124

of divinity. And how could such a symbol - if indeed it was such - be called divinity? For a written man is not humanity, nor is a symbol that appeared the nature of an angel.

Which of the holy symbols ever said that that light was created? Gregory the Theologian, "light," he says, "is the divinity shown upon the mountain to the disciples." If, then, it was not true and truly divinity, but a created symbol of it, he should not have said, light is the divinity that was shown, but light that showed divinity, and not even that which showed in part, but that which showed, since the prefix "para" clearly indicates a faint manifestation of the hiddenness of the divinity. Thus, then, did he who acquired "theology" as his own title. And Chrysostom the theologian, "brighter," he says, "than himself did the Lord appear, when the divinity partially showed its rays." See here too the prefix "para" added and clearly manifesting the manifestation of the hidden, but do not overlook the addition of the article; for he did not say "of divinity," but "of *the* divinity," (p. 590) that is, the true one. And how, being a symbol of divinity from an alien nature, could light be the rays of the divinity? And Basil the Great, showing that the God worshiped in three hypostases is one light, says, "God dwells in light unapproachable"; for the unapproachable is surely also true, and the true unapproachable; since the apostles also fell down, unable to gaze upon the glory of the light of the Son because it was an unapproachable light. And the Spirit is also light; "who," he says, "has shone in our hearts through the Holy Spirit." If, therefore, the unapproachable is true—and that was unapproachable—that light was not a pretense of divinity, but truly light of true divinity, not of the Son only, but also of the Spirit and of the Father. Therefore, we all in common chant to the Lord as we celebrate the annual feast:

"in Your light that appeared, today on Tabor, we have seen the Father as light, and the Spirit as light";

"for you have faintly revealed a glimpse of your divinity."

Here, at any rate, not only is the preposition added, but the meaning of the name "the Hidden One" also manifests the manifestation. Therefore, since all the saints in common call that light true divinity, how were you yourself incited to alienate this from the divinity, calling it a created and sensible thing and such a symbol of divinity, and declaring it to be inferior to our own understanding?

However, Maximus, wise in things divine, being accustomed to speak of one thing as a symbol of another by way of analogy in his allegories, does not always make the lesser a symbol of the greater, as you yourself supposed, O all-wise one, but sometimes also the greater of the lesser, (p. 592) just as he also says that that master's body, hanging on the cross, became a symbol of our body nailed to the passions, and Joseph, interpreted as "addition," a symbol of virtue and faith. For these, he says, being added to the previously strengthened passions, un-nail them from them, as Joseph [un-nailed] the Lord from the cross. This one, therefore, allegorizing, called that light a symbol of cataphatic and apophatic theology, as something greater than lesser things and as having in itself the knowledge of theology and being its source. And what? Did he not also call Moses a symbol of providence and Elijah of judgment? Were they, then, not truly present either, but were all those things phantoms and a pretense? And who of all men would dare to say this, except for the good Barlaam, who also said that that light was a nature alien to the divinity

124

θεότητος. Πῶς δέ καί τό τοιοῦτο σύμβολον - εἴγε καί τοιοῦτον ἦν - θεότης ἄν κληθείη; Οὐδέ γάρ ἀνθρωπότης ὁ γεγραμμένος ἄνθρωπος, οὐδ᾿ ἀγγελότης τό φανέν σύμβολον ἀγγέλου.

Τίς ποτε τῶν ἁγίων συμβόλων κτιστόν τό φῶς ἐκεῖνο εἶπε; Γρηγόριος ὁ θεολόγος, «φῶς», φησίν, «ἡ παραδειχθεῖσα θεότης ἐπί τοῦ ὄρους τοῖς μαθηταῖς». Εἰ οὖν μή ἀληθινόν ἦν καί ἀληθῶς θεότης, ἀλλά κτιστόν σύμβολον αὐτῆς, οὐκ ἔδει φάναι φῶς ἡ παραδειχθεῖσα θεότης, ἀλλά φῶς τό παραδεῖξαν θεότητα, καί οὐδέ τό παραδεῖξαν, ἀλλά τό δεῖξαν, ἐπεί τό παρά συνηρτημένον ἀμυδράν ἔκφανσιν τοῦ κρυφίου τῆς θεότητος σαφῶς ἐπιδείκνυσιν. Οὕτω μέν οὖν ὁ τήν θεολογίαν οἰκείαν ἐπωνυμίαν κτησάμενος. Ὁ δέ Χρυσόστομος θεολόγος, «λαμπρότερος», φησίν, «ἑαυτοῦ ἐφαίνετο ὁ Κύριος, τῆς θεότητος παραδειξάσης τάς ἀκτῖνας αὐτῆς». Ὅρα κἀνταῦθα τό παρά προσκείμενον καί σαφῶς ἐκφαῖνον τοῦ κρυφίου τήν ἔκφανσιν, ἀλλά μηδέ τήν τοῦ ἄρθρου παραδράμῃς προσθήκην˙ οὐ γάρ θεότητος εἶπεν, ἀλλά τῆς θεότητος, (σελ. 590) ἐκείνης τῆς ἀληθινῆς. Πῶς δέ καί τό ἐξ ἀλλοτρίας φύσεως θεότητος σύμβολον ὑπάρχον˙ φῶς ἀκτῖνες ἄν εἶεν τῆς θεότητος; Ὁ δέ μέγας Βασίλειος, δεικνύς ἕν φῶς τόν ἐν τρισίν ὑποστάσεσι προσκυνούμενον Θεόν, «ὁ Θεός», φησί, «φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον»˙ τό γάρ ἀπρόσιτον πάντως καί ἀληθινόν, καί τό ἀληθινόν ἀπρόσιτον˙ ὁπότε καίπεπτώκασιν οἱ ἀπόστολοι τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ φωτός τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἀτενίσαι μή δυνηθέντες διά τό εἶναι αὐτόν ἀπρόσιτον φῶς. Φῶς δέ καί τό Πνεῦμα˙ «ὅς», φησίν, «ἔλαμψεν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν διά Πνεύματος ἁγίου». Εἰ τοίνυν τό ἀπρόσιτον ἀληθινόν - ἀπρόσιτον δ᾿ ἐκεῖνο ὖν - οὐχ ὑπόκρισις ἦν θεότητος τό φῶς ἐκεῖν ο, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἀληθῶς φῶς ἀληθινῆς θεότητος, οὐ τῆς τοῦ Υἱοῦ μόνον, ἀλλά καί τοῦ Πνεύματος καί τοῦ Πατρός. ∆ιό κοινῇ πάντες τῷ Κυρίῳ ψάλλομεν τήν ἐπέτειον τελοῦντες ἑορτήν˙

«ἐν τῷ φανέντι φωτί σου, σήμερον ἐν Θαβωρίῳ, φῶς εἴδομεν τόν Πατέρα, φῶς καί τό Πνεῦμα»˙

«τῆς γάρ σῆς θεότητος ἀμυδράν παρεγύμνωσας αὐτήν».

Ἐνταῦθα γοῦν οὐχ ἡ πρόθεσις μόνη προσκειμένη, ἀλλά καί ἡ σημασία τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Κρυφίου τήν ἔκφανσιν ἐκφαίνει. Κοινῇ τοίνυν πάντων τῶν ἁγίων ἀληθινήν θεότητα τό φῶς ἐκεῖνο προσαγορευόντων, πῶς αὐτός ἐπήρθης ἀλλοτριῶσαι τοῦτο τῆς θεότητος, κτιστόν καί αἰσθητόν καί τοιοῦτο σύμβολον προσειπών θεότητος αὐτό καί χεῖρον τῆς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς νοήσεως ἀποφηνάμενος;

Ὁ μέντοι σοφός τά θεῖα Μάξιμος, ἕτερον ἑτέρου σύμβολον εἰωθός λέγειν ἀναλογίας λόγῳ κατά τάς ἀλληγορίας, οὐ τό ἔλαττον τοῦ μείζονος ἀεί ποιεῖται σύμβολον, ὡς αὐτός ὠήθης ὁ τά πάντα σοφός, ἀλλ᾿ ἔσθ᾿ ὅτε καί τό μεῖζον τοῦ ἐλάττονος, (σελ. 592) ὥσπερ καί τό δεσποτικόν ἐκεῖνο σῶμα, ἀπῃωρημένον ἐπί τοῦ σταυροῦ, σύμβολον γενέσθαι λέγει τοῦ προσηλωμένου τοῖς πάθεσι σώματος ἡμῶν, τόν δέ Ἰωσήφ, πρόσθεσιν ἑρμηνευόμενον, ἀρετῆς καί πίστεως σύμβολον. Ταῦτα γάρ, φησί, προστιθέμενα τοῖς πάθεσι πρότερον ἐνισχυμένοις, ἀποκαθηλοῦσιν αὐτῶν ἐκείνους, ὡς ὁ Ἰωσήφ τοῦ σταυροῦ τόν Κύριον. Οὗτος τοίνυν καταφατικῆς καί ἀποφατικῆς θεολογίας σύμβολον ἀλληγορῶν τό φῶς ἐκεῖνο προσηγόρευσεν, ὡς μεῖζον ἐλαττόνων καί ὡς ἐν ἑαυτῷ τήν τῆς θεολογίας γνῶσιν ἔχον καί παρεκτικόν αὐτῆς ὑπάρχον. Τί δέ; οὐχί καί τόν Μωϋσῆν οὗτος τῆς προνοίας σύμβολον εἶπε καί τόν Ἠλίαν τῆς κρίσεως; Ἆρ᾿ οὖν οὐδ᾿ οὗτοι ἀληθῶς παρῆσαν, ἀλλά φάσματα πάντ᾿ ἐκεῖνα καί ὑπόκρισις ἦν; Καί τίς ἄν τοῦτ᾿ εἰπεῖν τολμήσαι τῶν ἁπάντων, ὅτι μή ὁ καλός Βαρλαάμ, ὁ καί τό φῶς ἐκεῖνο ἀλλοτρίαν θεότητος φύσιν εἰρηκώς