114

very many things. But we, having made a brief refutation of three or four errors, will refrain from the others. Striving then to show that sight is much worse than intellection, "all things shown to the prophets," he says, are "sights inferior to intellection, as having been fashioned and delineated and manifested according to fantasy." That most of the prophets, then, being in ecstasy, saw most of the visions, no one who has moderately listened to the scholars concerning them would doubt. What then? Did the prophets, suffering an ecstasy for the worse, see God? And who would say this, unless he himself had suffered an ecstasy for the worse? And what of when God Himself says that He appeared to Moses "in form and not through enigmas"? Did He then also cause him to go out of himself in a worse ecstasy? And what of when for forty whole days he was outside of himself and partook of the invisible life under the darkness, and both saw and heard? Did he go out of himself in a worse ecstasy? Truly, he who writes these things has stood as far as possible from the truth.

And his error is doubled here: for he also misrepresents the great Dionysius here, as if he held the same opinion and said that all prophetic visions are worse than intellection; putting forth from his writings that "from certain divine fantasies that illumined 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—though through enigmas—but to Moses "in 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, the former impresses our ruling faculty, which is truly incorporeal, while our fantasy occurs in the corporeal part of our soul; and what is impressed there is the chief and highest part of the rational soul, but in us it is almost the last of the psychic powers; and this one is impressed by the movements from sense-perception, but in that case, if you wish to learn what it is that impresses the ruling faculty of the prophets, listen to the great Basil: for the prophets saw, he says, "their ruling faculty being impressed by the Spirit"; so that it is the Holy Spirit that rests upon the mind of the prophets and uses the ruling faculty as matter and in it, through Himself, foretells future things to them and through them to us. How then is this a fantasy, suitable to and of equal value with our fantasy? And how is this fantasy worse than our intellection? Rather, how is it not shown from this also that there is a light, contemplated by the mind, other than intellection, and visions neither sensible nor imaginary, and others entirely beyond the knowledge from the discursive intellect?

But the philosopher adduces another usage from the great one, saying, "the angel who fashioned the vision, in order to initiate the theologian into divine things," and in these things he says, "by saying 'fashioned' he has indicated that which is according to fantasy; for none of the things (p. 528) that the mind beholds through itself has been fashioned." If, then, anyone were persuaded by this philosopher, he will suppose that the heavenly dominions and powers suffer an ecstasy of intellection—O wonder!—for the worse, and that their visions are corporeal according to their fantasy, and not only their visions, but also their very hypostases and essential existences happen to be similar to fantasy. For the same saint says in the eighth chapter of the Celestial Hierarchy, celebrating the revelatory appellation of the holy dominions, that their dominion yearns for the true lordship "toward its own masterly semblance both itself and what is with it in a good-like manner

114

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) ὅσα ὁ νοῦς δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ θεᾶται διαπέπλασται». Τούτῳ τοίνυν εἴ τις πεισθείη τῷ φιλοσόφῳ, καί τάς οὐρανίους ὑπολήψεται κυριότητάς τε καί δυνάμεις ἔκστασιν νοήσεως, ὤ τοῦ θαύματος, ἐπί τό χεῖρον πάσχειν καί σωματοειδεῖς κατά φαντασίαν αὐτῶν εἶναι τάς ὁράσεις, καί μή μόνον τάς ὁράσεις τούτων, ἀλλά καί αὐτάς τάς ὑποστάσεις αὐτῶν καί οὐσιώδεις ὑπάρξεις φαντασίᾳ τυγχάνειν ἐμφερεῖς. Φησί γάρ ὁ αὐτός ἅγιος ἐν ὀγδόῳ τῆς Οὐρανίας Ἱεραρχίας, τήν τῶν ἁγίων κυριοτήτων ἐκφαντορικήν ἐπωνυμίαν ἐξυμνῶν, ὡς τῆς ὄντως κυριαρχίας ἡ κυριότης αὐτῶν ἐφίεται «πρός τήν αὐτῆς κυρίαν ἐμφέρειαν ἑαυτήν τε καί μεθ᾿ ἑαυτήν ἀγαθοειδῶς