109

knows God, not only beyond the noetic power of the mind, this human one, glorifying God - for many created things are also beyond it -, but also beyond that most supernatural union, (p. 524) through which alone the mind is united to things beyond the noetic "in a more divine imitation of the super-celestial minds".

But enough of these things. But taking this up again we say, that this vision which is beyond sight, if someone wishes to call it intellection beyond every noetic energy, he differs from us in nothing. However, this philosopher, thinking that we call this thing only vision in a restricted sense, and not also incomprehensible intellection, against the very name of vision, he went mad, and having gone mad with a by no means praiseworthy madness, being abandoned concerning these words, he sinned greatly against the prophetic grace. And having briefly made an examination of three or four of his errors, we shall refrain from the others. For striving to show that vision is much worse than intellection, "all things shown to the prophets," he says, "are visions inferior to intellection, as things formed and outlined and manifested according to fantasy." That most of the prophets, therefore, being in ecstasy, saw most of the visions, no one who has listened moderately to the oracles concerning them doubts. What then? Did the prophets see God while experiencing an ecstasy for the worse? And who would say this, unless he himself had suffered an ecstasy for the worse? What about when God Himself says that He appeared to Moses "in a form and not through enigmas"? Did He even then cause him to go out of himself in a worse ecstasy? What about when for forty whole days he was outside of himself and participating in the formless life under the darkness, he both saw and heard? Did he go out in a worse ecstasy? Truly, the one writing these things stands as far as possible from the truth.

And his error is doubled here; for he also here lies against the great Dionysius, saying that he thinks the same things and that all prophetic visions are inferior to intellection; putting forth what was written by him, as "from certain divine phantasms illuminating the initiates or (p. 526) the prophets, according to different and various causes and powers, God is named." And yet this one clearly says here "according to different and various causes and powers," just as God also says that to one He appeared in a dream, to another while awake—through enigmas, however—but to Moses "in a form and not through enigmas." How then did all the prophets see according to the imaginative power of the soul alone? But the divine fantasy also differs greatly from our human fantasy; and indeed that one forms our ruling principle which is truly bodiless, whereas our fantasy occurs in the corporeal part of our soul; and what is formed there is the highest and supreme part of the rational soul, but in us it is almost the lowest of the psychic powers; and this one is formed by the movements from sense-perception, but there, what it is that forms the ruling principle of the prophets, if you wish to learn, listen to the great Basil; for the prophets saw, he says, "their ruling principle being formed by the Spirit"; so that it is the Holy Spirit that rests upon the mind of the prophets and using the ruling principle as matter and through itself foretelling in it the future things to them and through them to us. How then is this a fantasy, suitable to and of equal rank with our fantasy? And how is this fantasy inferior to our intellection? Rather, how is it not also shown from this that there is a light, contemplated by the mind, other than intellection, and visions neither of sense nor of fantasy, and others altogether beyond the knowledge that comes from the discursive intellect?

But the philosopher also adduces another usage of the great one, saying, "the angel who formed the vision, in order to initiate the theologian into the divine things, and in these things he says, "by saying 'formed' he has indicated that which is according to fantasy; for none of the (p. 528)

109

γινώσκει τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐχ ὑπέρ τήν νοητικήν μόνην δύναμιν τοῦ νοῦ, τήν ἀνθρωπίνην ταύτην, δοξάζων τόν Θεόν - πολλά γάρ καί τῶν κτιστῶν ὑπέρ αὐτήν εἰσιν -, ἀλλά καί ὑπέρ τήν ὑπερφυεστάτην ἕνωσιν ἐκείνην, (σελ. 524) δι᾿ ἧς μόνης τοῖς τῶν νοητῶν ἐπέκεινα ὁ νοῦς ἑνοῦται «ἐν θειοτέρᾳ μιμήσει τῶν ὑπερουρανίων νόων».

Ἀλλά τούτων μέν ἅλις. Ἐκεῖνο δ᾿ ἐπαναλαβόντες λέγομεν, ὡς τήν ὑπέρ θέαν ὅρασιν ταύτην, εἴ τις νόησιν ὑπέρ πᾶσαν νοεράν ἐνέργειαν ἐθέλει καλεῖν, διαφέρεται πρός ἡμᾶς οὐδέν. Ὁ μέντοι φιλόσοφος οὗτος, νομίσας ὅρασιν ἡμᾶς τουτί μόνον ἀφωρισμένως, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί νόησιν ἀπερινόητον καλεῖν, κατ᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ὁράσεως, ἐμάνη, καί μανείς οὐμενοῦν ἐπαινετήν μανίαν, ἐγκαταλειφθείς περί τούς λόγους τούτους, κατά τῆς προφητικῆς χάριτος ἥμαρτεν ὡς πλεῖστα. Τριῶν δ᾿ ἡμεῖς ἤ τεττάρων ἁμαρτημάτων ἔλεγχου διά βραχέων ποιησάμενοι τῶν ἄλλων ἀφεξόμεθα. ∆εῖξαι τοίνυν αὐτός ἀγωνιζόμενος ὡς ἡ ὅρασις πολλῷ χείρων τῆς νοήσεως, «πάντα τά τοῖς προφήταις δεδειγμένα, χείρους νοήσεως», φησιν «ὁράσεις, ὡς διαπεπλασμένα καί διαγεγραμμένα καί κατά φαντασίαν ἐκπεφασμένα». Ὅτι μέν οὖν ἐν ἐκστάσει γενόμενον τῶν προφητῶν οἱ πλείους τάς πλείους εἶδον τῶν ὁράσεων, οὐδείς ὅς ἀμφιγνοεῖ τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτούς λογίων καί μετρίων ἐπακούσας. Τί οὖν; τήν ἐπί τό χεῖρον ἔκστασιν πάσχοντες Θεόν ἑώρων οἱ προφῆται; Καί τίς ἄν τοῦτο εἴποι, μή τήν ἐπί τό χεῖρον ἔκστασιν αὐτός παθών; Τί δ᾿ ὅτε τῷ Μωϋσῇ φανῆναι ὁ Θεός αὐτός φησιν «ἐν εἴδει καί οὐ δι᾿ αἰνιγμάτων»; Ἆρα καί τότε τήν χείρω ἔκστασιν ἐξέστησεν αὐτόν; Τί δ᾿ ὅτε τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας ὅλας ἑαυτοῦ ἐξεστηκώς καί τῆς ἀειδοῦς ζωῆς ὑπό τόν γνόφον μετέχων, ἑώρα τε καί ἤκουεν; Ἆρα τήν χείρω ἔκστασιν ἐξέστη; Ὄντως τῆς ἀληθείας ὡς πορρωτάτω ἐξέστηκεν ὁ ταῦτα γράφων.

∆ιπλασιάζεται δέ αὐτῷ ἐνταῦθα τό ἁμάρτημα˙ τοῦ γάρ μεγάλου ∆ιονυσίου κἀνταῦθα, ὡς ταὐτά φρονοῦντος καί τάς προφητικάς ὁράσεις πάσας ὡς χείρους νοήσεως εἰπόντος, καταψεύδεται ἐκεῖνο˙ τῶν αὐτῷ γεγραμμένων προβαλλόμενος, ὡς «ἀπό τινων θείων φαντασμάτων τούς μύστας ἤ (σελ. 526) τούς προφήτας καταλαμψάντων, κατ᾿ ἄλλας καί ἄλλας αἰτίας τε καί δυνάμεις, ὁ Θεός ὀνομάζεται». Καί μήν οὗτος σαφῶς κἀνταῦθα «κατ᾿ ἄλλας καί ἄλλας αἰτίας τε καί δυνάμεις» φησίν, ὡς καί ὁ Θεός λέγει ὅτι τῷ μέν ὄναρ, τῷ δέ ὕπαρ - δι᾿ αἰνιγμάτων μέντοι - τῷ δέ Μωϋσῇ «ἐν εἴδει καί οὐ δι᾿ αἰνιγμάτων» ὤφθη. Πῶς οὖν πάντες οἱ προφῆται κατά μόνην τήν φανταστικήν τῆς ψυχῆς δύναμιν ἑώρων; Ἀλλά καί ἡ θεία φαντασία πολύ διενήνοχε τῆς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀνθρωπίης φαντασίας˙ καί γοῦν ἐκείνη μέν τό καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἡγεμονικόν καί ὄντως ἀσώματον τυποῖ, ἡ δέ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς φαντασία ἐν τῷ σωματοειδεῖ γίνεται τῆς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ψυχῆς˙ καί τό μέν τυπούμενον ἐκεῖ τῆς λογικῆς ψυχῆς ἐστι τό κορυφαῖόν τε καί ἀκρότατον, ἐν ἡμῖν δέ τό τῶν ψυχικῶν δυνάμεων σχεδόν ἔσχατον˙ καί τυποῦται τοῦτο μέν ὑπό τῶν ἀπ᾿ αἰσθήσεως κινημάτων, ἐκεῖ δέ, τί ἐστι τό τυποῦν τό ἡγεμονικόν τῶν προφητῶν, εἰ θέλεις μαθεῖν, τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου ἄκουσον˙ ἑώρων γάρ, φησίν, οἱ προφῆται «τυπούμενοι τῷ Πνεύματι τό ἡγεμονικόν»˙ ὥστε τό Πνεῦμα ἐστι τό ἅγιον τό ἐφιζάνον τῷ νῷ τῶν προφητῶν καί ὡς ὕλῃ χρώμενον τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ καί ἐν αὐτῷ δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ τά μέλλοντα προκαταγγέλλον αὐτοῖς καί δι᾿ αὐτῶν ἡμῖν. Πῶς οὖν τοῦτο φαντασία, τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ φαντασίᾳ κατάλληλός τε καί ὁμότιμος; Πῶς δέ χείρων τῆς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς νοήσεως ἡ φαντασία αὕτη; Μᾶλλον δέ πῶς οὐχί καί ἀπό τούτου δείκνυται φῶς ὄν, νῷ θεωρητόν, ἕτερον παρά τήν νόησιν, καί ὁράσεις οὔτε αἰσθηταί οὔτε φαντασταί, καί ἄλλαι παντάπασι παρά τήν ἀπό τῆς διανοίας γνῶσιν;

Ἀλλ᾿ ὁ φιλόσοφος καί ἄλλην χρῆσιν παράγει τοῦ μεγάλου λέγουσαν, «ὁ τήν ὅρασιν διαπλάσας ἄγγελος, εἰς τό μυῆσαι τά θεῖα τόν θεολόγον, κἄν τούτοις φησί, «τῷ μέν εἰπεῖν διαπλάσας τό κατά φαντασίαν δεδήλωκεν˙ οὐδείς γάρ τῶν (σελ. 528)