύτην μόγις, ὡς αὐτός λέγει, ταῖς ἐντολαῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ συγχωρεῖ, τήν δέ τῆς ἀγνοίας διδόναι λέγει τήν μάθησιν, οὐ τῶν θείων Γραφῶν, ἡ γάρ τούτων μάθησις ἐμπεριείληπται τῇ τῶν ἐντολῶν τηρήσει. Ὅμως εἰ ταύτην ἔλεγεν, οὐδέν ἄν ἐπηκολούθει βλάβος, ἐπεί καί ὁ μέγας Μάξιμος λέγει τι τοιοῦτον τήν τῆς ἀρετῆς πράξιν τῶν θείων δογμάτων διαιρῶν, καί ἡμεῖς (σελ. 334) ἔστιν ὅτε λέγομεν διά μέν τῶν θείων ἐντολῶν τήν ψυχήν τῶν παθῶν καθαίρεσθαι, τῇ δέ καθαρᾷ προσευχῇ πᾶσαν ὑπεροχικῶς γνῶσιν ἀποτίθεσθαι. Τά τοιαῦτα δ᾿ οὕτω λέγεται κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν, ὡς καί ὁ τῆς δεσποτικῆς ἀναστάσεως ἄγγελος ἔλεγε ταῖς μυροφόροις˙ «εἴπατε τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ καί τῷ Πέτρῳ ὅτι προάγει ὑμᾶς εἰς τήν Γαλιλαίαν». Ὡς οὖν ὁ Πέτρος τοῦ χοροῦ τῶν μαθητῶν ἐστιν, εἰ καί ἐξόχως καλούμενος ἐκείνων διαιρεῖται, τόν αὐτόν τρόπον καί ἡ προσευχή καί ἡ τῶν ἱερῶν Γραφῶν ἀνάγνωσις ἐντολαί εἰσι Θεοῦ, εἰ καί κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ἐκείνων διαιροῦνται, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί ἡ τῶν κατά φιλοσοφίαν μαθημάτων ἀνάληψις˙ εἰ δέ καί ἐξόχως λέγοιτο, τῆς ἀτοπίας.

Οὗτος δέ οὐ τήν τῶν θείων Γραφῶν μάθησιν καθαίρειν λέγει τελείως τήν ψυχήν, ἀλλά τήν τῶν ἑλληνικῶν μαθημάτων˙ διό καί τό δεῖν μανθάνειν τόν καθαρθησόμενον, εἴ τίς τι ἐπαγγέλλεται εἰδέναι, κἄν θεοσεβής ᾖ κἄν μή, προστίθησι, καί ἀκάθαρτον ἀποφαίνεται καί ἀτελῆ τόν μή τήν γνῶσιν ἐσχηκότα τῶν ὄντων, ἵνα δείξῃ σωτηριώδη, καθαρτικήν τε καί τελεστικήν ταύτην οὖσαν τήν μάθησιν. Ὅτι μέν οὖν ὁ ταῦτα λέγων τἀναντίαν φρονεῖ τοῖς πατράσι τε πᾶσι καί τῷ τῶν πατέρων Θεῷ, φανερόν οἶμαι πᾶσιν εἶναι τοῖς εὖ φρονοῦσιν˙ ἡμῖν δέ παρελθέτω μάρτυς εἰς μέσον ὑπέρ ἁπάντων ὁ ἐξ Ἀρείου Πάγου θεοφάντωρ ∆ιονύσιος, ᾧ μάλιστα πάντων διά πάντων ὁ τελεώτερον τῶν θείων ἐντολῶν οὗτος αὐχεῖ συμφωνεῖν. Φησί γοῦν ἐν κεφαλαίῳ πρώτῳ τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱεραρχίας˙ «ἡ πρός Θεόν ἀφομοίωσίς τε καί ἕνωσις, ὡς τά θεῖα διδάσκει λόγια, ταῖς τῶν σεβασμιωτάτων ἐντολῶν ἀγαπήσεσι καί ἱερουργίαις μόνως τελεῖται». Ἆρ᾿ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν τῆς πρός Θεόν ἀφομοιώσεως τελεώτερον; Οὔμενουν, οὐδ᾿ εἰπεῖν, οὐδ᾿ ἐννοῆσαι. Ἵνα δέ ἡμῖν καί ὁ ὑπερτελής οὗτος κατά τοῦτο συνείποι, τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν γεγραμμένων (σελ. 336) αὐτῷ Περί τελειότητος ἀνθρωπίνης ἀναμνήσομεν˙ ἐκεῖ γάρ φησι, «τέλειος ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν ὁ τήν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχήν καθ᾿ ὅσον ἀνθρώπῳ δυνατόν, ὁμοίαν τῷ Θεῷ πεποιηκώς».

Εἰ τοίνυν ἡ πρός τόν Θεόν ἀφομοίωσις τελείωσις, αὕτη δέ μόνῃ τῇ δι᾿ ἀγάπης ἱερᾷ ἐργασίᾳ τῶν θείων ἐντολῶν τελεῖται, ποῦ ἡ ἐκ γνώσεως καί μαθημάτων καί τοῦ διά βίου μανθάνειν ἐθέλειν καί πᾶσι σπεύδειν ὁμιλεῖν ὅσοι εἰδέναι τι ἐπαγγέλλονται καί πρός γνῶσιν συμβάλλονται, κἄν Αἰγύπτιοι κἄν Σκύθαι κἄν Ἕλληνες ὦσι, κάθαρσις καί τελείωσις; Πῶς δ᾿ ὁ λέγων ἐκ τούτων τήν κάθαρσιν, οὐ τοῖς θείοις φανερῶς ἀντιλέγει λογίοις καί τοῖς τούτων ὁμολογηταῖς πατράσι; Πῶς δ᾿ ὁ λέγων ἐκ τῆς τηρήσεως τῶν ἐντολῶν μόνην τήν ἀπάθειαν προσγίνεσθαι, τήν μή καθαρτικήν οὖσαν τῆς ἀγνοίας μηδέ φωτιστικήν τῆς ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἀληθείας, ὡς αὐτός αὖθις οἴεται, καί ταύτην μόγις, τήν δέ μή διά τῶν ἐντολῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ καθαιρομένην