arranging them by your own authority, of whom you intemperately accuse? And not only the living, but also those who long ago departed to heaven and are living with God, whom the great Dionysius exalts, as having, while still on earth, ascended beyond the noetic energies, you both rank and mock along with me, who am, according to you, faulty and foolish and one who does not rightly divide the word of truth.

"For the great Dionysius," you say, "teaches me such and such things about you contemplatives." Of whom are you being ironic, O man? Would you say of me? But the great Dionysius' discourse is not about me, but about those who are excellent in themselves. Besides, if I were ranking myself with them, the pretext might perhaps be plausible; but as it is, you could not find it, nor could you ever truly show this, not even if you were to write books against us with as many words as there are (p. 470) lines in this long discourse of yours. What respectable apology, then, could there be for one who, along with us who are slandered, slanders those most worthy of praise? What has happened to you, brother? To what precipices have you willingly cast yourself? And how is it that, having been thrown headlong and thus shaken off from the divine heads, as far as your words are concerned, you do not feel the extreme pain, nor do you mourn greatly? For how else would you have handled the argument, if the great Dionysius thought not to exalt but to depose them?

"But in matters of proof, my friend, we both risk speaking rightly"; this is your statement. Since, therefore, according to you, we both speak rightly, you risk showing yourself to be speaking not rightly again; whenever you then slander this right argument of ours, and simply all that torrential and furious rain mixed with those typhonic winds, which you have already let loose against us from your tongue, has inundated no less, if not more, you, the source of the storm. But for me (for it hardly seemed to occur to me to consider in whose footsteps you are saying these things, whom you yourself have now later revealed), for me, then, that I do not criticize what you have said to the Latins concerning both discourse and proof, there are many testimonies even in many of our other writings, and especially to those from Thessaloniki who asked this very thing last year, to whom in our reply we declared that we agree with both, and we said this to be a sign of the agreement, that piety is present in the arguments of both parties, while whether it is in a proper or improper sense, if indeed it is debatable, is a different matter; but you have now struggled with no small struggle to show that we are lying in this regard.

What then, if we, having scrutinized each of these dialectical syllogisms of yours, which you boast of having made most beautifully and most correctly (p. 472), should show that they give forth a certain dissonant sound, full of bad artifice, or rather, instead of the art you boast of, revealed to be full of artlessness, and so far from being dialectical as to not even be syllogisms, not even sophistical ones, nor preserving the form of a syllogism at all? But since they have been made by you concerning divine matters, for the sake of the reverence owed to these, not shamelessly and intemperately, as you yourself have done against us, although you previously bore witness to our correctness, but rather by summarizing and abridging more moderately and more generally and more concisely, as far as possible, I will use the argument concerning these things and according to the starting-points almost given by you, so that the cause of these arguments may also be reckoned to you.

And so that you may know that we held these opinions even before these arguments, I will set forth that passage of mine which you yourself, I know not why, have praised, so that this is not simply mine: "No one is good except God alone, the only just one, the only wise one, the blessed and only Sovereign, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light; therefore, none of the things that follow God could be more than Him, and each of them is unique, and whatever

ἐξουσίαν οἴκοθεν αὐτούς συντάττων, οὗπερ ἀκρατῶς κατηγορεῖς; Καί οὐ τούς περιόντας μόνον, ἀλλά καί τούς πρός οὐρανόν ἐκ παλαιοῦ μεταχωρήσαντας καί ζῶντας τῷ Θεῷ, οὕς ὁ μέγας ἀγάλλει ∆ιονύσιος, ὡς καί τάς νοεράς ἐπί γῆς ἔτ᾿ ὄντας ὑπεραναβεβηκότας ἐνεργείας, μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ σύ καί τάττεις καί σκώπτεις, τοῦ κατά σέ πλημμελοῦς καί ἄφρονος καί τόν ἀληθῆ λόγον οὐκ ὀρθοτομοῦντος.

«∆ιδάσκει γάρ με» φῄς, «ὁ μέγας ∆ιονύσιος περί ὑμῶν τῶν θεωρητικῶν τά καί τά». Τίνος κατειρωνεύῃ, ὦ ἄνθρωπε; Φαίης ἄν ἐμοῦ; Ἀλλ᾿ οὐ περί ἐμοῦ ∆ιονυσίῳ τῷ μεγάλῳ λόγος, ἀλλά περί τῶν καθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν ἀρίστων. Ἄλλως τε, εἰ μέν αὐτός ἐμαυτόν ἐκείνοις συνέταττον, ἦν ἄν ἴσως εὐπρόσωπος ἡ σκῆψις˙ νῦν δ᾿ οὐκ ἄν εὕροις, οὐδ᾿ ἄν τοῦτο πώποτ᾿ ἀληθῶς δείξαις, οὐδ᾿ ἄν ἰσαρίθμους τοῖς (σελ. 470) στίχοις τοῦ πολυστίχου σοι τοῦδε λόγους συγγράψῃς καθ᾿ ἡμῶν βίβλους. Τίς οὖν γένοιτ᾿ ἄν εὐπρεπής ἀπολογίᾳ τῷ τοῖς διαβαλλομένοις ἡμῖν τούς ἀξιεπαινενωτάτους συνδιαβάλλοντι; Τί τοῦτο πέπονθας, ἀδελφέ; Ποῦ κρημνῶν ἑκών ἀφῆκας σαυτόν; Πῶς δ᾿ ἐκτραχηλισθείς καί τῶν θείων οὕτω κεφαλῶν ἀποσεσαλευμένος ὅσον ἥκει πρός τούς σούς λόγους, οὐκ αἰσθάνῃ τῆς περιωδυνίας, οὐδέ μέγα θρηνεῖς; Πῶς δ᾿ ἄν ἄλλως μετεχειρίσω τόν λόγον, εἰ ∆ιονύσιος ὁ μέγας οὐκ ἐξαίρειν, ἀλλά καθαιρεῖν αὐτούς ἐνόμιζεν;

«Ἐν δέ τοῖς περί ἀποδείξεως κινδυνεύομεν, ὦ φιλότης, καί ἀμφότεροι ὀρθῶς λέγειν»˙ οὗτος σός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος. Ἀμφοτέρων οὖν ἡμῶν ὀρθῶς λεγόντων κατά σέ, κινδυνεύεις σύ σαυτόν αὖθις ἀποφαίνεσθαι λέγειν οὐκ ὀρθῶς˙ ἡνίκ᾿ ἄν ἔπειτα τόν ὀρθόν τοῦτον λόγον διαβάλλῃς ἡμῶν, καί ἁπλῶς ὁ τοῖς τυφωνικοῖς ἐκείνοις πνεύμασι ἀναμίξ ραγδαῖος καί λαῦρος ὑετός ἅπας, ὅν ἔφθης καθ᾿ ἡμῶν ἀπό τῆς γλώττης ἀφείς, οὐδέν ἧττον ὅτι μή καί μᾶλλον σέ, τήν πηγήν τῆς καταιγίδος, κατέκλυσεν. Ἐμοί δέ (καί γάρ ἥκιστ᾿ ἐπί νοῦν ἔδοξε θέσθαι τίσιν ἑπόμενον ταῦτα λέγεις, οὕς νῦν αὐτός ἐξέφηνας ὕστερον), ἐμοί τοίνυν τοῦ μή τά σά διαλέξεώς τε πέρι καί ἀποδείξεως εἰρημένα πρός Λατίνους κακίζειν, πολλά τά μαρτύρια κἀν πολλοῖς ἐστιν ἑτέροις ἡμετέροις συγγράμμασι, καί μάλιστα πρός τούς ἀπό Θεσσαλονίκης πέρυσι τοῦτ᾿ ἠρωτηκότας αὐτό, πρός οὕς ἀντιγράφοντες ὁμολογεῖν ἀμφοτέροις ἀπεφηνάμεθα, καί δεῖγμα τοῦτ᾿ ἔφημεν εἶναι τῆς ὁμολογίας, τό προσεῖναι τοῖς παρ᾿ ἀμφοτέρων λόγοις τό εὐσεβές, τό κυρίως δ᾿ ἤ μή κυρίως, εἴπερ ἄρ᾿ ἀμφισβητήσιμον, ἔχειν˙ ἀλλά σύν νῦν ἀγωνίαν οὔ τοι σμικράν ἠγωνισμένος διετέλεσας δεῖξαι κατά τοῦτο ψευδομένους ἡμᾶς.

Τί τοίνυν, ἄν καί ἡμεῖς ἕκαστον τῶν διαλεκτικῶν σοι τουτωνί συλλογισμῶν, οὕς εὔχῃ κάλλιστά τε καί ὀρθότατα (σελ. 472) πεποιηκέναι, διακωδωνίσαντες, ἀπηχῆ τινα ἠχήν ἀναδιδόντας δείξωμεν, κακοτεχνίας ἔμπλεως, μᾶλλον δ᾿ ἀντί τέχνης ἥν αὐχεῖς, ἀτεχνίας ἀναπεφηνότας πλήρεις, καί τοσοῦτο δέοντας εἶναι διαλεκτικούς, ὡς μηδέ συλλογισμούς εἶναι, μηδέ γοῦν σοφιστικούς, μηδέ σχῆμα ὅλως σώζοντας συλλογισμοῦ; Ἀλλά γάρ, ἐπεί περί τῶν θείων σοι πεποίηνται, τῆς πρός ταῦτ᾿ ὀφειλομένης εὐλαβείας ἕνεκεν, οὐκ ἀναιδῶς καί ἀκρατῶς, ὡς αὐτός καθ᾿ ἡμῶν πεποίηκας, καίτοι πρότερον ἡμῖν τό ὀρθόν προσμαρτυρήσας, ἀλλά μετριώτερον καί κοινότερον καί ἐπιτομώτερον συνελών καί ὑποτεμών, ὥς οἷόν τε, τῷ περί τούτων χρήσομαι λόγῳ καί κατά τάς ὑπό σοῦ σχεδόν δεδομένας ἀφορμάς, ὅπως σοι λογίζηται καί τουτωνί τῶν λόγων τό αἴτιον.

Ὥς ἄν δέ καί πρό τῶν λόγων τούτων ταῦτα δοξάζοντας ἡμᾶς εἰδείης, ἐκεῖνο προθήσω τῶν ἐμῶν, ὅ καί αὐτός οὐκ οἶδ᾿ ὅτι παθών ἐπήνεσας, ὥστ᾿ οὐδέ τοῦτο ἁπλῶς ἐμόν˙ «Οὐδείς ἀγαθός, εἰ μή εἷς ὁ Θεός, ὁ μόνος δίκαιος, ὁ μόνος σοφός, ὁ μακάριος καί μόνος δυνάστης, ὁ μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν, φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον˙ οὐδέν οὖν τῶν ἑπομένων τῷ Θεῷ ἐπί πλέον εἴη ἄν αὐτοῦ, καί αὐτῶν δ᾿ ἕκαστον μοναδικόν, καί ὅ,τι ἄν