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.
4. But needs must we, methinks, go deeper into the matter and thoroughly explain the difference between Undifference and Differentiation as concerning God, in order that our whole Discourse may be made clear, and, being free from all doubtfulness and obscurity, may (to the best of our powers) give a distinct, plain, and orderly statement of the matter. For, as I said elsewhere, the Initiates of our Divine Tradition designate the Undifferenced Attributes of the Transcendently Ineffable and Unknowable Permanence as hidden, incommunicable Ultimates, but the beneficent Differentiations of the Supreme Godhead, they call Emanations! and Manifestations ; and following the Holy Scripture they declare that some Attributes belong especially to Undifference, and some, on the other hand, to Differentiation.2 For instance, they say concerning the Divine Unity, or Super-Essence, that the undivided Trinity holds in a common Unity without distinction Its Subsistence beyond Being, Its Godhead beyond Deity, Its Goodness beyond Excellence; the Identity, surpassing all things, of Its transcendently Individual Nature; Its Oneness above Unity; Its Namelessness and Multiplicity of Names ; Its Unknowableness and perfect Intelligibility ; Its universal Affirmation1 and universal Negation in a state above all Affirmation and Negation,2 and that It possesses the mutual Abiding and Indwelling (as it were) of Its indivisibly supreme Persons in an utterly Undifferentiated and Transcendent Unity, and yet without any confusion ® even as the lights of lamps (to use visible and homely similes) being in one house and wholly interpenetrating one another, severally possess a clear and absolute distinction each from each, and are by their distinctions united into one, and in their unity are kept distinct. Even so do we see, when there are many lamps in a house, how that the lights of them all are unified into one undifferentiated light, so that there shineth forth from them one indivisible brightness; and no one, methinks, could separate the light of one particular lamp from the others, in isolation from the air which embraces them all, nor could he see one light without another, inasmuch as, without confusion, they yet are wholly commingled.
1 προόδους Te καὶ expavoets,—sc. the Persons of the Trinity. See Intr., p. 16.
2 The received text reads: aor... καὶ τῆς εἰρημένης ἑνώσεως ἴδια καὶ αὖθις THs διακρίσεως εἶνάι τινας ἰδικὰς καὶ ἑνώσεις καὶ διακρίσεις. This, as it stands, must be translated: “They say that certain qualities belong to the said Undifference, and that to Differentiation, on the other hand, belong certain principles of Unity and principles of Differentiation.” This would mean that the Persons of the Trinity, though distinct from Each Other, yet have a Common Unity, or else that Each has a Unity of Its Own making It distinct from the Other Persons. I have ventured, however, to emend the text by omitting the last six words and making the sentence end at εἶναι. I believe the last six words have crept in from a marginal gloss or variant, which ran (I imagine) as follows:—elval τινας ἰδικὰς x.7.A. If the MS. belonged to a family having seventeen or eighteen letters to a column the εἶναι after διακρίσεως would end a line, since there are 571 letters from the beginning of the chapter to the end of that word. Hence it would easily be confused with the εἶναι at the beginning of the gloss, which would thus creep into the text. And, since the added words amount to thirty-four letters, they would exactly fill two lines, thus making the interpolation easier. For the meaning, see Intr., p. 6f.
4. But I think we must go deeper into the matter and explain thoroughly the difference between Undifference and Differentiation as concerning God, so that our whole Discourse may be made clear and, being free from all doubt and obscurity, may (to the best of our powers) give a distinct, plain, and orderly statement of the matter. For, as I said elsewhere, the Initiates of our Divine Tradition designate the Undifferenced Attributes of the Transcendently Ineffable and Unknowable Permanence as hidden, incommunicable Ultimates, but the beneficent Differentiations of the Supreme Godhead they call Emanations1 and Manifestations; and, following the Holy Scripture, they declare that some Attributes belong especially to Undifference and others, on the other hand, to Differentiation.2
For instance, they say concerning the Divine Unity, or Super-Essence, that the undivided Trinity holds in a common Unity, without distinction, Its Subsistence beyond Being, Its Godhead beyond Deity, Its Goodness beyond Excellence; the Identity, surpassing all things, of Its transcendently Individual Nature; Its Oneness above Unity; Its Namelessness and Multiplicity of Names; Its Unknowableness and perfect Intelligibility; Its universal Affirmation1 and universal Negation in a state above all Affirmation and Negation;2 and that It possesses the mutual Abiding and Indwelling (as it were) of Its indivisibly supreme Persons in an utterly Undifferentiated and Transcendent Unity, and yet without any confusion,3 just as the lights of lamps (to use visible and homely similes), being in one house and wholly interpenetrating one another, each possess a clear and absolute distinction from the others, and are united into one by their distinctions and kept distinct in their unity.
So we see, when there are many lamps in a house, how the lights of them all are unified into one undifferentiated light, so that one indivisible brightness shines forth from them; and no one, I think, could separate the light of one particular lamp from the others in isolation from the air that embraces them all, nor could he see one light without another, since, without confusion, they are yet wholly commingled.
1 προόδους Te καὶ expavoets, sc. the Persons of the Trinity. See Intr., p. 16.
2 The received text reads: aor... καὶ τῆς εἰρημένης ἑνώσεως ἴδια καὶ αὖθις THs διακρίσεως εἶνάι τινας ἰδικὰς καὶ ἑνώσεις καὶ διακρίσεις. As it stands, this must be translated: “They say that certain qualities belong to the said Undifference, and that to Differentiation, on the other hand, belong certain principles of Unity and principles of Differentiation.” This would mean either that the Persons of the Trinity, though distinct from Each Other, yet have a Common Unity, or else that Each has a Unity of Its Own making It distinct from the Other Persons.
I have ventured, however, to emend the text by omitting the last six words and ending the sentence at εἶναι. I believe the last six words have crept in from a marginal gloss or variant, which (I imagine) ran as follows: elval τινας ἰδικὰς x.7.A. If the MS. belonged to a family with seventeen or eighteen letters to a column, the εἶναι after διακρίσεως would end a line, since there are 571 letters from the beginning of the chapter to the end of that word. It could therefore easily be confused with the εἶναι at the beginning of the gloss, which would thus creep into the text. And since the added words amount to thirty-four letters, they would exactly fill two lines, which would make the interpolation easier. For the meaning, see Intr., p. 6f.