93

Do you slander those whose hearts have been blessedly purified in the quiet of precise leisure, assigning them to me on your own authority, the very one you intemperately accuse? And not only those who are still living, but also those who have long since departed to heaven and are living with God, whom the great Dionysius exalts, as having, while still on earth, ascended beyond the intellectual energies, you rank with me and mock, with me who am, according to you, a sinner and a fool and one who does not rightly divide the word of truth.

“For the great Dionysius,” you say, “teaches me such and such about you contemplatives.” At whom are you being ironic, o man? Would you say at me? But the great Dionysius’ discourse is not about me, but about those who are excellent in themselves. Besides, if I myself were ranking myself with them, the pretext might perhaps have been 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 arguments as there are lines (p. 470) in this your lengthy discourse. What seemly defense, then, could there be for one who slanders the most praiseworthy along with us who are being slandered? What has happened to you, brother? Off what cliffs have you willingly thrown yourself? And how is it that, having broken your neck and been so shaken from the divine heads, as far as your words go, you do not feel the excruciating pain, nor wail aloud? How else would you have handled the argument, if the great Dionysius thought not to exalt them, but to take them down?

“But in matters of demonstration, my friend, we both risk speaking correctly”; this is your statement. Since, therefore, both of us speak correctly according to you, you risk showing yourself to speak incorrectly again; when you then slander this correct argument of ours, and simply all the violent and furious rain mixed with those typhonic winds, which you have already released against us from your tongue, has inundated you, the source of the storm, no less, if not even more. But for me (for it seemed you had not at all considered in whose footsteps you say these things, whom you yourself have now revealed later), for me, then, that I do not disparage your statements concerning dialectic and demonstration made to the Latins, there are many testimonies in many other of our writings, and especially to those from Thessalonica who asked this very thing last year, to whom in our reply we declared that we agree with both sides, and we said that this was a sign of agreement, that the element of piety is present in the arguments of both, but whether in a proper sense or not, if indeed it is debatable; but now you have striven with no small effort to show us to be liars in this regard.

What then, if we too, having tested 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 off 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 sophistic 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 things, not shamelessly and intemperately, as you yourself have done against us, although you previously testified to our correctness, but more moderately and more generally and more briefly, having condensed and abbreviated 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 reason for these arguments may also be reckoned to you.

But 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 not even this

93

καθ᾿ ἡσυχίαν ἀκριβοῦς σχολῆς μακαριστῶς κεκαθαρμένους τήν καρδίαν διασύρεις, ἐμοί κατ᾿ 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