PG 3 · cols. 9–56

N. Le Nourry, O.S.B., Prolegomena: Dissertatio de operibus S. Dionysii Areopagitae

Editors' preface

PG 3:9

PROLEGOMENA.

DISSERTATIO

DISSERTATION

DE OPERIBUS S. DIONYSII AREOPAGITAE.

ON THE WORKS OF ST DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE.

(D. LE NOURRY, Apparatus ad Bibl. max. Parisiis, 1703, in-fol., p. 169.)

(Dom Le Nourry, Apparatus to the Bibliotheca maxima, Paris, 1703, folio, p. 169.)

CAPUT PRIMUM.

CHAPTER I.

Analysis omnium S. Dionysii Operum.

Analysis of all the Works of St Dionysius.

§ I. Liber de coelesti hierarchia. — Primus liber Dionysii Areopagitae nomine inscriptus, titulum De coelesti hierarchia praefert, isque, sicut et alii subsequentes Timotheo sympresbytero nuncupatur. Ab ipso autem hujus libri exordio (cap. 1) auctor omnem lucem a Deo Patre ad nos derivari professus, ad suum de rebus coelestibus, iisque difficillimis, sed quae materialibus et corporeis adumbratae erant, argumentum cum ex Scriptura sacra, tum ex Patribus, implorata prius Christi Domini ope, tractandum aggreditur. Quapropter (cap. 2) ille, facta operis sui distributione, primum aperit cur Scriptura divina angelos figuris adeo ignobilibus, atque ab eorum natura tam alienis, ubique nobis repraesentet. Tum (cap. 3) omnem universim hierarchiam definit dividitque; ac quis ejus finis et scopus, quaeque sint ejus functiones et munia enucleate demonstrat. Hinc (cap. 4) ad ipsius angelicae hierarchiae explicationem transit, et ostendit Deum a nulla creatura excellentius participari quam ab angelis; qui quidem quia alios in divinitatis cognitionem adducunt, ideo illo angelorum nomine sunt donati. Atque hac data occasione, docet eorum ministerio non solum divinas in Veteri Testamento visiones exhibitas fuisse, sed Christi etiam Incarnationem in Novo Foedere nobis annuntiatam. Exponit insuper (cap. 5) cur angelorum nomen, quod ultimo coelestium spirituum ordini speciatim convenit, caeteris indiscriminatim ita tribuatur, ut ipsi tamen aliorum vicissim nomine nunquam appellentur. Ad angelorum divisionem inde (cap. 6) progreditur, atque ostendit eos in tres hierarchias, et singulas quasque hierarchias in tres ordines sic distribui; ut prima Seraphinorum (cap. 7), Cherubinorum, Thronorum; secunda vero Dominationum (cap. 8), Virtutum, Potestatum; tertia denique Principatuum (cap. 9), Archangelorum et Angelorum ordines complectatur. Deinde (cap. 10) quomodo quaelibet hierarchia purgetur, illustretur, ac perficiatur, enucleat; planumque facit (cap. 11) cur omnes Angeli virtutum coelestium nomine, quod secundo secundae hierarchiae

§ I. The book On the Celestial Hierarchy. — The first book inscribed with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite bears the title On the Celestial Hierarchy, and it, like the others that follow, is addressed to Timothy his fellow presbyter. At the very opening of this book (ch. 1) the author, having declared that all light is derived to us from God the Father, and having first implored the help of Christ the Lord, sets about treating his subject concerning heavenly things, and those most difficult, but which had been shadowed forth in material and bodily things, both from sacred Scripture and from the Fathers. Accordingly (ch. 2), having set out the division of his work, he first discloses why divine Scripture everywhere represents the angels to us under figures so base, and so foreign to their nature. Then (ch. 3) he defines and divides hierarchy in general, and shows in detail what is its end and aim, and what are its functions and offices. Next (ch. 4) he passes to the explanation of the angelic hierarchy itself, and shows that God is participated more excellently by no creature than by the angels; who, because they lead others into the knowledge of the divinity, have for that reason been given that name of angels. And taking this occasion, he teaches that by their ministry not only were the divine visions shown in the Old Testament, but the Incarnation of Christ too was announced to us in the New Covenant. He explains besides (ch. 5) why the name of angels, which belongs properly to the last order of heavenly spirits, is given without distinction to the rest, in such a way that these are nevertheless never in turn called by the name of the others. From there (ch. 6) he proceeds to the division of the angels, and shows that they are distributed into three hierarchies, and each hierarchy into three orders, thus: the first embraces the orders of the Seraphim (ch. 7), the Cherubim and the Thrones; the second those of the Dominions (ch. 8), the Virtues and the Powers; the third, finally, those of the Principalities (ch. 9), the Archangels and the Angels. Then (ch. 10) he explains in detail how each hierarchy is purged, illuminated and perfected; and he makes plain (ch. 11) why all the Angels are called indiscriminately by the name of heavenly virtues, which in the second place is proper to the order of the second hierarchy,

Editors' notes and page, col. 9

Page

running head: (none)
marginal letters: A CAPUT PRIMUM.; B libus, atque; C rum nomen
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: CAPUT PRIMUM. Analysis omnium S. Dionysii Operum. (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); full-width title lines across cols 9-10 cut off at right edge not set: PROLEGO[MENA.], DISSERTA[TIO], DE OPERIBUS S. DIONY[SII AREOPAGITAE.], (D. LE NOURRY, Apparatus ad Bibl. max. P[arisiis, 1703, in-fol., p. 169.)]; word split at column break: hierar-; signature at foot of col 9: PATROL. GR. III.
running head: (none; title page, no running head; rails 9 and 10 as assigned)
marginal letters: A beside right column ‹chiae ordini peculiare est›; B ‹a libri sui principio› (right column); C ‹mortuorum corpora sepeliebantur› (right column); D (none visible)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the title lines PROLEGOMENA, DISSERTATIO, DE OPERIBUS S. DIONYSII AREOPAGITAE and the source line (D. Le Nourry ...) are printed full width above both columns; editors' matter, set once here as layer-1 title lines. A handwritten annotation "Dom Nicolas" beside the source line is not print and is not set. The word hierar-|chiae split at the column break is set whole here; the English runs on into c10 (joined on receipt). Printer's signature "PATROL. GR. III." and sheet number "1" at foot not set.

PG 3:10

ordini peculiare est, promiscue vocitentur. Nonnullas postea, quae ad argumentum suum spectabant, difficultates enodat et solvit (cap. 12), nimirum cur episcopus dicatur angelus Domini omnipotentis, cur ex Seraphinorum ordine unus ad Isaiam missus fuerit, quantusque sit Angelorum numerus (cap. 13). Denique (cap. 14) corporeis imaginibus, quibus angeli in Scriptura figurantur, singillatim explicatis, librum absolvit.

[are called by the name of heavenly virtues, which is proper to the second order of the second hierarchy,] are called by it indiscriminately. Afterwards he unravels and solves certain difficulties which bore on his subject (ch. 12): namely, why the bishop is called the angel of the Lord almighty, why one of the order of the Seraphim was sent to Isaiah, and how great is the number of the Angels (ch. 13). Finally (ch. 14), having explained one by one the bodily images under which the angels are figured in Scripture, he concludes the book.

§ II. Liber de ecclesiastica hierarchia. — In illo priore libro alterius, quem De ecclesiastica hierarchia inscriptum voluit, fundamenta quidem jecerat; sed ipse nisi Timothei precibus victus, manum ei se non admovisse testificatur. Huic autem Timotheo, ne mysteria nostra non initiatis aperiat, cum a libri sui principio sedulo praecepisset (cap. 1), ostendit quo ex fonte hierarchia ecclesiastica illustrationes suas hauriat, in quo cum coelesti conveniat, vel ab ea discrepet, quae sit ejus definitio, principium et finis, ac tandem cur illa symbolis figurisque corporeis velata nobis tradatur. Posthaec ad singula quae ad eam spectant, propius accedens, de sacramentis baptismi (cap. 2) et Eucharistiae (cap. 3), de sacri unguenti seu chrismatis, τοῦ μύρου, consecratione (cap. 4), de ordinatione sacrorum Ecclesiae ministrorum (cap. 5), episcopi scilicet, presbyteri et diaconi, ac de solemni monachorum professione (cap. 6) articulatim disputat. His accuratam subjungit caeremoniarum, quibus mortuorum corpora sepeliebantur, descriptionem expositionemque; et subinde de infantium baptismate disserit. Tum denique Timotheum, si quas clariores horum mysteriorum cognitiones habeat, vel habere possit, ut eas secum benevole communicet, obtestatur atque obsecrat.

§ II. The book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. — In that former book he had indeed laid the foundations of another, which he chose to have inscribed On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; but he testifies that he would not have put his hand to it unless won over by the entreaties of Timothy. And having carefully charged this Timothy at the beginning of his book (ch. 1) not to disclose our mysteries to the uninitiated, he shows from what source the ecclesiastical hierarchy draws its illuminations, in what it agrees with the heavenly one or differs from it, what is its definition, its principle and its end, and finally why it is handed down to us veiled in symbols and bodily figures. After this, coming closer to the particulars that concern it, he discusses point by point the sacraments of baptism (ch. 2) and of the Eucharist (ch. 3), the consecration of the sacred ointment or chrism, τοῦ μύρου [of the myron] (ch. 4), the ordination of the sacred ministers of the Church (ch. 5), that is, of bishop, presbyter and deacon, and the solemn profession of monks (ch. 6). To these he adds an exact description and explanation of the ceremonies with which the bodies of the dead were buried; and thereupon he treats of the baptism of infants. Then finally he adjures and beseeches Timothy, if he has, or can have, any clearer knowledge of these mysteries, kindly to share it with him.

§ III. Liber de divinis nominibus. — In tertio libro, quem auctor noster post editum Hypotyposeon theologicarum volumen se conscripsisse asserit, de nominibus divinis disputat (cap. 1). Ille autem ex Scripturis sacris, ubi omnia Dei, qui ἀνώνυμος et πολυώνυμος est, nomina exhibentur, argumentum suum tractaturum se esse profitetur. Et quidem duplicis generis esse dicit (cap. 2) ea Dei nomina: alia, uti vocant, absoluta et essentialia, quae naturae

§ III. The book On the Divine Names. — In the third book, which our author asserts he wrote after publishing the volume of the Theological Outlines, he discusses the divine names (ch. 1). And he professes that he will treat his subject from the sacred Scriptures, where all the names of God, Who is nameless and of many names, are set forth. And indeed he says (ch. 2) that these names of God are of two kinds: some, as they call them, absolute and essential, which [belong] to the nature

Editors' notes and page, col. 10

Page

running head: (none)
marginal letters: A chiae ordini; B a libri sui; C mortuorum corpora
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: chiae ordini peculiare est (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); full-width title lines across cols 9-10 cut off at left edge not set: [PRO]LEGOMENA., [DI]SSERTATIO, [DE OPERIBUS ]S. DIONYSII AREOPAGITAE., [(D. LE NOURRY, Apparatus ]ad Bibl. max. Parisiis, 1703, in-fol., p. 169.); word split at start of column: chiae
running head: (none; title page, no running head; rail as assigned)
marginal letters: A ‹chiae ordini peculiare est›; B ‹a libri sui principio sedulo›; C ‹mortuorum corpora sepeliebantur›; D (none visible)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the column opens with the second half of hierar-|chiae, set whole at the end of c9; the bracketed opening of the first English line repeats c9's closing clause to carry the sense (joined on receipt; check across the break). The column ends with "naturae" (printed naturæ), apparently mid-sentence; the next column was not available, so whether the word continues is not confirmed.
other: printer's signature "1" at the foot of the column (under col 9 the foot reads "PATROL. GR. III."); not set.
other (Q3): "secundo secundae hierarchiae ordini" means "to the second order of the second hierarchy" (the Virtues); the bracketed carry-over in c10's English is corrected accordingly; c9's English for the same clause should be checked for the same misreading (not written here).

PG 3:11

divinae tribusque sanctissimae Trinitatis personis absque divisione ulla conveniunt; alia, uti loquuntur, relativa, quae unicuique personae singillatim ita competunt, ut alteri non possint attribui. Ad ea porro explicanda Hierothei cujusdam magistri sui libro utitur, ibique (cap. 3) cur post eximium illum virum, quem maximis laudibus exornat, et quocum dormitioni Dei Genitricis se interfuisse dicit, ad conficiendam lucubrationem suam animum appulerit, paucis ille declarat. Post haec (cap. 4) singula Dei nomina edisserit, atque a boni et bonitatis, pulchri et pulchritudinis, amoris, dilectionis, amabilis dilectique expositione orditur. Hinc autem arrepta occasione, quasdam de natura et origine mali quaestiones enucleat, et quomodo in angelos cadere potuerit, luculenter aperit. Prosequitur deinde (cap. 5) inchoatam nominum Dei explanationem, et nomen entis, quod Deo ita tribuitur, ut caeterorum omnium ipsum sit principium et causa, ad eum tractat modum (cap. 6), ut, quomodo in Deo rerum omnium exemplaria praeexstiterint, ibi quoque patefaciat. Explicat praeterea quomodo Deus vita sit, a quo suam caetera viventia accipiunt: quomodo (cap. 7) sit sapientia ipsa, omnis mentis, rationis, sapientiae, intelligentiae causa; quomodo (cap. 8) omnia cognoscat, et a creaturis cognoscatur: quomodo Verbum, Λόγος, sit veritas, ac fidei nostrae fundamentum: quomodo ex infinita ejus potentia aliae omnes deriventur; atque (cap. 9) ejus justitia omnium norma sit, salus et redemptio. Ad haec vero (cap. 10) cur Deus magnus et parvus, idem et aliud, similis et dissimilis dicatur: quae sit ejus quies, sedes et motus, cur nominetur aequalis, omnitenens, παντοκράτωρ, antiquus dierum, antiquus et novus; ibique temporis et aeternitatis naturam explanare contendit. Postea (cap. 11) de pace Dei, qui omnis pacis auctor est, disserit, eamque ab omnibus desiderari demonstrat. Dehinc (cap. 12) ad ea respondet quae Timotheus data ad eum epistola poposcerat, quid sit per se esse, per se vita, per se sapientia. Tum subinde ad divinorum nominum explanationem reversus, perspicuum facit (cap. 13) cur Deus vocetur Sanctus sanctorum, Rex regum, Dominus dominantium, Deus deorum. His ita explicatis, monet se divina nomina pro suis viribus, non pro eorum dignitate sic explicuisse, ut, si quid recte a se dictum fuerit, id totum in Deum ipsum refundi debeat; si quid vero minus recti et perfecti, illud Timothei peritia velit esse correctum. Spondet denique se de symbolica theologia post haec esse scripturum, atque ita libro suo finem imponit.

divine and to the three persons of the most holy Trinity belong without any division; others, as they say, relative, which belong to each person singly in such a way that they cannot be attributed to another. Moreover, to explain these he uses a book of a certain Hierotheus, his master, and there (ch. 3) he declares in a few words why, after that eminent man, whom he adorns with the highest praises, and with whom he says he was present at the dormition of the Mother of God, he applied his mind to composing his treatise. After these things (ch. 4) he treats the several names of God, and begins with the exposition of the good and goodness, the beautiful and beauty, love, charity, the lovable and the beloved. Taking occasion hence, he explains certain questions concerning the nature and origin of evil, and clearly discloses how it could fall upon the angels. He then prosecutes (ch. 5) the explanation of the names of God which he had begun, and treats the name of Being, which is so attributed to God that He Himself is the beginning and cause of all other things, in such a manner (ch. 6) that he there also makes manifest how the exemplars of all things pre-existed in God. He explains besides how God is life, from Whom all other living things receive their own: how (ch. 7) He is wisdom itself, the cause of all mind, reason, wisdom, and intelligence; how (ch. 8) He knows all things, and is known by creatures: how the Word, Λόγος, is truth, and the foundation of our faith: how from His infinite power all others are derived; and (ch. 9) how His justice is the norm of all things, salvation and redemption. In addition to these things (ch. 10), why God is called great and small, the same and another, like and unlike: what is His rest, seat, and motion, why He is named equal, all-holding, παντοκράτωρ, Ancient of Days, ancient and new; and there he strives to explain the nature of time and eternity. Afterwards (ch. 11) he discourses of the peace of God, Who is the author of all peace, and demonstrates that it is desired by all things. Next (ch. 12) he replies to the things which Timothy had asked in a letter sent to him, what is being per se, life per se, wisdom per se. Then forthwith returning to the explanation of the divine names, he makes clear (ch. 13) why God is called Holy of holies, King of kings, Lord of lords, God of gods. Having thus explained these things, he admonishes that he has so explained the divine names according to his own strength, not according to their dignity, that if anything has been rightly said by him, the whole of it ought to be referred back to God Himself; but if anything less right and perfect, he wishes it to be corrected by the skill of Timothy. Finally, he promises that he will write after this concerning symbolical theology, and so puts an end to his book.

§ IV. Liber de mystica theologia. — Quartum librum, De mystica theologia titulo inscriptum, auctor noster ab sanctissimae Trinitatis invocatione inchoat (cap. 1), Timotheumque commonefacit mystica cum viris paganis non esse communicanda. Ipsi subinde significat, ut ad Dei, qui infinite supra nos elatus, immensa caligine absconditur,

§ IV. The Book on the Mystical Theology. — The fourth book, inscribed with the title On the Mystical Theology, our author begins with an invocation of the most holy Trinity (ch. 1), and reminds Timothy that mystical things are not to be communicated to pagan men. Thereupon he signifies to him that, in order to arrive at the mystical contemplation of God, Who, lifted up infinitely above us, is hidden

Editors' notes and page, col. 11

Page

running head: 11 S. DIONYSIUS AREOP[AGITA.]
marginal letters: A divinae tribusque; B cadere potuerit; C ejus justitia; D deorum. His
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: divinae tribusque (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); word split at column break: abscon-

PG 3:12

ac negationibus magis quam affirmationibus cognosci potest, mysticam contemplationem perveniat (cap. 2), super res omnes sensibiles et intellectuales esse assurgendum (cap. 3). Manifestum deinde facit quae essent illae negationes, seu perfectiones Dei negativae, easque rerum cum corporearum et sensibilium, tum spiritualium et intellectualium (cap. 4), quae in Deo esse nequeunt, nuda et simplici enarratione explicat.

in immense darkness, and can be known by negations rather than by affirmations (ch. 2), one must rise above all sensible and intellectual things (ch. 3). Next he makes manifest what those negations, or negative perfections of God, were, and explains them by a bare and simple exposition of things both bodily and sensible, and spiritual and intellectual (ch. 4), which cannot be in God.

§ V. Epistolae. — Decem quoque epistolae Dionysii Areopagitae nomen praeferentes, his quatuor auctoris nostri libris subnectuntur. Harum quatuor priores, ad Caium θεραπεύτην datae, brevissimae sunt, eaeque epistolarum potius fragmenta, quam epistolae integrae videntur. In earum prima perfectissimam Dei cognitionem, quae a nobis accipi possit, eam auctor esse dicit, quae ex attributis ejus negativis per excessum, et non privative habetur. In secunda exponit quomodo qui est super omnia, sit supra principium divinitatis et bonitatis. In tertia vero quod Malachias propheta de Christo praenuntiaverat: Repente veniet ad templum sanctum suum, hoc brevi explicatione interpretatur. Demum in quarta Christum Deum fuisse et hominem, et θεανδρικὴν operationem exhibuisse demonstrat.

§ V. Letters. — Ten letters also, bearing the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, are subjoined to these four books of our author. Of these, the first four, addressed to Gaius the monk (θεραπεύτην), are very brief, and seem to be fragments of letters rather than entire letters. In the first of them the author says that the most perfect knowledge of God which can be received by us is that which is had from His negative attributes by way of eminence, and not privatively. In the second he sets forth how He Who is above all things is above the principle of divinity and of goodness. In the third he interprets with a brief explanation what Malachi the prophet had foretold of Christ: Presently He shall come to His holy temple (Mal. 3:1). Finally, in the fourth he demonstrates that Christ was God and man, and exhibited a theandric (θεανδρικὴν) operation.

Quinta epistola eodem ac praecedentes stylo exarata, ad Dorotheum λειτουργὸν directa est. In ea autem quae sit caligo divina auctor aperit, planumque facit tunc Deum vere cognosci, cum ille super omnem scientiam et cognitionem esse cognoscitur.

The fifth letter, written in the same style as the preceding ones, is directed to Dorotheus the minister (λειτουργὸν). In it the author discloses what the divine darkness is, and makes plain that God is then truly known when He is known to be above all knowledge and cognition.

Ad Sosipatrum presbyterum sexta missa est, illaque omnium licet brevissima, formam tamen habet epistolae. Hac auctor noster Sosipatrum ut operam suam non tam in arguendis haereticis quam in veritate stabilienda ponat, amice monet.

The sixth was sent to Sosipater the presbyter, and although it is the briefest of all, yet it has the form of a letter. In it our author kindly admonishes Sosipater to bestow his labour not so much in refuting heretics as in establishing the truth.

Septima ille Polycarpo episcopo, qui ipsum ab Apollophane sophista, quod opiniones gentilium confutando, eas sincere non proposuisset, palam incusari nuntiaverat, respondere videtur. Ait itaque se cum adversus gentiles disputaret, res prout se haberent, vere semper retulisse; Polycarpumque rogat ut Apollophani significet eum ipsum esse, qui divinis adversus divina abutitur. Etenim non solum iis quae Josuae et Ezechiae temporibus acciderant, insolitis coelorum motibus, sed in primis stupenda, quam Heliopoli, dum Christus crucifigeretur, ille secum viderat, solis defectione, de ejusdem Christi divinitate fuerat convictus. Quod ipsi ut in memoriam revocet, atque ad amplexandam Christianam religionem adhortetur, obsecrat et praecipit.

In the seventh he seems to reply to Polycarp the bishop, who had reported that he was openly accused by Apollophanes the sophist of not having sincerely stated the opinions of the Gentiles in refuting them. He says therefore that when he disputed against the Gentiles, he always truly related matters just as they stood; and he asks Polycarp to signify to Apollophanes that he himself is the one who abuses divine things against divine things. For not only by those unusual movements of the heavens which had happened in the times of Joshua and Hezekiah, but above all by the stupendous eclipse of the sun which he had seen with him at Heliopolis while Christ was being crucified, he had been convicted of the divinity of the same Christ. Which thing he beseeches and charges him to recall to his memory, and to exhort him to embrace the Christian religion.

Demophilum monachum, qui poenitentem a sacerdote absolutum, ipsumque sacerdotem a quo fuerat absolutus, durius tractaverat, epistola octava corripit. Quamobrem clementiam mansuetudinemque commendat, ac variis Moysis, Davidis, Josephi, angelorum, et Christi Domini exemplis probat sacerdotes a monachis non esse arguendos,

The eighth letter rebukes Demophilus the monk, who had treated rather harshly a penitent absolved by a priest, and the priest himself by whom he had been absolved. Wherefore he commends clemency and gentleness, and proves by various examples of Moses, David, Joseph, the angels, and Christ the Lord that priests are not to be reproved by monks,

Editors' notes and page, col. 12

Page

running head: [S. DIO]NYSIUS AREOPAGITA. 12
marginal letters: A ditur, ac; B cognitionem, quae; C per omnem; D solum iis
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: ditur, ac negationibus (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); word split at start of column: ditur

PG 3:13

atque ante ipsum qui id attentare ausus fuerit, inventum esse neminem. Denique peccatorem poenitentem ab ipso non debuisse rejici mira sancti Carpi visione demonstrat.

and that before him no one had been found who dared to attempt it. Finally, he demonstrates by a wonderful vision of St. Carpus that the penitent sinner ought not to have been rejected by him.

Epistolae nonae ad Titum episcopum datae initio quid figurae symbolicae et corporeae, quae Deo in Scriptura sacra tribuuntur, significent, auctor noster enucleat. Deinde ea quae Titus postulaverat, explanare aggressus, ostendit quid sit ebrietas, discubitus, somnus et evigilatio Dei. Ex quibus facile colligas ibi nihil aliud quam priora capitis noni Malachiae prophetae verba explicari.

At the beginning of the ninth letter, addressed to Titus the bishop, our author explains clearly what the symbolical and bodily figures which are attributed to God in Sacred Scripture signify. Next, undertaking to explain the things which Titus had asked, he shows what the drunkenness, reclining, sleep, and waking of God are. From which one may easily gather that nothing else is explained there than the former words of the ninth chapter of Malachi the prophet.

In epistola decima, ad Joannem evangelistam, in insula Pathmos exsulantem directa, auctor noster celerem illi ab exsilio in Asiam reditum, ibique se ejus praesentia fruiturum certo praenuntiat.

In the tenth letter, directed to John the Evangelist while an exile in the island of Patmos, our author certainly foretells to him a speedy return from exile into Asia, and that he will there enjoy his presence.

Adjecta est in nonnullis editionibus undecima auctoris nostri ad Apollophanem philosophum epistola: sed cum ea vix ab ullo genuina esse censeatur, de illius veritate, ne cum aliis quarum major est difficultas, confunderetur, in fine hujus Dissertationis disputabimus.

In some editions there is added an eleventh letter of our author to Apollophanes the philosopher: but since it is scarcely deemed genuine by anyone, we shall dispute concerning its truth at the end of this Dissertation, lest it be confounded with the others in which there is greater difficulty.

CAPUT II.

Chapter II.

Exponitur status quaestionis, et qua methodo tractabitur.

The state of the question is set forth, and by what method it will be treated.

De his lucubrationibus si ex ipso earum testimonio feratur sententia, certum est illas non alium quam Dionysium Areopagitam, a Paulo apostolo ad Christianam fidem adductum, ejusque postea discipulum, habuisse auctorem. Verumenimvero quae de solis, Christo moriente, eclipsi, de corpore Deiparae Virginis post ejus mortem a se et ab apostolis viso, de Joannis evangelistae ab exsilio regressu dicuntur, eas a Dionysio illo scriptas esse clamant et testificantur. Sed illud vocatur in controversiam num horum auctor scriptorum is vere sit Areopagita, quem se prodit: vel ementito tanti viri nomine scriptis suis auctoritatem voluerit attribuere. Haec autem quaestio ob auctoris nomen, et summa quae in his operibus tractantur argumenta, tanti ponderis et momenti visa est, ut vix alia fuerit, in qua examinanda critici majorem diligentiam adhibuisse videantur.

Concerning these treatises, if judgement be passed from their own testimony, it is certain that they had no other author than Dionysius the Areopagite, who was brought to the Christian faith by Paul the Apostle, and was afterwards his disciple. For indeed the things that are said of the eclipse of the sun when Christ was dying, of the body of the Virgin Mother of God seen after her death by himself and by the apostles, and of the return of John the Evangelist from exile, cry aloud and testify that they were written by that Dionysius. Yet it is called into controversy whether the author of these writings is truly that Areopagite whom he gives himself out to be, or whether by falsely assuming the name of so great a man he wished to attribute authority to his writings. Now this question, on account of the author's name and the supreme subjects which are treated in these works, has seemed of such weight and moment that there has scarcely been another in examining which critics appear to have employed greater diligence.

Porro autem duas illi scinduntur in partes. Alii siquidem scripta haec omnia a Dionysio ipso, cujus nomine inscribuntur, profecta esse censent. Quae quidem opinio ab eo tempore quo illae in vulgus prodierunt, usque ad decimum sextum Ecclesiae saeculum, paucis nequidquam reclamantibus, apud omnes fere invaluit. Alii e contrario eadem opera cum libros tum epistolas Dionysio Areopagitae plane penitusque abjudicant, eaque adulterina et tanto viro supposita esse arbitrantur. Hanc vero opinionem cum Valla et Erasmus amplexati fuissent, acerrimos omnium sibi adversantium impetus exceperunt. Sed ii demum ita fracti sunt, ut pene omnes tam Catholici quam heterodoxi

Moreover, they are divided into two parties. For some judge that all these writings proceeded from Dionysius himself, with whose name they are inscribed. Which opinion indeed, from the time when they came forth to the public down to the sixteenth century of the Church, with a few protesting in vain, prevailed among almost all. Others, on the contrary, plainly and utterly deny the same works, both books and letters, to Dionysius the Areopagite, and hold that they are spurious and falsely attributed to so great a man. Now when Valla and Erasmus had embraced this opinion, they met with the fiercest attacks of all their opponents. Yet these were at length so broken that almost all, both Catholics and heterodox,

Editors' notes and page, col. 13

Page

running head: 13 PROLEGOMENA.
marginal letters: A atque ante; B ejus praesentia; C enimvero quae; D siquidem scripta
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: atque ante ipsum (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); word split at column break: hetero-

PG 3:14

pedibus in eorum iverint sententiam, eamque plurimi variis lucubrationibus, in lucem editis, propugnandam susceperint. Contra tamen stant aliqui pro antiquiorum opinione, quam prolixis etiam Dissertationibus, in vulgus non ita pridem emissis, defendunt ac tuentur.

went over to their opinion, and very many undertook to champion it in various treatises published to the world. On the other hand, however, some stand for the opinion of the ancients, which they defend and maintain even in lengthy Dissertations sent forth to the public not so long ago.

Haec itaque quaestio cum pro officio nostro rursus ad examen revocanda sit, illam ita tractabimus, ut, omnibus utriusque partis rationibus aequa lance ponderatis, earum vim et robur, aut levitatem et vitia clare et perspicue, quantum per nos fieri poterit, patefaciamus. His autem ea omnia adjiciemus quae ad eliciendam confirmandamque veritatem et vanas argutias depellendas magis conducere nobis videbuntur. Denique hanc quaestionem pro virili parte ea methodo enucleare satagemus, qua sincerus veritatis amator de his scriptis suum possit facilius et certius ferre judicium.

Since, therefore, in accordance with our duty, this question must be called back again for examination, we shall treat it in such a way that, having weighed all the reasons of both sides in an equal balance, we may clearly and plainly lay open their force and strength, or their lightness and faults, so far as in us lies. And to these we shall add all those things which shall seem to us to conduce more to eliciting and confirming the truth and dispelling vain subtleties. Finally, to the best of our ability, we shall endeavour to explain this question by that method whereby a sincere lover of truth may more easily and more certainly pass his judgement upon these writings.

CAPUT III.

Chapter III.

Utrum quidam scriptores ante Collationem Constantinopolitanam haec opera Dionysio attribuerint?

Whether certain writers before the Conference of Constantinople attributed these works to Dionysius?

Constat quidem omnia Auctoris nostri Opera post Collationem Constantinopoli anno 533 habitam Dionysio Areopagitae uno fere omnium consensu fuisse adjudicata. Utrum autem eadem fuerit antiquiorum opinio, inter eruditos etiamnum disceptatur. Dionysiani enim testimonia Origenis, Athanasii, Clementis Alexandrini et Gregorii Nazianzeni, a quibus haec scripta vel Dionysii nomine citata, vel indicata opinantur, proferunt in medium. Addunt Dionysium Alexandrinum, ut Anastasius Sinaita, sanctus Maximus et Nicetas Choniates testantur, in eadem Dionysii scripta, adnotationes et scholia edidisse.

It is agreed indeed that after the Conference held at Constantinople in the year 533 all the Works of our Author were adjudged to Dionysius the Areopagite by the well-nigh unanimous consent of all. Whether, however, the opinion of the ancients was the same is even now debated among the learned. For the Dionysians bring forward the testimonies of Origen, Athanasius, Clement of Alexandria, and Gregory of Nazianzus, by whom they suppose these writings to have been either cited or indicated under the name of Dionysius. They add that Dionysius of Alexandria, as Anastasius the Sinaite, St. Maximus, and Nicetas Choniates testify, published annotations and scholia on the same writings of Dionysius.

Sed contendunt eorum adversarii neque Origenem, neque Athanasium, ut omnes facile concedunt, sed recentiores quosdam horum, quae citantur, operum esse auctores. Quantum vero ad scholia, certum videri ea Dionysii Alexandrini non esse fetum. Eusebius etenim atque Hieronymus, qui Alexandrini hujus patriarchae opera diligentissime recensuerunt, nullam omnino horum scholiorum fecerunt mentionem. Quid quod Anastasius ac post eum Maximus hunc Dionysium ex rhetorum numero episcopum factum fuisse aiunt: At magnus Dionysius (verba sunt Anastasii) ex rhetorum numero episcopus factus, in scholiis, etc. Maximus vero ἀπὸ ῥητόρων, etc. Atqui Dionysius, antequam in episcopum Alexandrinum esset assumptus, non rhetoricam profitebatur, sed catecheses apud populum Christianum habebat. Quid ergo inde aliud colligas, quam haec scholia conscripta fuisse a quodam rhetore, nomine Dionysio, quem Anastasius et Maximus patriarcham Alexandrinum esse falso arbitrati sunt. Neque vero in hoc tantum erravit Anastasius; nam ut caetera taceamus,

But their opponents contend that neither Origen nor Athanasius, as all readily grant, but certain more recent writers are the authors of those works which are cited. As for the scholia, they contend that it seems certain that they are not the offspring of Dionysius of Alexandria. For Eusebius and Jerome, who most diligently catalogued the works of this patriarch of Alexandria, made no mention at all of these scholia. What of the fact that Anastasius and after him Maximus say that this Dionysius was made a bishop from the number of the rhetoricians: But the great Dionysius (the words are those of Anastasius), having been made bishop from the number of the rhetoricians, in the scholia, etc. And Maximus says, from the rhetoricians (ἀπὸ ῥητόρων), etc. Yet Dionysius, before he was assumed as bishop of Alexandria, did not profess rhetoric, but held catecheses among the Christian people. What else, therefore, can one gather thence than that these scholia were written by a certain rhetorician named Dionysius, whom Anastasius and Maximus falsely supposed to be the patriarch of Alexandria? Nor indeed did Anastasius err in this only; for to pass over the rest in silence,

Editors' notes and page, col. 14

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: testimonia Origenis› · call in col 14

Homil. 2, De divers.

Homily 2, On Various Matters.

(printed under page 13)

(2) ‹anchor: Gregorii Nazianzeni› · call in col 14

Quaest. ad Antioch.

Questions to Antiochus.

(printed under page 13)

(3) ‹anchor: factum fuisse aiunt› · call in col 14

Tom. VI Bibl. Patrum, cap. 12.

Vol. VI of the Bibliotheca Patrum, ch. 12.

(printed under page 13)

Page

running head: PROLEGOMENA. 14
marginal letters: A doxi pedibus; B virili parte; C mine citata; D ac post
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: doxi pedibus (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); word split at start of column: doxi; word split at end of column with hyphen lost at margin: tacea⟨-⟩

PG 3:15

in eodem opere Augustinum pro Christo sanguinem suum fudisse affirmat: Facessat, inquit (cap. 1), Augustinus, qui suo sanguine in scriptis, duas in Christo naturas consignavit. Porro ea auctorum qui hactenus citati sunt, pro Dionysii Operibus testimonia, fidei sunt adeo sublestae, ut doctiores scriptorum Areopagitae defensores illa non tantum urgere, sed nec proponere aequum esse putaverint.

in the same work he affirms that Augustine shed his blood for Christ: Away with Augustine, he says (ch. 1), who in his writings sealed with his own blood two natures in Christ. Moreover, those testimonies of the authors who have thus far been cited on behalf of the Works of Dionysius are of such weak credit that the more learned defenders of the writings of the Areopagite have thought it fair not only not to press them, but not even to bring them forward.

Nec majoris ponderis est aliud argumentum, inde ductum, quod Clemens Alexandrinus et in iis quae de Deo per negationes cognoscendo tradit, et in eo quod homines vitae gnosticae deditos, iis qui anchoram navis, ut ad eam accedant, trahunt, comparavit, Dionysium nostrum sit imitatus. Contra enim nonnulli Areopagiticorum adversarii contendunt non Clementem ex vero Dionysio, sed pseudo-Dionysium a Clemente, qui illo antiquior erat, ea quae referuntur suos adduxisse in usus. Alii vero putant fieri facile potuisse ut uterque, etsi alter alteri minime notus, illam anchorae navis attractae comparationem, quae cuilibet obvia est, anhibuerit. Et re quidem ipsa ab utroque illa diverso plane instituitur modo, et rebus omnino diversis accommodatur. Quod vero de Deo per negationes cognoscendo traditur, id non minus vulgare est et tritum, ac proinde illud etiam potuit a duobus scriptoribus sibi invicem incognitis pariter aequaliterque doceri.

Nor is another argument of greater weight, drawn from the fact that Clement of Alexandria imitated our Dionysius both in the things which he hands down concerning knowing God by negations, and in having compared men devoted to the gnostic life to those who pull the anchor of a ship in order to draw near to it. For on the contrary, some opponents of the Areopagitics contend that it was not Clement from the true Dionysius, but the pseudo-Dionysius from Clement, who was more ancient than he, that adapted the things which are alleged to his own uses. Others, however, think that it could easily have happened that each of the two, although not at all known to the other, employed that comparison of drawing the anchor of a ship, which is obvious to anyone. And in actual fact it is instituted by each in a plainly different manner, and accommodated to altogether different things. And as for what is handed down concerning knowing God by negations, that is no less common and trite, and accordingly could also be taught alike and equally by two writers unknown to each other.

De Gregorio demum Nazianzeno, quem ex auctoris nostri Operibus aliquid deflorasse nonnulli arbitrantur, major procul dubio est difficultas. Quidam enimvero eadem Opera Dionysii Areopagitae fetum esse negantes, fatentur ea a Gregorio Nazianzeno lecta fuisse et pervolutata, ac ipso esse antiquiora. Sed de his infra opportunior dabitur disserendi locus.

Finally, concerning Gregory of Nazianzus, whom some suppose to have culled something from the Works of our author, there is without doubt greater difficulty. For indeed certain writers, while denying that the same Works are the offspring of Dionysius the Areopagite, confess that they were read and perused by Gregory of Nazianzus, and are more ancient than he. But a more opportune place for discussing these things will be given below.

CAPUT IV.

Chapter IV.

Palmarium Areopagiticorum argumentum, ex constanti undecim saeculorum traditione depromptum, proponitur.

The principal argument of the Areopagitics, drawn from the constant tradition of eleven centuries, is set forth.

Palmarium itaque praecipuumque Areopagiticorum momentum inde ducitur quod anno 533 in Collatione Constantinopolitana haec auctoris nostri Opera ab Acephalis seu Severianis haereticis adversus orthodoxos Dionysii Areopagitae nomine primum citata, paulo post ab ipsis Catholicis pro vero et genuino ejusdem Dionysii fetu suscepta sunt, ac tandem a caeteris omnibus cujuslibet generis et eruditionis scriptoribus ad nostram fere usque aetatem ipsi vindicata. Longos autem horum scriptorum texunt catalogos; sed singulorum testimonia, tum quia prolixiora sunt, tum quia de eorum auctoritate lis nulla movetur, integra non citabimus, singulorum nomen et scripta appellare contenti.

The principal and chief point of the Areopagitics, therefore, is drawn from the fact that in the year 533, in the Conference of Constantinople, these Works of our author, having first been cited under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite by the Acephali or Severian heretics against the orthodox, were shortly afterwards received by the Catholics themselves as the true and genuine offspring of the same Dionysius, and at length vindicated for him by all other writers of every kind and learning down almost to our own age. Now they weave long catalogues of these writers; but their individual testimonies, both because they are rather lengthy and because no dispute is raised concerning their authority, we shall not cite in full, being content to name each writer and his writings.

Post Collationem itaque Constantinopolitanam circa sexti saeculi finem Leontius Byzantius, lib II, contra Nestor. et Eutychet., et lib. De sect. haec

After the Conference of Constantinople, therefore, towards the end of the sixth century, Leontius of Byzantium, Book 2, Against Nestorius and Eutyches, and in his book On the Sects, attributed these

Editors' notes and page, col. 15

Page

running head: 15 S. DIONYSIUS AREO[PAGITA]
marginal letters: A mus, in eodem; B tra enim; C ctoris nostri; D Collatione Constantinopolitana
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: mus, in eodem opere (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); word split at start of column: mus; misprint kept as printed: anhibuerit (for adhibuerit), "comparationem, quae cuilibet obvia est, anhibuerit" (Q2; second letter may be a damaged d, UNSURE at this resolution)

PG 3:16

Opera Dionysio Areopagitae attribuit. Ante eum vero Ephraem patriarcha Antiochenus.

Works to Dionysius the Areopagite. And before him, Ephraim, patriarch of Antioch.

Circa initia saeculi septimi eadem fuit Gregorii Magni sententia homil. 34 in Evangel. Lucae. Eodem saeculo et Monothelitae haeretici, et Catholici omnes sive in synodis Lateranensi et Constantinopolitana generali, sive in scriptis suis eadem Opera Dionysio Areopagitae tribuunt et vindicant. Et quidem haeretici: Sergius epist. ad Cyrum patriarcham Alexandr.; Themistius epist. ad Marcellin. presbyt., et Steph. diac. Catholici vero: Sophronius patriarcha Hierosolym., epist. ad Serg.; Agatho papa, epist. ad Constant. Pogonat.; Maximus abbas et martyr, in scholiis. Item Adrianus I papa, epist. ad Carol. Magn. pro septima synodo. His adjungi potest Theodorus presbyter apud Photium in Biblioth., cod. II. Quamvis enim incomperta sit illius aetas, antiquissimus tamen esse creditur.

Around the beginning of the seventh century, the opinion of Gregory the Great was the same in Homily 34 on the Gospel of Luke. In the same century both the Monothelite heretics and all the Catholics, whether in the Lateran Synod and the General Synod of Constantinople, or in their own writings, attribute and vindicate the same Works to Dionysius the Areopagite. And the heretics indeed: Sergius, in his letter to Cyrus, patriarch of Alexandria; Themistius, in his letter to Marcellinus the presbyter, and Stephen the deacon. And the Catholics: Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, in his letter to Sergius; Pope Agatho, in his letter to Constantine Pogonatus; Maximus, abbot and martyr, in his scholia. Likewise Pope Adrian I, in his letter to Charlemagne on behalf of the Seventh Synod. To these may be joined Theodore the presbyter in Photius, in the Bibliotheca, cod. 2. For although his age is uncertain, yet he is believed to be very ancient.

Saeculo octavo, Joannes Damascenus lib. I Orthoxae fid., cap. 15, et lib. II, cap. 3; Michael Syngellus laudatus a Theodoro Studita lib. II, epist. 213; Anastas. Nissenus, Quaest. 52 et 52.

In the eighth century, John of Damascus, Book 1 of the Orthodox Faith, ch. 15, and Book 2, ch. 3; Michael Syncellus, praised by Theodore the Studite, Book 2, ep. 213; Anastasius of Nicaea, Questions 52 and 52.

Saeculo nono, Nicolaus I sum. pontif. epist. ad Michael. imperat.; Photius patriarcha Constantinop. in Bibl., cod. 231; Hilduinus abbas Sancti Dionysii in Areopagit.; Hincmarus archiep. Rem., epist. ad Carol. Calv.; Anastasius Biblioth., epist. ad eumdem.

In the ninth century, Nicholas I, supreme pontiff, in his letter to the Emperor Michael; Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, in the Bibliotheca, cod. 231; Hilduin, abbot of St. Denis, in his Areopagitica; Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, in his letter to Charles the Bald; Anastasius the Librarian, in his letter to the same.

Saeculo decimo, Simeon Metaphrastes, orat. De dormit. Deiparae. Huc quoque advocari forsitan possunt quidam incertae aetatis scriptores: Elias Cretensis in orat. 2 sancti Gregorii Nazianz.; Antonius Melissa, lib I, serm. 19, et alii nonnulli.

In the tenth century, Simeon Metaphrastes, in his oration On the Dormition of the Mother of God. Here also may perhaps be summoned certain writers of uncertain age: Elias of Crete, on Oration 2 of St. Gregory of Nazianzus; Antonius Melissa, Book 1, sermon 19, and several others.

Saeculo undecimo, Suidas in Collectaneis.

In the eleventh century, Suidas in his Lexicon.

Saeculo duodecimo, Euthymius Zigabenus monachus Panopl., tit. II; Hugo a Sancto Victore, Petrus Lombardus in II Sentent., et alii posteà theologi scholastici.

In the twelfth century, Euthymius Zigabenus the monk, in the Panoplia, tit. 2; Hugh of St. Victor, Peter Lombard on Book 2 of the Sentences, and other scholastic theologians afterwards.

Saeculo decimo tertio, Nicephorus Callistus, lib⟨.⟩ II Histor. eccles., cap. 20 et 22; D. Thomas Aqui⟨-⟩nas in II Sentent., dist. 10, quaest. 1, art. 12⟨;⟩ Georgius Pachymerius, scriptorum Dionysii para⟨-⟩phrastes.

In the thirteenth century, Nicephorus Callistus, Book 2 of the Ecclesiastical History, chs. 20 and 22; St. Thomas Aquinas on Book 2 of the Sentences, dist. 10, q. 1, art. 12; George Pachymeres, paraphrast of the writings of Dionysius.

Saeculo decimo quarto, Theodorus Prodromus.

In the fourteenth century, Theodore Prodromus.

Saeculo decimo quinto, Bessario cardinal., lib. Defens. Platon., cap. 3; Dionysius Carthusian. prae⟨-⟩fat. in Dionys. Areopag.

In the fifteenth century, Cardinal Bessarion, in his book In Defence of Plato, ch. 3; Dionysius the Carthusian, in his preface to Dionysius the Areopagite.

Saeculo decimo sexto, Facultas Theologiae Pari⟨-⟩siensis in comitiis Sorbonicis Lutherum et Era⟨-⟩smum, eadem scripta a Dionysio Areopagita pro⟨-⟩fecta esse negantes, damnavit, alterum anno 152⟨1,⟩ alterum anno 1527. Posterius decretum saepius ⟨in⟩ Erasmi, qui eo percellitur, Operibus omnibus pe⟨r-⟩vulgatum est, et cuilibet obvium. Prius vero, qu⟨o⟩ Lutherus proscribitur, hactenus ineditum, in So⟨r-⟩bonae libris, ex quibus illud transcripsimus, h⟨is⟩ verbis concipitur: Additur et haec ex libro de Ca⟨-⟩ptivit. Babylon. « In Dionysio, qui scripsit de coele⟨sti⟩ hierarchia, nihil ferme est solidae eruditionis:

In the sixteenth century, the Faculty of Theology of Paris in the assemblies of the Sorbonne condemned Luther and Erasmus for denying that the same writings proceeded from Dionysius the Areopagite, the one in the year 1521, the other in the year 1527. The latter decree has very often been published in all the Works of Erasmus, who is struck by it, and is obvious to anyone. But the former, whereby Luther is proscribed, hitherto unpublished, in the books of the Sorbonne, from which we have transcribed it, is couched in these words: There is added also this from the book On the Babylonian Captivity: "In Dionysius, who wrote on the celestial hierarchy, there is almost nothing of solid learning:

Editors' notes and page, col. 16

Page

running head: [S. DI]ONYSIUS AREOPAGITA 1⟨6⟩
marginal letters: A Opera Dionysio; B His adjungi; C possunt quidam; D Saeculo decimo quinto
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Opera Dionysio Areopagitae (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); letters at right margin slightly clipped by scan; misprint kept as printed: Orthoxae (for Orthodoxae), "lib. I Orthoxae fid." (Q2)

PG 3:17

omnia sunt illius meditata in praefato libro, ac somniis prope simillima. In Theologia autem mystica perniciosissimus est, platonizans, magis quam christianizans. In ecclesiastica vero hierarchia ludit allegoriis, quod est otiosorum hominum studium. » Haec propositio est falsa, temerarie et arroganter asserta, ac viro sancto, insigni eruditione claro, injuria, quem Damascenus divinum Areopagitam, Pauli discipulum acerrimum, et Dei loquentissimum appellat.

all those things have been pondered by him in the aforesaid book, and are almost most like to dreams. And in the Mystical Theology he is most pernicious, Platonizing rather than Christianizing. And in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy he plays with allegories, which is the pursuit of idle men." This proposition is false, rashly and arrogantly asserted, and injurious to a holy man, illustrious for distinguished learning, whom Damascene calls the divine Areopagite, the most zealous disciple of Paul, and most eloquent of God.

Atqui, inquiunt Areopagitici, verisimile nulli fiet tot tantosque ac tot per saecula doctissimos homines, concilia, summos pontifices, scriptores eruditos, tam parum accurati fuisse criterii, et omni ecclesiasticae historiae scientia ita orbatos; ut de aliorum horum scriptorum quaerendo auctore ne unquam quidem cogitaverint? Quis in eos tantam oscitantiam, supinitatem, caecitatem cadere potuisse sibi unquam persuadeat? Tot ergo auctoribus scientia, dignitate, auctoritate praestantissimis hanc tanti erroris notam inurere nefas esse nulli plane non videbitur.

And yet, say the Areopagitics, will it become probable to anyone that so many and so great and most learned men through so many centuries, councils, supreme pontiffs, learned writers, were of so little accurate judgement, and so bereft of all knowledge of ecclesiastical history, that they never even thought of inquiring after another author of these writings? Who could ever persuade himself that such negligence, indolence, and blindness could have fallen upon them? To brand so many authors, most eminent in knowledge, dignity, and authority, with this mark of so great an error will plainly seem to everyone to be an impiety.

CAPUT V.

Chapter V.

Responsiones Antiareopagiticorum, et praecipua eorum adversus hanc traditionem argumenta discutiuntur.

The replies of the Anti-Areopagitics, and their principal arguments against this tradition, are discussed.

Qui haec scripta germanum Dionysii Areopagitae opus esse negant, aiunt ex hujuscemodi traditionibus ut aliquid certi concludi possit, constantes eas esse debere et omnino perpetuas. At hanc de scriptis illis, Dionysio Areopagitae tribuendis traditionem nec constantem fuisse nec perpetuam, tribus potissimum argumentis demonstrari posse contendunt.

Those who deny that these writings are the genuine work of Dionysius the Areopagite say that, in order that anything certain may be concluded from traditions of this sort, they ought to be constant and altogether perpetual. But they contend that it can be demonstrated by three arguments above all that this tradition of attributing those writings to Dionysius the Areopagite was neither constant nor perpetual.

Primum est, quod haec eadem scripta, quae propter auctoris nomen, et res sacras, ac plane divinas, quae in eis pertractantur, celeberrima esse debebant, et omnibus Christianis notissima, per tria tamen priora Ecclesiae saecula nulli omnino cognita fuerunt, sed altissimo praetermissa silentio, tenebrisque obruta densissimis.

The first is that these same writings, which on account of the author's name and the sacred and plainly divine things which are treated in them ought to have been most celebrated and best known to all Christians, were nevertheless through the first three centuries of the Church known to no one at all, but passed over in the deepest silence, and buried in the thickest darkness.

Quid quod, ii qui per ea tempora de Dionysio Areopagita aliquid memoriae mandarunt, vel qui accuratissimos scriptorum ecclesiasticorum ediderunt catalogos, puta Dionysius Corinthius, Eusebius, Hieronymus, nullam vel epistolarum vel librorum ejus mentionem unquam fecerunt.

What of the fact that those who during those times committed anything to memory concerning Dionysius the Areopagite, or who published the most accurate catalogues of ecclesiastical writers, for instance Dionysius of Corinth, Eusebius, and Jerome, never made any mention either of his letters or of his books?

Denique ii qui errores et haereses his in scriptis explosas confutant, nimirum Irenaeus, Tertullianus, Cyprianus, atque alii; vel qui in iisdem ac auctor noster argumentis sive fidei, sive disciplinae ecclesiasticae tractandis desudarunt, nullibi scripta ejus ad lites suas dirimendas, ad confutandas haereses, ad veritatem astruendam efficacissima et plane necessaria, citasse unquam leguntur.

Finally, those who refute the errors and heresies exploded in these writings, namely Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and others; or who laboured in treating the same subjects, whether of faith or of ecclesiastical discipline, as our author, are nowhere read ever to have cited his writings, though most efficacious and plainly necessary for settling their disputes, for refuting heresies, and for establishing the truth.

Secundum eorum momentum inde eruitur, quod iis etiam saeculis quibus opinio de his scriptis Dionysio adjudicandis invaluit, aliqui variis temporibus

Their second point is elicited from the fact that even in those centuries in which the opinion of adjudging these writings to Dionysius prevailed, there were at various times

Editors' notes and page, col. 17

Page

running head: 17 PROLEGOMENA.
marginal letters: A omnia sunt; B ne unquam; C scriptis illis; D bius, Hieronymus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: omnia sunt illius (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); word split at column break: tem-

PG 3:18

nec ineruditi nec ignobiles exstiterunt viri, qui eam aut dubiam esse dixerunt, aut veram esse penitus inficiati sunt.

some men, neither unlearned nor ignoble, who either said that it was doubtful, or utterly denied that it was true.

Tertium denique argumentum ex eo depromitur, quod re maturius discussa, et ad severioris critices normam diligentius examinata, opinio illa ab omnibus fere hujusce aetatis scriptoribus, si paucos tantum excipias, rejecta tandem et explosa fuerit.

The third argument, finally, is drawn from the fact that when the matter was more maturely discussed, and more diligently examined according to the standard of stricter criticism, that opinion was at length rejected and exploded by almost all writers of this age, if one excepts only a few.

Contra tamen Areopagitici nec recentiorum criticorum, nec aliorum quorumdam antiquiorum sententiam, tot scriptorum a se citatorum judicio praeferendam esse clamant. Non diffitentur tamen nullam Operum Dionysii apud antiquissimos scriptores fieri mentionem: sed argumentum illud negativum esse dicunt, ac proinde ex illo nihil quidquam posse confici.

On the other hand, however, the Areopagitics cry out that neither the opinion of more recent critics, nor that of certain others among the ancients, is to be preferred to the judgement of so many writers cited by them. Yet they do not deny that no mention of the Works of Dionysius is made among the most ancient writers: but they say that that argument is negative, and accordingly nothing at all can be established from it.

Verum instant adversarii, atque ex hac eorum confessione urgent illam tot scriptorum traditionem, quae per tria priora Ecclesiae saecula penitus deficit, infirmam omnino esse, fractam et debilitatam. Cui vero, inquiunt, probabile fiet haec tanti momenti tantique auctoris scripta ita fuisse deperdita, ut tam longo temporis spatio summa omnium oblivione sepelirentur? Enimvero hi libri ad Timotheum, quo eos cum aliis omnibus Christianae fidei sacramento initiatis, communicaret, ab auctore missi sunt. Atqui si res ita se habeat, Timotheus procul dubio ut ii non solum fidelibus Christianis, sed etiam clericis, ac praecipue episcopis mitterentur traderenturque curare debuit. Hi vero praecipere debuerunt, ut juxta antiquum Ecclesiae morem eosdem vel apud se, vel in sacris Ecclesiarum scriniis asservandi transcriberentur. Certum insuper videtur aliquod eorum exemplar a Dionysio ipso Ecclesiae suae Atheniensi fuisse relictum. Quis ergo inficiabitur eos statim ut Dionysius mortuus est, celeberrimos esse debuisse, et omnibus notissimos?

But their opponents press on, and from this confession of theirs urge that that tradition of so many writers, which through the first three centuries of the Church utterly fails, is altogether weak, broken, and debilitated. For to whom, say they, will it become probable that these writings of such moment and of so great an author were so lost that for so long a space of time they were buried in the deepest oblivion of all? For indeed these books were sent by the author to Timothy, in order that he might communicate them to all others initiated into the sacrament of the Christian faith. Yet if the matter be so, Timothy without doubt ought to have taken care that they should be sent and handed over not only to faithful Christians, but also to clerics, and especially to bishops. And these ought to have commanded that, according to the ancient custom of the Church, the same should be transcribed to be preserved either with themselves or in the sacred archives of the Churches. Moreover, it seems certain that some copy of them was left by Dionysius himself to his Church of Athens. Who therefore will deny that as soon as Dionysius died they ought to have been most celebrated and best known to all?

Sed haec non morantur Pachymerem. Is quippe nullus dubitat haec Opera cognita fuisse paganis et ab eis occultata, ut suo post haec nomine illa publicarent, et eorum patres viderentur. Sciendum est, inquit, aliquos externos philosophos, praesertim Proclum, contemplationibus beati Dionysii frequenter usum fuisse, atque adeo etiam meris ipsis dictionibus. Inde licet opinari veteres philosophos Athenienses ipsius opera vindicantes occultasse, ut ipsi divinorum ejus librorum patres viderentur. Unde concludit eos per unius et alterius saeculi spatium facile abscondi potuisse et occultari.

Yet these things do not give pause to Pachymeres. For he has no doubt at all that these Works were known to the pagans and hidden by them, so that afterwards they might publish them under their own name, and seem to be their fathers. It must be known, says he, that some external philosophers, especially Proclus, frequently used the contemplations of the blessed Dionysius, and even his very words themselves. Hence one may suppose that the ancient Athenian philosophers, claiming his works for themselves, hid them, so that they themselves might seem to be the fathers of his divine books. Whence he concludes that through the space of one and a second century they could easily have been hidden away and concealed.

At tametsi illud certum esset et verissimum, non inde tamen vis argumenti ullo plane modo minui⟨-⟩tur. Quamvis enim et philosophi, atque etiam hae⟨-⟩retici omnes, quod vix quidem est credibile, de occultandis Dionysii Operibus conjurassent, vel in eorum etiam conspirassent exstinctionem, in plura tamen eorum exemplaria, quae penes Christianos,

Yet even though that were certain and most true, nevertheless the force of the argument is plainly in no way diminished thereby. For although both the philosophers and also all the heretics, which indeed is scarcely credible, had conspired to hide the Works of Dionysius, or had even plotted for their extinction, nevertheless against the many copies of them which were in the hands of Christians,

Editors' notes and page, col. 18

Footnotes

(4) ‹anchor: inquit› · call in col 18

Prooem. in Dionysii Opera.

Proem to the Works of Dionysius.

(printed under page 15)

Page

running head: [PR]OLEGOMENA. 18
marginal letters: A poribus nec; B confici.; C mitterentur traderenturque; D usum fuisse
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: poribus nec ineruditi (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); word split at start of column: poribus

PG 3:19

maxime vero episcopos, vel in quarumdam Ecclesiarum scriniis servari debebant, nec invadere potuerunt, nec ea illis eripere. Quid quod, cum illa scripta saeculo sexto producta sunt, omnes incredibili applausu ea exceperunt, plurimi magno quidem descripserunt labore, ac quidam etiam illa et notis illustrarunt et scholiis? Cur ergo Dionysii tempore eumdem applausum similemque admirationem non excitaverunt? Cur statim atque aspexerunt lucem, illico in tantas obscuritatis latebras fuerunt amandata?

and above all of bishops, or ought to have been preserved in the archives of certain Churches, they could neither have made an inroad nor snatched them away from them. What of the fact that when those writings were brought forth in the sixth century, all received them with incredible applause, very many transcribed them with great labour indeed, and some even illustrated them both with notes and with scholia? Why therefore in the time of Dionysius did they not excite the same applause and the like admiration? Why, as soon as they beheld the light, were they straightway consigned to such hiding-places of obscurity?

Quidam Areopagitici aiunt illa quidem aliquandiu sparsa fuisse in vulgus, sed omnia eorum exemplaria ab Arianis, qui suos in iis errores damnari videbant, vel occultata, vel sublata e medio. At his pariter opponitur illa saltem exemplaria quae apud orthodoxos et in eorum Ecclesiis servabantur, ab Arianis nec potuisse abscondi nec auferri. Et certe non minor erat Catholicorum, ad ea scripta, quibus orthodoxae veritatis astruebantur, manifestanda ardor et studium, quam haereticorum ad eadem abolenda sollicitudo et audacia. Adde, si velis, quod Ariani hujusce fraudis, vel ab iis qui eorum haeresim ejurabant, vel a quibusdam catholicis scriptoribus fuissent aliquando insimulati atque etiam convicti.

Certain Areopagitics say that they were indeed dispersed among the public for some time, but that all the copies of them were either hidden or taken out of the way by the Arians, who saw their own errors condemned in them. But to these it is likewise objected that at least those copies which were preserved among the orthodox and in their Churches could neither have been hidden nor taken away by the Arians. And certainly no less was the ardour and zeal of the Catholics for manifesting those writings whereby the truths of the orthodox faith were established, than the solicitude and audacity of the heretics for abolishing the same. Add, if you will, that the Arians would at some time have been accused and even convicted of this fraud, either by those who abjured their heresy, or by certain Catholic writers.

Quapropter alii Areopagitae defensores has lucubrationes, utpote de rebus difficillimis et obscurissimis tractantes, ac elato turgidoque et obscuro exaratas stylo, a tam paucis fuisse pervolutatas affirmant, ut cito longam venerint in oblivionem. Sed illa responsio ipsis auctoris nostri verbis funditus everti arguitur. Ille namque aperte declarat se suum De divinis nominibus librum, in quo de rebus sublimioribus et difficilioribus disputat, stylo simpliciori clariorique conscripsisse ut ea Christianos minus perfectos doceret, quae Timotheus perfectioribus, et iis qui sublimiora capiunt, tradiderat: Quapropter, inquit ille, nos quoque seu perfectorum seniliumque sensuum magistrum, alterasque scripturas, quae divinitus afflatorum scripta proxime assequuntur, iis qui sublimiora capiunt, illum assignamus: nos vero nostri similibus ad captum nostrum res divinas explanavimus... sermonum vero introductoriorum, seu inferioris notae scientiam ac disciplinam initiantibus, atque initiatis convenire... ne pro modulo nostro illos, quibus sublimiora nobis contemplandi facultas deest, adminiculo destitutos pateremur, ad scribendum animum appulimus. Longe ergo a scopo ille aberrasset, si cothurno tragico, ut opinantur Areopagitici, ampullisque et verbis ad pompam effictis turgidior ejus oratio, omnibus ita difficilis esset et obscura, ut a librorum ejus lectione fuissent quilibet deterriti.

Wherefore other defenders of the Areopagite affirm that these treatises, inasmuch as they treat of things most difficult and most obscure, and are written in an elevated, turgid, and obscure style, were perused by so few that they quickly fell into a long oblivion. But that reply is proved to be utterly overthrown by the very words of our author. For he openly declares that he wrote his book On the Divine Names, in which he disputes of things more sublime and more difficult, in a simpler and clearer style in order that he might teach the less perfect Christians those things which Timothy had handed down to the more perfect, and to those who grasp more sublime things: Wherefore, says he, we also assign him, as a master of perfect and mature understandings, and as second scriptures which follow closest upon the writings of the divinely inspired, to those who grasp things more sublime: whereas we have explained divine things to those like ourselves according to our own capacity... for the knowledge and discipline of introductory discourses, or those of a lower stamp, suit those who initiate and the initiated... lest so far as in us lies we should suffer those who lack the faculty of contemplating things more sublime than ourselves to be destitute of aid, we have applied our mind to writing. Far therefore would he have strayed from his aim, if his speech, swollen with tragic buskin, as the Areopagitics suppose, and with bombast and words fashioned for pomp, had been so difficult and obscure to all that everyone would have been deterred from reading his books.

Caeterum quantumvis elata et difficilis sit auctoris nostri oratio, cur ejus libri antiquioribus

Besides, however elevated and difficult be the speech of our author, why were his books by the more ancient

Editors' notes and page, col. 19

Footnotes

(4*) ‹anchor: inquit ille› · call in col 19 [the call is printed as a numeral followed by a small mark (4' or 4*); the page check reads 4 with a raised mark, an asterisk or a dot] De divin. nomin., cap. 3, § 2.

On the Divine Names, ch. 3, § 2.

(printed under page 16)

Page

running head: 19 S. DIONYSIUS AREOP[AGITA.]
marginal letters: A maxime vero; B his pariter; C affirmant, ut; D scientiam ac
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: maxime vero episcopos (Le Nourry's Dissertatio)

PG 3:20

secundo et tertio saeculo Christianis, neque eodem ac aliis postea fuerunt in pretio, neque eadem cura perlecti et asservati? Nunquid his hominibus post tot annorum et plurium saeculorum spatium facti sunt clariores, majorisque ponderis et auctoritatis? Certe liber De hierarchia ecclesiastica, ubi disseritur de sacramentis eorumque caeremoniis, quae quotidiano erant in usu, quaeque omnibus saepissime explicabantur, nulli obscurior esse debebat, poteratque ab omnibus haud difficulter intelligi. Debuit ergo antiquissimis Christianis charus esse, et eorum teri manibus; atque illius idcirco debuit saltem aliquando apud primos Ecclesiae scriptores fieri mentio.

Christians in the second and third centuries neither held in the same esteem as by others afterwards, nor perused and preserved with the same care? Did they after the space of so many years and several centuries become clearer to these men, and of greater weight and authority? Certainly the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, wherein discourse is held concerning the sacraments and their ceremonies, which were in daily use, and which were very often explained to all, ought not to have been obscure to anyone, and could have been understood by all without difficulty. It ought therefore to have been dear to the most ancient Christians, and worn by their hands; and on that account mention of it ought to have been made at least sometimes among the first writers of the Church.

Haec quidem cum ab aequioribus Areopagiticis negari non possint, alio responsionem suam derivant, aiuntque in veterum auctorum more non fuisse ut ad suorum dogmatum confirmationem aliorum testimonia adhiberent, nisi id haereticorum pertinacia ab ipsis extorqueret: imo adversus fidei hostes certamen ex solis divinarum litterarum testimoniis instruebant. Hinc... nec Athanasius ipse Patrum auctoritatibus ad Arianorum debellationem usus est, etc.

Since indeed these things cannot be denied by the fairer Areopagitics, they turn their reply in another direction, and say that it was not the custom of the ancient authors to employ the testimonies of others for the confirmation of their dogmas, unless the obstinacy of heretics extorted it from them: nay, they drew up their battle against the enemies of the faith from the testimonies of the divine scriptures alone. Hence... not even Athanasius himself used the authorities of the Fathers for the overthrow of the Arians, etc.

Si res ita se habeat, urgent eorum adversarii, profecto Dionysius Areopagita Operum, quae illi tribuuntur, auctor dici non potest. Ille siquidem non solum plura magistri sui fragmenta descripsit, sed aliorum etiam citat auctoritatem, sententias et verba, puta Ignatii, Justi, Bartholomaei, Clementis philosophi, nec non Carpi visionem. Quid plura? Aliorum etiam opiniones refert, ac eas quas veriores esse putat, ipse amplectitur.

If the matter be so, urge their opponents, Assuredly Dionysius the Areopagite cannot be called the author of the Works which are attributed to him. For he not only transcribed several fragments of his master, but also cites the authority, opinions, and words of others, for instance of Ignatius, Justus, Bartholomew, Clement the philosopher, and also the vision of Carpus. Why say more? He also relates the opinions of others, and himself embraces those which he thinks to be truer.

Praeterea autem, cur Irenaeus, Tertullianus, aliique Patres variis Dionysii Areopagitae, sicut et aliorum decessorum suorum testimoniis adversus sui temporis haereticos non utuntur? Nunquid haereticorum pervicacia haec posteriorum testimonia magis quam Dionysiana ab ipsis extorquebat? Nunquid ad eos confutandos minus ponderis aut efficacitatis habebat Dionysii Areopagitae quam aliorum auctoritas?

Moreover, why do Irenaeus, Tertullian, and other Fathers not use various testimonies of Dionysius the Areopagite, just as they use those of others of their predecessors, against the heretics of their own time? Did the obstinacy of the heretics extort from them these testimonies of the latter rather than those of Dionysius? Did the authority of Dionysius the Areopagite have less weight or efficacy for refuting them than that of the others?

CAPUT VI.

Chapter VI.

Aliud Antiareopagiticorum argumentum, ex Eusebii et Hieronymi silentio petitum, examinatur.

Another argument of the Anti-Areopagitics, drawn from the silence of Eusebius and Jerome, is examined.

Sed age, atque Areopagiticorum adversarios contra propositam eorum traditionem acrius urgentes audiamus. Dicunt itaque scripta Dionysii, quamvis omnibus aliis scriptoribus fuissent incognita, non potuisse tamen summam Eusebii, qui tot bibliothecarum et Ecclesiarum, maximeque Atheniensis, ubi summa cura asservari debebant, scrinia perlustraverat, et qui in inquirendis antiquiorum Operibus nulli pepercerat labori, diligentiam fugere. Atqui omnia auctoris nostri scripta Eusebio nota non fuisse inde patet, quod eorum nullibi unquam mentionem fecerit.

But come, let us hear the opponents of the Areopagitics pressing more sharply against the tradition propounded by them. They say accordingly that the writings of Dionysius, although they had been unknown to all other writers, could nevertheless not have escaped the supreme diligence of Eusebius, who had searched through the archives of so many libraries and Churches, and above all that of Athens, where they ought to have been preserved with the greatest care, and who had spared no labour in inquiring after the Works of the ancients. Yet that all the writings of our author were not known to Eusebius is plain from the fact that he nowhere ever made mention of them.

Editors' notes and page, col. 20

Page

running head: [S. DIO]NYSIUS AREOPAGITA. 20
marginal letters: A secundo et; B negari non; C philosophi, nec; D Sed age
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: secundo et tertio (Le Nourry's Dissertatio)

PG 3:21

Baronius, et scientia et purpura eminentissimus, aperte negat scripta Dionysii Eusebio fuisse penitus incomperta. Cur autem de iis Eusebius tacuerit, si ab eo quaesieris, respondet illum vafri versutique animi scriptorem, cum Arianam haeresim, cui favebat, his libris destrui videret, eos doloso fraudulentoque silentio praetermisisse. Verum haec doctissimi viri responsio Haloixio, Areopagiticorum acerrimo defensori, ita displicuit, ut eam non sine fastidio his verbis explodat: Nam quod aliqui dicunt eum id fraude fecisse, convicium puto. Quid enim ibi tam clarum pro aeterna Christi divinitate, quod non multo clarius in Scripturis sacris contentum sit..... nec beatum Irenaeum Filii cum Patre aeternam coexistentiam clarissime professum citaverunt. His autem addi potest honorificam non solum Irenaei, sed etiam Clementis Alexandrini, aliorumque plurimorum, quos Arianae haeresi plane contrarios esse suo loco ostendemus, apud Eusebium fieri mentionem.

Baronius, most eminent both in learning and in the purple, openly denies that the writings of Dionysius were utterly unknown to Eusebius. And if you ask him why Eusebius was silent concerning them, he replies that that writer of a crafty and wily mind, seeing the Arian heresy, which he favoured, destroyed by these books, passed them over in deceitful and fraudulent silence. But this reply of the most learned man so displeased Halloix, the fiercest defender of the Areopagitics, that not without disdain he explodes it in these words: For as to what some say, that he did this by fraud, I account it a slander. For what is there so clear for the eternal divinity of Christ which is not contained much more clearly in the Sacred Scriptures... nor did they cite the blessed Irenaeus, who most clearly professed the eternal coexistence of the Son with the Father. And to these things it may be added that honourable mention is made in Eusebius not only of Irenaeus, but also of Clement of Alexandria, and of very many others, whom we shall show in their proper place to be plainly contrary to the Arian heresy.

Quapropter contendunt alii ex illo Eusebii de Dionysii Operibus silentio nihil certi colligi posse, quandoquidem ille plures alios scriptores, et scriptis et doctrina celeberrimos, atque in primis Athenagoram, qui eximiam Christianae religionis Apologiam, et De mortuorum resurrectione librum ediderat, tacitus praetermisit. Quod si dixeris scripta Dionysii et auctoris nomine, et suo numero, ac ipsis quae tractantur argumentis longe caeteris omnibus saepius transcribi debuisse, variisque in locis multiplicari, responsum confestim accipies Athenagorae libros, tametsi forsitan breviores, qui a Christianis tamen describerentur et multiplicarentur non minus dignos videri. Verum opponunt Antiareopagitici quaedam in scriptis Dionysii occurrere, nimirum de sacris Scripturarum libris, de solis, moriente Christo, defectione, de obdormitione B. Mariae Virginis, aliaque bene multa, quae si in Eusebii notitiam venissent, ab eo nunquam praetermitti potuerunt.

Wherefore others contend that nothing certain can be gathered from that silence of Eusebius concerning the Works of Dionysius, seeing that he passed over in silence several other writers, most celebrated both for their writings and for their learning, and above all Athenagoras, who had published an excellent Apology for the Christian religion, and a book On the Resurrection of the Dead. And if you say that the writings of Dionysius, both by the name of the author, and by their number, and by the very subjects which are treated, ought to have been transcribed far more often than all the rest, and multiplied in various places, you will forthwith receive the reply that the books of Athenagoras, although perhaps briefer, nevertheless seem no less worthy to be transcribed and multiplied by Christians. But the Anti-Areopagitics object that certain things occur in the writings of Dionysius, namely concerning the sacred books of the Scriptures, concerning the eclipse of the sun when Christ was dying, concerning the dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and very many other things, which, had they come to the knowledge of Eusebius, could never have been passed over by him.

Idem nonnulli ex Hieronymi, praesertim in libro De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, silentio argumentum eliciunt. Inde enim concludunt Dionysii nostri lucubrationes ipsi incognitas fuisse, nec ante ejus tempora divulgatas. Quasi vero, inquiunt Areopagitici, alia non fuerit Hieronymiani silentii ratio? De iis enim tantum scriptoribus quos Eusebius commemoravit disputare constituerat. Sed id certis rationum firmamentis ab ipsis erat muniendum. Aliam quippe mentem sibi fuisse idem ipse Hieronymus aperte testatur, dum ingens inter se et eos qui de scriptoribus profanis catalogos ediderunt, discrimen intercedere his verbis significat: Illi veteres historias annalesque replicantes, posuerunt quasi de ingenti prato non parvam opusculi sui coronam texere. Ego quid acturus sum, qui nullum praevium sequens, pessimum, ut dicitur, magistrum memetipsum

Some elicit the same argument from the silence of Jerome, especially in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers. For thence they conclude that the treatises of our Dionysius were unknown to him, and not published before his times. As if indeed, say the Areopagitics, there were no other reason for Jerome's silence! For he had determined to treat only of those writers whom Eusebius had commemorated. Yet that ought to have been fortified by them with sure supports of reasons. For Jerome himself openly testifies that he had another intention, while he signifies in these words that a vast difference intervenes between himself and those who published catalogues of profane writers: They, unrolling ancient histories and annals, were able as if from a vast meadow to weave no small garland for their little work. What am I to do, who, following no predecessor, have, as the saying goes, the worst master, myself:

Editors' notes and page, col. 21

Footnotes

(?) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 21 [note numeral printed 8, called at explodat, as read on the page] Quaest. 3 de Oper. S. Dionysii.

Question 3 on the Works of St Dionysius.

(?) ‹anchor: aperte testatur› · call in col 21 [call printed as a numeral with a small mark after it; the page check reads 8 with a small mark after it (8*)] De script. eccles. Prolog.

On Ecclesiastical Writers, Prologue.

(?) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 22 at disserit [note numeral not legible, 6 or 8 on the page check, printed at the foot of col 22] Ibid.

Ibid.

(printed under page 17)

Page

running head: 21 PROLEGOMENA.
marginal letters: A Baronius, et; B runt. His; C multiplicari, responsum; D gitici, alia
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Baronius, et scientia (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); word split at column break: me-

PG 3:22

habeo: quanquam eusebius Pamphili in decem ecclesiasticae Historiae libris maximo nobis adjumento fuerit. Ibi enim non obscure declarat se nullum praevium magistrum habuisse, atque Eusebium ipsi tantum maximo fuisse adjumento. Et re quidem vera, sanctus ille doctor quorumdam auctorum meminit quorum nulla exstat apud Eusebium commemoratio.

although Eusebius Pamphili in the ten books of his Ecclesiastical History has been of the greatest assistance to us. For there he declares not obscurely that he had no previous master, and that Eusebius was only of the greatest assistance to him. And in actual fact, that holy doctor makes mention of certain authors of whom no commemoration exists in Eusebius.

At validius forsitan telum inde contra quosdam Antiareopagiticos torquebitur, qui haec Dionysii Opera ante Hieronymi aetatem edita esse confitentur: hinc quippe conficitur illa Hieronymo, quamvis de iis tacuerit, potuisse nota fieri. Verum illi hoc telo minime se feriri arbitrantur; utpote qui paulo ante Hieronymi tempus ea in lucem prodiisse asserant. Quapropter haec, inquiunt, Dionysii Opera in Hieronymi notitiam non venerunt, atque illa in eorum numero sunt censenda de quibus hunc in modum disserit: Si qui autem de iis qui usque hodie scripti sunt, a me in hoc volumine praetermissi sunt, sibi magis quam mihi imputare debebunt. Neque enim celantes scripta sua, de his quae non legi, nosse potui; et quod aliis forsitan sit notum, mihi in hoc terrarum angulo fuerit ignotum. Certe cum scriptis suis claruerint, non magnopere nostri silentii dispendia suspirabunt.

Yet perhaps a more valid dart will thence be hurled against certain Anti-Areopagitics, who confess that these Works of Dionysius were published before the age of Jerome: for hence it is established that they could have become known to Jerome, although he was silent concerning them. But they judge that they are not at all struck by this dart, inasmuch as they assert that they came forth to the light a little before the time of Jerome. Wherefore, say they, these Works of Dionysius did not come to the knowledge of Jerome, and they are to be reckoned in the number of those concerning which he discourses in this manner: But if any of those who are writing even up to today have been passed over by me in this volume, they ought to impute it to themselves rather than to me. For I could not know those who conceal their own writings, apart from the things which I have not read; and what is perhaps known to others may have been unknown to me in this corner of the earth. Certainly, when they have become illustrious by their writings, they will not greatly sigh over the losses of our silence.

Contra vero Areopagitici suum in adversarios ita retorquebunt argumentum. Nunquid haec eadem scripta, quae, ipsis fatentibus, statim atque emissa sunt in lucem, omnibus notissima esse coeperunt, soli Hieronymo incognita fuere? Sed nequidquam clamant alii, id retorquetur. Certum quippe est, inquiunt, scripta Dionysii non ab omnibus eodem modo eodemque tempore fuisse agnita. Atque inde concludunt Hieronymo, in angulo terrarum suum cum exararet librum, delitescenti nihil quidquam de iis recentissime publicatis fuisse compertum.

On the other hand, however, the Areopagitics will thus retort their argument against their opponents: Were these same writings, which, as they themselves confess, began to be best known to all as soon as they were sent forth into the light, unknown to Jerome alone? But in vain, cry the others, is this retorted. For it is certain, say they, that the writings of Dionysius were not recognized by all in the same way and at the same time. And thence they conclude that nothing at all concerning these very recently published works was ascertained by Jerome while he lay hid in a corner of the earth writing his book.

CAPUT VII.

Chapter VII.

De iis scriptoribus qui post publicata Opera Dionysii, ea dubia aut adulterina esse putaverunt.

Concerning those writers who, after the Works of Dionysius were published, thought them doubtful or spurious.

Aliud contra Areopagiticorum traditionem momentum est, quod illa tam alto tamque diuturno tot scriptorum de Dionysii scriptis silentio non solum capite imminuta sit, verum inde etiam concutiatur quod ex tempore quo scripta illa pro Dionysianis haberi coeperunt, inventi sint identidem scriptores aliqui qui id praefracte negaverunt. Et illud quidem primum probari posse putant ex Hypatio, qui in Collatione Constantinopolitana Severianis Operum Dionysii auctoritatem objicientibus sic respondet: Illa testimonia quae vos Dionysii Areopagitae esse dicitis, unde potestis ostendere vera esse, sicut suspicamini? si enim ejus erant, non potuissent latere beatum Cyrillum. Quid autem de beato Cyrillo dico? quando beatus Athanasius, si pro certo scisset ejus fuisse, ante omnia in Nicaeno concilio

Another point against the tradition of the Areopagitics is that it is not only impaired in its head by that so deep and so long-lasting silence of so many writers concerning the writings of Dionysius, but is also shaken by the fact that from the time when those writings began to be held as Dionysian, there were repeatedly found some writers who steadfastly denied it. And they think that this can first be proved from Hypatius, who in the Conference of Constantinople thus replies to the Severians when they object the authority of the Works of Dionysius: Those testimonies which you say belong to Dionysius the Areopagite, whence can you show that they are true, as you suspect? For if they were his, they could not have escaped the notice of the blessed Cyril. Yet why do I speak of the blessed Cyril, when the blessed Athanasius, if he had known for certain that they were his, would above all in the Nicene Council

Editors' notes and page, col. 22

Page

running head: [P]ROLEGOMENA. 22
marginal letters: A metipsum habeo; B asserant. Quapropter; C soli Hieronymo; D lum capite
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: metipsum habeo (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); word split at start of column: metipsum; word split at end of column: con-, the page-17 foot note Ibid. is called in this column at disserit (numeral illegible, 6 or 8) and is set in n21 with the other notes of the page

PG 3:23

de consubstantiali Trinitate eadem testimonia protulisset adversus Arii diversae substantiae blasphemias. Si autem nullus ex antiquis recordatus est ea, unde nunc potestis ostendere quia illius sint, nescio. Ex his Hypatii verbis, Catholicorum nomine prolatis, duo colliguntur. Primum quidem nullam apud antiquos horum Operum factam mentionem. Atque ex illa sane Hipatii auctoritate priori argumento, ex silentio antiquiorum petito, non parum accedit roboris et firmamenti. Secundum vero, viros sexto saeculo peritissimos in ea fuisse opinione haec Opera adulterina esse, et falso Dionysii Areopagitae nomine inscripta.

concerning the consubstantial Trinity have brought forward the same testimonies against the blasphemies of Arius concerning a different substance? But if none of the ancients remembered them, whence you can now show that they are his, I know not. From these words of Hypatius, uttered in the name of the Catholics, two things are gathered: first, indeed, that no mention of these Works was made among the ancients; and from that authority of Hypatius no small strength and support accrues to the former argument drawn from the silence of the ancients; second, that the most skilled men in the sixth century were of the opinion that these Works are spurious, and falsely inscribed with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite.

Saeculo sequenti divus Maximus, acerrimus eorumdem Operum defensor, fatetur illa a quibusdam Apollinari, ab aliis Dionysio Alexandrino attribui.

In the following century St. Maximus, the fiercest defender of the same Works, confesses that they were attributed by some to Apollinaris, and by others to Dionysius of Alexandria.

Saeculo nono Theodorus presbyter, teste Photio, librum quo eadem Opera genuinum Dionysii fetum esse probaret, conscripsit. Sed cur, amabo, ad ea Dionysio asserenda stylum convertit, nisi quia de illis inter eruditos quaestio erat et controversia? quid vero quod Photius ipse ex hoc libro quatuor tantum descripsit argumenta, quibus potissimum illa Opera Dionysio supposita esse demonstrabantur? Inde enim quidam inferunt Photium ipsum eidem sententiae subscripsisse. Et certe Possevinus, iste Areopagiticorum assertor, de ea Photii opinione sic pronuntiat: Opera B. Dionysii ut pseudepigrapha videntur ab eo notari.

In the ninth century Theodore the presbyter, as Photius testifies, wrote a book wherein he sought to prove that the same Works are the genuine offspring of Dionysius. But why, pray, did he turn his pen to vindicating them for Dionysius, unless because there was question and controversy concerning them among the learned? And what of the fact that Photius himself transcribed from this book only the four arguments whereby above all those Works were demonstrated to be falsely attributed to Dionysius? For thence some infer that Photius himself subscribed to the same opinion. And certainly Possevinus, that champion of the Areopagitics, pronounces thus concerning that opinion of Photius: The Works of Blessed Dionysius seem to be marked by him as pseudepigraphal.

Denique saeculo decimo quinto et sequentibus, ubi haec quaestio diligentius agitari coepit, critici doctiores, paucissimis tantum exceptis, omnia haec Opera Dionysio Areopagitae plane penitusque abjudicarunt.

Finally, in the fifteenth and following centuries, when this question began to be more diligently debated, the more learned critics, with only a very few exceptions, plainly and utterly denied all these Works to Dionysius the Areopagite.

His omnibus reclamant Areopagitici, aiuntque Opera Dionysii in Collatione Constantinopolitana fuisse primum quidem repudiata; sed ubi Patres rem examinarunt maturius, illa eadem tanquam vera et germana tanti viri scripta ambabus ulnis amplexati sunt. Quod ad caeteros attinet, ii certe, inquiunt, paucissimi per tot saeculorum intervalla occurrunt; nec illi procul dubio cum tot conciliorum et Sorbonae decretis, summis pontificibus, Patribus aliisque scriptoribus, qui haec scripta Dionysio adjudicant vel numero, vel eruditione, vel auctoritate comparandi, multo minus anteponendi videntur. Quod si et summos pontifices, et Ecclesiae Patres, aliosque omnes et caecitatis et erroris arguere audeas, nonne praestat cum tot tantisque viris in errorem, si ita loqui fas est, induci, quam quorumdam criticorum, forsitan audaciorum, opinionem illorum praeferre judicio?

Against all these things the Areopagitics protest, and say that the Works of Dionysius in the Conference of Constantinople were indeed at first rejected; but when the Fathers examined the matter more maturely, they embraced those same Works with both arms as the true and genuine writings of so great a man. As for the rest, they certainly, say they, occur in very small numbers across the intervals of so many centuries; nor without doubt do they seem comparable, much less preferable, either in number, or in learning, or in authority, to the decrees of so many councils and of the Sorbonne, to supreme pontiffs, Fathers, and other writers who adjudge these writings to Dionysius. And if you dare to accuse both supreme pontiffs, and Fathers of the Church, and all others of blindness and error, is it not better to be led into error, if it be lawful so to speak, with so many and so great men, than to prefer the opinion of certain critics, perhaps overly bold, to their judgement?

Instant tamen adversae partis sectatores omnem hujus responsionis, quantumlibet ponderis habere videatur, vim roburque duplici ex causa omnino frangi et debilitari. Primo quidem quia objecta

Nevertheless, the followers of the opposite party insist that the whole force and strength of this reply, however much weight it may seem to have, is altogether broken and weakened for a twofold reason. First, indeed, because the objected

Editors' notes and page, col. 23

Footnotes

(7) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 23

Bibl. cod. 1.

Bibliotheca, codex 1.

(printed under page 18)

(8) ‹anchor: Possevinus› · call in col 23

Apparat. sacer, verbo Photius.

Apparatus sacer, under the entry "Photius".

(printed under page 18)

Page

running head: 23 S. DIONYSIUS AREOP[AGITA.]
marginal letters: A cilio de; B dam Apollinari; C ut pseudepigrapha; D Patribus aliisque
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: cilio de consubstantiali (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); word split at start of column: cilio

PG 3:24

auctorum traditio nec perpetua est, nec constans; quippe quae, uti probavimus, per priora post Dionysii aetatem saecula, quod primum praecipuumque requiritur, omnino deficiat. Secundo, neque concilia neque summi pontifices, lata aliquando lege, haec Opera germanum Dionysii Areopagitae opus esse sanciverunt, sed illa eo duntaxat nomine, quo inscripta erant, laudasse perhibentur. Nulla ergo temeritatis nota iis inurenda esse videtur, qui, omnibus utriusque partis rationibus aequa lance ponderatis, opinioni illi quam probabiliorem judicant, adhaerendum esse censuerint.

tradition of authors is neither perpetual nor constant, inasmuch as through the first centuries after the age of Dionysius, as we have proved, it altogether fails in that which is first and chiefly required. Second, neither councils nor supreme pontiffs, by any law ever enacted, have sanctioned that these Works are the genuine work of Dionysius the Areopagite, but are held to have cited them merely by that name wherewith they were inscribed. No mark of rashness, therefore, seems to be branded upon those who, having weighed all the reasons of both sides in an equal balance, have judged that they ought to adhere to that opinion which they judge the more probable.

Porro ad decreta Sorbonica, a nobis jam citata, quod spectat, negari quidem non potest posteriore adversus Erasmum edicto illum aliosque perstringi, qui, spreta clarorum virorum, id est antiquorum Ecclesiae Patrum, auctoritate, omnia Dionysii nostri Opera temerario sane et imprudenti novitatum studio Areopagitae plane penitusque abjudicabant. At priore contra Lutherum decreto, is ea potissimum de causa, et meritissimo quidem jure condemnatur, quod, impietate impudentiaque intolerabili, non solum usurpatam ab auctore nostro ex sui temporis ingenio et more scribendi methodum, sed traditam quoque ab ipso orthodoxae fidei doctrinam vir audacissimus conculcare et pessumdare ausus sit. Haec ergo Sorbonae decreta, inquiunt Antiareopagitici, nullam censoriae severitatis notam iis inurunt, qui, salvo semper debito Patribus honore et reverentia, nec temere, sed ratione et judicio, nec ullo novitatis studio, sed sincero veritatis amore, ab antiqua plurium, sed non omnium opinione recedunt.

Moreover, as regards the decrees of the Sorbonne already cited by us, it cannot indeed be denied that by the latter edict against Erasmus he and others are censured who, despising the authority of illustrious men, that is, of the ancient Fathers of the Church, out of a truly rash and imprudent zeal for novelties, plainly and utterly denied all the Works of our Dionysius to the Areopagite. But by the former decree against Luther, he is condemned above all for this reason, and by the most deserved right indeed, that with intolerable impiety and impudence the most audacious man dared to trample underfoot and destroy not only the method of writing adopted by our author from the genius and custom of his time, but also the doctrine of the orthodox faith handed down by him. These decrees of the Sorbonne, therefore, say the Anti-Areopagitics, brand no mark of censorial severity upon those who, saving always the honour and reverence due to the Fathers, withdraw from the ancient opinion of the many, though not of all, neither rashly, but with reason and judgement, nor out of any zeal for novelty, but out of a sincere love of truth.

CAPUT VIII.

Chapter VIII.

Argumenta ex ipsis auctoris Operibus desumpta expenduntur; ac primum argumenta Areopagiticorum.

The arguments taken from the very Works of the author are weighed; and first, the arguments of the Areopagitics.

Excussum est hactenus primum argumenti genus, quo Dionysii Opera ipsi aliorum auctoritate vel asseruntur, vel abjudicantur; nunc ad secundum, quod ex ipsismet illius Operibus petitur, examinandum accedamus. Illud autem utriusque partis fautores pro sua quique opinione militare arbitrantur. Et primo quidem, si Areopagiticis credas, materia Operum, stylus, locutio, ac denique scriptionis tempus, non alium eorum quam Dionysium Areopagitam parentem esse produnt. Materies namque seu argumentum lucubrationum Deus est, Trinitas, angeli, Ecclesia, Ecclesiae ministri, sacramenta; quae subtilem philosophum, magnumque theologum in sublimissimo argumento versantem arguunt et indicant. Stylus autem et locutio viri est in rebus divinis et sacris meditandis exercitati, qui voces novas ac singulares ad rerum, caeteroqui inexplicabilium, adumbrationem fingere et componere coactus est. Tempus denique scriptionis auctorem apostolis ipsis eorumque discipulis coaevum

We have thus far examined the first kind of argument, whereby the Works of Dionysius are either vindicated for him or denied to him by the authority of others; let us now proceed to examine the second, which is drawn from those very Works of his. Now the partisans of both sides think that this militates each for their own opinion. And first indeed, if you believe the Areopagitics, the matter of the Works, the style, the diction, and finally the time of writing betray no other parent of them than Dionysius the Areopagite. For the matter or subject of the treatises is God, the Trinity, the angels, the Church, the ministers of the Church, the sacraments; which prove and indicate a subtle philosopher and a great theologian engaged upon a most sublime subject. And the style and diction are those of a man practiced in meditating on divine and sacred things, who was compelled to fashion and compound new and singular words for the shadowing forth of things otherwise inexplicable. Finally, the time of writing shows the author to be coeval with the apostles themselves and their disciples

Editors' notes and page, col. 24

Page

running head: [S. DIO]NYSIUS AREOPAGITA. 24
marginal letters: A auctorum traditio; B gi, qui; C judicio, nec; D materia Operum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: auctorum traditio (Le Nourry's Dissertatio)

PG 3:25

aperte demonstrat. Etenim ille se solis, Christo patiente, defectionem vidisse, ac postea Pauli et Hierothei disciplinae traditum, deinde cum apostolis sacrae Virginis Mariae exsequiis et funeri interfuisse, ac tandem ad Joannem apostolum in insula Pathmos exsulantem litteras dedisse profitetur. Atqui haec omnia neque Dionysio Corinthio, neque Dionysio Alexandrino, neque ulli alii Dionysio, nisi Areopagitae conveniunt. Ille ergo solus horum Operum, quae nomen ejus in manuscriptis omnibus cum Graecis, tum Latinis praefixum semper habuerunt, parens et auctor dicendus est. Et certe nefas esse videtur istum auctorem in foedissimi mendacii, fallaciae et sacrilegae simulationis suspicionem vocare, quando quidem scripta ejus non solum ubique sanctitatem spirant, sed ea etiam cum in monasterium et urbem ejus nomine prope Parisios dicta, asportarentur, variis infirmitatibus in tanti viri honorem applicata, multis divinitus honestata sunt miraculis.

openly demonstrates. For he professes that he saw the eclipse of the sun when Christ was suffering, and afterwards was delivered to the instruction of Paul and Hierotheus, next was present with the apostles at the obsequies and funeral of the sacred Virgin Mary, and finally sent a letter to John the Apostle while an exile in the island of Patmos. Yet all these things suit neither Dionysius of Corinth, nor Dionysius of Alexandria, nor any other Dionysius save the Areopagite. He alone, therefore, is to be called the parent and author of these Works, which have always had his name prefixed in all manuscripts, both Greek and Latin. And certainly it seems impious to call this author into suspicion of the foulest falsehood, deceit, and sacrilegious simulation, seeing that his writings not only everywhere breathe sanctity, but also when they were brought into the monastery and city called by his name near Paris, being applied to various infirmities in honour of so great a man, were divinely graced with many miracles.

Qui vero ex adversa stant parte, hi respondent materiam operis ab alio aeque ac Dionysio Areopagita tractari potuisse, stylum autem et locutionem Dionysii Areopagitae his in scriptis deprehendi plane penitusque inficiantur. Fatentur quidem auctorem nonnulla iis inseruisse quibus se apostolorum temporibus vixisse, et Pauli discipulum fuisse incautis simplicioribus persuaderet; sed contendunt plura in iisdem Operibus imprudenter ab eo adjecta, quibus ea longe post apostolorum et Dionysii Areopagitae aetatem prodiisse invicte demonstratur. Utrum autem id, uti opinantur, certis rationum momentis probare possint, a nobis est accurate ponderandum.

But those who stand on the opposite side reply that the matter of the work could have been treated by another just as well as by Dionysius the Areopagite, while they plainly and utterly deny that the style and diction of Dionysius the Areopagite are detected in these writings. They confess indeed that the author inserted several things in them whereby he might persuade the unwary and simpler sort that he lived in the times of the apostles and was a disciple of Paul; but they contend that more things were imprudently added by him in the same Works whereby it is invincibly demonstrated that they came forth long after the age of the apostles and of Dionysius the Areopagite. Whether, however, they can prove this, as they suppose, by sure weights of reasons, must be accurately weighed by us.

CAPUT IX.

Chapter IX.

Argumenta Antiareopagiticorum examinantur; et primum quidem, inde ductum quod libri Timotheo inscribantur.

The arguments of the Anti-Areopagitics are examined; and first indeed, that drawn from the fact that the books are inscribed to Timothy.

Primum Antiareopagiticorum momentum, ex ipsa librorum, qui Timotheo nuncupantur, inscriptione ducitur. Auctor enim noster in libro De divinis nominibus epistolam Ignatii Antiocheni episcopi, uti infra dicetur, et laudavit, et ipsissima illius verba retulit. Ergo, inquiunt, hic liber Timotheo, qui dum ea Ignatii epistola data est, jam mortem obierat, non potuit inscribi.

The first point of the Anti-Areopagitics is drawn from the very inscription of the books, which are dedicated to Timothy. For our author in his book On the Divine Names, as will be said below, both praised the epistle of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, and reported his very own words. Therefore, say they, this book could not have been inscribed to Timothy, who had already died when that epistle of Ignatius was written.

Hic non minimae difficultatis nodus Areopagiticos plurimum torsit, atque ut ab eo se expediant, varias se vertunt in partes. Nonnulli enim cum Baronio opinati sunt hunc Timotheum non eum esse qui Pauli discipulus fuit, sed alium quemdam juniorem, Pudentis senatoris filium, cujus nomen in Romanum Martyrologium, et in SS. Perpetuae et Felicitatis Acta refertur. Alii e contrario Timotheum illum verum Pauli discipulum fuisse asserunt, et Baronii opinionem his impugnant rationibus.

This knot of no small difficulty has greatly tormented the Areopagitics, and in order to extricate themselves from it, they turn in various directions. For some, with Baronius, have supposed that this Timothy is not he who was the disciple of Paul, but a certain other younger one, the son of Pudens the senator, whose name is recorded in the Roman Martyrology and in the Acts of SS. Perpetua and Felicitas. Others, on the contrary, assert that that Timothy was the true disciple of Paul, and impugn the opinion of Baronius by these reasons.

Editors' notes and page, col. 25

Page

running head: 25 PROLEGOMENA
marginal letters: A aperte demonstrat; B ubique sanctitatem; C cta, quibus; D ea Ignatii
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: aperte demonstrat (Le Nourry's Dissertatio)

PG 3:26

1. Omnes ante Baronium scriptores, cum Graeci tum Latini, in ea fuerunt sententia. 2. Auctor noster tradit Timotheum episcopali dignitate inauguratum, atque ab eo Opera sua vult examinari et castigari. 3. Idem ipse auctor in epistola ad Titum, quem Baronius aliique Areopagitici discipulum et comitem Pauli fuisse concedunt, ejusdem Timothei meminit. 4. In omnibus manuscriptis codicibus Timotheus ille Ephesinum episcopatum, cui discipulus Pauli praefuit, tenuisse memoratur. 5. Denique auctor noster, uti diximus, se apostolorum ejusdemque proinde Timothei temporibus vixisse jactitat. His autem rationibus et illud quoque refellitur, quod post pseudo-Dextri Chronicon propugnat Bivarius, hunc Timotheum non alium esse quam Eugenium Toletanum, cui propter ingenii excellentiam nomen Timothei impositum est.

1. All writers before Baronius, both Greek and Latin, were of that opinion. 2. Our author hands down that Timothy was inaugurated with the episcopal dignity, and wishes his Works to be examined and corrected by him. 3. The same author himself, in his letter to Titus, whom Baronius and other Areopagitics grant to have been the disciple and companion of Paul, makes mention of the same Timothy. 4. In all manuscript codices that Timothy is recorded to have held the episcopate of Ephesus, over which the disciple of Paul presided. 5. Finally, our author, as we have said, boasts that he lived in the times of the apostles and accordingly of the same Timothy. And by these reasons that view also is refuted which Bivarius champions after the Chronicle of pseudo-Dexter, that this Timothy is no other than Eugenius of Toledo, upon whom on account of the excellence of his genius the name of Timothy was imposed.

Sed horum vicissim Areopagiticorum momenta inde haud difficilius evertuntur, quod Evangelium et Apocalypsim Joannis apostoli, atque Ignatii epistolam, quae post Timothei mortem edita sunt, in auctoris nostri scriptis, ut infra dicemus, clare nominatimque citentur. Enimvero sola Ignatianae epistolae verba, quae ab eo vere transcripta, nec in textum ejus intrusa esse demonstrabimus, id aperte evincunt.

But the points of these Areopagitics in turn are overthrown with no greater difficulty from the fact that the Gospel and Apocalypse of John the Apostle, and the epistle of Ignatius, which were published after the death of Timothy, are clearly and by name cited in the writings of our author, as we shall say below. Indeed, the words of the Ignatian epistle alone, which we shall demonstrate to have been truly transcribed by him and not intruded into his text, openly evince this.

Addit Baronius quod Timotheus ille ab auctore nostro saepe παῖς, puer, vocatur. At Timotheum, Pauli discipulum, a Dionysio Areopagita, eo nomine compellatum esse nulli verisimile videbitur: Nam episcopos, inquit Baronius, coepiscopum nominare consuevisse fratrem, non filium, mille exemplis esset facile demonstrare. Hujus argumenti difficultates ut solvant alii Areopagitici, varias congerunt responsiones. Et primo quidem dicunt Timotheum sic vocari, quia ille ad quem Paulus, Nerva imperante, haec scripsit in verba: Nemo adolescentiam tuam contemnat, Dionysio Areopagita junior esse videtur. 2. Timotheus in philosophia et saeculari disciplina cujus rudior erat, atque etiam in sublimiore theologia Dionysium habebat pro magistro, et illum absens per litteras consulebat. 3. Cum Timotheus satis esset natura timidus et pusillanimis, non tantum doctore scientiae, sed etiam virtutis et constantiae indigebat magistro.

Baronius adds that that Timothy is often called παῖς, boy or child, by our author. Yet that Timothy, the disciple of Paul, was addressed by that name by Dionysius the Areopagite will seem probable to no one: For that bishops, says Baronius, were accustomed to call a fellow bishop brother, not son, it would be easy to demonstrate by a thousand examples. In order to solve the difficulties of this argument, other Areopagitics heap up various replies. And first indeed they say that Timothy is so called because he to whom Paul, in the reign of Nerva, wrote in these words: Let no man despise your youth (1 Tim. 4:12), seems to be younger than Dionysius the Areopagite. 2. Timothy, in philosophy and secular learning, in which he was less versed, and also in the more sublime theology, had Dionysius for his master, and when absent consulted him by letters. 3. Since Timothy was by nature rather timid and faint-hearted, he needed not only a teacher of knowledge, but also a master of virtue and constancy.

Verum quo unquam exemplo probabitur episcopum ab alio episcopo ideo puerum vocari, quod ille in philosophia et saeculari disciplina sit rudior. Deinde quo itidem argumento persuadebis Timotheum in iis scientiis fuisse Dionysio rudiorem, ac eum in sublimiore theologia habuisse pro magistro? Certe Dionysius illum tanta eruditione praeditum agnovit, ut perfectiores ejus cognitiones secum communicari, et scripta sua ab eo emendari voluerit: Illud quoque, inquiebat Dionysius, pontificiae tuae scientiae commemorabimus. Et alibi:

Yet by what example will it ever be proved that a bishop is called a boy by another bishop because he is less versed in philosophy and secular learning? Next, by what argument likewise will you persuade anyone that Timothy was less versed than Dionysius in those sciences, and had him for his master in the more sublime theology? Certainly Dionysius acknowledged him to be endowed with such learning that he wished his more perfect knowledge to be communicated to himself, and his own writings to be emended by him: That also, said Dionysius, we shall recall to your pontifical knowledge. And elsewhere:

Editors' notes and page, col. 26

Footnotes

(9) ‹anchor: inquit Baronius› · call in col 26

Ad annum 109, § 56.

Under the year 109, § 56.

(printed under page 19)

(10) ‹anchor: tuam contemnat› · call in col 26 [the roman numeral reads "ii" at this resolution; the verse quoted is 1 Tim 4:12]

I Tim. II.

1 Tim. 2. [sic; the quotation is 1 Tim. 4:12]

(printed under page 19)

(11) ‹anchor: inquiebat Dionysius› · call in col 26

Lib. De coel. hierar. cap. 9.

On the Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 9.

(printed under page 19)

(12) ‹anchor: Et alibi› · call in col 26

Lib. De eccles. hierar. cap. 7, § 11.

On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 7, § 11.

(printed under page 19)

Page

running head: PROLEGOMENA. 26
marginal letters: A 1. Omnes ante; B gnat Bivarius; C mine compellatum; D tis et constantiae
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: 1. Omnes ante Baronium (Le Nourry's Dissertatio)

PG 3:27

Communica igitur et tu mihi perfectiorem illustrationem, etc.; atque alio in libro: Erit humanitatis tuae corrigere non sponte ignorantem, rationesque suggerere discere cupienti.

Do you therefore also communicate to me a more perfect illumination, etc.; and in another book: It will be the part of your humanity to correct one who is not willingly ignorant, and to suggest reasons to one desiring to learn.

Scimus quidem Dionysium a Timotheo de re quadam theologica fuisse aliquando interrogatum, ut hunc in modum ille testatus est: Sed quia alias me per epistolam interrogasti, quid appellem per se esse, per se vitam, per se sapientiam, et tecum ais dubitasse quomodo Deum aliquando voco per se vitam, aliquando vero effectorem vitae. At quis merito inde colligat Timotheum in philosophicis rebus Dionysio rudiorem, eum in theologicis habuisse pro magistro? Nunquid, quia Augustinus Hieronymum, atque alii episcopi alios episcopos de rebus theologicis, vel, si velis, philosophicis, consuluerunt, iis rudiores, eorumque discipulos, aut ab illis filiorum nomine vocatos fuisse dicendum est? Haec certe nullus unquam dixit, sed nec somniavit unquam.

We know indeed that Dionysius was once questioned by Timothy concerning a certain theological matter, as he testified in this manner: But because at another time you questioned me by letter what I call being per se, life per se, wisdom per se, and say that you doubted within yourself how I sometimes call God life per se, and sometimes the effector of life. Yet who may deservedly gather thence that Timothy, being less versed than Dionysius in philosophical matters, had him for his master in theological matters? Because Augustine consulted Jerome, and other bishops consulted other bishops concerning theological, or, if you will, philosophical matters, must it be said that they were less versed than they, and were their disciples, or called by them by the name of sons? Certainly no one has ever said these things, nor even dreamed of them.

Quis autem sibi persuadeat Timotheum adeo natura fuisse timidum et pusillanimem, ut ille magistro virtutis et constantiae indiguerit, quem Paulus laborum, itinerum, periculorum, suppliciorum comitem habuit, quem Paulus ad alios confirmandos misit: Misimus, inquit ipsemet Paulus, Timotheum fratrem nostrum, et ministrum Dei in Evangelio Christi, ad confirmandos vos, et exhortandos pro fide vestra, ut nemo vestrum moveatur in tribulationibus. Siccine ergo ad alios in tribulationibus confirmandos et exhortandos, mittendus erat homo naturae timidae et pusillanimis?

And who could persuade himself that Timothy was by nature so timid and faint-hearted that he needed a master of virtue and constancy, whom Paul had as a companion of his labours, journeys, perils, and sufferings, whom Paul sent to confirm others: We sent, says Paul himself, Timothy our brother, and minister of God in the Gospel of Christ, to confirm you, and exhort you for your faith, that no man of you be moved in tribulations (1 Thess. 3:2–3)? Was a man of a timid and faint-hearted nature thus to be sent to confirm and exhort others in tribulations?

Restat igitur ut Timotheus idcirco puer dicatur, quod Dionysio aetate fuerit junior. Et id quidem inde confirmari potest, quia Ambrosius, uti olim observabamus, Constantium episcopum filii nomine appellaverit. Commendo tibi, fili, Ecclesiam, quae est ad Forum Cornelii. Verum Timotheus ante Dionysii conversionem non solum Christianae religioni nomen dederat, sed Pauli quoque et discipulus erat et comes. Deinde cum Dionysius scripta sua elucubraret, annum, ut diximus, nonagesimum, vel forsitan centesimum debuit attingere, nec Timotheus tunc octogenario minor erat. Fac tamen eum septuagenarium, vel etiam sexagenarium tantummodo fuisse, nunquid episcopus nonagenarius alium tam provectae aetatis episcopum, qui jam ante eum Christianam religionem amplexatus, et deinde Pauli apostoli comes et discipulus fuerat, nomine filii appellasse credendus est? Neque ad id ullo modo facit Ambrosii exemplum, quandoquidem Constantius inter clericos Mediolanenses sub ejusdem Ambrosii magisterio educatus, cum ad eum scripsit idem Ambrosius, in episcopum recens assumptus fuerat.

It remains therefore that Timothy is called boy for this reason, that he was younger in age than Dionysius. And this indeed can be confirmed from the fact that Ambrose, as we formerly observed, called Constantius the bishop by the name of son: I commend to you, my son, the Church which is at Forum Cornelii. But Timothy before the conversion of Dionysius had not only given his name to the Christian religion, but was also both a disciple and a companion of Paul. Next, when Dionysius composed his writings, he must have reached, as we have said, his ninetieth or perhaps his hundredth year, nor was Timothy then less than eighty. Suppose, however, that he was only seventy, or even sixty: is a bishop of ninety to be believed to have called by the name of son another bishop of such advanced age, who already before him had embraced the Christian religion, and thereafter had been the companion and disciple of Paul the Apostle? Nor does the example of Ambrose make for this in any way, seeing that Constantius, having been educated among the clergy of Milan under the instruction of the same Ambrose, had recently been assumed as bishop when the same Ambrose wrote to him.

Instant aliqui Christum discipulos suos vocasse

Some insist that Christ called His disciples

Editors' notes and page, col. 27

Footnotes

(13) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 27

Lib. De divin. nomin., cap. 13, § 4.

On the Divine Names, ch. 13, § 4.

(printed under page 20)

(14) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 27

Lib. De divin. nomin., cap. 11.

On the Divine Names, ch. 11.

(printed under page 20)

(15) ‹anchor: in tribulationibus› · call in col 27 [the roman numeral reads "ii" at this resolution; the words quoted are 1 Thess. 3:2-3]

I Thessal. ii, 3.

1 Thess. 2:3. [sic; the quotation is 1 Thess. 3:2-3]

(printed under page 20)

(16) ‹anchor: appellaverit› · call in col 27

Amb. epist. 2, novae edit.

Ambrose, Letter 2, new edition.

(printed under page 20)

Page

running head: 27 S. DIONYSIUS AREO[PAGITA.]
marginal letters: A Communica igitur; B de rebus; C confirmandos et; D modo fuisse
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Communica igitur (Le Nourry's Dissertatio)

PG 3:28

pueros: Pueri, nunquid pulmentarium habetis? Addunt Clementem Alexandrinum omnes universim Christianos eodem nomine nuncupasse; quoniam Christiani ob morum simplicitatem et suavitatem hoc se invicem puerorum nomine vocitabant. Sed id omnino leve est et infirmum. Nam episcopo fas non erat alium episcopum eodem modo quo Christus discipulos suos vocabat, alloqui et appellare. Clemens vero non idcirco Christianos pueros nominat, quod ii hac mutua appellatione sese invicem alloquerentur, sed quia ille libro suo Paedagogi titulum indiderat. Porro autem etsi Christiani sese invicem pueros vocarent, non ii tamen in scriptis suis aliquem provectae aetatis hominem, scientia, dignitate, virtutibus celebrem, et episcopatu auctum, eo nomine appellasse ullibi leguntur.

children: Children, have you any meat (John 21:5)? They add that Clement of Alexandria called all Christians universally by the same name, because Christians on account of the simplicity and sweetness of their morals were wont to call one another by this name of children. But that is altogether light and weak. For it was not lawful for a bishop to address and call another bishop in the same way as Christ called His disciples. And Clement does not call Christians children because they addressed one another by this mutual appellation, but because he had given his book the title of The Tutor (Paedagogus). Moreover, even if Christians called one another children, yet they are nowhere read in their writings to have called by that name a man of advanced age, celebrated for learning, dignity, and virtues, and graced with the episcopate.

CAPUT X.

Chapter X.

Examinatur secundum argumentum, ex libris et scriptoribus sacris qui ab auctore nostro citantur desumptum.

The second argument, taken from the sacred books and writers that are cited by our author, is examined.

Jam vero si a librorum inscriptione ad eorum lectionem transeamus, occurrent passim libri et scriptores ab auctore nostro citati, qui eum Areopagitam non esse satis aperte demonstrare videantur. Ille enim eumdem, qui nunc ab omnibus recipitur, sacrum divinae Scripturae canonem exhibet et repraesentat. Atqui canon ille Scripturarum Dionysii tempore nondum erat perfectus et obsignatus. Apocalypsim namque, Epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos, secundam Joannis, et Judae Epistolam, quas ille hunc refert in canonem, ab eodem plurimi excludebant. Deinde Joannes Apocalypsim suam, cum in insula Patmos exsularet, id est circa annum Christi 94 vel 95, edidit, Evangelium vero post suum, ut plures arbitrantur, ab eodem exsilio reditum, hoc est non ante annum 98, publici fecit esse juris. His adde libros illos a Dionysio non ut novos recenterque editos citari. Unde concludunt eum vix ante annum Christi centesimum scriptis suis manum admovisse. At tum Dionysius ille annum aetatis suae nonagesimum agebat, quippe qui Christo patiente, ut solis eclipsim observaret, annos quinque supra viginti explevisse credatur. Quis autem sibi facile persuadeat virum ab ineunte juventute eruditissimum, ad libros conscribendos tunc animum appulisse, cum ipse nonagenarius esset et senio confectus.

Now if we pass from the inscription of the books to the reading of them, there will occur everywhere books and writers cited by our author which seem clearly enough to demonstrate that he is not the Areopagite. For he exhibits and represents the same sacred canon of Divine Scripture which is now received by all. Yet that canon of the Scriptures in the time of Dionysius was not yet completed and sealed. For the Apocalypse, the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, the second of John, and the Epistle of Jude, which he places in this canon, very many excluded from the same. Next, John published his Apocalypse while he was an exile in the island of Patmos, that is, around the year of Christ 94 or 95, and made his Gospel public property, as many judge, after his return from the same exile, that is, not before the year 98. Add to these things that those books are cited by Dionysius not as new and recently published. Whence they conclude that he scarcely set his hand to his writings before the hundredth year of Christ. Yet at that time that Dionysius was in the ninetieth year of his age, inasmuch as he is believed to have completed twenty-five years when, at the time of Christ's Passion, he observed the eclipse of the sun. And who could easily persuade himself that a man most learned from his early youth applied his mind to writing books at a time when he himself was ninety years old and worn out with old age?

Sed his rationibus minime de sententia sua moventur Areopagitici. Non enim diffitentur diu quidem de librorum canonicorum numero fuisse disputatum, sed negari nequaquam posse aiunt quin, sicut nonnulli quosdam libros ex sacro canone rejiciebant, ita etiam quidam alii eos omnes qui in eumdem canonem nunc ascribuntur, pro canonicis habendos esse putaverint. Neque enim quoddam

Yet by these reasons the Areopagitics are not at all moved from their opinion. For they do not deny that there was indeed for a long time dispute concerning the number of the canonical books, but they say that it can by no means be denied that, just as some rejected certain books from the sacred canon, so also certain others thought that all those which are now enrolled in the same canon ought to be held as canonical. For neither can any

Editors' notes and page, col. 28

Footnotes

(17) ‹anchor: habetis› · call in col 28

Joan. XXI, 5.

John 21:5.

(printed under page 20)

Page

running head: [S. DI]ONYSIUS AREOPAGITA. 28
marginal letters: A pueros: Pueri; B scopatu auctum; C braeos, secundam; D ventute eruditissimum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: pueros: Pueri (Le Nourry's Dissertatio)

PG 3:29

aliquando tempus fuisse dici potest quo omnes cum Ecclesiae, tum Christiani libros quosdam Scripturae in sacro canone non censuerint esse numerandos. Quid ergo prohibet quominus Areopagita his praebuerit assensum, qui sacro canone eos omnes libros, qui nunc assignantur, contineri pro certo habebant?

time ever be said to have existed when all, both Churches and Christians, judged that certain books of Scripture ought not to be numbered in the sacred canon. What therefore hinders the Areopagite from having given his assent to those who held for certain that all those books which are now assigned to it were contained in the sacred canon?

Quod ad Joannis Evangelium pertinet, si plures e doctioribus criticis illud ab apostolo post reditum suum ab exsilio scriptum opinantur, non desunt etiam qui et illud antea exaratum esse asserant. Sed quovis tempore scriptum esse dicatur, nihil vetat, inquiunt Areopagitici, quominus illud ipsum, atque etiam ejusdem Joannis Apocalypsis citari potuerint a Dionysio, qui centenario major sub Trajani, vel, juxta alios, sub Adriani imperio vitam cum morte commutavit.

As regards the Gospel of John, if many of the more learned critics suppose that it was written by the apostle after his return from exile, there are not lacking also those who assert that it was written earlier. But at whatever time it be said to have been written, nothing forbids, say the Areopagitics, that both it itself and also the Apocalypse of the same John could have been cited by Dionysius, who at more than a hundred years of age exchanged life for death under the reign of Trajan, or, according to others, under that of Hadrian.

Fatendum quidem est quod si hoc Dionysianae mortis tempus certis rationum momentis posset confirmari, omnis procul dubio solveretur hujusce difficultatis nodus. Sed contendunt Antiareopagitici Dionysium post Domitiani imperatoris tempora vitam non produxisse. Quod quidem ita certum esse volunt, ut non solum accuratioris criterii auctores, sed eorum etiam qui scripta Dionysio Areopagitae vindicant, non pauci huic opinioni subscripserint. Caeterum cum tempus Dionysianae mortis ea, quae omnem tollat difficultatem, evidentia demonstrari nequeat, eo certe argumento non revincentur omnes Areopagiticorum animi.

It must indeed be confessed that if this time of the death of Dionysius could be confirmed by sure weights of reasons, the whole knot of this difficulty would without doubt be untied. But the Anti-Areopagitics contend that Dionysius did not prolong his life beyond the times of the Emperor Domitian. Which indeed they wish to be so certain that not only authors of more accurate judgement, but also not a few of those who vindicate the writings for Dionysius the Areopagite, have subscribed to this opinion. Besides, since the time of the death of Dionysius cannot be demonstrated with such evidence as to remove all difficulty, certainly not all the minds of the Areopagitics will be convinced by that argument.

Quapropter nec apud eos plus valebit et alia similis argumentatio, inde petita quod in librorum manuscriptorum omnium titulis auctor noster episcopus Atheniensis inscribatur. Neque enim ullus certa omnino ac plane evidenti probatione demonstravit quandiu Dionysius Atheniensem tenuerit episcopatum, aut quo tempore sive spontanea abdicatione sive morte sua illum tandem reliquerit. Incertum igitur Areopagiticis videbitur num Dionysius post editos a Joanne Apocalypsis et Evangelii libros Atheniensi episcopatui nuntium non remiserit. Haec itaque probationum firmamenta apud eos tantum vim habebunt, qui, soli veritati litantes, illas Dionysianae historiae difficultates, sepositis partium studiis, enodare conabuntur.

Wherefore neither will another similar argumentation have more weight with them, drawn from the fact that in the titles of all the manuscript books our author is inscribed bishop of Athens. For no one has demonstrated by an altogether certain and plainly evident proof how long Dionysius held the episcopate of Athens, or at what time, whether by voluntary abdication or by his death, he at length left it. It will therefore seem uncertain to the Areopagitics whether Dionysius did not resign the episcopate of Athens after the books of the Apocalypse and the Gospel were published by John. These supports of proofs, therefore, will have force only with those who, sacrificing to truth alone, shall endeavour to untangle those difficulties of Dionysian history, setting aside party zeal.

CAPUT XI.

Chapter XI.

Tertium argumentum, ex citata sancti Ignatii, episcopi Antiocheni, auctoritate petitum.

The third argument, drawn from the cited authority of St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch.

Gravius sane contra Areopagitae defensores eruitur argumentum ex epistola Ignatii, episcopi Antiocheni, ad Romanos, quam auctor noster in haec verba citasse perhibetur: Γράφει δὲ καὶ ὁ θεῖος Ἰγνάτιος· « Ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται. » Scribit autem et divus Ignatius: « Amor meus crucifixus est. » His autem verbis laudatur aliquid ab Ignatio non dictum, sed scriptum; quod nullibi, nisi in ea quam citamus epistola invenire est. Atqui haec epistola

A weightier argument indeed against the defenders of the Areopagite is elicited from the epistle of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, to the Romans, which our author is held to have cited in these words: Γράφει δὲ καὶ ὁ θεῖος Ἰγνάτιος· « Ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται. » And the divine Ignatius also writes: "My love has been crucified." Now by these words there is praised something not spoken, but written by Ignatius; which is nowhere to be found save in that epistle which we cite. Yet this epistle

Editors' notes and page, col. 29

Footnotes

(18) ‹anchor: citasse perhibetur› · call in col 29

Lib. De divin. nomin., cap. 4, § 12.

On the Divine Names, ch. 4, § 12.

(printed under page 21)

Page

running head: 29 PROLEGOMENA.
marginal letters: A aliquando tempus; B Trajani, vel; C omnes Areopagiticorum; D partium studiis
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: aliquando tempus (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); word split at column break: epi-

PG 3:30

ab ipso, cum ad martyrium duceretur, anno Christi, ut supra ostendimus, 107 aut 108, fuit exarata. Porro autem ea neque tam cito in manus Dionysii venire potuit, neque ille eam ut novam, et a paucis cognitam, sed ut receptam ab omnibus citat, verbaque ejus transcribit. Hinc ergo concludas necesse est Dionysii librum De divinis nominibus non ante annum 110 emissum fuisse in lucem.

was written by him when he was being led to martyrdom, in the year of Christ, as we have shown above, 107 or 108. Moreover, it could neither have come so quickly into the hands of Dionysius, nor does he cite it as new and known by few, but as received by all, and transcribes its words. Hence therefore one must conclude that the book of Dionysius On the Divine Names was not sent forth into the light before the year 110.

Respondent quidam Areopagitici Dionysium post Ignatii mortem vitam suam produxisse; proindeque epistolas ejus ab illo potuisse laudari. Sed illi de soliditate hujus responsionis, quam cum ejusdem Dionysii in Gallias adventu conciliare non possunt, penitus diffidentes, ad aliam statim confugiunt, aiuntque Dionysium scripta sua in Graecia quidem edidisse, sed ea postmodum ab ipso in Galliis ita recognita atque retractata, ut iis ex Joannis Evangelio et Apocalypsi atque ex Ignatii epistola plura testimonia addiderit. Verum id gratis omnino fingitur. Nam si opera Dionysii ab eo in Galliis fuissent recusa, ille procul dubio in populi sui aliorumque solatium curasset ea in Latinam linguam verti et publicari, atque plurimi eorumdem Operum inventi fuissent in iis regionibus et Latina et Graeca manu exarati codices. Nulli tamen ibi unquam reperti sunt: sed priores ex Oriente asportati, Graece scripti erant; nec Latinam eorum versionem, ea quae a Joanne Scoto edita est, antiquiorem habemus. Deinde nullus unquam Opera sua recensuit, ac in eorum recognitione plura adjecit nova, quin de his lectores alicubi monuerit suos. Nullibi tamen apud auctorem nostrum exstant hujusce admonitionis vestigia vel notae.

Certain Areopagitics reply that Dionysius prolonged his life after the death of Ignatius, and that accordingly his epistles could have been praised by him. But utterly distrusting the solidity of this reply, which they cannot reconcile with the coming of the same Dionysius into Gaul, they straightway take refuge in another, and say that Dionysius indeed published his writings in Greece, but that they were afterwards so revised and retouched by him in Gaul that he added to them several testimonies from the Gospel and Apocalypse of John and from the epistle of Ignatius. Yet that is altogether gratuitously invented. For if the works of Dionysius had been reissued by him in Gaul, he would without doubt for the consolation of his people and of others have taken care that they should be translated into the Latin tongue and published, and very many manuscript codices of the same Works, both in Latin and in Greek, would have been found in those regions. Yet none were ever found there: but the first ones, brought from the East, were written in Greek; nor have we any Latin version of them more ancient than that which was published by John Scotus. Next, no one has ever revised his own Works, and in revising them added several new things, without somewhere admonishing his readers of them. Yet nowhere in our author do there exist any traces or marks of such an admonition.

His igitur responsionibus ab aliis Areopagiticae opinionis fautoribus vel spretis vel omissis, audacter affirmant citata Ignatianae epistolae verba ab aliquo insciente et rerum ignaro imprudenter et inepte in Dionysii intrusa textum. Et id quidem pluribus momentis demonstrari posse arbitrantur. Primum, quia nihil ad Dionysii argumentum faciebat praefata Ignatii auctoritas. Dionysius etenim ibi probat vocem ἔρως, amor, apud sacros auctores in bonam partem accipi. Atqui eadem vox in hac ipsa Ignatii epistola pro concupiscentia amoreque terrestri usurpatur. Secundo, quia hac pericope et sententia Ignatii dempta, melius sibi cohaeret Dionysii oratio. Tertio, testimonium illud Ignatii inter media sacrae Scripturae testimonia absurde omnino collocatur. Certe prudentior Dionysius et post omnia divinae Scripturae testimonia, atque etiam post allatas a se ibidem Hierothei magistri sui auctoritates ei locum dedisset. Denique periodus quae hanc Ignatii sententiam antecedit, falsitatem continet putidissimam, et auctore tam erudito prorsus indignam. Haec autem periodus his verbis

Other partisans of the Areopagitic opinion, therefore, having either despised or omitted these replies, boldly affirm that the cited words of the Ignatian epistle were imprudently and ineptly intruded into the text of Dionysius by some ignorant person unacquainted with affairs. And this indeed they think can be demonstrated by several points. First, because the aforesaid authority of Ignatius made nothing for the argument of Dionysius. For Dionysius is there proving that the word ἔρως, love, is taken in a good sense among sacred authors. Yet the same word in this very epistle of Ignatius is used for concupiscence and earthly love. Second, because when this passage and sentence of Ignatius is removed, the discourse of Dionysius coheres better with itself. Third, that testimony of Ignatius is placed altogether absurdly in the midst of the testimonies of Sacred Scripture. Certainly a more prudent Dionysius would have given it a place both after all the testimonies of Divine Scripture, and also after the authorities of Hierotheus his master adduced by him in the same place. Finally, the period which precedes this sentence of Ignatius contains a most rank falsehood, and one altogether unworthy of so learned an author. Now this period in these words

Editors' notes and page, col. 30

Page

running head: [PR]OLEGOMENA. 30
marginal letters: A stola ab ipso; B aiuntque Dionysium; C quiorem habemus; D in bonam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: stola ab ipso (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); word split at start of column: stola

PG 3:31

concipitur: Visum est quibusdam nostris sacrarum Scripturarum tractatoribus nomen ἔρωτος, amoris, divinius esse, quam nomen ἀγάπης, dilectionis. At hoc, inquiunt, falsissimum est. Nam si nomen amoris, ἔρωτος, divinius esset quam nomen dilectionis, ἀγάπης, scriptores sacri eo procul dubio frequentius uterentur. Atqui vox ἔρως in Novo Testamento, ubi vox ἀγάπη plus quam nonagies occurrit, nec semel quidem reperitur; in Veteri autem creberrime legas vocem ἀγάπης, bis vero tantummodo vox ἔρως, in Proverbiorum libris, ad amorem impurum et profanum significandum adhibetur. Unde concludunt et phrasim praefatam, atque ipsam Ignatii sententiam, in Dionysii libros fuisse a quodam malo feriato homine intrusas.

is couched: It has seemed to certain of our expounders of the Sacred Scriptures that the name of ἔρως, love, is more divine than the name of ἀγάπη, charity. But this, say they, is most false. For if the name of love, ἔρως, were more divine than the name of charity, ἀγάπη, the sacred writers would without doubt use it more frequently. Yet the word ἔρως in the New Testament, where the word ἀγάπη occurs more than ninety times, is not found even once; and in the Old you may read the word ἀγάπη very frequently, whereas only twice is the word ἔρως employed, in the books of Proverbs, to signify impure and profane love (Prov. 7:18; 30:16). Whence they conclude that both the aforesaid phrase and the sentence of Ignatius itself were intruded into the books of Dionysius by some idly meddling fellow.

Sed hanc Areopagiticorum opinionem, ejusque firmamenta, inde convellunt adversarii, quod nullus unquam inventus sit codex manu exaratus in quo illa Ignatii verba in textu Dionysiano eadem manu ac caetera omnia descripta non reperire sit. Quid quod? ab auctore prologi Homiliarum in Cantica, quem Areopagitici Origenem esse fatentur, haec eadem verba pro vere Dionysianis, et eodem atque ab auctore nostro sensu citata legimus. Nihil ergo Origenes in iis invenit quod non esset veritati consonum, recto ordine digestum, et ad ea quae Dionysius intendebat probanda aptum omnino et conveniens.

But their opponents shatter this opinion of the Areopagitics and its supports from the fact that no manuscript codex has ever been found in which those words of Ignatius are not to be found in the Dionysian text transcribed by the same hand as all the rest. What of the fact that by the author of the prologue of the Homilies on the Canticles, whom the Areopagitics confess to be Origen, we read these same words cited as truly Dionysian, and in the same sense as by our author? Origen therefore found nothing in them which was not consonant with truth, arranged in right order, and altogether apt and suitable for proving the things which Dionysius intended.

Porro autem ex hoc Origenis seu auctoris harum Homiliarum testimonio ruit primum Areopagiticorum momentum. Putavit enim ille, ac etiam alii post eum Areopagitici, nomen ἔρως ab Ignatio in bonam partem accipi. Potuit ergo et auctor noster in eadem esse opinione, atque eo sensu, quem verum genuinumque esse putabat, hanc citare Ignatii sententiam. At, inquies, hoc falsum est omnino. Falsus est ergo, inquient, Origenes, falsi sunt et alii. Porro si in hoc eos errasse dixeris, quidni et errare potuit Dionysianorum auctor Operum? Illos tamen non errasse hinc non absurde conjicias, quod nomen ἔρως in iis quae citantur Ignatii verbis, pro amore spirituali et divino possit usurpari, quamvis in subsequentibus, quae inde auctor noster intulit, pro exstincto concupiscentiae igne accipiatur.

Moreover, from this testimony of Origen, or the author of these Homilies, falls the first point of the Areopagitics. For he thought, and also other Areopagitics after him, that the name ἔρως was taken by Ignatius in a good sense. Our author therefore could also be of the same opinion, and cite this sentence of Ignatius in that sense which he thought to be true and genuine. But, you will say, this is altogether false. Deceived therefore, they will say, was Origen, and deceived were others also. Now if you say that they erred in this, why could not the author of the Dionysian Works also err? Yet that they did not err you may not absurdly conjecture from the fact that the name ἔρως in those words of Ignatius which are cited can be used for spiritual and divine love, although in the following words, which our author inferred thence, it be taken for the extinguished fire of concupiscence.

Quod autem objicitur, hac periodo dempta, Dionysianam orationem melius sibi cohaerere, leve omnino est nulliusque momenti. Idem quippe dici posset de aliis auctorum libris, in quibus plura ad aliquid probandum congeruntur testimonia antiquiorum. Uno enim et altero sublato, melius quoque scriptoris oratio sibi cohaerere plerumque videbitur. Deinde si quoties deleta aliqua periodo oratio sibi melius cohaerere censetur, toties eamdem periodum textui auctoris dixeris esse adjectam, tot in Ecclesiae Patrum atque in primis auctoris

And as for what is objected, that when this period is removed the Dionysian discourse coheres better with itself, it is altogether light and of no moment. For the same could be said of other books of authors in which several testimonies of the ancients are heaped up to prove something. For when one and another are removed, the discourse of the writer will for the most part seem to cohere better with itself too. Next, if as often as upon the deletion of some period the discourse is judged to cohere better with itself, so often you say that the same period has been added to the text of the author, so many passages in the works of the Fathers of the Church and above all of our author

Editors' notes and page, col. 31

Footnotes

(19-20) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 31 [one note printed for two calls, 19 and 20; the column of the calls is inferred] Prov. VII, 18 et xxx, 16.

Prov. 7:18 and 30:16.

(printed under page 22)

Page

running head: 31 S. DIONYSIUS AREO[PAGITA.]
marginal letters: A concipitur: Visum; B intrusas.; C rum Homiliarum; D auctor noster
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: concipitur: Visum est (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); word split at column break: au-

PG 3:32

nostri operibus, dici deberent assuta, iisque insita, ut haec objecisse Areopagiticos aliquando poeniteret.

would have to be called patched on and grafted into them, that the Areopagitics would one day repent of having objected these things.

At, inquiunt, Dionysius non poterat testimonium Ignatii aliis sacrae Scripturae testimoniis medium interjicere; sed illud suo, id est ultimo, posuisset loco. Nec majoris ponderis est ista argumentatio. Quis enim scriptores his citandorum librorum legibus ita teneri credat, ut ab iis non liceat unquam transversum unguem discedere? Haec quippe ita si se haberent, quot, bone Deus! occurrent testimonia veterum in variis posteriorum scriptorum libris ab inscientibus et ignaris imprudenter intrusa, et ex iis deinceps delenda! Quot namque scriptores de ea, quae nunc desideratur, citandi methodo ne cogitaverunt quidem? Quot in eorum Operibus permista reperies Scripturae Patrumque antiquiorum testimonia?

But, say they, Dionysius could not interject the testimony of Ignatius in the midst of other testimonies of Sacred Scripture, but would have placed it in its own, that is, in the last place. Nor is that argumentation of greater weight. For who would believe that writers are so bound by these laws of citing books that it is never lawful to depart a nail's breadth from them? For if these things stood thus, how many testimonies of the ancients, good God, will occur in various books of later writers imprudently intruded by ignorant and unskilful men, and henceforth to be deleted from them! For how many writers have not even thought of that method of citing which is now demanded? In how many of their Works will you find the testimonies of Scripture and of the more ancient Fathers mingled together?

Neque erat sane quod fastidiosius objicerent periodum, quae huic Ignatii sententiae praeponitur, falsitatem continere putidissimam. Etenim eo quo enuntiatur modo, nihil in ea nisi verissimum deprehenditur. Haec quippe ipsissima sunt, ut superius dictum est, auctoris nostri verba: Visum est quibusdam nostris sacrarum Scripturarum tractatoribus nomen amoris divinius esse quam nomen dilectionis. Quibusdam dixit, non omnibus. At quibusdam id ita visum fuisse tam constanter putabat, ut scriptores et scripta, ubi id traditum est, ille continuo indicaverit. Et certe qui haec objiciunt, et ipsi fatentur illud nomen amoris in aliis quam iis qui ab auctore nostro citantur, inveniri Scripturae sacrae libris.

Nor indeed was there any reason why they should so disdainfully object that the period which is prefixed to this sentence of Ignatius contains a most rank falsehood. For in the manner in which it is enunciated, nothing is detected in it save what is most true. For these, as has been said above, are the very words of our author: It has seemed to certain of our expounders of the Sacred Scriptures that the name of love is more divine than the name of charity. He said to certain, not to all. And he so constantly thought that this had seemed so to certain that he forthwith indicated the writers and writings where it was handed down. And certainly those who object these things themselves confess that that name of love is found in other books of Sacred Scripture than those which are cited by our author.

CAPUT XII.

Chapter XII.

Quartum argumentum, ex aliorum operibus atque opinionibus ab auctore nostro citatis deductum.

The fourth argument, deduced from the works and opinions of others cited by our author.

Neque porro sola ab auctore nostro citata Ignatii auctoritas, sed etiam Bartholomaei, Justi, et Hierothei, praeceptoris sui, prolata ab illo testimonia, ipsum Dionysium Areopagitam non esse plane demonstrare Antiareopagiticis videntur. Verum enimvero ubinam gentium exstiterunt aliquando illa, quae ille citat, tantorum virorum Opera? Quis ea unquam praeter hunc auctorem nostrum laudasse perhibetur? Quomodo ea Eusebii, accuratissimi antiquissimorum scriptorum scrutatoris, aliorumque omnium diligentiam fugerunt? Nunquid unius apostoli, et duorum apostolicorum hominum scripta, tam cito perierunt, ut nulla eorum nisi apud auctorem nostrum mentio habeatur? Certe Hierothei, qui Dionysii Areopagitae magister et Pauli apostoli discipulus fuisse dicitur, cujus pietas et doctrina summis extolluntur laudibus, tanti, inquiunt, viri opera omnia a Dionysio saltem et Timotheo publicari, et de eorum manibus in Christianorum omnium manus venire, ipsisque summo esse in pretio, ac in Ecclesiarum

Moreover, not only the authority of Ignatius cited by our author, but also the testimonies of Bartholomew, Justus, and Hierotheus, his preceptor, brought forward by him, seem to the Anti-Areopagitics plainly to demonstrate that he is not Dionysius the Areopagite. For indeed, where in the world did those Works of so great men, which he cites, ever exist? Who is ever held to have praised them besides this author of ours? How did they escape the diligence of Eusebius, the most accurate searcher of the most ancient writers, and of all others? Did the writings of one apostle, and of two apostolic men, perish so quickly that no mention of them is had save in our author? Certainly all the works of Hierotheus, who is said to have been the master of Dionysius the Areopagite and the disciple of Paul the Apostle, whose piety and learning are extolled with the highest praises, all the works of so great a man, say they, ought to have been published by Dionysius at least and Timothy, and to have come from their hands into the hands of all Christians, and to have been held in the highest esteem by them, and in the archives of the Churches

Editors' notes and page, col. 32

Page

running head: [S. DI]ONYSIUS AREOPAGITA. 32
marginal letters: A ctoris nostri; B methodo ne; C ille continuo; D strum laudasse
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: ctoris nostri operibus (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); word split at start of column: ctoris

PG 3:33

scriniis, et episcoporum bibliothecis asservari debebant. Cur ergo hujus summi viri, qui μέγας ἥλιος appellatur, Opera tantis tenebris tantaque oblivione obruta sunt, ut nullum eorum nisi in auctoris nostri scriptis vestigium supersit? Quid quod et ipsa Hierothei testimonia non alio quam auctoris nostri stylo exarata videntur? Idem enim in utrisque et ingenium et locutio, caeteraque omnia sibi plane similia legentibus prima fronte occurrunt. Ex quibus non temeraria prorsus conjectura capitur, libros Hierothei nunquam, nisi Dionysianis in lucubrationibus, editos in lucem.

and in the libraries of the bishops ought to have been preserved. Why therefore were the Works of this supreme man, who is called a great sun (μέγας ἥλιος), buried in such darkness and such oblivion that no trace of them survives save in the writings of our author? What of the fact that the very testimonies of Hierotheus seem to be written in no other style than that of our author? For the same genius and diction in both, and all other things plainly like one another, meet the readers at first sight. From which a by no means rash conjecture is drawn, that the books of Hierotheus were never published to the light save in the Dionysian treatises.

Ad haec vero, auctor noster non solum plura incognitorum hominum producit testimonia, sed varias etiam doctorum hominum opiniones ita refert, ut iis tantummodo quas vero propiores esse existimabat, se adhaerere testetur. Ubi enim de Seraphim quod ad Isaiam missum est, disserit: Nonnulli, inquit, juxta assignatam de omnium intelligentiarum communione definitionem aiunt.... Alius item haud admodum incongruam mihi tradidit solutionem. Aiebat enim, etc. Et de hymno qui in missa fidelium cantabatur: Hunc autem hymnum alii laudis canticum, alii religionis symbolum, alii denique, mea quidem sententia, hierarchicam Eucharistiam, etc. Et de Seraphinorum alis: Senas alas, quas Eloquia commemorant, non existimo sacrum numerum denotare, ut quibusdam placuit, sed ipsas virtutes. Denique, ut caetera taceamus, de electione sancti Matthiae haec habet: Cum autem de divina illa sorte quae divinitus super Matthiam cecidit, alii ab aliis meo quidem judicio non recte diversa senserint, meam ipse sententiam exponam. At vero quis inducat sibi in animum apostolicis temporibus Christianos virosque apostolicos in tam varias hisce de rebus abiisse opiniones? Quis de eo, quo Matthias in proditoris Judae locum assumptus est modo, divinaque ejus sorte et electione, tantum inter eos dissidium, tantamque fuisse discordiam crediderit? Nunquid apostolorum discipuli ab ipsis non didicerant quomodo ea electio facta fuerit? Fac autem de ea nihil ab eis acceperint, certe ii ab aliis apostolorum sociis, aut successoribus, qui adhuc in vivis erant, poterat eorum unusquisque de ea electione ita certior fieri ut nullus esset dissensionis disputationisque locus.

In addition to these things, our author not only produces several testimonies of unknown men, but also relates various opinions of learned men in such a way as to testify that he adheres only to those which he esteemed to be nearer the truth. For where he discourses of the Seraph that was sent to Isaiah: Some, says he, according to the assigned definition concerning the communion of all intelligences, say.... Another likewise handed down to me a solution not at all incongruous. For he said, etc. And concerning the hymn which was sung in the Mass of the faithful: Now this hymn some call a canticle of praise, others a symbol of religion, others finally, in my opinion indeed, the hierarchical Eucharist, etc. And concerning the wings of the Seraphim: The six wings which the Oracles commemorate I do not think denote a sacred number, as has pleased some, but the virtues themselves. Finally, to pass over the rest in silence, concerning the election of St. Matthias he has these words: Now since concerning that divine lot which fell from heaven upon Matthias, different men have held different opinions, not rightly in my judgement indeed, I myself shall set forth my own opinion. Yet who could bring himself to believe that in apostolic times Christians and apostolic men went off into such varied opinions concerning these matters? Who could believe that concerning the manner in which Matthias was assumed into the place of the traitor Judas, and concerning his divine lot and election, there was so great a disagreement and so great a discord among them? Had not the disciples of the apostles learned from them how that election was made? And suppose they received nothing concerning it from them, certainly from other companions or successors of the apostles, who were still alive, each one of them could have been so informed of that election that there would be no room for dissension and disputation.

Areopagitici e contrario clamant ab ipso Ecclesiae nascentis exordio, diabolicis artibus fuisse inter Christianos, ut testatur Paulus, haereses et schismata, scissuras et dissensiones. Nihil ergo, inquiunt, mirum est si Dionysii tempore de sorte quae cecidit super Matthiam, sit disputatum. De Hierothei vero aliorumque libris deperditis nihil est quod magis mireris, quandoquidem plurima apostolorum virorumque apostolicorum scripta ita perierunt,

The Areopagitics, on the contrary, cry out that from the very beginning of the nascent Church, by diabolical arts there were among Christians, as Paul testifies, heresies and schisms, divisions and dissensions. Nothing therefore, say they, is wonderful if in the time of Dionysius there was disputation concerning the lot which fell upon Matthias. And concerning the lost books of Hierotheus and others there is nothing at which you should wonder more, seeing that very many writings of the apostles and of apostolic men have so perished

Editors' notes and page, col. 33

Footnotes

(21) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 33

De coelest. hierarch., cap. 13.

On the Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 13.

(printed under page 23)

(22) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 33 [the note runs across the seam between the two images; "cap. 13" as read, though the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy has only seven chapters]

De ecclesiast. hierarch., cap. 13.

On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 13. [sic]

(printed under page 23)

(23) ‹anchor: Seraphinorum alis› · call in col 33

Ibid. cap. 4.

Ibid., ch. 4.

(printed under page 23)

Page

running head: 33 PROLEGOMENA
marginal letters: A scriniis, et; B existimabat, se; C electione sancti; D rum unusquisque
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: scriniis, et episcoporum (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); word split at column break: perie-

PG 3:34

ut nullum eorum exstiterit vestigium. Sed his parum moti eorum adversarii, arguunt de rebus quidem quae ad fidei doctrinam pertinent, fuisse semper in Ecclesia ab haereticis agitatas quaestiones; at de rebus quae inter apostolos publice rituque solemni peractae sunt, quasque omnes ab eis eorumque sociis poterant facile edoceri, nullam de qua in scriptis disputaretur, nasci potuisse dissensionem. Porro Opera Hierothei, ac Bartholomaei, et Justi, non potuerunt tanta facilitate ac aliorum lucubrationes oblivione perpetua obrui. Constat quippe ea, si Dionysio credamus, in ejus ac Timothei manus venisse: nec dubium est quin illa cum plurimis, a quibus summa cura conservari debuerunt, censuerint esse communicanda.

that no trace of them has survived. But little moved by these things, their opponents argue that concerning matters indeed which pertain to the doctrine of the faith, questions were always agitated in the Church by heretics; whereas concerning matters which were performed among the apostles publicly and with solemn rite, and which all could easily be taught by them and their companions, no dissension could have arisen concerning which disputation would be held in writings. Moreover, the Works of Hierotheus, and of Bartholomew, and of Justus could not with such ease as the treatises of others have been buried in perpetual oblivion. For it is agreed, if we believe Dionysius, that they came into his and Timothy's hands: nor is there any doubt that they judged that they ought to be communicated to very many, by whom they ought to have been preserved with the greatest care.

CAPUT XIII.

Chapter XIII.

Quintum argumentum, ex citatis ab auctore nostro traditionibus petitum.

The fifth argument, drawn from the traditions cited by our author.

Aliud contra Dionysii Operum γνησιότητα argumentum suppeditant traditiones, quas ille ab antiquo tempore ad suam aetatem deductas esse testificatur. De baptizandorum enim infantium more haec tradidit auctor noster: Hac de re id quoque dicimus, quod deiformes praeceptores nostri ab antiqua traditione nobis transcripserunt. Πρὸς τῆς ἀρχαίας μαθόντες παραδόσεως. At id certe a Dionysio Areopagita dici nequaquam potuit.

Another argument against the genuineness (γνησιότητα) of the Works of Dionysius is supplied by the traditions which he testifies to have been brought down from ancient time to his own age. For concerning the custom of baptizing infants our author handed down these words: Concerning this matter we say this also, which our godlike preceptors handed down to us from ancient tradition, having learned it from ancient tradition (Πρὸς τῆς ἀρχαίας μαθόντες παραδόσεως). Yet that certainly could by no means have been said by Dionysius the Areopagite.

Enimvero quamvis mos ille ab apostolis derivetur, Dionysio tamen Areopagitae ab antiqua traditione non transmissus est. Quos enim ille vir summus, a Paulo fidei Christianae dogmatibus imbutus, praeceptores habere potuit, qui illi morem baptizandi infantes ab antiqua traditione praescripserint?

For indeed, although that custom is derived from the apostles, yet it was not transmitted to Dionysius the Areopagite from ancient tradition. For what preceptors could that supreme man, imbued by Paul with the dogmas of the Christian faith, have had who prescribed to him the custom of baptizing infants from ancient tradition?

Neque dixeris vocem ἀρχαίας non pro antiqua, sed prima traditione significanda usurpatam. Nullo quippe unquam exemplo vocem ἀρχαίας ad id quod, interposito nemine, ab aliquo acceptum est, significandum ullibi apud Graecos scriptores adhibitam fuisse probabitur. Quis ergo Dionysium Areopagitam hac voce contra receptam ab omnibus illius significationem usum esse, nulla ratione allata aliis facile persuadebit?

Nor may you say that the word ἀρχαίας was used to signify not ancient, but first tradition. For by no example will it ever be proved that the word ἀρχαίας was anywhere employed among Greek writers to signify that which has been received from someone with no one intervening. Who therefore will easily persuade others, adducing no reason, that Dionysius the Areopagite used this word contrary to its signification received by all?

Sed age, et videamus utrum ea veriora sint quae auctor noster de aliis dogmatibus sibi traditis, haud dubitanter affirmat: Maxime vero, ita ille loquitur, ista oracula dicimus quae a sacris nostris initiatoribus, divino Spiritu afflatis, in Scripturis sacris librisque theologicis tradita nobis sunt, uti et illa quae ab iisdem viris sanctis subtiliori, non omnino dissita ab ordine coelesti, insinuatione de mente in mentem, mediante verbo corporeo quidem illo, simul tamen immateriato, sine scriptione institutores nostri sacra quadam traductione sunt edocti: γραφῆς ἐκτὸς οἱ καθηγεμόνες ἡμῶν ἐμυήθησαν. Ibi

But come, let us see whether those things are truer which our author without hesitation affirms concerning other dogmas handed down to him: And above all, thus he speaks, we call those oracles which have been handed down to us by our sacred initiators, inspired by the Divine Spirit, in the Sacred Scriptures and theological books, as also those things which from the same holy men by a more subtle insinuation, not altogether remote from the celestial order, from mind to mind, by the mediation of a word corporeal indeed, yet at the same time immaterial, our instructors were taught without writing by a certain sacred transmission: without writing were our leaders initiated (γραφῆς ἐκτὸς οἱ καθηγεμόνες ἡμῶν ἐμυήθησαν). There

Editors' notes and page, col. 34

Footnotes

(24) ‹anchor: auctor noster› · call in col 34

Lib. De eccles. hierarch., cap. 7, § 11.

On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 7, § 11.

(printed under page 23)

(25) ‹anchor: haud dubitanter affirmat› · call in col 34

De hierarch. eccles., cap. 1, § 4.

On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 1, § 4.

(printed under page 23)

Page

running head: PROLEGOMENA. 34
marginal letters: A runt, ut nullum; B canda.; C tur, Dionysio; D Sed age
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: runt, ut nullum (Le Nourry's Dissertatio); word split at start of column: runt

PG 3:35

plane et dilucide non scriptam commemorat traditionem, quam de mente in mentem ad se traductam esse asserit. Verum, amabo vos, poteratne Dionysius Areopagita, Pauli discipulus, verbis adeo expressis affirmare se institutores ac magistros habuisse qui hierarchiae ecclesiasticae ordinem ab aliis sine scriptione didicerint?

he plainly and clearly commemorates an unwritten tradition, which he asserts was transmitted from mind to mind down to himself. Yet, pray tell, could Dionysius the Areopagite, the disciple of Paul, in such express words affirm that he had instructors and masters who learned the order of the ecclesiastical hierarchy from others without writing?

Neque vero, quod mirum est, ibi tantummodo, sed alibi non semel eodem traditionis argumento ad ea quae dixerat confirmanda sponte sua utitur. Nam ubi de sanctissimo Trinitatis mysterio non minus enucleate et perspicue ac alii post Nicaenam synodum Patres, disputat, Haec, inquit, aliaque quaelibet deificat lumina, quae Scripturis consona sancti nostri praeceptores arcana nobis interpretatione tradiderunt, nosque hausimus: Graece legitur, κρυφία παράδοσις, secreta traditio. Et paulo infra, Theologicae nostrae traditionis auctores... assignantque Scripturis sacris insistendo nonnulla dictae unioni propria, vicissimque distinctioni. Hi ergo auctores, vel, ut Graece scribitur, θεολογικῆς παραδόσεως ιερομύσται, divina attributa, inquit ille, enodaverunt, Scripturis sacris insistendo, vel, ut prius dixerat, Scripturis consona tradendo. Illorum ergo ibi profert testimonia, qui post editos Novi Foederis libros, ac in primis Apocalypsim et Evangelium Joannis, quae ibidem ab eo laudantur, inde auctoritates ad theologicorum de divina Trinitate dogmatum expositionem afferebant. Qui ergo erant ii Dionysii Areopagitae praeceptores? Nunquid Hierotheus? Sed is ab illo semper nominatim, praeceptor noster appellatur. Si ergo illum his in locis laudat, et alios procul dubio eidem adjungit. At porro quicunque tandem fuerint Areopagitae magistri, eos certe tantum citat qui post publicatos Apocalypsis et Evangelii Joannis libros ita scripserunt ut eos in omnium manus et cognitionem venisse omnino persuasum haberent. Rursus vero auctor noster illa praeceptorum suorum Opera, non ut recens edita, sed omnibus plerumque cognita laudavit. Unde quivis facile intelligat omnes scriptoris nostri lucubrationes et serius quam creditur prodiisse, nec Dionysium Areopagitam potuisse eorum esse auctorem.

Nor indeed, what is wonderful, does he use the same argument of tradition of his own accord only there, but elsewhere more than once to confirm the things which he had said. For where he disputes concerning the most holy mystery of the Trinity no less clearly and plainly than the other Fathers after the Nicene Synod, These, says he, and any other deific lights, which in harmony with the Scriptures our holy preceptors have handed down to us by secret interpretation, we also have drawn: in Greek it is read, κρυφία παράδοσις, secret tradition. And a little below: The authors of our theological tradition... and insisting upon the Sacred Scriptures, they assign certain things proper to the aforesaid union, and in turn to the distinction. These authors therefore, or, as it is written in Greek, θεολογικῆς παραδόσεως ιερομύσται, initiates of the theological tradition, explained, says he, the divine attributes by insisting upon the Sacred Scriptures, or, as he had said before, by handing down things consonant with the Scriptures. There accordingly he brings forward the testimonies of those who, after the books of the New Covenant were published, and above all the Apocalypse and Gospel of John, which are praised by him in the same place, adduced authorities thence for the exposition of the theological dogmas concerning the divine Trinity. Who therefore were those preceptors of Dionysius the Areopagite? Was it Hierotheus? Yet he is always called by him by name, our preceptor. If therefore he praises him in these places, he without doubt joins others also to him. Moreover, whoever those masters of the Areopagite may at length have been, he certainly cites only those who wrote after the books of the Apocalypse and Gospel of John were published, in such a way that they were altogether persuaded that those books had come into the hands and knowledge of all. And again, our author praised those Works of his preceptors not as recently published, but as generally known to all. Whence anyone may easily understand both that all the treatises of our writer came forth later than is believed, and that Dionysius the Areopagite could not have been their author.

CAPUT XIV.

Chapter XIV.

Sextum argumentum, ex iis quae de sanctissimo Trinitatis mysterio personisque divinis auctor noster tradidit, desumptum.

The sixth argument, taken from the things which our author handed down concerning the most holy mystery of the Trinity and the divine persons.

Illud autem probationibus jam adductis accedit firmamenti, quod non solum Hierotheus, ut diximus, de Trinitatis mysterio clarissime disserat, sed noster etiam Dionysius praeceptorem suum praeeuntem ita subsequatur ut uterque post ortam et damnatam Arianorum haeresim videatur disputare. Is enim non secus ac Hierotheus vocem hypostasis

Now this support accrues to the proofs already adduced, that not only does Hierotheus, as we have said, discourse most clearly concerning the mystery of the Trinity, but our Dionysius also so follows his preceptor leading the way that both seem to dispute after the heresy of the Arians had arisen and been condemned. For he, no otherwise than Hierotheus, uses the word hypostasis

Editors' notes and page, col. 35

Footnotes

(26) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 35

Lib. De divin. nom., cap. 1, § 4.

On the Divine Names, ch. 1, § 4.

(printed under page 24)

(27) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 35

Ibid., cap. 2.

Ibid., ch. 2.

(printed under page 24)

(28) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 35

De coelest. hierarch., cap. 5.

On the Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 5.

(printed under page 24)

(29) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 35

De divin. nom., cap. 1.

On the Divine Names, ch. 1.

(printed under page 24)

(30) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 35

Ibid., cap. 2.

Ibid., ch. 2.

(30*) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 36 [printed as 30 with a small mark after it, between notes 30 and 31; the mark is uncertain at this resolution; column of call inferred] Lib. III, Histor., cap. 7.

History, Book III, ch. 7.

(printed under page 24)

Page

running head: 35 S. DIONYSIUS AREOPA[GITA.]
marginal letters: A plane et dilucide; B tradiderunt, nosque; C ii Dionysii; D CAPUT XIV.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: plane et dilucide (Le Nourry's Dissertatio)

PG 3:36

ad tres divinae Trinitatis personas significandas saepius usurpat. Καὶ μὴν, inquit ille, ὅτι μονάς ἐστι καὶ ἑνὰς τρισυπόστατος. Et alibi: ὡς τριάδα δὲ διὰ τὴν τρισυπόστατον. Ubi vero de personarum divinarum circuminsessione loquitur: τῶν ἐναρχικῶν ὑποστάσεων, inquit. Atqui nullus ante Alexandrinam synodum, anno 362 coactam, ea voce, si Socrati fides habeatur, ad id significandum usus est: Caeterum episcopi, Socratis verba sunt, qui in Alexandrino concilio aderant, hanc praeterea quaestionem diligenter examinarunt, de substantia scilicet et hypostasi... Quid autem nos de substantia et hypostasi didicerimus, nihil vetat quominus haec breviter exponamus. Qui Graecam inter Graecos philosophiam tradiderunt, substantiam quidem plurimis modis definierunt, hypostaseos vero nullam prorsus mentionem fecere, etc. Hieronymus vero de eadem voce, utrum usurpanda foret, sententiam Damasi papae sciscitatus, ait: Tota saecularium litterarum schola nihil aliud hypostasim, nisi usiam novit... Taceantur tres hypostases, si placet, et una teneatur. Nondum ergo Hieronymi tempore ea vox recepto apud omnes in usu erat, nec inconsulto summo pontifice, ea sanctus doctor uti se posse arbitrabatur.

rather often to signify the three persons of the divine Trinity. And indeed, says he, that it is a Monad and Triad of three hypostases (Καὶ μὴν, ὅτι μονάς ἐστι καὶ ἑνὰς τρισυπόστατος). And elsewhere: and as a Triad on account of that which is of three hypostases (ὡς τριάδα δὲ διὰ τὴν τρισυπόστατον). And where he speaks of the circuminsession of the divine persons: of the archic hypostases (τῶν ἐναρχικῶν ὑποστάσεων), says he. Yet no one before the Synod of Alexandria, assembled in the year 362, used that word to signify this, if credit be given to Socrates: Moreover the bishops, the words are those of Socrates, who were present at the Council of Alexandria, diligently examined this question besides, namely concerning substance and hypostasis... Now what we have learned concerning substance and hypostasis, nothing forbids that we should briefly set forth. Those who handed down Greek philosophy among the Greeks defined substance indeed in very many ways, but made no mention at all of hypostasis, etc. And Jerome, inquiring the opinion of Pope Damasus concerning the same word, whether it ought to be used, says: The whole school of secular letters knows hypostasis as nothing else than usia... Let three hypostases be kept silent, if it please you, and let one be held. Not yet, therefore, in the time of Jerome was that word in received use among all, nor without consulting the supreme pontiff did the holy doctor think that he could use it.

Sed insurgunt Areopagitici, magnisque animis adversariorum tela retundentes, certum esse dicunt Antenicaenos Patres in asserenda, quae de sanctissimae Trinitatis mysterio ab orthodoxis traditur, doctrina tam constantes fuisse, ut eo tempore quo Arius haeresim suam disseminare coepit, ille nova hactenusque inaudita dogmata spargere insimulatus, ab omnibus contra ejus impietatem sit reclamatum. Nulli praeterea dubium esse posse inquiunt, quin apostoli adorandum illud mysterium Christianis, praesertim perfectioribus, non obscure, sed clare et perspicue exposuerint, eosque in hac tam difficilis mysterii doctrina adversus nascentes haereses muniendo, nihil ipsis reliquerint obscuritatibus involutum. Quid ergo mirum si Dionysius, Pauli discipulus, et philosophiae callentissimus, traditam ejusdem mysterii doctrinam, prae caeteris aliis scriptoribus, verbis explicuerit clarioribus magisque philosophicis?

But the Areopagitics rise up, and blunting the darts of their opponents with great spirit, say that it is certain that the Ante-Nicene Fathers were so constant in asserting the doctrine which is handed down by the orthodox concerning the mystery of the most holy Trinity, that at the time when Arius began to disseminate his heresy, he was accused of scattering new and hitherto unheard-of dogmas, and protest was raised by all against his impiety. Moreover, they say that it can be doubtful to no one that the apostles expounded that adorable mystery to Christians, especially the more perfect, not obscurely, but clearly and plainly, and in fortifying them in the doctrine of so difficult a mystery against nascent heresies, left nothing to them wrapped in obscurities. What wonder, therefore, if Dionysius, the disciple of Paul, and most skilled in philosophy, explained the handed-down doctrine of the same mystery in clearer and more philosophical words than all other writers?

Porro autem quamvis usus hujus verbi hypostasis ante Nicaenam synodum non esset ita frequens ac promiscuus, constat tamen eam vocem ab aliquibus usurpatam fuisse. Etenim Dionysius Alexandrinus eam ipsam aliquando adhibuisse legitur. Alexander vero, Alexandriae episcopus, ad alium Alexandrum, Constantinopolis episcopum, scribens: Propriam, inquit, hypostasim declaravit, dicens . « In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, » etc. Denique his Pauli verbis χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, personam Patris

Moreover, although the use of this word hypostasis before the Nicene Synod was not so frequent and promiscuous, yet it is agreed that that word was used by some. For Dionysius of Alexandria is read to have employed that very word at times. And Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, writing to another Alexander, bishop of Constantinople: He declared, says he, His proper hypostasis, saying: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God" (John 1:1), etc. Finally, by these words of Paul, the express image of His hypostasis (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ) (Heb. 1:3), that the person of the Father

Editors' notes and page, col. 36

Footnotes

(31) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 36 [column of call inferred]

Epist. 57, ad Damas.

Letter 57, to Damasus.

(printed under page 24)

(32) ‹anchor: adhibuisse legitur› · call in col 36

In Resp. ad Propos. Pauli Samosat., tom. I Concil.

In the Reply to the Propositions of Paul of Samosata, Councils, vol. I.

(printed under page 24)

(33) ‹anchor: scribens› · call in col 36

Theodoret. lib. I Hist., cap. 4.

Theodoret, History, Book I, ch. 4.

(printed under page 24)

(34) ‹anchor: apud Deum› · call in col 36

Joan. I.

John 1.

(printed under page 24)

(35) ‹anchor: ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ› · call in col 36

Hebr. I, 3.

Heb. 1:3.

(printed under page 24)

Page

running head: [S. DION]YSIUS AREOPAGITA. 36
marginal letters: A ad tres divinae; B modis definierunt; C ditur, doctrina; D Porro autem
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: ad tres divinae (Le Nourry's Dissertatio)

PG 3:37

aeterni designatam esse Basilius, et laudatus a Theophylacto Gregorius Nyssenus affirmant. Caeterum, quamvis concedatur nullum ante Dionysii tempora fuisse hujus verbi usum, fatendum tamen est inter Christianos exstitisse aliquem, a quo illud primum coeperit usurpari. Quid ergo prohibet quominus Dionysius, vir philosophicae disciplinae peritissimus, qui hujusce vocis, ab Aristotele alicubi traditae, vim noverat, illa eodem ac ille philosophorum princeps, sensu et significatione primus inter Christianos usus esse dicatur?

eternal was designated, Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa praised by Theophylact, affirm. Besides, although it be granted that there was no use of this word before the times of Dionysius, yet it must be confessed that there was someone among Christians by whom it first began to be used. What therefore hinders Dionysius, a man most skilled in philosophical learning, who knew the force of this word handed down somewhere by Aristotle, from being said to have been the first among Christians to use it in the same sense and signification as that prince of philosophers?

Contra tamen urgent instantque adversae partis fautores, quod quamvis Antenicaeni Patres Christum Dominum verum Deum, Patris aeterni Filium, ejusdem cum eo substantiae, ipsique coaeternum esse et crediderint et docuerint, ab eorum tamen nemine de personis divinis, illarumque attributis et relativis, ut loquuntur, et essentialibus tam clare et enucleate, atque ab auctore nostro disputatum unquam fuerit. Et sane, inquiunt, cur ii qui post Dionysium edendis lucubrationibus secundo et tertio Ecclesiae saeculo operam dedere, non eosdem ac ille de divina Trinitate sermones habuerunt? Cur nullus aliquando illius aut praeceptoris ejus Hierothei exemplum secutus est?

On the other hand, however, the partisans of the opposite side urge and insist that although the Ante-Nicene Fathers both believed and taught that Christ the Lord is true God, the Son of the eternal Father, of the same substance with Him, and coeternal with Him, yet by none of them was disputation ever held so clearly and plainly concerning the divine persons, and their attributes both relative, as they call them, and essential, as by our author. And indeed, say they, why did those who after Dionysius devoted their labour to publishing treatises in the second and third centuries of the Church not hold the same discourses concerning the divine Trinity as he? Why did no one ever follow his example or that of his preceptor Hierotheus?

Quae vero ad probandum vocis ὑποστάσεως usum adducuntur, ea nihil habere videntur soliditatis et firmamenti. Epistolam enim Dionysii Alexandrini ipsi suppositam adulterinamque esse critici doctiores facile agnoscunt. Altera vero alterius Dionysii epistola quo tempore scripta sit, nullus definire potest. Baronius quidem illam anno 328, quo Licinii mortem consignat, datam opinatur; sed ruinoso nititur fundamento. Nam Licinius non anno 328, sed 324, ut accuratioris criterii scriptoribus videtur, vitam finivit. Demus tamen Alexandrum eo quo vult Baronius tempore suam exarasse epistolam; quid inde? Nulli sane mirum esse debet vocem hypostasis ab homine Alexandrinae synodi temporibus adeo vicino, fuisse usurpatam; sed illud sane mirabilius, quod nullus scriptor, ut Petavius ostendit, his tanti viri vestigiis, nisi post Alexandrinam synodum insistendum esse putaverit. Quod certe quam parum ea vox ineunte saeculo quarto, atque a fortiori saeculis superioribus, usitata esset, aperte demonstrat.

And as for the things which are adduced to prove the use of the word ὑποστάσεως, they seem to have no solidity and support. For the more learned critics readily recognize that the epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria is falsely attributed to him and spurious. And at what time the other epistle of the other Dionysius was written, no one can define. Baronius indeed supposes that it was written in the year 328, to which he assigns the death of Licinius; but he rests upon a ruinous foundation. For Licinius ended his life not in the year 328, but in 324, as seems right to writers of more accurate judgement. Yet let us grant that Alexander wrote his epistle at the time that Baronius wishes; what then? Assuredly it ought to be wonderful to no one that the word hypostasis was used by a man so near to the times of the Synod of Alexandria; but this assuredly is more wonderful, that no writer, as Petavius shows, thought that he ought to tread in these footsteps of so great a man until after the Synod of Alexandria. Which certainly openly demonstrates how little used that word was at the beginning of the fourth century, and a fortiori in earlier centuries.

Nec plus roboris et virium illud habet, quod ea vox et in Epistola ad Hebraeos occurrere, et a Basilio Gregorioque sensu Dionysiano explicari objicitur. Uterque enim Basilius et Gregorius post Nicaenum concilium scripsere; atque hi eam vocem sensu temporibus suis usitato interpretati sunt. Nullus autem ante illud concilium eamdem Pauli vocem ita censuit esse explicandam. Et id quidem ita certum est, ut in Latina ejusdem Paulinae epistolae versione, vox Graeca ὑπόστασις non per Latinam hypostasis, sed figura substantiae reddita legatur.

Nor has that any more strength and force, that that word is objected both to occur in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and to be explained by Basil and Gregory in the Dionysian sense. For both Basil and Gregory wrote after the Nicene Council; and they interpreted that word in the sense customary in their times. But no one before that council judged that the same word of Paul ought to be so explained. And this indeed is so certain that in the Latin version of the same Pauline epistle, the Greek word ὑπόστασις is read rendered not by the Latin hypostasis, but by figure of substance (figura substantiae).

Editors' notes and page, col. 37

Footnotes

(36) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 37

Epist. 43, ad Gregor. Nyss.

Letter 43, to Gregory of Nyssa.

(printed under page 25)

(37) ‹anchor: Petavius ostendit› · call in col 37

Theolog. Dogmat., cap. 1.

Dogmata theologica, ch. 1.

(printed under page 25)

Page

running head: 37 PROLEGOMENA.
marginal letters: A aeterni designatam; B num esse; C res facile; D lo quarto
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: aeterni designatam (Le Nourry's Dissertatio)

PG 3:38

Denique quod aiunt auctorem nostrum primum forsitan fuisse, a quo eadem vox sensu memorato accepta sit, gratis omnino fingitur. Noster quippe auctor, ut cuilibet citata loca percurrenti planissimum fiet, de ea sic disputat, ac si sensus quem illi tribuit, nulli omnino incognitus, receptus esset ab omnibus.

Finally, what they say, that our author was perhaps the first by whom the same word was taken in the sense mentioned, is altogether gratuitously invented. For indeed our author, as will become most plain to anyone running through the cited passages, disputes concerning it just as if the sense which he attributes to it, unknown to no one at all, were received by all.

Neque ad rem facit laudata uno in loco Aristotelis auctoritas. Ea quippe apud primos Ecclesiae Patres nullius erat momenti, quippe qui philosophiae dogmata respuerent et aspernarentur. Porro autem si quid successu temporis ex illa hauserunt, Platonis potius quam Aristotelis placita et doctrinam sunt amplexati.

Nor is the authority of Aristotle, cited in one place, relevant to the matter. For that was of no weight among the first Fathers of the Church, inasmuch as they rejected and spurned the dogmas of philosophy. Moreover, if in the course of time they drew anything from it, they embraced the tenets and teaching of Plato rather than of Aristotle.

CAPUT XV.

Chapter XV.

Sextum argumentum, ex iis quae auctor noster de monachis eorumque votis ac solemni professione memorat, elicitum.

The sixth argument, drawn from those things which our author recounts concerning monks and their vows and solemn profession.

Illa vero auctorem nostrum post Dionysii Areopagitae aetatem vixisse luculenter demonstrant, quae ab eo hisce in lucubrationibus de monachorum professione et ordine produntur. Ibi enim ille non obscure docet hunc monachorum ordinem ante sua tempora fuisse institutum; traditque apertissime eorum professionem ac vota monastica solemnibus ac publicis, non secus ac saeculo quinto et sexto, caeremoniis fuisse emissa. At praeterquam quod priorum Ecclesiae saeculorum scriptores, atque ii etiam ipsi qui de singulis Christianorum ordinibus accuratius iisdem temporibus disseruerunt, nullam monastici ordinis monachorumve professionis fecere mentionem, certe quidam eruditissimi et antiquissimi rerum monasticarum indagatores earum originem ad Paulos, Antonios Pachomiosque referunt. His ergo auctor noster posterior esse debet, nec Dionysius Areopagita dici potest.

Truly those things clearly demonstrate that our author lived after the age of Dionysius the Areopagite which are put forth by him in these treatises concerning the profession and order of monks. For there he teaches not obscurely that this order of monks was instituted before his own times; and he hands down most openly that their profession and monastic vows were made with solemn and public ceremonies, no differently than in the fifth and sixth century. Yet besides the fact that the writers of the earlier centuries of the Church, and even those very ones who discoursed more accurately concerning the individual orders of Christians in those same times, made no mention of the monastic order or of the profession of monks, certainly some most learned and most ancient investigators of monastic affairs refer their origin to the Pauls, Anthonys, and Pachomiuses. Therefore our author must be later than these, nor can he be called Dionysius the Areopagite.

Areopagitici tamen hunc non exiguae difficultatis nodum haud difficulter se solvere arbitrantur, duplicis monachorum generis distinctione. Aliud enim esse aiunt genus coenobitarum et eremitarum, qui a plebe prorsus secreti, et a caeterorum hominum societate separati, in monasteriis et coenobiis, vel in silvis et montibus vitam monasticam degebant. Hos fatentur longe post Dionysii aetatem, nec ante Pauli, Antonii et Pachomii tempora ortum habuisse. Aliud vero contendunt fuisse genus monachorum, qui pars populi praecipua, et illustrior gregis Christi portio, inter laicos ita computabantur, ut primus eis in synaxi post Ecclesiae ministros assignatus esset locus. Illi porro privatim in suis urbium aedibus, vel simul in collegiis vitam puram et castam, atque a curis terrenis expeditam, unique Deo mancipatam agebant. Monachos autem istos temporibus apostolorum exstitisse dicunt, eosque esse asserunt, de quibus Philo Judaeus illum instituit sermonem, qui ab Eusebio in Historia sua transcriptus est.

The Areopagitics, however, think that they loose this knot of no small difficulty with no trouble, by the distinction of a twofold kind of monks. For they say that one is the kind of cenobites and hermits, who, wholly set apart from the common people and separated from the society of the rest of men, lived the monastic life in monasteries and cenobia, or in woods and mountains. These they confess had their origin long after the age of Dionysius, and not before the times of Paul, Anthony, and Pachomius. But they contend that there was another kind of monks, who, as the chief part of the people and the more illustrious portion of the flock of Christ, were so reckoned among the laity that the first place was assigned to them in the synaxis after the ministers of the Church. They, moreover, privately in their own houses in the cities, or together in colleges, led a pure and chaste life, freed from earthly cares and bound over to God alone. And they say that those monks existed in the times of the apostles, and assert that they are the ones concerning whom Philo the Jew composed that discourse which was transcribed by Eusebius in his History.

Neque dixeris hos, quos Philo non monachos,

Nor could one say that these, whom Philo calls not monks,

Editors' notes and page, col. 38

Footnotes

(38) ‹anchor: in Historia› · call in col 38 [the first letter of "cap." is damaged in the print and looks like "r"]

Lib. II, cap. 17.

Book II, ch. 17.

(printed under page 25)

Page

running head: PROLEGOMENA. 38
marginal letters: A Denique quod aiunt; B Sextum argumentum,; C monastici ordinis; D nec ante Pauli,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Denique quod aiunt; CAPUT XV.

PG 3:39

sed therapeutas vocat, revera monachos non fuisse, sed Judaicae, nequaquam vero Christianae religioni addictos, atque Eusebium hac in re, ut eruditus ejus interpres Valesius observat, vano errore fuisse deceptum. Ab Areopagiticis enim audies nullas penitusque frivolas esse Valesii adversus auctorem suum probationes. Et certe, inquiunt, Eusebius, vir summae eruditionis in dignoscenda therapeutarum religione, tam turpis hallucinationis non sine temeritatis nota potest insimulari. Addunt praeterea Hieronymum huic Eusebii de Christiana therapeutarum religione opinioni haec subscripsisse in verba : Philo, videns Alexandriae primam Ecclesiam adhuc Judaizantem, quasi in laudem gentis suae librum super eorum conversatione scripsit.

but therapeutae, were in fact not monks, but devoted to the Jewish and by no means to the Christian religion, and that Eusebius in this matter, as his learned translator Valesius observes, was deceived by a vain error. For you will hear from the Areopagitics that the proofs of Valesius against the author whom he translates are null and utterly frivolous. And certainly, they say, Eusebius, a man of the highest erudition, cannot without the mark of rashness be accused of so shameful a blunder in discerning the religion of the therapeutae. They add besides that Jerome subscribed to this opinion of Eusebius concerning the Christian religion of the therapeutae in these words: Philo, seeing the first Church at Alexandria still Judaizing, wrote a book on their way of life as if in praise of his own nation.

At sane Areopagitici therapeutas, si fieri possit, Christianae religioni nomen dedisse invictis demonstrent argumentis, per nos licet. Sed illos vitam monasticam, qualis ab auctore nostro describitur, aliquando duxisse, nullo unquam, ut putatur, antiquitatis monimento probabunt. Missa etenim primum ea facimus quae scriptor noster de Monachis suis tradidit, eos non in urbibus, sed extra urbes progressos, in hortis agellisque degisse, ac proinde Antonianis, quod alii negant, fuisse similes. Illud autem potissimum quaerimus cur Eusebius qui tanto nisu therapeutas Philonianos Christianis annumerandos esse probare conatus est, eosdem nullibi dixerit monachos fuisse, vel successores habuisse, qui vestibus, tonsura, votis solemnibus, ac vivendi ratione ab omnibus Christianis secreti, perfectiorem vitae monasticae normam profitebantur. Cur Hieronymus, tantus monasticae professionis praedicator, eosdem therapeutas in monachorum numerum non refert, illosque cum caeteris omnibus primae Ecclesiae Christianis permiscet et confundit? Nulla procul dubio alia ratio afferri poterit, quam nec therapeutas initio nascentis Ecclesiae, nec ullos Christianos Dionysii tempore tales monachos fuisse, quales ab auctore nostro memorantur.

Yet by all means let the Areopagitics demonstrate by invincible arguments, if it can be done, that the therapeutae gave their name to the Christian religion; they have our leave. But that they ever led a monastic life such as is described by our author, they will prove, as is thought, by no monument of antiquity ever. For in the first place we pass over those things which our writer has handed down concerning his Monks, that they lived not in cities, but having gone out beyond the cities, in gardens and small fields, and consequently were like the Antonians, which others deny. But this above all we ask: why Eusebius, who with such great effort tried to prove that the Philonian therapeutae were to be numbered among the Christians, nowhere said that the same were monks, or had successors who, set apart from all Christians by garments, tonsure, solemn vows, and manner of living, professed a more perfect rule of monastic life. Why does Jerome, so great a preacher of the monastic profession, not reckon the same therapeutae in the number of monks, and mingle and confound them with all the other Christians of the early Church? Without doubt no other reason will be able to be brought forward than that neither the therapeutae at the beginning of the nascent Church, nor any Christians in the time of Dionysius, were such monks as are recounted by our author.

Atque illud quidem eo rursus confirmari potest, quod monasticum institutum non ferebant prima saevientium adversus Christianos persecutionum tempora. Quis enim sibi persuadeat tyrannos idolorumque cultores, qui summa crudelitate in Christianos omnes grassabantur, eos impune tulisse, qui in collegiis communiter degentes, tonsura et veste perfectiorique vivendi genere caeteris Christianis illustriores erant. Sacerdos, inquit auctor noster, stat ad altare... Is autem qui consecratur, stat post sacerdotem.... supra illam mysticam invocationem prosequenti. Qua finita, sacerdos accedens rogat ipsum primum, an omnibus rebus dividuis renuntiet, non solum vitiis, sed etiam imaginationibus. Deinde exponit illi vitam perfectissimam, contestans illam debere mediam vivendi rationem superare. Quae

And this indeed can again be confirmed by the fact that the first times of the persecutions raging against the Christians did not suffer the monastic institute. For who could persuade himself that tyrants and worshippers of idols, who raged with the utmost cruelty against all Christians, bore with impunity those who, living in common in colleges, were more conspicuous than the rest of the Christians by tonsure and garment and a more perfect kind of life. The priest, says our author, stands at the altar... And he who is consecrated stands behind the priest.... over it pursuing the mystical invocation. Which being finished, the priest approaching asks him first whether he renounces all divisive things, not only vices, but also imaginations. Then he sets forth to him the most perfect life, testifying that it ought to surpass the middle way of living. Which things

Editors' notes and page, col. 39

Footnotes

(39) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 39

De script. eccles.

On Ecclesiastical Writers.

(printed under page 26)

Page

running head: 39 S. DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA.
marginal letters: A sed therapeutas vocat,; B At sane Areopagitici; C sores habuisse,; D tempora. Quis enim
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: sed therapeutas vocat,

PG 3:40

ubi omnia is qui initiatur, professus est, sacerdos eum signo crucis consignatum tondet... omnique veste detracta, eum alia induit. Quis autem primis Ecclesiae temporibus monachum aliquem veste et tonsura ab aliis Christianae religionis hominibus discretum, in publico visum, aut a paganis captum, tortumque, aut necatum memoriae aliquando mandavit? Ubinam, quaeso, collegium aliquod, in quo monachi simul vitam degerent, a paganis aut imperatoribus praedatum aut eversum legitur? Si quid his non omnino absimile in quibusdam martyris alicujus Actis occurrere dixeris, arguetur continuo illa nec genuina esse nec sincera, nihilque de tempore quo martyr ille obierit, ab eorum scriptoribus certo definiri.

when he who is being initiated has professed them all, the priest, having signed him with the sign of the cross, shears him... and having stripped off all his clothing, clothes him with another. Now who has ever committed to memory that in the first times of the Church any monk distinguished by garment and tonsure from other men of the Christian religion was seen in public, or captured by pagans, and tortured, or killed? Where, I ask, is any college in which monks lived their life together read of as having been plundered or overthrown by pagans or emperors? If you say that something not altogether unlike these things occurs in certain Acts of some martyr, it will immediately be proved that those are neither genuine nor sincere, and that nothing concerning the time at which that martyr died is defined with certainty by their writers.

Tradit denique auctor noster nomen therapeutae et monachi suo tempore tritum et vulgare fuisse atque a praeceptoribus suis illud Christianis, ritum monasticum solemniter profitentibus, inditum : Hinc sancti praeceptores nostri, inquit, divinis eos appellationibus sunt prosecuti : alii quidem therapeutas, alii vero monachos appellaverunt : οἱ μὲν θεραπευτὰς, οἱ δὲ μοναχοὺς ὀνομάζοντες. Quinam, obsecro, esse poterant hi Dionysii praeceptores, qui ea nomina appellationesque divinas illis imposuere? Non Philo quidem. Is enim, Judaeus cum esset, a Dionysio Areopagita tanquam unus ex sanctis praeceptoribus suis laudari non potuit. Quinam ergo ab eo praeceptores appellantur? Num Hierotheus vel alii, quorum nomen excidit, evanuitque memoria? Sed hi suis temporibus celebres esse debuerunt, et omnibus facile noti. Cur ergo isti soli cum discipulo suo Dionysio Areopagita primo, secundo tertioque Ecclesiae saeculo monachorum nomina, ordinem, statum, professionem, vota, tonsuram, vestem et collegia memoraverunt? Certe cum alii scriptores per tam longa trium saeculorum spatia horum omnium nequaquam meminerint, id sane argumento non levissimo est tempore Dionysii nullos exstitisse hujuscemodi monachos et therapeutas.

Finally, our author hands down that the name of therapeutes and monk was worn and common in his time, and that it was given by his teachers to Christians solemnly professing the monastic rite: Hence our holy teachers, he says, have honoured them with divine appellations: some indeed have called them therapeutae, and others monks: some naming them therapeutae, and others monks. Who, I beseech you, could these teachers of Dionysius have been, who imposed those names and divine appellations upon them? Not Philo, certainly. For he, since he was a Jew, could not be praised by Dionysius the Areopagite as one of his holy teachers. Who then are called teachers by him? Was it Hierotheus or others, whose name has perished and whose memory has vanished? Yet these must have been famous in their own times, and easily known to all. Why then did those alone with their disciple Dionysius the Areopagite in the first, second, and third century of the Church recount the names, order, state, profession, vows, tonsure, garment, and colleges of monks? Certainly, since other writers through such long spaces of three centuries made no mention at all of all these things, that is surely no very slight argument that in the time of Dionysius no monks and therapeutae of this kind existed.

CAPUT XVI.

Chapter XVI.

Argumentum septimum, ex caeremoniis ritibusque sacris, quos auctor noster recensuit, depromptum.

The seventh argument, drawn from the sacred ceremonies and rites which our author has recounted.

Maxima caeremoniarum multitudo, solemnisque earum apparatus et pompa, quibus auctor noster sacramenta baptismatis, chrismationis et Eucharistiae confici et administrari, missam liturgiamque celebrari, et mortuorum corpora sepeliri perhibet, eum Dionysio Areopagita posteriorem esse rursus produnt et demonstrant. Ille enimvero hos omnes ritus nec minori numero, nec minori solemnitate, quam cum Ecclesia pace placidissima fruebatur, suo, hoc est, ut ipse fingit, acerbissimo pene incredibilium vexationum tempore a Christianis adhiberi solere significat.

The very great multitude of ceremonies, and their solemn equipment and pomp, wherewith our author relates that the sacraments of baptism, chrismation, and the Eucharist are performed and administered, the mass and liturgy celebrated, and the bodies of the dead buried, again betray and demonstrate that he is later than Dionysius the Areopagite. For indeed he signifies that all these rites were wont to be employed by Christians in no lesser number, and with no lesser solemnity, than when the Church enjoyed the most peaceful quiet, in his own time, that is, as he himself feigns, a most bitter time of almost incredible persecutions.

Non diffitentur quidem Areopagitici plurium

The Areopagitics indeed do not deny that of very many

Editors' notes and page, col. 40

Page

running head: S. DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA. 40
marginal letters: A ubi omnia is; B Tradit denique; C Hierotheus vel alii,; D Maxima caeremoniarum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with inline Greek quote, no facing Greek printed; editors' matter: ubi omnia is; CAPUT XVI.

PG 3:41

caeremoniarum mentionem apud Dionysium haberi; sed contendunt eas apostolorum tempore paulatim institutas, et traditione apostolica ad alios ita derivatas, ut Dionysii ejusdem aetate, in eum quem ille describit, numerum haud difficulter crescere potuerint. Porro autem Christiani, uti illi autumant, iis ritibus tum utebantur, cum, persecutionum furore vel sopito vel mitigato, synaxes suas tutis in locis agere licebat. Quae quidem ut probent, adducunt testimonia Tertulliani, qui baptisma non paucioribus quam auctor noster caeremoniis administratum asseverat. Basilius vero eas a tacita et occulta traditione ad suam usque aetatem deductas esse testatur. Nec aliter sane de his atque aliis liturgiae ritibus sentiebat idem Tertullianus : Quas, inquit, sine ullius Scripturae instrumento, solius traditionis titulo, exinde consuetudinis patrocinio vindicamus... Harum et aliarum ejusmodi disciplinarum si legem expostules, Scripturarum nullam invenies : traditio tibi praetenditur auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix, et fides observatrix. Rationem traditioni, consuetudini, fidei patrocinaturam aut ipse perspicies, aut ab aliquo, qui perspexerit, disces. Neque hic quosdam audiri volunt Antiareopagiticos, qui, nullis probationibus freti, quasdam caeremonias Dionysianis atque apostolicis temporibus in usu fuisse audacter inficiantur.

ceremonies mention is made in Dionysius; but they contend that they were gradually instituted in the time of the apostles, and by apostolic tradition so derived to others that in the age of the same Dionysius they could without difficulty have grown to that number which he describes. Moreover, the Christians, as those men suppose, used those rites at that time when, the fury of the persecutions being either lulled or mitigated, it was permitted to hold their synaxes in safe places. And to prove these things, they adduce the testimonies of Tertullian, who asserts that baptism was administered with no fewer ceremonies than our author does. And Basil testifies that they were brought down from a silent and secret tradition even to his own age. Nor certainly did the same Tertullian think otherwise concerning these and other rites of the liturgy: Which, he says, without any instrument of Scripture, by the title of tradition alone, and thereafter by the patronage of custom, we claim... Of these and other disciplines of this sort, if you demand a law of the Scriptures, you will find none: tradition is held forth to you as the originator, custom as the confirmer, and faith as the observer. The reason that will support tradition, custom, and faith either you yourself will perceive, or you will learn from someone who has perceived it. Nor do they wish certain Antiareopagitics to be heard here, who, relying on no proofs, boldly deny that certain ceremonies were in use in Dionysian and apostolic times.

Verumtamen illud adversus Areopagiticos jure merito urgetur, quod sicut auctor noster nonnullos commemorat ritus, qui illa prima Ecclesiae aetate revera vigebant, ita plures alios recenset, qui post Dionysianum aevum originem habuerunt. Quis enim verisimile esse putaverit Dionysii aevo catechumenos poenitentesque publicos exstitisse, qui post sacrarum Scripturarum lectiones ejicerentur ex ecclesia? De his tamen sic scribit auctor noster : Porro catechumenos et energumenos, eosque qui poenitentia ducuntur, sacrosanctae hierarchiae mos patitur audire sacram psalmodiam divinamque sacrarum Scripturarum recitationem : verum ad ea quae deinceps sequuntur sacrificia spectaculoque nequaquam, etc. Nec leviter praetereunda est vox Graeca θεσμός quae ibi legitur; idem quippe sonat ac sanctio aut mos vetus. Quaenam autem, amabo te, sanctio, aut quis mos vetus poterat a Dionysio notari, quae ab ipsis apostolis non sint profecta? At nullo sane antiquitatis aut sacrae Scripturae monimento ostendes latam ab apostolis legem, vel morem ab eis inductum, quo catechumeni et publici poenitentes priori missae parti adessent, et post haec missa fidelium interdicerentur. Enumera, si velis, quos apostoli eorumque successores viri apostolici catechumenos baptismate abluerint, quos absolverint publicos poenitentes, nec ullum reperies quem his unquam legibus voluerint coerceri.

Nevertheless, this is rightly and deservedly urged against the Areopagitics, that just as our author mentions several rites which really flourished in that first age of the Church, so he recounts many others which had their origin after the Dionysian age. For who would think it likely that in the age of Dionysius there existed catechumens and public penitents who after the readings of the sacred Scriptures were cast out of the church? Yet concerning these our author writes thus: Moreover, the custom of the sacrosanct hierarchy suffers the catechumens and the energumens, and those who are undergoing penance, to hear the sacred psalmody and the divine recitation of the sacred Scriptures: but to the sacrifices and spectacles which follow thereafter, by no means, etc. Nor is the Greek word thesmos, which is read there, to be lightly passed over; for it sounds the same as sanction or ancient custom. Now what sanction, I pray you, or what ancient custom could be noted by Dionysius, which did not proceed from the apostles themselves? Yet by no monument of antiquity or of sacred Scripture will you show a law enacted by the apostles, or a custom introduced by them, whereby catechumens and public penitents were present at the earlier part of the mass, and after these things were forbidden the mass of the faithful. Enumerate, if you will, what catechumens the apostles and their successors the apostolic men washed with baptism, what public penitents they absolved, and you will find not one whom they ever wished to be bound by these laws.

Evolve etiam, si vacat, omnes libros, nec ullibi

Unroll also, if you have leisure, all the books, and nowhere

Editors' notes and page, col. 41

Footnotes

(40) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 41

Lib. De corona milit., cap. 3.

On the Soldier's Crown, ch. 3.

(printed under page 27)

(41) ‹anchor: auctor noster› · call in col 41

De eccles. hierarch., cap. 3.

On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 3.

(printed under page 27)

(42) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 41

Apolog. ad imperat.

Apology to the Emperor.

(printed under page 27)

(43) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 41 ["Avolog." as printed, for Apolog.]

Avolog. cap. 30, et lib. De corona, cap. 10.

Apology, ch. 30; and On the Crown, ch. 10.

(printed under page 27)

Page

running head: 41 FROLEGOMENA.
marginal letters: A caeremoniarum mentionem; B inquit, sine ullius; C revera vigebant,; D te, sanctio, aut
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with inline Greek word, no facing Greek printed; editors' matter: caeremoniarum mentionem; word split at end of column: ul- (ullibi)

PG 3:42

quoque reperies tam frequentem fuisse his temporibus thuris usum, nec tot suffitiones quot ab auctore nostro his verbis referuntur : Pontifex precem sacram ad altare Dei celebraturus, ab ejusdem suffitione initium faciens, universum circuit chori ambitum, donec rursum ad altare divinum rediens, etc. Enimvero Athenagoras et Tertullianus Christianos neque thure neque suffitu Deo sacrificasse testantur. Censet quidem eminentissimus cardinalis Bona eos esse intelligendos de more thus adolendi eodem ritu, habitu et apparatu, quo agitur apud idola. Sed summi viri pace dicere liceat, illud accuratius observari debere, quod scribit Tertullianus, Christianos duabus de causis thus adolevisse, nimirum Christianis sepeliendis, et cum odor alicujus loci offenderit. Hac etenim duplici exceptione planum ille facit, vel alibi thus a Christianis non oblatum, vel saltem non toties adhibitum quoties ab auctore nostro narratur. Fac tamen ea omnia suffimenta tunc fuisse in usu. At nullus, opinor, in animum sibi facile induxerit, ea in tot ecclesiae partibus quot auctor noster designat, fuisse adhibita. Nunquid enim primis saevientium tyrannorum temporibus Christianis erant ecclesiae, quae tot partibus, choro, narthece sacristiaque constarent?

will you find either that the use of frankincense was so frequent in these times, or so many incensings as are reported by our author in these words: The pontiff, about to celebrate the sacred prayer at the altar of God, making a beginning from the incensing of the same, goes around the whole circuit of the choir, until returning again to the divine altar, etc. For indeed Athenagoras and Tertullian testify that Christians sacrificed to God neither with frankincense nor with incense. The most eminent Cardinal Bona indeed thinks that they are to be understood of the custom of burning frankincense with the same rite, garb, and equipment with which it is done among idols. But with the leave of so great a man may it be said that what Tertullian writes ought to be more accurately observed, that Christians burned frankincense for two causes, namely for burying Christians, and when the smell of some place offended. For by this twofold exception he makes it plain either that frankincense was not offered elsewhere by Christians, or at least was not employed so many times as is narrated by our author. Grant, however, that all those incensings were then in use. Yet no one, I think, would easily persuade his own mind that they were employed in so many parts of the church as our author designates. For in the first times of the raging tyrants did the Christians have churches that consisted of so many parts, choir, narthex, and sacristy?

Quid porro priori Ecclesiae saeculo minus auditum, quam haec chrismatis consecrandi caeremonia? Pontifex, inquit auctor noster, accepto unguento, ponit super altare duodecim sacris alis obvelatum. Quis ritum illum ab apostolis ordinatum, vel ab apostolicis viris observatum fuisse memoriae unquam prodidit? Dicesne eum Atheniensi Ecclesiae proprium fuisse et peculiarem? Sed cave ut salva sint Dionysii Areopagitae scripta? Is enim primus Atheniensium episcopus fuit. Auctor autem noster de hoc ritu, non ut novo et recente, atque a se instituto, sed ab aliis ubique usitato loquitur. Haec igitur illius scripta Dionysii, Areopagitae fetus esse non possunt.

What, moreover, was less heard of in the first century of the Church than this ceremony of consecrating the chrism? The pontiff, says our author, having received the ointment, places it upon the altar veiled with twelve sacred wings. Who has ever handed down to memory that that rite was ordained by the apostles, or observed by apostolic men? Will you say that it was proper and peculiar to the Athenian Church? Yet take care how the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite may be saved! For he was the first bishop of the Athenians. Now our author speaks of this rite not as new and recent, and instituted by himself, but as used by others everywhere. Therefore these writings of his cannot be the offspring of Dionysius the Areopagite.

Addamus denique id a veri specie prorsus videri alienum, quod mortua Christianorum corpora iis omnibus, quas ille adhuc recenset, caeremoniis mandata sepulturae fuerint. Eae siquidem, cum Ecclesiis omnibus pax summa tranquillitasque data est, nec plures fuerunt, nec magis solemnes. At paganis omnibus intolerabilis prorsus fuisset tam magnifica funeris exsequiarumque Christianarum pompa, nec ullum Dionysii aevo Christianum tantis parentalibus justa suis solventem, ab ethnicis aliquando deprehensum fuisse perhibetur.

Let us add finally that it seems altogether foreign to the appearance of truth that the dead bodies of Christians were committed to burial with all those ceremonies which he further recounts. For those ceremonies, when the highest peace and tranquillity was given to all the Churches, were neither more numerous nor more solemn. Yet so magnificent a pomp of Christian funeral and obsequies would have been altogether intolerable to all the pagans, nor is any Christian in the age of Dionysius related ever to have been caught by the heathen paying the due rites to his dead with such great funeral solemnities.

CAPUT XVII.

Chapter XVII.

Argumentum octavum, ex auctoris stylo petitum.

The eighth argument, drawn from the style of the author.

De auctoris nostri stylo nonnulla jam perstrinximus, ostendimusque Areopagiticos nihil in eo animadvertisse quod non sit vere Dionysianum, ac viro apostolico plane dignum omninoque conveniens.

Concerning the style of our author we have already touched upon several things, and have shown that the Areopagitics have noticed nothing in it that is not truly Dionysian, and plainly worthy of an apostolic man and altogether befitting.

Editors' notes and page, col. 42

Footnotes

(44) ‹anchor: inquit auctor noster› · call in col 42

Lib. De eccles. hierarch., cap. 3.

On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 3.

(printed under page 27)

(45) ‹anchor: adhuc recenset› · call in col 42

Ibid., cap. 7.

Ibid., ch. 7.

(printed under page 27)

Page

running head: FROLEGOMENA. 42
marginal letters: A libi quoque reperies; B loci offenderit.; C velatum. Quis ritum; D est, nec plures
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: libi quoque reperies; CAPUT XVII.; words split across column breaks: libi (ullibi), conve- (conveniens)

PG 3:43

Scriptionis etenim illius genus stylusque non simplex quidem, sed elatus, et pro sublimitate argumenti sublimis, rerum omnium de quibus agitur dignitati majestatique pulchre respondet. Porro haec styli sublimitas obscuritatem peperit. Illa tamen non ex Dionysii imperitia, sed ex eo potissimum orta est, quod ipse hoc scribendi genere difficili et obscuro, ut ait divus Thomas, sacra et divina religionis nostrae dogmata et mysteria paganis et infidelibus occultare voluerit.

For the kind and style of his writing, not simple indeed, but elevated, and sublime in accordance with the sublimity of the subject, answers beautifully to the dignity and majesty of all the things of which it treats. Moreover, this sublimity of style begot obscurity. Yet that arose not from the unskilfulness of Dionysius, but above all from the fact that he himself by this difficult and obscure kind of writing, as Saint Thomas says, wished to conceal the sacred and divine dogmas and mysteries of our religion from pagans and unbelievers.

Antiareopagitici vero censent nihil eodem auctoris nostri stylo excogitari posse Areopagitae virique apostolici orationi magis repugnans et contrarium. Tantae nimirum molis est de unius ejusdemque scriptoris stylo certam ferre sententiam! Quantum autem hic Dionysianus scribendi modus ab apostolicae orationis forma abhorreat, hi demonstrant ex mira illius luxurie, saepius cothurnos et dithyrambos supergrediente. Nihil quippe auctori nostro satis magnificum, inflatum, turgidum, hyperbolicum. Superlativa ipsi non sufficiunt, sed ea tantum quantum potest et auget et intendit. Voces usitatas, sacro nascentis Ecclesiae usu consecratas aspernatur, ac novas hactenusque inauditas, atque ad pompam effictas, in earum locum substituit. Horum autem omnium catalogum contexere operae pretium non est, quandoquidem ea uno intuitu in Corderii Onomastico atque observationibus, Dionysianorum operum editioni adjectis, cuilibet cernere proclive est.

The Antiareopagitics, however, think that nothing can be devised more repugnant and contrary to the speech of the Areopagite and of an apostolic man than that same style of our author. Of such great difficulty is it, to be sure, to pronounce a sure judgement concerning the style of one and the same writer! Now how greatly this Dionysian manner of writing shrinks from the form of apostolic speech, these men demonstrate from its wonderful luxuriance, quite often overstepping tragic buskins and dithyrambs. For nothing is sufficiently magnificent, inflated, turgid, hyperbolic for our author. Superlatives do not suffice for him, but he both increases and intensifies them as much as ever he can. Customary words, consecrated by the sacred use of the nascent Church, he spurns, and substitutes in their place new ones, hitherto unheard of, and fashioned for pomp. To weave a catalogue of all these things, however, is not worth the trouble, since it is easy for anyone to see them at a single glance in the Onomasticon and observations of Corderius subjoined to the edition of the Dionysian works.

Neque dixeris argumentum in quo Dionysius versabatur, hanc ab eo exegisse sublimitatem, qua certe sublimiores et Deo digniores ideas ac cogitationes hominibus traderet inspiraretque. Primum enim id dici nequaquam potest de libro De hierarchia ecclesiastica, ubi ille disputat de sacramentis sacrisque ritibus quae quotidiano usu frequentabantur, quaeque simplici popularique methodo tardioribus Christianis aeque ac peritioribus debebant explicari. Deinde consilium auctoris nostri, uti observavimus, erat his in libris clariori simpliciorique oratione ea Christianis minus perfectis exponere, quibus Hierotheus, praeceptor ejus, sublimiori et obscuriori scribendi genere perfectos imbuerat. Debuit igitur ille stylo scribere populari et plano, verbisque uti receptis et communibus.

Nor could you say that the subject in which Dionysius was engaged demanded this sublimity from him, whereby he might hand down and inspire in men ideas and thoughts certainly more sublime and worthier of God. For in the first place that can by no means be said of the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, where he disputes concerning the sacraments and sacred rites which were frequented in daily use, and which ought to have been explained by a simple and popular method to slower Christians equally as to the more skilled. Next, the design of our author, as we have observed, was in these books to expound in clearer and simpler speech to less perfect Christians those things wherewith Hierotheus, his teacher, had imbued the perfect in a more sublime and obscure kind of writing. He ought therefore to have written in a popular and plain style, and to have used received and common words.

Dices Dionysio forsitan idem accidisse ac Tertulliano aliisque scriptoribus nonnullis, qui, acrioris ingenii igne abrepti, libros suos stylo exaraverunt singulari, verbisque usi sunt inusitatis ac plane insolentibus. Verum quantocunque igne incensum fuerit Dionysii Areopagitae pectus, is sane tam immaniter a scopo non potuit aberrare ut in libris quos simplicioribus Christianis minusque perfectis scribebat, tantam orationis sublimitatem et grandiloquentiam ubique affectaret. Sed sic errare fallique solent male feriati homines, qui punienda temeritate libris suis eorum nomina inscribunt, quorum nec ingenium nec scribendi modos

You will say that perhaps the same thing happened to Dionysius as to Tertullian and several other writers, who, carried away by the fire of a keener genius, penned their books in a singular style, and used uncommon and plainly unusual words. Yet with howsoever great a fire the breast of Dionysius the Areopagite was kindled, he surely could not have wandered so monstrously from the mark as everywhere to affect such great sublimity and grandiloquence of speech in books which he was writing for simpler and less perfect Christians. But thus are idly busy men wont to err and be deceived, who with punishable rashness inscribe upon their own books the names of those whose genius and modes of writing they

Editors' notes and page, col. 43

Page

running head: 43 S. DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA.
marginal letters: A niens. Scriptionis etenim; B Quantum autem hic; C Neque dixeris argumentum; D et plano, verbisque
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: niens. Scriptionis etenim; word split at start of column: niens (conveniens)

PG 3:44

possunt unquam assequi. Quid quod neque Tertullianus, neque ullus unquam scriptor ea verba, quae apostolorum Christianorumque omnium usu consecrata erant, missa fecerunt ut iis alia penitus incomperta ubique sufficerent? Auctor vero noster voces episcopi, presbyteri et diaconi, quasi obsoletas repudiat, eisque semper subrogat verba ἱεράρχαι, ἱερεῖς et λειτουργοί : sacros autem utriusque Foederis libros citando voces Scriptura, aut Scriptura sacra, evangelica, scriptores sacri, vel scriptorum nomina respuit, ac pro eis substituit verba theologiae, et theologi, vel divina illustratio, et divino numine afflati, aut sacri initiatores. Nihil ergo in auctoris nostri stylo, quod cum Tertulliani libris, multoque minus cum Apostoli Epistolis componi queat, occurrere videtur.

can never attain. What of the fact that neither Tertullian nor any writer ever dismissed those words which had been consecrated by the use of the apostles and of all Christians, so as everywhere to substitute for them others altogether unknown? But our author repudiates the words bishops, presbyters, and deacons as though obsolete, and always substitutes for them the words hierarchs, priests, and liturgists; and in citing the sacred books of either Covenant he rejects the words Scripture, or sacred Scripture, evangelical, sacred writers, or the names of the writers, and substitutes for them the words theologies, and theologians, or divine illumination, and inspired by the divine majesty, or sacred initiators. Nothing therefore seems to occur in the style of our author that can be compared with the books of Tertullian, and much less with the Epistles of the Apostle.

Neque tandem orationis illius obscuritas ideo excusanda est quod Dionysius Opera sua infidelibus et non initiatis occultanda esse censuerit. Nam cum Christianis, uti diximus, rudioribus minusque perfectis scripserit, ea procul dubio nec inani obscuraque grandiloquentia, nec vocibus insolitis, ac vano affectatae pompae studio fabricatis, sed summa perspicuitate, verbisque omnium usu receptis nullique incognitis conscribenda erant.

Nor, finally, is the obscurity of that speech to be excused on the ground that Dionysius thought his Works ought to be concealed from unbelievers and the uninitiated. For since he wrote, as we have said, for ruder and less perfect Christians, they without doubt ought to have been written neither with empty and obscure grandiloquence, nor with unusual words fabricated from a vain zeal for affected pomp, but with the utmost perspicuity, and in words received by the use of all and unknown to none.

CAPUT XVIII.

Chapter XVIII.

De levioribus quorumdam Antiareopagiticorum argumentis, et postremis Areopagiticorum probationibus; an hic auctor mendacii accusandus, et scripta ejus sint miraculis cohonestata.

Concerning the lighter arguments of certain Antiareopagitics, and the final proofs of the Areopagitics; whether this author is to be accused of falsehood, and whether his writings have been honoured with miracles.

Quaedam alia argumenta ab aliquibus Antiareopagiticis heterodoxis afferuntur, quae quia vel levissima sunt, vel veritati certaeque orthodoxorum doctrinae et traditioni palam refragantur, iis excutiendis et recensendis lubenter supersedemus. Quid enim, ut caetera taceamus, levius eo momento, quod plenis buccis concrepant, doctrinam de angelorum hierarchiis et ordinibus, quae tam enucleate ab auctore nostro explicatur, Dionysii saeculo fuisse incompertam? Nihil quippe de his ille docuit, quod ex Scripturis sacris ac maxime Pauli Epistolis primitus non acceperit. Non imus quidem inficias illum pro ingenii sui viribus, ea quae ex sacris fontibus hauserat, fusius enodasse, atque etiam amplificavisse. Sed nulli mirum videri debet hominem doctum et ingeniosum, multaque Platonicae philosophiae eruditione imbutum, de coelestibus substantiis plura post divinas Scripturas retractasse, iisque nonnulla addidisse quae ex sanioris philosophiae placitis desumpta, sacris Christianae fidei accommodaverit dogmatibus.

Certain other arguments are brought forward by some heterodox Antiareopagitics, which, because they are either very slight or openly oppose the truth and the sure doctrine and tradition of the orthodox, we gladly forbear to examine and recount. For what, to pass over the rest in silence, is slighter than that point which they trumpet with full cheeks, that the doctrine concerning the hierarchies and orders of angels, which is so clearly explained by our author, was unknown in the century of Dionysius? For he taught nothing concerning these things which he did not originally receive from the sacred Scriptures and especially the Epistles of Paul. We do not indeed deny that according to the strength of his genius he unfolded more at large, and even amplified, those things which he had drawn from the sacred founts. But to no one ought it to seem wonderful that a learned and ingenious man, imbued with much erudition of Platonic philosophy, treated further of heavenly substances after the divine Scriptures, and added to them several things which, taken from the tenets of a sounder philosophy, he accommodated to the sacred dogmas of the Christian faith.

Reliqua ipsorum argumenta leviora sunt, multoque minoris ponderis. Nemini ergo negotium facessere possunt, ac ea pleraque omnia ex his, quae in superioribus dissertationibus passim tradidimus, sponte sua ruunt, et funditus evertuntur. Sufficiet ergo validiora aliorum Antiareopagiticorum argumenta omnibus suis ponderibus ita examinasse, ut nihil eorum quae ad ea confirmanda vel infirmanda

The rest of their arguments are lighter, and of much less weight. They can therefore give trouble to no one, and almost all of them collapse of their own accord and are overthrown from the foundations by the things which we have handed down here and there in the preceding dissertations. It will suffice therefore to have so examined the stronger arguments of the other Antiareopagitics in all their weights that nothing of those things which we believed could be brought forward to confirm or weaken

Editors' notes and page, col. 44

Page

running head: S. DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA. 44
marginal letters: A possunt unquam assequi.; B poni queat, occurrere; C Quaedam alia argumenta; D amplificavisse. Sed nulli
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with inline Greek words, no facing Greek printed; editors' matter: possunt unquam assequi.; CAPUT XVIII.; word split at end of column: infir- (infirmanda)

PG 3:45

proferri posse credidimus, voluerimus esse praetermissum.

them have we wished to be passed over.

Sed praelium instaurant Areopagitici, ultimoque impetu in adversarios facto, urgent eos audacissimos esse, et prorsus temerarios, qui fraudis, falsitatis, putidissimique mendacii auctorem nostrum reum agant, cujus scripta meram ubique spirant pietatem, gravitatem, sanctimoniam. Et certe quis virum illum doctum tantisque ingenii dotibus praeditum, eo caecitatis et impudentiae devenisse credat ut, falso Dionysii Areopagitae assumpto nomine, tot tantisque rebus cum ejusdem Dionysii aetate, ingenio, moribus styloque pugnantibus scripta sua consperserit.

But the Areopagitics renew the battle, and making a final charge against their adversaries, urge that those men are most audacious and altogether rash who accuse our author of fraud, falsehood, and the most offensive lying, whose writings everywhere breathe pure piety, gravity, and sanctity. And certainly who would believe that that learned man, endowed with such great gifts of genius, had come to such a pitch of blindness and impudence that, having falsely assumed the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, he besprinkled his writings with so many and so great things conflicting with the age, genius, manners, and style of the same Dionysius.

At haec omnia, clamant Antiareopagitici, victorum hominum vani cassique sunt impetus. Quis enim nesciat hujuscemodi scriptoribus moris esse scripta sua, quae ab ipsis fallaci viri sanctissimi nomine inscribuntur, ea pietate, gravitate, et sanctimonia exornare, qua ab iisdem viris, quorum nomen mentiuntur, exornanda fore existimabant. Nec minus in eorum more positum, ut alii plura, alii pauciora, quae ementiti auctoris sui ingenio et temporibus adversentur, scriptis suis insererent. Sic nempe, Deo ita volente, nonnunquam obcaecati sunt, ut illius, quem fingunt, ingenium scribendique modum non assecuti, vel ea quae illius aetate fieri deberent, ex sui temporis consuetudinibus ac disciplina metientes, vel ipsi iis quae sua aetate agebantur, auctoritatem conciliare volentes, quaedam scriptis suis aut prudentes aut incauti adjicerent, quibus eorum fraudes et mendacia ab oculatioribus tandem retecta sunt.

Yet all these things, cry the Antiareopagitics, are the vain and empty charges of vanquished men. For who does not know that it is customary for writers of this sort to adorn their writings, which are inscribed by them with the deceitful name of a most holy man, with that piety, gravity, and sanctity wherewith they judged they would have been adorned by the same men whose name they feign. Nor is it less established in their custom that some should insert more things, others fewer, into their writings which are opposed to the genius and times of their feigned author. Thus indeed, God so willing it, they have sometimes been blinded, so that, not having attained the genius and manner of writing of him whom they feign, either measuring the things which ought to have been done in his age by the customs and discipline of their own time, or wishing themselves to win authority for the things which were done in their own age, they added certain things to their writings either wittingly or unawares, whereby their frauds and falsehoods have at length been uncovered by the more sharp-sighted.

Quid vero, instant Aeropagitici, nec Deo moris, nec aeternae illius providentiae est opera vana et fictis mendaciis plena veris cohonestare miraculis? Hilduinus tamen, testis oculatus, affirmat haec Areopagitae Opera, cum variis infirmitatibus in tanti viri honorem applicarentur, multis divinitus honestata fuisse miraculis.

What then, press the Areopagitics, is it the custom either of God or of His eternal providence to honour vain works full of feigned falsehoods with true miracles? Yet Hilduin, an eyewitness, affirms that these Works of the Areopagite, when applied to various infirmities in honour of so great a man, were divinely honoured with many miracles.

Sed caeteris omnibus firmius non est ultimum illud Areopagiticorum praesidium, quippe quod ipsis Hilduini verbis expugnari videatur. De his enim miraculis sic ille scribit : Authenticos namque eosdem libros, Graeca lingua conscriptos, quoniam oeconomus Ecclesiae Constantipolitanae et caeteri missi Michaelis legatione publica ad vestram gloriam compendio functi sunt; in ipsa vigilia solemnitatis sancti Dionysii pro munere magno susceperimus. Quod donum devotioni nostrae, ac si coelitus allatum a Deo, divina est gratia prosecuta; ut in eadem nocte decem et novem nominatissimae virtutes in aegrotorum sanatione variarum infirmitatum ex notissimis et vicinitati nostrae personis contiguis, ad laudem et gloriam sui nominis orationibus et meritis excellentissimi sui martyris Christus Dominus sit operari

But that last defence of the Areopagitics is no firmer than all the rest, inasmuch as it seems to be stormed by the very words of Hilduin. For concerning these miracles he writes thus: For those same authentic books, written in the Greek tongue, since the steward of the Church of Constantinople and the other envoys of Michael discharged a public embassy to your glory in brief, we received on the very vigil of the solemnity of Saint Dionysius as a great gift. Which gift to our devotion, as though brought from heaven by God, divine grace attended; so that in the same night nineteen most renowned miracles of power in the healing of the sick from various infirmities, out of persons best known and neighbouring to our vicinity, to the praise and glory of His name, through the prayers and merits of His most excellent martyr, Christ the Lord deigned to work.

Editors' notes and page, col. 45

Footnotes

(46) ‹anchor: sic ille scribit› · call in col 45

Epist. ad Carolum Calvum (Patr. Lat. t. CVI, col. 33).

Letter to Charles the Bald (Patrologia Latina, vol. 106, col. 33).

(printed under page 29)

Page

running head: 45 PROLEGOMENA.
marginal letters: A manda proferri posse; B rum hominum vani; C volentes, quaedam scriptis; D niam oeconomus Ecclesiae
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: manda proferri posse; word split at start of column: manda (infirmanda)

PG 3:46

dignatus. Hac Hilduinus narratione testatum facit decem et novem miracula eo die quo Dionysiani libri in suum monasterium asportati sunt, fuisse quidem patrata; verum ea non eorumdem librorum virtute aut applicatione, sed orationibus et meritis excellentissimi sui martyris a Christo Domino edita esse asseveranter affirmat. Quamvis autem haec librorum Dionysianorum tactu contigissent, non inde tamen genuinum Dionysii Areopagitae opus esse certo concludi potest. Nemo enim nescit daemonia ab his qui nec Christi discipuli, nec Christiani erant, ejusdem Christi nomine ejecta fuisse, atque ex vera tantum ardentique Christianorum fide alia miracula a Deo saepe saepius impetrata.

By this narrative Hilduin bears witness that nineteen miracles were indeed wrought on the day on which the Dionysian books were carried into his monastery; but he emphatically affirms that they were brought forth by Christ the Lord not by the virtue or application of those same books, but through the prayers and merits of His most excellent martyr. Moreover, even if these things had happened by the touch of the Dionysian books, yet it cannot from this be concluded with certainty that it is the genuine work of Dionysius the Areopagite. For everyone knows that demons were cast out in the name of the same Christ by those who were neither disciples of Christ nor Christians, and that from the true and ardent faith alone of Christians other miracles have very often been obtained from God.

CAPUT XIX.

Chapter XIX.

Quo tempore haec scripta secundum Antiareopagiticorum sententiam in lucem prodierint.

At what time these writings came to light according to the opinion of the Antiareopagitics.

Qui rationibus hactenus a nobis allatis omnia auctoris nostri Opera Dionysianos fetus esse negant, quo tempore ea in lucem prodierint, diligenter inquirunt. Constat autem illa ante Collationem Constantinopolitanam, anno, ut diximus, 533 habitam, publici facta fuisse juris. Quandiu vero eam praecesserint, magna inter scriptores illos controversia est. Opinatur etenim Dallaeus auctorem nostrum omnino videri vel quinto praecipiti saeculo, vel etiam sexto vixisse, nec ante annum Domini circiter 520 fetus suos edidisse. Quod quidem ex eo probari posse putat quia in memorata collatione Hypatius, catholicae totius Ecclesiae nomine, Severianis responderit hos libros Cyrillo, Athanasio aliisque Patribus penitus fuisse incognitos; sed leve omnino est istud probationis genus. Nam Collatio illa concilium oecumenicum non fuit, nec quidquam hisce de scriptis lege lata sancivit. Hypatius itaque totius Ecclesiae nomine non locutus est : sed ut in hujuscemodi concertationibus fieri amat, Severianis eorumdem scriptorum auctoritatem objicientibus ex tempore respondit, ea de quibus nihil hactenus audierat, ab antiquis Patribus non fuisse cognita. Praeterea Severiani illa citarunt, non ut nova et recens edita, sed ut genuinum Dionysii Areopagitae opus, jam ab ejus aetate in vulgus emissum. Hypatius vero caeterique catholici, re maturius expensa, id verum esse ultro confessi sunt. At neque Severiani illud tanta confidentia asseverassent, neque Catholici eorum tandem subscripsissent sententiae, si haec lucubrationes a tredecim tantum annis, ut contendit Dallaeus, prodiissent in lucem.

Those who on account of the reasons hitherto brought forward by us deny that all the Works of our author are Dionysian offspring diligently inquire at what time they came to light. Now it is established that they were made public property before the Conference of Constantinople, held, as we have said, in the year 533. But by how long they preceded it is a great controversy among those writers. For Daillé is of the opinion that our author altogether seems to have lived either at the close of the fifth century, or even in the sixth, and not to have published his offspring before about the year of the Lord 520. Which indeed he thinks can be proved from the fact that in the aforesaid conference Hypatius, in the name of the whole Catholic Church, answered the Severians that these books were utterly unknown to Cyril, Athanasius, and the other Fathers; but that kind of proof is altogether slight. For that Conference was not an ecumenical council, nor did it sanction anything concerning these writings by an enacted law. Hypatius therefore did not speak in the name of the whole Church; but as is wont to happen in debates of this kind, when the Severians objected the authority of those same writings, he answered on the spur of the moment that the things of which he had hitherto heard nothing had not been known by the ancient Fathers. Besides, the Severians cited them, not as new and recently published, but as the genuine work of Dionysius the Areopagite, already sent out to the public from his own age. And Hypatius and the rest of the Catholics, having weighed the matter more maturely, of their own accord confessed that this was true. Yet neither would the Severians have asserted it with such great confidence, nor would the Catholics at length have subscribed to their opinion, if these treatises had come to light only thirteen years before, as Daillé contends.

Quapropter alii eas longe his temporibus antiquiores esse affirmant. Atque ut id probent, ostendunt primo ab Ephraem patriarcha Antiocheno illas Dionysio Areopagitae his verbis tribui : Quoniam et simplex Jesus componebatur secundum sanctum Dionysium Areopagitam. Ἐπειδὴ καὶ ἁπλοῦς Ἰησοῦς

Wherefore others affirm that they are far more ancient than these times. And to prove this, they show first that by Ephraem, patriarch of Antioch, they are attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite in these words: Since also the simple Jesus was compounded according to the holy Dionysius the Areopagite. Since also the simple Jesus

Editors' notes and page, col. 46

Footnotes

(47) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 46

Marc. 9, 37.

Mark 9:37.

(printed under page 29)

(48) ‹anchor: Dallaeus› · call in col 46

De lib. suppos. Dionys. cap. 32.

On the Spurious Books of Dionysius, ch. 32.

(printed under page 29)

(49) ‹anchor: verbis tribui› · call in col 46

Apud Photium in Biblioth., cod. 229.

In Photius, Bibliotheca, codex 229.

(printed under page 29)

Page

running head: PROLEGOMENA. 46
marginal letters: A dignatus. Hac Hilduinus; B Quo tempore haec; C mine, Severianis responderit; D maturius expensa, id
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with inline Greek quote, no facing Greek printed; editors' matter: dignatus. Hac Hilduinus; CAPUT XIX.

PG 3:47

συνετέθη κατὰ τὸν ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις Ἀρεωπαγίτην Διονύσιον. Atqui Ephraem patriarcha Antiochenus creatus est cum Justinianus anno 526 ad imperii gubernacula accessit, et ipsemet Ephraem ante annum 543 fato functus est. Dionysii etiam nomine non semel citantur ab Andrea Caesariensi episcopo, qui circa annum 500 libros suos edidit. In iis quippe nullius scriptoris beato Cyrillo recentioris, ille protulit testimonium.

was compounded according to Dionysius the Areopagite, who is among the saints. Now Ephraem was created patriarch of Antioch when Justinian came to the helm of the empire in the year 526, and Ephraem himself died before the year 543. Under the name of Dionysius they are also cited more than once by Andrew, bishop of Caesarea, who published his books around the year 500. For in them he brought forward the testimony of no writer more recent than the blessed Cyril.

Aliud ejusdem antiquitatis argumentum, minus tamen certum, elicitur ex scholiis quae Joannes Scythopolitanus, teste Anastasio Bibliothecario, in Dionysii Opera composuit. Nam contra hunc Joannem, qui concilii Chalcedonensis defensionem susceperat, scripsit Basilius Cilix, qui, ut ait Photius, presbyter fuit Ecclesiae Antiochenae, quo tempore thronum ibi tenebat Flavianus, Romanique clavum imperii moderabatur Anastasius, id est circa annum 500. Verumtamen cum idem Anastasius primam scriptorum Dionysii mentionem a summis pontificibus Gregorio Magno, Martino, Agathone fieri testetur, ille procul dubio vel errore vel memoriae lapsu falsus est; nec tanti proinde ponderis potest esse ejus auctoritas. Idem quoque dicendum de Anastasio Sinaïta, qui ante saeculi quinti finem Dionysium Rhetorem alia similiter scholia in easdem Dionysii Areopagitae lucubrationes publicasse testatus est. Caeterum, quantumvis uterque Anastasius peccasse dicatur, certum tamen esse debet eos nec finxisse nec divinasse scholia hujuscemodi fuisse aliquando ab his scriptoribus edita. Qui autem scholia in auctorem quemdam conscribunt, eum pro veteri et magni nominis viro habere solent. Diu ergo ante saeculum quintum Dionysiani libri pervulgati fuerunt.

Another argument of the same antiquity, yet less certain, is drawn from the scholia which John of Scythopolis, on the testimony of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, composed on the Works of Dionysius. For against this John, who had undertaken the defence of the Council of Chalcedon, wrote Basil of Cilicia, who, as Photius says, was a presbyter of the Church of Antioch at the time when Flavian held the throne there and Anastasius guided the helm of the Roman Empire, that is, around the year 500. Nevertheless, since the same Anastasius testifies that the first mention of the writings of Dionysius is made by the supreme pontiffs Gregory the Great, Martin, and Agatho, he without doubt was deceived either by error or by a slip of memory; and consequently his authority cannot be of so great weight. The same must also be said concerning Anastasius Sinaita, who testified that before the end of the fifth century Dionysius the Rhetor similarly published other scholia on the same treatises of Dionysius the Areopagite. For the rest, however much each Anastasius may be said to have erred, yet it must be certain that they neither invented nor guessed that scholia of this kind were at some time published by these writers. Now those who write scholia on some author are wont to regard him as an ancient man and one of great name. Long before the fifth century, therefore, the Dionysian books were widely published.

Illud vero his accedit roboris et firmamenti quod Suidas et Pachymeres tradunt, aliquos externos philosophos, praesertim Proclum, contemplationibus Dionysii frequenter usum fuisse, atque adeo etiam meris ipsis dictionibus. Si certae igitur fidei sint haec testimonia, fatendum est contemplationes Dionysii Proclo illo, qui sub Leone Thrace medium circiter saeculum quintum libris conficiendis operam dedit, esse antiquiores. Quamobrem non jure prorsus immerito Morinus : Saltem librorum istorum scriptio, inquit, initio quinti saeculi, et ante concilii Chalcedonensis celebrationem assignanda est, nec ulla ratione probabili ad inferius aevum revolvi potest. Launoius vero tempore primae synodi Ephesinae, et Erasmus Augustini aetate auctorem nostrum vixisse arbitrantur.

Moreover, this strength and support is added to these things, that Suidas and Pachymeres hand down that some external philosophers, especially Proclus, frequently used the contemplations of Dionysius, and indeed even the very words themselves. If therefore these testimonies are of sure credit, it must be confessed that the contemplations of Dionysius are more ancient than that Proclus who under Leo the Thracian devoted his labour to composing books around the middle of the fifth century. Wherefore not altogether undeservedly does Morin say: At least the writing of those books is to be assigned to the beginning of the fifth century, and before the celebration of the Council of Chalcedon, nor by any probable reason can it be rolled back to a lower age. And Launoy thinks that our author lived at the time of the First Synod of Ephesus, and Erasmus in the age of Augustine.

Narrat porro Nicephorus Juvenalem, Hierosolymitanae urbis episcopum, Pulcheriae Augustae de corpore virginis Deiparae interroganti respondentem, ea omnia Dionysii nomine citasse, quae

Moreover, Nicephorus relates that Juvenal, bishop of the city of Jerusalem, answering Pulcheria Augusta when she asked concerning the body of the Virgin Mother of God, cited under the name of Dionysius all those things which

Editors' notes and page, col. 47

Footnotes

(50) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 47

Comment. in Apocal., XI, XIII, XLV.

Commentary on the Apocalypse, 11, 13, 45.

(printed under page 30)

(51) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 47

Biblioth. cod. 107.

Bibliotheca, codex 107.

(printed under page 30)

(52) ‹anchor: Suidas› · call in col 47

In Collectan.

In the Collectanea.

(printed under page 30)

(53) ‹anchor: et Pachymeres› · call in col 47

Procem. in Opera Dionys.

Proem to the Works of Dionysius.

(printed under page 30)

(54) ‹anchor: immerito Morinus› · call in col 47

De sacris Ordinat. in hanc quaest., cap. 6, § 12.

On Holy Orders, on this question, ch. 6, § 12.

(printed under page 30)

(55) ‹anchor: Narrat porro Nicephorus› · call in col 47

Hist. l. XV, cap. 14.

History, Book XV, ch. 14.

(printed under page 30)

Page

running head: 47 S. DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA.
marginal letters: A συνετέθη κατὰ τὸν; B tius, presbyter fuit; C modi fuisse aliquando; D istorum scriptio, inquit,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with inline Greek quote, no facing Greek printed; editors' matter: συνετέθη κατὰ τὸν

PG 3:48

in libris ipsi ascriptis etiam nunc legere est. Sed quidam hujus historiographi, quem fabulosissimum esse dicunt, auctoritatem elevare conati : Verba, inquiunt, ex nostris Dionysianis descripta Nicephorus videtur ipse potius de suo adjecisse, ad Juvenalis narrationem confirmandam, quam ea Juvenali tribuisse. His autem si objicias Nicephorum clare et perspicue affirmare ipsissima Juvenalis verba a se fuisse descripta, reponunt illico : Historicis scriptoribus solemne esse, homines, de quibus scribunt, ea dicentes inducere, non quae vere ac certo dixerunt, sed quae illos ipsi dicere potuisse putant.

one may even now read in the books ascribed to him. But certain men, trying to disparage the authority of this historiographer, who, they say, is most given to fable, say: The words transcribed from our Dionysian writings Nicephorus seems himself rather to have added of his own, to confirm the narrative of Juvenal, than to have attributed them to Juvenal. Now if you object to these men that Nicephorus clearly and perspicuously affirms that the very words of Juvenal were transcribed by him, they reply on the spot: That it is customary for historical writers to introduce the men concerning whom they write as saying those things, not which they truly and certainly said, but which they themselves think they could have said.

Sed huic responsioni plura repugnare videntur. Primum enim de quocunque alio scriptore, qui aliorum verba sermonesque transcribit, eadem etiam dici possent. Quod sane quam falsum sit et absurdum, nemo non videt. Deinde Nicephoro non moris est homines ea dicentes inducere, quae illos ipse dicere potuisse putabat, sed quae ii vere ac certo dixerunt. Fostremo Michael Glycas scribis in Annalibus sepulcrum Dei Genitricis Mariae cum, adveniente Thoma, apertum fuisset, in illo praeter sepulcrales exuvias nihil aliud repertum. Atque id quidem Graecae Nicephori narrationi omnino congruit, ubi vox Graeca non sepulcrum, sed sepulcrales exuvias significat.

But several things seem to oppose this reply. For first, concerning any other writer whatever who transcribes the words and discourses of others, the same things could also be said. And how false and absurd this is, everyone sees. Next, it is not customary for Nicephorus to introduce men saying those things which he himself thought they could have said, but which they truly and certainly said. Lastly, Michael Glycas writes in his Annals that when the tomb of Mary the Mother of God had been opened on the arrival of Thomas, nothing else was found in it except the burial wrappings. And this indeed altogether agrees with the Greek narrative of Nicephorus, where the Greek word signifies not the tomb, but the burial wrappings.

Quid quod Hieronymus non minus distincte quam auctor noster novem angelorum ordines posuit? Unde ergo hanc de angelis doctrinam nisi ex ejus libris mutuatus est? Verum haec conjectura non omnino felix esse videtur. Quis enim Hieronymum ex eodem ac scriptor noster, sacrarum Scripturarum fonte illam haurire potuisse inficiabitur? Quis etiam auctorem nostrum, utpote recentiorem, ex Hieronymo sua desumpsisse pari jure affirmare non poterit?

What of the fact that Jerome laid down nine orders of angels no less distinctly than our author? Whence then did he borrow this teaching concerning the angels unless from his books? Yet this conjecture does not seem to be altogether happy. For who will deny that Jerome could have drawn it from the same fountain of the sacred Scriptures as our writer? Who also will not be able with equal right to affirm that our author, as being more recent, took his own things from Jerome?

Probabiliorem forsitan de Pseudo-Dionysianorum Operum antiquitate conjecturam inde accipies, quod nonnulli ea Apollinari et Didymo, quarti saeculi scriptoribus, assignaverint; ac proinde haec eadem Opera illis temporibus jam in vulgus sparsa fuisse habuerint persuasum. Sed cum nihil quod Apollinaris et Didymi erroribus atque doctrinae sit consonum in iisdem scriptis occurrat, tota certe errant via, qui ea scriptoribus illis adjudicant. Si ergo in hoc tam immaniter a vero aberraverunt, quidni et circa tempus quo eadem scripta prodiisse opinabantur?

A more probable conjecture, perhaps, concerning the antiquity of the Pseudo-Dionysian Works you will take from the fact that several assigned them to Apollinaris and Didymus, writers of the fourth century, and consequently were persuaded that these same Works had already been spread abroad among the public in those times. But since nothing occurs in those same writings that is consonant with the errors and teaching of Apollinaris and Didymus, those who adjudge them to those writers are certainly wholly astray. If therefore in this they wandered so monstrously from the truth, why not also regarding the time at which they opined that the same writings came forth?

Hanc tamen temporis assignationem veram esse, ac omnia auctoris nostri scripta postremis Eusebii temporibus vulgata esse eo probant quia in Gregorii Nazianzeni lucubrationibus plura a Billio, et alia quaedam a Dallaeo observata reperiuntur, iis quae Dionysius scripsit, prorsus similia. Atqui Dionysius illa a Gregorio non est mutuatus, utpote

That this assignment of time is true, however, and that all the writings of our author were published in the latest times of Eusebius, they prove by the fact that in the treatises of Gregory Nazianzen several things observed by Billy, and certain others by Daillé, are found altogether similar to those which Dionysius wrote. Now Dionysius did not borrow those things from Gregory, inasmuch as

Editors' notes and page, col. 48

Footnotes

(56) ‹anchor: ordines posuit› · call in col 48

Apolog. 2. vers. Rufinum.

Apology 2 against Rufinus.

(printed under page 30)

Page

running head: S. DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA. 48
marginal letters: A in libris ipsi; B etiam dici possent.; C ex ejus libris; D errant via, qui
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: in libris ipsi; misprint kept as printed: scribis (for scribit), "Michael Glycas scribis"; misprint kept as printed: Fostremo (for Postremo), "dixerunt. Fostremo Michael" (Q2; the initial may be a damaged P, UNSURE at this resolution)

PG 3:49

qui ab aliis omnibus, inquiunt, ecclesiasticis scriptoribus plane diversus sit, et sui tantum similis : omnia quoque placita sua ad neotericam Platonistarum conformavit scholam; ac tandem ubique passim a sanctorum Patrum verbis et notionibus maxime abhorruit. Contra vero Gregorius quoties ad obscuriora quaedam et magis philosophica deflectit, toties ab aliis sua derivat, atque idcirco ex philosophis et Dionysio nostro illa hausisse vero videtur simillimum.

he is plainly diverse, they say, from all other ecclesiastical writers, and like only unto himself: he also conformed all his tenets to the newer school of the Platonists; and finally everywhere throughout he shrank most greatly from the words and notions of the holy Fathers. On the contrary, Gregory, as often as he turns aside to certain more obscure and more philosophical matters, so often derives his own things from others, and therefore it seems most like the truth that he drew those things from the philosophers and from our Dionysius.

Porro si roges cur venerandum Dionysii nomen, orationi suae magnum pondus adjecturum, ille non inseruerit, responsum illico accipies nomen illud ejusdem Gregorii aetate Christianis tanto, uti postea, non fuisse in honore. Tunc siquidem auctor ille, pro vero Areopagita nondum agnitus, vir tantum magnus, qui sub alieno nomine delitescebat, habebatur. Quid ergo mirum, si Gregorius proprio nomine eum non appellaverit, qui neminem ex Catholicis, sed paganos duntaxat, ac Symmachum, et Aquilam nominatim vocavit? Caeterum creditur illum his verbis citasse : Quemadmodum et alius quidam ante nos pulcherrime et sublimissime philosophatus est. Neque enim hic audiendus est Elias Cretensis, qui ibi Athanasium laudari autumat. Nam huic opinioni et temporis ratio, et scriptionis genus plane adversantur. Et vero Gregorius nunquam Athanasium, quocum meliorem vitae suae partem transegerat, appellasset τινὰ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν, quemdam qui ante nos vixit. Hoc quippe loquendi genere Graeci scriptores hominem, vel priusquam nati essent, vel longe antequam scriberent, mortuum indigitant. Neque etiam Gregorius de Athanasio, quem ob styli sublimitatem in sua oratione panegyrica non commendat, unquam dixisset : Sublimissime philosophatus est. At utrumque illud et scriptionis genus, et temporis ratio scriptori nostro optime conveniunt. Illum ergo a Gregorio Nazianzeno ibi laudatum esse nemini non probabitur.

Moreover, if you ask why he did not insert the venerable name of Dionysius, which would have added great weight to his discourse, you will immediately receive the answer that in the age of the same Gregory that name was not held in such great honour by Christians as afterwards. For at that time that author, not yet recognized as the true Areopagite, was regarded only as a great man who lay hid under another's name. What wonder, then, if Gregory did not call him by his own name, seeing that he called no one of the Catholics by name, but pagans only, and Symmachus and Aquila? For the rest, he is believed to have cited him in these words: Even as a certain other also before us has philosophized most beautifully and most sublimely. For Elias of Crete is not to be heard here, who supposes that Athanasius is praised there. For both the reckoning of time and the kind of writing are plainly opposed to this opinion. And indeed Gregory would never have called Athanasius, with whom he had spent the better part of his life, someone of those before us, a certain man who lived before us. For by this manner of speaking Greek writers point out a man who died either before they were born, or long before they wrote. Nor also would Gregory ever have said of Athanasius, whom he does not commend for sublimity of style in his panegyrical oration: He has philosophized most sublimely. Yet both that kind of writing and the reckoning of time suit our writer best of all. Everyone therefore will approve that he was praised there by Gregory Nazianzen.

Qui his convincuntur rationum momentis, opinioni illi quantum voluerint, subscribant, iis nec invidimus, nec reluctamur. Quominus tamen omnem illis praebeamus assensum, ea potissimum ratio nos movet, quod argumentum illud, quo scripta auctoris nostri post natam Arii haeresim edita esse demonstrabatur, idem illud ipsum post exortos Nestorii errores prodiisse cuilibet haud difficile persuadebit. In iis quippe haeresis contra Incarnationis Christi mysterium non minus aperte quam omnes contra ejus divinitatem et unam trium divinarum personarum naturam errores proscribitur. De incarnato enim Dei Filio variis in locis haec legimus : Dei principalis bonitas...... nostrorum omnium vere facta particeps absque peccato, humilitatique nostrae unita, salvo proprietatum suarum statu, eoque prorsus inconfuso et inviolato. In alio autem libro :

Let those who are convinced by the weights of these reasons subscribe to that opinion as much as they wish; we neither begrudge them nor resist them. Yet what moves us above all from giving them our whole assent is this reason, that the very same argument whereby it was demonstrated that the writings of our author were published after the heresy of Arius had arisen will with no difficulty persuade anyone that the very same came forth after the errors of Nestorius had sprung up. For in them heresy against the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ is proscribed no less openly than all the errors against His divinity and the one nature of the three divine persons. For concerning the incarnate Son of God we read these things in various places: The principal goodness of God...... having truly become partaker of all our things without sin, and united to our lowliness, with the state of its own properties preserved, and that altogether unconfused and inviolate. And in another book:

Editors' notes and page, col. 49

Footnotes

(87) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 49

Orat. 38 in Theoph. et 42 in Pasch.

Oration 38, On the Theophany, and 42, On Easter.

(printed under page 31)

(88) ‹anchor: haec legimus› · call in col 49

De eccles. hierarch., cap. 3.

On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 3.

(printed under page 31)

(89) ‹anchor: alio autem libro› · call in col 49

De divin. nomin.

On the Divine Names.

(printed under page 31)

Page

running head: 49 PROLEGOMENA.
marginal letters: A qui ab aliis; B pro vero Areopagita; C ἡμῶν, quemdam qui; D tio nos movet,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with inline Greek phrase, no facing Greek printed; editors' matter: qui ab aliis

PG 3:50

Verbum divinissimum...... per inconfusam humanitatis nostrae assumptionem. Et in epistola 4, ad Caium : Quatenus erat Deus et homo, novam quamdam nobiscum conversando θεανδρικὴν ἐνέργειαν exhibebat. Quid planius, quid dilucidius post sparsos Nestorii Eutychetisque errores a quovis auctore unquam scriptum est?

The most divine Word...... through the unconfused assumption of our humanity. And in Letter 4, to Gaius: Inasmuch as He was God and man, by conversing with us He exhibited a certain new theandric activity. What plainer, what clearer was ever written by any author after the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches had been spread abroad?

Quamobrem non levi omnino conjectura colligere possumus scriptorem nostrum maximas cum turbas ab haereticis Nestorianis et Eutychianis cieri videret, tunc ut utrosque confunderet, ac pro viribus Ecclesiae catholicae partes tueretur, animum ad scribendum appulisse. Atque ut id ipsi cederet felicius, magnum utique et venerandum Dionysii Areopagitae nomen scriptis suis praefixit. Ea ergo illius opera intra annum 431, quo oecumenica synodus Ephesina adversus Nestorianos, et 451, quo Chalcedonensis contra Eutychianos celebrata est, ab illo profecta esse videntur. Non continuo tamen in publicam lucem producta, et ab omnibus recepta, sed sensim sine sensu ita prodierunt, ut non ante memoratam superius Collationem Constantinopolitanam, anno 533, in omnium venerint cognitionem. Illud porro in hujusce opinionis confirmationem adduci potest, quod haec scripta in his oecumenicis conciliis a nemine, neque etiam a Juvenale Hierosolymitano, qui inter primos utriusque synodi Patres sedebat, citata reperiantur. Nulla autem hujus silentii causa alia potest afferri, nisi quod Dionysianae lucubrationes tunc e tenebris emergentes, vix ulli ante concilium Chalcedonense notae fuerunt. Porro autem si quaeras cur plura apud auctorem nostrum occurrant, cum his quae Gregorius Nazianzenus scripsit, plane similia, non absurde responderi potest illa ab auctore nostro, qui saepius et sua ab aliis accepisse, et aliorum opiniones referre dicit, in usus suos, tacito Gregorii nomine, fuisse assumpta, ac stylo reddita suo, et inusitatis loquendi modis.

Wherefore by a conjecture by no means slight we can gather that our writer, when he saw very great disturbances stirred up by the Nestorian and Eutychian heretics, then applied his mind to writing in order that he might confound both, and defend the side of the Catholic Church to the best of his strength. And that this might turn out more happily for him, he prefixed the great and venerable name of Dionysius the Areopagite to his writings. Those works of his therefore seem to have proceeded from him between the year 431, in which the Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus was celebrated against the Nestorians, and 451, in which that of Chalcedon was celebrated against the Eutychians. Yet they were not immediately brought forth into public light and received by all, but came forth gradually and imperceptibly in such a way that not before the Conference of Constantinople mentioned above, in the year 533, did they come to the knowledge of all. Moreover, this can be adduced in confirmation of this opinion, that these writings are found cited by no one in these ecumenical councils, not even by Juvenal of Jerusalem, who sat among the foremost Fathers of either synod. Now no other cause of this silence can be brought forward unless that the Dionysian treatises, then emerging from darkness, were known to scarcely anyone before the Council of Chalcedon. Moreover, if you ask why several things occur in our author plainly similar to those which Gregory Nazianzen wrote, it can not absurdly be answered that those things were assumed for his own uses, with Gregory's name kept silent, by our author, who quite often says both that he received his own things from others and that he reports the opinions of others, and were rendered in his own style and unusual modes of speaking.

Quibus autem hae conjecturae nec satis firmae, nec omnino probabiles videbuntur, iidem fateantur necesse est haec scriptoris nostri Opera Collationem Constantinopolitanam, atque etiam saeculi sexti initia longe praecucurrisse temporis intervallo.

Those, however, to whom these conjectures shall seem neither sufficiently firm nor altogether probable must confess that these Works of our writer outran the Conference of Constantinople, and even the beginnings of the sixth century, by a long interval of time.

CAPUT XX.

Chapter XX.

De horum Operum utilitate, et aliis ejusdem auctoris deperditis lucubrationibus.

Concerning the usefulness of these Works, and other lost treatises of the same author.

Cum igitur tantae antiquitatis sint illa Opera, eo majori apud Christianos debent esse in pretio, quo plura ad eorumdem Ghristianorum utilitatem copiose suppeditant. In iis enimvero docemur quae scriptoris nostri et decessorum ejus tempore fuerit doctrina fidei et morum disciplina. Quamvis enim in eo falsus esse arguatur, quod ea quae docet Dionysii Areopagitae aetate viguisse putaverit, constat tamen ea omnia debuisse ante ejusdem

Since therefore those Works are of such great antiquity, they ought to be held in all the greater value among Christians, the more things they abundantly supply for the usefulness of the same Christians. For indeed in them we are taught what was the doctrine of faith and the discipline of morals in the time of our writer and of his predecessors. For although he is proved to be mistaken in this, that he thought the things which he teaches flourished in the age of Dionysius the Areopagite, yet it is established that all those things must before the age of that

Editors' notes and page, col. 50

Page

running head: PROLEGOMENA. 50
marginal letters: A Verbum divinissimum......; B nysii Areopagitae nomen; C sa alia potest; D sexti initia longe
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with inline Greek phrase, no facing Greek printed; editors' matter: Verbum divinissimum......; CAPUT XX.; word split at end of column: ejus- (ejusdem)
other: the word ejusdem was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 51

PG 3:51

auctoris nostri aevum in Ecclesia voce et scriptis doceri, atque usu plurimo recipi. Ex his ergo scriptis discimus quid iis omnibus temporibus Ecclesia docuerit de adorando Trinitatis mysterio, de Christi divinitate et Incarnatione, de angelorum hierarchiis et ordinibus : quid tradiderit de baptismi et eucharistiae administratione, de liturgiae seu missae celebratione, de consecratione chrismatis, de sacris Ecclesiae ministris, de monachis eorumque votis et professione, ac tandem de mortuorum exsequiis et sepultura. Porro autem hae caeremoniae hique ritus non ut recentes ac novi, sed ut veteres atque ab apostolis derivati in nostri auctoris scriptis referuntur. Quapropter qui eadem scripta Dionysio Areopagitae vindicant, hi omnes illos ritus ab apostolis profluxisse contendunt. Qui vero ea recentioris scriptoris fetum esse opinantur, ii negare non possunt plures ex iisdem ritibus a traditione apostolica manasse : caeteros autem tum pedetentim institutos, cum Ecclesiis pax et tranquillitas ab imperatoribus Christianis data est, atque ab ipsis templa, in quibus sacra publice fierent, aedificata fuerunt. Hinc liquido colligimus tales missam celebrandi et sacramenta administrandi ritus ab auctore nostro describi, quales Constantini Magni tempore et quarto saeculo observari coeperunt.

same author of ours have been taught in the Church by voice and writings, and received by very great use. From these writings therefore we learn what in all those times the Church taught concerning the adorable mystery of the Trinity, concerning the divinity and Incarnation of Christ, concerning the hierarchies and orders of angels; what she handed down concerning the administration of baptism and the Eucharist, concerning the celebration of the liturgy or mass, concerning the consecration of chrism, concerning the sacred ministers of the Church, concerning monks and their vows and profession, and finally concerning the obsequies and burial of the dead. Moreover, these ceremonies and these rites are reported in the writings of our author not as recent and new, but as ancient and derived from the apostles. Wherefore those who claim the same writings for Dionysius the Areopagite contend that all those rites flowed forth from the apostles. While those who opine that they are the offspring of a more recent writer cannot deny that several of those same rites flowed from apostolic tradition, and that the rest were gradually instituted at the time when peace and tranquillity were given to the Churches by the Christian emperors, and temples in which sacred rites might be performed publicly were built by them. Hence we clearly gather that such rites of celebrating mass and administering the sacraments are described by our author as began to be observed in the time of Constantine the Great and in the fourth century.

Magna porro horum auctoris nostri scriptorum utilitas triste aliquod aliorum, quae perierunt, nobis desiderium reliquit. In his autem numerantur, liber De hymnis divinis, liber ἐν ταῖς θεολογικαῖς ὑποτυπώσεσι, De informationibus divinis, liber De symbolica theologia, liber De anima, liber De justo divinoque judicio, liber De iis quae sub intellectum et sensum cadunt. Et si divo Maximo fides habenda liber De legali hierarchia, et liber De angelicis ordinationibus et proprietatibus : sed postremus ille liber non alius ab ipso De coelesti hierarchia libro pluribus videbitur. Caeterum ea fuit eorum librorum jactura ut nulla eorum mentio nullumque exstet vestigium, nisi in iisdem auctoris nostri Operibus, vel quod ipsorum fultum non sit testimonio.

Moreover, the great usefulness of these writings of our author has left us a sad longing for certain others which have perished. Now among these are numbered the book On Divine Hymns, the book In the Theological Outlines, On Divine Informations, the book On Symbolic Theology, the book On the Soul, the book On Just and Divine Judgement, the book On the Things Which Fall Under Intellect and Sense. And if credit is to be given to Saint Maximus, the book On the Legal Hierarchy, and the book On Angelic Ordinations and Properties; but that last book will seem to many not other than the book On the Celestial Hierarchy itself. For the rest, such was the loss of those books that no mention and no trace of them exists save in the same Works of our author, or none that is not supported by their testimony.

CAPUT XXI.

Chapter XXI.

De editionibus et versionibus eorumdem Operum, ac variis in ea scholiis et observationibus.

Concerning the editions and versions of the same Works, and various scholia and observations upon them.

Jam vero ut ad Dionysianorum Operum editiones veniamus, ea typis Graecis excusa sunt Basileae anno 1539, Coloniae 1577, Paris. 1565, Venetiis 1558, et apud Morellium anno 1562. Latinis vero simul ac Graecis, Parisiis anno 1615, et rursus ibidem 1644, et Antuerpiae anno 1663. Quaedam autem ex his operibus separatim edita sunt, nimirum libri duo, alter De mystica theologia, alter De divinis nominibus, Mars. Ficino interprete et explanatore, Venetiis anno 1538, atque inter Opera ejusdem

Now to come to the editions of the Dionysian Works, they were printed in Greek type at Basel in the year 1539, at Cologne in 1577, at Paris in 1565, at Venice in 1558, and at Morel's press in the year 1562. And in Latin together with Greek, at Paris in the year 1615, and again in the same place in 1644, and at Antwerp in the year 1663. Moreover, certain of these works were published separately, namely two books, the one On Mystical Theology, the other On the Divine Names, with Marsilio Ficino as translator and expounder, at Venice in the year 1538, and among the Works of the

Editors' notes and page, col. 51

Footnotes

(60) ‹anchor: De hymnis divinis› · call in col 51

De coel. hier. cap. 7.

On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 7.

(printed under page 32)

(61) ‹anchor: θεολογικαῖς ὑποτυπώσεσι› · call in col 51

De divin. nomin., cap. 1, 2 et 11, et lib. De myst. theol., cap. 12.

On the Divine Names, chapters 1, 2 and 11, and the book On Mystical Theology, chapter 12.

(printed under page 32)

(62) ‹anchor: De symbolica theologia› · call in col 51

De divin. nomin., cap. 1, 4, 9, 13, et De myst. theol., cap. 2, et Epist. ad Tit.

On the Divine Names, chapters 1, 4, 9, 13, and On Mystical Theology, chapter 2, and the Letter to Titus.

(printed under page 32)

(63) ‹anchor: De anima› · call in col 51

De divin. nomin., cap. 4.

On the Divine Names, chapter 4.

(printed under page 32)

(64) ‹anchor: divinoque judicio› · call in col 51

Ibid.

(printed under page 32)

(65) ‹anchor: et sensum cadunt› · call in col 51

De eccles. hier., cap. 1.

On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 1.

(printed under page 32)

(66) ‹anchor: De legali hierarchia› · call in col 51

Ibid., cap. 3.

Ibid., chapter 3.

(printed under page 32)

(67) ‹anchor: ordinationibus et proprietatibus› · call in col 51

De divin. nomin., cap. 4.

On the Divine Names, chapter 4.

(printed under page 32)

Page

running head: 51 S. DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA.
marginal letters: A dem auctoris nostri; B hi omnes illos; C liber De hymnis; D variis in ea
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with inline Greek title, no facing Greek printed; editors' matter: dem auctoris nostri; CAPUT XXI.; words split across column breaks: dem (ejusdem), ejus- (ejusdem)
other: the word ejusdem was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 52

PG 3:52

Ficini, Basileae anno 1576; liber vero De ecclesiastica hierarchia cum Latina versione, Basileae, anno 1539. Epistola ad Polycarpum inter epistolas SS. Patrum a Symphor. Champerio typis Ass., 1516. Eadem cum epistolis Ignatii et aliorum, Ant. 1540, et Venet. 1546. Epistolae duae in Orthodoxographia. Omnia denique Dionysii nostri Opera Latine in antiquis Patrum Bibliothecis, ac in Coloniensi ex editione Lansselii, et in nostra Lugdunensi ex Corderiana rursus vulgata sunt.

same Ficino, at Basel in the year 1576; and the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy with a Latin version, at Basel, in the year 1539. The Letter to Polycarp among the letters of the Holy Fathers by Symphorien Champier from the press of Bade, 1516. The same with the letters of Ignatius and others, at Antwerp in 1540, and at Venice in 1546. Two letters in the Orthodoxographia. Finally, all the Works of our Dionysius have been published again in Latin in the ancient Libraries of the Fathers, and in that of Cologne from the edition of Lansselius, and in our Lyons edition from that of Corderius.

Antiquissima horum Operum versio Latina accurata est a Scoto Erigena seu Scotigena, qui eam ex manuscriptis Graecis in monasterium Sandionysianum, Carolo Calvo imperante, allatis adornavit. Haec versio cum aliis quibusdam, nimirum Petri Sarrasini, Ambrosii Camaldulensis, et Marsilii Ficini edita est Coloniae anno 1546. Eodem anno alia Clauseri studio Argentorati prodiit : atque eadem in urbe Perionius anno 1557 suam vulgavit quae anno 1585 Lugduni rursus prelo subjecta est. Illas exceperunt versio Lansselii, e Societate Jesu presbyteri, Parisiis publicata anno 1625, ac demum Corderii theologi, ejusdem Societatis doctoris, quae Antuerpiae 1633 emissa est in lucem.

The most ancient Latin version of these Works was prepared by Scotus Erigena or Scotigena, who furnished it from Greek manuscripts brought to the monastery of Saint-Denis when Charles the Bald was emperor. This version was published with certain others, namely those of Pierre Sarrasin, Ambrose of Camaldoli, and Marsilio Ficino, at Cologne in the year 1546. In the same year another came forth by the labour of Clauser at Strasbourg; and in the same city Périon in the year 1557 published his own, which in the year 1585 was again put to the press at Lyons. Those were followed by the version of Lansselius, a presbyter of the Society of Jesus, published at Paris in the year 1625, and at length that of the theologian Corderius, a doctor of the same Society, which was sent forth to the light at Antwerp in 1633.

Porro autem vix alia reperias sanctorum Patrum opera, quibus illustrandis et exponendis majorem scriptores posuerint operam. Praeter memoratas enim versiones, multi in has auctoris nostri lucubrationes ediderunt scholia, notas, observationes et paraphrases. Et vero Dionysius Rhetor et Joannes Scythopolitanus sexto Ecclesiae saeculo quaedam in eas scholia conscripserunt : sed eorum in primis, quae a Dionysio profecta sunt, jacturam patimur. Septimo saeculo sanctus Maximus, martyr celeberrimus, scholia etiam continua et uberiora composuit. Iis autem neque doctrina, neque ritus, et disciplina ab auctore nostro tradita explicantur, sed quaedam in auctores ab illo citatos observantur, quibus Maximus haec scripta Dionysio Areopagitae vindicare conatus est. In plurimis autem scholiis ea quae in textu auctoris attentiori consideratione legenda sunt, omnibus animadvertenda proponit. Quae quidem omnia summam ejusdem Maximi, tanti videlicet martyris, pietatem et sanctimoniam omnino spirant et redolent.

Moreover, you would scarcely find other works of the holy Fathers upon the illustrating and expounding of which writers have bestowed greater labour. For besides the versions mentioned, many have published scholia, notes, observations, and paraphrases on these treatises of our author. And indeed Dionysius the Rhetor and John of Scythopolis in the sixth century of the Church wrote certain scholia upon them; but we suffer the loss of those above all which proceeded from Dionysius. In the seventh century Saint Maximus, the most celebrated martyr, also composed continuous and fuller scholia. In them, however, neither the doctrine nor the rites and discipline handed down by our author are explained, but certain observations are made upon the authors cited by him, whereby Maximus tried to claim these writings for Dionysius the Areopagite. And in very many scholia he proposes to be noticed by all those things which in the text of the author are to be read with more attentive consideration. All of which things indeed altogether breathe and are redolent of the supreme piety and sanctity of the same Maximus, that is to say, of so great a martyr.

Pachymerius paraphrasim seu Commentarium in eadem Dionysii Opera scripsit, qui memoratis Maximi scholiis saepius subjungitur. Postea vero Hugo a Sancto Victore, Albertus Magnus, divus Thoma Aquinas, Dionysius Carthusianus et quidam alii nonnulla in quasdam ejusdem auctoris lucubrationes scripserunt.

Pachymeres wrote a paraphrase or Commentary on the same Works of Dionysius, which is quite often subjoined to the aforesaid scholia of Maximus. And afterwards Hugh of Saint-Victor, Albert the Great, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Denys the Carthusian, and certain others wrote several things on some treatises of the same author.

Praeterea editionem eorumdem Operum Latinam

Besides, a Latin edition of the same Works

Editors' notes and page, col. 52

Page

running head: S. DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA. 52
marginal letters: A dem Ficini, Basileae; B vit. Haec versio; C memoratas enim versiones,; D omnibus animadvertenda
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: dem Ficini, Basileae; word split at start of column: dem (ejusdem)

PG 3:53

habemus Parisiis typis Henrici Stephani anno 1515 excusam, quae versionem Ambrosii Camaldulensis, notas Fabri Stapulensis, et commentarium Judoci Clichtovei complectitur. Porro Fabri scholia saepius in vulgus prodierunt, Argentorati anno 1498 et 1502, et Parisiis 1505. In iis autem Faber versionem Ambrosii Camaldulensis aut illustrat aut corrigit : atque ut id praestaret integrius, Graecis manuscriptis, quae in Dionysiano monasterio servabantur, usus est.

we have, printed at Paris in the type of Henri Estienne in the year 1515, which comprises the version of Ambrose of Camaldoli, the notes of Lefèvre d'Étaples, and the commentary of Josse Clichtove. Moreover, the scholia of Lefèvre came forth to the public quite often, at Strasbourg in the year 1498 and 1502, and at Paris in 1505. Now in them Lefèvre either illustrates or corrects the version of Ambrose of Camaldoli; and that he might perform this more completely, he used the Greek manuscripts which were preserved in the monastery of Saint-Denis.

Notas in singula Dionysii Opera omnium maximas jam praefatus Corderius divulgavit, eaeque ab ipso theologicae appellantur. Et re quidem ipsa illae ad theologiam scholasticam pertinent, atque in illis, quibus librum De divinis nominibus illustrare contendit, fusius uberiusque disputat.

The largest notes of all upon the individual Works of Dionysius the already aforesaid Corderius published, and they are called by him theological. And in very fact they pertain to scholastic theology, and in those wherewith he strives to illustrate the book On the Divine Names he disputes more at large and more abundantly.

CAPUT XXII.

Chapter XXII.

Novae quaedam observationes.

Certain new observations.

Auctor Hebraice nesciebat. — Nulli injucundum, nec forsitan inutile erit his observationibus quaedam adjicere, quae attentione aliqua non plane indigna videbuntur. Primum enim auctor noster Hebraice nesciebat, quippe qui ubi nonnullas Hebraicorum verborum interpretationes affert, subjungit continuo : Hebraice periti aiunt, vel : Hi qui Hebraice norunt.

The author did not know Hebrew. — To no one will it be unpleasant, nor perhaps useless, to add to these observations certain things which will seem not plainly unworthy of some attention. For first, our author did not know Hebrew, inasmuch as where he brings forward several interpretations of Hebrew words, he immediately subjoins: Those skilled in Hebrew say, or: Those who know Hebrew.

Praeterea dubium adhuc et incertum esse videtur, utrum hae voces quae in librorum inscriptionibus leguntur, Τῷ συμπρεσβυτέρῳ Τιμοθέῳ Διονύσιος, ab auctore ipso profectae sint. Qui enim fieri potuit ut ille in Operum suorum titulis adhibuerit πρεσβύτερος vocem, qua nullibi unquam in iisdem Operibus suis uti voluerit? Dissimulare tamen non possumus easdem inscriptiones eodem modo in Graecis ac Latinis manuscriptis atque in editis exhiberi; sed in codicibus illis manu exaratis, quorum antiquissimi aetatem sancti Maximi non superant, voces hujuscemodi a librariis scriptoribus in titulos facile intrudi potuerunt. Verum has conjecturas nostras aliorum judicio libenter permittimus.

Besides, it seems still doubtful and uncertain whether these words which are read in the inscriptions of the books, Dionysius to his fellow-presbyter Timothy, proceeded from the author himself. For how could it have happened that in the titles of his Works he employed the word presbyter, which he nowhere ever wished to use in his same Works? Yet we cannot conceal that the same inscriptions are exhibited in the same way in the Greek and Latin manuscripts and in the printed editions; but in those handwritten codices, the most ancient of which do not surpass the age of Saint Maximus, words of this kind could easily have been thrust into the titles by copyists. Yet we gladly leave these conjectures of ours to the judgement of others.

De capitum summariis. — Idem quoque dicendum de capitum summariis, ut vocant, sententiis, seu argumentis, quae in manuscriptis et editis libris similiter occurrunt. Plura quippe capitum argumenta, ab iis quae in textu pertractantur, repraesentandis adeo sunt aliena, ut a quovis alio potius quam ab auctore nostro scripta esse videantur.

Concerning the summaries of the chapters. — The same must also be said concerning the summaries of the chapters, as they call them, sentences, or arguments, which similarly occur in the manuscript and printed books. For several arguments of the chapters are so foreign to representing the things which are treated thoroughly in the text that they seem to have been written by anyone else rather than by our author.

De ordinibus minoribus. — Arbitrantur nonnulli his in scriptis aliquam minorum Ecclesiae ordinum, sacro diaconatu inferiorum, mentionem haberi. Iis tamen lectione, qua potuimus, accuratiore examinatis, nullum nobis eorum ordinum vestigium ullibi apparuit. Non sumus quidem nescii mentionem ibi fieri cantorum; sed peculiarem quemdam ordinem ex iis in Ecclesia constitui

Concerning the minor orders. — Several think that in these writings some mention is had of the minor orders of the Church, lower than the sacred diaconate. Yet when these writings have been examined by us with the more accurate reading of which we were capable, no trace of those orders has appeared to us anywhere. We are not indeed ignorant that mention is made there of cantors; but that a certain peculiar order is constituted out of them in the Church

Editors' notes and page, col. 53

Footnotes

(68) ‹anchor: subjungit continuo› · call in col 53

De coelest. hier., cap. 7; De eccles. hierarch., cap. 4, de voce Presbyteri.

On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 7; On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 4, on the word "Presbyter".

(printed under page 33)

Page

running head: 53 PROLEGOMENA.
marginal letters: A habemus Parisiis typis; B tendit, fusius uberiusque; C fieri potuit ut; D gumenta, ab iis
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with inline Greek words, no facing Greek printed; editors' matter: habemus Parisiis typis; CAPUT XXII.

PG 3:54

nullibi unquam auctor noster tradidit. Et certe id cuilibet facile persuadebitur, si animo attendat non alium scriptoris nostri scopum esse quam ecclesiasticam hierarchiam, angelicae et coelestis instar, in tres tantum, episcoporum, presbyterorum et diaconorum, a nobis supra commemoratos ordines distinguendi.

our author has nowhere ever handed down. And certainly anyone will easily be persuaded of this, if he attends in mind that the aim of our writer is none other than that of distinguishing the ecclesiastical hierarchy, after the likeness of the angelic and heavenly, into three orders only, those of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, mentioned by us above.

De ritibus praetermissis. — Neque etiam omnes caeremonias et ritus, sicut operis ejus consilium magis postulare videbatur, in sacramentorum administratione observari solitos ille commemorat. De confirmationis enim sacramento post baptismum administrando ubi disputat, nullum de manuum impositione verbum fecit. Nemo tamen nescit eam ab apostolis eorumque successoribus fuisse adhibitam. Quid quod et ipse in libro De ecclesiastica hierarchia, in secunda cujusque capitis parte, ubi de hujuscemodi tantum ritibus disserit, nonnullos praetermisit, quorum deinceps in tertia parte refricat memoriam.

Concerning rites passed over. — Nor also does he recount all the ceremonies and rites wont to be observed in the administration of the sacraments, as the design of his work seemed rather to demand. For where he disputes concerning the sacrament of confirmation to be administered after baptism, he has made not a word about the laying on of hands. Yet everyone knows that it was employed by the apostles and their successors. What of the fact that he himself also in the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, in the second part of each chapter, where he discourses only of rites of this kind, passed over several, the memory of which he afterwards refreshes in the third part.

De ritu singulari. — De quibusdam etiam caeremoniis tractat, quae in sua tantum Ecclesia et nonnullis forsitan vicinioribus erant in usu. Talis est ille tam singularis duodecim plumis sacrum chrisma cooperiendi ritus. Illud etiam in missae celebratione peculiare videtur quod, recitatis defunctorum nominibus, fieret manuum lotio, consecrationi eucharisticae quamproxime praemittenda.

Concerning a singular rite. — He treats also concerning certain ceremonies which were in use in his own Church only and perhaps in several neighbouring ones. Such is that so singular rite of covering the sacred chrism with twelve feathers. This also seems peculiar in the celebration of the mass, that after the names of the dead had been recited, there took place the washing of the hands, to be premised as closely as possible to the Eucharistic consecration.

De mss. Reg. — Plures etiamnum exstant in bibliotheca Regia horum Operum manuscripti codices Graeci, quorum praecipuus, numero 2262 subnotatus, omnium antiquior est, et annorum 600 aetatem nobis praeseferre videtur. Ex hoc codice solo, aliis, qui sequentibus numeris notantur, nec inspectis, nec examinatis, suam Morellius, uti putatur, editionem adornavit.

Concerning the Royal manuscripts. — Several Greek manuscript codices of these Works are still extant in the Royal Library, the chief of which, marked below with the number 2262, is more ancient than all, and seems to us to display an age of 600 years. From this codex alone, without the others which are marked with the following numbers having been either inspected or examined, Morel, as is thought, furnished his edition.

De mss. Colbertinis. — Duos alios ex celeberrima Colberti bibliotheca codices penes nos habuimus, quorum prior, charactere elegantissimo exaratus, aetatem suam his verbis, in calce illius adjectis, indicat : Ἐτελειώθη ἡ παροῦσα βίβλος μηνὶ Ἰανουαρίῳ ζʹ, ἰνδι. εʹ, ἔτοις ,ϛφʹ, id est : Perfectus est hic liber mense Januario, feria septima, indictione V, anno mundi 6500. Hi duo characteres Graeci ϛφ in codice manuscripto inter se connexi, nihil aliud ibi significare videntur quam annum mundi 6500 et Christi 992.

Concerning the Colbertine manuscripts. — We have had in our possession two other codices from the most celebrated library of Colbert, the former of which, penned in a most elegant character, indicates its age in these words, added at the foot of it: The present book was finished in the month of January, on the 7th, indiction 5, in the year 6500, that is: This book was completed in the month of January, on the seventh day, in the fifth indiction, in the year of the world 6500. These two Greek characters ϛφ joined together in the manuscript codex seem to signify nothing else there than the year of the world 6500 and of Christ 992.

De mss. Latin. — In hoc autem codice adjectae sunt sancti Maximi notae, ab his quae in editis prostant, plurimum discrepantes. Quas quidem variationes cum omnes describere non possimus, id semel observasse sufficiat. Unde autem orta sit illa notarum discrepantia, si roges, disce ex Athanasii testimonio, a nobis mox proferendo, quo se scholia sancti Maximi et Joannis Scythopolitani a se invicem distinxisse affirmat. Hinc enim colliges ea imperitiorum librariorum incuria potuisse facile

Concerning the Latin manuscripts. — Now in this codex are added the notes of Saint Maximus, differing very greatly from those which are extant in the printed editions. And since we cannot transcribe all these variations, let it suffice to have observed this once for all. Now if you ask whence that discrepancy of the notes arose, learn from the testimony of Anastasius, soon to be brought forward by us, wherein he affirms that he distinguished the scholia of Saint Maximus and of John of Scythopolis from one another. For hence you will gather that by the carelessness of more unskilful copyists they could easily

Editors' notes and page, col. 54

Page

running head: PROLEGOMENA. 54
marginal letters: A nullibi unquam auctor; B fuisse adhibitam. Quid; C Graeci, quorum praecipuus,; D ϛφ in codice
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with inline Greek colophon, no facing Greek printed; editors' matter: nullibi unquam auctor

PG 3:55

in codice Colbertino aliisque pluribus praepostera perturbatione confundi.

have been confounded in preposterous confusion in the Colbertine codex and many others.

Posterior tandem codex Colbertinus a quodam monacho nomine Longino, anno mundi, ut ab eodem Longino subnotatur, 6780, id est Christi anno 1272, descriptus est.

Finally, the latter Colbertine codex was transcribed by a certain monk named Longinus, in the year of the world, as is noted below by the same Longinus, 6780, that is, in the year of Christ 1272.

De ms. Sandionysiano. — Observabamus supra quosdam Graecos codices, Carolo Calvo imperante, in Sancti Dionysii prope Lutetiam monasterium fuisse asportatos; sed lugendam eorum cum caeteris ferme omnibus ditissimae ejusdem bibliothecae manuscriptis jacturam fecimus. Alius qui ibi nunc habetur, illuc ab imperatore Manuele Palaeologo missus est. Atque in hujusce rei fidem haec verba in fine ejusdem libri, sed manu recentiori subjecta sunt : « Τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον ἀπεστάλη παρὰ τοῦ ὑψηλοτάτου βασιλέως, καὶ αὐτοκράτορος Ῥωμαίων κυροῦ Μανουὴλ τοῦ Παλαιολόγου εἰς τὸ μοναστήριον τοῦ Ἁγίου Διονυσίου τῷ ἐν Παρυσίῳ τῆς Φραγγίας ἢ Γαλατίας, ἀπὸ τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως δι' ἐμοῦ Μανουὴλ τοῦ Χρυσολωρᾶ, πεμφθέντος πρεσβέως παρὰ τοῦ εἰρημένου βασιλέως, ἔτει ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου ἑξακισχιλιοστῷ ἐννεακισχιλιοστῷ ἑξκαιδεκάτῳ, ἀπὸ σαρκώσεως δὲ τοῦ Κυρίου χιλιοστῷ τετρακοσιοστῷ ὀγδοῷ. Ὅστις εἰρημένος βασιλεὺς ἦλθε πρότερον εἰς τὸ Παρύσιον πρὸ ἐτῶν τεσσάρων.» Hic liber Constantinopoli ad monasterium Sancti Dionysii Parisiensis in Francia sive Gallia missus est a celsissimo principe et imperatore Romanorum domino Manuele Palaeologo per me Manuelem Chrysoloram, legatum missum a dicto imperatore, anno a creatione mundi sexies millesimo nongentesimo decimo sexto, ab Incarnatione vero Domini millesimo quadringentesimo octavo. Qui dictus imperator prius Parisios venit ante quatuor annos.

Concerning the manuscript of Saint-Denis. — We observed above that certain Greek codices, when Charles the Bald was emperor, were carried into the monastery of Saint-Denis near Paris; but we have suffered the lamentable loss of them along with almost all the other manuscripts of the same most rich library. Another which is now held there was sent thither by the emperor Manuel Palaeologus. And in proof of this matter these words are subjoined at the end of the same book, though by a more recent hand: "The present book was sent from the most high king and emperor of the Romans, the lord Manuel Palaeologus, to the monastery of Saint Dionysius, that in Paris of Francia or Galatia, from Constantinople through me, Manuel Chrysoloras, sent as ambassador from the said king, in the six thousand nine hundred and sixteenth year from the creation of the world, and from the Incarnation of the Lord the one thousand four hundred and eighth. Which said king came previously to Paris four years before." This book was sent from Constantinople to the monastery of Saint Dionysius of Paris in France or Gaul by the most high prince and emperor of the Romans, the lord Manuel Palaeologus, through me, Manuel Chrysoloras, ambassador sent by the said emperor, in the six thousand nine hundred and sixteenth year from the creation of the world, and from the Incarnation of the Lord the one thousand four hundred and eighth. Which said emperor came previously to Paris four years before.

Duos insuper Latinos nacti sumus manu exaratos codices, quibus versio Joannis Scotigenae ac divi Maximi, ejusdemque Joannis Scotigenae notae et scholia exhibentur. Primus Bibliothecae Regiae est, secundus Colbertinae : alter ab annis circiter 600, alter vero 400 descriptus. In utroque praemittuntur ejusdem Joannis Scythopolitani et Anastasii Bibliothecarii ad Carolum Calvum epistolae, quibus ei versionis operisque sui reddunt rationem. Epistola Joannis sic inscribitur : Gloriosissimo catholicorum regum Carolo Joannes extremus sophiae studentium. Anastasiana vero : Praefatio Anastasii, apostolicae sedis bibliothecarii, ad excellentissimum regem et Christianissimum Carolum

We have found in addition two handwritten Latin codices, in which the version of John Scotigena and the notes and scholia of Saint Maximus and of the same John Scotigena are exhibited. The first belongs to the Royal Library, the second to the Colbertine: the one transcribed about 600 years ago, and the other 400. In both are premised the letters of the same John of Scythopolis and of Anastasius Bibliothecarius to Charles the Bald, in which they render to him an account of their version and work. The letter of John is inscribed thus: To Charles, the most glorious of Catholic kings, John, the last of the students of wisdom. And that of Anastasius: Preface of Anastasius, librarian of the Apostolic See, to the most excellent king and most Christian Charles

Editors' notes and page, col. 55

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Joannis Scotigenae› · call in col 55

Lege Joannisque Scythopolitani. Edit. Patr.

Read "and of John of Scythopolis". Editors of the Patrologia.

(printed under page 34)

(2) ‹anchor: Joannis Scythopolitani› · call in col 55

Lege Scotigenae. Id.

Read "Scotigena" [John Scotus]. The same [editors].

(printed under page 34)

Page

running head: 55 S. DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA.
marginal letters: A in codice Colbertino; B sunt : « Τὸ παρὸν; C per me Manuelem; D rationem. Epistola Joannis
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with inline Greek colophon, no facing Greek printed; editors' matter: in codice Colbertino

PG 3:56

regem. Ibi interpretationis a Joanne, quem Scotigenam vocat, editae meminit. Imperatorem vero certiorem facit se ad eum versionem mittere Graecorum Maximi et Joannis Scythopolitani scholiorum : quae quidem quomodo a se invicem distinxerit, his verbis significat : Ipsorum autem scholiorum seu paratheseon, quaecunque in calce sui signum vivificae crucis habent, a beato Maximo confessore ac monacho inventa narrantur : caetera vero sancti Joannis Scythopolitani antistitis esse feruntur.

the king. There he makes mention of the translation published by John, whom he calls Scotigena. And he informs the emperor that he is sending to him a version of the Greek scholia of Maximus and of John of Scythopolis; and how he distinguished these from one another he signifies in these words: Now of the scholia or marginal annotations themselves, whatsoever ones have at their foot the sign of the life-giving cross are related to have been devised by the blessed Maximus, confessor and monk; while the rest are reported to belong to the holy bishop John of Scythopolis.

De epistola undecima ad Apollophanem. — Illud tandem sine observatione aliqua praetermitti non debet, quod neque in his omnibus codicibus, sive Graecis sive Latinis, neque in omnibus fere editionibus, nisi in Bibliotheca nostra Lugdunensi, epistola undecima, Dionysii nostri nomine inscripta, decem aliis superioribus subnectitur. In ea auctor Apollophani philosopho, ad quem data est, de illius ad Christianam fidem conversione plurimum gratulatur, et de solis defectione, quae Christo moriente, contigerat, sermonem rursus instituit.

Concerning the eleventh letter to Apollophanes. — Finally, this ought not to be passed over without some observation, that neither in all these codices, whether Greek or Latin, nor in almost all the editions, except in our Lyons Bibliotheca, is the eleventh letter, inscribed with the name of our Dionysius, subjoined to the ten other preceding ones. In it the author congratulates Apollophanes the philosopher, to whom it is addressed, very greatly on his conversion to the Christian faith, and again institutes a discourse concerning the eclipse of the sun which had happened when Christ was dying.

Haec autem epistola non solum certissima evidentis praefert falsitatis indicia, sed nec ab eodem auctore ac decem superiores, aliique Dionysiani libri, profecta esse videtur. Enimvero illa nec in manuscriptis, uti diximus, nec in melioris notae editionibus vulgata est. Deinde ab aliarum cum epistolarum, tum lucubrationum Dionysii nostri stylo prorsus abhorret. Denique divo Maximo, Operum Dionysii diligentissimo indagatori, plane penitusque incognita fuit. Nullas etenim in eam, sicut in caetera Dionysii Opera, ille edidit observationes. Quid quod et ipse Maximus Dionysium cum solis eclipsim observaret, annum aetatis vicesimum quintum attigisse meris conjecturis probare conatur. At nulla ipsi opus erat conjectura, si haec epistola, ubi id aperte declaratur, in ejus manus aliquando venisset. Vero igitur videtur omnino simile eam a male feriato quodam scriptore ex septima auctoris nostri ad Apollophanem epistola, in qua de memorata solis eclipsi disputat, post Maximi obitum fuisse compositam. Porro autem non alia quidem ratione ille Pseudo-Dionysius eam scripsisse videtur, nisi ut eumdem Apollophanem Christianae religioni, ad quam auctor epistolae septimae eum adducere tentaverat, nomen suum aliquando dedisse omnibus quocunque tandem modo persuaderet.

Now this letter not only displays the most certain marks of evident falsehood, but does not even seem to have proceeded from the same author as the ten preceding ones and the other Dionysian books. For indeed it has been published neither in the manuscripts, as we have said, nor in the editions of better note. Next, it shrinks altogether from the style both of the other letters and of the treatises of our Dionysius. Finally, to Saint Maximus, the most diligent investigator of the Works of Dionysius, it was plainly and utterly unknown. For he published no observations upon it, as he did upon the rest of the Works of Dionysius. What of the fact that Maximus himself also tries to prove by mere conjectures that Dionysius, when he observed the eclipse of the sun, had reached the twenty-fifth year of his age. Yet he had no need of conjecture if this letter, where that is openly declared, had ever come into his hands. It seems therefore altogether like the truth that it was composed after the death of Maximus by some idly busy writer out of the seventh letter of our author to Apollophanes, in which he disputes concerning the aforesaid eclipse of the sun. Moreover, that Pseudo-Dionysius seems to have written it for no other reason indeed save that he might persuade all men, in whatever way at last, that the same Apollophanes at some time gave his name to the Christian religion, to which the author of the seventh letter had attempted to lead him.

Editors' notes and page, col. 56