On the Divine Names and the Mystical Theology — trans. C. E. Rolt
The translator’s English as printed (C. E. Rolt). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
11. And let no man think we are contradicting the Scripture when we solemnly proclaim the title of “Yearning.” For ’tis, methinks, unreasonable and foolish to consider the phrases rather than the meaning ; and such is not the way of them that wish for insight into things Divine, but rather of them that receive the empty sounds without letting them pass beyond their ears, and shut them out, not wishing to know what such and such a phrase intends, nor how they ought to explain it in other terms expressing holding it unlawful to explain the number “four” by calling it “twice two,” or a straight line by calling it a “direct line” or the “Motherland” by calling it the “Fatherland,” or so to interchange any other of those terms which under varieties of language possess all the same signification. Need is there to understand that in proper truth we do but use the elements and syllables and phrases and written terms and words as an aid to our senses; inasmuch as when our soul is moved by spiritual energies unto spiritual things, our senses, together with the thing which they perceive, are all superfluous ; even as the spiritual faculties are also such when the soul, becoming Godlike,1 meets in the blind embraces of an incomprehensible union the Rays of the unapproachable Light? Now when the mind, through the things of sense, feels an eager stirring to mount towards spiritual contemplations,3 it values most of all those aids from its perceptions which have the plainest form, the clearest words, the things most distinctly seen, because, when the objects of sense are in confusion, then the senses themselves cannot present their message truly to the mind. But that we may not seem, in saying this, to be setting aside Holy Scripture, let those who blame the title of “Yearning” hear what the Scripture saith: “Yearn for her and she shall keep thee; exalt her and she shall promote thee; she shall bring thee to honour when thou dost embrace her.” 4 And there are many other such Scriptural passages which speak of this yearning.
the same sense more clearly. Such men are under the dominion of senseless elements and lines, and of uncomprehended syllables and phrases which penetrate not into the perception of their souls, but make a dumb noise outside about their lips and hearing: εἰς TO πρακτικεύεσθαι κατὰ Thy ἁπάντων γεννητικὴν ὑπερβολήν. Desire = want. And want in us = imperfection ; but in God it — that excess of perfection, whereby God is “Perfectionless.” Thus the words “super-excellence,” “super-unity,” etc., are not meaningless superlatives. They imply an impulse towards motion within the Divine Stillness, a Thirst in the Divine Fullness. Cf. Julian of Norwich: Revelations, ch. xxxi. “. . . There is a property in God of thirst and longing.” The categories of Greek Philosophy are static. The superlatives of D. imply something dynamic, though the static element remains. In much modern philosophy (the Pragmatists and also Bergson) dynamic conceptions are prominent; but the tendency here is for the static to disappear instead of being subsumed as it is in D. The result, or the cause, is that Grace is lost sight of and only Nature is perceived. Really Absolutism and Pragmatism are not mutually exclusive ; for Rest and Motion co-exist as transcended elements in God. This is the paradox of perfect Love which is both at rest and in motion, both satisfied and unsatisfied. Cf. Julian of Norwich: “I had Him and I wanted Him” (Revelations, ch. x.).
11. And let no one think that we are contradicting Scripture when we solemnly proclaim the title of “Yearning.” For it is, I think, unreasonable and foolish to attend to the phrases rather than the meaning. That is not the way of those who wish for insight into things Divine, but rather of those who receive the empty sounds without letting them pass beyond their ears, and shut them out, not wishing to know what such and such a phrase means, nor how they ought to explain it in other terms expressing — holding it unlawful to explain the number “four” by calling it “twice two,” or a straight line by calling it a “direct line,” or the “Motherland” by calling it the “Fatherland,” or to interchange in this way any other of those terms which, under differences of language, all have the same meaning.
We need to understand that, in strict truth, we use letters and syllables, phrases, written terms and words only as an aid to our senses; for when our soul is moved by spiritual energies towards spiritual things, our senses, together with the things they perceive, are all superfluous — just as the spiritual faculties are too, when the soul, becoming Godlike,1 meets the Rays of the unapproachable Light in the blind embraces of an incomprehensible union.2 Now when the mind, through the things of sense, feels an eager stirring to rise towards spiritual contemplations,3 it values most of all those aids from its perceptions which have the plainest form, the clearest words, the most distinctly seen things; because when the objects of sense are in confusion, the senses themselves cannot present their message truly to the mind.
But so that we may not seem, in saying this, to be setting Holy Scripture aside, let those who object to the title of “Yearning” hear what Scripture says: “Yearn for her and she shall keep you; exalt her and she shall promote you; she shall bring you to honour when you embrace her.” 4 And there are many other such passages in Scripture that speak of this yearning.
the same sense more clearly. Such people are under the dominion of senseless letters and lines, and of uncomprehended syllables and phrases which do not penetrate to the perception of their souls but make a dumb noise outside, about their lips and hearing: εἰς TO πρακτικεύεσθαι κατὰ Thy ἁπάντων γεννητικὴν ὑπερβολήν.
Desire = want. And want in us = imperfection; but in God it — that excess of perfection whereby God is “Perfectionless.” Thus words like “super-excellence,” “super-unity,” etc., are not meaningless superlatives. They imply an impulse towards motion within the Divine Stillness, a Thirst within the Divine Fullness. Cf. Julian of Norwich, Revelations, ch. xxxi: “. . . There is a property in God of thirst and longing.”
The categories of Greek Philosophy are static. The superlatives of D. imply something dynamic, though the static element remains. In much modern philosophy (the Pragmatists, and also Bergson) dynamic conceptions are prominent; but here the tendency is for the static to disappear instead of being subsumed, as it is in D. The result, or the cause, is that Grace is lost sight of and only Nature is perceived. In reality Absolutism and Pragmatism are not mutually exclusive, for Rest and Motion co-exist as transcended elements in God. This is the paradox of perfect Love, which is both at rest and in motion, both satisfied and unsatisfied. Cf. Julian of Norwich: “I had Him and I wanted Him” (Revelations, ch. x.).