Notae in Paraphrasim Georgii Pachymerae in epistolas S. Dionysii

wherefore either Pachymeres used another copy, or these words must be deleted.

(7) And on either side... intensity. Tilmann: Inclining to either side, just as we speak of a slackening and an intensifying of malice. I translate: And on both sides it has as vices slackening and intensifying; for there follows thence, namely from slackening, is born the sin of cognition which is called ignorance; from the other side, namely from intensifying, arises another sin of cognition which he calls over-curiosity. According to Tilmann's version, one would have to place the article τῆς before κακίας, and add λέγομεν, or rather write ἡ κακία.

(8) Over-curiosity... might be called. Tilmann: Craftiness and malice which in many things indeed, etc. I translate: Curiosity of knowing many things, etc.

(9) And many over-curiosities produce knavery. Tilmann: Moreover, manifold contriving of malice produces one wickedness or malice. I translate: And many curiosities produce craftiness; because a gradation is shown which perishes in that version. For it is said that just as many ignorances beget folly, so many curiosities beget craftiness. Therefore, just as folly is a grosser privation of cognition than ignorance, so knavery is a graver disordered intensity of knowledge than curiosity.

EPISTLE II.

(10) In the eleventh chapter. St Maximus: In chapter 15, chap. 15, but correct to 11, because they are found there. In St Maximus add after ἀγαθότης (ἀγαθότητος), because the sense and Pachymeres require it.

(11) Towards the end saying. Tilmann: Towards the end writing in this manner. I translate: Towards the end saying. For in it are not the words of St Dionysius, but they only embrace his mind and the substance of his words.

(12) Principle of deity. Tilmann: Sovereignty of deity. I translate: Principle; for from what follows it is clear that God is said to be above thearchy, because θεότης, our divinity, proceeds from Him, and takes its principle from Him.

(13) Yet not God Himself. Tilmann: Yet we do not attain to that which God Himself is. I translate: Yet not God Himself.

(14) Whatever it is, I say. Tilmann: Even if elsewhere he seemed to wish to say this. It is false that St Dionysius said that anywhere. I translate therefore also what precedes: For I do not, he says, speak of what divinity and goodness are according to substance, but of the grace that makes men good and gods.

(15) And according to this... conceived. Tilmann: According to this form of discourse he asserts that God is said to transcend that primary and most eminent origin of deity and goodness, and signifies that it ought to be understood thus. I translate: And according to this reasoning he says that He is spoken of as above the principle of divinity, and above the principle of it as conceived, namely, in that manner. As if to say: If you conceive divinity in its substance, He is not above divinity in its substance; for although the Son is begotten by the Father, nevertheless the divinity of the Son is not less than the divinity of the Father, because it is one. But divinity in substance is above the divinity in some way acquired by creatures through imitation.

(16) But He holds it without relation. Tilmann: But He possesses it unceasingly. I translate: But He holds it without relation or quality, namely because God is simple and immutable.

(17) And since... it is called. Tilmann: For since we ourselves are not truly made gods, save in so far as it is granted to imitate both perfections of the divine Majesty, hence any such imitation is called deification. I translate: For inasmuch as we are not well deified save by imitating the divine Majesty, therefore it is called imitation.

(18) Therefore both imitation... and goodness. Tilmann: And so both imitation and habit, whatever things are of this sort, are such deity and goodness. I translate: The things themselves, therefore, deity and goodness (namely ours), are an imitation and habit, namely grace.

(19) And the angels partaking and imitating, and those of men. Tilmann: Accordingly the angels have obtained both by participation at once and imitation, and those of men, etc. I translate: And the angels partaking and imitating, and those of men.

(20) But the Divine, etc. Tilmann: Meanwhile that divine majesty remains. I translate: But the divine nature is inimitable.

(21) And without relation. Tilmann: And comprehensible to none according to its worthiness. I translate: And lacking habits or qualities; just as above I translated ἀσχέτως. The reason is because imitation is concerned with accidents, wherefore since God lacks accidents, He cannot be perfectly expressed in us. If you say with St Dionysius that the angels lack accidents, then it must be said that the question here concerns the imitation of men. As for the angels, to them also God is inimitable, because imitation follows the mode of apprehension, wherefore as according to their degree of dignity, which nevertheless is finite, they apprehend God more perfectly, they also imitate Him more perfectly; but because they do not comprehend Him, therefore He is also inimitable to them, namely in all respects.

(22) Advances towards a habit of God. Tilmann: Has advanced towards the comprehension of God. I translate: Has advanced towards the quality of God, namely fashioned in us. For σχέσις refers to ἀγαθότητα, since there follows: the Divine transcending the imitations and the habits, namely of deity and goodness; wherefore σχέσις is the habit which we attain by imitating God, and through which we are made like Him. Therefore it is said that the more we advance in that quality, the more we perceive the immensity of the divinity. Gallus also subscribed to my opinion.

(23) Reasonably. Tilmann: Rightly therefore is God affirmed to super-eminently transcend that supreme divinity and supreme goodness. I translate as above: Rightly therefore is He above the principle of deity and goodness. For the question here is not of the supreme degree of divinity grantable to imitators of God; but it is only said that He super-eminently transcends that principle of divinity and goodness which the creature acquires by imitating it, which divinity increases in proportion to the perfection of the imitation.

EPISTLE III.

(24) Hidden is said instead of God, as invisible. Tilmann: Κρύφιος is put here for God, just as the same was called ἀόρατος, invisible. I translate the latter part: Just as He was called ἀόρατος, invisible, that is, as ἀόρατος signifies God, so does κρύφιος, or rather κρύφιος is said here for God just as ἀόρατος is.

EPISTLE IV.

(25) That also from all things. Tilmann: Because from every thing. I translate: That from every thing, and may be present, instead of is present, because it refers to he anticipates in saying.

(26) And again we shall by no means say concerning this One. Tilmann: Or on the contrary is He therefore accounted man? I translate: And again shall we say concerning this One, namely Jesus?

(27) Because He is with... He is said. Tilmann: Because it belongs to Him in common with men that by His providence He looks after the affairs of mortals, just as it also belongs to Him in common with all other things that are. I translate: Because He is said to be present with men as their provider, just as He is also said to be present with all other things.

(28) In the chronographies. Tilmann: In his cosmographies. I translate: in the chronographies, or in the books on the series of times.

(29) For He is called homonymously with all the things from Him. Tilmann: For God Himself is called equivocally with all those things which have their being from Him. I translate more clearly: For God is called by the same name as the things created by Him.

(30) Since He is in all things. Inasmuch as He exists in each: these words are lacking in the Latin.

(31) Not as Cause... He is called. Tilmann: Not in this way does He seem to be the author of men, just as

according to the whole substance He is predicated man, encompassed with human substance: 1st, all is obscure; 2nd, false, because Christ is truly encompassed with the whole human substance; 3rd, from St Maximus the text is to be corrected in this manner: Not as Cause of men, but as having been substantiated in the whole substance is He called man. Therefore here, in place of δέ, ἀλλά ought to have been put; 4th, it must be translated thus: Not as author or creator of men, but as encompassed with human flesh according to the whole substance He seems to be called man.

(32) And though able to say... the truth. Tilmann: As one who could render a proper reason for this question, because He is thus predicated as clothed with human flesh in such a way that He neither diminished nor corrupted the truth itself of the flesh in any part. I translate: And though he could have stated here a proper reason, that He is called man as truly clothed with human flesh, he would not have corrupted the truth, namely by answering thus. The Greek words and what follows admit of no other sense, because λυμήνασθαι cannot be attributed to Christ, for λυμηνάμενος would have had to be written; wherefore it refers to ἔχων, namely St Dionysius.

(33) Meanwhile wishing also this... he says: We. Tilmann: And when he had previously undertaken to explain this indeed according to the proportion and mean of the other names, namely according to cause (for this was his sole aim), hence he says we. I translate: But wishing first to explain here also (namely the name) according to the definition of the other names (namely of Christ), that is, according to cause and principles (for this he proposes to himself), he says: We. The sense is clear if it is compared with the immediately preceding period.

(34) But man... love towards mankind. Tilmann: But assuredly that most benign lover of men was truly man; for this the word διαφερόντως, that is, pre-eminently, clearly indicates, namely that He excelled others by His surpassing charity towards us. The sense is intricate; for it is doubtful whether he wishes to adduce the word διαφερόντως as the reason for what precedes, since it ends the period. I translate: But assuredly that One who greatly loves men is truly man; for this is pre-eminently, namely excelling all creatures in benevolence towards men. Wherefore here it is only said that διαφερόντως is the same as λίαν.

(35) Assuredly... man. Tilmann: Finally, in the most exuberant richness of His divine nature truly made man. He wrongly separates these words from what precedes; for here is stated the reason for what precedes. I translate: Namely in the richness of divinity, even truly made man. For the reason of His most eminent substance, power, virtue, and divine nature which He has, rich-

(36) Nor as man did He do the things of man. Tilmann: Not in so far as He was man did He do human things, which is false. I translate therefore: Not according to human nature, that is, human powers, did He do human things, namely to walk upon the water, etc.

(37) As the natures are blended... of the natural union. Tilmann: That the Lord consisted of natures as it were tempered together, the terms namely running back either way into one another by a harmonious bond of the natures. I translate: Just as the natures are mingled and united, so namely the appellations also mutually run back by reason of the conjunction of the natures. As if to say: Just as in Christ two natures were united in the same subsistence, so the appellations of both were common, and the things that were attributed to man also belonged to God: e.g., just as he was said to suffer, to hunger, so God was said to suffer, to hunger on account of the communication of idioms; and just as God is almighty, Creator, so the man Christ is almighty, Creator.

(38) Thus also from the contrary the same things, for not as man. Tilmann: In the same manner, the things that clash with these from opposite sides. I translate: In the same manner, namely the same works, from the contrary, for not according to the powers of human nature. This member, therefore,