91

by the bread that came down in the desert, calling it manna, he often turns this over in his mind. What is this? And this is for them the name of that light; but you, if you were to say something more. But let us return to what follows.

You say that they speak well again, if they also think this light is an angel. But they would never say that this light (p. 430) is an angel; but, initiated into the patristic teachings, they know that the angelic vision is accomplished in different ways and appropriately to those who see it: for either in a density of substance, which also falls under sense perception and is not entirely invisible even to those with passions or the uninitiated, or in a subtlety of substance, through which the soul also sees to some degree, or in true contemplation, of which only those are deemed worthy who see spiritually through purity, even if you yourself are uninitiated into the difference of these ways and show the angels themselves as being invisible to each other, thinking, declaring them invisible not on account of their incorporeality, but on account of their substance, and in the midst of your arguments you rank those who see God with Balaam's ass, because it is recorded that she too saw an angel.

And again, you think it is established that the intellect is a seer of God, and that it accords with the most mystical tradition of the Christians for those who say they see the very substance of the intellect as light, if the intellect does not 'see into some other hypostasis, but sees itself and in itself, as in its own image, God, when it has been purified of the passions and at the same time of ignorance.' But they know that the intellect, purified and illumined and having come to be clearly in participation of the grace of God, partakes indeed of other mystical and supernatural visions, as the argument laid bare a little above, but also in seeing itself it sees something other, but not into something other, and not simply its own image but the brilliance from the grace of God, which completes the power of the intellect to transcend itself and perfects the union unto better things and beyond conception, through which the intellect, better than as a man, sees God in the Spirit. And if you are ignorant of this, it is no wonder, since they would not be wonderful either, if you, who place nothing beyond knowledge, knew the things concerning them. (p. 432) Therefore you say that the intellect becomes a seer of God at that time when it is purified not only of the passions, but also of ignorance; but they take no account of the purification of ignorance according to you, but having purified themselves of the evil passions and through persistent and noetic prayer having transcended all knowledge, they attain the vision of God, since they are not deceived by such arguments, nor have they ceased to attend to themselves, nor do they go about and hasten to collect ways of thinking and learning, if someone professes to know something, whether he be a Scythian or a Persian or an Egyptian, for the sake of this purification from ignorance, but knowing precisely that such ignorance is in no way an impediment to the vision of God. For if, as you yourself say, the keeping of the commandments provides only the purification of the passions, and in the keeping of the commandments alone, according to the promise of God, His presence and abiding and manifestation are accomplished, is not the addition of this purification according to you, which you call a purification of ignorance, a clear error? But we have shown in the previous arguments through many proofs that this purification of ignorance is a destruction of true knowledge.

But now it is necessary to return to the things said by him in sequence against the hesychasts. For even if we have convicted him of slandering them and he has been shown to be struggling against himself and overturning the fictions of his own thought and wrestling with or being overthrown by himself, but since he thinks he is writing against our people, let us see what these things are. First, then, he states the cause from which those who are accused have been moved to think that the essence of God is a sensible light, or the [light] from

91

ἐρήμου κατιόντι ἄρτῳ, μάννα προσαγορευόντες αὐτό, τοῦτο συχνῶς στρέφει κατά νοῦν. Τί τοῦτο; Καί τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν αὐτοῖς τό τοῦ φωτός ἐκείνου ὄνομα˙ σύ δ᾿ εἴπερ φάναι τι πλέον. Ἀλλ᾿ ἐπανίωμεν εἰς τά ἑξῆς.

Σύ μέν καλῶς λέγειν αὖθις φής ἐκείνους, εἰ καί ἄγγελον τοῦτ᾿ οἴονται τό φῶς. Ἐκεῖνοι δ᾿ ἄγγελον μέν τοῦτο (σελ. 430) τό φῶς οὐκ ἄν ποτε φαῖεν˙ ἴσασι δέ τοῖς πατερικοῖς μεμυημένοι λόγοις διαφόρως καί τοῖς ὁρῶσι καταλλήλως τήν ἀγγελικήν τελουμένην ὀπτασίαν˙ ἤ γάρ ἐν παχύτητι οὐσίας, ὅ καί τῇ αἰσθήσει ὑποπίπτει καί οὐδέ τοῖς ἐμπαθέσιν ἤ ἀμυήτοις πάντῃ ἀόρατόν ἐστιν, ἤ λεπτότητι οὐσίας, καθ᾿ ἥν καί ἡ ψυχή μετρίως πως καθορᾷ, ἤ ἐν ἀληθεῖ θέᾳ, ἧς οἱ διά κακθαρότητος πενυματικῶς ὁρῶντες ἀξιοῦνται μόνοι, κἄν αὐτός τῆς διαφορᾶς τῶν τρόπων τούτων ἀμυήτως ἔχων αὐτούς τε τούς ἀγγέλους ἀοράτους ἀλλήλοις δεικνύῃς οἰόμενος, οὐ κατά τό ἀσώματον, ἀλλά κατά τήν οὐσίαν φάσκων ἀοράτους, καί μεταξύ τῶν λόγων τούς θεόπτας τῇ τοῦ Βαρλαάμ συντάττεις ὄνῳ, διά τό ἄγγελον καί αὐτήν ἰδεῖν ἀναγεγράφθαι.

Καί τόν νοῦν αὖθις, εἰ μή ὡς «εἰς ἑτέραν τινά ὑπόστασιν ὁρᾷ, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτός ἑαυτόν καί ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὡς ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ εἰκόνι τόν Θεόν, ὅταν τῶν παθῶν ἅμα καί τῆς ἀγνοίας καθαρθῇ», θεόπτην εἶναι τίθεσθαι καί συμβαίνειν οἴει τῇ τῶν χριστιανῶν μυστικωτάτῃ παραδόσει τούς αὐτήν τήν τοῦ νοῦ οὐσίαν, ὡς φῶς οὕτω λέγοντας ὁρᾶν. Ἐκεῖνοι δ᾿ ἴσασιν ὡς ὁ νοῦς καθαρθείς καί φωτισθείς καί τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτος τρανῶς ἐν μεθέξει γεγονώς, ματαλαγχάνει μέν και μυστικῶν ὑπερφυῶν ἄλλων θεαμάτων, ὡς μικρόν ἀνωτέρω παρεγύμνωσεν ὁ λόγος, ἀλλά καί ἑαυτόν ὁρῶν ὡς ἄλλο μέν ὁρᾷ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ εἰς ἄλλο καί οὐ τήν ἰδίαν ἁπλῶς εἰκόνα ὑπό τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ λαμπρότητα, συμπληροῦσαν τήν εἰς τό ὑπερβάλλειν ἑαυτόν δύναμιν τοῦ νοῦ καί τελειοῦσαν τήν εἰς τά κρείττω καί ὑπέρ ἔννοιαν ἕνωσιν, δι᾿ ἧς ὁ νοῦς κρεῖττον ἤ κατ᾿ ἄνθρωπον ἐν Πνεύματι Θεόν ὁρᾷ. Κἄν ἀγνοῇς σύ τοῦτο, θαυμαστόν οὐδέν, ἐπεί μηδ᾿ ἐκεῖνοι ἄν ἦσαν θαυμαστοί, σοῦ τά κατ᾿ αὐτούς γινώσκοντος, τοῦ μηδέν ὑπέρ τήν γνῶσιν τιθεμένου. (σελ. 432) ∆ιό καί σύ μέν τότε λέγεις θεόπτην γίνεσθαι τόν νοῦν, ὅταν μή μόνον τῶν παθῶν, ἀλλά καί τῆς ἀγνοίας καθαρθῇ˙ ἐκεῖνοι δέ τῆς μέν κατά σέ καθάρσεως ἀγνοίας οὐδένα ποιοῦνται λόγον, τῶν δέ πονηρῶν παθῶν ἑαυτούς καθάραντες καί διά τῆς ἐπιμόνου καί ἀΰλου προσευχῆς πᾶσαν γνῶσιν ὑπεραναβάντες, τυγχάνουσι τῆς θεοπτίας, ἅτε μή ἐξηπατημένοι τοῖς τοιούτοις λόγοις, μηδ᾿ ἀφειμένοι τοῦ προσέχειν ἑαυτοῖς, μηδέ παριιόντες καί σπουδάζοντες συλλέγειν τό φρονεῖν καί μανθάνειν, εἴ τις τι ἐπαγγέλλεται εἰδέναι, κἄν Σκύθης κἄν Πέρσης, κἄν Αἰγύπτιος, ᾖ, διά τήν τῆς ἀγνοίας ταύτην κάθαρσιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἀκριβῶς εἰδότες μηδαμῶς πρός θεοπτίαν ἐμποδίζουσαν τήν τοιαύτην ἄγνοιαν. Εἰ γάρ καί, ὡς σύ γε λέγεις αὐτός, ἡ τῶν ἐντολῶν τήρησις μόνην τήν τῶν παθῶν παρέχει κάθαρσιν, ἐν δέ τῇ τῶν ἐντολῶν τηρήσει μόνῃ κατά τήν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπαγγελίαν ἡ τούτου καί παρουσία καί μονή καί ἐμφάνεια τελεῖται, ἆρ᾿ οὐ πλάνη σαφής ἡ προσθήκη τῆς κατά σέ καθάρσεως ταύτης, ἥν ἀγνοίας λέγεις κάθαρσιν; Ἀλλά τήν μέν τῆς ἀγνοίας ταύτης κάθαρσιν κἀν τοῖς προτέροις λόγοις διά πολλῶν τῆς ἀληθοῦς γνώσεως καθαίρεσιν ἐδείξαμεν οὖσαν.

Νῦν δ᾿ ἐπανελθεῖν δέον εἰς τά ἐφεξῆς αὐτῷ κατά τῶν ἡσυχαζόντων εἰρημένα. Εἰ γάρ καί συκοφαντεῖν αὐτούς ἐξηλέγξαμεν αὐτόν καί δῆλος γέγονε καθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ ἀγωνιζόμενος καί τά τῆς οἰκείας διανοίας ἀνατρέπων ἀναπλάσματα καί προσπαλαίων ἤ καταπαλαίων ἑαυτόν αὐτός, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπεί κατά τῶν ἡμετέρων οἴεται γράφειν, ἴδωμεν τίνα ταῦτά ἐστι. Πρῶτον μέν οὖν τήν αἰτίαν φησίν, ἀφ᾿ ἧς ὤρμηνται οἱ κατηγορούμενοι φῶς αἰσθητόν οἴεσθαι τήν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἤ τήν ἀπ᾿