130

we saw the Father as light, and the Spirit as light»˙

«for you laid bare a faint glimpse of your own divinity».

Here, then, it is not only the added preposition, but also the meaning of the name of the Hidden One that reveals the manifestation. Since, therefore, all the saints in common call that light true divinity, how were you yourself so arrogant as 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?

Maximus, however, who is wise in divine matters, who is 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 you who are wise in all things, but sometimes also the greater of the lesser, (p. 592) just as he also says that that Dominical body, suspended on the cross, became a symbol of our own body that is nailed to the passions, and Joseph, who is interpreted as ‘addition,’ a symbol of virtue and faith. For these things, he says, when added to the passions that were previously strong, un-nail those who were held by them, just as Joseph took the Lord from the cross. This one, therefore, interpreting allegorically, called that light a symbol of cataphatic and apophatic theology, as something greater than the lesser things and as having in itself the knowledge of theology and being a provider of it. What then? Did not this same man say that Moses was a symbol of providence and Elijah a symbol of judgment? Were they, then, not truly present either, but all those things were phantoms and a pretense? And who among all men would dare to say this, except for the good Barlaam, who also said that that light was a nature alien to divinity, pretending to be divinity? And yet almost the whole chorus of inspired theologians, for this reason, were careful not to call the grace of that light simply a symbol, lest someone, being led astray by such a term because of the homonymy, should consider that most divine light to be created and alien to divinity; in that case, being called and understood intelligently and soundly as a symbol of divinity, you would in no way see it conflicting with the truth.

For let it even be a symbol of divinity, just as you yourself claim. Not even so will you capture us, nor will you make us abandon, know well, the blessed hope; for every symbol either is from the nature of that of which it is a symbol, or it belongs to a completely different nature. For indeed, when the sun is about to rise, the dawn is a natural symbol of the light that belongs to it, and the heat is a natural symbol of the burning power of fire. But the non-natural one, either is naturally subsistent in itself and sometimes becomes a symbol for those using it, like the beacon for an approaching enemy, or it does not subsist by its own nature, but becomes a kind of (p. 594) phantom according to the need of providence, which is also this very thing, a symbol only. Such are the things shown to the prophets sensibly and in a figure, such as the sickle of Zachariah and the axes of Ezekiel and anything similar to these. The natural symbol, then, is always with the nature from which it has its being, for it is natural; but for that which is from another nature subsisting in itself to be always with what is signified is altogether among the impossibilities; and nothing prevents that thing, whatever it is in itself, from being before or after; but that which does not subsist in itself exists neither before nor after - for this is impossible - but having appeared for a short while, it then immediately departs into non-being and completely vanishes. Since, therefore, the light on Tabor is a symbol, it is either natural or not natural; and if not natural, it is either subsistent in itself or only a non-subsistent phantom; but if it is only a non-subsistent phantom, it neither was

130

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 ὑποκρινομένην θεότητα; Καίτοι σχεδόν πᾶς ὁ χορός τῶν ἐνθέων θεολόγων τούτου χάριν σύμβολον ἁπλῶς ἐφυλάξαντο τήν τοῦ φωτός ἐκείνου χάριν προσειπεῖν, ἵνα μή τις ὑπό τοῦ τοιούτου προσρήματος διά τήν ὁμωνυμίαν ἐκτραπείς κτιστόν καί ἀλλότριον νομίσῃ θεότητος τό θειότατον ἐκεῖνο φῶς˙ ἐκεῖ σύμβολον θεότητος λεγόμενόν τε καί νοούμενον συνετῶς καί ὑγιῶς κατ᾿ οὐδέν ἄν ἴδοις τῇ ἀληθείᾳ προσιστάμενον.

Ἔστω γάρ καί σύμβολον θεότητος, καθάπερ δικαιοῖς αὐτός. Οὐδ᾿ οὕτως ἡμᾶς αἱρήσεις, οὐδ᾿ ἀποστήσεις, εὖ ἴσθι, τῆς μακαριστῆς ἐλπίδος˙ πᾶν γάρ σύμβολον ἤ ἐκ τῆς φύσεώς ἐστιν οὗ σύμβολόν ἐστιν, ἤ φύσεως ἑτέρας παντάπασιν ὑπάρχει. Καί γάρ, ἡλίου μέλλοντος ἀνίσχειν, τοῦ κατ᾿ αὐτόν φωτός φυσικόν σύμβολόν ἐστιν ὁ ὄρθρος, καί τῆς τοῦ πυρός καυστικῆς δυνάμεως ἡ θέρμη φυσικόν σύμβολόν ἐστι. Τό δέ μή φυσικόν ἤ καθ᾿ ἑαυτό πεφυκός ὑφεστηκέναι γίνεταί ποτε παρά τούς χρωμένους σύμβολον, ὡς ὁ πυρσός ἐπιόντων πολεμίων, ἤ κατ᾿ οἰκείαν μέν φύσιν οὐχ ὑφέστηκε, γίνεται δ᾿ οἷόν (σελ. 594) τι φάσμα κατά χρείαν τῆς προνοίας, ὅ καί τοῦτ᾿ αὐτό μόνον σύμβολόν ἐστι. Τοιαῦτα δέ ἐστι τά τοῖς προφήταις αἰσθητῶς καί ἐν σχήματι δεικνύμενα, οἷον τό τοῦ Ζαχαρίου δρέπανον καί αἱ πελέκεις τοῦ Ἰεζεκιήλ καί εἴ τι τούτων παραπλησίον. Τό μέν οὖν φυσικόν ἀεί σύνεστι τῇ φύσει παρ᾿ ἧς τό εἶναι ἔχει, φυσικόν γάρ˙ τό δ᾿ ἐξ ἑτέρας φύσεως καθ᾿ ἑαυτήν ὑφεστηκυίας ἀεί συνεῖναι τῷ σημαινομένῳ τῶν ἀδυνάτων παντάπασιν ὑπάρχει˙ κωλύει δέ οὐδέν εἶναι πρότερον ἤ ὕστερον ἐκεῖνο, ὅ τί ποτε καθ᾿ ἑαυτό ἐστι˙ τό δέ μή καθ᾿ ἑαυτό ὑφεστηκός οὔτε πρότερον οὔθ᾿ ὕστερον ὑπάρχει - τοῦτο γάρ ἀδύνατον ἐπ᾿ ὀλίγον δέ φανέν, εἶτ᾿ εὐθύς πρός τό μή ὄν χωρεῖ καί ἀφανίζεται παντάπασιν. Ἐπεί τοίνυν σύμβολον τό ἐν τῷ Θαβωρίῳ φῶς, ἤ φυσικόν ἐστιν ἤ οὐ φυσικόν˙ καί εἰ μή φυσικόν, ἤ καθ᾿ ἑαυτό ὑφεστηκός ἤ φάσμα μόνον ἀνυπόστατον˙ ἀλλ᾿ εἰ φάσμα μόνον ἀνυπόστατον, οὔτε ἦν