97

of negation, (p. 472) but from the union with the light, that "it is super-essentially removed from all things." Therefore, being united to this light which is removed from beings, they learn this very thing, that it is removed from created things, not having the union themselves from the removal, but from the union learning the negation, so that this union is also removed from created things and is non-being by preeminence. For that which is not granted to angels, except as to those deemed worthy of the knowledge beyond angels, it is impossible for it to be contained or possessed by any intellectual power, since it transcends this also.

But that which has transcended all this, as it is by nature uncontainable, is above all beings, and therefore such a union is above all knowledge, even if it is metaphorically called knowledge; therefore, it is not intelligible, even if it is called this; for how could that which is above every mind be intelligible? Indeed, this might be called ignorance by preeminence, and more so than knowledge. Therefore, it will not be a part or a species of knowledge, just as the super-essential is not a species of essence; indeed, it could not be comprehended by universal knowledge, nor could universal knowledge, being divided, hold this under itself; for ignorance might rather hold this under itself, but not even that; for by preeminence it is also ignorance, that is to say, it is also above ignorance. Therefore, this union is unique, and whatever name one might give it, whether union or vision, or perception or knowledge or intellection or illumination, either these are not it in the proper sense, or these belong to it alone in the proper sense.

Therefore, the philosopher's discourses *On Knowledge* are manifest ignorance. For there he says it is a part and a species of universal knowledge, since it is named knowledge, and he compares this to that and has seen that, if it will have knowledge as its genus because of the name, it will also have ignorance, (p. 474) since it is called this as well, and more so than that. Therefore, the same thing will be under opposite genera, and that which transcends will be a subject, and that which is unique and super-eminently removed from all multiplicity will be ranked with multiplicity. But what is greater in terms of folly is that he does not simply say the union is a species and a part and a subject, but that which he himself there calls 'beyond knowledge', this very thing he says is inferior to universal knowledge as a species and part and subject of it, just as if someone, because of the homonymy, were to say that the only super-essential one, since it is and is named super-essential essence, is a part and a species and a subject of essence, and then dared to compare this to the universal genus of essence. And indeed, let him who mixes the unmixable and ranks that which is beyond knowledge with knowledge and calls that which is beyond conception 'beyond knowledge' know that he has made knowledge, joined to that very thing which is beyond knowledge, accept even the form of comparison, so that it, being one, is foolishly compared to itself. Further, if because of the homonymy the knowledge that is beyond knowledge is a species of universal knowledge, those who speak of ten genera of beings have been deceived; for there is one genus of all things, being, and the one who is above all is one under it, and being is better than this one, and the other beings joined to this one make another being better than the one. Further, since there is also a touch beyond touch and a sight beyond sight and simply a perception beyond perception—for intellection is also called these things homonymously—if that which is beyond perception is a species of perception, perception will be better than that which is beyond perception, and likewise for each of the rest.

But let us return: what then is that union which by preeminence is none of the things that are? Is it theology by way of negation? And yet that is a union, not a removal. Further, according to it we do not need ecstasy either, but for that (p. 476) union even the angels do; and in addition to these, he who does not theologize by way of removal is not even pious, but of that union, among the pious only the God-like attain it. Further, theology by way of negation is understood and spoken of by us, but that other the great Dionysius said is ineffable and incomprehensible even to those who see. Further, the light according to that theology is a certain knowledge and reason, but the light according to this contemplation

97

τῆς ἀφαιρέσεως, (σελ. 472) ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τῆς πρός τό φῶς ἑνώσεως ὅτι «πάντων ἐστίν ὑπερουσίως ἐξῃρημένον». Τῷ ἐξῃρημένῳ τοίνυν τούτῳ τῶν ὄντων ἑνούμενοι φωτί, τοῦτ᾿ αὐτό μανθάνουσιν ὅτι τῶν κτιστῶν ἐστιν ἐξῃρημένον, οὐκ ἀπό τῆς ἐξαιρέσεως αὐτοί τήν ἕνωσιν ἔχοντες, ἀλλ᾿ ὑπό τῆς ἑνώσεως μανθάνοντες τήν ἀφαίρεσιν, ὥστε καί ἡ ἕνωσις αὕτη τῶν κτιστῶν ἐστιν ἐξῃρημένη καί μή ὄν καθ᾿ ὑπεροχήν ἐστιν˙ ὅ γάρ οὐ χορητόν ἐστιν ἀγγέλοις, εἰ μή ὡς κατηξιωμένοις τῆς ὑπέρ ἀγγέλους γνώσεως, νοερᾷ τινι δυνάμει χωρητόν εἶναι ἤ κτητόν ἀδύνατον, ὡς καί ταύτην ὑπεραῖρον.

Τό δέ καί ταύτην πᾶσαν ὑπερβεβηκός, ὡς μή χωρεῖσθαι πεφυκός, ὑπέρ τά ὄντα πάντ᾿ ἔστι, καί ὑπέρ γνῶσιν ἄρα πᾶσαν ἡ τοιαύτη ἕνωσις, εἰ καί γνῶσις μεταφορικῶς καλεῖται˙ οὐδέ νοητόν ἐστιν οὐκοῦν, εἰ καί τοῦτο λέγεται˙ τό γάρ ὑπέρ πάντα νοῦν πῶς ἄν εἴη νοητόν; Κληθείη γοῦν τοῦτο καί ἄγνοια καθ᾿ ὑπεροχήν, καί μᾶλλον ἤ γνῶσις. Οὐ μέρος τοιγαροῦν γνώσεως οὐδ᾿ εἶδος ἔσται, καθάπερ οὐδέ τό ὑπερούσιον οὐσίας εἶδος˙ οὐδέ γοῦν ἐμπεριληφθείη ἄν ὑπ΄τῆς καθόλου γνώσεως, οὐδ᾿ ἡ καθόλου γνῶσις διαιρουμένη καί ταύτην ὑπ᾿ αὐτήν ἄν σχοίη˙ σχοίη γάρ ἄν μᾶλλον ἡ ἄγνοια ταύτην ὑπ᾿ αὐτήν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿ ἐκείνη˙ καθ᾿ ὑπεροχήν γάρ καί ἄγνοιά ἐστι, δηλονότι καί ὑπέρ ἄγνοιαν. Μοναδικόν ἄρ᾿ ἡ ἕνωσίς ἐστιν αὕτη, καί ἥν ἄν ἐπωνυμίαν εἶποι τις αὐτῆς, εἴθ᾿ ἕνωσιν εἴθ᾿ ὅρασιν, εἴτ᾿ αἴσθησιν εἴτε γνῶσιν εἴτε νόησιν εἴτ᾿ ἔλλαμψιν, ἤ κυρίως ταῦτ᾿ οὐκ ἔστιν, ἤ μόνῃ κυρίως ταῦτα πρόσεστιν αὐτῇ.

Σαφής οὐκοῦν ἄγνοια οἱ Περί γνώσεως τοῦ φιλοσόφου λόγοι. Καί γάρ ἐκεῖ μέρος αὐτήν καί εἶδος εἶναι λέγει τῆς καθόλου γνώσεως, ἐπεί γνῶσις ὀνομάζεται, καί συγκρίνει ταύτην πρός ἐκείνην καί συνεώρακεν, ὡς εἴπερ ἕξει γένος τήν γνῶσιν διά τήν ἐπωνυμίαν, σχήσει καί τήν ἄγνοιαν, (σελ. 474) ἐπεί καί τοῦτο λέγεται καί μᾶλλον ἤ ἐκεῖνο. Τοιγαροῦν ἔσται τό αὐτό ὑπό τἀναντία γένη, καί τό ὑπερέχον ὑποκείμενον, καί συντεταγμένον τῇ πληθύϊ τό μοναδικόν καί πάσης πληθύος ὑπερεξῃρημένον. Τό δέ μεῖζον εἰς ἀνοίας λόγον, ὡς οὐχ ἁπλῶς τήν ἕνωσιν εἶδος καί μέρος καί ὑποκείμενόν φησιν, ἀλλ᾿ ὅ φησιν αὐτός ἐκεῖ ὑπέρ γνῶσιν, τοῦτ᾿ αὐτό καί ὡς εἶδος καί μέρος καί ὑποκείμενον αὐτῇ χεῖρον εἶναι λέγει τῆς καθόλου γνώσεως, ὥσπερ ἄν εἴ τις καί τό μόνον ὑπερούσιον, ἐπείπερ οὐσία ὑπερούσιός ἐστί τε καί ὀνομάζεται, μέρος καί εἶδος καί ὑποκείμενον οὐσίας λέγων διά τήν ὁμωνυμίαν, εἶτα συγκρίνειν ἐτόλμα τοῦτο πρός τό καθόλου γένος τῆς οὐσίας. Καί μήν ἴστω ὁ μιγνύς τά ἄμικτα καί τό ὑπέρ γνῶσιν τῇ γνώσει συντάττων καί ὑπέρ γνῶσιν λέγων τό ὑπέρ ἔννοιαν, ὡς καί τό συγκρίσεως γοῦν σχῆμα δέξασθαι τήν γνῶσιν πρός αὐτό αὐτό τό ὑπέρ γνῶσιν προστεθέν ἐποίησεν, ὥστε αὐτό πρός ἑαυτό ἕν ὄν ἀφρόνως παραβάλλεται. Ἔτι, εἰ διά τήν ὁμωνυμίαν ἡ ὑπέρ γνῶσιν γνῶσις τῆς καθόλου γνώσεως εἶδος, οἱ δέκα γένη τῶν ὄντων λέγοντες ἠπάτηνται˙ καί γάρ ἕν ἁπάντων γένος, τό ὄν, καί ὁ ὑπέρ πάντα ὤν εἷς ὑπ᾿ αὐτό, καί τό ὄν τοῦ ἑνός τούτου κρεῖττον, καί συνημένα τούτῳ τῷ ἑνί τά ἄλλα ὄν ἕτερον ποιοῦσι κρεῖττον τοῦ ἑνός. Ἔτι, ἐπεί καί ἁφή ἐστιν ὑπέρ ἁφήν καί ὅρασις ὑπέρ ὅρασιν καί ἁπλῶς αἴσθησις ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν - λέγεται γάρ καί ταῦτα ὁμωνύμως ἡ νόησις - εἰ τό ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν αἰσθήσεως εἶδος, κρεῖττον ἔσται ἡ αἴσθησις τοῦ ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν καί ἐφ᾿ ἑκάστου τῶν λοιπῶν ὡσαύτως.

Ἀλλ᾿ ἐπανίωμεν˙ τί οὖν ἡ μηδέν τῶν ὄντων καθ᾿ ὑπεροχήν ἕνωσις ἐκείνη; Ἆρ᾿ ἡ κατά ἀπόφασίν ἐστι θεολογία; Καί μήν ἕνωσις ἐκείνη ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἀφαίρεσίς ἐστιν. Ἔτι οὐδ᾿ ἐκστάσεως κατ᾿ αὐτήν οὐδ᾿ ἡμεῖς δεόμεθα, ἐπί δέ τῆς (σελ. 476) ἑνώσεως ἐκείνης καί οἱ ἄγγελοι˙ καί πρός τούτοις, ὁ μέν μή κατά ἀφαίρεσιν θεολογῶν οὐδ᾿ εὐσεβής, τῆς δ᾿ ἑνώσεως ἐκείνης τῶν εὐσεβῶν μόνοι οἱ θεοειδεῖς τυγχάνουσιν. Ἔτι ἡ κατά ἀπόφασιν θεολογία νοεῖται παρ᾿ ἡμῶν καί λέγεται, ἐκείνην δ᾿ ἄρρητον καί ἀπερινόητον καί αὐτοῖς τοῖς ὁρῶσιν ὁ μέγας εἶπε ∆ιονύσιος. Ἔτι τό μέν κατ᾿ ἐκείνην τήν θεολογίαν φῶς γνῶσίς τίς ἐστι καί λόγος, τό δέ κατά τήν θεωρίαν ταύτην φῶς