105

we enjoy contemplation? But if we are now able to leave this light and transcend it, but then we are not, then the present age is better for us than the one to come, and those who fight against the eternal and true light are rightly terrified about it.

Does the great Dionysius, then, agree with these things? And how could he, who of all men hymned this light most? This, indeed, we have already demonstrated through many treatises brought forth beforehand *On Light and Divine Illumination*, that he who is most of all opposed to those who are opposed to the great light, is he, from the Areopagus, the most brilliant luminary of the world. But now let us take up and see his sayings that have been put forward by them. To Dorotheus the deacon, then, he writes, "the divine," he says, "darkness is the unapproachable light because of the excess of the superessential outpouring of light; in this is everyone who is deemed worthy to know and see God, by the very not seeing nor knowing, coming to be in that which is beyond sight and knowledge, knowing this very thing, that He is after all things sensible and intelligible." Here, then, he calls the same thing both darkness and light, and seeing and not seeing, and knowing and not knowing. How then is this light also darkness? "Because of the excess," (p. 508) he says, "of the outpouring of light," so that it is properly light, but darkness by way of transcendence, as it is invisible to those who attempt to approach and see through the energies of sense or intellect.

Since, then, in the unapproachable itself is everyone who is deemed worthy to know and see God, who is this one who is deemed worthy of such a thing, to approach the unapproachable and to see the invisible? Is it every godly person? But it belongs to Moses alone and those like him to be in the divine darkness, whereas theology through negation belongs to every godly person; and now, after the Lord’s sojourn in the flesh, to every human being, as has been demonstrated before. This light, therefore, is properly something else, and the divine darkness itself, and incomparably superior to apophatic theology; let it be, however, as much as Moses surpasses the many in the vision of God. But he who has been in this light sees, and does not see. How, seeing, does he not see? Because, he says, he sees beyond sight, so that properly he knows and sees, but he does not see transcendently, seeing with no energy of intellect and sense, by the very not seeing nor knowing, that is by such a one transcending every cognitive energy, being in that which is beyond sight and knowledge, clearly seeing and acting in a manner better than we do, as one who has become better than a human and is already God by grace and exists united to God and sees God through God.

Those, therefore, who advocate only apophatic contemplation and hold that there is no energy or vision beyond it, and say that this is under universal knowledge, but that there is no higher contemplation than knowledge, seem to think that those who, according to them, attain this most perfect apophatic contemplation properly do not see nor know and possess a privation of both knowledge and vision. Therefore they have unwittingly proclaimed that true ignorance, this one being by privation, is better than all knowledge (p. 510) and take pride in being unknowingly in a state of deficiency. Thus those who do not believe in the greatest light also fall away from the light of knowledge. And indeed, if apophatic contemplation and the divine darkness are the same thing, and this contemplation properly provides a privation of seeing, according to those who say that there is no divine vision beyond it, then this divine darkness is also properly and by privation darkness and renders those who are in it mindless, and truly makes such those who declare such things about it, who, before renouncing the Egyptian and falsely-named and barren mother, which the fathers rightly say is understood as outside education, before clearly knowing that we live between two enemies and siding with the better ones, before through them attacking the evil ones and routing and slaying and burying some, and putting others to flight (namely as many of the evil passions as have a natural affinity to us, of the causes and

105

θεωρίας ἀπολαύσωμεν; Εἰ δέ νῦν μέν ἀφιέναι τοῦτο τό φῶς καί ὑπερβαίνειν δυνάμεθα, τότε δ᾿ οὔ, κρείττων ἄρ᾿ ἡμῖν ὁ παρών αἰών τοῦ μέλλοντος καί εἰκότως ἐπτόηνται περί αὐτόν οἱ τῷ αἰωνίῳ πολεμοῦντες καί ἀληθινῷ φωτί.

Ἆρ᾿ οὖν ∆ιονύσιος ὁ μέγας τούτοις συμφωνεῖ; Καί πῶς ἆρ᾿ ὁ τό φῶς τοῦτο ἐξυμνήσας πάντων μάλιστα; Τοῦτο μέν οὖν καί προαπεδείξαμεν διά πλειόνων ἐν τοῖς Περί φωτός καί φωτισμοῦ θείου προεξενηνεγμένος λόγοις, ὡς ὅ γε μάλιστα πάντων ἀντικείμενος τοῖς τῷ μεγάλῳ φωτί ἀντικειμένοις, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐξ Ἀρείου Πάγου τῆς οἰκουμένης φανότατος φωστήρ. Ἀλλά καί νῦν ἀναλαβόντες ἴδωμεν τἀκείνου ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν προβεβλημένα ρήματα. ∆ωροθέῳ τοίνυν οὗτος ἐπιστέλλων λειτουργῷ, «ὁ θεῖος», φησί, «γνόφος ἐστί τό ἀπρόσιτον φῶς δι᾿ ὑπερβολήν ὑπερουσίου φωτοχυσίας˙ ἐν τούτῳ γίνεται πᾶς ὁ Θεόν γνῶναι καί ἰδεῖν ἀξιούμενος, αὐτῷ τῷ μή ὁρᾶν μηδέ γινώσκειν ἐν τῷ ὑπέρ ὅρασιν καί γνῶσιν γινόμενος, τοῦτο αὐτό γινώσκων, ὅτι μετά πάντα ἐστί τά αἰσθητά καί νοητά». Ἐνταῦθα τοίνυν τό αὐτό καί γνόφον λέγει καί φῶς, καί ὁρᾶν καί μή ὁρᾶν, καί γινώσκειν καί μή γινώσκειν. Πῶς οὖν καί σκότος τοῦτο τό φῶς; «∆ι᾿ ὑπερβολήν», (σελ. 508) φησί, «φωτοχυσίας», ὥστε φῶς μέν κυρίως, σκότος δέ καθ᾿ ὑπεροχήν, ὡς ἀόρατον τοῖς δι᾿ αἰσθήσεως ἤ νοῦ ἐνεργειῶν προσιέναι καί ὁρᾶν ἐπιχειροῦσιν.

Ἐπεί δ᾿ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ ἀπροσίτῳ γίνεται πᾶς ὁ Θεόν γνῶναι καί ἰδεῖν ἀξιούμενος, τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὁ τοῦ τοιούτου ἀξιούμενος, προσελθεῖν τῷ ἀπροσίτῳ καί ἰδεῖν τόν ἀόρατον; Ἆρα πᾶς θεοσεβής; Ἀλλά Μωσέως μόνου καί τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτόν τό γενέσθαι ἐν τῷ θείῳ γνόφῳ, ἡ δέ δι᾿ ἀποφάσεως θεολογία παντός ἐστι θεοσεβοῦς˙ νῦν δέ μετά τήν δεσποτικήν διά σαρκός ἐπιδημίαν, καί παντός ἀνθρώπου, ὡς προαποδέδεικται. Ἄλλο ἄρα τό κυρίως τοῦτο φῶς καί ὁ θεῖος αὐτός γνόφος καί ἀσυγκρίτως ὑπερέχον τῆς κατά ἀπόφασιν θεολογίας˙ ἔστω δ᾿ ὅμως ὁπόσον ὁ Μωϋσῆς ὑπερέχει κατά τήν θεοπτίαν τῶν πολλῶν. Ἀλλ᾿ ὁ ἐν τῷ φωτί τούτῳ γεγονός ὁρᾷ, καί οὐχ ὁρᾷ. Πῶς ὁρῶν οὐχ ὁρᾷ; Ὅτι, φησίν, ὑπέρ ὅρασιν ὁρᾷ, ὥστε κυρίως μέν γινώσκει καί ὁρᾷ, οὐχ ὁρᾷ δέ ὑπεροχικῶς, μηδεμιᾷ ἐνεργείᾳ νοῦ τε καί αἰσθήσεως ὁρῶν, αὐτῷ τῷ μή ὁρᾶν μηδέ γινώσκειν, τουτέστι τῷ ὑπερβῆναι τόν τοιοῦτον πᾶσαν γνωστικήν ἐνέργειαν, ἐν τῷ ὑπέρ ὅρασιν καί γνῶσιν γινόμενος, δηλονότι κρειττόνως ἤ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς καί ὁρῶν καί ἐνεργῶν, ὡς κρεῖττον ἤ κατ᾿ ἄνθρωπον γενόμενος καί Θεός ἤδη κατά χάριν ὤν καί Θεῷ ὑπάρχων ἡνωμένος καί διά Θεοῦ Θεόν ὁρῶν.

Οἱ τοίνυν τήν κατά ἀποφασιν μόνην θεωρίαν πρεσβεύοντες καί περαιτέρω ταύτης μηδεμίαν ἐνέργειαν ἤ ὅρασιν δοξάζοντες, καί ταύτην μέν ὑπό τήν καθόλου γνῶσιν εἶναι λέγοντες, τῆς δέ γνώσεως μηδεμίαν ὑψηλοτέραν θεωρίαν, τούς κατ᾿ αὐτούς τῆς κατά ἀπόφασιν τελεωτάτης ταύτης ἐφικνουμένους θεωρίας κυρίως μή ὁρᾶν μηδέ γινώσκειν ἐοίκασιν οἰόμενοι καί στέρησιν ἔχοντας γνώσεώς τε καί ὁράσεως. Οὐκοῦν ἔλαθον ἑαυτούς τήν ὄντως ἀγνωσίαν, ταύτην δέ κατά στέρησιν, κρεῖττον πάσης γνώσεως (σελ. 510) ἀποφαινόμενοι καί σεμνυνόμενοι τῷ κατ᾿ ἔλλειψιν ἀγνώστως ἔχειν. Οὕτως οἱ τῷ μεγίστῳ μή πιστεύοντες φωτί καί τοῦ φωτός τῆς γνώσεως ἐκπίπτουσι. Καί μήν, εἰ ταὐτόν ἥ τε κατά ἀπόφασιν θεωρία καί ὁ θεῖος γνόφος, αὕτη δέ ἡ θεωρία στέρησιν κυρίως παρέχει τοῦ ὁρᾶν, κατά τούς λέγοντας ὡς οὐκ ἔστι περαιτέρω θεία θέα, οὐκοῦν καί ὁ θεῖος γνόφος οὖτος κυρίως ἐστί καί κατά στέρησιν σκότος καί τούς ἐν αὐτῷ γινομένους ἄφρονας ἀποτελεῖ καί ποιεῖ γε τοιούτους ὡς ἀληθῶς τούς περί αὐτοῦ τοιαῦτα ἀποφαινομένους, οἵ πρίν ἀποτάξασθαι τῇ αἰγυπτίᾳ καί ψευδωνύμῳ καί ἀγόνῳ μητρί, ἥν καλῶς λέγουσιν οἱ πατέρες τήν ἔξω νοεῖσθαι παίδευσιν, πρίν καθαρῶς γνῶναι ὠς δύο πολεμίων μεταξύ βιοτεύομεν καί προσθέσθαι τοῖς κρείττοσι, πρίν δι᾿ αὐτῶν ἐπιθέσθαι τοῖς πονηροῖς καί τούς μέν τρέψασθαι καί φονεῦσαι καί κατορύξαι, τούς δέ φυγεῖν (ὅσα δηλονότι τῶν πονηρῶν παθῶν φυσικήν ἔχοντα πρός ἡμᾶς οἰκειότητα, τῶν αἰτίων καί