83

But how will the philosopher be speaking with certainty? “‘What then? Shall we dishonor sense-perception and imagination when praying, but accept that the passible part of the soul should be active according to some of its own powers? Or, much rather, not even this? For its activities, most of all, blind and bury the divine eye.’” Indeed! How does hatred for evil things and love for God and neighbor bury the divine eye? For these too are activities of the passible part; for by this power of the soul we both love and are averse, we both appropriate and are alienated, just as with the reasoning part of the soul, according to the wise Synesius, we both approve and find fault. Is it, then, a mortification of the rational part to be occupied with divine contemplations and to send up hymn and thanksgiving to God and to cleave to Him through continuous remembrance? Or is this the true life and true activity of the mind? In the same way, then, the lovers of good things do not mortify the passible part, shutting it up idle and motionless within themselves, for then they would not have that with which they might love the good and hate the evil, nor that through which they might be alienated from the one and appropriated to God. But this they mortify, by transferring the entire disposition of this power away from evil things toward the love of God, according to the first and great commandment: ‘for,’ it says, ‘you shall love the Lord your God with all your strength,’ which is the same as saying, ‘of your power.’ Of what entire power? Clearly, that of the passible part; for this is the loving part of the soul. This, being so disposed, also raises the other powers of the soul (p. 398) from earthly things and stretches them up toward God; this, being so disposed, also furnishes sincerity to prayer and does not hinder the mind, but even cooperates with it to have God established within itself through remembrance; this, being so disposed, also allows those who suffer for the sake of that which is truly desired to despise the flesh and bear its pains more easily; for through it, having been utterly captured by that love-potion and, as it were, having risen up from the flesh, by communion with the divine Spirit through prayer and love, they live perceiving these passions of the flesh only by way of judgment.

And what need is there to write more of these things? For it is clear to all, unless it has not become clear even to this wise man, that we were commanded to ‘crucify the flesh with its passions and desires,’ not that we should make an end of ourselves, mortifying every activity of the body and power of the soul, but so that we might abstain from base appetites and actions and demonstrate our flight from them to be irreversible, and that we might become men of the desires of the spirit, according to Daniel, living and moving in them with perfect mindsets and always manfully advancing forward, according to Lot who went out from Sodom, who, by always going forward and remaining unmoved toward the things behind, kept himself alive, while his wife, who turned back, was made lifeless. That, therefore, the passionless possess the passible part of the soul as living and active in better things, and do not mortify it, I think has been sufficiently demonstrated.

But now let us see how this philosopher, although he let loose all his own great ingenuity on the introductory instructions for prayer of the venerable Nikephoros, nevertheless had the strength for nothing more than to slander, distort, and misrepresent, injuring himself and his own arguments through these slanders, but not that holy man. First, then, at the beginning, he falsely accuses the man of this: saying that he was the first (p. 400) to hand down such instructions, which he insultingly called ‘inhalations’; for many ages before, other spiritual men had introduced these things with almost the same words and thoughts, and in the discourses of all the fathers one might find many statements bearing witness to them,

83

Πῶς δέ ἀσφαλῶς ἔσται λέγων ὁ φιλόσοφος; «Τί δαί; Αἴσθησιν μέν καί φαντασίαν ἀτιμάσομεν προσευχόμενοι, τό δέ παθητικόν τῆς ψυχῆς ἐνεργεῖν κατά τινα τῶν ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεων δεξόμεθα; Ἤ πολλῷ μᾶλλον οὐδέ τοῦτο; Αἱ γάρ τούτου ἐνέργειαι μάλιστα πάντων ἐκτυφλοῦσι καί κατορύττουσι τό θεῖον ὄμμα». Βαβαί˙ πῶς κατορύττει τό θεῖον ὄμμα τό πρός τά πονηρά μῖσος καί ἡ πρός Θεόν καί τόν πλησίον ἀγάπη; Καί ταῦτα γάρ τοῦ παθητικοῦ εἰσιν ἐνέργειαι˙ ταύτῃ γάρ τῇ δυνάμει τῆς ψυχῆς ἀγαπῶμέν τε καί ἀποτρεπόμεθα, οἰκειούμεθά τε καί ἀλλοτριούμεθα, καθάπερ καί τῷ λογιζομένῳ τῆς ψυχῆς, κατά τόν σοφόν Συνέσιον, ἀπαινοῦμεν τε καί μεμφόμεθα. Νέκρωσις ἄρ᾿ οὖν ἐστι τοῦ λογιστικοῦ θείοις θεωρήμασιν ἐνασχολεῖσθαι καί Θεῷ τόν ὕμνον καί τήν εὐχαριστίαν ἀναπέμπειν καί τούτῳ διά τῆς συνεχοῦς κολλᾶσθαι μνήμης; Ἤ τοῦτό ἐστιν ἡ ὄντως ζωή καί ἀληθής ἐνέργεια τοῦ νοῦ; Τόν αὐτόν ἄρα τρόπον οὐδέ τό παθητικόν νεκροῦσιν οἱ ἐρασταί τῶν καλῶν, κατακλείσαντες ἀργόν καί ἀκίνητον ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, οὐδέ γάρ ἄν σχοῖεν ὅτῳ ἄν ἐρῷεν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ καί μισοῖεν τόν πονηρόν, οὐδέ δι᾿ οὗ τοῦ μέν ἀλλοτριωθεῖεν, οἰκειωθεῖεν δέ τῷ Θεῷ. Τοῦτο δέ νεκροῦσι, τήν πρός τά πονηρά σχέσιν τῆς δυνάμεως ταύτης ὅλην μετατιθέντες ἐπί τήν πρός Θεόν ἀγάπην, κατά τήν πρώτην καί μεγάλην ἐντολήν˙ «ἀγαπήσεις» γάρ, φησί, «Κύριον τόν Θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου», ταὐτόν δ᾿ εἰπεῖν τήν δυνάμεώς σου˙ ποίας δυνάμεως ὅλης; ∆ῆλον ὅτι τοῦ παθητικοῦ˙ τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τό τῆς ψυχῆς φιλοῦν. Τοῦτο δή διατεθέν οὕτω καί τάς ἄλλας τῆς ψυχῆς (σελ. 398) δυνάμεις τῶν γηΐνων ἀπανίστησι καί ἀνατείνει πρός Θεόν˙ τοῦτο διατεθέν οὕτω καί τῇ προσευχῇ τό εἰλικρινές πορίζει καί τόν νοῦν οὐκ εἴργει, ἀλλά καί συμπράττει διά τῆς μνήμης ἐνιδρυμένον ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ τόν Θεόν˙ τοῦτο διατεθέν οὕτω καί σαρκός ὑπερφρονεῖν καί τά κατ᾿ αὐτήν ἄλγη ρᾷον φέρειν τοῖς ὑπέρ τοῦ ὄντως ἐφετοῦ πάσχουσι παρέχει˙ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ γάρ ἐκείνῳ τῷ φίλτρῳ κατ᾿ ἄκρας ἁλόντες καί οἷον ἐπαναστάντες τῆς σαρκός, τῇ δι᾿ εὐχῆς καί ἀγάπης πρός τό θεῖον Πνεῦμα κοινωνία, τά σαρκός ταῦτα πάθη κατά μόνον τό κρίνειν αἰσθανόμενοι, διαγίνονται.

Καί τί δεῖ πλείω τούτων γράφειν; ∆ῆλον γάρ ἐστι πᾶσιν, εἰ μή καί τῷ σοφῷ τούτῳ γέγονε σαφές, ὡς «σταυρῶσαι τήν σάρκα σύν τοῖς παθήμασι καί ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις» προσετάγημεν, οὐχ᾿ ἵν᾿ ἡμᾶς αὐτούς διαχειρισώμεθα, πᾶσαν σώματος ἐνέργειαν καί ψυχῆς δύναμιν νεκρώσαντες, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἄν τῶν μέν φαύλων ὀρέξεών τε καί πράξεων ἀποσχώμεθα καί τήν ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν φυγήν ἀνεπίστροφον ἐπιδειξώμεθα, γενώμεθα δέ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν τοῦ πνεύματος ἄνδρες, κατά τόν ∆ανιήλ, τελείῳ φρονήμασι ζῶντες ἐν αὐταῖς καί κινούμενοι καί ἀνδρικῶς ἀεί χωροῦντες εἰς τό πρόσῳ, κατά τόν ἀπό Σοδόμων ἐξιόντα Λώτ, ὅς ἀεί προβαίνων καί ἀκίνητος πρός τά ὀπίσω μένων ζῶντα ἑαυτόν διετήρησε, τῆς εἰς τοὐπίσω στραφείσης συζύγου νεκρωθείσης. Ὅτι μέν οὖν ζῶν ἔχουσι καί τά κρείττω ἐνεργοῦν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ νεκροῦσιν οἱ ἀπαθεῖς τό τῆς ψυχῆς παθητικόν, ἱκανῶς οἶμαι δεδειγμένον εἶναι.

Νῦν δ᾿ ἴδωμεν πῶς ὁ φιλόσοφος οὗτος, καίτοι τήν ἑαυτοῦ πολύνοιαν πᾶσαν ἐπαφείς ταῖς εἰσαγωγικαῖς εἰς προσευχήν εἰσηγήσεσι τοῦ σεπτοῦ Νικηφόρου, ὅμως τοῦ συκοφαντῆσαι διαστρέψαι καί διαβαλεῖν πλέον ἴσχυσεν οὐδέν, ἑαυτόν καί τούς οἰκείους λόγους, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί τόν ὅσιον ἐκεῖνον, διά τῶν συκοφαντιῶν τούτων λυμηνάμενος. Πρῶτον μέν οὖν ἀρχόμενος τοῦτο τοῦ ἀνδρός καταψεύδεται, τό πρῶτον αὐτόν (σελ. 400) παραδεδωκέναι λέγειν τάς τοιαύτας τῶν εἰσηγήσεων, ἅς ὑβρίζων εἰσπνοάς ἐκάλεσε˙ πολλοῖς γάρ χρόνοις πρότερον ταῦτα προεισηγήσαντο πνευματικοί ἄνδρες ἕτεροι καί ρήμασι καί νοήμασι σχεδόν τοῖς αὐτοῖς, κἀν τοῖς τῶν πατέρων ἁπάντων λόγοις πολλάς ἄν εὕροι τις φωνάς συμμαρτυρούσας αὐταῖς,