120

and the phenomenon of the world to those imperfect in knowledge, just as also to those wrapped up in the senses the symbolic legal theologies were handed down through perceptible things; but just as again there are those who have been granted the good fortune of a clearer theology, among the more perfect and outside of veils, so there are those who have also stooped to look into the invisible things of God, such as Moses and Paul and those like them, even if they lead us by the hand from the things we see, suitably, toward the understanding of those things.

What purpose, O philosopher, do those multifarious and crooked sophisms of your wicked art serve you, that "one must know that it is, what it is, and the one, and the beginning, and the power, for one to know one thing and being and beginning and being able"? For if someone were saying that God is in no way known from existing things, you would have been right to bring forward these things which belong to every rational nature; but since we place the (p. 550) knowledge of the mysteries of the Spirit through the Spirit above the knowledge that belongs by nature and in common to all, what help will it be to you, who contradicts these things, that the most introductory knowledge of God comes from existing things? But you are accustomed to contradict in this way, since also to the spiritual men who say that there is a light contemplated by the mind, not only knowledge, you show through many proofs that knowledge is also called light, and by this you seem to win a mighty victory in your opposition. "But without this introductory knowledge," he says, "one will not even be a rational being, nor will there be progress toward the more perfect things of rational beings." Nor will a man ever exist before becoming an infant; but having become a man, he has done away with the things of an infant. But if among men he thinks the thoughts of infants and prides himself on these, how will he not be ridiculous? And how is the one who claims to be a Christian and pursues Greek learning, in order to reap the knowledge of God from there, not such a person?

And what of the saying, "the rational faculty of a diseased soul would not become spiritual through diligence"? For truly the rational faculty of the soul is diseased in one who considers his own thought more trustworthy than the oracles of the Spirit and does not think the divine commandments are a great and perfect remedy for the soul. For formerly he asserted that these could cleanse by half, but now, having removed all their purifying power, he has attributed it to knowledge, saying that the beginning, middle, and end of the knowledge of God and of the soul's health and purification come from knowing many, more, and all things, and that we must in no way be ignorant of the many things, in order that we might be able to bring them together into some universal concept and to set aright the circular knowledge concerning beings, that is, to learn the encyclical education, so that we might be deemed worthy of the equal-to-angelic modes of thought, which are unitary and without parts, just as if someone were to say that one who wishes to see an indivisible (p. 552) point must first make it have many parts, and that the monad cannot come to be by the removal of the many, but only by their combination, and yet every one that comes from combination is also divisible, whereas in that case the unitary and indivisible is the subject. But I, having been initiated by the fathers, and indeed having heard and believed some of them, know that they contemplated both these many things and this entire sensible world, not by sense, not by reasoning, but by the proper power and grace of the godlike mind, which both places distant things as if under one's eyes and supernaturally presents future things as present. And it is not surprising that the divine speaker from the Areopagus praises the creator of nature from the things that naturally exist in us, since he alone is glorified through inanimate and insensible and irrational and rational things, but also to him alone especially belongs the worship in the Spirit, which God himself proclaimed as alone desirable to God.

Of the sayings of the great Dionysius, as many as the philosopher unwittingly put forward against himself, leaving many yet unmentioned, I will recall one, the last one. He says, therefore, in the first book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: "this is common to every

120

καί τό τοῦ κόσμου φαινόμενον τοῖς ἀτελέσι τήν γνῶσιν, ὥσπερ καί τοῖς ἐνειλουμένοις αἰσθήσεσιν αἱ συμβολικαί νομικαί δι᾿ αἰσθητῶν παρεδόθησαν θεολογίαι˙ ἀλλ᾿ ὥσπερ αὖθίς εἰσιν οἵ τῶν τελεωτέρων καί προκαλυμμάτων ἐκτός θεολογίας σαφοῦς εὐμοίρησαν, οὕτως εἰσίν οἱ καί εἰς τά ἀόρατα τοῦ Θεοῦ παρακύψαντες, ὡς Μωϋσῆς τε καί Παῦλος καί οἱ κατ᾿ αὐτούς, εἰ καί ἀπό τῶν ὁρωμένων ἡμῖν οἰκείως πρός τήν κατανόησιν ἐκείνων ἡμᾶς χειραγωγοῦσι.

Τί δή σοι, ὦ φιλόσοφε, βούλεται τά πολυειδῆ ἐκεῖνα καί λοξά τῆς κακοτεχνίας σοφίσματα, ὅτι «εἰδέναι δεῖ τό ἔστι, τό τίἐστι καί τό ἕν καί τήν ἀρχήν καί τήν δύναμιν τόν ἕν τι εἰδότα καί ὄν καί ἀρχήν καί δυνάμενον»; Εἰ μέν γάρ ἔλεγέ τις μηδαμῶς ἐκ τῶν ὄντων γινώσκεσθαι Θεόν, καλῶς ἄν ταῦτα τά πάσῃ προσόντα φύσει λογικῇ προὔφερες˙ ἐπεί δ᾿ ἡμεῖς τήν (σελ. 550) διά τοῦ Πνεύματος γνῶσιν τῶν μυστηρίων τοῦ Πνεύματος ὑπερτίθεμεν τῆς φύσει καί κοινῇ πᾶσι προσούσης γνώσεως, τί σοι συμπράξει τῷ πρός ταῦτ᾿ ἀντιλέγοντι τό τήν εἰσαγωγικωτάτην τοῦ Θεοῦ γνῶσιν ἐκ τῶν ὄντων προσγίνεσθαι; Σύ δ᾿ ὅμως οὕτως ἀντιλέγειν εἴωθας ἐπεί καί τοῖς πνευματικοῖς ἀνδράσι λέγουσιν εἶναι φῶς νῷ θεωρητόν, οὐχί τήν γνῶσιν μόνην, σύ διά πολλῶν δεικνύεις φῶς καί τήν γνῶσιν λεγομένην, καί νικᾶν διά τούτου κατά κράτος δοκεῖς ἀντιταττόμενος. «Ἀλλά χωρίς τῆς εἰσαγωγικῆς ταύτης, οὐδέ λογικός τις ἔσται», φησίν, «οὐδ᾿ ἡ πρός τά τελεώτερα τῶν λογικῶν πρόοδος». Οὐδ᾿ ἀνήρ ἔσται ποτέ πρίν γενέσθαι νήπιον˙ ἀλλ᾿ ἀνήρ γενόμενος, τά τοῦ νηπίου κατήργηκεν. Εἰ δ᾿ ἐν ἀνδράσι τά τῶν νηπίων φρονεῖ καί τούτοις σεμνύνεται, πῶς οὐ καταγέλαστος ἔσται; Πῶς δ᾿ οὐ τοιοῦτος ὁ χριστιανός εἶναι λέγων καί τά ἑλληνικά παιδεύματα μετιών, ἵν᾿ ἐκεῖθεν τήν θεογνωσίαν καρπώσηται;

Τί δ᾿ ὅτι «νοσοῦν ψυχῆς λογικόν ἐξ ἐπιμελείας νοερόν οὐκ ἄν γένοιτο»; Ὄντως γάρ νοσεῖ τό λογικόν τῆς ψυχῆς τοῦ τήν οἰκείαν διάνοιαν πιστοτέραν ἡγουμένου τῶν λογίων τοῦ Πνεύματος καί μή μέγα καί τέλειον ἴαμα ψυχῆς τ΄ς θείας ἐντολάς οἰομένου. Πρῴην μέν γάρ ἐξ ἡμισείας καθαίρειν ἔφασκε ταύτας δύνασθαι, νῦν δέ τό καθαρτικόν αὐτῶν ἅπαν ἀφελών τῇ γνώσει προσένειμεν, ἀρχήν καί μέσον καί τέλος θεογνωσίας τε καί ὑγιείας ψυχῆς καί καθάρσεως ἐκ τοῦ πολλά καί πλείω καί πάνα εἰδέναι λέγων προσγίνεσθαι καί δεῖν μηδαμῶς ἀγνοεῖ τά πολλά, ἵνα καί συνελεῖν εἴς τι καθόλου δυνηθείημεν καί τήν κυκλικήν περί τά ὄντα γνῶσιν κατορθοῦν τουτέστι, τήν ἐγκύκλιον μανθάνειν παίδευσιν, ἵνα καί τῶν ἰσαγγέλων καταξιωθείημεν νοήσεων, τῶν ἑνιαίων καί ἀμερῶν, ὥσπερ ἄν εἴ τις ἔλεγε δεῖν τόν σημεῖον (σελ. 552) ἀμερές ἰδεῖν βουλόμενον, πολυμερές αὐτό πρότερον προσθέσθαι καί τήν μονάδα μή τῇ ἀφαιρέσει τῶν πολλῶν δύνασθαι γενέσθαι, ἀλλά τῇ συναιρέσει μόνῃ, καίτοι πᾶν τό ἐκ συναιρέσεως ἕν καί μεριστόν, ἐκεῖ δέ τό ἑνιαῖον καί ἀμερές ὑπόκειται. Ἐγώ δέ οἶδα παρά τῶν πατέρων μεμυημένος, ἤδη δά καί τινων αὐτῶν ἀκούσας τε καί πιστεύσας, ὠς καί τά πολλά ταῦτα καί τόν αἰσθητόν ἅπαντα τοῦτον κόσμον, οὐκ κατ᾿ αἴσθησιν, οὐ κατά λογισμόν, ἀλλά κατ᾿ οἰκείαν τοῦ θεοειδοῦς νοῦ δύναμιν καί χάριν ἐθεάσαντο, ἥ καί τά μακράν ὡς ὑπ᾿ ὀφθαλμούς ποιεῖ καί τά μέλλοντα ὡς παρόντα ὑπερφυῶς παρίστησι. Τόν δ᾿ ἐξ Ἀρείου Πάγου θεορρήμονα οὐ θαυμαστόν κάι ἐκ τῶν φυσικῶς ἡμῖν ἐνυπαρχόντων ἐξυμνεῖν τόν τῆς φύσεως δημιουργόν, ἐπεί καί δι᾿ ἀψύχων καί δι᾿ ἀναισθήτων καί δι᾿ ἀλόγων καί διά λογικῶν αὐτός ἐστι μόνος ὁ δοξαζόμενος, ἀλλά καί αὐτῷ μόνῳ ἐξαιρέτως πρέπει ἡ ἐν Πνεύματι λατρεία, ἥν καί μόνην ποθεινήν Θεῷ ὁ Θεός αὐτός προσεῖπεν.

Τῶν δή τοῦ μεγάλου ∆ιονυσίου ρήσεων, ὅσας ἔλαθεν ὁ φιλόσοφος καθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ προβαλόμενος, πολλάς ἔτ᾿ οὔσας καταλιπών, μιᾶς μνημονεύσω, τῆς τελευταίας. Φησί τοίνυν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱεραρχίας˙ «ἁπάσῃ τοῦτο κοινόν