112

seeing and knowing this beyond the mind,» how shall we enclose the vision in the divine darkness only in theology and contemplation by way of negation? For Moses beheld this even before entering into the super-luminous darkness through the place; so that the union and vision in the darkness is clearly something else, eminently higher than such theology.

And why is it necessary to teach still with words and not to show by deed the sure truth of what we say? For did Moses, freed from all things seen and seeing, both of things and thoughts, and having passed beyond the vision of the place and having entered into the darkness, see nothing in it? But indeed there he saw the immaterial tabernacle, «which through a material imitation he showed to those below»; and this would be, according to the words of the saints, Christ the power of God and the self-subsistent wisdom of God, being indeed immaterial and uncreated in its own nature, but showing beforehand through the Mosaic tabernacle that at some time the supersubstantial and unformed Word will receive a structure and come into form and substance, the tabernacle that surpasses, precedes, and contains all things, in which were created and are held together all things both visible and invisible, and having taken a body He set this forth for our sake, being Himself the pre-eternal High Priest, and later also using Himself as the victim for our sake. For this reason, Moses, having come to be in the divine darkness, not only saw the immaterial tabernacle and sketched it out through matter, but also depicted materially and in various ways the very hierarchy of the Godhead (p. 518) and the things concerning the Levitical priesthood. The tabernacle, therefore, and all things concerning the tabernacle, the priesthood and the veils of the priesthood, were sensible symbols of the visions Moses had in the darkness. But those visions themselves were not symbols; for to those who pass beyond both all profane and pure things and enter into the mystical darkness, those things are manifested unveiled. How could they be symbols, things manifested bare of any covering? Wherefore also the interpreter of the Mystical Theology, praying at the beginning, says, «O supersubstantial Trinity, guide us to the topmost summit of the mystical oracles, where the simple and absolute and unchangeable mysteries of theology are veiled in the superluminous darkness.» Can anyone still say, then, that nothing is seen in the divine darkness and that there is no higher vision after apophatic theology? Or at least this, that all the visions of the saints are symbolic? And symbolic in such a way, that they might appear at some time, but never truly be? For Moses saw what he saw «in forty days and as many nights,» according to Gregory of Nyssa, «partaking of the formless life under the darkness,» so that those visions were without form. How then symbolic? But they were also seen in the darkness; and all things in the darkness are simple and absolute and unchangeable. But what of the symbols in the proper sense, the divisible and sensible ones, is not changeable, not composite, not attached to beings, that is, to created things?

Since he saw, the things set forth were visible; they were, therefore, either light, or they were visible in another light; but all things there are simple; therefore, all those things are light. And since, having ascended beyond himself and come to be in the darkness, he saw, he saw neither by sense nor by intellect; that light, therefore, is self-seeing and is transcendently hidden from minds that have not become eyeless (for how could the self-seeing and self-intelligible be seen by any activity of the intellect whatsoever? (p. 520)), but when, having ascended beyond all intellectual activity, the eyeless intellect transcendently comes to its end, it is filled with this exceedingly beautiful splendor, having by grace come to be in God and through the union beyond intellect ineffably having and seeing through itself the self-seeing light. What then? Is the divine no longer hidden then, someone might say? And how, when it does not depart from hiddenness, but even imparts it to others, hiding

112

ὁρῶν καί γινώσκων τοῦτον ὑπέρ νοῦν», πῶς μόνον ἐν τῇ κατά ἀπόφασιν θεολογίᾳ τε καί θεωρίᾳ περικλείσομεν τήν ἐν τῷ θείῳ γνόφῳ θέαν; Ταύτην γάρ καί πρό τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τόν ὑπέρφωτον γνόφον διά τοῦ τόπου ὁ Μωϋσῆς ἐθεάσατο˙ ὥστ᾿ ἄλλο τί ἐστι σαφῶς ἡ ἐν τῷ γνόφῳ ἕνωσις καί θέα, τῆς τοιαύτης θεολογίας διαφερόντως ὑψηλότερον.

Καί τί δεῖ λόγοις ἔτι διδάσκειν καί μή πράγματι δεικνύναι τήν ἀσφαλῆ τῶν ὑφ᾿ ἡμῶν λεγομένων ἀλήθειαν; Ἆρα γάρ ὁ Μωϋσῆς, πάντων ἀπολυθείς τῶν τε ὁρωμένων καί τῶν ὁρώντων πραγμάτων τε καί νοημάτων καί τήν θέαν ὑπερβάς τοῦ τόπου καί εἰς τόν γνόφον εἰσελθών, ἐν αὐτῷ ἑώρακεν οὐδέν; Ἀλλά μήν ἐκεῖ εἶδε τήν ἄϋλον σκηνήν , «ἥν δι᾿ ὑλικῆς μιμήσεως τοῖς κάτω ὑπέδειξεν»˙ αὕτη δ᾿ ἄν εἴη, κατά τούς τῶν ἁγίων λόγους, Χριστός ἡ Θεοῦ δύναμις καί Θεοῦ αὐθυπόστατος σοφία, ἄϋλος έν οὖσα καί ἄκτιστος τῇ ἑαυτῆς φύσει, προδεικνῦσα δέ διά τῆς μωσαϊκῆς σκηνῆς ὅτι δέξεταί ποτε κατασκευήν καί εἰς σχῆμα ἥξει καί οὐσίαν ὁ ὑπερούσιος καί ἀσχημάτιστος λόγος, ἡ πάντα ὑπερέχουσα καί προέχουσα καί περιέχουσα σκηνή, ἐν ἧ ἔκστισται καί συνέστηκεν ὅσα τε ὁρατά καί ὅσα ἀόρατα, καί σῶμα λαβών θέσει τοῦτο ὑπέρ ἡμῶν, ἀρχιερεύς μέν ὤν αὐτός προαιώνιος, ὕστερον δέ καί ὡς ἱερείῳ ἑαυτῷ χρώμενος ὑπέρ ἡμῶν. ∆ιά τοῦτο, ἐν τῷ θείῳ γνόφῳ γεγονώς ὁ Μωϋσῆς, οὐ τήν ἄϋλον σκηνήν εἶδε μόνον καί δι᾿ ὕλης ὑπέγραψεν, ἀλλά καί αὐτήν τήν τῆς θεαρχίας (σελ. 518) ἱεραρχίαν καί τά κατά τήν νομικήν ἱερωσύνην ὑλικῶς καί ποικίλως διεζωγράφησε. Σύμβολα μέν οὖν αἰσθητά ἤ τε σκηνή καί τά κατά τήν σκηνήν πάντα, ἱερωσύνη τε καί τά καθ᾿ ἱερωσύνην παραπετάσματα τῶν ἐν τῷ γνόφῳ Μωσέως ὑπῆρχε θεαμάτων. Ἐκεῖνα δέ αὐτά τά θεάματα σύμβολα οὐκ ἦν˙ τοῖς γάρ καί τά ἐναγῆ πάντα καί τά καθαρά διαβαίνουσι καί εἰς τόν μυστικόν εἰσδύνουσι γνόφον ἀπερικαλύπτως ἐκεῖνα ἐκφαίνεται. Πῶς δ᾿ ἄν εἴη σύμβολα τά γυμνά παντός περικαλύμματος ἐκφαινόμενα; ∆ιό καί ὁ τῆς Μυστικῆς θεολογίας ὑποφήτης εὐχόμενος, ἀρχόμενος, «τριάς ὑπερούσιε», φησίν, «ἴθυνον ἡμᾶς ἐπί τήν τῶν μυστικῶν ἀκροτάτην κορυφήν, ἔνθα τά ἁπλᾶ καί ἀπόλυτα καί ἄτρεπτα τῆς θεολογίας μυστήρια κατά τόν ὑπέρφωτον ἐγκεκάλυπται γνόφον». Ἔτ᾿ οὖν ἔχει τις εἰπεῖν ὡς οὐδέν ὁρᾶται ἐν τῷ θείῳ γνόφῳ καί μετά τήν κατά ἀπόφασιν θεολογίαν ὑψηλότερον θέαμα οὐδέν; ἤ τοῦτο γοῦν ὅτι συμβολικά πάντα τά τῶν ἁγίων θεάματα; καί συμβολικά τοιαῦτα, ὡς φαίνεσθαι μέν ποτε, εἶναι δ᾿ οὐδέποτε; Μωϋσῆς γάρ εἶδεν ἅ εἶδεν «ἐν τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέραις καί τοσαύταις νυξί», κατά τόν Νύσσης Γρηγόριον, τῆς ἀειδοῦς ζωῆς ὑπό τόν γνόφον μετέχων», ὥστε ἀνείδεα ἦν τά θεάματα ἐκεῖνα. Πῶς οὖν συμβολικά; Ἀλλά καί ἐν τῷ γνόφῳ ἑωρᾶτο˙ πάντα δέ τά ἐν τῷ γνόφῳ ἁπλᾶ καί ἀπόλυτα καί ἄτρεπτα. Τί δέ τῶν κυρίως συμβόλων, τῶν μεριστῶν καί αἰσθητῶν, οὐ τρεπτόν, οὐ σύνθετον, οὐ τοῖς οὖσι συνημμένον δηλονότι τοῖς κτιστοῖς;

Ἐπεί δ᾿ ἑώρα, ὁρατἀ ἦσαν τά προκείμενα˙ ἤ οὖν φῶς, ἐν φωτί ἄλλῳ ὑπῆρχον ὁρατά˙ ἀλλά ἁπλά πάντα τά ἐκεῖ˙ φῶς ἄρα πάντ᾿ ἐκεῖνα. Ἐπεί δ᾿ ἑαυτόν ὑπεραναβάς καί ἐν τῷ γνόφῳ γενόμενος ἑώρα, οὔτε κατ᾿ αἴσθησιν ἑώρα οὔτε κατά νοῦν˙ αὐτοπτικόν ἄρα ἐστί τό φῶς ἐκεῖνο καί τούς μέν μή ἀνομμάτους γενομένους νόας ὑπεροχικῶς ἀποκρύπτεται (πῶς γάρ τό αὐτοπτικόν καί αὐτονόητον δι᾿ ἐνεργείας νοῦ (σελ. 520) ὁραθείη οἱασοῦν;), ὅταν δ᾿ ὑπεραναβάς πᾶσαν νοεράν ἐνέργειαν ὁ νοῦς ἀνόμματος ὑπεροχικῶς τελέσῃ, πληροῦται τῆς ὑπερκάλου ταύτης ἀγλαΐας, ἐν Θεῷ χάριτι γενόμενος καί διά τῆς ὑπέρ νοῦν ἑνώσεως αὐτό δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ τό αὐτοπτικόν φῶς ἔχων ἀπορρήτως καί ὁρῶν. Τί οὖν; Οὐκέτι λοιπόν κρυφίον τό θεῖον εἴποι τις ἄν; Καί πῶς, ὅ γε οὐκ ἐξίσταται τῆς κρυφιότητος, ἀλλά καί τοῖς ἄλλοις μεταδίδωσι, κρύπτον