Глава 5. Завершение александрийско-каппадокийского символизма. Максим Исповедник

The symbolism of the author of “Areopagitik” in his Alexandrian-Cappadocia spirit of free creative, often aestheticized allegorosis continued and, perhaps, brought to a certain logical conclusion in the 7th century. Venerable Maximus the Confessor. In his understanding, the entire universe created by God consists of two worlds - the spiritual, “intelligible”, consisting of intelligent and ethereal entities (the world of the heavenly hierarchy, according to the Areopagite), and the local, sensory and carnal world, “which is majestically woven from many species and natures” (Mystag. 2) 73. These two worlds form a kind of indivisible integrity, seamlessly interpenetrating each other. People endowed with spiritual vision clearly see that the entire sensory world consists of symbols of the intelligible world, and the latter contains the logoi of the sensory world. “For someone who has [spiritual] vision,” wrote Maximus, “the entire intelligible world appears mysteriously imprinted on the entire sensory world through symbolic images. And the entire sensory world, in spiritual speculation, appears to be contained in the entire intelligible world, being known [there] thanks to its logoi. For the sensible world exists in the intelligible through its logoi, and the intelligible in the sensible through its impressions” (ibid.). Here, perhaps, the patristic idea of ​​the fundamental ontological symbolism underlying being is most clearly formulated, from which almost all the Church Fathers of the Platonic-Neoplatonic orientation proceeded in one form or another, but none of them expressed it so clearly and succinctly. The entire visible world, thus, is a collection of symbols of the spiritual, “intelligible” 74 world, a system of its specific “material” imprints, through which it can be known; The world of symbols is relevant, naturally, only for a consciousness capable of seeing them, that is, it is focused on a specific subject of cognition. This theoretically substantiates the need and possibility of the penetration of human consciousness into the “intelligible world” primarily with the help of sensory symbols - that is, through the spiritual contemplation of the visible created world. However, Rev. Maxim does not stop there. He clearly realizes that, having penetrated through symbols into the invisible world of prototypes, or logos, through their knowledge we can more deeply and clearly comprehend the visible world itself. In its original spiritual foundations it is cognized much more deeply (and more simply) than in its transient carnal shell. “...For those who have succeeded in spiritual contemplation, it will be easier to comprehend the visible through the invisible. For symbolic contemplation of the intelligible through the visible is at the same time spiritual knowledge and speculation of the visible through the invisible” (ibid.). Deeply and correctly felt and understood symbolism, thus, appears to Maximus the Confessor not only as the only possible path to comprehending the “intelligible world” and God himself, but also in its seemingly backward movement - at the same time as a path to a clearer knowledge of the local sensory world. This makes it clear that the symbolic-allegorical method of exegesis by St. Maxima. Moreover, unlike the Alexandrian fathers and the great Cappadocians, who, as a rule, recognized both the literal and allegorical meanings in Holy Scripture, Maxim considers the allegorical understanding of the sacred texts to be the only true one. And he substantiates this with the help of a sophisticated interpretation of the main sacrament of the sacred history of the Incarnation of God the Word. Before the act of incarnation, God the Word appears to Maximus as possessing clear and “naked” prototypes of truth relating to all created things, that is, the logoi of all things that do not contain “neither parable, nor allegory, nor narrative in need of allegorical interpretation.” However, when God the Word came to people who are unable to perceive with their minds pure undisguised spiritual truths, “He becomes flesh, in which is combined a motley [multiple] narratives, allegories, parables and dark sayings.” Here, by the “flesh” of God the Word, Maxim understands not only the real human flesh accepted by Jesus from the Virgin Mary, but also, in the spirit of his global symbolism, the human words (also carnal, material for God) of the Holy Scriptures. To many, he emphasizes, these words are represented only by the flesh (that is, they see only the literal meaning), but this is not so, for “the meaning of Scripture is not what appears to many, but something else. For the Word becomes flesh through each of the inscribed sayings” (Cap. theol. II 60). Christology in its epistemological aspect thus becomes for St. Maximus is perhaps the main justification for his exclusively symbolic understanding of the texts of Scripture. In them, our mystic is deeply convinced, indescribable things are described in ordinary letters and words, for in the Holy Scriptures God himself speaks, who is indescribable by nature. Those who wish to understand the true meaning of the sacred texts must “believe that the word spoken by God is very similar to Himself. For it is clear that if the speaking God is in essence indescribable, then the word spoken by Him is also indescribable” (Quaest. ad Thai. 50). From here, Maxim concludes, everyone who strives to understand the meaning of Scripture should not stop his mind on its letter as the killing, according to the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 3:6), the beginning of the law, but ascend from it to the life-giving spirit, by which he means a symbolic-allegorical meaning. One of the largest researchers of creativity, Rev. Maxima S.L. Epifanovich quite reasonably asserted: “The literal understanding of Scripture by St. Father considers this to be directly contrary to the spirit of Christianity. Those who adhere to the letters of Scripture, in his opinion, chose the side opposite to Christ, forgetting about His abolition of the letter of the law and not comprehending the mystery of the incarnation. They not only weakened the power of thought with their letter, but also grounded themselves in their soul...” With the help of allegorical contemplation, “every word of Scripture can be experienced and realized internally, as the thought of the Word, as a divine suggestion to us. Allegory, therefore, is not a simple gymnastics of thought, but a full-life stream of a rich idealistic spirit, the life of the heart in God" 75 . These profound judgments of the scientist of the beginning of the last century remain relevant in relation to the concept of Maximus the Confessor today. In fact, the symbolic-allegorical image of any name, term, event, object mentioned in Holy Scripture opens up for him a mystical-aesthetic path to the spiritual levels of existence, which is quite natural and is perceived by him as a breakthrough to the “true” meanings, the essential “logoi”. At the same time, he is well aware that the levels of interpretation may differ depending on the gift received by the exegete from God. He does not consider his gift to be the highest and ultimate and therefore regularly declares, giving one interpretation or another, that others are possible; Moreover, they all bring spiritual pleasure to those who interpret, hear or read them and therefore are all useful. “If anyone can,” he writes, “perceive what has been said in a more sublime sense, let him please both himself and us by presenting, as he should, this more valuable meaning of what was written” (Quaes! ad Thai. 50). The joy of verbal allegorical speculation, and in general the beauty of verbal spiritual activity aimed at comprehending higher essences, are for the saint. Maxim is practically the main justification for this activity as one of the important steps on a person’s path to God. Therefore, it seems to me completely logical that he begins his main work, or rather the Prologue to the scholia, later placed by Maximus himself in the margins of this work - “Questions to Fallasius” with a description in aesthetic terminology of the verbal and rational beginning of the path to the knowledge of God. For Maxim, as we know, this path (this main book of his “Questions and Answers” ​​is an indirect proof of this) passed through the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. “Intelligent [creatures] are characterized by natural beauty - the word. The beauty of the word is the understanding of verbal [creatures] strictly consistent with reason; the beauty of understanding is the fruitful skill of verbal beings in virtue under the guidance of reason. And the beauty of this skill is the unerring contemplation that arises around true knowledge, the goal of which is wisdom” (ibid. Prol.). By the latter, Maxim already understands the actual completion of the verbal-mental process of cognition, complete tranquility of the mind, its withdrawal from everything transitory, complete unity with the Cause of everything in “silent peace” and “most blissful silence”, the result of which is indescribable “premeditated pleasure” (ibidem). Naturally, here the hierarchy of verbal-rational beauty is left behind, but this is the final goal, which not everyone achieves; there are many on the way, and it is to them that the beauty of the exegetical symbolic-allegorical “word” is addressed. In fact, Maximus adds his scholia to the already written text of interpretations of complex passages of Scripture only so that “they complete the word itself to [proper] beauty and present readers with a more refined treat of speculation” (ibidem). Rev. Maxim makes repeated attempts to clarify the meaning and necessity of symbolic exegesis. Naturally, he is convinced that every spiritually oriented mind strives for knowledge of the truth. However, in its pure form, that is, the logoi of things undisguised by anything, is revealed only by the “grace of the Spirit” 76 . At the same time, logoi appear to the mind naked of any written signs, and such a person will never accept a symbol, that is, the external form of a logos, for its meaning. However, such a vision of the meaning of the symbol “by grace” is possessed by rare exegetes. The rest have to be content with ascent to spiritual meanings through sensory symbols. At the same time, the exegete, including the Venerable himself. Maxim can never be sure that in his interpretation he has reached the “unattainable heights” of the last meaning of the allegory. Maxim nevertheless remains grateful to God in both cases - both when he achieves the true meaning of the symbol and when he does not achieve it. The joy of the exegete in the first case is understandable, but he also rejoices in the second, for “To God belongs the beauty of the Incomprehensible,” since He rightly suppresses by this the possible pride in the interpreter from excessive knowledge (Quaes! ad Thai. 55). From here follows the fundamental polysemy of the symbols of Holy Scripture in Maximus the Confessor, for it depends primarily on the abilities of the exegete, his speculative gift. In the treatise “Mystagogy”, dedicated to the interpretation of the Divine Liturgy, Rev. Maxim specifically emphasizes a number of semantic levels depending on the subject of perception. He adhered to the main Areopagite principle of understanding the symbol as a phenomenon elevating to the spiritual spheres, that is, apagogical. First of all, he is interested in the purely speculative meaning of both the entire liturgical action and its elements. At the same time, he distinguishes between the general (genikos), the broader meaning of each element and its particular (idikos) meanings 77. Thus, the church in general terms is “the image and image of God,” and in particular, since it consists of a sanctuary (altar) and the church itself - naos - an image of the mental and sensory world; also - the image of a person and, in addition, the image of the soul as consisting of spiritual and sensory parts (PG 91, 705A-C). The small or first entrance in general means the first coming of Christ, and in particular the conversion of unbelievers to faith (705 C), etc. Further, Maxim differentiates the particular meanings of the main elements of the Liturgy in accordance with three categories of subjects of perception. This or that element of worship has one meaning for “believers” (pisteysanton), another for “practitioners” (praktikon), and a third for “gnostics” (gnostikon). Thus, the Gospel, which means at the level of “real symbolism” (which is discussed below) both the cross carried by Christ, and the coming of Christ into this world, and his appearance on the Jordan, for Maxim “in general” is a “symbol of the end of this age”, and in particular: for “believers” it means “the destruction of ancient error”, for “practitioners” - “mortification and the end of the carnal law and wisdom” and for “Gnostics” - “the totality and combination of various truths in one” (708AB). The descent of the bishop from the pulpit and the leading of the catechumens out of the church before the Liturgy of the faithful signifies in general the second coming of Christ, in particular: for “believers” - “perfect affirmation in faith”, for “practitioners” - “perfect dispassion” and for “gnostics” - “complete knowledge of everything knowable,” which banishes all sensory images from the soul (708BC). The closing of the royal gates, the entry of the “Holy Mysteries” and the proclamation of the Creed “in general” means the end of everything sensory and the onset of the spiritual world, in particular: for the first group - the success of the faithful in learning and readiness for piety, for the second - the transition from “activity” to contemplation and for the “Gnostics” - the transition “from natural contemplation to the simple knowledge of noetic subjects” (708С-709А), etc. Thus, from the above examples it is clearly clear that the “speculative” symbolism of Maximus the Confessor is aimed at understanding worship as a special non-conceptual path of knowledge of the spiritual sphere and God himself 78, namely, the highest “secret” stage of this path. Rev. Maximus, in a certain sense, completes here the line of so-called Alexandrian speculative symbolism, which originates from the famous Alexandrians Clement and Origen and, through the great Cappadocians and the author of the Areopagitik, finds its logical conclusion in Maximus the Confessor. Liturgical action appears to him, first of all, as a special path of ascension to God and unity with Him through a complex, multi-level dynamic system of liturgical symbols. Maxim, continuing the traditions of the author of the Areopagitik, places the main emphasis on the divine, or epistemological (we would say today), function of these symbols. Regarding the texts of Holy Scripture, Rev. Maxim, just as in the case of worship, stands on the fundamental affirmation of the polysemy of the verbal symbol. Wherever his creative imagination, in union with deep piety, allows, he gives several meanings for the same symbol. Thus, for the expression from Psalm 59 “vale of dwellings,” he gives at least four meanings. This is the “present world”, in which there is no unanimity, and it is like temporary life in tents; these are also “images of virtues that [God] wisely divides among those who are taught”; these are the “churches of believing nations” established by Christ himself throughout the universe; finally, “the vale of dwellings is measured by the one who embraces the bodily world with [his spiritual] knowledge, like the vale of dwellings” (In Ps. 59). In another place, Maxim simply understands the vale as flesh (Quaest. ad Thai. 48). It would be unreasonable to try to penetrate the logic of identifying these, as well as many other, meanings of biblical images in the Rev. Maxima. For him, like for most of his predecessors, the Alexandrian-Cappadocia fathers, it is often fundamentally illogical and based on personal mystical-associative-aesthetic experience, which does not lend itself to verbal formalization. They should either be accepted or not accepted, but it is pointless to discuss them, because they are not designed for this. The meaning of symbols is often revealed to the exegete super-reasonably (given to him in some kind of revelation), or, we would say now (although this concept was well known to the fathers of the Church), intuitively. Therefore, the very perception of meaning in a symbol is recognized by Maxim as, in general, a fundamentally “simple” matter, which does not seem to require special intellectual efforts from the exegete, since it depends not on them, but on the contemplative gift. It is indicative of the peculiar patristic aestheticism that permeates the entire Byzantine culture that the thought of this, like most of his other ideas, the Rev. Maxim puts it in a by no means simple verbal form, which the ancient Russians would have called, perhaps, “weaving of words”: “The word of Holy Scripture, thanks to the most sublime speculations, strips itself of [all] the bodily connection of the sayings that have clothed it, appearing as if in a subtle voice of coldness (1 Kings 19:12) to a vigilant mind and especially [to such a mind], who, having completely abandoned the actions of nature, can be embraced by the feeling of simplicity that reveals the word [of God]” (Cap. theol. II 74). Such sophisticated, extremely aestheticized rhetoric is characteristic of the entire style of thinking of the great Confessor and especially of his exegesis. In conclusion, I will give several typical examples of Maximus’s symbolic hermeneutics. Examining verse 5 Ps.41 79 almost word for word, Rev. Maximus claims that the place of the settlement is wonderful “there is a skill, dispassionate and grace-filled, in virtues; The Word of God, born in this habit, adorns the soul, like a tabernacle, with the beauty of various virtues. And the house of God is knowledge, created from many and various virtues; God, dwelling in the soul thanks to this knowledge, saturates [it] from the cup of Wisdom. The voice of joy is the [joyful] dance of the soul at the sight of the treasures of virtues [given to it]. The voice of confession is thanksgiving for the glory of the feast of Wisdom [to which she was invited]. The noise [celebrating] is a mysterious doxology, constantly born from the mixture of both - joy and confession" (Cap. theol. II 78). Without any special comments, the anagogical-gnoseological pathos of this interpretation is obvious, which also has a pronounced aesthetic overtones; interpretation, moreover, inspired and extremely free, for which the verse of the psalm is only a springboard for a jump into the boundless expanses of the symbolic game of theological consciousness, closely intertwined and even fused with aesthetic consciousness. Rev. Maxim, like most of the most gifted representatives of the Alexandrian-Cappadocian line in patristics, being at the same time a follower and continuer of the Areopagite tradition, well feels the advantages of this consciousness, that experience that we today call aesthetic, for penetrating into the spheres that he designated “intelligible” according to the Neoplatonic tradition. However, this “mind” exceeds the rational, formal-logical sphere of knowledge - Maxim is well aware of this and therefore chooses for himself completely different principles and ways of penetrating into the spiritual spheres. In many interpretations, St. Maxim, the pathos of a free figurative and symbolic understanding of Holy Scripture is constantly present, giving many of them precisely artistic and aesthetic value, but it does not always, naturally, receive such a bright coloring as in the above example. We see the subtle intellectual and definitive play of Maxim’s thought, for example, in the distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Essentially, he notes, they are the same thing, but they are different “mentally.” “After all, the Kingdom of Heaven is the comprehension of the pure and eternal knowledge of beings according to their logoi [abiding] in God. And the Kingdom of God is the acquisition by grace of goods that are naturally characteristic of God. The first [is acquired] at the end of things, and the second [is acquired] mentally after this end” (II 90). Maxim here seems to be trying to distinguish between the spiritual-gnoseological and charismatic-eschatological aspects of the Kingdom, which are actually indistinguishable in this holistic, comprehensive, incomprehensible phenomenon of the highest being. Essential for understanding the aesthetic consciousness of the Byzantines, and patristic symbolism in particular, is the 46 answer to the question: What is the difference between a mirror and fortune telling in the famous phrase of the apostle. Paul (1 Cor. 13:12) 80. Due to the capacity of thought and the significance of the very form of presentation, Rev. Maxim, I present this answer in full. ANSWER. The “mirror,” if you try to define it, is conscience, which, according to [spiritual] work, purely reflects the image of all goods and through which it is inherent for a person who has a pure thought to see God. Or: [the “mirror” is] a skill in spiritual work, uniformly combining all the virtues with each other and, as it were, enclosing [them] in a [single] divine face. “Fortune telling” is knowledge [acquired] through complete, as far as is accessible to [human] nature, comprehension in the contemplation of divine logoi and possessing a reflection of what exceeds thinking. And to put it simply: the “mirror” is a skill that reveals the future image of the prototype of virtues, revealed in worthy [people], for the future goal of active wisdom is, as it were, vaguely discerned in those who possess the “mirror.” And “fortune telling” is a manifestation of the prototype of what is comprehended by the mind during knowledge. So, any righteousness here, in comparison with the future, has, if we adhere to the statement about the “mirror,” an image of primitive things, and not these things themselves, existing as they are. And every local knowledge of things above, in comparison with the future, is “fortune telling”, which has a reflection of the truth, and not the truth itself, which is to become apparent in the future. For since divine [things] are encompassed by virtue and knowledge, the “mirror” reveals primitive [things] in accordance with virtue, and “divination” reveals primitive [things] in accordance with knowledge. This is the difference between “mirror” and “fortune-telling,” since the “mirror” indicates the future goal of active [philosophy], and “fortune-telling” reveals the secret of contemplative [theology] (Quaest. ad Thai. 46). The speech, therefore, is detailed and at the same time quite laconic for the reverend. The maxim of the answer is that since the spiritual world of divine eidos (=logoi) is “embraced” by practical (or active) and speculative (or knowledge) “philosophies”, then in the created world it receives a double (or biplane) reflection - in the mirror and in the enigma (riddle, “fortune telling”). At the same time, Maxim understands the mirror as an object that by nature reflects visual images as an earthly image of the future ideal “active philosophy”, that is, the future ideal moral and ethical (we would say today) state of a person who is in blissful perfection, in ideal “spiritual activity”, in which the highest heavenly ranks are now blissful. The enigma (or ainigma - in an earlier Greek pronunciation) is understood by him not as a visual, but rather as a verbal symbol of the future ideal knowledge of divine truth, the speculative-contemplative state of man of the “future age”, that is, as a mystical-gnoseological symbol, in contrast to the mirror as an ontological-charismatic (or eschatological) symbol. This is a logically formulated difference, the main line of difference, so to speak. However, how significantly it is enriched in Maxim with figurative and semantic overtones. The mirror is the conscience of a person, purified by spiritual achievement and therefore clearly reflecting the image of all good things; with its help it is given to man to see God; this is the very skill in spiritual work, combining all the virtues into an ideal “divine face”; this is an image of a primitive set of virtues inherent only in the eternally existing spiritual world. For a mirror, by its nature, must show something visible - an image, a form, a face; and the mirror as a symbol is visualized images of the ideal existence of man up to his unity and merging with God, and ultimately of God himself as the root cause and the totality of all goods and virtues. For a symbolic and exegetical flight of thought, Rev. Maxim truly there are no limits or restrictions. He has the power to interpret everything - even the most sacred and holy things for Christians. So in question answer 35, reflecting on the flesh of Christ in connection with the Gospel expression “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14), he tries to explain the symbolism of the flesh, blood and bones of Christ and understand why in the sacrament of the Eucharist we are supposed to take into ourselves only Flesh and Blood, but not His Bones. At the same time, Maxim, as usual, gives a multi-level polysemantic interpretation. God the Word, the Creator of all things, brought into existence the logoi of all things that were created; “of these, the logoi of intelligible things will be, as it were, the blood of the Word, and the logoi of sensible [things] will be the manifest flesh of the Word.” By eating flesh and blood, we are given access to these kinds of logoi. However, there are also “super-mental” logoi that relate to the Divinity itself - these are what the bones of Christ mean. And since these logoi are infinitely removed from all created nature and cannot be perceived by people in any way, that is why we are not commanded to “break [His] bones” and receive them in communion. “And one more thing: the flesh of the Word is true virtue, the blood is infallible knowledge, and the bones are ineffable theology.” For just as blood, changing its form, turns into flesh in a real person, so knowledge turns into virtue through appropriate actions. The logos related to the Divine, like bones in the body, “in an unknown way create the essences of beings and strengthen their existence, producing all knowledge and all virtue” (Quaest. ad Thai. 35). It is quite acceptable, says Rev. Confessor, understand by flesh, blood and bones the logoi of Judgment and Providence, with which in the next century everyone will be satisfied, and the logoi relating to God. It is also possible to understand that the flesh of the Word means the complete return of a person to himself through a virtuous life and conduct, the restoration in himself of the true human nature damaged by sin. Blood means the future grace-filled deification and the union of this nature with eternal goodness; “bones are an unknown force that connects nature with eternal well-being through deification.” Maximus rhetorically notes that he who understands by the flesh the voluntary mortification of passions with the help of virtues will not sin against the truth; under the blood is perfection, achieved through difficult trials up to the acceptance of death for the sake of truth, and under the bones are all the same divine logoi, incomprehensible to us (ibid.). And Rev. Maxim does not limit the potential exegete to only these meanings. For him, the process of penetration into the figurative and symbolic meaning of the texts of Holy Scripture is almost endless; participation in this process, as far as can be understood from his main book, constitutes for Maxim (and in his understanding for any Christian with the gift of speculation) one of the main directions of a person’s spiritual life. Naturally, in addition to the objective spiritual and aesthetic significance itself, such ideas and the very practice of their implementation opened up almost unlimited opportunities for the development of Christian symbolic art in all its types and genres and substantiated the need for its existence in Christian culture, which the masters of Byzantine art did not fail to take advantage of. This does not mean, of course, that they literally followed the practice or theory of the exegetes; it is likely that many of them did not know or read the writings of the Church Fathers at all. However, the very spirit of symbolic-allegorical thinking permeated the entire living space and church practice of Byzantine Christians, and such a significant sphere of cultural and spiritual activity as art could not escape its influence. The history of Byzantine art convincingly testifies to this. Going back to Philo of Alexandria, the early Alexandrian Fathers of the Church and the great Cappadocians, the relatively free, often rhetorically sophisticated exegesis of the texts of Holy Scripture acquired a pronounced aesthetic character in Dionysius the Areopagite. This was facilitated, in particular, by his excellent knowledge of the Neoplatonic tradition of philosophizing, 81 in which aesthetic consciousness occupied by no means the last place in the hierarchy of spiritual values. Having set as his goal to find ways to comprehend the highest levels of metaphysical reality, the Areopagite developed and actually brought to the final limits of discursive understanding the idea of ​​the absolute transcendence of God. However, being a Christian thinker, he knew that this transcendental Absolute is, of its own free will, immanent (open) to man, and directed all his efforts to comprehend the spaces of this immanence, that is, the ways of comprehending the incomprehensible God by man. He identified two main directions in a person’s advancement towards God, which have been practiced by the Christian Church for several centuries: the path of symbolic interpretation of the texts of Holy Scripture and the path of church-liturgical ascent to God. Both paths should lead a person to the third highest path, which is the completion and end of all paths - to mystical unity with God, supermental immersion in the blissful space of super-light Darkness. In fact, all the ways of communion with God for the author of the Areopagitik are esoteric. Directing his treatises to specific individuals, he constantly exhorts them to hide the knowledge conveyed in them from the uninitiated. Discussing the church hierarchy, he actually says nothing about the fact that the Eucharist, that is, the communion of the Holy Gifts, leads all those who partake directly to communion with God, although the order of the sacraments occupies the highest level in this hierarchy. The emphasis in the treatise on the church hierarchy is placed on the step-by-step transfer of luminous knowledge from higher to lower levels in a descending line, i.e. ordinary believers have the most simplified form of this knowledge. True, the hierarchy of Dionysius also provides for the path of ascension from this knowledge to higher forms by climbing the steps of the hierarchy, but this assumes that only the highest hierarchs of the Church can achieve the highest knowledge, mystical communion with the First Cause in the process of performing the sacraments. On the one hand, this corresponded to the Gospel thought that “many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 20:16), and on the other hand, it contradicted the emerging church understanding of the absolute immanence of God to any member of the Church and, accordingly, the reality of his communion (participation) with God in the act of the Eucharist. Such contradictions in his own theology and in Christian doctrine as a whole did not bother the Areopagite, but convinced him of the inapplicability of the principles of logic of one-dimensional linear thinking to the depths of the Christian worldview. That is why his texts are filled with antithetical constructions, paradoxical epithets and metaphors, and fundamental antinomies. Antinomianism of thinking, dating back to the early Christian principle of credo quia absurdum est, and enshrined by the Ecumenical Councils in the formulas “inseparably united and inseparably divided” regarding the hypostatic essence of God, Dionysius actively developed in his theology as an essential way of discursive thinking about the highest level of metaphysical being 82 . Moreover, well understanding that the awareness of the transcendence of God and antinomian formulas bring consciousness out of the discursive sphere into a certain irrational space, he felt that in this space the most important place is occupied by aesthetic consciousness, which has, perhaps, no less, if not more, a strong impact on a person than discursive-logical thinking. Some of his predecessors also intuitively felt this, but with the Areopagite the use of aesthetic experience in theology reached a fundamentally new level. In his texts this was expressed on two levels: meaningful and formative. First of all, he recognizes Beauty and Light as one of the main names of God, and therefore practically the entire system of transmission of knowledge from God to humanity is interpreted as a system of aesthetic experience, we would say now. Areopagite immediately immerses us in light metaphysics, which is nothing more than light aesthetics. He sees God and the entire heavenly sphere permeated with beauty, light and fragrance, delivering indescribable pleasure to everyone capable of perceiving them. Sacred knowledge itself is understood by him as a special kind of quantized light or radiance, of varying nature and degree of materialization, and the transfer of this knowledge is designated as photodosia (light giving, light giving). At the same time, light, beauty and fragrance often act as synonyms for him, designed to designate the non-rational, super-rational, elevating and pleasurable nature of sacred knowledge. This knowledge is transmitted both in the system of church-liturgical experience and in the process of symbolic interpretation of the texts of Holy Scripture. All the numerous symbols (names and figurative expressions of Scripture) ultimately lead not to a conceptual-rational understanding of God or the highest ranks of the spiritual hierarchy, but to the arousal in the soul of the exegete himself or the recipient of his interpretation of feelings of the sublime and indescribable spiritual joy from the feeling that with the help of these hermeneutical texts he, incomprehensibly how, penetrates into the innermost spiritual secrets of existence. And the Areopagite strengthens this feeling by constantly emphasizing the polysemy of symbols, their anagogical character, luminosity and beauty hidden under their sensually perceived visual and verbal form, i.e., it focuses attention on the external “dissimilarity” of the symbol to the symbolized because of its unapproachable sublimity and spiritual significance. Among the “unlike resemblances” - the main and most general designation of the image-symbols of Dionysius - two extremes stand out. First of all, in the literal sense of the word, these are images completely different from the divine sphere, borrowed from indecent, ugly, shameful phenomena of the created world, which by their very ugliness and ugliness should repel (an aesthetic reaction to the ugliness) the perceiver from their outer shell and excite, direct his spirit to something diametrically opposed to the form of the symbol - to a sublimely enlightened understanding of the spiritual sphere. And at the other pole are images borrowed from neutral and even positive and beautiful phenomena of the created world, i.e. to some extent similar. However, according to Dionysius, they are so far from the heavenly world that they too should be understood as unlike similarities, that is, as symbols of things even higher than themselves, sublime, supersensible. Actually, similar (similar) similarities are the entire set of cataphatic images, formed on the basis of the high content of the main positive names of God, to which the treatise “On the Divine Names” is dedicated, and aimed at elevating the believer to the highest levels of metaphysical reality. Another, form-creating way of strengthening the emotional and aesthetic impact of his texts on the recipient in the Areopagite lies in the conscious, as I think, aestheticization of them, their organization according to rhetorical and artistic principles. When talking about this or that name of God or a symbol of the spiritual space, he regularly uses his own aesthetic and fairly extensive terminological apparatus, examples from the sphere of art, uses a high style of eloquence, antithetical imagery, vivid metaphors, long periods with many elevating epithets and comparisons, and ultimately invests his texts with a pronounced aesthetic aura. It is all of the above that allows us to assert that the author of the Areopagitik had a well-developed aesthetic consciousness, highly valued aesthetic experience as one of the essential ways of ascent to the highest levels of metaphysical reality, and in fact, in his theology, permeated with beauty, light, aesthetic terminology and organized according to the laws of rhetorical art, he showed us one of the most pronounced phenomena of implicit aesthetics. It is no coincidence that it formed the basis of many areas of medieval theology and aesthetics both in the East of the Christian world (Byzantium, Ancient Rus' 83) and in the West 84. The mysterial-light aesthetics of the church action of the Orthodox area, the symbolic mysticism of the icon, figurative-symbolic exegesis and even scholastic aesthetics largely drew ideas and aesthetic intuitions from the Areopagitica. Dionysius the Areopagite set his sights one finding ways to achieve the highest levels of metaphysical reality. With this scope in mind, he led the concept of the absolute transcendence of God practically to the ultimate limits of discursive thinking. However, being a Christian thinker, he has a solid understanding that this transcendent Absolute of his own free will is immanent (open) to humans. he focused all his efforts on conceptualizing the boundaries of this immanence, i.e., the ways in which humans can achieve the incomprehensible God. The author of the Areopagitica outlined two principal directions on the way of humans to God. Both had been practiced by the Christian Church for several centuries: the way of symbolic interpretation of sacred Scripture and the way of ecclesiastical-liturgical ascent to God. Both these ways should bring one to the third, highest, way, which is the pinnacle and end of all ways: to a mystical union with God, or to an immersion into the blessed space of supra-luminous darkness that exceeds all understanding. One of the ways to transfer human consciousness from the level of logical thought to the level of irrational immersion into that space, according to the Areopagite, is to use the system of principally antinomical formulae that are applied to the highest level of spiritual being. Moreover, he understood well that one's awareness of God's transcendence, together with the antinomical formulae, leading one's consciousness out of the discursive sphere and into an irrational space. Armed with this understanding, he felt that it is an aesthetic experience that plays a prominent role in this space. Aesthetic experience, according to him, has just as much, if not more, influence on the human being as discursive logical thought. Some of his predecessors also felt that intuitively, but Dionysius used aesthetic experience in theology at a principally new level. His texts reflect this at the levels of content and form. At the level of content, some of the principal names of God, according to Dionysius, are Beauty and Light. Therefore he conceptualizes practically the entire system of transfer of knowledge from God to humans as a system of aesthetic experience, in modern parlance. The Areopagite immediately immerses us into the metaphysics of light, which is nothing else but the aesthetics of light. He sees God and the entire celestial sphere as imbued with beauty, light, and fragrance, which brings indescribable pleasure to all who are able to perceive them. He understands sacred knowledge itself as a certain type of quantified light or shining of various levels of objectivation and materialization. He calls the transmission of this knowledge photodosia (a giving of light). He often uses the terms 'light,' 'beauty,' and 'fragrance' as synonyms that are supposed to mark the non-rational, supra-intellectual, elevating and pleasure-giving character of sacred knowledge. This knowledge is transmitted both within the system of ecclesiastical-liturgical experience and in the process of symbolic interpretation of sacred Scripture. All the multiplicity of symbols (names and metaphorical expressions in sacred Scripture) ultimately do not lead one to a conceptual-rational understanding of God or the highest ranks of celestial hierarchies. Instead, they incite, in the soul of an exegete or a recipient of his interpretations, a feeling of sublime and indescribabale spiritual joy provoked by the feeling that these hermeneutic texts allow him to penetrate, in some inexplicable manner, into the hidden spiritual mysteries of being. The Areopagite strengthens this feeling by continually emphasizing the polysemy of symbols, their anagogical nature, ability to bring light and beauty that lies hidden under the cover of their visual and verbal form that can be perceived by the senses. He draws our attention to the outward “non-likeness” of the symbol with what it symbolizes due to the latter’s inapproachable sublimity and spiritual significance. Among “unlike likenesses” – the principal and most general term for Dionysius' image-symbols – one can distinguish between two extremes. First of all, these are images that are literally completely “unlike” the sphere of the divine. They normally refer to indecent, shameful, and ugly phenomena of the created being. These words are designed to repel the recipient from their outer shell by their very unseemliness and ugliness (an aesthetic reaction to the ugly), at the same time inspiring and directing his spirit towards something that is diametrically opposed to the form of the symbol–towards a sublime and enlightened understanding of the spiritual sphere. The other pole is occupied by the images that refer to neutral or even positive and beautiful phenomena of the created world, i.e., to some extent by “like” likenesses. However, even those images, according to Dionysius, as so far removed from the heavenly world that they also must be perceived as unlike likenesses, because they are symbols of sublime and supra-sensitive things that are even higher than those symbols. The likenesses that are “alike” (similar) in the proper sense are constituted by the entirety of the kataphatic images that are formed on the basis of the lofty content of the principal positive divine names and are aimed at lifting the believer up to the highest levels of metaphysical reality. The other way of enhancing the emotional-aesthetic impact of the Areopagite's texts on the recipients, which can be styled form-creating, consists in, I think, a conscious aesthetization of these texts, in orgnaiz-ing them according to the rhetorical-artistic principles. When he speaks of a certain divine name or a symbol of the spiritual space, he often employs a developed terminological apparatus of properly aesthetic terms, examples from the sphere of the arts, uses an elevated rhetorical style, antithetical imagery, powerful metaphors, long clauses with a great number of lofty epithets and comparisons, and ultimately envelopes his texts with a prominently espressed aesthetic aura. All this allows one to claim that the author of the Areopagitica possesses a well developed aesthetic sense and esteems aesthetic experience highly as one of the essential ways of ascending to the highest levels of metaphysical reality. In fact, in his theology, which is permeated by beauty, light, and aesthetic terminology and is organized according to the laws of rhetorical art, Dionysius presents to us one of the best examples of implicit aesthetics. It is not an accident, then, that it has become a foundation of many trends in medieval theology and aesthetics, both in the Western Christian world (Byzantium, medieval Russia) and in the West. The mystical luminous aesthetics of the liturgical action in the Orthodox lands, the symbolic mystique of the icons, the exegesis that is based on images and symbols, and even Western scholastic aesthetics in many respects mined the Areopagitica for ideas and aesthetic intuitions. Keywords: Dionysius the Areopagite, Patristics, Byzantine Aesthetics, Patristic symbolism, exegesis, aesthetics, light, beauty, symbol, fragrance (translated from the Russian by O.V.Bychkov) Here and below, the main works of Maximus the Confessor are cited with the generally accepted abbreviated indication in patrolology of sources according to the newest translation of the modern patrolologist A.I. Sidorov, published in: Works of the Monk Maximus the Confessor. Book 1: Theological and ascetic treatises; Book 2: Questions and answers to Thalasius. M., 1993. The term “intelligible” among the Church Fathers differs from what we understand by it today. See footnote 49. Epifanovich S.L. St. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine theology. M., 1996. pp. 138–139. In the scholium to this place, Maximus gives an excellent definition of grace: “The full grace of the Spirit is wisdom, which contains, as far as possible, skill and action, all the knowledge that falls to the lot of people perfect in Christ. Thanks to it, the mind, finding itself outside of sensory images, comes into contact with the logoi of created things and written words, devoid of any diversity, bringing together the divine imprints (charakteras) that are in them, and uniting them around itself into the completeness of a single divine image. According to this [fullness, the mind] uniformly perceives the inseparable knowledge of beings, through which it is inherent in the sparkling radiance of Truth to manifest itself” (The Works of St. Maximus the Confessor. Book 2. p. 261). G.U. von Balthasar associated the first level (heavenly, transcendental meaning) with the theory of Dionysius, and the second (focused on the individual perception of the soul) with the teachings of Evagrius Pontus. See: BalthasarH.U. Kosmische Liturgie. Freiburg imBr., 1947. S. 323. Wed: BalthasarH.U. Op. cit. S. 323. This verse in the Church Slavonic translation of the Septuagint sounds like this: “... as I will go to the place of the wondrous settlement, even to the House of God, in the voice of joy and confession, the noise of the celebration.” “We see now like a mirror in fortune-telling” - in the context of Paul’s thought, these terms to esoptron (mirror) and to ainigma (riddle, allegory) are used as synonyms, reinforcing the meaning of the idea that in this age (the world of containers) we see the truth (God) only in certain reflections (allegory) and only in the future will we see it “face to face” See: Perl E.D. Theophany: The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areop-agite. Albany, 2007. See: Alexopoulos Th. Paradoxe Formulirungen bei Dionysios Areopagites. On Slavic translations and the Areopagitic tradition in the Slavic world, see: Goltz H. Studien und Texte zur slavischen kirchenvatertradition. Zur Tradition des Corpus areopagiticum slavicum. Halle (Saale), 1979. See in particular: Re-thiking Dionysius the Areopagite. Ed. S. Coakley, Ch. M.Stang. Chichester, Maiden, 2009; Bychkov O. V. Aesthetic Revelation: Reading Ancient and Medieval Texts after Hans Urs von Balthasar. Washington, 2010, pp. 278–289.