118

has in himself and intellectually encounters this, beholding supernaturally light beyond light in light, an eye that in no way defines the one who sees, how could he not even have a shadow of the shadow of God? When the mirror is the mind, and a mind purified and stainless, an immaterial nature, a light cognate, if one must say so, to the highest and first light, how, when illuminated by that first light itself, would it not appear by participation to be what the archetype is by cause? (p. 574) How would it not show through itself the beauty of that hidden loveliness, just as the prophet also says that "the splendor of our God is upon us"? And how, being and appearing such, a fragrance of Christ, a messenger of His virtues, would he not have even a shadow of a shadow of God? From where have you come to these truly unenlightened and many-shadowed arguments, O philosopher? For the writings of Dionysius the Great are far from these shadows; and he himself shows how great a thing he considers the true and mystical vision of the God-bearers, that he even calls the detailed teachings of the holy Scriptures images of their intellectual contemplative fulfillment. We shall say, then, from where he, rashly imagining this, declared it.

A certain other of the true theologians, silencing the audacious theologians, says that the knowledge of God manifested to the world is a shadow, and that those who philosophize on visible things have a shadow of this shadow, because they do not even have an accurate comprehension of creation. But this one, who is not spiritual and yet judges spiritual men, not knowing that the vision of God differs from theology, and especially from that which proceeds from visible things, has transferred the twofoldness of the shadow from the latter to the former; or rather, he does not even concede this to the contemplators of invisible things. And having shown these to be unhonored by these arguments, he says that "it is not possible" not to consider the pagan wise men "marvelous, for having nobly," as he himself says about them, "understood the divine transcendence and for claiming that it is necessary for a vision from above to come upon things beyond us and for an intellectual light to shine forth, through which it is possible to be yoked to divine things and to have simple contemplations better than by way of demonstration. And hearing them say these things," he says, he "is unable not to say that they too have been illumined by God." What illumination? The one they certainly suggest. This, then, he states openly (p. 576), that he cannot but consider and call them godly and seers of God, distinguished from others. But that the light spoken of by them is a deep and terrible darkness, and the vision from above is from below and demonic, has been clearly demonstrated in the previous discourse to him; and by bringing forth the prayer which is given to God, this too we have shown to be an atheistic opinion; but perhaps it would not be amiss here also to say something brief about it, consonant and in agreement with those previous points.

David, then, said that "the gods who did not make the heaven and the earth shall perish"; but I would add that with these gods may perish the transcendence of a God, which according to them is not prior to formless matter, nor brought beings forth from non-beings, nor is incomparably above the things which somehow appear in our world, nor exercises providence here and over us. For these are the dogmas of Socrates and Aristotle and Plato, whom this disciple of theirs admired as having understood the divine transcendence. And Pythagoras in his useless rather than golden verses says that the divine is perpetually such as a man at leisure might sometime become; thus did he understand the transcendence of God. And even if they had understood the transcendence, not even so would they have been illumined; for they did not glorify as God the one whom they understood as God, if indeed they did understand; for even the demons

118

ἑαυτῷ ἔχῃ καί τούτῳ νοερῶς ἐντυγχάνῃ, φῶς ὑπέρ φῶς ὑπερφυῶς ἐν φωτί θεώμενος, τόν ὁρῶντα μηδαμῶς ὁρίζον ὀφθαλμόν, πῶς κἄν οὐδέ σκιάν ἔχοι τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ σκιᾶς; Ὅταν καί νοῦς ᾖ τό ἔσοπτρον, καί νοῦς κεκαθαρμένος καί ἀκηλίδωτος, φύσις ἄϋλος, φῶς συγγενές, εἰ χρή λέγειν, τῷ ἀνωτάτῳ καί πρώτῳ φωτί, πῶς ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πρώτου καταλαμπόμενος φωτός οὐκ αὐτό φαίνοιτ᾿ ἄν μέθεξιν ὅ τό ἀρχέτυπον κατ᾿ αἰτίαν ἐστί; (σελ. 574) Πῶς δ᾿ οὐκ δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ φαίνοι τοῦ κρυφίου κάλλους ἐκείνου τήν ὡραιότητα, καθά καί ὁ προφήτης λέγει ὅτι «ἡ λαμπρότης τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς»; Πῶς δέ τοιοῦτος ὤν τε καί φαινόμενος, εὐωδία Χριστοῦ, τῶν ἀρετῶν αὐτοῦ ἄγγελος, οὐδέ σκιάν σκιᾶς σχοίη τοῦ Θεοῦ; Πόθεν εἰς τούτους τούς ὄντως ἀφωτίστους καί πολυσκίους λόγους ἐλήλυθας, ὦ φιλόσοφε; Τῶν γάρ σκιῶν τούτων πόρρω τά ∆ιονυσίου τοῦ μεγάλου συγγράμματα˙ τοσοῦτο δέ αὐτός μέγα τι χρῆμα δείκνυσιν οἰόμενος τήν τῶν θεοφόρων ἀληθῆ καί μυστικήν ἐποψίαν, ὡς καί τῆς κατά νοῦν αὐτῶν θεωρητικῆς ἀποπληρώσεως ἀπεικονίσματα λέγειν τάς τῶν ἱερῶν Γραφῶν διεξοδικάς μαθητείας. Πόθεν οὖν τοῦτο προπετῶς φαντασθείς ἐξεῖπεν, ἐροῦμεν ἡμεῖς.

Ἕτερός τις τῶν ἀληθινῶν θεολόγων, τούς θρασεῖς θεολόγους ἐπιστομίζων, σκιάν μέν λέγει τήν ἐμφαινομένην τῷ κόσμῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ γνῶσιν, καί τήν σκιάν ἔχειν ταύτης τῆς σκιᾶς τούς ἐν τοῖς ὁρωμένοις φιλοσοφοῦντας τῷ μηδέ τῆς κτίσεως τήν ἀκριβῆ κατάληψιν ἔχειν. Οὗτος δέ ὁ μή πνευματικός καί τούς πνευματικούς ἀνακρίνων, μή εἰδώς ὅτι διαφέρει θεοπτία θεολογίας, καί τῆς ἀπό ὁρωμένων ἐς τά μάλιστα, μετήνεγκεν ἀπ᾿ ἐκείνης ἐπί ταύτην τῆς σκιᾶς τήν διπλόην, μᾶλλον δέ οὐδέ ταύτην τοῖς τῶν ἀοράτων θεωροῖς συγχωρεῖ˙ τούτους δέ διά τούτων ἀγεράστους δείξας τῶν λόγων, τούς ἔξω σοφούς «οὐκ ἔχει» φησίν, «ὅπως μή θαυμασίους ἡγήσεται, γενναίως», ὡς αὐτός περί αὐτῶν λέγει, «τήν θείαν κατανενοηκότας ὑπεροχήν καί δεἰν ἰσχυριζομένους ἐπί τῶν ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς θέαν ἄνωθεν παραγενέσθαι καί φῶς ἀναλάμψαι νοερόν, δι᾿ οὗ ἐστι τοῖς θείοις συζυγεῖν καί κρεῖττον ἤ κατά ἀπόδειξιν τάς ἁπλᾶς ἔχειν θεωρίας. Ταῦτα δέ ἀκούων λεγόντων, μή δύνασθαί» φησι «μή καί αὐτούς ὑπό Θεοῦ πεφωτίσθαι λέγειν». Τίνα τόν φωτισμόν; Ὅν πάντως ὑφηγοῦνται. Τοῦτο τοίνυν ἄντικρύς (σελ. 576) φησιν, ὡς οὐ δύναται μή θεοσεβεῖς τε καί θεόπτας διαφέροντας τῶν ἄλλων ἡγεῖσθαι καί προσαγορεύειν. Ἀλλ᾿ ὡς μέν τό ὑπ᾿ ἐκείνων φῶς λεγόμενον βαθύ καί δεινόν σκότος ἐστί, καί ἡ ἄνωθεν θέα κάτωθεν καί δαιμόνιος τρανῶς ἐν τῷ προτέρῳ πρός αὐτόν ἀποδέδεικται λόγῳ, καί τήν προσευχήν ἥν διδόται τῷ Θεῷ καί ταύτην εἰς μέσον παραγαγόντες ἄθεον γνώμην ἀπεδείξαμεν οὖσαν˙ οὐ χεῖρον δ᾿ ἴσως κἀνταῦθα φάναι βραχύ τι περί αὐτῆς τοῖς προτέροις ἐκείνοις σύμφωνον καί ὁμόλογον.

Ὁ μέν οὖν ∆αυίδ εἶπεν ὅτι «θεοί οἵ τόν οὐρανόν καί τήν γῆν οὐκ ἐποίησαν ἀπολέσθωσαν»˙ ἐγώ δ᾿ ἄν φαίην προσθείς ὡς συναπόλοιτο τοῖς θεοῖς τούτοις ὑπεροχή Θεοῦ, ἡ μηδέ τῆς ἀνειδέου κατ᾿ ἐκείνους ὕλης προτέρα μηδ᾿ ἐκ μή ὄντων προαγαγοῦσα τά ὄντα μηδέ τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν ὁπωσδηποτοῦν φαινομένων ἀσυγκρίτως ὑπερανέχουσα μηδέ τῇδε καί καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς πρόνοιαν ποιουμένη. Ταῦτα γάρ τά δόγματα Σωκράτους καί Ἀριστοτέλους καί Πλάτωνος, οὕς οὗτος ὁ μαθητής ἐκείνων ὡς τήν θείαν ὑπεροχήν κατανενοηκότας ἐθαύμασεν. Ὁ δέ Πυθαγόρας ἐν τοῖς ἀχρήστοις πλέον ἤ χρυσοῖς ἔπεσι ποιοῦτό φησιν εἶναι διηνεκῶς τό θεῖον, οἷος γένοιτ᾿ ἄν ποτ᾿ ἄνθρωπος σχολάσας˙ οὕτω κατενόησε τήν ὑπεροχήν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Καί μή εἰ καί τήν ὑπεροχήν κατανενοηκότες ἦσαν, οὐδ᾿ οὑτως ἄν ἦσαν πεφωτισμένοι˙ καί γάρ οὐχ ὡς Θεόν ἐδόξασαν ὅν ὡς Θεόν κατενόησαν, εἴ γε καί κατενόησαν˙ καί οἱ δαίμονες γάρ