101

to speak prophetically, having changed their strength, they will put to rest every activity of soul and body, so that He alone may appear through them and be seen by them, their natural characteristics having been overcome by the excess of glory, “that God may be all in all” according to the apostle. For we shall be sons of God, being sons of the resurrection and as angels of God in heaven, who always see the face of our Father who is in heaven, according to the word of the Lord.

Wherefore also the great Dionysius, having said here that those who attain the Christ-like and blessed end are filled with the visible theophany, added a little later, 'in a diviner imitation of the super-celestial minds'; and proceeding, having mentioned the angelic unions with God, which exist only in those of their angels deemed worthy of knowledge beyond the angelic, that is, the good angels, being an application or reception of the super-manifest goodness, he adds, saying: ‘and that the minds of men which have in every way become godlike are united angel-like to this light and hymn it through the abstraction of all things’, but learn not from the abstraction, (p. 472) but from the union with the light that ‘it is super-essentially removed from all things’. Being united, therefore, to this light removed from beings, they learn this very thing, that it is removed from created things, not having the union themselves from the removal, but learning the abstraction from the union, so that this union itself is removed from created things and is non-being by pre-eminence; for that which is not vouchsafed to angels, unless they are deemed worthy of a knowledge beyond angels, cannot be contained or possessed by any intellectual power, since it transcends even this.

But that which has transcended even all this, as being by nature uncontainable, is above all beings, and therefore such a union is above all knowledge, even if it is called knowledge metaphorically; it is therefore not even intelligible, even if it is called this; for how could that which is above all mind be intelligible? At least, this might be called ignorance by pre-eminence, and more so than knowledge. Therefore it will be neither a part of knowledge nor a species, just as the super-essential is not a species of essence; it could not, at least, be comprehended by universal knowledge, nor could universal knowledge, being divided, have this under it; for ignorance would rather have this under it, but not even that; for it is ignorance by pre-eminence, that is, also above ignorance. This union, therefore, 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 properly it, or these belong properly to it alone.

Clear ignorance, therefore, are the philosopher's discourses *On Knowledge*. 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 considered that if it will have knowledge as its genus because of the name, it will also have ignorance, (p. 474) since it is also called this and more so than that. Therefore the same thing will be under opposite genera, and the pre-eminent a subject, and the unique and super-removed from all multiplicity ordered with the multiplicity. But what is greater in terms of foolishness is that he does not simply say the union is a species and a part and a subject, but that which he himself says there is above knowledge, this very thing he says is, as a species and a part and a subject to it, worse than universal knowledge, just as if someone, since the only super-essential both is and is called a super-essential essence, were to say it is a part and a species and a subject of essence because of the homonymy, 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 above knowledge with knowledge, and calls that which is above conception 'above knowledge', know that knowledge would at least accept the form of comparison to this very thing

101

προφητικῶς εἰπεῖν ἀλλάξαντες ἰσχύν, πᾶσαν ἀποπαύσουσιν ἐνέργειαν ψυχῆς καί σώματος, ὥστε μόνον αὐτό δι᾿ αὐτῶν φαίνεσθαι καί ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν ὁρᾶσθαι, τῶν φυσικῶν γνωρισμάτων τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τῆς δόξης νικηθέντων, «ἵνα ᾗ ὁ Θεός τά πάντα ἐν πᾶσι» κατά τόν ἀπόστολον. Υἱοί γάρ Θεοῦ ἐσόμεθα τῆς ἀναστάσεως υἱοί ὄντες καί ὡς ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ ἐν οὐρανῷ, οἵ διά παντός βλέπουσι τό πρόσωπον τοῦ Πατρός ἡμῶν τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, κατά τόν τοῦ Κυρίου λόγον.

∆ιό καί ὁ μέγας ∆ιονύσιος, ἐνταῦθα μέν εἰπών τῆς ὁρατῆς θεοφανείας ἀποπληροῦσθαι τούς τῆς χριστοειδοῦς καί μακαρίας ἐφικομένους λήξεως, ἐπήγαγε μετ᾿ ὀλίγον, «ἐν θειοτέρᾳ μιμήσει τῶν ὑπερουρανίων νόων»˙ προϊών δέ καί τῶν ἀγγελικῶν πρός Θεόν ἑνώσεων μνημονεύσας, τῶν μόνοις ἐνυπαρχουσῶν τοῖς ὑπέρ γνῶσιν ἀγγελικήν ἀηξιωμένοις αὐτῶν ἀγγέλοις, δηλαδή τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς, ἐπιβολήν οὖσαν ἤ παραδοχήν τῆς ὑπερφανοῦς ἀγαθότητος, ἐπιφέρει λέγων˙ «καί τούς θεοειδεῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων πάντως γενομένους νόας, ἀγγελομιμήτως ἑνοῦσθαι τούτῳ τῷ φωτί καί ὑμνεῖν μέν αὐτό διά τῆς τῶν πάντων ἀφαιρέσεως», μαθεῖν δέ οὐκ ἐκ 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