87

Deceptively, then, you seem to grant yourself a dimness of sight, or rather, not to perceive your own complete blindness in such matters, if you say even this, being unable to contradict those who see you as blind. For how, if this were not so, would you presume to be a guide for other blind men? Know then, that you are like the blind man in the Gospels who, for lack of faith, had not yet fully regained his sight, who said he saw “men as trees, walking.” If, then, such a man, being not totally blind but not completely healed, were then to stare fixedly at the disk of the sun, so as to teach others what it is, would they not hear from you that the great luminary, the all-brilliant one, the eye of the day, is simply darkness? For if the sun, by exceeding the measure of eyes that see clearly, seems to pour its rays as unmixed darkness even on those who gaze with healthy vision, how would not one who attempts to see through a dim light have seen darkness unmixed with light? Thus it is not only laughable, but utterly ridiculous for a blind man to attempt to teach about light.

(p. 414) But let us uncover the depth of the philosopher's thought, which, by wrapping it in this example, he has not so much hidden as revealed. The philosopher says, then, that we are blind, that is, foolish, all of us completely, both ourselves and the saints whom he proceeds to contradict openly, but that he himself differs from these blind men, that is, from the foolish, in that he is a philosopher, that is, foolish, all of us completely, both ourselves and the saints whom he proceeds to contradict openly, but that he himself differs from these blind men, that is, from the foolish, in that he is a philosopher and because of this is alone able to comprehend both the principles of existing things and the meaning of the scriptures, and thus to follow them and to guide those who are his followers. But such a man, O philosopher, is no longer blind; for he has followed those who have guided him to sight, that is, to true knowledge, as you say; therefore he has regained his sight. But if he did not regain his sight by following, how can he guarantee sight to others through following? Thus you are inconsistent with yourself, testifying that you yourself are both blind and seeing. For if knowledge alone, according to you, is intelligible light, for which you have undergone so many struggles, and you possess the knowledge of the scriptures, as you yourself testify, how are you also blind and unenlightened? And if it is not possible to be enlightened otherwise, except as you yourself were enlightened and now enlighten, as you yourself also say in many places, not even the great Dionysius, whom you think you know how to follow, was enlightened or enlightens otherwise; therefore he too, according to you, knows only this, to follow those who know; but they too, having the same manner, would be in a state similar to yours. What is this chain of blind men that you are now assembling for us through your words, leading one another to sight and remaining blind? And as for this, that they follow the sacred Scriptures, you will find many others who have claimed this, who, lying both against themselves and against the Scriptures, were refuted by those who truly follow them.

But if someone were to examine you, as to how you yourself follow the (p. 416) saints, he would call you not only blind but also deaf; for while the great Dionysius, as we set forth previously in the discourse *On Saving Knowledge*, says most clearly that assimilation and union with God are perfected “by the divine commandments alone,” you yourself, with equal clarity, say not by them alone; for you grant that these purify by half the one who keeps them, and that with difficulty; thus do you follow in his footsteps. And of Gregory of Nyssa, who teaches that secular wisdom is barren and imperfect and thinks we should not reject the kinship of this falsely-named mother, “so long as we see in ourselves the imperfection of our age,” but after this to consider it a shame to be called children of this one who is by nature barren,” you [say] that for us to apply ourselves to it throughout our life is most useful and

87

Κλέπτων τοίνυν ἔοικας παρέχειν σαυτῷ τό τῆς ἀναβλέψεως ἀμυδρόν, μᾶλλον δέ τήν οἰκείαν αὐτός περί τά τοιαῦτα πᾶσαν οὐκ αἰσθάνεσθαι τύφλωσιν, εἰ καί τοῦτο λέγεις, ἀντιλέγειν τοῖς σέ τυφλόν ὁρῶσιν οὐκ ἔχων. Πῶς γάρ ἄν, εἰ μή τοῦτ᾿ ἦν, ὁδηγός τῶν ἄλλων εἶναι τυφλῶν ἠξίους; Ἴσθι τοίνυν, κατά τόν ἐν εὐαγγελίοις διά πίστεως ἔλλειψιν μήπω τελείως ἀναβλέψαντα τυφλόν, ὅς, «τούς ἀνθρώπους ὡς δένδρα περιπατοῦντας» ἔλεγεν ὁρᾶν. Εἰ τοίνυν τοιοῦτος οὐ τάς ὄψεις ὤν, ἀλλά μή τελείως ἐκκεκομμένος, εἶτα πρός τόν ἡλίου δίσκον ἀτενές ὁρῴης, ὡς τούς ἄλλους διδάξων τί ποτέ ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος, οὐκ ἄν ἤκουσαν παρά σοῦ σκότον ἀτεχνῶς ὄντα τόν μέγαν φωστῆρα, τόν ὁλολαμπῇ, τόν ὀφθαλμόν τῆς ἡμέρας; Εἰ γάρ τήν τῶν καθαρῶς ὁρώντων συμμετρίαν ὀφθαλμῶν ὑπερβαίνων οὐκ ἀμίκτους σκότους ἐπιχεῖν δοκεῖ τάς ἀκτῖνας τοῖς καί μεθ᾿ ὑγιοῦς ὄψεως ἀτενίζουσι, πῶς οὐκ ἄν φωτός ἄμικτον σκότος εἶδεν ὁ δι᾿ ἀμυδροῦ φέγγους προσορᾶν ἐγχειρῶν; Οὕτω μή ὅτι γελοῖον, ἀλλά καί καταγέλαστον τόν τυφλόν περί φωτός ἐπιχειρεῖν διδάσκειν.

(σελ. 414) Ἀλλά γάρ ἐκκαλύψωμεν τῆς φιλοσόφου διανοίας τό βάθος, ὅ περιστείλας τῷ παραδείγματι οὐ μᾶλλον ἔκρυψεν ἤ ἐνέφηνε. Φησί τοίνυν ὁ φιλόσοφος τυφλούς μέν εἶναι, τουτέστιν ἀνοήτους, πάντας παντάπασιν ἡμᾶς τε καί τῶν ἁγίων πρός οὕς προϊών ἀντιλέγει φανερῶς, ἑαυτόν δέ τοῦτο διαφέρειν τῶν τυφλῶν τούτων, δηλονότι τῶν ἀνοήτων, τό φιλοσόφον εἶναι, τουτέστιν ἀνοήτους, πάντας παντάπασιν ἡμᾶς τε καί τῶν ἁγίων πρός οὕς προϊών ἀντιλέγειν φανερῶς, ἑαυτόν δέ τοῦτο διαφέρειν τῶν τυφλῶν τούτων, δηλονότι τῶν ἀνοήτων, τό φιλόσοφον εἶναι καί διά τοῦτο συνορᾶν μόνον δύνασθαι τούς τε λόγους τῶν ὄντων καί τῶν λογίων τόν νοῦν ἕπεσθαί τε τούτοις οὕτω καί τούς ἐχομένους ὁδηγεῖν. Ἀλλ᾿ ὁ τοιοῦτος, ὦ φιλόσοφε, οὐκέτι τυφλός˙ τοῖς γάρ πρός ἀνάβλεψιν ἡγησαμένοις, δηλαδή τήν ἀληθῆ γνῶσιν, ὡς σύ φῄς, ἠκολούθησεν˙ οὐκοῦν ἀνέβλεψεν. Εἰ δέ μή ἀνέβλεψεν ἀκολουθήσας, πῶς ἐγγυᾶται τοῖς ἄλλοις δι᾿ἀκολουθήσεως τήν ἀνάβλεψιν; Οὕτως ἀνακόλουθος εἶ σαυτῷ σύ σαυτόν καί τυφλόν καί βλέποντα μαρτυρῶν. Εἰ γάρ ἡ γνῶσις μόνον κατά σέ νοητόν ἐστι φῶς, ὑπέρ οὗ καί τούς τοσούτους ὑπῆλθες ἀγῶνας, σύ δ᾿ ἔχεις τῶν λογίων τήν γνῶσιν, ὡς αὐτός μαρτυρεῖς, πῶς καί σύ τυφλός καί ἀφώτιστος; Εἰ δ᾿ ἄλλως οὐκ ἔνι φωτισθῆναι, εἰ μή ὡς ἄν αὐτός ἐφωτίσθης τε καί φωτίζεις, ὡς αὐτός καί τοῦτο πολλαχοῦ φῄς, οὐδ᾿ ὁ μέγας ∆ιονύσιος, ᾧ νομίζεις εἰδέναι ἕπεσθαι, ἄλλως ἐφωτίσθη τε καί φωτίζει˙ τοιγαροῦν καί αὐτός κατά σέ τοῦτο μόνον οἶδεν, ἕπεσθαι τοῖς εἰδόσιν˙ ἀλλά κἀκεῖνοι τόν ὅμοιον ἔχοντες τρόπον καί σοί παραπλησίως ἔχοιεν ἄν. Τίς οὗτος ὁ τῶν τυφλῶν ὁρμαθός, ὅν ἡμῖν διά τῶν σῶν λόγων συναθροίζεις ἀρτίως, ἀλλήλους πρός ἀνάβλεψιν ὁδηγούντων καί μενόντων τυφλῶν; Τοῦτο δ᾿ ὅτι ταῖς ἱεραῖς ἕποιντο Γραφαῖς καί πολλούς ἄλλους ἰσχυρισαμένους εὑρήσεις, οἵ καταψευδόμενοι σφῶν τε αὐτῶν καί τῶν Γραφῶν ἐξηλέχθησαν ὑπό τῶν πρός ἀλήθειαν ἑπομένων αὐταῖς.

Σέ δ᾿ εἴ τις ἐξετάσειεν, ὅπως καί αὐτός ἕπῃ τοῖς (σελ. 416) ἁγίοις, οὐ μόνον τυφλόν ἄν σε εἴποι ἀλλά καί κωφόν˙ τοῦ γάρ μεγάλου ∆ιονυσίου, καθάπερ ἐν τῷ Περί σωτηρίου γνώσεως λόγῳ προεξεθέμεθα, λέγοντος ἀριδήλως «ἐκ μόνων τῶν θείων ἐντολῶν τελεῖσθαι τήν πρός Θεόν ἀφομοίωσίν τε καί ἕνωσιν, αὐτός ἐπίσης ἀριδήλως οὐκ ἐκ μόνων φῄς˙ ἐξ ἡμισείας γάρ ταύτας τόν τηροῦντα καθαίρειν δίδως, καί τοῦτο μόγις˙ οὕτως ἕπῃ κατ᾿ ἴχνος. Καί Γρηγορίου τοῦ Νύσσης˙ ἄγονον καί ἀτελῆ τήν ἔξω σοφίαν εἶναι διδάσκοντος καί μέχρι τούτου ἀξιοῦντος ἡμᾶς μή ἀπωθεῖσθαι τήν τῆς ψευδωνύμου ταύτης μητρός οἰκειότητα, «μέχρις ἄν τό τῆς ἡλικίας ἀτελές ἐν ἑαυτοῖς βλέποιμεν», μετά τοῦτο δ᾿ αἰσχύνην ἡγεῖσθαι τῆς κατά φύσιν ἀγόνου ταύτης ὀνομάζεσθαι παῖδας», αὐτός διά βίου ταύτῃ προσέχειν ἡμᾶς χρησιμώτατόν τε καί