P. Halloix, S.J., Vita S. Dionysii Areopagitae, cum notationibus

(99) ‹anchor: not visible on the page-foot images› · call in col 695 (UNSURE: call not in the rendered foot; column inferred from the note's position in the left half of the note band)

Ille locus visitur in templo B. Dionysii vulgo a Passu, prope aedem Beatae Mariae, non longe a ripa Sequanae.

That place is seen in the church of St Denis, commonly called "of the Passage" [du Pas], near the church of Blessed Mary, not far from the bank of the Seine.

(printed under page 357)

VITA S. DIONYSII AREOPAGITAE ATHENARUM EPISCOPI, FRANCORUM APOSTOLI ET MARTYRIS PER R. P. PETRUM HALLOIX Soc. Jesu Presb. Concinnata ejusdemque notationibus illustrata.

The Life of St Dionysius the Areopagite, Bishop of the Athenians, Apostle and Martyr of the Franks, compiled by the Reverend Father Pierre Halloix, Priest of the Society of Jesus, and illustrated with his annotations.

PRAEFATIO.

PREFACE.

Si e claris sanctorum Patrum Vitis eae primum punctum ferunt, quae una cum antiquitatis auctoritate, majores in litteris, in laboribus, in peregrinationibus, in signis denique ac salutaribus prodigiis, admirabilitates habent; nemini sane in dubio relinquitur, quo loco, quove numero ea censeri debeat, quae

If, among the illustrious Lives of the holy Fathers, those carry off the first prize which, together with the authority of antiquity, contain greater marvels in letters, in labours, in journeys, and finally in signs and salutary prodigies, it is surely left in doubt to no one in what place, or in what rank, that [Life] ought to be reckoned which

<!-- note: The upper two-thirds of col. 695 (with col. 696 beside it) is the end of the preceding hymn (author's text, not set here), with its footnotes (99) and (100), which belong to the page-foot apparatus. Below a double rule, the title of Halloix's Vita is printed across the full page width, then the heading PRAEFATIO, preceded by the old-edition numbers "410-411" (apparatus, left out of the text), then the opening of the Praefatio, also printed full width, which breaks off mid-sentence after "quae" and runs on into the following column. Set: title block, heading, and the opening fragment only. Ligatures normalised to ae. "admirabilitates": the final letter is blurred on the scan (it could be read as "admirabilitatea"); set as "admirabilitates". -->

(100) ‹anchor: Tristis cavernas quaeritans (100)› · call in col 696

Aimonius monachus, Hist. lib. IV, c. 17.

Aimoin the monk, History, book IV, chapter 17.

(printed under page 357)

(p) ‹anchor: sacra produnt Oracula› · call in col 697

Luc. XXIII, 44.

Luke 23:44.

(printed under page 358)

(q) ‹anchor: et disponit omnia suaviter› · call in col 697

Sap. VIII, 1.

Wisd. 8:1.

(printed under page 358)

(q) ‹anchor: disponit omnia suaviter› · call in col 698

Sap. VIII, 1.

Wisdom 8:1.

(printed under page 358)

Heading printed across the page above the notes: NOTATIONES.

NOTES.

(printed under page 359)

(1) ‹anchor: call on an earlier page› · printed in col 699

S. Dion., l. De div. nom., c. 3.

St Dionysius, book On the Divine Names, chapter 3.

(printed under page 359)

(2) ‹anchor: call on an earlier page› · printed in cols 699–700

Natus est Dionysius. Dionysii inter scriptores sacros doctrina et sanctimonia clarissimi tres fuerunt (nam de Patribus Graecis tantum sermo est in praesentia), Dionysius Areopagita, Dionysius Corinthiorum episcopus, et Dionysius Alexandrinus; qui omnes scripta utilissima posteris reliquere. Areopagita primo saeculo floruit, Corinthius secundo, Alexandrinus tertio. Ac proinde hi duo posteriores mentionem Areopagitae facere potuerunt; et Corinthius quidem, testibus Eusebio Caesareae Palaestinae episcopo et Maximo martyre, fuit; sed an Alexandrinus etiam fuerit, haud perinde constat. Multi quidem id asserunt, et ejusdem Maximi Scholiastae auctoritatem ad hoc confirmandum proferunt; ubi scilicet scribit, sanctum Dionysium Alexandrinum composuisse Scholia in beatum Dionysium sibi cognominem. Verum per Dionysium sibi cognominem non intelligi Areopagitam, infra fuse docui, quaest. 2, in solutione argumentorum adversae partis. Verba autem Eusebii lib. IV Historiae ecclesiasticae, cap. 22, de Dionysio Corinthio sunt haec: Δηλοῖ δὲ ἐπὶ τούτοις, ὡς καὶ Διονύσιος Ἀρειοπαγίτης ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου Παύλου προτραπεὶς ἐπὶ τὴν πίστιν, κατὰ τὰ ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσι δεδηλωμένα πρῶτος τῆς Ἀθηναίων παροικίας τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν ἐγκεχείριστο. Significat praeterea (Dionysius Corinthius) Dionysium Areopagitam ab apostolo Paulo ad fidem conversum, ut produnt Acta, primum Athenarum antistitem creatum esse. ¶ De eodem Dionysio, Corinthiorum episcopo, ita Maximus in praefatione Scholiorum suorum ad libros Areopagitae: Μνημονεύει δὲ τοῦ Ἀρειοπαγίτου καὶ Διονύσιος ἀρχαῖος Κορινθίων ἐπίσκοπος, καὶ Πολύκαρπος ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἀθηναίους ἐπιστολῇ αὐτοῦ. Mentionem facit Areopagitae etiam Dionysius, antiquus Corinthiorum episcopus, et Polycarpus in sua ad Athenienses epistola. Ita ille. Haec autem propter eos, qui eumdem Areopagitam existimarunt etiam Athenarum et Corinthiorum fuisse episcopum, dicta sint. Nam ex his patet, esse diversos: cum alter alterius mentionem faciat. ¶ De his duobus Dionysiis, Corinthio, inquam, et Alexandrino, amplius σὺν Θεῷ in ipsorum Vitis et saeculis dicetur: nunc solum de Areopagita, qui secundum apostolos primus mihi ponitur in suo saeculo, idque suasu antiquitatis, cum aetate vix novem annis minor Christo fuerit, ut jam nunc ostendam.

"Dionysius was born." Among the sacred writers there were three Dionysii most renowned for learning and holiness (for at present we speak only of the Greek Fathers): Dionysius the Areopagite, Dionysius bishop of the Corinthians, and Dionysius of Alexandria; all of whom left most useful writings to posterity. The Areopagite flourished in the first century, the Corinthian in the second, the Alexandrian in the third. And so the two later ones could have mentioned the Areopagite; and the Corinthian did, on the testimony of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, and of Maximus the martyr; but whether the Alexandrian did too is not equally certain. Many indeed assert it, and bring forward to confirm it the authority of the Scholiast of that same Maximus, where he writes that St Dionysius of Alexandria composed scholia on the blessed Dionysius his namesake. But that by "Dionysius his namesake" the Areopagite is not meant, I have shown at length below, question 2, in answering the arguments of the opposing side. The words of Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History book 4, chapter 22, on Dionysius of Corinth are these: "He shows besides that Dionysius the Areopagite, brought to the faith by the Apostle Paul as set out in the Acts, was the first to be entrusted with the oversight of the church of the Athenians." He indicates moreover (Dionysius of Corinth) that Dionysius the Areopagite, converted to the faith by the apostle Paul, as the Acts relate, was made the first bishop of Athens. ¶ Of the same Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, Maximus says thus in the preface to his Scholia on the books of the Areopagite: "Dionysius, an ancient bishop of the Corinthians, also makes mention of the Areopagite, and Polycarp in his letter to the Athenians." [Latin version follows, to the same effect.] So he. These things are said on account of those who thought that this same Areopagite was also bishop of Athens and of the Corinthians. For it is plain from them that they are different men, since the one makes mention of the other. ¶ Of these two Dionysii, the Corinthian, I mean, and the Alexandrian, more will be said, God willing, in their own Lives and centuries: now only of the Areopagite, who is placed by me first after the apostles in his century, and that at the persuasion of antiquity, since he was scarcely nine years younger than Christ, as I shall now show.

(3-4) ‹anchor: call on an earlier page› · printed in col 700 Anno circiter Christi nono. Hic annus ex ipsius Dionysii ad Apollophanem epistola colligitur, ubi tempore passionis Christi Domini, sive eclipseos quae tum accidit, se viginti quinque annorum fuisse scribit. Quae epistola, licet nunc Graece non exstet, tamen exstabat tempore Caroli Calvi imperatoris, sub annum Christi 876, quo tempore una cum aliis S. Dionysii operibus eam Latine vertit Erigena Scotus. Nam hodieque ea versio superest, et eodem plane stylo quo caeterae epistolae, ut dubio nullus relictus sit locus. Accedit de viginti quinque annis auctoritas S. Maximi ad Epistolam decimam S. Dionysii quae est ad S. Joannem Evangelistam, his verbis: Ὑποθώμεθα δὲ καὶ τὸν θεῖον Διονύσιον, ὅτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Κυρίου εἶδεν, εἶναι ἐτῶν κε΄, 414 ἅτε οἶμαι καὶ ἔτι ἀναγινώσκοντα. Supponamus vero et divinum Dionysium, cum ejusmodi (continues)

"About the ninth year of Christ." This year is gathered from Dionysius's own letter to Apollophanes, where he writes that at the time of the passion of Christ the Lord, or of the eclipse that then occurred, he was twenty-five years old. That letter, though it no longer survives in Greek, still survived in the time of the emperor Charles the Bald, about the year of Christ 876, when Erigena Scotus translated it into Latin together with other works of St Dionysius. For that version survives even today, and in plainly the same style as the other letters, so that no room is left for doubt. Added to this, on the twenty-five years, is the authority of St Maximus on the tenth Letter of St Dionysius, the one to St John the Evangelist, in these words: "Let us suppose also that the divine Dionysius, when he saw what took place at the Lord's cross, was twenty-five years old, [414: page of the earlier edition] still reading, I think, [i.e. still a student]." Let us suppose, moreover, that the divine Dionysius, when such (continues)

(printed under page 359)

[RENDER LIMIT: the two images show only the lower part of the page, and the left image cuts off the first letters of every line of col 701. The upper part of the notes on this page is NOT set here. Letters in square brackets are supplied where the lost line-start is certain; [...] marks a loss not restored. Re-render the full page to complete.] (?) ‹anchor: call on an earlier page› · printed in col 701 · (continued; beginning not in image) [...]m testimonia. Breve est illud M. Tullii libro [...]o, De finibus bonorum et malorum, extremo: [«] Plato, inquit, Aegyptum peragravit, ut a sa[cerdo]tibus barbaris numeros et coelestia accipe[ret.] » Et paulo post: « Cur Pythagoras et Aegy[ptum] lustravit, et Persarum magos adiit? cur [...] regiones barbarorum pedibus obiit? tot maria [...]vit? cur haec eadem Democritus? etc. » Vide [Diogene]m Laertium in eorumdem Vitis, et Strabo[nem i]n libris Geographiae XIV et XVII, et Valerium [Maxim]um lib. VIII, cap. 7, et de aliis Philostratum [in Vi]tis sophistarum, praesertim in Aristide, et [Ju]stinum martyrem in cohortatione 1 ad Grae[cos, a]nte medium, ubi dicit, constare ex Theodoro [et] aliis historicis, Orpheum, Homerum, Solo[nem,] Pythagoram, Platonem et alios Aegyptum [...]e, et libris Moysis adjutos, melius de Deo [...]sse. Vide et Clementem Alexandrinum lib. I [Strom]atum, ante medium, ubi sic inter alia: Θαλῆς δὲ [...]ὢν τὸ γένος, καὶ τοῖς Αἰγυπτίων προφήταις συμ[...]κέναι εἴρηται, καθάπερ καὶ ὁ Πυθαγόρας αὐτοῖς [...]τοις δι' οὓς καὶ περιετέμετο, ἵνα δὴ καὶ εἰς τὰ [...] κατελθὼν τὴν μυστικὴν παρ' Αἰγυπτίων ἐκμά[...]λοσόφων, Χαλδαίων τε καὶ μάγων τοῖς ἀρίστοις [...]νετο, καὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τὴν νῦν οὕτω καλου[...]ὁμακοεῖον αἰνίττεται. Thales autem, cum esset [...]x genere, etiam cum Aegyptiorum prophetis [...]ssus esse dicitur, sicut et Pythagoras cum iis[...]rsatus est; propter quos etiam fuit circum[...] ut adyta ingrediens Aegyptiorum mysticam [...]t philosophiam, et cum Chaldaeorum, et ma[...] praestantissimis egit familiariter, et quae nunc [...]ia appellatur, ab illo ὁμακοεῖον dicta est. Vox [...]εῖον coauditorium (si fas ita loqui) significat, [...]e locum, quo multi ad audiendum una conve[...]: ex ὁμοῦ et ἀκούω, simul audio.

[...] testimonies. Brief is that saying of Marcus Tullius [Cicero] in book [five] of On the Ends of Good and Evil, at the end: "Plato," he says, "travelled through Egypt, to receive numbers and heavenly things from barbarian priests." And a little after: "Why did Pythagoras traverse Egypt and visit the magi of the Persians? Why did he pass on foot through [such] barbarian regions, [cross] so many seas? Why did Democritus do the same?" etc. See Diogenes Laertius in their Lives, and Strabo in books 14 and 17 of the Geography, and Valerius Maximus book 8, chapter 7, and on others Philostratus in the Lives of the Sophists, especially under Aristides, and Justin Martyr in the first Exhortation to the Greeks, before the middle, where he says it is established from Theodorus and other historians that Orpheus, Homer, Solon, Pythagoras, Plato and others [went to] Egypt and, helped by the books of Moses, [thought] better about God. See also Clement of Alexandria, Stromata book 1, before the middle, where among other things he says thus: [Greek, rendered by the Latin that follows.] "Thales, being [a Phoenician] by race, is said to have conversed with the prophets of the Egyptians, just as Pythagoras also kept company with them; on whose account he was even circumcised, so that entering the sanctuaries he might learn the mystical philosophy of the Egyptians; and he associated familiarly with the most eminent of the Chaldaeans and the magi; and what is now called the Church was called by him the homakoeion." The word homakoeion means a "co-auditorium" (if one may so speak), that is, a place where many gather together to listen: from homou and akouō, "I hear together."

(?) ‹anchor: call on an earlier page› · printed in col 701 · (continues) Quin etiam ipso Dionysii tempore. Strabo [...] qui eodem quo Dionysius tempore floruit, [...]t imperante Tiberio, ita de se libro XVII [Geogra]phiae scribit: Ἐν δὲ τῇ Ἡλίου πόλει καὶ [...] εἴδομεν μεγάλους, ἐν οἷς διέτριβον ἱερεῖς. [...]τα γὰρ δὴ ταύτην κατοικίαν ἱερέων γεγονέναι [...]ὸ παλαιὸν φιλοσόφων ἀνδρῶν καὶ ἀστρονομι[...] [In H]eliopoli domos amplas vidimus, in quibus sa[...]s degebant. Imo dicunt hanc olim sacerdotum [...]tionem fuisse, hominum philosophiae et astro[...] deditorum. Et paucis interjectis: Ἐκεῖ οὖν [...]ντο οἵ τε τῶν ἱερέων οἶκοι, καὶ Πλάτωνος,... [...]δοξος δεῦρο, καὶ συνδιέτριψαν ἱερεῦσιν ἐκεῖνοι (continues)

"Indeed, even in Dionysius's own time." Strabo, who flourished at the same time as Dionysius, [namely] under the emperor Tiberius, writes thus of himself in book 17 of the Geography: [Greek, rendered by the Latin that follows.] "In Heliopolis we saw large houses in which the priests lived. Indeed they say this was of old the dwelling of the priests, men given to philosophy and astronomy." And after a few words: "There, then, were shown both the houses of the priests and [the lodgings] of Plato, ... [Eu]doxus [came] here, and they spent time with the priests ..." (continues)

(?) ‹anchor: call on an earlier page› · printed in col 702 · (continued; beginning not in image) [...]κιον, οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι τούτων εἶχον ἀμαθῶς. Arithmeticam quoque et astrologiam cum illis communicavit. Nam ante Abrahami adventum in Aegyptum, Aegyptii horum rudes erant.

[...] the Egyptians were ignorant of these things. He also shared arithmetic and astrology with them. For before Abraham's coming into Egypt the Egyptians were unskilled in them.

(printed under page 360)

(8) ‹anchor: viri multo doctissimi› · printed in col 702

Alexander Polyhistor in Historia Judaeorum; Josephus l. I Antiq., cap. 9; Eusebius lib. IX De praeparat. Evangel., cap. 17; Suidas in Dionysio.

Alexander Polyhistor in the History of the Jews; Josephus, Antiquities book 1, chapter 9; Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel book 9, chapter 17; Suidas under "Dionysius".

(printed under page 360)

(9) ‹anchor: Apollophane sophista› · printed in col 702

Una cum Apollophane sophista. Hic Apollophanes praeceptor fuit Polemonis Laodicensis; Polemon autem Aristidis philosophi eloquentissimi, qui Apologeticum pro Christianis obtulit Adriano imperatori: de quo Aristide vide Eusebium, libro IV Historiae, cap. 3, et Hieronymum in Catologo. De Apollophane ita Suidas in Dionysio: Συνῆν δὲ αὐτῷ Ἀπολλοφάνης ἐκεῖνος ὁ σοφιστής, οὗ Πολέμων ὁ Λαοδικεὺς ἐν Σμύρνῃ διήκουσεν, ὁ διδάσκαλος Ἀριστείδου. Una cum Dionysio erat Apollophanes orator ille, quem Polemon Laodicenus, magister Aristidis, Smyrnae audivit. Hunc ergo Apollophanem S. Polycarpus Smyrnae episcopus ad manum habuit, et ad Christi fidem convertit. Super qua conversione duae exstant Dionysii epistolae; una ad S. Polycarpum hortatoria, ut eum ad fidem convertat; altera ad ipsum Apollophanem jam conversum gratulatoria. Fuisse Apollophanem sancto Dionysio non solum veterem sodalem, sed et cognatum, videntur ista Syngeli verba in ejus Encomio indicare: Ἑταίρῳ δῆθεν ὄντι φιλτάτῳ καὶ ὁμογενεῖ. Veteri sodali amicissimo et cognato.

"Together with Apollophanes the sophist." This Apollophanes was the teacher of Polemon of Laodicea; and Polemon of Aristides, the most eloquent philosopher, who presented an Apology for the Christians to the emperor Hadrian: on this Aristides see Eusebius, History book 4, chapter 3, and Jerome in the Catalogue [printed "Catologo"]. Of Apollophanes Suidas says thus under "Dionysius": [Greek, rendered by the Latin that follows.] "With Dionysius was that orator Apollophanes whom Polemon of Laodicea, the teacher of Aristides, heard at Smyrna." This Apollophanes, then, St Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, had at hand and converted to the faith of Christ. On this conversion two letters of Dionysius survive: one to St Polycarp, urging him to convert him to the faith; the other to Apollophanes himself, now converted, congratulating him. That Apollophanes was to St Dionysius not only an old companion but also a kinsman, these words of Syncellus in his Encomium seem to indicate: [Greek, rendered by the Latin that follows.] "To an old companion, most dear, and a kinsman."

(printed under page 360)

(10) ‹anchor: surgente igitur illa eclipsi› · printed in col 702 · (continues)

Exsurgente illa eclipsi. Tota hujus eclipseos ab iis animadversae historia partim ex duabus S. Dionysii epistolis, 415 una ad S. Polycarpum, altera ad Apollophanem, collecta est; partim ex Maximo, Syngelo et Metaphraste. Quibus adde Suidam, Nicephorum, Pachymeram, et alios. Eclipseos quidem, sive tenebrarum toti orbi obtensarum, quod ad substantiam spectat, evangelistae tres, Matthaeus, Lucas et Marcus meminerunt; sed quod ad modum attinet, praeter hunc Dionysium, nemo. Utrobique autem multa admodum mira exstiterunt. Ad prius enim quod attinet, primo facta est in plenilunio, quod alias nunquam. Cum enim solis defectio fiat ex conjunctione solis cum luna (id quod accidit in novilunio) tum facta est in ejus maxima disjunctione, sive in plenilunio. Nec enim Judaei alio tempore Pascha celebrabant, quam in plenilunio. Deinde obumbravit haec eclipsis totam terram; quod naturaliter fieri non potest, cum luna- (continues)

"When that eclipse arose." The whole account of this eclipse as observed by them is gathered partly from two letters of St Dionysius, [415: page of the earlier edition] one to St Polycarp, the other to Apollophanes; partly from Maximus, Syncellus and Metaphrastes. Add to these Suidas, Nicephorus, Pachymeres and others. The eclipse, or the darkness spread over the whole world, as to its substance three evangelists, Matthew, Luke and Mark, record; but as to its manner, no one besides this Dionysius. On both counts, however, very many wonders occurred. As to the first: in the first place it happened at the full moon, which never happens otherwise. For since an eclipse of the sun comes from the conjunction of the sun with the moon (which happens at the new moon), this one happened at the moon's greatest separation, that is, at the full moon. For the Jews celebrated the Pasch at no other time than at the full moon. Next, this eclipse overshadowed the whole earth, which cannot happen naturally, since the moon- (continues)

(printed under page 360)

[RENDER LIMIT: the images show only the lower part of each column. The upper part of the notes in col 703 and in col 704 is NOT set here; each lacuna is marked [... upper part not in image ...]. Re-render the full page to complete.] (printed under page 361)

(10) ‹anchor: surgente igitur illa eclipsi› · printed in cols 703–704 · (continued)

[... upper part of col 703 not in image ...] tenentibus, ut in Aegypto factum legitur antiquitus) tamen cum veram fuisse eclipsim gravissimi auctores, etiam ethnici, tradant, et ipse S. Dionysius non modo illam, sed ejus quoque modum una cum aequali suo Apollophane, maximo philosopho, adhibita regula astronomica, curiose observarit, litterisque mandarit, par est idem cum iisdem sentire homines non praefractos. Ex auctoribus ethnicis, qui eclipseos tempore passionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi animadversae meminerunt, citantur nominatim, Phlegon libertus Adriani imperatoris, egregius historicus, cujus verba Graeca e Chronico Eusebii, itemque ex Alexandrino, sive, ut alii vocant, e Fastis Siculis, hic propono. Ita igitur Phlegon lib. XIII: Τῷ δὲ τετάρτῳ ἔτει τῆς σβ΄ Ὀλυμπιάδος ἐγένετο ἔκλειψις ἡλίου μεγίστη τῶν ἐγνωρισμένων πρότερον, καὶ νὺξ ὥρᾳ ς΄ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐγένετο, ὥστε καὶ ἀστέρας ἐν οὐρανῷ φανῆναι. Σεισμός τε μέγας κατὰ Βιθυνίαν γενόμενος τὰ πολλὰ Νικαίας κατεστρέψατο, id est ex interpretatione sancti Hieronymi: Quarto autem anno ducentesimae secundae Olympiadis, magna et excellens inter omnes, quae ante acciderant, defectio solis est facta: dies hora sexta ita in tenebras versus, ut stellae in coelo visae sint; terraeque motus in Bithynia Nicaenae urbis multas aedes subvertit. Ita Phlegon apud Eusebium ad annum Domini 33. Idem quoque Eusebius, eodem loco, in aliis ethnicorum commentariis se haec ad verbum reperisse scribit: Ὁ ἥλιος ἐξέλιπεν· Βιθυνία ἐσείσθη· Νικαίας τὰ πολλὰ ἔπεσεν. Sol defecit: Bithynia concussa est: Nicaeae aedificia multa corruerunt. Thallus quoque historicus, teste Julio Africano secundi saeculi scriptore, idem ipsum in suam Historiam retulit Ita enim de illo: Τοῦτο τὸ σκότος ἔκλειψιν ἡλίου Θάλλος ἀποκαλεῖ ἐν τρίτῃ τῶν Ἱστοριῶν, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, ἀλόγως. Hasce tenebras defectum solis appellat Thallus lib. III Historiarum, ut mihi quidem videtur, inconsiderate. In quibus quidem verbis indicat Africanus, in altera se esse sententia, nimirum ut tenebrae tantum fuerint miraculo quodam Aegyptiarum tenebrarum simili per universam terram obductae. In qua opinione fuit [... upper part of col 704 not in image ...] quia lunam saepius in sua plenitudine, solem vero rarius, sed tamen vidimus in fine lunae secundum eorum computum defecisse. Non erat talis solis ille defectus, quando crucifixus est Christus, et ideo vere mirabilis erat et prodigiosus. Pascha quippe fuerat Judaeorum, quod non nisi in plenitudine lunae celebratur. Secundum astrologorum autem numeros certum est, solem, quando luna plena est, non posse deficere, sed quando finis est lunae, non quidem semper, sed aliter nunquam, cum secundum illos numeros deficit. Quid ergo tale unquam quisquam meminit apparuisse de coelo, ex quo Dominus illa praedixit, quale apparuit, quando passus est? » Ita S. Augustinus. ¶ Sed quaeret nunc aliquis, quonam pacto tantum miraculum patratum sit, nempe ut luna tam exigua solem tam immensum orbi toti absconderit. ¶ Respondeo, inter plures sententias hanc 416 videri probabilissimam, quae dicit, angeli ministerio vel subtractos orbi radios illos, qui a luna comprehendi non potuerunt, atque occultatos; vel certe (quod nostro Salmeroni magis placet) compressos coactosque, ut in lunam cuncti inciderent. Equidem magis credo, verum hujus prodigii modum nos latere. ¶ Jam autem circa ejusdem eclipseos, aut duorum potius luminarium processiones, ista exstiterunt haud minora prioribus miracula. ¶ Primo, quod luna ab orientali tractu solem subiverit, res prorsus insolens et inaudita. ¶ Secundo, quod ita progressa sit usque ad partem solis occiduam, ut tres horas partim progrediendo, partim regrediendo sub sole fuerit. ¶ Tertio, quod licet ad extremam usque solis partem occiduam processerit, ita ut ejusdem solis pars orientalis primo apparere detecta et detersa deberet; tamen luna retro versus orientem resiliente, contrarium acciderit, nempe ut pars occidenti obversa primo apparuerit, lumenque, ut ante, refuderit.

[...] holding, as we read was done of old in Egypt), yet since the weightiest authors, pagans included, report that it was a true eclipse, and St Dionysius himself, together with his contemporary Apollophanes, a very great philosopher, applying the astronomical rule, carefully observed not only the eclipse but also its manner and committed it to writing, it is fitting that men who are not obstinate should think the same as they. Of the pagan authors who record the eclipse observed at the time of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, there are cited by name Phlegon, freedman of the emperor Hadrian, an excellent historian, whose Greek words I set out here from the Chronicle of Eusebius, and likewise from the Alexandrine Chronicle, or, as others call it, the Sicilian Fasti. Phlegon, then, says thus in book 13: [Greek, rendered by Jerome's Latin that follows] that is, in St Jerome's translation: "In the fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad there occurred an eclipse of the sun, great and outstanding beyond all that had happened before: the day at the sixth hour was so turned into darkness that stars were seen in the sky; and an earthquake in Bithynia overthrew many houses of the city of Nicaea." So Phlegon in Eusebius at the year of the Lord 33. Eusebius also, in the same place, writes that he found these words verbatim in other commentaries of the pagans: "The sun failed: Bithynia was shaken: many buildings of Nicaea fell." Thallus the historian too, on the testimony of Julius Africanus, a writer of the second century, recorded this very thing in his History; for he says of him: "This darkness Thallus calls an eclipse of the sun in book 3 of his Histories, without reason, as it seems to me." In these words Africanus indicates that he is of the other opinion, namely that there was only darkness spread over the whole earth by a miracle like the Egyptian darkness. In this opinion was [...] because [we have seen] the moon fail rather often at its full, and the sun more rarely, but still we have seen it fail at the end of the moon according to their reckoning. That failure of the sun when Christ was crucified was not of that kind, and therefore it was truly wonderful and portentous. For it was the Pasch of the Jews, which is celebrated only at the full of the moon. But by the astrologers' numbers it is certain that the sun cannot fail when the moon is full, but only when it is the end of the moon; not always then, but never otherwise, when according to those numbers it fails. What then like this has anyone ever recalled appearing from the sky, since the Lord foretold those things, such as appeared when he suffered?" So St Augustine. ¶ But someone will now ask how so great a miracle was accomplished, namely that so small a moon hid so immense a sun from the whole world. ¶ I answer that among several opinions this one [416: page of the earlier edition] seems the most probable, which says that by the ministry of angels either those rays which the moon could not take in were withdrawn from the world and hidden; or at least (which our Salmeron prefers) compressed and drawn together so that all fell upon the moon. For my part I rather believe that the manner of this prodigy is hidden from us. ¶ Further, concerning the courses of this eclipse, or rather of the two luminaries, these miracles occurred, no less than the former. ¶ First, that the moon came under the sun from the eastern side, a thing quite unusual and unheard of. ¶ Second, that it advanced as far as the western part of the sun, so that for three hours, partly advancing, partly going back, it was under the sun. ¶ Third, that although it advanced as far as the extreme western part of the sun, so that the eastern part of the sun ought to have appeared first uncovered and wiped clear, yet, the moon springing back towards the east, the contrary happened, namely that the part facing west appeared first and poured out its light as before.

(printed under page 361)

[RENDER LIMIT: the images show only the lower part of the page. Above the text there is a printed diagram spanning both columns (only its lower part is visible): a large circle with points D (left) and E (right), G at the foot of a vertical diameter, the earth A at the centre, the moon B to the upper left, and an inner circle through A. Anything printed above the diagram is NOT set here.] (printed under page 362)

(10) ‹anchor: surgente igitur illa eclipsi› · printed in cols 705–706 · (continued) (continues)

[... upper part of the page not in image ...] Sit ergo in figura praesenti, A terra, B luna, C sol, D oriens, E occidens, F G diameter ab ipso sole ad solis oppositum; H pars solis orientem respiciens, I pars solis occidentem spectans; linea vero ab H ad I, diameter disci seu corporis solaris. Jam tempore passionis luna erat in G, sive ex diametro soli opposita, proptereaque plena, et radiis solaribus tota collucens, ut in plenilunio assolet. Hora igitur sexta, qua Christus in cruce pendebat, subito transiit luna ab G, sive a loco soli ex diametro opposito, ad H, sive ad partem solis orientalem, ibique solem subiens ex ea parte inchoavit eclipsim, indeque ad I progressa, totum solem caligine sua velut pulla veste, obduxit: deinde ab I sive parte solis occidua ad H resiliit, ita ut pars solis ultimo obtenebrata primo inclaruerit, mundoque radios suos diffuderit, contra quam alias semper factum fuerit, aut fieri solitum sit. Progressio 417 itaque ab H ad I, et regressio ab I ad H, tres ipsas horas tenuit, a sexta scilicet usque ad nonam, hoc est in plagis orientalibus a meridie ad tertiam pomeridianam. Deinde ab H ad G, hoc est ad locum suum naturalem citissime rediit, ita ut vesperi in sua essent statione, sol in occasu, luna ex opposito; et haec quidem plena ac lucida, perinde quasi loco mota non fuisset. Quarum rerum tam admirabili spectaculo percussi Dionysius et Apollophanes philosophi, quid sibi ista vellent, inter se quaeritarunt, ut in vita exposuimus. Denique de ambobus illis philosophis, S. Dionysio, inquam (continues)

Let then, in the present figure, A be the earth, B the moon, C the sun, D the east, E the west, F G the diameter from the sun itself to the point opposite the sun; H the part of the sun facing east, I the part of the sun looking west; and the line from H to I the diameter of the sun's disc or body. Now at the time of the passion the moon was at G, that is, diametrically opposite the sun, and therefore full, and wholly shining with the sun's rays, as is usual at the full moon. At the sixth hour, then, when Christ hung on the cross, the moon suddenly passed from G, that is, from the place diametrically opposite the sun, to H, that is, to the eastern part of the sun, and there, coming under the sun, began the eclipse from that side; and advancing thence to I, it covered the whole sun with its darkness as with a black garment; then from I, the western part of the sun, it sprang back to H, so that the part of the sun darkened last shone out first and spread its rays over the world, contrary to what has always happened at other times or is wont to happen. The advance [417: page of the earlier edition] from H to I, then, and the return from I to H, took up those three hours, from the sixth, namely, to the ninth, that is, in the eastern regions from midday to three in the afternoon. Then from H to G, that is, to its natural place, it returned very swiftly, so that in the evening they were in their own stations, the sun setting, the moon opposite; and the moon full and bright, just as if it had not been moved from its place. Struck by so wonderful a spectacle of these things, the philosophers Dionysius and Apollophanes asked one another what these things might mean, as we have set out in the Life. Finally, of both those philosophers, St Dionysius, I mean (continues)

(printed under page 362)

[RENDER LIMIT: the images show only the lower part of each column. The upper part of col 707 and of col 708 is NOT set here; lacunae are marked.] (printed under page 363)

(11) ‹anchor: rerum divinarum mutationes› · printed in col 707 · (continued; beginning not in image)

[... upper part of col 707 not in image ...] [...]tem agitur de mutationibus plane insolitis, et quales nunquam alias fuerunt, nec erunt. Quae porro illae? nempe Dei mors, divinarum antiquae legis caeremoniarum interitus, Novi Testamenti novaeque legis introductio, hisque similia vere divina. Dionysius Rickelius in expositione Epistolae ad Apollophanem, divinarum retributiones sunt rerum, sic exponebat: « Id est quidam justi effectus contingentes ob injuriam et irreverentiam illatam Deo, seu divinis substantiis. » Et optime quidem, si bona fuisset Graecae vocis ab interprete (quisquis ille fuerit) versio, verum, ut dixi, et ut doctioribus placuit interpretibus, nihil aliud hic Latine reddendum fuit, quam divinarum mutationes rerum. Unde Pachymeras in Paraphrasi ejusdem ad Polycarpum Epistolae, pro ἀμοιβαί usurpat μεταβολαί, quod vocabulum mutationes praecipuo significat. Vide etiam hac ipsa de re Michaelem Glycam, parte III Annalium, ubi eamdem sancti Dionysii Areopagitae ad Polycarpum Epistolam citat, simulque et totidem fere verbis ea, quae ex eadem Epistola in contextu Vitae produximus. Ipse tamen, et laudatus ab eo Chrysostomus, existimant, non fuisse proprie dictam eclipsin, sed tenebras tantum ex divina adversus Christicidas indignatione mundo inductas. Sed alia sententia melior et communior.

[...] it concerns changes wholly unaccustomed, such as never were at other times nor will be. What, then, were they? Namely the death of God, the end of the divine ceremonies of the old law, the bringing in of the New Testament and the new law, and things like these, truly divine. Dionysius Rickel [the Carthusian], in his exposition of the Letter to Apollophanes, explained "they are retributions of divine things" thus: "That is, certain just effects befalling on account of the injury and irreverence offered to God, or to the divine substances." And very well indeed, had the translator's rendering (whoever he was) of the Greek word been a good one; but, as I said, and as the more learned translators have held, nothing else should have been given here in Latin than "changes of divine things." Hence Pachymeres, in his Paraphrase of the same Letter to Polycarp, uses metabolai in place of amoibai, a word which chiefly [printed "praecipuo"] means "changes." See also on this very matter Michael Glycas, Annals part 3, where he cites the same Letter of St Dionysius the Areopagite to Polycarp, and at the same time, in almost as many words, what we have brought forward from that Letter in the body of the Life. He himself, however, and Chrysostom, whom he praises, think that it was not an eclipse properly so called, but only darkness brought on the world from God's indignation against the murderers of Christ. But the other opinion is better and more common.

(12-13) ‹anchor: in carne patitur Deus› · printed in col 707 Ignotus in carne patitur Deus. Ille scilicet Deus, cui erat ara hoc titulo, Ignoto Deo; de quo titulo inferius. Ista porro verba, Ignotus in carne, etc., attribuuntur Dionysio a Michaele Syngelo, qui sic habet: Ἐπὶ τῷ παραδόξῳ σφόδρα τεθηπώς, καὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν ὑπερβεβηκὼς γνῶσιν, κατανοήσας τὸ γεγονός· Ὁ ἄγνωστος, ἔφη, ἐν σαρκὶ πάσχει Θεός, δι' ὃν τὸ πᾶν ἐζόφωταί τε καὶ σεσάλευται. Prae re inopinata admodum stupefactus (Dionysius) et humanam cognitionems upergressus, eo quod factum fuerat perpenso: Ignotus, inquit, in carne patitur Deus, propter quem universum hoc concussum et obtenebratum est. In Romano autem Breviario est, exclamasse illum: Aut Deus naturae patitur, aut mundi machina dissolvitur. Apud Suidam quoque, ut in Vita notavi, aliter est verbis, sed sensu conformiter. Dici ergo potest, sanctum Dionysium variis in occursibus, repetita istius eclipseos memoria, aliter atque aliter, ut saepe fit, dixisse. Nam et in ipsis Evangeliis aliter atque aliter a diversis evangelistis Christi dicta referuntur, ut patet cum alibi saepius, tum in muliere sanguinis profluvio laborante, Matthaei IX, Marci V et Lucae VIII.

"The unknown God suffers in the flesh." That God, namely, to whom there was an altar with this inscription, "To the Unknown God"; of which inscription below. These words, "The unknown in the flesh," etc., are attributed to Dionysius by Michael Syncellus, who has it thus: [Greek, rendered by the Latin that follows.] "Utterly astonished at the unexpected thing (Dionysius), and passing beyond human knowledge, having weighed what had happened: 'The unknown God,' he said, 'suffers in the flesh, on whose account this universe is shaken and darkened.'" In the Roman Breviary, however, it is that he cried out: "Either the God of nature suffers, or the fabric of the world is being dissolved." In Suidas too, as I noted in the Life, it differs in words but agrees in sense. It can be said, then, that St Dionysius, on various occasions, recalling this eclipse, spoke now one way and now another, as often happens. For in the Gospels themselves Christ's sayings are reported one way and another by different evangelists, as is plain often elsewhere, and especially in the woman suffering from the flow of blood, Matthew 9, Mark 5 and Luke 8.

(printed under page 363)

(14) ‹anchor: Damarim copulasset› · printed in cols 707–708 · (continues)

Cumque perillustrem sibi feminam nomine Damarim copulasset. Damarim S. Dionysii Areo- [... upper part of col 708 not in image ...] caeteri: cum haec ex illa facta sit. Quare illae voces, et alii cum eis, non significant alios omnes praeter Dionysium et Damarim (sic enim bis ibidem diceretur, quandoquidem de aliis supra dictum sit: Quidam vero viri adhaerentes ei, crediderunt), sed tantum significant eos qui conjunctim cum Dionysio et Damari crediderunt, atque eorum exemplo et incitamento, sive totam familiam. ¶ Verum quidem est, quod sensus clarior exstitisset, si vox αὐτοῦ ejus addita fuisset, et dictum καὶ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ, et mulier ejus: verum id non solet, aut certe non est necessarium. Quod multis exemplis firmari potest. Neque enim ipse sanctus Chrysostomus (quem a nobis esse, qui contraria sentiunt, confitentur) cum γυναῖκα pro uxore usurpavit, neque ipse, inquam, addidit vocem αὐτοῦ ejus: quo clariorem suam sententiam 418 redderet, sed simpliciter ita dixit libro IV De sacerdotio: Ὁ δὲ Ἀρεοπαγίτης ἐκεῖνος, ὁ τῆς δεισιδαιμονεστάτης πόλεως ἐκείνης, οὐκ ἀπὸ δημηγορίας μόνης ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ μετὰ τῆς γυναικός; quae interpretes sic verterunt, et bene: Areopagita vero, ille urbis istius superstitiosissimae civis, nonne ad solam orationem (Pauli scilicet) una cum uxore illum secutus est? Ubi tamen non dixit μετὰ τῆς αὐτοῦ γυναικός cum uxore sua, sed solum μετὰ τῆς γυναικός, cum uxore satis enim intelligitur. Ita et in sacris Litteris illud αὐτοῦ frequenter omittitur, ut in I ad Corinthios cap. VII, vers. 3: Uxori vir debitum reddat, Graece est: Τῇ γυναικὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ τὴν ὀφειλομένην εὔνοιαν ἀποδιδότω, ubi non est dictum τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ uxori suae. Sic in eodem ipso capite saepius. Neque favet contrariae sententiae, quod in Latino apud Lucam sit mulier: idem enim ibi est atque uxor. Sicut et in isto Pauli eodem capite VII, vers. 4: Mulier sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed vir Similiter autem et vir sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed mulier. Ubi vox mulier bis ponitur pro uxor, et Graece utrobique est γυνή. Nec aliter fere in Scriptura uxor effertur, quam per vocem γυνή, Quo in significato reperies usurpatam vocem γυνή apud Paulum in unico capite jam citato, saltem decies sexies, et frequenter quidem sine pronominis additione. Sic vers. 27: Δέδεσαι γυναικί; μὴ ζήτει λύσιν. Λέλυσαι ἀπὸ γυναικός; μὴ ζήτει γυναῖκα. Alligatus est uxori: noli quaerere solutionem. Solutus est ab uxore? noli quaerere uxorem. Sic versu 11 dixerat: Καὶ ἄνδρα γυναῖκα μὴ ἀφιέναι, Et vir uxorem non dimittat. ¶ Secundo, si sanctus Lucas voluisset significare quampiam aliam feminam, et non uxorem Dionysii (continues)

"And when he had joined to himself a most illustrious woman named Damaris." Damaris [wife] of St Dionysius the Areo[pagite ...] the rest: since she was made from him. Therefore those words, "and others with them," do not signify all others besides Dionysius and Damaris (for so it would be said twice in the same place, since of the others it was said above: "But certain men clave unto him and believed"), but signify only those who believed together with Dionysius and Damaris, and by their example and encouragement, that is, the whole household. ¶ It is true indeed that the sense would have been clearer if the word autou, "his," had been added, and it had said kai gynē autou, "and his wife": but that is not customary, or at least not necessary. This can be confirmed by many examples. For not even St Chrysostom himself (whom those who hold the contrary admit to be on our side), when he used gynaika for "wife," added the word autou, "his," to make his meaning clearer, [418: page of the earlier edition] but said simply thus in book 4 On the Priesthood: [Greek, rendered by the Latin that follows] which the translators rendered thus, and well: "But that Areopagite, citizen of that most superstitious city, did he not follow him (Paul, that is) at a single speech, together with his wife?" Yet there he did not say meta tēs autou gynaikos, "with his own wife," but only meta tēs gynaikos, "with the wife," for it is well enough understood. So also in sacred Scripture that autou is often omitted, as in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, verse 3: "Let the husband render the debt to the wife," which in Greek is: "Let the husband render to the wife the goodwill due," where it does not say tē gynaiki autou, "to his own wife." So often in that same chapter. Nor does it favour the contrary opinion that in the Latin of Luke it is mulier, "woman": for there it is the same as uxor, "wife." Just as in that same chapter 7 of Paul, verse 4: "The woman hath not power of her own body, but the man; and likewise also the man hath not power of his own body, but the woman." Where the word mulier is twice put for uxor, and in the Greek in both places it is gynē. Nor is "wife" expressed in Scripture in almost any other way than by the word gynē; in which sense you will find the word gynē used by Paul in the one chapter already cited at least sixteen times, and often without the addition of a pronoun. So verse 27: "Are you bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." So in verse 11 he had said: "And let not the husband put away his wife." ¶ Secondly, if St Luke had wished to signify some other woman, and not the wife of Dionysius (continues)

(printed under page 363)

[RENDER LIMIT: the images show only the lower part of each column, and the left image cuts off the first letters (often a whole word) of every line of col 709. Upper parts of both columns are NOT set here. Letters in square brackets are supplied only where certain; [...] marks an unrestored loss. Paragraph breaks in col 709 may belong to separate numbered notes whose numerals are lost at the cut edge; they are set here as the continuation of (14). Re-render the full page to complete.] (printed under page 364)

(14) ‹anchor: Damarim copulasset› · printed in col 709 · (continued) (continues)

[... upper part of col 709 not in image ...] [...]r imbecillibus, certe non obscure ostendi[...]ra sit praeferenda sententia. Nam sane Am[...]erba non inclinantis tantum in nostram [...]iam, sed etiam prorsus incumbentis, et eam [...] amplexantis, exstant in epistola ejus 82 ad [...]ensem Ecclesiam, ante medium: ubi, post[...]e philosophis cum Paulo disputantibus verba [...]e protulit, ita subdit: « Ex hoc tamen nu[...]philosophorum scilicet) non immunis gratiae [...]postolus. Siquidem etiam Dionysius Areopa[...]um Damari uxore sua, aliisque multis credi[...]que illi doctissimorum atque eloquentium [...]implici disputatione victos se esse, creden[...]xemplo manifestarunt. » Haec sanctus Am[...]. ¶ [...]to, scriptores Vitae sancti Dionysii Areopa[...]lem de uxore ejus Damari tenent et scribunt. [...] Hilduinus, Vincentius Bellovacensis, Petrus [...]ius episcopus, et alii. « Qui protinus surgens, [...] Hilduinus, cum omni domo et uxore sua [...]i quam ut sumeret, more terrenae nobilitatis, [...]amorem suscipiendae charae sobolis, eum [...]gere parentes, ad mandata properat sancti [...] » ¶ [...] et Baptistam Mantuanum libro I De con[...]e, vita et passione sancti martyris Dionysii. ¶ [...]ro est simillimum, antiquissimos Vitae sancti Dionysii scriptores, vel ex ipsis Athenarum ar[...] vel ex majorum traditione de sancti Dionysii [...]io cognovisse. Item sanctum Joannem Chry[...]um, diu Athenis versatum, non potuisse de [...] urbis ejus episcopo id ignorare. Accedit au[...]s S. Maximi, cujus exstant in Dionysium [...]σχόλια brevia illa quidem, sed docta. Hic [...]n praefatione sua non obscure indicat, in [...]postolorum non modo Dionysii Areopagitae [...] esse mentionem, sed et domus ipsius, sive [...]. ¶ [...]i non potest dici alibi facta esse mentio fa[...]quam in nomine Damaris, et eorum qui cre[...]t cum eis, id est cum heris suis Dionysio et [...]i. Verba autem sancti Maximi, postquam dixit [...]tem Dionysii, a sancto Luca significatam [...]a Areopagita, sunt haec: Ἐπιβάλλω δὲ μᾶλ[...]ι διά τε τὸ κατὰ σοφίαν περιττόν, καὶ διὰ τὸ [...]ναίοις ἀνεπιλήπτου πολιτείας ἔκκριτον, μνημο[...]ι μετὰ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ. Adjicio autem amplius, propter eximiam ejus sapientiam, et inter Athe[...] inculpatae vitae praestantiam, mentionem ipsius (continues; the top of col 710 is not in image)

[...] to the weak, it certainly shows not obscurely [which] opinion is to be preferred. For indeed the words of Am[brose], not merely leaning towards our [opinion] but wholly bearing upon it and [...] embracing it, are found in his letter 82 to the Church [of Vercelli], before the middle: where, after setting out [...] words about the philosophers disputing with Paul, he adds thus: "Yet from this number (of the philosophers, that is) the Apostle was not without the fruit of grace. For Dionysius the Areopagite too believed, with Damaris his wife and many others; [...] those most learned and eloquent men showed, by the example of believing, that they had been overcome by [a] simple disputation." So St Ambrose. ¶ [Thir]dly(?), the writers of the Life of St Dionysius the Areopagite [...] hold and write the same about his wife Damaris: [...] Hilduin, Vincent of Beauvais, Peter [...], bishop, and others. "He, rising at once," [says] Hilduin, "with all his house and his wife, [whom], rather than to take [...] after the manner of earthly nobility, [...] for love of receiving dear offspring, [...] parents [...], hastens to the commands of the holy [...]." ¶ [...] and Baptista Mantuanus, book 1 On the con[version], life and passion of the holy martyr Dionysius. ¶ [...] it is most likely that the most ancient writers of the Life of St Dionysius learned [this] either from the very ar[chives] of Athens or from the tradition of their forebears about St Dionysius's [...]. Likewise that St John Chrysostom, who lived long at Athens, could not have been ignorant of it concerning [the first] bishop of that city. There is added also [the authority(?)] of St Maximus, whose scholia on Dionysius survive, brief indeed but learned. He, in his preface, indicates not obscurely that in the [Acts of the A]postles mention is made not only of Dionysius the Areopagite but also of his house, that is [household]. ¶ [...] it cannot be said that mention of the household is made elsewhere [than] in the name of Damaris and of those who believed with them, that is, with their masters Dionysius and Damaris. And the words of St Maximus, after he had said that [the wife(?)] of Dionysius was signified by St Luke [...] the Areopagite, are these: [Greek, rendered by the Latin that follows, in part lost at the edge.] "I add further that, on account of his surpassing wisdom and the excellence of his blameless life among the Athenians, [Luke] makes mention of him with his household." [Latin:] And I add moreover, on account of his outstanding wisdom and, among the Athenians, the excellence of his blameless life, mention of him (continues)

(?) ‹anchor: not visible› · printed in col 710 · (continued; beginning not in image) [... upper part of col 710 not in image ...] admodum Philochorus in tertia earumdem Atticarum memorat. Vide etiam Plutarchum in Solone. Tractat autem fuse de archontibus et areopagitis Carolus Sigonius libro secundo De republica Atheniensium, sub finem. De archontibus meminit et Demosthenes in Oratione adversus Leptinem, ubi sub initium hanc citat legem: Ἀτελῆ δὴ μηδένα εἶναι τριηραρχίας, πλὴν τῶν ἐννέα ἀρχόντων. Triremis instruendae nemo sit immunis praeter novem archontas. Meminit et Plutarchus in Pericle, ubi de eo sic scribit: Καὶ ταχὺ θεωρητικοῖς καὶ δικαστικοῖς λήμμασιν ἄλλαις τε μισθοφοραῖς καὶ χορηγίαις συνδεκάσας τὸ πλῆθος, ἐχρῆτο κατὰ τῆς ἐξ Ἀρείου πάγου βουλῆς, ἧς αὐτὸς οὐ μετεῖχε διὰ τὸ μήτ' ἄρχων, μήτε θεσμοθέτης, μήτε πολέμαρχος λαχεῖν, αὗται γὰρ αἱ ἀρχαὶ κληρωταί τε ἦσαν ἐκ παλαιοῦ, καὶ δι' αὐτῶν οἱ δοκιμασθέντες ἀνέβαινον εἰς Ἄρειον πάγον. Et brevi theatralibus et judicialibus sportulis atque aliis mercenariis donis ac largitionibus corrupta plebe usus est adversus Areopagi curiam, cujus ipse pars non erat, quod nec archon, nec thesmothetes, nec rex, nec polemarchus sortito coaptatus esset. Hi enim magistratus sortito antiquitus creabantur, et per hos postquam probati fuissent, in Areopagum ascendebant. Ita Plutarchus. ¶ Omnium archontum munia atque officia tam in communi quam in particulari scribit accurate et distincte Pollux in Onomastico, libro VIII. Ubi nota, in Graecis vertendis non prorsus felicem fuisse isto loco interpretem; ut cum statim initio ista: καὶ ὅσα κοινῇ καὶ ἰδίᾳ πράττεται ἕκαστος αὐτῶν, sic vertit: Et quaecunque tam publice quam privatim singuli faciunt, cum vertendum fuerit, et quaecunque tam communiter quam speciatim eorum unusquisque facit. Nam differunt communiter et publice, sicuti etiam privatim et speciatim, ut omnibus notum: siquidem multa possunt fieri communiter, a tribus verbi gratia, in secreto et occulto, quae non possunt dici fieri publice; et contra quod publice fit ab unico e magistratu, non potest dici fieri communiter. Ita quoque de vocibus privatim et speciatim ratiocinandum. Adde, ex ipso Polluce haec dilucescere: quippe qui primo exponit ea quae omnibus archontibus sunt communia, deinde descendit ad ea quae singulis sunt propria et specialia, videlicet quae thesmothetis, quae archonti, quae regi, quae polemarcho. Nam vocabulum archon semel generatim accipitur, semel speciatim. Sicut in angelorum nominibus nomen angeli nunc commune est omnibus sanctorum spirituum hierarchiis, nunc speciale infimae hierarchiae extremis spiritibus.

[...] Philochorus records [...] in the third of the same Attic [histories]. See also Plutarch in the Solon. Carlo Sigonio treats at length of the archons and Areopagites in the second book On the Athenian Republic, towards the end. Demosthenes too mentions the archons in the Oration against Leptines, where near the beginning he cites this law: "Let no one be exempt from the trierarchy except the nine archons." [Latin version follows, to the same effect.] Plutarch also mentions them in the Pericles, where he writes thus of him: [Greek, rendered by the Latin that follows.] "And having quickly corrupted the populace with theatre-money and jurors' pay and other mercenary gifts and largesses, he used it against the court of the Areopagus, of which he himself was not a member, since he had not been chosen by lot either archon, or thesmothete, or king, or polemarch. For these magistrates were of old created by lot, and through them, once approved, men went up to the Areopagus." So Plutarch. ¶ Pollux in the Onomasticon, book 8, writes accurately and distinctly of the duties and offices of all the archons, both in common and individually. Note there that the translator was not altogether happy in rendering the Greek at this place; as when, right at the beginning, he renders kai hosa koinē kai idia prattetai hekastos autōn as "and whatever the individuals do both publicly and privately," when it should have been rendered "and whatever each of them does both in common and severally." For "in common" and "publicly" differ, as do "privately" and "severally," as all know: for many things can be done in common, by three, for example, in secret and hidden, which cannot be said to be done publicly; and conversely what is done publicly by a single magistrate cannot be said to be done in common. So too one must reason about the words "privately" and "severally." Add that this becomes clear from Pollux himself: for he first sets out what is common to all the archons, then comes down to what is proper and special to each, namely to the thesmothetes, to the archon, to the king, to the polemarch. For the word "archon" is taken once generally, once specially. Just as among the names of the angels the name "angel" is now common to all the hierarchies of the holy spirits, now special to the last spirits of the lowest hierarchy.

(printed under page 364)

[RENDER LIMIT: the images show only the lower part of each column. The upper part of col 711 and of col 712 is NOT set here; lacunae are marked. The first visible line of col 711 is partly cut.] (?) ‹anchor: not visible› · printed in col 711 · (continued; beginning not in image) [... upper part of col 711 not in image ...] [...] τῶν θεσμοθετῶν εἰς Ἀρειόπαγον οὐκ [...] ἐστὶν ἀνελθεῖν, παρέντες τὸ βιάζεσθαι, στέργουσιν ἐμμένοντες ταῖς ὑμετέραις γνώσεσι. Hoc autem quotquote thesmothetis in Areopagum non datur ascendere, omissa violentia, boni consulunt, vestris cognitionibus acquiescentes. Quibus verbis insinuatur, Athenienses de moribus thesmothetarum cognoscere solitos, antequam in Areopagum ascendere permitterent; et aliquos nonnunquam, qui non satis se probassent, fuisse ab iis praeclusos, nec vi adversus judicia usos. Tulit enim Solon legem, ut non prius ascenderent in Areopagum, quam bis probati essent, semel in populi judicio, ut auctor est Demosthenes adversus Leptinem, ubi dicit eos δὶς δοκιμασθέντας ἄρχειν, ἔν τε τῇ βουλῇ, καὶ ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ. ¶ Ad quem locum ita Ulpianus: Οἱ θεσμοθέται οὖν τὸν ἐνιαυτόν· δεύτερον δὲ ἐδοκιμάζοντο, διὰ τὸ ἐκεῖθεν εἰς τὸν Ἄρειον πάγον ἔρχεσθαι, εἰ μή τις μεταξὺ διεβέβλητο, ἕως δὲ θανάτου ἔμενον οἱ Ἀρειοπαγῖται. « Thesmothetae annuum gerebant magistratum, secundo autem probabantur eo quod inde ad Areopagum tenderent, nisi quis interea crimen aliquod intendisset: manebant vero Areopagitae usque ad obitum. » Libanius vero, clarissime in argumento ad orationem Demosthenis contra Androtionem: Οἱ θεσμοθέται ἐνιαυτὸν μόνον ἦρχον, πρὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς κρινόμενοι περὶ τοῦ προλαβόντος παντὸς βίου, καὶ εἰ μὲν εὑρέθησαν ἐν πᾶσι δίκαιοι, ἦρχον τὸν ἐνιαυτόν· εἶτα πάλιν μετὰ τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν ἐκρίνοντο, εἰ καλῶς ἐν αὐτῷ ἦρξαν, καὶ εἰ δικαίως ὤφθησαν ἄρξαντες, προσετίθεντο τῇ βουλῇ τῶν Ἀρεοπαγιτῶν. « Thesmothetae annuum duntaxat magistratum fungebantur, ante quem in totam anteactam vitam inquirebatur: quod si in omnibus justi comperiebantur, eum annum imperabant; quo finito rursus fiebat de illis judicium, rectene imperassent; atque si juste imperasse constaret, ascribebantur senatui Areopagitarum. »

[...] [those] of the thesmothetes [who] are not [permitted] to go up to the Areopagus, giving up the use of force, are content, abiding by your judgements. [Latin:] "But as many thesmothetes as are not granted to go up to the Areopagus, setting violence aside, take it in good part, acquiescing in your judgements." By these words it is suggested that the Athenians were accustomed to examine the morals of the thesmothetes before they allowed them to go up to the Areopagus; and that some, who had not sufficiently proved themselves, were sometimes shut out by them, and did not use force against the judgements. For Solon made a law that they should not go up to the Areopagus until they had been twice approved, once in the judgement of the people, as Demosthenes reports against Leptines, where he says they "hold office having been twice examined, both in the council and in the law-court." ¶ On which passage Ulpian says thus: [Greek, rendered by the Latin that follows.] "The thesmothetes held office for a year, and were examined a second time because from there they went on to the Areopagus, unless someone had meanwhile brought a charge; and the Areopagites remained until death." And Libanius, most clearly, in the argument to Demosthenes' oration against Androtion: [Greek, rendered by the Latin that follows.] "The thesmothetes held office for only a year, before which an inquiry was made into the whole of their past life: if they were found just in everything, they governed that year; when it was over, judgement was passed on them again, whether they had governed rightly; and if it was established that they had governed justly, they were enrolled in the senate of the Areopagites."

(printed under page 365)

(17) ‹anchor: Areopagi consilium› · printed in cols 711–712 · (continues)

In sanctissimum Areopagi consilium. Sic vocat Valerius Maximus lib. II, cap. 6, ubi de Athenis scribens: « Est et ejusdem urbis, inquit, sanctissimum consilium Areopagus, ubi quid quisque Atheniensium ageret, aut quonam quaestu sustentaretur, diligentissime inquiri solebat: ut homines honestatem (vitae rationem memores reddendam esse) sequerentur. » Idem lib. V, cap. 5, vocat Areopagum « divini atque humani certaminis venerabile domicilium: » divini quidem, eo quod Mars ibi judicatus sit, cum homicidium admisisset, unde et nomen sumptum. Nam Ἄρεως πάγος, id est Martis curia, uti et Juvenalis appellat satyra XI, ubi [... upper part of col 712 not in image ...] ad annum Christi 52, nonnulla de Areopagitis ex Budaeo in Panaectas, ut apparet, sumpta reperiri, sed quaedam male et aliter quam a Budaeo citata, et quaedam item male intellecta: e quorum numero est illud, quod ibi habet his verbis: « Accedebat et illud, quod qui talis visus in eum ordinem obrepsisset, nec qualem prae se ferebat aspectus, inventus esset, nullis meritis, sed tantum genio (ut aiunt) impellente, ab Areopagitarum numero sponte discedere cogeretur. » Primo igitur, quod illa attribuit Luciano in Hermotimo, nihil sane illic apud Lucianum est ejusmodi. Secundo, cum accepisset ista Budaeus ex Isocratis Oratione Areopagitica, et paulo ante citatum Isocratem citasset alia in re Lucianum in Hermotimo, eorum excerptor, non animadversa posteriore citatione, existimavit omnia ad Lucianum in Hermotimo referri. Tertio, Budaei verba male sunt intellecta. Nec enim dicit Budaeus (uti nec Isocrates, cujus ipsissima verba mox proferam): aliquem nullis meritis, sed tantum genio impellente ab Areopagitarum numero sponte cogi discedere; sed dicit sic: « Observatum esse, eos, qui moribus alioquin intolerandis antea fuisse videbantur, si quovis modo forte ad Areopagiticum consilium irrepsissent, tum demum temperare sibi solitos esse; et tanquam loci genio afflatos ex ingenio suo migrare (ut Plauti verbis utar) malleque institutis tanti consilii, quam insitis sibi vitiis, aut etiam ingeniis insistere. » Sic Budaeus. Quod ergo dixit Budaeus, « ex ingenio suo migrare, » interpretatus videtur Boronius, « ab Areopagitarum numero sponte discedere. » Atqui alius plane sensus Budaei verborum est, nempe hic, « pristinos pravos mores deserere, et vivere cum Areopagitis, moribus Areopagitarum, » sive (ut Carolus Sigonius lib. II De republica Atheniensium, sub finem, eumdem Isocratis locum interpretans ait) « ex instituto potius senatus, quam ex suo vitam egisse. » Jam verba Isocratis, tam a Budaeo, quam a Sigonio citatis locis Latine reddita, sic Graece habent: Σημείοις δ' ἄν τις χρήσαιτο περὶ τῶν τότε καθεστώτων, καὶ τοῖς ἐν τῷ παρόντι γιγνομένοις. Ἔτι γὰρ καὶ νῦν ἁπάντων τῶν περὶ τὴν αἵρεσιν καὶ τὴν δοκιμασίαν ταύτην καθημένων, ἴδοιμεν ἂν τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις πράγμασιν οὐκ ἀνεκτοὺς ὄντας, ἐπειδὰν εἰς Ἄρειον πάγον ἀναβῶσιν, ὀκνοῦντας τῇ φύσει χρῆσθαι, καὶ μᾶλλον τοῖς ἐκεῖ νομίμοις ἢ ταῖς αὐτῶν κακίαις ἐμμένοντας. Τοσοῦτον ἐκεῖνοι φόβον τοῖς πονηροῖς ἐναπειργάσαντο, καὶ τοσοῦτον ἐν τῷ ἑαυτῶν ἀρετῆς καὶ σωφροσύνης ἐγκατέλιπον. Τὴν δὴ (continues)

"Into the most holy council of the Areopagus." So Valerius Maximus calls it, book 2, chapter 6, where, writing of Athens, he says: "There is also in the same city a most holy council, the Areopagus, where it was the custom to inquire most diligently what each Athenian was doing, or by what gain he supported himself, so that men might follow honesty, mindful that an account of their life must be rendered." The same, book 5, chapter 5, calls the Areopagus "the venerable dwelling of divine and human contest": divine, because Mars was tried there when he had committed homicide, whence also the name was taken. For Areōs pagos, that is, "the court of Mars," as Juvenal also calls it in Satire 11, where [...] at the year of Christ 52, that some things about the Areopagites are found, taken, as appears, from Budé on the Pandects [printed "Panaectas"], but some cited wrongly and otherwise than by Budé, and some likewise misunderstood: among which is this, which he has there in these words: "There was this besides, that whoever, having seemed such, had crept into that order, and was not found to be such as his appearance displayed, was compelled, through no merits but only at the prompting of his genius (as they say), to withdraw of his own accord from the number of the Areopagites." First, then, as to his attributing this to Lucian in the Hermotimus: there is certainly nothing of the kind there in Lucian. Second, since Budé had taken these things from Isocrates' Areopagitic Oration, and a little before citing Isocrates had cited Lucian's Hermotimus on another matter, their excerptor, not noticing the later citation, thought everything referred to Lucian's Hermotimus. Third, Budé's words have been misunderstood. For Budé does not say (any more than Isocrates, whose very words I shall presently set out) that someone, through no merits but only at the prompting of his genius, is compelled to withdraw of his own accord from the number of the Areopagites; but he says this: "It was observed that those who had earlier seemed to be of otherwise intolerable morals, if by any means they had by chance crept into the Areopagitic council, then at last were wont to restrain themselves; and as if inspired by the genius of the place, to 'move out of their own nature' (to use the words of Plautus), and to prefer to hold to the institutions of so great a council rather than to the vices, or even the dispositions, ingrained in them." So Budé. What Budé said, then, "to move out of their own nature," Baronius [printed "Boronius"] seems to have interpreted as "to withdraw of their own accord from the number of the Areopagites." But the sense of Budé's words is quite different, namely this: "to abandon their former depraved morals and to live with the Areopagites by the morals of the Areopagites," or (as Carlo Sigonio says, On the Athenian Republic book 2, towards the end, interpreting the same passage of Isocrates) "to have lived by the rule of the senate rather than by their own." Now the words of Isocrates, rendered in Latin in the places cited both by Budé and by Sigonio, run thus in Greek: "One might use as evidence of the state of things then what happens at present. For even now, when everything concerning election and scrutiny has declined, we may see that those who in other affairs are intolerable, when they go up to the Areopagus, shrink from following their nature and abide by the customs there rather than by their own vices. Such fear did those men instil in the wicked, and such [a memorial] of their own virtue and temperance did they leave in [the place]." [The Greek continues:] (continues)

(printed under page 365)

[RENDER LIMIT: the images show only the lower part of each column. The upper part of col 713 and of col 714 is NOT set here; lacunae are marked. On this page the Notationes to Chapter I end; below them begins CAPUT II. "Dionysii ab erroribus ad fidem conversio." (author's text, not set here), whose own foot carries footnote (r).] (?) ‹anchor: not visible› · printed in cols 713–714 · (continued; beginning not in image) [... upper part of col 713 not in image ...] λεγόμενα ἀποβλέποιεν. Ita Lucianus. Idem vero in Anacharside sub medium describit Areopagitarum morem in audiendis aut cohibendis in judicio oratoribus. « Ingressi, inquit, in Areopagum, confidunt caedis aut vulneris ex destinato inflicti, aut incendii causam cognituri: deinde utrique de jure contendentium dicendi copia permittitur: dicunt vero alternis vicibus, et qui litem intendit, et qui reus est, aut ipsi per se, aut rhetorum sibi conducunt operam, quibus causa oranda est. Illi ergo, quandiu ea quae ad rem sunt, dixerint, perferuntur a senatu ausculante cum silentio: caeterum, si quis meditato prooemio orationem exorsus fuerit, ut judicum animos aliqua benevolentia sibi propensiores faciat, aut miserationem, aut praecipuam aliquam orationis vim atque potentiam causae adduxerit (qualia per multa rhetorum filii machinantur, ut hisce verborum praestigiis judicum perstringant oculos) progressus actutum praeco illi indicit silentium, non permittens rhetori ad senatum nugandi libertatem ac verbis causae involvendae potestatem, quos minus Areopagitae ea, quae facta sunt, unde queant perspicere. » Ita ibi ex versione interpretis. Nam Graeca, prolixitatis vitandae studio, praeterii. ¶ Sed de Areopagitis nemo melius et exactius scripsit, quam Isocrates in sua Areopagitica: ubi praeter ea, quae ex eo laudavimus, scribit Areopagitas cum aliarum aetatum, tum potissime adolescentiae rationem habuisse, his verbis, et his de causis: Ἁπάντων μὲν οὖν ἐφρόντιζον τῶν πολιτῶν, μάλιστα δὲ τῶν νεωτέρων. Ἑώρων γὰρ τοὺς τηλικούτους ταραχωδέστατα διακειμένους, καὶ πλείστων γέμοντας ἐπιθυμιῶν, καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν παιδευθῆναι δεομένους ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις καλῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων 421 καὶ πόνοις ἡδονὰς ἔχουσιν, ἐν μόνοις γὰρ ἂν τούτοις ἐμ- [... upper part of col 714 not in image ...] enim omnes virtutes viro Areopagitae necessariae indicatae fuissent: nempe sapientia, justitia, fortitudo, temperantia. Et sane temperantia Platoni, Aristoteli et aliis σωφροσύνη semper appellatur. Videtur porro Syngelus ad locum Isocratis in Oratione Areopagitica respexisse, ubi sic scribit: Οὕτω γὰρ οἱ πρόγονοι ἡμῶν περὶ τὴν σωφροσύνην ἐσπούδαζον, ὥστε, τὴν ἐξ Ἀρειουπάγου βουλὴν ἐπέστησαν ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῆς εὐκοσμίας, ἧς οὐχ οἷόν τε ἦν μετασχεῖν, πλὴν τοῖς καλῶν γεγονόσι, καὶ πολλὴν ἀρετὴν καὶ σωφροσύνην ἐν τῷ βίῳ ἐνδεδειγμένοις· ὥστε πάντων αὐτὴν εἰκότως διενεγκεῖν τῶν ἐν τοῖς Ἕλλησι συνεδρίων. Quae Budaeus in Pandectas sic reddidit: Majores autem nostri usque eo studiosi temperantiae fuerunt, ut consilium illud Areopagiticum moribus hominum componendis publice praefecerint. In cujus numerum cooptari solis illis sperare licuit, qui claris natalibus orti, virtutis ac modestiae documenta permulta honestate vitae dederant. Ex quo tandem factum, ut consessus ille totius Graeciae haud immerito longe sit praestantissimus.

[...] might look to what is said. So Lucian. And the same, in the Anacharsis about the middle, describes the Areopagites' custom of hearing or restraining orators in court. "Having entered the Areopagus," he says, "they sit to hear a case of murder or of a wound deliberately inflicted, or of arson: then each of the parties contending at law is allowed the opportunity to speak: they speak by turns, both he who brings the suit and he who is the defendant, either in person or they hire the services of orators to plead the case for them. These, then, as long as they say what is to the point, are borne with by the senate listening [printed "ausculante"] in silence; but if anyone begins his speech with a studied preamble, to make the judges' minds more inclined to him by some goodwill, or brings in pity, or some special force and power of oratory to the case (such things as the sons of the rhetors contrive in many ways, to dazzle the judges' eyes with these verbal tricks), the herald at once comes forward and imposes silence on him, not allowing the orator licence to trifle before the senate or power to wrap the case in words, so that the Areopagites may see the facts as they are." So there, from the translator's version. For I have passed over the Greek in the interest of avoiding prolixity. ¶ But no one has written better or more exactly about the Areopagites than Isocrates in his Areopagiticus: where, besides what we have quoted from him, he writes that the Areopagites took account of the other ages, and above all of youth, in these words and for these reasons: "They cared for all the citizens, but most of all for the younger. For they saw that those of that age are in the most turbulent state and full of very many desires, and that their souls need to be trained in the love of noble pursuits [421: page of the earlier edition] and in labours that bring pleasure; for only in these could they abide [...]" [...] for all the virtues necessary to an Areopagite had been indicated: namely wisdom, justice, fortitude, temperance. And indeed temperance is always called sōphrosynē by Plato, Aristotle and others. Syncellus seems, moreover, to have had in view the passage of Isocrates in the Areopagitic Oration where he writes thus: [Greek, rendered by Budé's Latin that follows.] Which Budé, on the Pandects, rendered thus: "Our ancestors were so devoted to temperance that they publicly set that Areopagitic council over the ordering of men's morals. To be co-opted into its number only those might hope who, born of illustrious parentage, had given very many proofs of virtue and modesty by the uprightness of their life. Whence at length it came about that that assembly was, not undeservedly, by far the most eminent in all Greece."

(printed under page 366)

(20) ‹anchor: atque adeo ab ipsis Romanis› · printed in col 714

Atque adeo ab ipsis Romanis. Valerius Maximus rei hujus testis est, qui lib. VIII, cap. 1, sic scribit: « Materfamilias Smyrnaea virum et filium interemit, cum ab ipsis juvenem optimae indolis, quem ex priore viro enixa fuerat, occisum comperisset. Quam rem Dolabella ad se delatam, Athenas ad Areopagi cognitionem relegavit; quia ipse neque liberare caedibus duabus contaminatam, neque punire eam justo dolore impulsam sustinebat. Consideranter et mansuete populi Romani magistratus, sed Areopagitae quoque non minus sapienter, qui inspecta causa, et accusatorem et ream post centum annos adesse jusserunt, eodem affectu moti quo Dolabella. » Idem aliis verbis refert Gellius lib. XII Noctium Atticarum, cap. 7, vide ibi.

"And indeed by the Romans themselves." Valerius Maximus is witness to this, who writes thus in book 8, chapter 1: "A matron of Smyrna killed her husband and her son, when she had learned that a young man of the best disposition, whom she had borne to her former husband, had been murdered by them. Dolabella, when the matter was referred to him, sent it to Athens for the hearing of the Areopagus, because he could bring himself neither to acquit a woman stained with two murders nor to punish one driven by a just grief. The magistrate of the Roman people acted considerately and mildly; but the Areopagites no less wisely, who, having examined the case, ordered both accuser and accused to appear after a hundred years, moved by the same feeling as Dolabella." Gellius reports the same in other words, Attic Nights book 12, chapter 7; see there.

(printed under page 366)

(r) ‹anchor: S. Lucas non frustra adnotavit› · call in col 714

Act. XVII, 21.

Acts 17:21.

(printed under page 366)

(s) ‹anchor: call not in image (upper part of page)› · call in col 715 (probable; the quoted speech of Acts 17 opens above the visible text)

Act. XVII, 23-31.

Acts 17:23–31.

(printed under page 367)

(t) ‹anchor: est sapientiae› · call in col 716

Psal. CX, 10,

Psalm 110 (111):10. [The print omits the letter: it reads "(Psal. CX, 10," with no "t)".]

(printed under page 367)

(u) ‹anchor: et alii cum eis› · call in col 716

Act. XVII, 32-34.

Acts 17:32–34.

(printed under page 367)

[RENDER LIMIT: the images show only the lower part of each column. The upper part of col 717 and of col 718 is NOT set here; lacunae are marked. These are the Notationes to Chapter II.] (?) ‹anchor: not visible› · printed in col 717 · (continued; beginning not in image) [... upper part of col 717 not in image ...] vult seminiverbius hic dicere? Alii vero: Novorum daemoniorum videtur annuntiator esse; quia Jesum et resurrectionem annuntiabat eis. Et apprehensum eum ad Areopagum duxerunt, dicentes: Possumus scire quae est haec nova, quae a te dicitur, doctrina? Nova enim quaedam infers auribus nostris. Volumus ergo scire quidnam velint haec esse. Ita ibi.

[...] "would this babbler say?" But others: "He seemeth to be a setter forth of new gods"; because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. "And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying: May we know what this new doctrine is, which you speak of? For you bring certain new things to our ears. We would know therefore what these things mean." So there.

(printed under page 368)

(23) ‹anchor: Romanis omnia tum subessent› · printed in col 717

Nam licet Romanis omnia tum subessent. Auctor est Maximus, in Prologo ad Opera S. Dionysii, his verbis: Κἂν γὰρ οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι τότε ἐκράτουν, ἀλλ' οὖν αὐτονόμους ἀφῆκαν Ἀθήνας, καὶ Λακεδαιμονίαν. Ὅθεν ἔτι παρὰ Ἀθηναίοις καὶ τὰ κατὰ τοὺς Ἀρεοπαγίτας ἐπολιτεύετο. Tametsi enim Romani tum dominarentur, tamen Athenas et Lacedaemonem suis uti legibus permiserunt. Unde etiam tum apud Athenienses Areopagitae suo munere fungebantur. Eadem refert Simeon Metaphrastes in Vita ejusdem S. Dionysii: Εἰ γὰρ καὶ Ῥωμαῖοι πάντων τότε ἐκράτουν, ἀλλ' Ἀθηναίους καὶ Λακεδαιμονίους αὐτονόμους ἀφῆκαν. Idem plane sensus, qui verborum Maximi. Afferunt autem haec per occupationem rhetoricam; quia nimirum objici potuisset, S. Paulum non Areopago, sed potestati Romanae omnia tunc regenti fuisse sistendum, sicut in Bithynia Plinio praetori sistebantur Christiani.

"For although all things were then subject to the Romans." The authority is Maximus, in the Prologue to the Works of St Dionysius, in these words: [Greek, rendered by the Latin that follows.] "For although the Romans then ruled, yet they allowed Athens and Lacedaemon to use their own laws. Hence even then the Areopagites still discharged their office among the Athenians." Simeon Metaphrastes reports the same in his Life of the same St Dionysius: "For even if the Romans then ruled all things, yet they left the Athenians and Lacedaemonians self-governing." The sense is plainly the same as that of Maximus's words. They bring this forward by way of rhetorical anticipation, because it might have been objected that St Paul ought to have been brought not before the Areopagus but before the Roman power that then ruled all things, as in Bithynia Christians were brought before Pliny the praetor.

(printed under page 368)

(24) ‹anchor: Paulus in medio Areopagi› · printed in cols 717–718 · (continues)

Stans igitur Paulus in medio Areopagi. In Actis apostolorum cap. XVII, 19. Et apprehensum eum ad Areopagum duxerunt, dicentes: Possumus scire, quae est haec nova, quae a te dicitur, doctrina? Ductus similiter ad Areopagum fuerat olim Socrates, et quidem (quod sanctus Justinus testatur) ejusdem, cujus Paulus, criminis accusatus. Sic enim de eo in Apologia ad senatum, post medium: Σωκράτης τὰ αὐτὰ ἡμῖν ἐνεκλήθη. Καὶ γὰρ ἔφασαν αὐτὸν καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρειν, καὶ οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζει θεούς, μὴ ἡγεῖσθαι αὐτόν. Socrates eorumdem criminum est insimulatus, quorum nos. Etenim illum dixerunt nova introducere daemonia: et quos urbs deos esse censet, eum non putare. Et paulo post dicit eumdem Socratem cohortatum fuisse populares ad cognitionem Dei ignoti, sic scribens: Πρὸς Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγνώστου αὐτοῖς διὰ λόγου ζητήσεως ἐπίγνωσιν προυτρέπετο εἰπών· Τὸν δὲ Πατέρα καὶ δημιουργὸν πάντων οὔθ' εὑρεῖν ῥᾴδιον, οὔθ' εὑρόντα εἰς πάντας εἰπεῖν ἀσφαλές. Ad Dei autem ipsi ignoti cognitionem, per rationis investigationem cohortatus est, dicens: Patrem vero et omnium opificem, nec invenire facile, nec inventum ad omnes di- [... upper part of col 718 not in image ...] λέγοντες καινὰ εἰσφέρειν αὐτὸν δαιμόνια Et ipsi daemones effecerunt per homines malitia gaudentes, ut tanquam atheus et impius occideretur, dicentes nova illum inducere daemonia. Quae autem Socratis ad mortem proficiscentis ultima fuerint in Areopago verba, recitat idem Justinus in Paraenesi ad Graecos sub finem: Ἔφη γὰρ οὕτως· Ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἤδη ὥρα ἀπιέναι· ἐμοὶ μὲν τεθνηξομένῳ, ὑμῖν δὲ βιωσομένοις. Ὁπότεροι δὲ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ἄμεινον πρᾶγμα ἔρχονται, ἄδηλον παντί, πλὴν ἢ τῷ Θεῷ Haec e Platone 424 desumpta in Apologia Socratis, prorsus in fine, ita Latine vertit Cicero lib. I Tuscul. quaest., sub finem: Sed tempus est, inquit, ut moriar, vos ut vitam agatis. Utrum autem sit melius, dii immortales sciunt, hominum quidem scire arbitror neminem. Justinus quidem ipsa verba Platonis usurpavit, excepta voce una τεθνηξομένῳ, pro qua in Platione est ἀποθανουμένῳ, ejusdem significati. Sed Cicero, in sua Latina versione, multum in una voce aberravit, cum pro Deus scit, uti habet Plato, reddidit, dii immortales sciunt. Negabat enim Socrates deos immortales, et unum solum Deum asserebat, pro quo et moriebatur. Itaque non conveniebat ut diceret, dii immortales sciunt, quod neque dixit; sed, Deus scit. Proptereaque imprudenter a Tullio est Latine redditum, dii immortales sciunt. Subjecit Justinus post Socratis verba jam laudata: Ἀλλὰ Σωκράτης μὲν ταύτην ὑστάτην ἐν τῷ Ἀρείῳ πάγῳ φωνὴν ἀφείς, ἐπὶ τὸ δεσμωτήριον ὥρμησε, τῷ Θεῷ μόνῳ τὴν τῶν παρ' ὑμῖν ἀδήλων πραγμάτων ἀναφέρων γνῶσιν. Verum Socrates hac extrema in Areopago edita voce, in carcerem properavit, soli Deo incertarum nobis rerum notitiam tribuens. In Cohortatione porro ad Graecos, sub medium, ait Platonem non ausum fateri veram de Deo doctrinam, ne idem sibi accideret quod Socrati. « Plato autem, inquit, accepta, ut videtur, Moysis et aliorum prophetarum de uno et solo Deo doctrina, quam in Aegypto didicerat, propter ea quae Socrati acciderant, veritus ne ipse quoque Anytum quempiam aut Melium contra se apud Athenienses suscitaret, accusantem et dicentem: Plato injuste agit, et curiosa tractat, deos quos civitas recipit, non recipiens; cicutae metu variam quamdam et fucatam de diis instituit orationem. » Et paulo post in eadem Apologia: « Haec ergo cum Plato in Aegypto didicisset, et iis quae de uno Deo dicta erant admodum delectatus esset, nominis quidem Moysis, (quod unum et solum Deum esse (continues)

"Paul, then, standing in the midst of the Areopagus." In the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 17:19: "And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying: May we know what this new doctrine is, which you speak of?" Socrates had likewise once been brought to the Areopagus, and indeed (as St Justin testifies) accused of the same charge as Paul. For so he says of him in the Apology to the senate, after the middle: [Greek, rendered by the Latin that follows.] "Socrates was charged with the same crimes as we. For they said that he was introducing new daemons, and did not hold to be gods those whom the city deems gods." And a little after he says that the same Socrates urged his countrymen to the knowledge of the unknown God, writing thus: [Greek, rendered by the Latin that follows.] "He urged them to the knowledge of the God unknown to them by the investigation of reason, saying: 'The Father and maker of all it is neither easy to find, nor, having found him, safe to declare to all.'" [...] saying that he was introducing new daemons. [Latin:] "And the daemons themselves, through men who rejoice in wickedness, brought it about that he was put to death as an atheist and impious, saying that he was introducing new daemons." What were the last words in the Areopagus of Socrates as he went to his death the same Justin recites in the Exhortation to the Greeks, towards the end: "For he spoke thus: 'But now it is time to depart, I to die, you to live. Which of us goes to the better thing is unclear to everyone, except to God.'" These words, taken from Plato [424: page of the earlier edition] in the Apology of Socrates, at the very end, Cicero renders in Latin thus, Tusculan Disputations book 1, towards the end: "But it is time," he says, "for me to die, for you to live. Which is better the immortal gods know; I think indeed no man knows." Justin used Plato's very words, except for one word, tethnēxomenō, in place of which Plato [printed "Platione"] has apothanoumenō, of the same meaning. But Cicero, in his Latin version, went badly astray in one word, when in place of "God knows," as Plato has it, he rendered "the immortal gods know." For Socrates denied the immortal gods and asserted one only God, for whom also he was dying. So it was not fitting for him to say "the immortal gods know," which he did not say; but "God knows." And therefore Tully's Latin rendering, "the immortal gods know," is imprudent. Justin added after the words of Socrates already quoted: [Greek, rendered by the Latin that follows.] "But Socrates, having uttered this last word in the Areopagus, hastened to the prison, attributing to God alone the knowledge of the things uncertain to us." In the Exhortation to the Greeks, moreover, about the middle, he says that Plato did not dare to profess the true doctrine about God lest the same thing should happen to him as to Socrates. "But Plato," he says, "having received, as it seems, the doctrine of Moses and the other prophets concerning the one and only God, which he had learned in Egypt, fearing, on account of what had happened to Socrates, that he too might raise up against himself among the Athenians some Anytus or Melitus [printed "Melium"], accusing him and saying: 'Plato acts unjustly and meddles with curious things, not receiving the gods whom the city receives,' through fear of the hemlock composed a varied and disguised discourse about the gods." And a little after in the same Apology: "Since, then, Plato had learned these things in Egypt and had been greatly delighted with what was said about the one God, of the name of Moses (which teaches that there is one and only God (continues)

(printed under page 368)

[RENDER LIMIT: the images show only the lower part of each column. The upper part of col 719 and of col 720 is NOT set here; lacunae are marked. Verse lines are separated by " / ".] (?) ‹anchor: not visible› · printed in cols 719–720 · (continued; beginning not in image) (continues on the hidden top of col 720) [... upper part of col 719 not in image ...] Deo. Nam si non fuisset scriptum, Ignoto Deo, sed Ignotis diis, refelli Paulus potuisset, nec vim ullam ejus argumentum, aut certe haud magnam habuisset. Quare standum potius sententiae S. Chrysostomi et aliorum antiquorum Patrum, uno fere excepto Hieronymo, et tenendum est, plures fuisse aras similibus fere notis inscriptas, nempe alias Ignotis diis, alias Ignoto Deo. De prioribus meminit etiam Tertull. lib. I Contra Marcionem, c. 9. « Invenio, inquit, Ignotis diis aras prostitutas, sed Attica idololatria est. Item Incertis diis, sed superstitio Romana est. » Jam vero aram Athenis Ignoto Deo constitutam fuisse ob eclipsim tempore passionis, tenet Petrus Comestor in Historia scholastica super Actis apostolorum, nec improbabilem credunt Salmeron et Gaspar Sancius in eadem Acta apostolorum cap. 17. Motos enim fuisse illos arbitrantur ad id faciendum ex inspecta miraculosa eclipsi in morte Christi. Quod quamvis sit probabile, tamen probabilius est, jam olim ab aliis id factum fuisse ex obscura cognitione Dei Judaeorum cujus nomen dicebantur ineffabile, ac proinde ipse ignotus et incertus. De quo et Pompeius, domitis Judaeis, apud Lucanum libro II De bello civili, sic ait. / Cappadoces mea signa timent, et dedita sacris / Incerti Judaea Dei. / ¶ Causa porro erectae talis arae Ignotis diis, aut Ignoto Deo, haec a nonnullis affertur, quod pestilitatis tempore, cum facta caeteris diis, quos norant, sacrificia nihil profuissent, veriti ne quem Deum inhonoratum reliquissent, qui proinde tanti mali causa esset, aram erexerunt, Ignoto Deo, reque divina ei facta, mox sanati sunt. Exinde remanserunt ara et arae inscriptio, quae occasionem Paulo praebuerunt Ignoti Dei, vere Dei, ipsis annuntiandi. Hujus Ignoti Dei mentionem inducit et Lucianus in Dialogo qui inscribitur, Φιλόπατρις ἢ Διδασκόμενος Philopatris, seu, Qui docetur, ubi ita Critias: Ναὶ τὸν ἄγνωστον ἐν Ἀθήναις, παρθένος διέμεινε μέχρι τῆς ἀποτομῆς. Per Ignotum Athenis, virgo permansit usque ad decollationem. Loquitur autem de Gorgone, cui Perseus caput amputavit. Et in fine ejusdem Dialogi: Ἡμεῖς δὲ τὸν ἐν Ἀθήναις ἄγνωστον ἐφευρόντες καὶ προσκυνήσαντες, χεῖρας εἰς οὐρανὸν ἐκτείναντες τούτῳ εὐχαριστήσο- [... upper part of col 720 not in image ...] Θεὸν δὲ ποῖον, εἰπέ μοι, νομιστέον; / Τὸν πάνθ' ὁρῶντα, αὐτὸν οὐχ ὁρώμενον. / Dic, quaeso, qualis aestimandus est Deus? / Qui cuncta spectat, nemini aspectabilis.

[...] God. For if it had been written not "To the Unknown God" but "To unknown gods," Paul could have been refuted, and his argument would have had no force, or at least not much. Therefore one should rather stand by the opinion of St Chrysostom and the other ancient Fathers, with almost the sole exception of Jerome, and hold that there were several altars inscribed with nearly similar marks, namely some "To unknown gods," others "To the Unknown God." Of the former Tertullian also makes mention, Against Marcion book 1, chapter 9: "I find," he says, "altars set out to unknown gods; but that is Attic idolatry. Likewise to uncertain gods; but that is Roman superstition." Now that the altar at Athens "To the Unknown God" was set up on account of the eclipse at the time of the passion is held by Peter Comestor in the Historia scholastica on the Acts of the Apostles; and Salmeron and Gaspar Sanchez, on the same Acts of the Apostles, chapter 17, do not think it improbable. For they judge that those men were moved to do this by having seen the miraculous eclipse at Christ's death. Though this is probable, it is more probable that it had been done by others long before, out of an obscure knowledge of the God of the Jews, whose name was said to be ineffable, and who was therefore himself unknown and uncertain. Of whom Pompey too, having subdued the Jews, speaks thus in Lucan, On the Civil War book 2: "The Cappadocians fear my standards, and Judaea, given to the rites of an uncertain God." ¶ The cause of setting up such an altar "To unknown gods" or "To the Unknown God" is given by some as this: that in a time of pestilence [printed "pestilitatis"], when the sacrifices made to the other gods whom they knew had done no good, fearing that they had left some god unhonoured who was therefore the cause of so great an evil, they set up an altar "To the Unknown God," and when sacrifice had been offered to him they were soon healed. Thereafter the altar and the altar's inscription remained, which gave Paul the occasion to proclaim to them the Unknown God, the true God. Lucian too brings in mention of this Unknown God in the dialogue entitled Philopatris, or The Learner, where Critias says thus: "By the Unknown at Athens, she remained a virgin until her beheading." [Latin version follows, to the same effect.] He is speaking of the Gorgon, whose head Perseus cut off. And at the end of the same dialogue: "But we, having found out the Unknown at Athens and worshipped him, stretching our hands to heaven, will give thanks to him [...]" [...] "But what kind of God, tell me, must one think? He who sees all things, himself unseen." [Latin version follows, to the same effect.]

(printed under page 369)

(27) ‹anchor: e Sibyllinis oraculis› · printed in col 720

E Sibyllinis oraculis. De his vide lib. II S. Theophili patriarchae Antiocheni, sub initium, ubi haec inter alia: / Εἷς Θεός, ὃς μόνος ἄρχει ὑπερμεγέθης, ἀγένητος, / Παντοκράτωρ, ἀόρατος, ὁρῶν μόνος αὐτὸς ἅπαντα. / Unus, qui solus regnat, Deus, atque supremus, / Ingenitus, cunctis dominans, qui cernere cuncta / Evaleat, quamvis non aspectabilis ulli. / Hieronymus quoque in cap. XVI Ezechielis, ad illud: Et coronam decoris in capite suo, docet Dei majestatem, cujus nomen est ineffabile, non penitus ignotam fuisse gentilibus. « Cujus, inquit, majestatem etiam gentilitas non ignorat, et Atheniensium testatur ara: Ignoto Deo. »

"From the Sibylline oracles." On these see St Theophilus, patriarch of Antioch, book 2, near the beginning, where among other things are these lines: "One God, who alone reigns, exceedingly great, unbegotten, almighty, invisible, himself alone seeing all things." [Latin verse version follows, to the same effect.] Jerome too, on chapter 16 of Ezekiel, at the words "And a crown of beauty upon his head," teaches that the majesty of God, whose name is ineffable, was not wholly unknown to the gentiles. "Whose majesty," he says, "even the gentile world does not ignore, and the altar of the Athenians bears witness: To the Unknown God."

(printed under page 369)

(28) ‹anchor: ipsorumque adeo poetarum› · printed in col 720 · (continues)

Ipsorumque adeo poetarum. Nam illa quae in Pauli oratione afferuntur: In ipso enim vivimus, movemur, et sumus; et rursus illa: Ipsius enim et genus sumus, cum in Arato poeta antiquissimo ac laudatissimo, partim sensu, partim verbis reperiantur, tum etiam in aliis, quibus Apostolus citandis supersedit. Aratus quidem sua sic orsus est Phenomena: / Ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα, τὸν οὐδέποτ' ἄνδρες ἐῶμεν / Ἄρρητον. Μεσταὶ δὲ Διὸς πᾶσαι μὲν ἀγυιαί, / Πᾶσαι δ' ἀνθρώπων ἀγοραί, μεστὴ δὲ θάλασσα / Καὶ λιμένες. Πάντη δὲ Διὸς κεχρήμεθα πάντες. / Τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν... / Ab Jove ducamus primordia, neve sinamus / Hunc indictum homines. Jovis omnia compita plena, / Plenaque sunt hominum fora, plena Jove aequor et ipsi / Portus. Nam fruimur cuncti Jove: et illius omnes / Audimus genus... / Ubi dum omnia Jove plena, et omnes Jove frui ejusque genus esse dicit, hoc sane indicat, quod in Deo vivamus, moveamur, et simus. Postremum vero hemistichium verbotenus significat, quod dixit Paulus: Ipsius enim et genus sumus. Omnia deorum plena, dixit etiam Thales, unus e septem (continues)

"And indeed of their own poets." For the sayings brought forward in Paul's speech, "For in him we live, and move, and are," and again, "For we are also his offspring," are found partly in sense, partly in words, in Aratus, a most ancient and most celebrated poet, and also in others, whom the Apostle forbore to cite. Aratus began his Phaenomena [printed "Phenomena"] thus: "From Zeus let us begin, whom we men never leave unspoken. Full of Zeus are all the streets, all the market-places of men; full is the sea and the harbours. Everywhere we all have need of Zeus. For we are also his offspring..." [Latin verse version follows, to the same effect; its last line reads "Audimus genus," "we are called his offspring".] Here, while he says that all things are full of Jove, and that all enjoy Jove and are his offspring, he plainly indicates that in God we live, and move, and are. And the last half-line signifies word for word what Paul said: "For we are also his offspring." "All things are full of gods," said Thales too, one of the seven (continues)

(printed under page 369)

(a) ‹anchor: call not in image (upper part of col 720)› · printed at the foot of col 719 (editors' note to the Notationes)

Sophoclis.

Sophocles' [lines].

(printed under page 369)

(b) ‹anchor: call not in image (upper part of col 720; probably the verses Θεὸν δὲ ποῖον …)› · printed at the foot of col 719 (editors' note to the Notationes)

Philemonis.

Philemon's [lines].

(printed under page 369)

[RENDER LIMIT: the images show only the lower part of each column. The upper part of col 721 and of col 722 is NOT set here; lacunae are marked. The note running at the top of col 722 is probably (32), whose number and opening are hidden.] (29?) ‹anchor: not visible› · printed in col 721 · (continued; beginning not in image) [... upper part of col 721 not in image ...] [...]tim in se transferret. Quo sane significatur vis verborum Pauli, non autem miraculorum. Auctor est et S. Ambrosius l. X, epistola 82, quem vide citatum supra, uti et Chrysostomum. ¶ Sententiae porro sanctorum Ambrosii et Chrysostomi accedit Syngelus in Encomio Dionysii, ubi in ejus ad credendum facilitatem ac promptitudinem sic exclamat: Βαβαὶ τῆς καρδίας τῆς εὐπετῶς καὶ ἀνεπιστρόφως πάσης σαρκικῆς προσπαθείας ἀπερραγείσης παντοίαν ὑλικὴν ἔμφασιν ἀποσεισαμένης, καὶ τῷ σωτηριώδει θᾶττον πιστευσάσης κηρύγματι. Papae, inquit, cor facile et constanter cunctam affectionem carnalem abrumpens, atque omnimodam corpoream demonstrationem excutiens, et salutari praeconio actutum credens!

[...] might transfer [...] to himself. By which is plainly signified the power of Paul's words, not of miracles. St Ambrose too is the authority, book 10, letter 82, whom see cited above, as also Chrysostom. ¶ To the opinion of Saints Ambrose and Chrysostom, moreover, Syncellus adds his in the Encomium of Dionysius, where he exclaims thus at his readiness and promptness in believing: [Greek, rendered by the Latin that follows.] "Wonderful," he says, "the heart that easily and without turning back broke off every carnal attachment, shook off every material appearance, and at once believed the saving proclamation!"

(printed under page 370)

(30) ‹anchor: not visible› · printed in col 721

Vide S. Chrysost. hom. 10 ad Populum Antiochenum, sub finem.

See St Chrysostom, Homily 10 to the People of Antioch, towards the end.

(printed under page 370)

(31) ‹anchor: anno scilicet aetatis suae› · printed in col 721 · (continues)

Anno scilicet aetatis suae, etc. Conversum esse Dionysium ad fidem anno aetatis suae quadragesimo tertio, sic colligi potest: Dionysius novem annis, ut supra ostensum est, natu minor erat Christo: quando autem conversus est, erat Christi quinquagesimus secundus, et Claudii imperatoris decimus (hi enim apud Eusebium in Chronico concurrunt); si ergo tollas de Christi quinquaginta duobus annis novenos, ramanebunt quadraginta tres Dionysii. ¶ Restat ergo nunc duntaxat probandum, Dionysii conversionem incidisse in annum Claudii decimum. Nam idem est Christi quinquagesimus secundus. Sic autem probatur ex Actis apostolorum, cap. XVII et XVIII: Paulus, post Dionysii conversionem, Athenis recta petiit Corinthum, ibique offendit Aquilam Ponticum Judaeum, et Priscillam uxorem ejus, qui nuper ab Italia, ob edictum Claudii (qui praeceperat omnes Judaeos Roma discedere) Corinthum appulerant. Atqui edictum illud evulgatum est anno ejusdem Claudii nono, cum Paulus Orosius, sancti Augustini aequalis, libro VII Historiarum, cap. 6, ita scribat, allegetque auctorem Josephum: Anno inquit, ejusdem nono expulsos per Claudium urbe Judaeos Josephus refert. Quare si anno Claudii nono egressi sunt ex Italia, et Corinthum venerunt Aquila Ponticus et Priscilla, ad eosque paulo post Athenis venit Paulus recenter converso a se Dionysio, quid probabilius, quam uno anno post edictum, aut circiter saltem (ne quis praerigide agere velit) eam accidisse conver- (continues; the top of col 722 is not in image)

"In the year, namely, of his age," etc. That Dionysius was converted to the faith in the forty-third year of his age can be gathered thus: Dionysius was nine years younger than Christ, as was shown above; and when he was converted it was the fifty-second year of Christ and the tenth of the emperor Claudius (for these coincide in Eusebius's Chronicle); if then you take nine years from Christ's fifty-two, there will remain [printed "ramanebunt"] Dionysius's forty-three. ¶ It remains now only to prove that Dionysius's conversion fell in the tenth year of Claudius. For that is the same as the fifty-second of Christ. It is proved thus from the Acts of the Apostles, chapters 17 and 18: Paul, after Dionysius's conversion, went straight from Athens to Corinth, and there found Aquila, a Jew of Pontus, and Priscilla his wife, who had lately come to Corinth from Italy because of the edict of Claudius (who had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome). Now that edict was published in the ninth year of the same Claudius, since Paulus Orosius, a contemporary of St Augustine, writes thus in book 7 of his Histories, chapter 6, citing Josephus as his authority: "In his ninth year," he says, "Josephus reports that the Jews were expelled from the city by Claudius." Therefore if Aquila of Pontus and Priscilla left Italy in the ninth year of Claudius and came to Corinth, and Paul came to them from Athens a little after, Dionysius having been lately converted by him, what is more probable than that the conversion happened one year after the edict, or at least about then (lest anyone wish to be over-rigid)? (continues)

(32?) ‹anchor: not visible› · printed in col 722 · (continued; beginning not in image) [... upper part of col 722 not in image ...] [Διο]νύσιον ἐθνικοῖς ἔθεσι πρώην ἐμπεριεχόμενον εἰς ὁδὸν σωτηρίας ἐπέστρεψε καὶ τῷ ἱερῷ βαπτίσματι ἀναγεννήσας θείᾳ ἁγιωσύνῃ αὖθις ἐστερέωσε. Dionysium moribus gentilitiis nuper implicatum in viam salutis perducens convertit, et sacro baptismate a se regeneratum divina rursus sanctitate confirmavit.

[...] "Dionysius, lately entangled in pagan customs, he turned to the way of salvation, and having regenerated him by holy baptism, established him further in divine holiness." [Latin version follows, to the same effect.]

(printed under page 370)

(33) ‹anchor: erat enim Platonicus› · printed in col 722 · (continues)

Erat enim Platonicus. Solebant viri docti, examinatis variis philosophorum sectis, unam deligere, quam potissime sequerentur. Gravissimi autem quique Hlatonem philosophis omnibus, etiam Aristoteli, anteponebant: ac modo divinum appellabant, modo sapientissimnm, modo sanctissimum. modo Homerum philosophorum, modo deum. Alia ex his Panaetius, postremum Cicero ipse detulit. Nam de Panaetio, qui caeteras Platonis sententias, excepta una, approbabat, ita libro I Tusculanarum quaestionum, post medium: « Quem enim omnibus locis divinum, quem sapientissimum, quem sanctissimum, quem Homerum philosophorum appellat, hujus hanc unam sententiam de immortalitate animorum non probat. » Ita Cicero, Atqui nihil verius, nihil certius, quam animorum immortalitas. Unde si alia omnia probabat, certe et hoc postremum maxime probare debuerat. Idem ad Atticum lib. IV, epist. 15: « Quod in iis libris, quos laudas, personam desiderat Scaevolae, non eam temere demovi, sed feci idem quod in πολιτείᾳ Deus ille noster Plato. » etc. Et lib. II De natura deorum Audiamus Platonem, quasi quemdam deum philosophorum. » Alibi quoque semper Aristoteli praefert Platonem, quod profitetur lib. I Tusculanarum, ante medium: « Aristoteles, inquit, longe omnibus (Platonem semper excipio) praestans ingenio et diligentia, cum quatuor nota illa genera principiorum esset complexus, e quibus omnia orirentur, quintam quamdam naturam censet esse, e qua sit mens. » Eumdem Platonem omnibus philosophis praetulerunt omnes SS. Patres. Arnobius l. I Adversus gentes: « Plato, inquit, ille sublimis apex philosophorum et columen, saeva illa diluvia, et conflagrationes mundi, purgationem terrarum suis esse in commentariis prodidit. » Et lib. II: Plato ille divinus multa de Deo digna, nec communia sentiens multitudini, » etc. ¶ Notavi plura ad Vitam S. Justini philosophi. Denique Platonici fuerunt S. Hierotheus, Dionysius, Justinus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origenes, Tertullianus, Arnobius, Lactantius, Augustinus, et caeteri fere omnes Patres, Graeci et Latini, ante- (continues)

"For he was a Platonist." Learned men, having examined the various sects of the philosophers, were accustomed to choose one which they would chiefly follow. And all the weightiest set Plato [printed "Hlatonem"] above all philosophers, even Aristotle: and called him now divine, now most wise, now most holy, now the Homer of philosophers, now a god. Panaetius conferred others of these titles; the last Cicero himself. For of Panaetius, who approved the other opinions of Plato except one, he says thus in book 1 of the Tusculan Disputations, after the middle: "For him whom in every place he calls divine, most wise, most holy, the Homer of philosophers, he does not approve in this one opinion about the immortality of souls." So Cicero. And yet nothing is truer, nothing more certain, than the immortality of souls. Hence, if he approved all the rest, he surely ought most of all to have approved this last. The same, To Atticus book 4, letter 15: "As for your missing the character of Scaevola in those books which you praise, I did not remove it rashly, but did the same as that god of ours, Plato, did in the Republic," etc. And in book 2 On the Nature of the Gods: "Let us hear Plato, as it were a god of the philosophers." Elsewhere too he always prefers Plato to Aristotle, as he professes in book 1 of the Tusculans, before the middle: "Aristotle," he says, "far surpassing all (I always except Plato) in genius and diligence, when he had embraced those four known kinds of principles from which all things arise, judges that there is a certain fifth nature, from which mind comes." All the holy Fathers preferred this same Plato to all philosophers. Arnobius, Against the Gentiles book 1: "Plato," he says, "that sublime summit and pillar of the philosophers, set down in his writings that those savage floods and conflagrations of the world are a purging of the earth." And book 2: "That divine Plato, thinking many things worthy of God and not common to the multitude," etc. ¶ I have noted more on the Life of St Justin the philosopher. Finally, Platonists were St Hierotheus, Dionysius, Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Arnobius, Lactantius, Augustine, and almost all the other Fathers, Greek and Latin, before (continues)

(printed under page 370)

[RENDER LIMIT: the images show only the lower part of the page. The upper part of col 723 and of col 724 is NOT set here; lacunae are marked. On this page the Notationes to Chapter II end; below a rule begins CAPUT III. "Dionysii contra fidei suae et vitae novae calumniatores, virtus et constantia." (author's text, not set here). No lettered footnotes are printed in the visible part of the page.] (?) ‹anchor: not visible› · printed in col 723 · (continued; beginning not in image) (continues on the hidden top of col 724) [... upper part of col 723 not in image ...] [...] judicare possint, qui peccata omnia censent paria? De quibus Stoicis quid existimet M. Tullius, vide in ejus Oratione pro L. Muraena: ibi enim adversus Catonem disputans, docet eos qui a Platone sunt et Aristotele, judiciis et tribunalibus esse aptiores, quam qui a Zenone, Stoicorum principe. Fateor tamen Dionysium morum gravitate, virtutum constantia, judiciorum severitate appellari po-

[...] could judge, who hold all sins to be equal? What Marcus Tullius thought of these Stoics, see in his Oration for Lucius Murena: for there, arguing against Cato, he teaches that those who come from Plato and Aristotle are fitter for courts and tribunals than those who come from Zeno, the chief of the Stoics. I admit, however, that Dionysius, for the gravity of his morals, the constancy of his virtues and the severity of his judgements, could be called (continues)

(?) ‹anchor: not visible› · printed in col 724 · (continued; beginning not in image) [... upper part of col 724 not in image ...] malos. 8. Animam esse immortalem. 9. Mundum non esse ab aeterno, sed creatum, 10. Mundum esse corruptibilem. 11. Mortuorum resurrectionem. 12. Terram coelestem, quam nos vocamus terram viventium. 13. Judicium extremum, et cunctorum meritis dignam retributionem. De quibus et de pluribus. vide Eusebium De praeparatione evangelica lib XI.

[...] the wicked. 8. That the soul is immortal. 9. That the world is not from eternity but created. 10. That the world is corruptible. 11. The resurrection of the dead. 12. A heavenly earth, which we call the land of the living. 13. The last judgement, and a retribution worthy of the deserts of all. On these and more, see Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel book 11.

(printed under page 371)

(none) [The visible lower part of the page is author's text only (Caput III, set full width); no footnotes are printed beneath it. The upper part of the page is not in the rendered images.] (printed under page 372)

[The author's text on this page is set full width; the column assigned to each call is the half of the page in which it falls.] (printed under page 373)

(v) ‹anchor: e medio tollere› · call in col 727

I Cor. I, 21.

1 Corinthians 1:21.

(printed under page 373)

(y) ‹anchor: circumque deferrentur› · call in col 727 (at the middle of the page, near the column line)

Josu. X.

Joshua 10.

(printed under page 373)

(x) ‹anchor: docent sacrae Litterae› · call in col 728

Amos V, 8, secundum Septuag. Ὁ ποιῶν πάντα, καὶ μετασκευάζων.

Amos 5:8, according to the Septuagint: "He who makes all things and transforms them."

(printed under page 373)

[The author's text (end of Caput III) ends above a rule; below it, under the heading NOTATIONES., the notes to Chapter III begin. The images show only the lower part of the page; nothing of the notes is hidden, since they begin within the visible part.] Heading printed across the page: NOTATIONES.

NOTES.

(printed under page 374)

(36) ‹anchor: Quemadmodum (start of Caput III)› · printed in cols 729–730

Agitur in hoc capite de variis adversus Dionysium tentamentis. Quae in Vitis sanctorum adnotare apprime utile est, quod virtus in iis maxime elucescat, et imitationi stimulos indat. Solet autem summus inter suos magistratus et princeps dignitatis gradus vel fortiter detinere possidentem, vel vehementer invitare aspirantem. Rupit hos laqueos Dionysius; neque etiam magis aut amicorum blanditias, aut obtrectatorum verba, aut territantium minas curae habuit. Vide Syngelum extremo fere Dionysii encomio. Apollophanem quoque, veterem et intimum sodalem, non tam Christi causa deseruit, quam patientia et longanimitate devicit. ¶ Viderant simul stupuerantque insolitam solis defectionem, sed aliter atque aliter interpretati erant. Dionysius altiori quodam modo et plane divinitus de Deo in corpore gravia patiente intellexerat; Apollophanes autem de sole ipso, quem pro Deo habebat, aliquid naturae contrarium sufferente acceperat. Quod indicare videtur Dionysius in ea, quam ad eum dedit, epistola, ubi de illa loquens defectione solis, hanc adjecit, quasi per occupationem. parenthesim (non quod Deus, sed quod Dei opus in verae ipsius lucis occubitu lucere non quiverit) tanquam si diceret: Non quod sol Deus sit, ubi arbitraris, atque ita Deus lucere non quiverit, sed quod sol Dei opus in Christi, qui vera lux est, occubitu obscuratus sit. Simili occupatione usus est idem Dionysius lib. De divinis nominibus cap. 4, ubi post relatam solis multiplicem efficientiam ita subjunxit: Καὶ οὐ δήπου φημὶ κατὰ τὸν τῆς παλαιότητος λόγον, ὅτι Θεὸς ὢν ὁ ἥλιος, καὶ δημιουργὸς τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς ἰδίως ἐπιτροπεύει τὸν ἐμφανῆ κόσμον, ἀλλ' ὅτι τὰ ἀόρατα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασι νοούμενα καθορᾶται, ἥτε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης Nec hoc dico, inquit, antiquitatis fabulam secutus, quod sol Deus sit et universi effector, eique proprie mundum hunc aspectabilem gubernet; sed quod invisibilia Dei a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur: sempiterna quoque ejus virtus et divinitas. Ita scilicet Apollophanes in Aegypto jam versans, Aegyptiorum imbutus erat antiquo errore, quo solem et lunam deos esse arbitrabantur, et venerabantur. De quibus ita Eusebius lib. I De praeparatione Evangelica, cap. 9: « Priscos Aegyptios ferunt, cum oculos in mundi hujus contemplatione defixissent, cumque rerum omnium naturam vehementi admiratione obstupescerent, solem ac lunam sempiternos esse deos, omniumque principes censuisse. » Quibus ista Arnobii consonant, libro I Adversus Gentes: « Solem Deum cum credatis esse, conditorem ejus, opificemque non quaeritis, luna cum apud vos dea sit, non similiter scire curatis, genitor ejus et fabricator quis sit. » Licet etiam multas intueri veteres inscriptiones solem Deum testantes, quarum plures sunt apud Janum Gruterum, et haec inter alias: / DEO. SOLI. INVICTO. / ARAM. / C. JULIUS. CAESAR. / D. D.

This chapter deals with the various assaults made on Dionysius. To note these in the Lives of the saints is especially useful, because virtue shines out most in them and spurs to imitation. Now the highest magistracy among one's people and the first rank of dignity is wont either to hold its possessor fast or strongly to entice one who aspires to it. Dionysius broke these snares; nor did he care any more for the flatteries of friends, the words of detractors, or the threats of those who tried to frighten him. See Syncellus almost at the end of his encomium of Dionysius. Apollophanes too, his old and intimate companion, he did not so much abandon for Christ's sake as overcome by patience and long-suffering. ¶ They had seen together, and been amazed together at, the unaccustomed eclipse of the sun, but they had interpreted it differently. Dionysius, in a higher way and wholly by divine light, had understood it of God suffering grievous things in the body; Apollophanes had taken it of the sun itself, which he held to be God, suffering something contrary to nature. Dionysius seems to indicate this in the letter he sent him, where, speaking of that eclipse of the sun, he added, as by way of anticipation, this parenthesis: "(not that God, but that God's work could not shine at the setting of his own true light)"; as if he said: Not that the sun is God, as you think, and so God could not shine; but that the sun, God's work, was darkened at the setting of Christ, who is the true light. The same Dionysius used a similar anticipation in the book On the Divine Names, chapter 4, where, after relating the manifold activity of the sun, he added: [Greek, rendered by the Latin that follows.] "Nor do I say this," he says, "following the fable of antiquity, that the sun is God and maker of the universe, and properly governs this visible world; but that the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and divinity." Apollophanes, then, living now in Egypt, had been imbued with the ancient error of the Egyptians, by which they thought the sun and moon were gods and worshipped them. Of whom Eusebius says thus, Preparation for the Gospel book 1, chapter 9: "They say that the ancient Egyptians, when they had fixed their eyes on the contemplation of this world, and were struck with vehement wonder at the nature of all things, judged the sun and moon to be eternal gods and the rulers of all." With which these words of Arnobius agree, Against the Gentiles book 1: "Though you believe the sun to be God, you do not seek its founder and maker; though the moon is a goddess among you, you take no similar care to know who is her begetter and fashioner." One may also see many ancient inscriptions testifying to the sun as God, a number of which are in Janus Gruter, and this among others: "TO THE GOD THE UNCONQUERED SUN, GAIUS JULIUS CAESAR GAVE AND DEDICATED [D. D.] THIS ALTAR."

(printed under page 374)

(37) ‹anchor: passim resonaret› · printed in col 730

Michaael Syngelus in Dionysii Encomio.

Michael [printed "Michaael"] Syncellus in his Encomium of Dionysius.

(printed under page 374)

(38) ‹anchor: not visible› · printed in col 730 · (continues)

Inter latrones patibulatum. Frequentissima (continues)

"Gibbeted between thieves." Very frequent (continues)

(printed under page 374)

[RENDER LIMIT: the images show only the lower part of each column. The upper part of col 731 and of col 732 is NOT set here; lacunae are marked. The note running at the top of col 731 is probably (38).] (38?) ‹anchor: not visible› · printed in col 731 · (continued; beginning not in image) [... upper part of col 731 not in image ...] dicunt: Quale cor habetis, qui Deum colitis crucifixum! » Vide etiam S. Isidorum Pelusiotam lib. IV, epist. 31, ubi gentilem quemdam sophistam, irridentem Christi crucem et passionem. egregie et cum applausu audientium convicit. Nam cum ille de Deo crucifixo in effusum risum solveretur, quaesivit Isidorus: « Sed unde potes demonstrare Christum crucifixum? » Mirantibus autem cunctis, quorsum talis interrogatio tenderet, gentilis velut certus de victoria respondit: « In vestris Evangeliis id scriptum est; » tum Isidorus: « Atqui et in iisdem, inquit, scriptum est, quod resurrexerit et in coelos redierit. Si ergo unum credis Evangelio, crede et alterum. » Post quae tantus est exortus astantium risus et applausus, ut uterque erubesceret, Isidorus de gloria, gentilis de ignominia.

[...] they say: "What a heart you have, who worship a crucified God!" See also St Isidore of Pelusium, book 4, letter 31, where he refuted a certain pagan sophist who was mocking Christ's cross and passion, excellently and to the applause of the hearers. For when the man broke into loud laughter about a crucified God, Isidore asked: "But from where can you show that Christ was crucified?" And while all wondered where such a question was leading, the pagan, as though sure of victory, answered: "It is written in your Gospels." Then Isidore: "But in the same Gospels," he said, "it is written that he rose again and returned to heaven. If then you believe the Gospel in the one, believe it in the other too." After which such laughter and applause arose from the bystanders that both blushed, Isidore for glory, the pagan for shame.

(printed under page 375)

(39) ‹anchor: ingens prodigiorum … comprobarit› · printed in col 731

Ingens prodigiorum eam ob rem patratorum copia evidenter comprobarit. Via probandi divinitatem Christi per prodigia, ab ipsomet Christo ostensa est, Matth. V, ubi missis a Joanne ad interrogandum, num ipse Messias et Salvator esset, respondit: Euntes renuntiate Joanni, quae audistis. Caeci vident, claudi ambulant, leprosi mundantur, surdi audiunt, mortui resurgunt, pauperes evangelizantur. Hanc viam et apostoli tenuerunt, et eorum sectatores ac posteri: nec unqum ad fidem probandam defuit in Ecclesia Dei potestas miraculorum. Hanc fidei et Ecclesiae notam bene pertractavit S. Justinus martyr, ad cujus Vitam, ubi nos de illa fusius, remitto lectorem.

"A great abundance of prodigies wrought for that reason clearly proved." The way of proving Christ's divinity by prodigies was shown by Christ himself, Matthew 5 [as printed; the passage is Matthew 11], where, when men were sent by John to ask whether he was the Messiah and Saviour, he answered: "Go and relate to John what you have heard. The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them." The apostles too kept to this way, and their followers and successors: nor was the power of miracles ever [printed "unqum"] lacking in the Church of God for proving the faith. St Justin Martyr treated this mark of the faith and of the Church well; I refer the reader to his Life, where we speak of it more fully.

(printed under page 375)

(40) ‹anchor: in Polycarpi› · printed in col 731

In Polycarpi. Is est S. Polycarpus, Joannis apostoli discipulus.

"In Polycarp's." That is St Polycarp, disciple of John the apostle.

(printed under page 375)

(41) ‹anchor: ab Apollophane sophista› · printed in col 731

Ab Apollophane sophista. Nomen sophista est unum ex ancipitibus, et quae utramque in partem capi possunt, bonam et malam. Hic autem in bonam capitur, pro multarum rerum et artium perito. Alibi appellat eum Dionysius dotrinae speculum, alibi virum sapientem. De primis significationibus vocis hujus σοφιστής sophista videndus est Plutarchus in Themistocle, sub initium.

"By Apollophanes the sophist." The name "sophist" is one of the ambiguous words, which can be taken in either sense, good and bad. Here it is taken in the good sense, for one skilled in many things and arts. Elsewhere Dionysius calls him "a mirror of learning" [printed "dotrinae"], elsewhere "a wise man." On the first meanings of this word sophistēs, "sophist," see Plutarch in the Themistocles, near the beginning.

(printed under page 375)

(42) ‹anchor: facit mutatque omnia› · printed in col 731

Qui, ut docent sacrae litterae, facit mutatque omnia. Locus hic est in LXX Interp. Amos, cap. V, 8, his verbis: Ὁ ποιῶν πάντα καὶ μετασκευάζων. Faciens omnia et mutans. Alioqui vulgata editio Latina habet: Facientem Arcturum et Orionem, et convertentem in mane tenebras, et diem in noctem mutantem. Loquitur autem de Deo, cujus solius est talis actio, conversio, mutatio.

"Who, as the sacred Scriptures teach, makes and changes all things." The place is in the Seventy Translators, Amos chapter 5:8, in these words: "He who makes all things and changes them." [Latin version follows, to the same effect.] The Latin Vulgate edition, on the other hand, has: "that maketh Arcturus and Orion, and that turneth darkness into morning, and that changeth day into night." He speaks of God, to whom alone such action, turning and changing belong.

(printed under page 375)

(43) ‹anchor: ut olim sol et luna› · printed in cols 731–732

Quis enim fecit, ut olim sol et luna, etc. De- [... upper part of col 732 not in image ...] quae operum vacuis non sit inutile contueri. Vide et Gasparem Sancium in XXXVIII caput Isaiae.

"For who brought it about that once the sun and the moon," etc. [...] which it is not useless for those at leisure from work to examine. See also Gaspar Sanchez on chapter 38 of Isaiah.

(printed under page 375)

(44) ‹anchor: dies unus fere tribus aequaretur› · printed in col 732

Quis auctor alias fuit, ut dies unus fere tribus aequaretur? Aliud hoc loco proponit S. Dionysius Appollophani prodigium, de solis regressu tempore Ezechiae regis Juda. Cui signum futurae curationis suae postulanti ait Isaias lib. IV Regum, cap. XX, 9: Hoc erit signum a Domino, quod facturus sit Dominus sermonem, quem locutus est: Vis ut ascendat umbra decem lineis, an ut revertatur totidem gradibus? Et ait Ezechias: Facile est, umbram crescere decem lineis; nec hoc volo ut fiat, sed ut revertatur retrorsum decem gradibus. Invocavit itaque Isaias propheta Dominum, et reduxit umbram per lineas, quibus jam descenderat in horologio Achaz, retrorsum decem gradibus. Sic ibi. Quod miraculum reponitur Isaiae cap. XXXVIII, 7 his verbis: Hoc autem tibi erit signum a Domino, quia faciet Dominus verbum hoc, quod locutus est: Ecce ego reverti faciam unbram linearum, et per quas descenderat in horologio Achaz in sole, retrorsum decem lineis. Et reversus est sol decem lineis per gradus, quos descenderat. ¶ Sensus historiae hujus est talis: Ezechias rex Juda ex gravi infirmitate lecto affixus, Deum pro valetudine recuperanda exoravit: Deus per Isaiam prophetam ei non modo se valetudinem redditurum, sed etiam quindecim annos vitae additurum promisit. Ezechias signum petiit in ejus rei testimonium. Indulsit Deus, et facturum se dixit, ut sol, qui jam decem diei horas confecerat, totidem retro reflecteret, atque in orientem regrederetur. Quod et factum est. Ac propterea ille unus dies. quo ista fiebant, recte dicitur a Dionysio fuisse fere par tribus. Nam si quatuor adderentur horae, essent triginta octo, ac consequenter tres dies Nam cum dies sit horarum duodecim, sol jam decem confecerat, atque ita fere unum diem absolverat, exceptis scilicet duabus 434 horis, antequam regrederetur: in regressu autem cum totidem horas impenderit, nempe decem, secundi diei spatium fuit, exceptis rursum duabus horis, quo decem horarum spatio pervenit sol ad locum ortus sui: ex quo deinde loco ad occidentem usque confecit duodecim horas integras; ita ut ultimus cursus solis fuerit dies integer horarum duodecim, duo autem priores fuerint singuli horarum decem. Atque ita dies ille supra Judaeae horizontem fuit triginta duarum horarum.

"Who else was the author of one day's being made nearly equal to three?" Here St Dionysius puts before Apollophanes [printed "Appollophani"] another prodigy, the going back of the sun in the time of Hezekiah king of Judah. To whom, asking a sign of his coming cure, Isaiah says, 4 Kings chapter 20:9: "This shall be the sign from the Lord, that the Lord will do the word which he hath spoken: Will you that the shadow go forward ten lines, or that it go back so many degrees? And Hezekiah said: It is an easy matter for the shadow to go forward ten lines; and I do not desire that this be done, but let it return back ten degrees. And Isaiah the prophet called upon the Lord, and he brought the shadow ten degrees backwards by the lines by which it had already gone down in the dial of Achaz." So there. This miracle is set down again in Isaiah chapter 38:7 in these words: "And this shall be a sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do this word which he hath spoken: Behold I will bring again the shadow [printed "unbram"] of the lines, by which it is now gone down in the sun-dial of Achaz, ten lines backward. And the sun returned ten lines by the degrees by which it was gone down." ¶ The sense of this history is as follows: Hezekiah king of Judah, confined to his bed by a grave illness, besought God for the recovery of his health: God, through Isaiah the prophet, promised him not only that he would restore his health but also that he would add fifteen years to his life. Hezekiah asked a sign in testimony of this. God granted it, and said he would make the sun, which had already completed ten hours of the day, turn back the same number and go back to the east. And so it was done. And therefore that one day on which these things took place is rightly said by Dionysius to have been nearly equal to three. For if four hours were added, there would be thirty-eight, and consequently three days. For since a day is of twelve hours, the sun had already completed ten, and so had nearly finished one day, all but two [434: page of the earlier edition] hours, before it went back: and in going back, since it spent as many hours, namely ten, there was the space of a second day, again all but two hours, in which space of ten hours the sun reached the place of its rising: from which place it then completed twelve whole hours to the west; so that the sun's last course was a whole day of twelve hours, while the two earlier were each of ten hours. And so that day was over the horizon of Judaea one of thirty-two hours.

(printed under page 375)

[RENDER LIMIT: the images show only the lower part of each column. The upper part of col 733 and of col 734 is NOT set here; lacunae are marked. Inscription lines are separated by " / ". The note on Mithras running at the top of col 734 is probably (47).] (45?) ‹anchor: not visible› · printed in col 733 · (continued; beginning not in image) [... upper part of col 733 not in image ...] [...]cuplici motione.

[...] fivefold [?] motion.

(printed under page 376)

(46) ‹anchor: Babylonios merito obstupefecit› · printed in col 733 · (continues)

Nam et hoc Babylonios merito obstupefecit. Dicit Dionysius, Babylonios tanti conspectu miraculi obstupefactos, citra pugnam se subdidisse Ezechiae. Quae in hoc sensu capienda sunt, misisse scilicet regem Babyloniorum (is tum erat Berodach Baladan, filius Baladan), legatos cum muneribus ad Ezechiam regem, et societatem atque amicitiam ab eo petiisse. Quod et Josephus, libro X Antiquitatum Judaicarum cap. 3, testatur his verbis: Ὁ δὲ τῶν Βαβυλωνίων βασιλεύς, Βαλάδας ὄνομα, πέμψας πρὸς τὸν Ἐζεκίαν πρέσβεις, δῶρα κομίσαντας, σύμμαχόν τε αὐτὸν εἶναι παρεκάλει καὶ φίλον. Rex autem Babyloniorum Baladas nomine, missis ad Ezechiam legatis cum muneribus, rogavit eum, uti socius et amicus esse vellet. Non habetur quidem in sacris Litteris, venisse legatos petitum societatem et amicitiam, neque lib. IV Regum, cap. XX, neque lib. II Paralipomenon cap. XXXII, neque Isaiae cap. XXXIX (in illis enim omnibus locis, et solis, hujus historiae est memoria), sed tantum venisse gratulatum de recuperata valetudine (ut in IV Regum et in Isaia indicatur) vel interrogatum de portento, quod acciderat super terram (ut II Paralipomenon), nihilominus tanta est apud me Josephi et Dionysii Areopagitae auctoritas, ut facile illis assentiar. Neque ulla ratione eos probo, qui hunc vel illum aliquid, quod in Scripturis non sit, proferentem, audacter, ne dicam temere et impudenter suggillant. Quasi vero non perinde Judaeis praeter Scripturam suae traditiones fuerint (quas ipsas non semel citat S. Hieronymus) sicut modo sunt Christianis: aut quasi aliae historiae sacrae non illis peraeque ac nobis in usu et auctoritate illis exstiterunt temporibus. Quare ea sola, quae ita rationi aut Scripturae adversantur, ut cum ea conciliari non possint, prorsus improbanda sunt. Est enim Scriptura sacra domina veritatis. Sed si quis aliqua vera non putet, propterea quod in illa desint, nae illi mens et sensus magis deest. Est tamen discrimen inter fidem quam Scripturae tribuimus, et fidem quam aliis historiis, art humanis traditionibus accommodamus. Illa enim divina, haec humana est: illa certa et falli nescia, haec non ita certa quin falli possit. Quod igitur Josephus (quem SS. Patres laudaverunt, et magni fecerunt) et Dionysius Areopagita (quem (continues; the top of col 734 is not in image)

"For this too rightly astonished the Babylonians." Dionysius says that the Babylonians, astonished at the sight of so great a miracle, submitted themselves to Hezekiah without a battle. This is to be taken in this sense: that the king of the Babylonians (who was then Berodach Baladan, son of Baladan) sent envoys with gifts to King Hezekiah and sought alliance and friendship from him. Josephus too testifies to this, Jewish Antiquities book 10, chapter 3, in these words: [Greek, rendered by the Latin that follows.] "The king of the Babylonians, Baladas by name, having sent envoys to Hezekiah bearing gifts, asked him to be his ally and friend." It is not indeed found in the sacred Scriptures that envoys came to seek alliance and friendship, neither in 4 Kings chapter 20, nor in 2 Paralipomenon chapter 32, nor in Isaiah chapter 39 (for in all those places, and in them alone, is this history recorded), but only that they came to congratulate him on his recovered health (as is indicated in 4 Kings and in Isaiah) or to inquire about "the wonder that had happened upon the earth" (as in 2 Paralipomenon); nevertheless the authority of Josephus and of Dionysius the Areopagite is so great with me that I readily assent to them. Nor do I in any way approve those who boldly, not to say rashly and impudently, find fault with this or that writer who brings forward something not in the Scriptures. As if the Jews had not had, besides Scripture, their own traditions (which St Jerome himself cites more than once), just as Christians now have: or as if other sacred histories were not in use and authority in those times for them just as for us. Therefore only those things which are so contrary to reason or to Scripture that they cannot be reconciled with it are wholly to be rejected. For sacred Scripture is the mistress of truth. But if anyone thinks some things not true because they are lacking in it, truly it is he who lacks mind and sense. There is, however, a difference between the faith we give to Scripture and the faith we accord to other histories or [printed "art"] human traditions. For the former is divine, the latter human: the former certain and incapable of error, the latter not so certain that it cannot err. What then Josephus (whom the holy Fathers praised and esteemed highly) and Dionysius the Areopagite (whom (continues)

(47?) ‹anchor: not visible› · printed in col 734 · (continued; beginning not in image) [... upper part of col 734 not in image ...] SOLI. INVICTO. / MITHRAE. / T. ANTISTIUS. / T. F. STELLATINA. / SEVERIANUS. / DEDICAVIT. ¶ Dediolani in janua S. Ambrosii, porta Vercellensi (b): ¶ S. D. I. M. / P. ACIL. PISONIANUS. / PATER. PATRATUS. / QUI. HOC. SPELEUM. VIOL. / IGNIS. AASUMPTUM. / COMPARATA. AREA. A. REPUBL. / MEDIOL. PECUNIA. SUA. / RESTITUIT. ¶ Ubi quatuor primi characteres D. S. I. M. significant: INVICTO. SOLI. DEO. MITHRAE. Vide plures ejusmodi inscriptiones apud Janum Gruterum. In quibus SOLI MITHRAE nihil est aliud, quam 435 soli quem Persae Mithram appellant. Unde apud Curtium lib. IV Historiarum, de iisdem Persis sic prorsus legendum: « Solem Mithram, sacrumque et aeternum invocant ignem. » Non vero, quod aliqui voluerunt, solem, Martem, etc. Nec enim illis Mars deus in cultum. Romani porro non statuas modo, sed et templa soli Mithrae erexerunt. De Aureliano imperatore conditore et consecratore templi Solis testatur Flavius Vopiscus in ejus Vita. « Templum Solis, inquit, magnificentissimum constituit. » Et prius dixerat: « Cum ad templum Solis veniseemus, ab Aureliano principe consecratum. » De Mithra et ejus sacris in specu fieri solitis, meminerunt S. Justinus martyr, Tertullianus, Gregorius Nazianzenus, et alii complures.

[...] "TO THE UNCONQUERED SUN MITHRAS, TITUS ANTISTIUS SEVERIANUS, SON OF TITUS, OF THE STELLATINE TRIBE, DEDICATED [THIS]." ¶ At Milan [printed "Dediolani"], at the gate of St Ambrose, the Vercelli gate (b): ¶ "S. D. I. M. PUBLIUS ACILIUS PISONIANUS, PATER PATRATUS, RESTORED AT HIS OWN EXPENSE THIS CAVE, DAMAGED [?] AND CONSUMED [printed "AASUMPTUM"] BY FIRE, THE SITE HAVING BEEN ACQUIRED FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MILAN." ¶ Where the first four letters, D. S. I. M. [so printed here, though the inscription above reads S. D. I. M.], signify: "TO THE UNCONQUERED SUN GOD MITHRAS." See more inscriptions of this kind in Janus Gruter. In them SOLI MITHRAE is nothing else than [435: page of the earlier edition] the sun, which the Persians call Mithras. Hence in Curtius, Histories book 4, of the same Persians, one should read exactly thus: "They invoke the Sun Mithras and the sacred and eternal fire"; not, as some would have it, "the Sun, Mars," etc. For Mars was not a god in their worship. The Romans, moreover, erected not only statues but also temples to the Sun Mithras. Of the emperor Aurelian as founder and consecrator of a temple of the Sun, Flavius Vopiscus testifies in his Life: "He established a most magnificent temple of the Sun," he says. And earlier he had said: "When we had come [printed "veniseemus"] to the temple of the Sun consecrated by the emperor Aurelian." Of Mithras and his rites, customarily performed in a cave, St Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Gregory Nazianzen and many others make mention.

(printed under page 376)

(48) ‹anchor: a Socratis morte (cujus ita eos puduit)› · printed in col 734 · (continues)

Athenienses enim a Socratis morte, cujus ita eos puduit. Rem narrat Diogenes Laertius in Socrate, ubi sub extremam ejus Vitam haec refert: Ἀθηναῖοι δ' εὐθὺς μετέγνωσαν, ὥστε κλεῖσαι καὶ παλαίστρας καὶ γυμνάσια. Καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἐφυγάδευσαν, Μελίτου δὲ θάνατον κατέγνωσαν. Σωκράτη δὲ χαλκῇ εἰκόνι ἐτιμήσαντο, ἣν ἔθεσαν ἐν τῷ Πομπείῳ, Λυσίππου ταύτην ἐργασαμένου. Ἄνυτόν τε ἐπιδημήσαντα αὐθήμερον ἐξεκήρυξαν Ἡρακλεῶται. Athenienses ita mox poenituit, ut palaestras et gymnasia (continues)

"For the Athenians, from the death of Socrates, of which they were so ashamed." Diogenes Laertius tells the story in his Socrates, where towards the end of his Life he relates this: "The Athenians at once repented, so that they closed the wrestling-schools and gymnasia. And some they banished, and condemned Meletus to death. Socrates they honoured with a bronze statue, which they set up in the Pompeion, the work of Lysippus. And Anytus, when he came to Heraclea, the Heracleots expelled the same day." The Athenians so soon repented that the wrestling-schools and gymnasia (continues)

(printed under page 376)

(a) ‹anchor: call not in image (upper part of the page; probably the first inscription in col 734)› · printed at the foot of col 733 (editors' note to the Notationes)

Ex Onuphrio et Fulvio.

From Onofrio [Panvinio] and Fulvio [Orsini].

(printed under page 376)

(a) ‹anchor: Romae› · call in col 734

Ex Onuphrio et Fulvio.

From Onuphrius and Fulvius.

(printed under page 376)

(b) ‹anchor: porta Vercellensi› · call in col 734

Ex Arriano.

From Arriano [as printed].

(printed under page 376)

[The author's text on this page is set full width; the column assigned to each call is the half of the page in which it falls.] (printed under page 377)

(z) ‹anchor: circumduxit eum et docuit› · call in col 735

Deut. XXXII, 10.

Deuteronomy 32:10.

(printed under page 377)

(a) ‹anchor: in frigore et nuditate› · call in col 736

II Cor. XI, 27.

2 Corinthians 11:27.

(printed under page 377)

(b) ‹anchor: sicut dominus ejus› · call in col 736

Matth. X, 25.

Matthew 10:25.

(printed under page 377)

(c) ‹anchor: spiritus autem adversus carnem› · call in col 736

Gal. V, 17.

Galatians 5:17.

(printed under page 377)

<!-- The author's text on this page runs the full page width; the NOTATIONES (Halloix's numbered notes to the chapter) are set in two columns below it, then the scripture notes. Calls (49), (50) stand in the chapter's text on earlier pages. --> (printed under page 378)

(49) ‹anchor: Ex quo tempore› · call in col — (earlier page)

Ex quo tempore novus hic Christi miles, etc. Agitur in hoc cap. de S. Dionysii praeceptoribus in doctrina fidei, et sub illis profectu eximio.

From the time when this new soldier of Christ, etc. This chapter treats of St Dionysius's teachers in the doctrine of the faith, and of his outstanding progress under them.

(printed under page 378)

(50) ‹anchor: Sed prae omnibus› · call in col — (earlier page)

Sed prae omnibus et diutius omnibus, Paulum. Quin Paulus apostolus et doctor gentium, praeceptor S. Dionysii Areopagitae fuerit, nefas est dubitare. Vide quae diximus in productis e Graecorum Menaeo Elogiis. Verum quod quidam haeretici improbe effutire ausi sunt, Dionysium ne semel praeceptoris sui Pauli meminisse, juvat breviter ad refrenandam impudentium mendaciorum audaciam aliquot colligere, in quibus perhonorificam magistri sui facit mentionem. 1. Igitur in libro De divinis nominibus, c. 2, sic (continues)

But before all, and for longer than all, Paul. That Paul, the apostle and teacher of the nations, was the teacher of St Dionysius the Areopagite, it is wrong to doubt. See what we said in the Eulogies brought forward from the Greeks' Menaeon. But since certain heretics have shamelessly dared to blurt out that Dionysius never once mentions his teacher Paul, it is worth gathering briefly, to curb the boldness of these impudent lies, some passages in which he makes most honourable mention of his master. 1. Thus in the book On the Divine Names, ch. 2, so (continues)

(printed under page 378)

(d) ‹anchor: not visible in the crop› · call in col 737-738

Jac. I, 19

James 1:19.

(printed under page 378)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the crop› · call in col 737-738

II Tim. III, 10.

2 Timothy 3:10.

(printed under page 378)

<!-- This page is NOTATIONES throughout (two columns). The rendered crop shows only the lower part of each column; the upper part of both columns is not in the image and is NOT set here. Each column therefore opens mid-note. Margin letters C, D omitted. --> (50, continued) ‹left column, from where the crop begins› · call in col — (earlier page) φησίν, οὐκ ἔτι, etc. Quocirca et Paulus ille magnus divino amore correptus, atque a se ipse dimotus, divino ore, Vivo, inquit, jam non ego, vero in me Christus, etc. 4. Ibidem, cap. 7: Καὶ τοῦτο ὑπερφυῶς ἐννοήσας ὁ θεῖος ὄντως ἀνήρ, ὁ κοινὸς ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ καθηγεμόνος ἥλιος, Τὸ μωρὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ σοφώτερον τῶν ἀνθρώπων, φησίν, etc. Quod cum eximie cognovisset vere divinus vir, communis meus et praeceptoris sol, dixit: Quod stultum est Dei, sapientius est hominibus. Eant nunc mendaciis suis et calumniis homines improbi et impudentes, et dicant, non meminisse praeceptoris sui eum, qui toties et saepius, tantaque cum laude meminit.

"he says, no longer," etc. Wherefore that great Paul too, seized by divine love and carried out of himself, says with divine mouth: I live, now not I, but Christ in me, etc. 4. In the same work, ch. 7: "And having understood this surpassingly, the truly divine man, the common sun of us and of our guide, says, The foolishness of God is wiser than men," etc. When the truly divine man, my sun and my teacher's in common, had understood this excellently, he said: What is foolish of God is wiser than men. Let wicked and shameless men go now with their lies and slanders, and say that he does not remember his teacher, who remembers him so often and more often still, and with such praise.

(printed under page 379)

(51) ‹anchor: Nam Paulo› · call in col — (earlier page)

Nam Paulo Graeciam et Asiam peragranti tres ipsos annos adhaesisse Dionysium. Quin Pauli comes fuerit Dionysius, ambigi non debet. Primi ac praecipui historici id asserunt. Eusebius lib. III Hist. Eccles. cap. 4, inter Pauli comites et adjutores illum recenset. Item Nicephorus Callistus, et alii. Verba Michaelis Sygelli idem testantis vide supra cap. 11. Adhaesisse autem ei tres ipsos annos, ex antiquis monumentis et ab Hilduino accepimus.

For Dionysius kept close to Paul for three whole years as he travelled through Greece and Asia. That Dionysius was Paul's companion ought not to be doubted. The first and chief historians assert it. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History book III, ch. 4, lists him among Paul's companions and helpers. So too Nicephorus Callistus, and others. For the words of Michael Syncellus testifying the same, see above, ch. 11. That he kept close to him for three whole years we have received from ancient records and from Hilduin.

(printed under page 379)

(52) ‹anchor: Secundum hunc autem› · call in col — (earlier page)

Secundum hunc autem S. Hierotheo. Auctor est ipse Dyonisius paulo ante citatus num. 2 et in illis locis quae ex illo excerpsimus, atque in Vita posuimus cap. 25, ubi non tantum fatetur se Hierothei discipulum, sed etiam praedicat.

And after him, to St Hierotheus. The authority is Dionysius himself, cited a little before at no. 2, and in the passages we excerpted from him and set in the Life, ch. 25, where he not only admits that he is Hierotheus's disciple but even proclaims it.

(printed under page 379)

(53) ‹anchor: Crebris jejuniis› · call in col — (earlier page)

<!-- the numeral reads like (55) in the render; the sequence 51, 52, [53], 54 requires (53) --> Crebris jejuniis, vigiliis, laboribus. De his vide Syngelum in Encomio, ubi inter alia: Καὶ τῆς πρὸς Θεὸν ἀναστάσεως ὅλος ἐραστὴς καὶ ἀγωνιστὴς καθίσταται, προσευχαῖς συντόνοις διημερεύων τε καὶ διανυκτερεύων, καὶ παννυχίσιν ἀΰπνοις ἐγκαρτερῶν, καὶ νηστείαις τὸ σαρκίον δαμάζων, καὶ τὴν χείρονα μοῖραν καθυποτάσσων τῇ κρείττονι, τὸν χοῦν τῷ νοΐ, καὶ τὴν γεώδη καταλεπτύνων παχύτητα, ἣ ταῖς διανοίαις οἷά τις ὁμίχλη ζοφώδης ταῖς ἡλιακαῖς ἀκτῖσιν ἐπιπροσθεῖν εἴωθεν. Et totus ad Deum assurgere amat contenditque continuis precibus diu noctuque insistens, atque insomnibus pervigiliis obdurans, et jejuniis corpus perdomans, ac partem deteriorem praestantiori subjiciens, nempe pulverem menti, et rationi terrestrem crassitiem, quae intelligentiam non secus ac tenebrosa nebula solares radios, solet obstruere. Vide ibi plura de virtutibus et miraculis.

With frequent fasts, vigils, labours. On these see Syncellus in the Encomium, where among other things: "And he becomes wholly a lover and a contender for the rising towards God, spending day and night in intense prayers, persevering in sleepless all-night vigils, subduing the poor flesh with fasts, and subjecting the worse part to the better, the dust to the mind, and thinning away the earthy grossness that is wont to screen the understanding as a gloomy mist screens the sun's rays." And wholly he loves and strives to rise to God, keeping at continual prayers day and night, holding out in sleepless vigils, mastering the body with fasts, and subjecting the worse part to the more excellent, namely the dust to the mind, and the earthly grossness to reason, which is wont to obstruct the understanding just as a dark cloud does the sun's rays. See there more on his virtues and miracles.

(printed under page 379)

(none) <!-- The crop shows only the author's text (full page width) down to its last visible line; no footnote block is in the image. The text carries a scripture call (f) after "erat cor unum et anima una", and Notationes calls (59), (60), (61), but no note text is visible on this page's crop. --> (printed under page 380)

<!-- The author's text runs the full page width; the call stands in that text. Notationes calls (64), (65), (66) appear in the text; no Notationes are printed on this page's crop. --> (printed under page 381)

(g) ‹anchor: Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum› · call in col 743-744

Act. XX, 20.

Acts 20:20.

(printed under page 381)

(62) ‹anchor: vel in diaconos› · call in col — (earlier page)

Ut qui in sacerdotes vel in diaconos. Dionysius in suis, qui nunc exstant, libris nullorum ordinum infra episcopos meminit, nisi sacerdotum et diaconorum; quorum etiam solorum in sacris Litteris est mentio. Ex quo Scriptoris antiquitas, imo et scriptorum ipsius, colligi potest. Neque enim, cum diutissime vixerit, extrema aetate sua scripsit, sive secundo saeculo (quo plures erant in Ecclesia distincti ordines), sed primo. Quamvis initio secundi nonnulla retractantis more addiderit, ut quaestione 2 disputavimus. Nec male etiam dici posset, nomine diaconorum (quod capi generatim potest, uti et nomen ministrorum) omnes ordines episcopo et sacerdoti ministrantes comprehendisse.

As those [ordained] priests or deacons. In his books now extant, Dionysius mentions no orders below the bishops except priests and deacons, and these alone are mentioned in Holy Scripture. From this the antiquity of the writer, and indeed of his writings, can be gathered. For although he lived very long, he did not write in his last years, that is, in the second century (when there were several distinct orders in the Church), but in the first; though at the beginning of the second he may have added some things by way of revision, as we argued in question 2. Nor could it be said amiss that under the name of deacons (which can be taken generally, as can the name of ministers) he included all the orders that minister to the bishop and the priest.

(printed under page 382)

(63) ‹anchor: In tres gradus distinguere› · call in col — (earlier page)

In tres gradus distinguere. Populi seu laicorum in tres gradus distinctionem tractat Dionysius lib. De hierarchia ecclesiastica, cap. 6. Vide in Documentis. Vocat autem illos gradus τάξεις καθαιρομένας, ordines qui purgantur, hoc est, qui a peccato et ignorantia mundantur: cujusmodi sunt omnes qui non recensentur inter sacros Ecclesiae ministros. Talis illorum distinctionis series a sancto Maximo disponitur: [table] Αἱ καθαιρόμεναι τάξεις διαιροῦνται | Εἰς τοὺς ἐκβαλλομένους τῶν ἱερῶν, | Εἰς τὸν πιστὸν λαόν, | Εἰς μοναχοὺς ἤτοι θεραπευτάς. || Ordines qui purgantur, dividuntur | In eos qui e templis emittuntur, | In fidelem populum, | In monachos sive cultores. [end table] Quid sit porro purgare et purgari, illustrare et illustrari, perficere et perfici, petendum ex Documentis. Addo et aliam seriem a S. Maximo omissam, quo intelligatur qui sint qui e templo emittantur, et quam ob causam: [the rest of this note stands at the head of the right column, above the crop] … esse ipsis poterant, dimittebantur e templo, sicque solis praesentibus, quorum vitae puritas et innocentia tanto sacramento, et ipsius veri Dei et hominis Jesu Christi praesentia atque majestate non indigna erat, perficiebatur veneranda hominibus et angelis eucharistia. Sic quidem primis omnino temporibus: nam postea soli catechumeni a sacris mysteriis, ut in SS. Basilii et Chrysostomi Liturgiis observare est, abstinere jubebantur, idque diacono post evangelium et recitatam pro catechumenis ab episcopo precationem aliquoties proclamante, ut egrederentur. Voces diaconi erant hae: Ὅσοι κατηχούμενοι, προέλθετε. Οἱ κατηχούμενοι, προέλθετε. Ὅσοι κατηχούμενοι, προέλθετε. Μή τις τῶν κατηχουμένων. Quicunque estis catechumeni, exite. Catechumeni, exite. Quicunque estis catechumeni, exite. Ne quis catechumenorum. Deinde iis egressis, subdebat ad sanctum populum: Ὅσοι πιστοί, ἔτι ἐν εἰρήνῃ τοῦ Κυρίου δεηθῶμεν. Quicunque fideles etiam atque etiam in pace Dominum oremus.

To distinguish into three grades. Dionysius treats the distinction of the people, or laity, into three grades in the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 6; see the Documents. He calls those grades τάξεις καθαιρομένας, orders that are being purified, that is, those being cleansed from sin and ignorance: such are all who are not counted among the sacred ministers of the Church. The sequence of that distinction is laid out thus by St Maximus: [table] "The orders being purified are divided into those who are put out of the sacred rites; the faithful people; monks, or therapeutae." || The orders that are purified are divided into those sent out of the churches; the faithful people; monks, or worshippers. [end table] What it is, further, to purify and be purified, to illuminate and be illuminated, to perfect and be perfected, is to be sought from the Documents. I add another sequence too, omitted by St Maximus, by which it may be understood who are sent out of the church, and for what reason: [the rest stands above the crop] … could be for them, they were dismissed from the church; and so, with only those present whose purity of life and innocence was not unworthy of so great a sacrament and of the presence and majesty of the true God and man Jesus Christ himself, the eucharist, to be revered by men and angels, was accomplished. So it was in the very first times; for later only the catechumens were ordered to stay away from the sacred mysteries, as may be seen in the Liturgies of SS. Basil and Chrysostom, the deacon proclaiming several times, after the gospel and the prayer recited by the bishop for the catechumens, that they should go out. The deacon's words were these: "As many as are catechumens, go forth. Catechumens, go forth. As many as are catechumens, go forth. Let none of the catechumens [remain]." Whoever you are that are catechumens, go out. Catechumens, go out. Whoever you are that are catechumens, go out. Let none of the catechumens [remain]. Then, when they had gone out, he added to the holy people: "As many as are faithful, again in peace let us pray to the Lord." All you faithful, again and again in peace let us pray to the Lord.

(printed under page 382)

<!-- The author's text runs the full page width; calls stand in that text. Calls (k) and (l) are above the crop. No Notationes on this page's crop (call (74) visible in the text). --> (printed under page 383)

(k) ‹anchor: not visible in the crop› · call in col 747-748

Dan. XIV, 35.

Daniel 14:35.

(printed under page 383)

(l) ‹anchor: not visible in the crop› · call in col 747-748

Act. VIII, 39.

Acts 8:39.

(printed under page 383)

(m) ‹anchor: ut ait Scriptura› · call in col 747-748

Gen. XXIX, 20.

Genesis 29:20.

(printed under page 383)

<!-- The author's text runs the full page width; the NOTATIONES to the chapter begin below it in two columns (margin letter A omitted), then the scripture note. Calls (76), (77) stand in this page's text. --> (printed under page 384)

(67) ‹anchor: chapter note› · call in col — (earlier page)

Quae hoc capite continetur de sanctissimae Virginis excessu historia, partim ex antiqua traditione, partim e sancti Dionysii libro De divinis nominibus desumpta est. De traditione testatus est ante mille et centum eoque amplius annos beatus Juvenalis patriarcha Hierosolymitanus, de quo paulo inferius. Verba sancti Dionysii capite tertio ejusdem libri sunt haec: Ἡνίκα καὶ ἡμεῖς, ὡς οἶσθα, καὶ αὐτός, καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν ἱερῶν ἡμῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐπὶ τὴν θέαν ζωαρχικοῦ καὶ θεοδόχου σώματος συνεληλύθαμεν. Παρῆν δὲ ὁ ἀδελφόθεος Ἰάκωβος, καὶ Πέτρος ἡ κορυφαία καὶ πρεσβυτάτη τῶν θεολόγων ἀκρότης, etc. Quando et nos, ut scis, et ipse (Hierotheus scilicet) et multi ex sanctis fratribus nostris ad intuendum corpus, quod principium vitae et Dei conceptaculum fuit, convenissemus. Aderat autem et Jacobus frater Domini, et Petrus, supremum et venerabilissimum theologorum columen.

The account of the most holy Virgin's departure contained in this chapter is taken partly from ancient tradition, partly from St Dionysius's book On the Divine Names. To the tradition the blessed Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem, bore witness more than eleven hundred years ago; of him a little further on. St Dionysius's words in the third chapter of that book are these: "When we too, as you know, and you yourself, and many of our holy brothers had come together for the sight of the life-originating and God-receiving body. And James the brother of God was present, and Peter, the chief and most venerable summit of the theologians," etc. When we too, as you know, and you yourself (that is, Hierotheus) and many of our holy brothers had come together to look upon the body which was the beginning of life and the vessel that received God. And James the brother of the Lord was present too, and Peter, the supreme and most venerable pillar of the theologians.

(printed under page 384)

(n) ‹anchor: corpore (76) concinebat› · call in col 749-750

Psal. CXXXI, 8. Glycas parte III, pag. 325.

Psalm 131 (132):8. Glycas, part III, p. 325.

(printed under page 384)

<!-- This page is NOTATIONES throughout (two columns). The crop shows only the lower part of each column; the upper part of both columns is not in the image and is NOT set here, so the number of the note in progress is not visible (it continues the discussion of the Dionysian passage on the Virgin's body, cf. (67) on page 384). Margin letters C, D omitted. Below the notationes stands one scripture note, called in the notationes' left column. --> (?, continued) ‹left column, from where the crop begins› · call in col — (earlier page) Ego sum via, veritas et vita), et si Deipara est illi principium generationis, certe etiam dici potest principium vitae. Recte etiam dicitur corpus B. Virginis θεοδόχον, id est Dei susceptivum, sive Dei conceptaculum, quod scilicet Deum in utero conceperit et gestaverit. Secundo, quia beatae Virginis excessus et sepultura causam praebuit justissimam, apostolos et ex apostolicis viris praecipuos eo trahendi, tam ut ejus aspectu et benedictione fruerentur, quam ut ejus sepulturam, velut matris et reginae, curarent et cohonestarent. Tertio, quia ejusdem Virginis pietati atque charitati valde consentaneum fuit, ut priusquam terras relinqueret, apostolos et primores discipulos videre, extremumque salutare, ac potissimum solando docendo, hortando aliquid eis gratiae spiritualis impertiri vellet. Poterat enim multo justius, quam Paulus, illa verbo sacra usurpare, quae ille ad Romanos (o): Desidero enim videre vos, ut aliquid vobis impertiar gratiae spiritualis ad confirmandos vos, id est, simul consolari in vobis per eam, quae invicem est, fidem vestram atque meam. His igitur impellor rationibus, ut primae huic sententiae, rejectis aliis, adhaerescam, quae vero contra objiciuntur, tum refellam, cum alias opiniones produxero. Secunda igitur opinio est Joannis Scoti in Epistola ad Carolum Magnum, per ea scilicet verba: Ἐπὶ τὴν θέαν τοῦ ζωαρχικοῦ καὶ θεοδόχου σώματος, intelligi conspectum Christi corporalem. Ex hoc enim loco probat, Dionysium una cum Hierotheo et multis aliis Christum vidisse. «Cum qua, inquit, multisque aliis sanctis in unum convenientibus, Christum post resurrectionem corporaliter est contemplatus; aderantque, ut ipse ait, Jacobus frater Domini,» etc. Quae si ita intelligantur, ut dicantur Dionysius et Hierotheus vidisse Christum in carne ante suam ascensionem, prorsus falsa sunt; tum enim neque ipsi, neque ipsorum magister Paulus ad fidem adhuc erant conversi: sin de alia Christi apparitione corporali post ascensionem facta sit sermo, quamvis Graeca verba eum quoque admittere sensum possint, tamen etiam sic videtur esse falsus. Fam talis apparitio tam multis simul, et tanto tempore post ascensionem facta, nullo modo, neque ab apostolis, neque ab eorum discipulis (cum ad resurrectionis probationem faceret

I am the way, the truth and the life), and if the Mother of God is the beginning of his generation, she can certainly also be called the beginning of life. The body of the Blessed Virgin is also rightly called θεοδόχον, that is, receptive of God, or the vessel that received God, because she conceived God in her womb and carried him. Second, because the Blessed Virgin's departure and burial gave a most just reason for drawing the apostles there, and the chief of the apostolic men, both so that they might enjoy the sight of her and her blessing, and so that they might see to her burial, as of a mother and queen, and do it honour. Third, because it was very much in keeping with the same Virgin's piety and charity that before leaving the earth she should wish to see the apostles and the leading disciples, and greet them for the last time, and above all impart to them some spiritual grace by consoling, teaching, exhorting. For she could far more justly than Paul have used those sacred words which he [wrote] to the Romans (o): For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual grace to strengthen you, that is, to be comforted together with you through that faith which is common to us both, yours and mine. By these reasons, then, I am moved to hold to this first opinion, rejecting the others; the objections raised against it I shall refute when I have brought forward the other opinions. The second opinion, then, is that of John Scotus in his Letter to Charlemagne: that by the words "for the sight of the life-originating and God-receiving body" is meant a bodily sight of Christ. From this passage he proves that Dionysius, together with Hierotheus and many others, saw Christ. "With him," he says, "and many other saints gathering together, he beheld Christ bodily after the resurrection; and there were present, as he himself says, James the brother of the Lord," etc. If this is understood to say that Dionysius and Hierotheus saw Christ in the flesh before his ascension, it is wholly false; for at that time neither they nor their master Paul had yet been converted to the faith. But if the talk is of some other bodily appearance of Christ made after the ascension, then although the Greek words could admit that sense too, even so it seems to be false. For such an appearance, made to so many at once and so long after the ascension, would in no way, neither by the apostles nor by their disciples (since it would serve to prove the resurrection (continues)

(?, continued) ‹right column, from where the crop begins› · call in col — (earlier page) <!-- "ibi abfuisse" read as printed; the argument requires "adfuisse" (present). --> … fato Hierotheo, et S. Timotheo, aliisque sanctis compluribus audivisse disputationem et fidei sacramentum.» etc. Ubi τό sepulcrum Jesu vitae principis positum est pro eo, quod Graece habetur τοῦ ζωαρχικοῦ καὶ θεοδόχου σώματος. Pro hac opinione, tanquam pro aris et focis, depugnat Franciscus Bivarius in Commentario suo ad Dextri Chronicon, in anno Christi 48, et quod pro ea quidem afferri potest, enixe affert; sed tamen ad expugnandam sententiam, quae a tot saeculis et a tot bonis auctoribus recepta sit, ut mihi quidem videtur, invalide. Primum Bivarii argumentum est, quod auctores nostrae sententiae (ut quidem ipse sumit Bivarius pag. 98) «manifeste defecerint (uno dempto Baronio) in eodem Dionysii textu explicando; dum ex eo credunt haberi, inibi quoque adfuisse Timotheum Pauli dilectum discipulum, et Ephesiorum episcopum; ad ipsumque libros suos Dionysium nuncupasse: quod tamen verum non esse, ad annum Domini 100, comment. 11, Deo duce, inquit, monstrabimus.» Haec ille. Duo igitur dicit: unum quidem, quod omnes, qui verba Dionysii de corpore Virginis accipiunt, iidem, excepto Baronio, ibi abfuisse Timotheum Ephesiorum episcopum dicant: alterum autem, quod iidem teneant, adeoque ex Dionysii verbis colligant, libros S. Dionysii ad eumdem B. Timotheum scriptos esse. Ipse porro utrumque horum falsum esse dicit, atque se ostensurum, nec interfuisse Timotheum illum funeri Virginis, nec ad eum scriptos esse libros; nos autem utrumque pro vero tenemus, et pro certo probabimus. Ac prius quidem de Timothei praesentia confirmatur ex auctoribus Graecis et nominatim ex illorum antiquissimo Juvenale, patriarcha Hierosolymitano, cujus ante memini. Is igitur coram Marciano imp. et Pulcheria conjuge, cum de ortu ac funere Deiparae ageret, addit inter alia, etiam Timotheum et Dionysium Areopagitam et Hierotheum interfuisse. De quo vide Nicephorum Callistum lib. XV Histor. eccles. cap. 14. Idem Menaea Graecorum expresse testantur. Quod autem dicit Bivarius, Dionysii verba nihil pro nobis facere, si ad unguem perpendantur, et quod pro hoc confirmando Marsilii profert interpretationem; nihil sane illa contra nos facit, atque (continues)

… [the] aforesaid Hierotheus, and St Timothy, and very many other saints, heard the disputation and the sacrament of faith," etc. Here "the tomb of Jesus, the prince of life" is put for what the Greek has, "of the life-originating and God-receiving body." For this opinion Francisco Bivar fights as for hearth and home in his Commentary on the Chronicle of Dexter, at the year of Christ 48, and he brings forward strenuously whatever can be brought in its favour; but, as it seems to me at least, feebly, for overthrowing an opinion received for so many centuries and by so many good authors. Bivar's first argument is that the authors of our opinion (as Bivar himself takes it, p. 98) "have plainly failed (Baronius alone excepted) in explaining the same text of Dionysius, since they believe it is to be had from it that Timothy, Paul's beloved disciple and bishop of the Ephesians, was also present there, and that Dionysius dedicated his books to him: which, however, is not true, as we shall show, God leading," he says, "at the year of the Lord 100, comment 11." So he. He says two things, then: first, that all who take Dionysius's words of the Virgin's body also say, Baronius excepted, that Timothy bishop of the Ephesians was absent [sic: read "present"] there; second, that they also hold, and indeed gather from Dionysius's words, that St Dionysius's books were written to that same blessed Timothy. He for his part says that both of these are false, and that he will show that that Timothy was not present at the Virgin's funeral, nor were the books written to him; we, however, hold both as true and shall prove them as certain. And first, Timothy's presence is confirmed from the Greek authors, and by name from the most ancient of them, Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem, whom I mentioned before. He, then, speaking of the birth and funeral of the Mother of God before the emperor Marcian and his consort Pulcheria, adds among other things that Timothy too, and Dionysius the Areopagite and Hierotheus, were present. On this see Nicephorus Callistus, Ecclesiastical History book XV, ch. 14. The Menaea of the Greeks testify the same expressly. But as to Bivar's saying that Dionysius's words do nothing for us if they are weighed to a nicety, and his bringing forward Marsilio's translation to confirm this: that translation does nothing at all against us, and (continues)

(printed under page 385)

(o) ‹anchor: ad Romanos› · call in col 751

Cap. I, 11.

[Romans] 1:11.

(printed under page 385)

<!-- This page is NOTATIONES throughout (two columns), continuing the long note against Bivar on the Dionysian passage about the Virgin's body. NOT SET: the LEFT column (col 753). In the left crop the column's line-beginnings are cut off at the image edge (every line lacks its first one to three words), so it cannot be transcribed from these images; it needs a wider crop. Also not set: the upper part of both columns (above the crop). The right column below is set from the first complete line visible. Margin letters C, D omitted. No scripture notes on this crop. --> (?, continued) ‹right column (col 754), from the first complete visible line› · call in col — (earlier page) … pro eo quod diceretur: Non videbitis me, reperimus usurpatum, Non videbitis faciem meam. Sic Geneseos XLIII, 3 aliquoties: Non videbitis faciem meam absque fratre vestro minimo, sic et similia. Sic et Actorum XX, 25: Amplius non videbitis faciem meam vos omnes, per quos transivi praedicans regnum Dei. Adde, propter corpus maxime convocatos videri apostolos, nempe ut illud (cujus praecipue honos id temporis a Spiritus sancto intendebatur) honeste ac religiose sepelirent, atque etiam ut essent, qui et viderent mortuum, et testarentur assumptum. Alioqui unde nobis illa ejus in coelos assumpti tam festa dies? Unde tanta, quanta nunc est, solemnitas provenisset? At enim urget et etiam atque etiam vir admodum diligens et doctus (talem enim certe agnosco), atque Dionysii verbis nos impugnat, istis nimirum: Illic ergo post contuitum placuit, ut pontifices omnes, etc. «Nihil, igitur, inquit, aliud apostoli et discipuli fecerunt, nisi videre et contueri, quod sepulcro Domini valde congruit, corpori autem Virginis minime, quod nimirum non solum viderunt, sed et sepulturae mandarunt.» Sic ille. Cui nos dicimus, neque verum esse quod assumit, neque bene inferri quod colligit. Multa enim ibi praeter contuitum corporis alia esse facta, indicat eodem loco ipse S. Dionysius; sed omittit ea speciatim exponere, quod et Timotheo nota essent (nempe testi aurito et oculato) et verbis facile exprimi non possent; neque, si possent, deberent. Verba Dionysii sunt: Ἀλλ' ἵνα τὰ ἐκεῖ μυστικὰ καὶ ὡς τοῖς πολλοῖς ἄῤῥητα, καὶ ὡς ἐγνωσμένα σοι παραλείψωμεν· Sed ut mystica, quae illic facta sunt, tanquam multis ineffabilia, et tibi cognita, praetermittamus. Postremo reprehendit Bivarius, quod a nonnullis dicitur «omnes apostolos funeri beatae Virginis adfuisse.» Qua de reprehensione id solum habeo dicere: si ab illis hoc dicatur, quasi ex Dionysii verbis, merito eos reprehendi, neque enim id ejus verba sonant, sin ex vetusta traditione, quam Juvenalis patriarcha coram augustis principibus Martiano et Pulcheria testificatus est, immerito; nempe accipiendo omnes distributione accommoda, qui scilicet in vivis erant, et adesse poterant. Nam quod duo tantum nominentur, Jacobus et Petrus, his verbis: Παρῆν δὲ καὶ ὁ ἀδελφόθεος Ἰάκωβος, καὶ Πέτρος ἡ κορυφαία καὶ πρεσβυτάτη τῶν θεολόγων ἀκρότης Aderat autem et Jacobus Christi fra- (continues)

… for what would be said, "You will not see me," we find used, You will not see my face. So several times in Genesis 43:3: You shall not see my face unless your youngest brother is with you, and the like. So too Acts 20:25: You shall all see my face no more, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God. Add that the apostles seem to have been called together chiefly on account of the body, namely so that they might bury it (whose honour above all was then intended by the Holy Spirit) fittingly and devoutly, and also so that there might be those who both saw her dead and bore witness that she was assumed. Otherwise, where would we have that so festal day of her assumption into heaven? Whence would so great a solemnity as there now is have arisen? But a very diligent and learned man (for such I certainly acknowledge him) presses again and again, and attacks us with Dionysius's words, namely these: There, then, after the beholding, it pleased all the pontiffs, etc. "The apostles and disciples, then," he says, "did nothing else but see and behold, which suits the Lord's tomb very well, but the Virgin's body not at all, since they not only saw it but also committed it to burial." So he. To which we say that neither is what he assumes true, nor is what he gathers well inferred. For St Dionysius himself indicates in the same place that many other things besides the beholding of the body were done there; but he leaves off setting them out in detail, because they were known to Timothy (as a witness who heard and saw them) and could not easily be expressed in words, nor, if they could, ought they to be. Dionysius's words are: "But so that we may pass over the mystical things there, as unspeakable to the many and as known to you." But so that we may pass over the mystical things that were done there, as ineffable to many and known to you. Lastly, Bivar finds fault with the saying of some that "all the apostles were present at the Blessed Virgin's funeral." On this criticism I have only this to say: if they say it as though from Dionysius's words, they are rightly criticized, for his words do not say that; but if from the ancient tradition to which the patriarch Juvenal testified before the imperial rulers Marcian and Pulcheria, wrongly; that is, taking all in a fitting distributive sense, namely those who were alive and could be present. For as to only two being named, James and Peter, in these words: "And James the brother of God was present, and Peter, the chief and most venerable summit of the theologians" — And James the brother of Christ was present too (continues)

(printed under page 386)

<!-- This page is NOTATIONES throughout (two columns), continuing the long note against Bivar. The crop shows only the lower part of each column; the upper part of both columns is not in the image and is NOT set here (so the left column's last words "non po-" run on into unseen text at the head of the right column). Margin letters C, D omitted; "449" is the original edition's page number, kept. No scripture notes on this crop. --> (?, continued) ‹left column (col 755), from where the crop begins› · call in col — (earlier page) … xima, et pro iis qui commode adesse potuerint, et quos Deus ei consessui destinaverit. Nam iidem ipsi qui dicunt omnes adfuisse, postea subjiciunt defuisse Thomam, ac triduo post tantum advenisse: nec sine divino quidem id factum consilio dicunt, nempe ut idem Matris probaret assumptionem, qui Filii comprobarat resurrectionem. Sed Franciscus Bivarius, dum nimis insistit, ut defuisse isti apostolorum coetui Paulum probet, ostendatque non potuisse esse Hierosolymis anno Christi quinquagesimo octavo, in multis errat. Nam ita scribit: «Adhuc autem mihi difficile id videtur; quoniam anno quinquagesimo septimo (qui fuit Neronis secundus, teste Hieronymo lib. De scriptoribus Ecclesiae, Paulo) Paulus pervenit vinctus Romam, ubi mansit biennio toto in suo conducto, Act. ultimo. Unde anno quinquagesimo octavo non potuit Hierosolymis adesse.» Sic ille. Quod ergo existimat, annum Christi quinquagesimum septimum esse secundum Neronis, aperte fallitur: non enim quinquagesimus septimus, sed quinquagesimus octavus est secundus Neronis, ut liquet ex Eusebii Chronico et Demonstratione Pontaci. Deinde, quod ad probandum pervenisse Paulum Romam anno secundo Neronis, testem adducit Hieronymum, rursus fallitur. Non enim dicit Hieronymus pervenisse, sed tantum 449 missum esse. Romam inquit, vinctus mittitur. Itaque illo anno erat Hierosolymis. Deinde paulo post in accommodanda ejusdem Pauli prophetia non parum aberravit, sic enim de illo scribit: Quia postquam semel Romam venit, nunquam in Orientem reversus est, ut ipse de se prophetaverat Actorum vigesimo: Ecce ego scio, inquiens, quia non amplius videbitis faciem meam vos omnes, per quos transivi praedicans regnum Dei.» Sic ille. Atqui Paulus non prophetabat se nunquam in Orientem reversurum: imo tunc, cum illa prophetabat, recta tendebat in Orientem, nempe Hierosolymam, ubi et captus et vinctus, ac deinde ductus Romam fuit. Erat autem Mileti Paulus cum illa prophetavit (est porro Miletus urbs Asiae), eoque vocaverat Epheso majores natu Ecclesiae. His ergo Ephesiis, et Milesiis potissimum, sed et aliis Ecclesiis Asiae, quae, ab illis non longe distabant, se posthac per eorum terras non transiturum praedicebat. Neque enim eis verba sic restricte capienda sunt, quasi nulli omnino eorum per quos transiverat praedicans verbum Dei, essent in posterum ejus visuri faciem, id enim fere fieri non po- [continues in the unseen upper part of col 756]

… [mo]st, and for those who could conveniently be present, and whom God destined for that gathering. For the very same people who say that all were present add afterwards that Thomas was absent and arrived only three days later; and they say this did not happen without divine counsel, namely so that the same man who had proved the Son's resurrection should prove the Mother's assumption. But Francisco Bivar, while insisting too much on proving that Paul was absent from that gathering of apostles, and on showing that he could not have been in Jerusalem in the year of Christ 58, errs in many things. For he writes thus: "Yet this seems difficult to me, because in the year 57 (which was Nero's second, on the witness of Jerome, book On the Writers of the Church, under Paul) Paul arrived in Rome in chains, where he remained two whole years in his own hired lodging, Acts, last chapter. Hence in the year 58 he could not have been present in Jerusalem." So he. As to his thinking, then, that the year of Christ 57 is Nero's second, he is plainly mistaken: for not the fifty-seventh but the fifty-eighth is Nero's second, as is clear from Eusebius's Chronicle and Pontac's Demonstration. Next, in bringing in Jerome as witness to prove that Paul arrived in Rome in Nero's second year, he is mistaken again. For Jerome does not say arrived, but only was sent: He is sent to Rome, he says, in chains. So in that year he was in Jerusalem. Then a little later he went considerably astray in applying the same Paul's prophecy, for he writes of him thus: "Because after he once came to Rome he never returned to the East, as he had prophesied of himself in Acts 20: Behold, I know, saying, that you shall all see my face no more, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God." So he. But Paul did not prophesy that he would never return to the East: on the contrary, at the time he was prophesying this he was heading straight for the East, namely Jerusalem, where he was taken and bound, and then led to Rome. Paul was at Miletus when he prophesied this (Miletus is a city of Asia), and had summoned there from Ephesus the elders of the Church. To these Ephesians, then, and above all to the Milesians, but also to the other Churches of Asia not far distant from them, he was foretelling that he would not hereafter pass through their lands. For his words to them are not to be taken so narrowly, as though none at all of those through whom he had passed preaching the word of God would ever see his face afterwards; for that could hardly … [continues]

(?, continued) ‹right column (col 756), from where the crop begins› · call in col — (earlier page) <!-- "pervenis." read as seen at the line end (sense: pervenisse); "admiranda" read where the render shows "a miranda". --> … vario. Maneat igitur firmum (quod et Graeci omnes docuerunt et plurimi Latinorum approbarunt) verba sancti Dionysii de conventu apostolorum ad corpus Virginis intuendum, et honore sepulturae adornandum, intelligenda esse. Sed quaeret aliquis, quamobrem apostolorum nullus mentionem ullam vel mortis sanctissimae Virginis, vel conventus ad exsequias ejus fecerit. Hoc enim quidam Michaeli Glycae olim proposuit. Illius proinde interrogationem, et hujus responsionem hic lubet apponere. Sic itaque Glycas parte tertia Annalium: «Memini quoque, dilecte fili, inquit, te inter caeteros hujusmodi dubitationem aliquando mihi proposuisse. Quamobrem, aiebas, discipuli Christi et apostoli, rebus aliis in commentarios et historias relatis, prorsus de obdormitione perpetuae Virginis illius obticuerunt? Hac de re satis est respondere, auctores Evangeliorum Christi administrationem in carne commemorantes, ad ejus a terris in coelum assumptionem pervenis. At illa expers maculae Domini nostri Jesu Christi Mater provectam aetatem attigisse perhibetur, ut divinus ille vir Andreas Cretensis antistes auctor est. Quapropter fieri non potuit, ut Virginis illius perpetuae obdormitio evangelicae historiae insereretur, uti quae longo deinceps tempore, sicut diximus, acciderit. Propterea seorsum peculiari quodam libro de ipsa nihil Christi discipuli memoriae prodiderunt, propterea quod in explicanda ejus administratione occupati, magnopereque de una illa re solliciti (quo nimirum pacto incredulos fideles efficerent, ac omnes ad puram sinceramque in Christum fidem perducerent) caetera negligebant, praesertim ea quae ad divinam illam praedicationem nihil facerent.» Sic ille ad propositam quaestionem. Tum subdit consequenter, non omnino neglectam fuisse a discipulis apostolorum hanc de somno Virginis historiam, quandoquidem S. Dionysius in scriptis suis ejus meminerit: «Non tamen omnino, inquit, divina isthaec obdormitio silentio praeterita fuit. Nam rerum ille divinarum interpres, magnus Dionysius, de hac admiranda quaedam in perscriptis ad Timotheum epistolis tradere deprehenditur. Ac vide mihi, obsecro, quae dicturi simus ex illius narrationibus decerpta. Nos quidem, ait, una tecum, multisque sacris fratribus, ut meministi, ad spectandum corpus illud, quod vitae principium et ipsum Deum aliquando continuerat, conveneramus,» etc. Ita ille.

… [Bi]var. Let it stand firm, then (as all the Greeks have taught and very many of the Latins approved), that St Dionysius's words are to be understood of the apostles' gathering to look upon the Virgin's body and to honour it with burial. But someone will ask why none of the apostles made any mention either of the death of the most holy Virgin or of the gathering for her funeral. For someone once put this to Michael Glycas. It is pleasing, therefore, to set out here the one's question and the other's answer. Glycas, then, in the third part of the Annals: "I remember too, dear son," he says, "that among other things you once put a doubt of this kind to me. Why, you said, did Christ's disciples and apostles, having recorded other things in commentaries and histories, keep complete silence about the falling-asleep of that ever-virgin? On this it is enough to answer that the authors of the Gospels, recording Christ's ministry in the flesh, came as far as his assumption from earth into heaven. But that Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, free of stain, is said to have reached an advanced age, as that divine man Andrew, bishop of Crete, is our authority. Therefore it could not be that the falling-asleep of that ever-virgin was put into the gospel history, since it happened a long time afterwards, as we said. And Christ's disciples handed down nothing about her separately in any special book, because, being busy with setting out his ministry and greatly concerned with that one thing (namely how they might make the unbelieving faithful and bring all to a pure and sincere faith in Christ), they neglected the rest, especially what did nothing for that divine preaching." So he, on the question put. Then he adds, consistently, that this account of the Virgin's sleep was not entirely neglected by the disciples of the apostles, since St Dionysius mentions it in his writings: "Yet this divine falling-asleep was not passed over in complete silence. For that great interpreter of divine things, Dionysius, is found to hand down some wonderful things about it in the letters he wrote to Timothy. And see, I beg you, what we are about to say, taken from his accounts. We, he says, together with you and many holy brothers, as you remember, had come together to behold that body which had once held the beginning of life and God himself," etc. So he.

(printed under page 387)

<!-- The upper part of this page is NOTATIONES (two columns), ending the notes to Caput VI; below a rule, the author's text of Caput VII begins full width ("(78)" there is a Notationes call in the author's text, not a note). The crop shows only the lower part of the notationes columns; their upper part (incl. the starts of (71) and (76), and (74)–(75)) is not in the image and is NOT set. "450" is the original edition's page number, kept. Margin letter C omitted. No scripture notes on this crop. --> (71, continued) ‹left column (col 757), from where the crop begins› · call in col — (earlier page) … gelus Domini restituit Habacuc confestim in loco suo. Itaque bis raptus est Habacuc ab 450 angelo in aera. S. Philippus autem semel, Act. VIII, 39, cum baptizasset eunuchum Candacis reginae. Cum autem ascendisset de aqua, Spiritus Domini rapuit Philippum, et amplius non vidit eum eunuchus.

… [the an]gel of the Lord at once set Habakkuk back in his own place. So Habakkuk was twice carried off by the angel through the air. St Philip, however, once, Acts 8:39, when he had baptized the eunuch of Queen Candace: And when they had come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, and the eunuch saw him no more.

(printed under page 388)

(72) ‹anchor: Sive levibus nebulis› · call in col — (earlier page)

Sive levibus nebulis, quod quidam arbitrati sunt, etc. Inter alios Syngelus his verbis: Μάλιστα καὶ ἡ νεφέλη μετάρσιον αὐτὸν τῆς ἑσπερίου λήξεως ἀφαρπάσασα, καὶ μετεωρίσασα, καὶ ἀεροπόρον, ὡς καὶ τοὺς ἀκροτάτους θεόπτας καὶ θεολόγους ἀποστόλους, etc. Sed imprimis nubes illa, quae ab occidentis partibus abreptum sublimem ipsum abstulit, perque aerem euntem adduxit, uti etiam summos Dei inspectores et theologos apostolos, alium aliunde repente a finibus terrae in celeberrimam communem omnium matrem Jerusalem asportavit, etc. Paria fere Simeon Metaphrastes in Vita S. Dionysii: Διὰ Πνεύματος καὶ νεφέλης, per Spiritum et nubem, inquit.

Or by light clouds, as some have thought, etc. Among others Syncellus, in these words: "Above all, the cloud too, snatching him aloft from the western region, and lifting him up, and [bearing him] travelling through the air, as also the most exalted seers of God and theologians, the apostles," etc. But above all that cloud which, snatching him from the western parts, bore him on high and brought him travelling through the air, just as it suddenly carried the supreme beholders of God and theologians, the apostles, one from one place and one from another, from the ends of the earth to Jerusalem, the most renowned common mother of all, etc. Simeon Metaphrastes says much the same in the Life of St Dionysius: "Through the Spirit and a cloud," by the Spirit and a cloud, he says.

(printed under page 388)

<!-- The author's text (end of Caput VII) runs full width; below it the NOTATIONES to Caput VII (two columns), then the head of Caput VIII (title, the letter's salutation and opening, and the editor's italic remark "Exstat Graece et Latine supra, inter Epistolas S. Dionysii. Operum ejus tomo I, ordine octava", which stands in the text block and is not a footnote), then the scripture notes. Call (p) is above the crop. --> (printed under page 389)

(79) ‹anchor: Demophilus ille cultor› · call in col — (page 389, above the crop)

Demophilus ille cultor. Qui in populo, sive inter laicos, praecipuae pietatis ac devotionis statum profitebantur, cultores, ab eximio virtutum cultu, appellabantur; Graece θεραπευταί, a verbo θεραπεύω, colo. Iidem et monachi appellabantur, quod μόνῳ Θεῷ, soli Deo, vacarent, pietatemque unice colerent.

That worshipper Demophilus. Those among the people, that is, among the laity, who professed a state of special piety and devotion were called cultores, "worshippers", from their outstanding cultivation of the virtues; in Greek θεραπευταί, from the verb θεραπεύω, I tend, I worship. They were also called monks, because they gave themselves μόνῳ Θεῷ, to God alone, and cultivated piety singly.

(printed under page 389)

(p) ‹anchor: not visible in the crop› · call in col 759-760

Tit. II.

Titus 2.

(printed under page 389)

(q) ‹anchor: ut requirat centesimam› · call in col 759-760

Matth. XVIII, 12; Luc. XV, 4.

Matthew 18:12; Luke 15:4.

(printed under page 389)

<!-- The author's text runs the full page width; calls stand in that text. Call (r) is above the crop. Notationes calls (80)–(89) appear in the text; no Notationes are printed on this page's crop. --> (printed under page 390)

(r) ‹anchor: not visible in the crop› · call in col 761-762

Matth. XIII, 52.

Matthew 13:52.

(printed under page 390)

(s) ‹anchor: non parcentes gregi› · call in col 761-762

Act. XX, 29.

Acts 20:29.

(printed under page 390)

<!-- The author's text (end of Caput IX's narrative) runs full width; below a rule the NOTATIONES begin in two columns. Calls (80)–(86) stand in the text on page 390. "461" is the original edition's page number, kept. Margin letters A, B, C omitted. Verse quotations are set line by line separated by " / ". No scripture notes on this crop. --> (printed under page 391)

<!-- This page is NOTATIONES throughout (two columns). The crop shows only the lower part of each column; the upper part of both columns is not in the image and is NOT set here (incl. the start of the note ending "antiquiores consentiunt…", and the middle of (92) between the foot of col 765 and the visible part of col 766). "462" is the original edition's page number, kept. Margin letters C, D omitted. No scripture notes on this crop. --> (?, continued) ‹left column (col 765), from the first complete visible line› · call in col — (earlier page) … antiquiores consentiunt Latini et Graeci.

… the older Latins and Greeks agree.

(printed under page 392)

(90) ‹anchor: certum et clarum› · call in col — (earlier page)

Habemus enim certum et clarum ejus rei testimonium. Nempe in Epistola ipsius Dionysii ad sanctum Joannem evangelistam, ubi visum suum de regressu ejus ab exsilio aperit.

For we have certain and clear testimony of this. Namely in Dionysius's own Letter to St John the Evangelist, where he discloses his vision of John's return from exile.

(printed under page 392)

(91) ‹anchor: sepulturae mandarunt› · call in col — (earlier page)

Qui et ipsum sepulturae mandarunt. Titum et Lucam Pauli comites adfuisse ejus martyrio, et praefuisse sepulturae, colligitur ex Actis martyrii ipsius Titi apud Equilinum, lib. VII Catal., cap. 108, ubi sic inter alia: «Post duos autem annos Titus ad Paulum Romam accessit: cum quo et fuit usque ad interfectionem ejus a Nerone, corpusque ipsius una cum Luca evangelista sepelivit.» Et ex Actis Pauli apud eumdem lib. VI, cap. 23: «Corpus autem a Tito et Luca in ipso loco sepultum fuit.»

Who also committed him to burial. That Titus and Luke, Paul's companions, were present at his martyrdom and saw to his burial is gathered from the Acts of the martyrdom of Titus himself in [Petrus de Natalibus] of Equilio, Catalogue book VII, ch. 108, where among other things it says: "After two years Titus came to Paul at Rome, and was with him until he was put to death by Nero, and buried his body together with Luke the evangelist." And from the Acts of Paul in the same author, book VI, ch. 23: "And the body was buried by Titus and Luke in that very place."

(printed under page 392)

(92) ‹anchor: Petro proximum pontificem› · call in col — (earlier page)

Quem plerique Latinorum Petro proximum pontificem constituunt. Sic fere loquitur S. Hieronymus in lib. De illustribus Ecclesiae scriptoribus, cap. 15. ubi postquam ex Eusebii sententia (cujus in hoc libro interpres est) Clementem in pontificibus quartum recensuisset, hoc est, post Petrum, Linum et Anacletum, subjecit haec verba: «Tametsi 462 plerique Latinorum secundum post Petrum apostolum, putent fuisse Clementem.» Dux igitur Latinorum in hac sententia est Tertullianus, secundi saeculi scriptor (nec enim e Latinis est antiquior), qui in lib. De praescriptionibus adversus haereticos, cap. 32, ubi ab illis requirit, ut ostendant successionem suam ab apostolis: «Edant ergo, inquit, origines Ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis viris (qui tamen cum apostolis perseveraverunt) habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. Hoc enim modo Ecclesiae apostolicae census suos deferunt. Sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum, ab Joanne collocatum refert: sicut Romanorum, Clementem a Petro ordinatum edit.» Hunc sequitur Hieronymus, lib. I Adversus Jovinianum, ante medium: «Ad hos, inquit, et Clemens successor apostoli Petri, cujus Paulus apostolus meminit, scribit epistolas,» etc. Et l. XIV in Isaiam, cap. LII, sub finem, citans verba ipsius Clementis ad Corinthios, de Christo humili: «De quo, inquit, et Clemens vir apostolicus, qui post Petrum Romanam rexit Ecclesiam, scribit ad Corinthios: «Sceptrum Dei Dominus Jesus Christus non venit in jactantia superbiae, cum possit omnia, sed in humilitate,» etc. [continues in the unseen upper part of col 766] … sequitur Clemens, Anacletus, Evaristus,» etc. In eadem sententia est Marianus Scotus ad annum Neronis 14, pro qua etiam citat Leonis II papae Decretalem. Antiqui etiam Vitae S. Dionysii scriptores indicant eum venisse ad Clementem Petri proximum successorem: sanctus Methodius, Simeon Metaphrastes, Hilduinus, et alii. Verba Methodii sunt: Ὅμως πρὸ τοῦ τὸν μακάριον Πέτρον διὰ τῆς νίκης τοῦ μαρτυρίου καταξιωθῆναι τῆς ἐν τῇ τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείᾳ συνδιαγωγῆς τῷ μακαρίῳ τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας παρέθετο, λέγων· Ὥσπερ παρὰ τοῦ Κυρίου μου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ λῦσαι καὶ δῆσαι ἐμοὶ δεδώρηται ἐξουσία, οὕτω καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐξουσίαν αἰωνίως δωροῦμαί σοι καὶ δίδωμι, ἵνα ὃν ἂν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένος ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Verumtamen antequam beatus Petrus victoria martyrii vitam regni coelestis adeptus esset, beato Clementi Ecclesiae tribuit potestatem his verbis: «Quemadmodum mihi a Domino meo Jesu Christo ligandi atque solvendi potestas concessa est, sic eamdem quoque potestatem tibi in aeternum tribuo atque trado, ut quemcunque in terra ligaveris, sit ligatus et in coelis.» Et paulo post, ita de Dionysio: Εἰσελθὼν δὲ καὶ εὑρὼν τὸν μακάριον Κλήμεντα, ὡς ἀνωτέρω εἴρηται, τὴν τῆς ἀποστολικῆς καθέδρας ἔχοντα ἐξουσίαν, μετὰ τῆς καθηκούσης τιμῆς εὐθέως, ὡς οἷόν τε ἦν, ὑποδέδεκται, etc. Ingressus vero Romam Dionysius, cum invenisset beatum Clementem, ut superius dictum est, tenentem sedis apostolicae potestatem, ab eo statim cum honore convenienti, ut facultas fuit, exceptus est, etc. Ubi indicat venisse Romam Dionysium Clemente recenter post Petri mortem pontifice: in sequentibus autem persequitur, quomodo sit ab eodem Clemente in Galliam missus, et quibuscum sociis. Idem docet et Metaphrastes, dum scribit, paulo post reditum ab Hierosolymitano conventu, relictis Athenis, magistri Pauli vestigia secutum, tandem venisse Romam, et accessisse ad Clementem tunc pontificem a Petro creatum. Ex quibus, et ex multis aliis colligitur, minus videri probabile, quod Baronius existimavit Dionysium venisse primum Romam annis triginta circiter post mortem S. Petri, hoc est, postquam ad Joannem evangelistam ab exsilio reversum accessisset. Reversus est autem Joannes sub Nerva, qui coepit regnare anno Christi 99, ut ipsemet notat Baronius. Esto igitur, iverit illo anno Dionysius ad Joannem, et eodem aut sequenti, hoc est, cente- (continues)

Whom most of the Latins make the pontiff next after Peter. St Jerome speaks almost so in the book On the Illustrious Writers of the Church, ch. 15, where, having listed Clement fourth among the pontiffs according to Eusebius's opinion (whose translator he is in this book), that is, after Peter, Linus and Anacletus, he added these words: "Although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle Peter." The leader of the Latins in this opinion, then, is Tertullian, a writer of the second century (for none of the Latins is older), who in the book On the Prescription against Heretics, ch. 32, where he demands that they show their succession from the apostles, says: "Let them produce, then, the origins of their Churches; let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down by successions from the beginning in such a way that that first bishop had as his author and predecessor one of the apostles or of the apostolic men (who yet persevered with the apostles). For it is in this way that the apostolic Churches present their registers: as the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which has Polycarp, records that he was placed there by John; as that of the Romans sets forth Clement ordained by Peter." Jerome follows him, Against Jovinian book I, before the middle: "To these," he says, "Clement too, successor of the apostle Peter, whom the apostle Paul mentions, writes letters," etc. And in book XIV on Isaiah, ch. 52, near the end, quoting the words of Clement himself to the Corinthians about the humble Christ: "Of whom," he says, "Clement too, an apostolic man, who ruled the Roman Church after Peter, writes to the Corinthians: The sceptre of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, did not come in the boast of pride, though he could do all things, but in humility," etc. [continues in the unseen part] … Clement follows, Anacletus, Evaristus," etc. Marianus Scotus is of the same opinion at the year 14 of Nero, and for it he also cites a decretal of Pope Leo II. The ancient writers of the Life of St Dionysius also indicate that he came to Clement, Peter's next successor: St Methodius, Simeon Metaphrastes, Hilduin, and others. Methodius's words are: "Nevertheless, before the blessed Peter was counted worthy, through the victory of martyrdom, of dwelling together in the kingdom of heaven, he committed to the blessed [Clement] the authority of the Church, saying: As authority to loose and to bind has been given to me by my Lord Jesus Christ, so I give you the same authority for ever and grant it to you, that whomever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." Yet before blessed Peter had attained the life of the heavenly kingdom by the victory of martyrdom, he gave blessed Clement the power over the Church in these words: "As the power of binding and loosing has been granted to me by my Lord Jesus Christ, so I grant and hand over the same power to you for ever, so that whomever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven." And a little later, thus of Dionysius: "And having entered, and found the blessed Clement, as was said above, holding the authority of the apostolic chair, he was at once received with due honour, as far as was possible," etc. And Dionysius, having entered Rome and found blessed Clement, as was said above, holding the power of the apostolic see, was at once received by him with fitting honour, as far as means allowed, etc. Here he indicates that Dionysius came to Rome when Clement had recently become pontiff after Peter's death; and in what follows he goes on to tell how he was sent into Gaul by the same Clement, and with what companions. Metaphrastes teaches the same, when he writes that a little after his return from the gathering at Jerusalem, having left Athens, he followed in the footsteps of his master Paul and at length came to Rome, and went to Clement, then pontiff, created by Peter. From these and many other things it is gathered that what Baronius thought seems less probable: that Dionysius first came to Rome about thirty years after St Peter's death, that is, after he had gone to John the Evangelist on his return from exile. For John returned under Nerva, who began to reign in the year of Christ 99, as Baronius himself notes. Suppose, then, that Dionysius went to John in that year, and in the same or the following year, that is, the hund[redth] (continues)

(printed under page 392)

<!-- The author's text runs the full page width; calls stand in that text. Notationes calls (93)–(96) appear in the text; no Notationes are printed on this page's crop. --> (printed under page 393)

(t) ‹anchor: ministerium tuum imple› · call in col 767-768

II Tim. IV, 5.

2 Timothy 4:5.

(printed under page 393)

(u) ‹anchor: in gaudium Domini tui› · call in col 767-768

Matth. XXV, 21.

Matthew 25:21.

(printed under page 393)

<!-- The author's text runs full width and ends Caput IX's narrative; the scripture notes stand directly under it, then, below a rule, the NOTATIONES in two columns. Calls (93), (94) stand in the text of page 393. Call (v) is above the crop. "465" is the original edition's page number, kept. Margin letters A, B omitted. "libro ¹" is read as "libro I". --> (printed under page 394)

(v) ‹anchor: not visible in the crop› · call in col 769-770

Act. IV, 32.

Acts 4:32.

(printed under page 394)

(x) ‹anchor: Apostolus› · call in col 769-770

II Tim. IV, 20.

2 Timothy 4:20.

(printed under page 394)

<!-- This page is NOTATIONES throughout (two columns). The crop shows only the lower part of each column; the upper part of both columns is not in the image and is NOT set here. The left column opens mid-note (the note on St Jon/Jonas, presumably (96)); the right column opens mid-note in an unseen note (on St Laurence of Canterbury), so its number is not visible. Margin letters C, D omitted. Misprints kept as printed ("Exstasnt", "Montlcheri", "distractione"). No scripture notes on this crop. --> (96?, continued) ‹left column (col 771), from where the crop begins› · call in col — (earlier page) … similibus alibi notavimus), non vero, obiit, aut passus est martyrium. Alioqui Martyrologium scateret mendaciis. Nec enim sanctus Ignatius martyr Antiochiae mortuus est, nec S. Joannes Chrysostomus Constantinopoli, sicque de aliis; sed ille Romae, et hic Comanae in Ponto, cum tamen de ambobus scribatur in Martyrologio, de uno quidem: «Antiochiae S. Ignatii,» etc.; de altero autem: «Constantinopoli S. Joannis episcopi,» etc. Occisus est autem Jon seu Jonas apud Parisios, et caput recisum tulit usque ad montem, qui in ejus memoriam vocatus est Mons S. Jonis, vulgo, le Mont Saint-Jon. Quod autem in Martyrologio est, «Apud pagum Castrensium,» dicunt Galli, a Chastres sous Montlcheri. Franciscus tamen Bivarius putat per ea verba significari Castra Caecilia in Lusitania, sicque intelligendum quod Flavius Dexter notat ad annum Christi 86: «Castris Caeciliis in Lusitania praedicat sanctus Jonas, discipulus S. Dionysii Areopagitae, et ad Gallias post revertitur.» Fateor quidem ego utrobique praedicasse S. Jonem, sed tamen verba Martyrologii magis facere pro Gallis. Adverte etiam ex his Dextri verbis nostram confirmari sententiam de Dionysii profectione in Galliam longe ante tempora Nervae imp. Nam si Jonas (qui cum Dionysio Athenis Romam, et Roma profectus est in Galliam) ante annum Christi 86, profectus erat e Gallia in Lusitaniam, ibique Evangelium praedicabat: certe consequitur et Dionysium multo ante Christi 85 venisse cum illo in Galliam; non igitur (quod volebat Baronius) sub Nerva, sive anno Christi 99, venit demum in Galliam Dionysius.

… we have noted elsewhere in similar cases), but not that he died or suffered martyrdom [there]. Otherwise the Martyrology would teem with falsehoods. For St Ignatius the martyr did not die at Antioch, nor St John Chrysostom at Constantinople, and so of others; but the former at Rome and the latter at Comana in Pontus, though of both it is written in the Martyrology, of the one: "At Antioch, of St Ignatius," etc., and of the other: "At Constantinople, of St John the bishop," etc. Jon, or Jonas, was killed near Paris, and carried his severed head as far as the hill which in his memory was called Mount of St Jon, in the vernacular le Mont Saint-Jon. As for the Martyrology's "At the village of the Castrenses", the French say [it means] Châtres-sous-Montlhéry. Francisco Bivar, however, thinks that by those words Castra Caecilia in Lusitania is meant, and that what Flavius Dexter notes at the year of Christ 86 is to be understood so: "At Castra Caecilia in Lusitania St Jonas, disciple of St Dionysius the Areopagite, preaches, and afterwards returns to Gaul." I grant that St Jon preached in both places, but still the Martyrology's words favour the French more. Notice also that by these words of Dexter our opinion is confirmed, that Dionysius set out for Gaul long before the time of the emperor Nerva. For if Jonas (who went with Dionysius from Athens to Rome, and from Rome to Gaul) had gone from Gaul into Lusitania before the year of Christ 86 and was preaching the Gospel there, it certainly follows that Dionysius too came with him into Gaul long before [the year] of Christ 85; so Dionysius did not (as Baronius would have it) come to Gaul only under Nerva, that is, in the year of Christ 99.

(printed under page 403)

(97) ‹anchor: excesserat Eutropius› · call in col — (earlier page)

Sed desperato operae pretio excesserat Eutropius. Exstasnt hujus S. Eutropii Acta apud Equilinum episcopum lib. IV, cap. 105, et quaedam apud Gregorium Turonensem lib. I De gloria martyrum, cap. 56: «Eutropius quoque martyr Santonicae urbis, inquit, a beato Clemente episcopo fertur directus in Gallias. Ab eodem etiam pontificalis ordinis gratia consecratus est: impletoque hujus officii ordine, peracta in incredulis praedicatione, insurgentibus paganis, quos auctor invidiae credere non permisit, illiso capite victor occubuit» Vide ibidem de ejus apparitione et agnitione martyrii, ipsomet sancto Eutropio revelante. Fuisse autem Dionysio comitem itineris, clare hujus Acta (continues)

But, despairing of any return for his labour, Eutropius had left. The Acts of this St Eutropius exist in Bishop [Petrus] of Equilio, book IV, ch. 105, and some things in Gregory of Tours, book I On the Glory of the Martyrs, ch. 56: "Eutropius too, martyr of the city of Saintes," he says, "is reported to have been sent into Gaul by blessed Clement the bishop. By him too he was consecrated with the grace of the pontifical order; and having fulfilled the course of this office and finished his preaching among the unbelievers, when the pagans rose up, whom the author of envy did not allow to believe, he fell a victor, his head crushed." See in the same place on his appearance and the recognition of his martyrdom, St Eutropius himself revealing it. That he was Dionysius's companion on the journey, his Acts clearly (continues)

(?, continued) ‹right column (col 772), from where the crop begins› · call in col — (earlier page) … scopo non tam verbis quam verberibus ostendit. Nam cum annum Domini sexcentesimum decimum quartum, Eadbaldi regis Cantuariorum fidei Christianae adversantis, et castimoniae leges adeo pessumdantis, ut uxorem patris sui duceret, impios ac perversos mores pertaesus, statuisset Britannias deserere (habito enim cum episcopis Mellito et Justo super ea re colloquio, decretum fuerat communi consilio, satius esse, «ut omnes in patriam redeuntes, libera ibi mente Domino deservirent, quam inter rebelles fidei barbaros sine fructu residerent,»), apparente illi sancto Petro et gravissimis verbis deterrente, imo et gravioribus flagellis eam voluntatem puniente, discessit a proposito, nec Mellitum et Justum, qui jam discesserant, atque in Galliam transierant, est secutus. Sed dignum est exemplum, quod integrum ipsis Venerabilis Bedae verbis referatur. Sic igitur habet libro II Hist. Anglic., cap. 6: «Cum vero Laurentius Mellitum Justumque secutus ac Britanniam esset relicturus, jussit ipsa sibi nocte in ecclesia beatorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli, de qua frequenter jam diximus stratum parari: in quo cum post multas preces ac lacrymas ad Deum pro statu Ecclesiae fusas ad quiescendum membra posuisset atque obdormisset, apparuit ei beatissimus apostolorum princeps, et multo illum tempore secretae noctis flagellis acrioribus afficiens, sciscitabatur apostolica distractione, quare gregem, quem sibi ipse crediderat, relinqueret, vel cui pastorum oves Christi in medio luporum positas fugiens ipse dimitteret. An mei, inquit, oblitus es exempli, qui pro parvulis Christi, quos mihi in indicium suae dilectionis commendaverat, vincula, verbera, carceres, afflictiones, ipsam postremo mortem, mortem autem crucis ab infidelibus et inimicis Christi ipse cum Christo coronandus pertuli? His B. Petri flagellis simul et exhortationibus animatus famulus Christi Laurentius, mox mane facto venit ad regem, et retecto vestimento, quantis esset verberibus laceratus, ei ostendit. Qui multum miratus, et inquirens quis tanto viro tales esset ausus plagas infligere, ut audivit quia causa suae salutis episcopus ab apostolo Christi tanta esset tormenta plagasque passus, extimuit multum atque anathematizato omni idololatriae cultu, abdicato connubio non legitimo, suscepit fidem Christi, et baptizatus, Ecclesiae rebus, quantum valuit, in omnibus consu- (continues)

… [to the bi]shop not so much by words as by blows. For when, about the year of the Lord 614, weary of the impious and perverse ways of Eadbald, king of Kent, who opposed the Christian faith and so trampled on the laws of chastity as to marry his father's wife, he had resolved to leave Britain (for after a conference on the matter with the bishops Mellitus and Justus it had been decided by common counsel that it was better "that all should return to their homeland and there serve the Lord with a free mind, rather than stay without fruit among barbarians in revolt against the faith"), St Peter appeared to him and deterred him with the gravest words, and indeed punished that intention with heavier scourges; and he gave up his purpose and did not follow Mellitus and Justus, who had already left and crossed into Gaul. But the example deserves to be told whole in the Venerable Bede's own words. He has it thus in book II of the History of the English, ch. 6: "But when Laurence, following Mellitus and Justus, was about to leave Britain, he ordered a bed to be made for himself that very night in the church of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, of which we have already spoken often. When, after many prayers and tears poured out to God for the state of the Church, he had laid down his limbs to rest and fallen asleep, the most blessed prince of the apostles appeared to him, and, beating him for a long time in the secret of the night with sharp scourges, asked him with apostolic severity why he was abandoning the flock he had himself entrusted to him, or to which of the shepherds he, fleeing, was leaving Christ's sheep set in the midst of wolves. 'Have you forgotten my example,' he said, 'who for Christ's little ones, whom he had commended to me as a token of his love, bore chains, blows, prisons, afflictions, and at last death itself, and the death of the cross, at the hands of unbelievers and enemies of Christ, so as to be crowned with Christ?' Roused by these scourges and exhortations of blessed Peter, Christ's servant Laurence came to the king at once when morning came, and, uncovering his clothing, showed him with what blows he had been torn. The king, greatly astonished, asked who had dared to inflict such stripes on so great a man; and when he heard that the bishop had suffered such torments and blows from the apostle of Christ for the sake of the king's salvation, he was greatly afraid; and, anathematizing all worship of idols and renouncing his unlawful marriage, he received the faith of Christ, and, being baptized, took care [to promote] the Church's affairs in all things as far as he could (continues)

(printed under page 403)

<!-- The upper part of this page is NOTATIONES (two columns), ending the notes to Caput X; below a rule the author's text of Caput XI begins full width, with its scripture note at the foot. The crop shows only the lower part of the notationes columns; their upper part is not in the image and is NOT set (so the note numbers in progress are not visible, and the left column's last words run on into unseen text at the head of the right column). Margin letters C, D omitted. Misprints kept as printed ("Vobontiorum", "recolutionis", "quadoquidem"). --> (?, continued) ‹left column (col 773), from where the crop begins› · call in col — (earlier page) … sis praecipuas sic recenset: «Urbium, quas habet, opulentissimae sunt Vasio Vobontiorum, Vienna Allobrogum, Avenio Cavarum, Arecomicorum Nemausus, Tolosa Tectosagum, Secundanorum Arausio, Sextanorum Arelatae, Septimanorum Blitera. Sed antestat omnes Atacinorum Decumanorumque colonia: unde olim iis terris auxilium fuit, nunc et nomen decus est, Martius Narbo.» Quibusdam Arelas nuncupatur. Itaque Arelas, seu Arelate, seu Arelatum, seu etiam Arelatae plurali numero (ut Pomponius Mela et quidem Graeci scribunt) insignis est et antiqua civitas Galliae Narbonensis, et Romanorum colonia ad Rhodanum sita, et Massiliae atque Avenioni finitima, archiepiscopali sede honorata, in qua S. Trophimus Pauli discipulus primo sedit, deinde S. Regulus, aliique in sanctorum albo ascripti, Gallice Arles etiamnum vocatur. Sed dignum hic annotatur, quod Robertus Gaguinus lib. IX Historiae Francorum, tam de nomine Arelates, quam de S. Trophimo se ab antiquioribus desumpsisse profitetur; nempe Arelatem a priscis Aram latam, teste Gervasio, dictam esse. Siquidem duae columnae olim erectae inibi erant, iisque ara superposita, ubi quotannis ad Kalendas Maias frequens undique populus pro sua sospitate humanis hostiis litabat. Quam in rem ternos juvenes aere publico emptos, totumque annum bene saginatos, ad eam aram certa constitutaque die immolabant: moxque immolatorum sanguine universam circumstantem turbam conspergebant. Quam saevam impietatem S. Trophimus, [continues in the unseen upper part of col 774]

… [Mela] lists its chief [cities] thus: "Of the cities it has, the richest are Vasio of the Vocontii, Vienne of the Allobroges, Avignon of the Cavares, Nîmes of the Arecomici, Toulouse of the Tectosages, Orange of the men of the Second legion, Arles of the men of the Sixth, Béziers of the men of the Seventh. But surpassing all is the colony of the Atacini and the men of the Tenth, from which help once came to those lands, and which is now their name and glory, Narbo Martius." By some it is called Arelas. So Arelas, or Arelate, or Arelatum, or even Arelatae in the plural (as Pomponius Mela, and indeed the Greeks, write), is a distinguished and ancient city of Narbonese Gaul, and a Roman colony set on the Rhône, bordering on Marseilles and Avignon, honoured with an archiepiscopal see, in which St Trophimus, disciple of Paul, sat first, then St Regulus and others enrolled in the list of the saints; in French it is still called Arles. But it deserves noting here that Robert Gaguin, in book IX of the History of the Franks, declares that he took from older writers both what he says of the name of Arles and what he says of St Trophimus: namely that Arles was called by the ancients Ara lata, "the broad altar", on the witness of Gervase. For two columns once stood there, with an altar set on them, where every year at the Kalends of May the people, thronging from every side, sacrificed human victims for their own safety. For this purpose, on a fixed and appointed day, they sacrificed at that altar three young men bought at public expense and well fattened for a whole year, and at once sprinkled the whole crowd standing round with the blood of the slain. This savage impiety St Trophimus [continues]

(?, continued) ‹right column (col 774), from where the crop begins› · call in col — (earlier page) … scribebat, etc. Verba sancti Pauli in posteriore ad Timotheum Epistola c. IV, 20, sunt haec: Erastus remansit Corinthi: Trophimum autem reliquit infirmum Mileti. Scribebat autem haec Paulus paulo ante martyrium, et postquam in eadem extrema Epistola scripserat: Ego enim jam delibor, et tempus recolutionis meae instat. Bonum certamen certavi, cursum consummavi, fidem servavi. In reliquo reposita est mihi corona justitiae, quam reddet mihi Dominus in illa die justus judex, non solum autem mihi, sed et iis qui diligunt adventum ejus. Festina ad me venire cito. Ex quibus colligitur S. Paulum accepisse divinitus, brevi spatio instare sibi mortem ac propterea adesse sibi voluisse Timotheum, et ultima mandata accepturum, certaminum testem futurum. Acceperat autem et Petrus tam Evangelii quam martyrii eadem in urbe collega; quadoquidem in sua quoque posteriore Epistola scripserit cap. I, 13: Justum autem arbitror, quandiu sum in hoc tabernaculo, suscitare vos in commonitione, certus quod velox est depositio tabernaculi mei: secundum quod et Dominus noster Jesus Christus significavit mihi. Sic ambo, quod praedixerant, simul eodem anno, mense, et die consecuti sunt. Itaque Trophimum, quem paulo post subiturus martyrium scribebat se reliquisse infirmum Mileti (est autem Miletus Asiae urbs, Cariae et Ioniae finitima), probabile est tunc inibi vitam reliquisse, praesertim quod nulla post haec tempora ejus mentio; et S. Regulus haud ita multo post creatus fuerit a Dionysio Arelatae episcopus.

… he wrote, etc. St Paul's words in the second Letter to Timothy, ch. 4:20, are these: Erastus remained at Corinth; but Trophimus I left sick at Miletus. Paul wrote this shortly before his martyrdom, and after he had written in the same last Letter: For I am already being poured out, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith. For the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the just judge, will give me on that day, and not to me only, but also to those who love his coming. Make haste to come to me quickly. From this it is gathered that St Paul had learned by revelation that his death was close at hand, and therefore wished Timothy to be with him, to receive his last instructions and to be witness of his contests. Peter too, his colleague in the same city in both the Gospel and martyrdom, had learned it; for in his second Letter as well he wrote, ch. 1:13: I think it right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, knowing that the putting off of my tent is soon: as our Lord Jesus Christ has shown me. So both attained what they had foretold, together, in the same year, month and day. And so it is probable that Trophimus, whom Paul, a little before undergoing martyrdom, wrote that he had left sick at Miletus (Miletus is a city of Asia, bordering on Caria and Ionia), ended his life there at that time, especially since there is no mention of him after this time; and that St Regulus was made bishop of Arles by Dionysius not very long afterwards.

(printed under page 404)

(y) ‹anchor: sine consilio faciat› · call in col 773-774

Eccli. XXXII, 24.

Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 32:24.

(printed under page 404)

<!-- The author's text runs the full page width; calls stand in that text. Labels set as printed, though they do not all match the calls: the note printed "(z)" answers the text's call "(x)" (after "mortuos"), and the second note printed "(b)" answers the text's call "(c)" (after "in coelos raptum"). "Arct." is a misprint for "Act.", kept. Notationes call (4) appears in the text; no Notationes are printed on this page's crop. --> (printed under page 405)

(z) ‹anchor: et Saphiram … mortuos› · call in col 775-776 (text call printed "(x)")

Arct. V, 1.

Acts 5:1.

(printed under page 405)

(a) ‹anchor: luci esse redditam› · call in col 775-776

Act. IX, 36.

Acts 9:36.

(printed under page 405)

(b) ‹anchor: sanitati esse restitutos› · call in col 775-776

Act. V. 15.

Acts 5:15.

(printed under page 405)

(b) ‹anchor: in coelos raptum› · call in col 775-776 (text call printed "(c)")

II Cor. XII, 4.

2 Corinthians 12:4.

(printed under page 405)

(q) ‹anchor: oculis orbasse› · call in col 775-776

Act. XIII, 8.

Acts 13:8.

(printed under page 405)

<!-- Layout: these are Halloix's notationes to Cap. XI, printed in two columns at the chapter's end (top of the rendered crop), above the full-width text of Cap. XII. The crop begins mid-notes: the notes before (3), and the opening of the note ending at the top of col 778, lie above it and are not visible here. The calls (5)–(11) in Cap. XII's text are answered at that chapter's end, on a later page. --> (printed under page 406)

(3) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 777

At vero Marcellum, quem et Eugenium nonnulli vocant. De Marcello hoc, et idemne sit cum Eugedio Toletano, disputavi alibi.

"But Marcellus, whom some also call Eugenius." Of this Marcellus, and whether he is the same as Eugenius ["Eugedio" as printed] of Toledo, I have argued elsewhere.

(?) ‹anchor: not visible; note begins above the crop› · call in col 778

(continued) ... Reguli apud Vincentium Bellovacensem lib x Histor., cap. 27.

(printed under page 406)

<!-- The rendered page foot holds only the full-width text of Cap. XII (calls (14)–(17) visible; their notes are printed at the chapter's end). No footnotes. --> (none) (printed under page 407)

<!-- Layout: Halloix's notationes to Cap. XII fill the lower page in two columns. The rendered crop begins mid-note in both columns: the start of (7) in col 781, and the end of (11) with the start of the note that resumes at the top of col 782 (most likely (12), on the church Dionysius built), lie above the crop. The bold "472" printed inside note (14) is the original edition's page number, left out here. --> (printed under page 408)

(7) ‹anchor: divino ductu accessit› · call in col 781

(continued) ... μενος, ut scribit Methodius, caelesti et divina voluntate, tanquam dilectus a Deo, per iter deductus.

(printed under page 408)

(8) ‹anchor: libros illos incomparabiles› · call in col 781

Hic libros illos incomparabiles, etc. Libros qui nunc exstant, De divinis nominibus, De caelesti hierarchia, De ecclesiastica hierarchia, etc, probabilissimum est scriptos a Dionysio Parisiis, post apostolorum mortem, cum jam ipse inter Pauli discipulos praecipua scientia emineret. Constat enim posterius esse scriptos (quod etiam infra probabitur) quam eos, qui perierunt.

"Here those incomparable books," etc. The books now extant (On the Divine Names, On the Celestial Hierarchy, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, etc.) were most probably written by Dionysius at Paris, after the death of the apostles, when he himself already stood out among Paul's disciples for exceptional learning. For it is certain (as will also be shown below) that they were written later than those that have perished.

(printed under page 408)

(9) ‹anchor: Dei vindicavit› · call in col 781

Michael in Laudatione S. Dionysii.

Michael, in his Encomium of St Dionysius.

(printed under page 408)

(10) ‹anchor: virtute polleret miraculorum› · call in col 781

Nam cum virtute polleret miraculorum, etc. De S. Dionysii potestate miraculorum testantur antiqui Vitae scriptores, tam Graeci quam Latini. Dabo Graecorum testimonia, omissis Latinorum, quae magis in promptu. Itaque Michael Syngelus scribit Dionysium expulisse colendorum simulacrorum insaniam, hisce tribus machinis, τῷ τε τῆς ἀληθείας κηρύγματι, καὶ τῷ τῆς διδασκαλίας ιαυγάσματι, καὶ τοῖς τῶν θαυμάτων τερατουργήμασιν, praeconio veritatis, doctrinae splendore, miraculorum prodigiis. Deinde subjungit continenter aliquas curationes vi divina ab eo factas: Ὀφθαλμοὶ γὰρ τυφλῶν ἀνέβλεπον, καὶ ὦτα κωφῶν ἠνοίγοντο, καὶ γλῶσσαι μογιλάλων ἐτρανοῦντο, καὶ βάσεις χωλῶν συνεσφίγγοντο, καὶ ποικίλων νοσημάτων ἀσθενοῦντες ἠλευθεροῦντο, τῇ τοῦ παντοδυνάμου Σωτῆρος ἐπικλήσει διὰ τοῦ θαυμασιωτάτου θεράποντος αὐτοῦ παραδοξοποιοῦντος, καὶ τοὺς ἐν σκότει τῆς ἀγνοίας καθημένους προσκαλουμένου πρὸς τὸ φῶς τῆς γνώσεως καὶ σωτηρίας. Oculi enim caecorum intuebantur, et surdorum aures aperiebantur, et mutorum linguae solvebantur, et claudorum incessus restringebantur, et variis debilitati morbis, invocato Salvatoris omnipotentis auxilio, per admirabilissimum ejus servum miracula patrantem, et sedentes in ignorantiae tenebris, ad lucem cognitionis advocantem liberabantur. Ita Syngelus. Quid Methodius? Haec nimirum inter alia: Καὶ τοσαύτας δι' αὐτοῦ κατηξίωσε γενέσθαι τὰς δυνάμεις, ὅτι τῶν πολεμίων ἐθνῶν τὰς καρδίας οὐκ ἔλαττον τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων ἀνέδειξεν. Et tantas per eum dignatus est Dominus patrare virtutes, ut non minus gentium hostilium corda, quam Christianorum promoveret. Metaphrastes autem: Οὐ διδαχῆς μόνον ῥήμασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ αημείων ἔργοις ἀποστολῆς ἔργον εἰργάζετο. Non doctrinae solum verbis, sed et operibus signorum munus exsequebatur apostolatus.

"For since he was strong in the power of miracles," etc. The ancient writers of his Life, Greek as well as Latin, bear witness to St Dionysius's power of working miracles. I shall give the testimonies of the Greeks and leave out those of the Latins, which are more readily to hand. Michael Syncellus, then, writes that Dionysius drove out the madness of worshipping idols with these three engines: "by the preaching of the truth, the radiance [Greek as printed, apparently a misprint for ἀπαυγάσματι] of his teaching, and the wonders of his miracles"; that is, the proclamation of truth, the splendour of doctrine, the prodigies of miracles. Then he adds at once some cures worked by him through divine power: "For the eyes of the blind saw again, and the ears of the deaf were opened, and the tongues of the stammerers were loosed, and the steps of the lame were made firm, and those sick of various diseases were set free, by the invocation of the almighty Saviour, through his most wonderful servant, who worked marvels and called those who sat in the darkness of ignorance to the light of knowledge and salvation." [Halloix's Latin version follows, to the same effect.] So Syncellus. What of Methodius? This, among other things: "And the Lord deigned to work such mighty deeds through him that he moved the hearts of the hostile nations no less than those of the Christians" [Greek, then Latin: "of those being evangelized"]. And Metaphrastes: "He performed the work of an apostle not only by the words of teaching but also by the works of signs" ["αημείων" as printed for σημείων]; [Latin:] "he discharged the office of apostleship not only by the words of doctrine but also by works of signs."

(printed under page 408)

(11) ‹anchor: prisca stirps› · call in col 781

Lisbius enim prisca stirps, etc. De Lisbii con- (continues)

"For Lisbius, of ancient stock," etc. Of Lisbius's con- (continues; the rest stands at the top of col 782, above the crop)

(12?) ‹anchor: not visible; note begins above the crop› · call in col 782

(continued) ... bantur. Posterioris autem ista: Τοῦτον οὖν τὸν τόπον ὁ Θεοῦ δοῦλος περιοδεύσας, καὶ τῷ στερεῷ τῆς πίστεως ὁπλισάμενος, Θεῷ τῷ παντοδυνάμῳ πανταχοῦ βοηθοῦντι καὶ συνοδεύοντι αὐτῷ, ἐκκλησίαν ἐκεῖσε κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ, καθ' ὅτι νέος ἀκμὴν προσήλυτος ὑπῆρχε, καὶ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ εἰς τιμὴν ἀνέστησε. Hunc igitur Dei servus, cum peragrasset locum fidei robore armatus, Deo omnipotenti sibi ubique auxiliari et comiti, templum illuc ut facultas gerebat (quippe novus ibi admodum advena erat) et Domino nostro Jesu Christo, honoris gratia aedificavit. His porro consentiunt Antiquitates Parisienses, et prisci Rituales libri, in quibus haec rhythmice: Hic constructo Christi templo, / Verbo docet et exemplo. / Coruscat miraculis, etc. De aliis templis et sacellis videndus est Demochares, libro De divino missae sacrificio, capite 18, in Catalogo episcoporum Parisiensium.

(printed under page 408)

(13) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 782

Methodius in Dionysii Martyrio.

Methodius, in the Martyrdom of Dionysius.

(printed under page 408)

(14) ‹anchor: Hispani ipsi affirmant› · call in col 782

Nam et in Hispaniam e Gallia profectum fuisse Hispani ipsi affirmant. Flavius Dexter ad annum Christi 110, et Romae 861. « Haud multo post S. Dionysius Areopagita Hispanias invisit, ut legatus a B. Clemente totius occidentis ordinatus. » Consentit Franciscus Bivarius in Commentario ad eumdem annum, probatque ex S. Methodio, qui scribit Dionysium Evangelii semina dispersisse πᾶσι τοῖς Ἑσπερίοις μέρεσι, cunctis partibus Hesperiis. Hispani autem censentur in Hesperiis, ut recte ibidem probatur. Sed cavendum ne putetur Dionysius illo anno Christi 110 aut paulo post fuisse a Clemente ordinatus Occidentis legatus. Nam multis ante annis obiisse Clementem, constat. Sed tantum existimandus est Dexter afferre causam cur iverit in Hispaniam, quod scilicet jam olim ordinatus fuisset a Clemente totius Occidentis legatus. Ego autem ivisse in Hispaniam censeo longe prius quam velit Dexter, nempe temporibus Vespasiani, pace post Neronem Ecclesiis reddita. Regnavit enim Vespasianus annos ferme decem: ita ut extremis ejus annis, jam satis ordinata Parisiensi Ecclesia, inviserit Dionysius Hispanias, et eadem opera discipulum Marcellum.

"For the Spaniards themselves affirm that he also went from Gaul into Spain." Flavius Dexter, under the year of Christ 110 and of Rome 861: "Not long afterwards St Dionysius the Areopagite visited the Spains, as legate of all the West appointed by blessed Clement." Francisco Bivar agrees in his Commentary on the same year, and proves it from St Methodius, who writes that Dionysius scattered the seeds of the Gospel "in all the western parts" [Greek, then Latin]. And the Spaniards are reckoned among the western peoples, as is rightly shown in the same place. But one must beware of supposing that Dionysius was appointed legate of the West by Clement in that year of Christ 110 or a little after, for it is certain that Clement had died many years before. Dexter is only to be taken as giving the reason why he went to Spain: namely, that he had long since been appointed by Clement legate of all the West. I, for my part, judge that he went to Spain long before Dexter would have it, namely in the time of Vespasian, when peace had been restored to the Churches after Nero. For Vespasian reigned about ten years, so that in his last years, with the Church of Paris now well ordered, Dionysius visited the Spains, and by the same journey his disciple Marcellus.

(printed under page 408)

<!-- Layout: the text of Cap. XIII runs full width across cols 783–784; the call "(c)" stands in the right half, after "hortabantur". The note at the page foot reads "(6)" in the scan, almost certainly the letter (c) badly struck; set as it appears. The numbered calls (19), (20-21) in the text are answered at the chapter's end. The bold "474" in the text is the original edition's page number. --> (printed under page 409)

(6) ‹anchor: in vacuum eam reciperent, hortabantur› · call in col 784

II Cor. VI. 1.

2 Corinthians 6:1.

(printed under page 409)

<!-- Layout: full-width text of Cap. XIII ends; Halloix's NOTATIONES to Cap. XIII begin in two columns; below them, the page-foot notes (f) and (g) on one line under col 785. Both scripture calls are printed "(f)" in the text: "(f)vim quodammodo" (Jacob's wrestling, Gen 32:24, i.e. the note (f)) and "in ipso fervore diei (f)" (Abraham at Mamre, Gen 18:1, which the foot labels (g)); calls set here as the notes are labelled. The bold "475" in the text is the original edition's page number. --> (printed under page 410)

(f) ‹anchor: (f)vim quodammodo› · call in col 785

Genes. xxxii, 24.

Genesis 32:24.

(printed under page 410)

(g) ‹anchor: in ipso fervore diei› · call in col 785

Genes. xviii, 1.

Genesis 18:1.

(printed under page 410)

(19) ‹anchor: totusque quodammodo Dei effectus› · call in col 786

Totusque quodammodo Dei effectus, etc. Docet Dyonisius libro De divinis nominibus, cap. 7, ad percipiendas animo res divinas tanta nobis opus esse cum Deo conjunctione, ut a nobis ipsis quodammodo digressi, non tam nostri simus quam Dei: talem proinde illum fuisse necessario fatendum est: quippe qui caelestia et divina praecellentiori modo secundum apostolos, quam forte quisquam alius mente perceperit. Verba ejus sunt: Κατὰ ταύτην οὖν τὰ θεῖα νοητέον· οὐ καθ' ἡμᾶς, ἀλλ' ὅλους ἑαυτοὺς ὅλων ἑαυτῶν ἐξισταμένους καὶ ὅλους Θεοῦ γιγνομένους. Κρεῖττον γὰρ εἶναι Θεοῦ καὶ μὴ ἑαυτῶν. Οὕτω γὰρ ἔσται τὰ θεῖα δοτὰ τοῖς μετὰ Θεοῦ γιγνομένοις. Hac igitur nostri cum Deo conjunctione, et non ingenio nostro divina intelligenda sunt, ita ut nos toti extra nos totos simus, et toti Dei simus. Melius est enim, ut Dei simus, quam nostri ipsorum. Sic enim nobis divina tradentur, si cum Deo fuerimus.

"And wholly become, as it were, God's," etc. Dionysius ["Dyonisius" as printed] teaches in the book On the Divine Names, chapter 7, that to grasp divine things with the mind we need so great a union with God that, having in a manner gone out of ourselves, we are not so much our own as God's. That he himself was such must therefore be admitted, since he perceived heavenly and divine things in a more excellent way, after the apostles, than perhaps anyone else. His words are: "It is by this, then, that divine things are to be understood: not in our own way, but by our going wholly out of our whole selves and becoming wholly God's. For it is better to be God's and not our own. For thus will divine things be given to those who are with God." [Halloix's Latin version follows, to the same effect.]

(20-21) ‹anchor: leves, et audaculi› · call in col 786 Quas homines quidam leves, et audaculi, etc. Minime vereor leves, et audaculos vocare eos, qui Dionysium ob voces novas et grandes, quibus ad (continues)

"Which certain light-minded and rather bold men," etc. I am not in the least afraid to call light-minded and bold those who [find fault with] Dionysius for the new and grand words with which, to (continues)

(printed under page 410)

(h) ‹anchor: quem diligebat Jesus› · call in col 787

Joan. XIII, 23.

John 13:23.

(printed under page 411)

<!-- The rendered page foot holds only full-width text: the end of Cap. XIV and the opening of Cap. XV (calls (29)–(34) visible; their notes are printed at the chapter's end). No footnotes. --> (none) (printed under page 412)

<!-- Layout: the full-width text of Cap. XV ends; Halloix's NOTATIONES to Cap. XV follow in two columns. The calls (29)–(32) stand in the text on page 412, in its right half (col 790). The bold "481" inside note (32) is the original edition's page number, left out here. --> (printed under page 413)

<!-- Layout: the whole lower page is Halloix's NOTATIONES to Cap. XV, in two columns. The crop begins mid-note in both columns: the earlier part of (32) and of the note ending at the top of col 794 lie above it. That col 794 fragment (Nerva's recall of the exiles) is most likely (37); the end of (34) and notes (35)–(36) stand at the top of col 794, above the crop. The calls (32)–(34) stand on page 412 (col 790); (35)–(38) on page 413, above its crop. "Ad-/notationibus" is hyphenated across a line in col 793 and is set joined. The bold "482" in note (38) is the original edition's page number, left out here. --> (printed under page 414)

<!-- Layout: full-width text of Cap. XVI (Dionysius's journey to St John in Asia); the call "(i)" stands in the right half, after "vita redonavit". The numbered calls (40)–(43) are answered at the chapter's end. The bold "483" in the text is the original edition's page number. --> (printed under page 415)

(i) ‹anchor: viduae vita redonavit› · call in col 796

III Reg. XVII.

3 Kings [1 Kings] 17.

(printed under page 415)

<!-- Layout: the full-width text of Cap. XVI ends; Halloix's NOTATIONES to Cap. XVI follow in two columns, then the page-foot notes on one line under col 797. The rendered crop of col 797 cuts off the first letters of every line, including the note numerals: the numerals (40), (41), (42) and the first label of the foot line are supplied from the calls in the text (page 415), and letters lost at the line starts are given in [square brackets] where the sense makes them certain, or as […] where it does not. The calls (k), (l) stand in the text above the crop. --> (printed under page 416)

(l) ‹anchor: not visible; call above the crop› · call in col 797

Joan. I, 1.

John 1:1.

(printed under page 416)

<!-- Layout: the whole lower page is Halloix's NOTATIONES to Cap. XVI, in two columns. The crop begins mid-note in both columns. The col 799 fragment is the end of (43) (long-lived bishops; call "nonaginta annos natus [43]", page 415, col 796). The end of (44) and whatever notes follow it stand at the top of col 800, above the crop; the col 800 fragment visible here (on Gaugericus and Taurinus) belongs to a later note whose numeral is not visible. The call of (44) stands in the text on page 416, above its crop. The bold "486" in the col 800 note is the original edition's page number, left out here. --> (printed under page 417)

<!-- Layout: full-width text of the next chapter (Dionysius back in Gaul, under Trajan); the call "(m)" stands in the left half, after "in tempore suo". The numbered calls (47), (48) are answered at the chapter's end. The bold "487" in the text is the original edition's page number. --> (printed under page 418)

(m) ‹anchor: verbum in tempore suo› · call in col 801

Prov. XXV, 11.

Proverbs 25:11.

(printed under page 418)

<!-- Layout: the full-width text of the chapter ends (call (53) in its left half); Halloix's NOTATIONES follow in two columns. Calls: (47) page 418, col 801; (48) page 418, col 802; (53) this page, col 803; the calls of (46), (49-50), (51), (52) are not visible in the rendered crops (above them). The bold "488" in the text is the original edition's page number. --> (printed under page 419)

(46) ‹anchor: annum nonagesimum aetatis excesserat› · call not visible (above the crop)

Annum enim nonagesimum aetatis excesserat. Colligitur haec Dionysii aetas hoc pacto: Cum Parisios a profectione Asiana rediit, erat annus Trajani imperatoris primus. Nam totum Nervae tempus (quod non integer sesquiannus fuit) in illa peregrinatione consumptum est, praesertim cum non statim initio imperii Nervae profectus sit, sed tantum postquam audivit revocatos a Nerva exsules, et Joannem in Asiam revertisse: jam autem primus annus Trajani est Christi Domini centessimus: Dionysius autem annos novem duntaxat junior Christi aetate fuit, ut supra probatum est cap. 1 Notationum. Itaque nonagesimum excesserat, cum Christi fuit centesimus.

"For he had passed the ninetieth year of his age." This age of Dionysius is reckoned as follows. When he returned to Paris from the journey to Asia it was the first year of the emperor Trajan. For the whole of Nerva's time (which was not a full year and a half) was spent on that journey, especially since he did not set out at once at the beginning of Nerva's reign, but only after he heard that the exiles had been recalled by Nerva and that John had returned to Asia. Now the first year of Trajan is the hundredth ["centessimus" as printed] of Christ the Lord; and Dionysius was only nine years younger than Christ, as was proved above in chapter 1 of the Notes. So he had passed ninety when it was the hundredth year of Christ.

(printed under page 419)

(51) ‹anchor: Ebroica Galliae Celticae antiqua civitas› · call not visible (above the crop)

Est autem Ebroica Galliae Celticae antiqua civitas, etc. Populi vocantur Julio Caesari, libro III De bello Gallico, Ebunoricenses, idiomate Gallico, Les pais d'Evreux. Sunt autem in Gallia Celtica, Aulercis, Lexobiis, Unellisque finitimi. Civitas primo Eburonicae deinde Ebroicae et Ebroica est dicta, quibusdam quoque Eburonicum. Vide Robertum Cenalem libro secundo De re Gallica, perioche 4.

"Now Évreux is an ancient city of Celtic Gaul," etc. Its peoples are called by Julius Caesar, in book III of the Gallic War, the Ebunoricenses ["Ebunoricenses" as printed]; in the French tongue, les pais d'Evreux. They are in Celtic Gaul, neighbours of the Aulerci, the Lexovii and the Unelli. The city was called first Eburonicae, then Ebroicae and Ebroica, and by some also Eburonicum. See Robert Céneau, book two On Gallic Matters, section 4.

(printed under page 419)

(52) ‹anchor: adversus daemones et magos prorsus necessarium› · call not visible (above the crop)

Adversus daemones et magos prorsus necessarium. Quae adversus illos gesserit sanctus Taurinus, vide apud Vincentium libro ante nominato, capite trigesimo quarto et Petrum Equilinum libro septimo, capite quinquagesimo.

"Wholly necessary against demons and magicians." What St Taurinus did against them, see in Vincent, in the book named before, chapter thirty-four, and in Petrus de Natalibus of Equilio, book seven, chapter fifty.

(printed under page 419)

(53) ‹anchor: e Carnutibus evocavit› · call in col 803

Cui rei Sanctinum et Antonium a Carnutibus evocavit. Ex eorum Actis id collegit Vincentius libro decimo, capite vigesimo secundo, sed quod factum dicit sub Domitiano, id sub Adriano accidisse alibi probatum est. Nam sub Adriano instare sibi martyrii tempus intellexit; sub eodem illos suos discipulos evocavit: sub eodem mortem pro fide oppetiit. Quod non tantum e vetustissimis Martyrologiis, sed etiam e plurimorum sanctorum Actis (ut disperse alibi notavimus) colligitur. Quod si in aliis quibusdam rebus sit nonnulla di- (continues)

"For this purpose he called Sanctinus and Antoninus from the Carnutes [Chartres]." Vincent gathered this from their Acts, book ten, chapter twenty-two; but what he says was done under Domitian has been proved elsewhere to have happened under Hadrian. For it was under Hadrian that he understood the time of his martyrdom to be at hand; under him he called those disciples of his; under him he met death for the faith. This is gathered not only from the most ancient Martyrologies but also from the Acts of very many saints (as we have noted here and there elsewhere). And if in certain other matters there is some di- (continues)

(printed under page 419)

<!-- The rendered page foot holds only the full-width text of the chapter on Dionysius's arrest and trial (calls (54-55)–(63) visible; their notes are printed at the chapter's end). No footnotes. The bold "490" in the text is the original edition's page number. --> (none) (printed under page 420)

(n) ‹anchor: timentibus eum› · call in col 808

Luc. I, 50.

Luke 1:50.

(printed under page 421)

<!-- Layout: the whole page is Halloix's notatio (57), on the druids, continued from page 421, in two columns. The crop begins a line or so into each column; the top of col 810 (the rest of the Strabo passage and its Latin) lies above the crop. In the Greek of Strabo and in col 810 the third class is printed as εὐβάγεις / Εὐβάγεις; β and δ cannot be told apart with certainty at this resolution. The bold "492" is the original edition's page number, left out here. --> (printed under page 422)

<!-- Layout: Halloix's NOTATIONES to the chapter on the arrest and trial fill the page in two columns, above the head of Cap. XIX. The crop begins mid-note in col 811 (the end of (57)); the end of (58) runs on at the top of col 812, partly above the crop (only its last line is visible). Calls (all on page 420): (58), (61), (62), (63) in col 805; (59), (60) in col 806. The bold "493" is the original edition's page number, left out here. --> (printed under page 423)

CAPUT XIX.

CHAPTER XIX.

Dionysii et sociorum ejus inclusio, diverberatio, dilaceratio, martyrium.

The imprisonment, scourging, tearing and martyrdom of Dionysius and his companions.

<!-- note: Cols 811–812 share one page image. Above the rule, both columns hold Halloix's notationes: notes (57, continued from the previous column) to (63) on Caput XVIII. Those are commentary notes and are not set here. Below a short rule, the heading "CAPUT XIX." and its argument (in italics) are printed full width across both columns at the page foot. They are set above. The body of Caput XIX ("Longe alia, ut hic est intueri, in facinorosorum judiciis est ratio ... in quos in-") follows in two full-width lines, with the note call (64). That is the Vita's own text, so it is not set here, and it runs on to the next column. -->

<!-- Layout: full-width text of Cap. XIX (imprisonment, scourging, rack, gridiron, beasts, furnace, cross; the Mass in the Glaucinus prison); the three scripture notes stand on one line at the page foot. The call (o) is above the crop; (p) stands in the right half after "dilexit illud", (q) in the left half after "ad tui nominis gloriam superare". The numbered calls (66)–(68) are answered at the chapter's end. The bold "495" is the original edition's page number. --> (printed under page 424)

(o) ‹anchor: not visible (above the crop)› · call in col 813 or 814

Psal. CXLIV, 21.

Psalm 144 [145]:21.

(printed under page 424)

(q) ‹anchor: nominis gloriam superare› · call in col 813

Isai. XLIII, 2.

Isaiah 43:2.

(printed under page 424)

(p) ‹anchor: servus tuus dilexit illud› · call in col 814

Psal. CXVIII, 140.

Psalm 118 [119]:140.

(printed under page 424)

<!-- Layout: the whole lower page is Halloix's NOTATIONES to Cap. XIX, in two columns. The crop begins mid-note in both columns: the earlier part of (64), and the middle of (65) at the top of col 816 (where Dexter's entry on Titus begins), lie above it. Calls: (64) page 423, col 812; (65) page 424, above its crop; (66) page 424, col 813; (67) page 424, col 814. Note (66) is Migne's own cross-reference to PL 106. The bold "496" is the original edition's page number, left out here. --> (printed under page 425)

<!-- The page's notes are Halloix's NOTATIONES, printed under a rule with the running head "499 NOTATIONES." (499 is the page of Halloix's own edition). Their calls stand in the full-width text of p. 426 (cols 817–818). --> (printed under page 427)

<!-- The whole page is NOTATIONES. The foot images show only the lower part of each column: the top of col 821 (rest of note 70) and the top of col 822 (rest of note 73) lie above the crop and are NOT set here. Marked [… above the crop]. --> (printed under page 428)

<!-- The whole page is NOTATIONES. The foot images show only the lower part of each column; the tops of col 823 (rest of note 74) and col 824 (end of 74, start of 75) lie above the crop and are NOT set here. --> (printed under page 429)

<!-- The whole page is NOTATIONES, with one Migne footnote (r) under them. The foot images show only the lower part of each column; the tops of col 825 and col 826 (both within note 76) lie above the crop and are NOT set here. --> (printed under page 430)

(r) ‹anchor: in cubilibus suis› · call in col 825

Psal. CXLIX, 5.

Psalm 149:5.

(printed under page 430)

<!-- The visible part of the page is Halloix's full-width text (calls 85–89, whose notationes are printed later). No footnotes at the foot. The top of the page lies above the crop: the end of notationes 81-82 and 83, if printed there, is NOT set. --> (none) (printed under page 431)

<!-- The visible part of the page is Halloix's full-width text (calls 94–98; their notationes are printed later). No footnotes at the foot. --> (none) (printed under page 432)

<!-- The whole page is NOTATIONES. The foot images show only the lower part of each column; the tops of col 831 (end of note 84) and col 832 (middle of note 91) lie above the crop and are NOT set here. Calls 84, 90, 91 stand above the crop on pp. 431–432. --> (printed under page 433)

(84) (continued) · call on p. 431 (above the crop)

[… above the crop] tum est genitivus plur. Franciscus Bivarius existimat agrum Castresium, sive pagum Castrensium, idem esse quod Castra Caecilia in Lusitania. Vide illum in Commentario ad Dextri Chronicon anno Christi 86, numero 12 et anno 130, num. 4. De Jone seu Jona egimus etiam supra ad cap. X.

[… above the crop] … is a genitive plural. Francisco Bivar thinks the "field of Castresium", or "village of the Castrenses", is the same as Castra Caecilia in Lusitania. See him in his Commentary on Dexter's Chronicle, at the year of Christ 86, number 12, and at the year 130, number 4. Of Jonas or Jona we have also treated above, at chapter X.

(printed under page 433)

(90) ‹anchor: Nunc de Eugenio› · call above the crop (p. 431 or 432)

Nunc de Eugenio, etc. Aliqua de illo tetigimus quaest. 3 infra, ubi disputavimus, idemne sit Eugenius et Marcellus: et dato eumdem esse, an etiam ille Eugenius sit Timotheus ille, ad quem Dionysius Areopagita libros suos misit, et cui eosdem dedicavit. Vide ibi.

Now of Eugenius, etc. We have touched on some matters concerning him in question 3 below, where we discussed whether Eugenius and Marcellus are the same; and, granting that they are, whether that Eugenius is also the Timothy to whom Dionysius the Areopagite sent his books and to whom he dedicated them. See there.

(printed under page 433)

(91) ‹anchor: Revisendi aliquando magistri› · call above the crop (p. 431 or 432)

Revisendi aliquando magistri, etc. Venisse Eugenium in Galliam ex Hispania, revisendi Dionysii et cum eo conferendi gratia, habemus auctoritatem Gothici Breviarii, quam vide supra cap. XII. Vide et Joannem Marianam lib. IV De rebus Hispaniae, cap. 4, ubi inter alia: « Studio Dionysium invisendi, inquit, in interiorem Galliam penetravit, cum a Sisinnii praefecti satellitibus comprehensus in vestigio est occisus. Corpus [… top of col 832 above the crop] norum sapientum scriptis exceptis paucis videamur carere. » ¶ Istum hymnum depromptum e sacro Dionysiani coenobii armario hic proferimus. Sic igitur: / Coeli cives applaudite / Mundi jucundo lumini, / Puo illustratur coelitus / Hujus diei gratia. / Praecelsa fides martyris / Sacrique vita antistitis, / Dionysii nobilis / Hodie palmam suscepit. / Areopago Ecclesia / Regis sumpsit diadema / Coelestis, gemmam fulgidam / Dionysium sophistam. / Paulo docente, speculum / Habet fides fidelium / Et spiculum gentilitas, / Quem ante murum noverat. / Miro clarescens dogmate / Illuminavit Graeciam: / Et inclytus hinc pontifex / Urbem Romam tunc adiit / Clemente Romae praesule / Jubente, Galliam: / Cui jubar solis splendidi / Illuxit signis, flamine. / Tandem repulso daemone, / Constructo sacro opere, / Poenis affectus maximis / Caesa cervice coelum adit. / Ave, Pater, scandens polum; / Ave pie, visens solum: / Annua festi munera / Tua sacrans praesentia. / Offer sacerdos optime / Gemitus nostros et preces: / Firma fidem, martyr Dei / Moresque nostros corrige. / Ope guberna fragiles, / In mundi hujus prelago, / Atque exutos corpore / Pie benignus suscipe. / Quo sine fine gloriam / Deo Patri cum Filio, / Una cum sancto Spiritu / Tecum canamus perpetim. Amen. ¶ Scripsit autem Eugenius hymnum illum, audito in itinere martyrii nuntio, prusquam advenisset ad sepulcri locum. Nam in ipsa via occisus est et quidem a praefecto [507] Sisinnio, ut paulo superius innuit Mariana, hoc est, ab eodem a quo S. Dionysius, quippe non multo intervallo alter post alterum.

To visit his master again at some time, etc. That Eugenius came into Gaul from Spain to visit Dionysius again and confer with him, we have the authority of the Gothic Breviary, which see above, chapter XII. See also Juan de Mariana, On the Affairs of Spain, book IV, chapter 4, where among other things he says: "From eagerness to visit Dionysius he made his way into inner Gaul, when, seized by the guards of the prefect Sisinnius, he was killed on the spot. His body [… above the crop] … we seem to lack, except for a few, the writings of the … wise." ¶ This hymn, taken from the sacred library of the monastery of Saint-Denis, we set out here. It runs thus: / Citizens of heaven, applaud / the world's delightful light, / by whom from heaven is made bright / the grace of this day. / The lofty faith of the martyr / and the life of the holy bishop, / noble Dionysius, / today received the palm. / From the Areopagus the Church / took a diadem for the heavenly / King, a shining gem, / Dionysius the sage. / By Paul's teaching the faith of the faithful / has in him a mirror, / and heathendom a spear, / whom before it had known as a wall. / Shining with wondrous doctrine, / he enlightened Greece; / and thence, a famous bishop, / he went to the city of Rome, / and, at the bidding of Clement, / bishop of Rome, to Gaul, / on which the radiance of a splendid sun / shone forth in signs and in the Spirit. / At last, the demon driven back / and the sacred work built up, / afflicted with the greatest pains, / his neck struck through, he goes to heaven. / Hail, Father, climbing to the sky; / hail, kind one, looking upon the earth, / hallowing with your presence / the yearly gifts of the feast. / Offer, best of priests, / our groans and prayers; / strengthen our faith, martyr of God, / and correct our ways. / Steer the frail with your help / on the sea of this world, / and when we are stripped of the body / receive us kindly and gently; / that without end glory / to God the Father with the Son, / together with the Holy Spirit, / we may sing with you for ever. Amen. ¶ Eugenius wrote that hymn when he heard the news of the martyrdom on his journey, before he reached the place of the tomb. For he was killed on the road itself, and that by the prefect [Halloix p. 507] Sisinnius, as Mariana indicated a little above — that is, by the same man as St Dionysius, the one not long after the other.

(printed under page 433)

CAPUT XXII.

CHAPTER XXII.

Virtutes nonnullae S. Dionysii ex ejusdem scriptis delectae, et primo pietas.

Certain virtues of St Dionysius, chosen from his own writings; and first, piety.

[...]liarum S. Dionysii virtutum ipse Areopagus, tum vero Christianarum S. Paulus, et S. Clemens [...]iam locupletissimi exstiterunt. Siquidem illum nec Areopagus in suum consilium, nec hi Ecclesiae [...] ad munus apostolicum, nisi omnibus florentem virtutibus adlegissent. Sed earum virtutum quae[...]suscepto vitae genere, quaedam in immortalibus ejus scriptis illustrius emicuerunt. Nam, ut alia [...]ciam, quod episcopatu Atheniensi, quem ab apostolis acceperat, sponte dimisso, multis in spar[...]vangelii semente peragratis regionibus in Italiam pervenerit : quod ex Italia in Galliam, hoc est

Of the [...] virtues of St Dionysius the Areopagus itself, and of the Christian ones St Paul and St Clement, [...] proved most ample [witnesses]. For neither would the Areopagus have chosen him into its council, nor these [have chosen him] for the [...] of the Church [or] for the apostolic office, had he not been flourishing in all virtues. But of those virtues which [...] the manner of life he had taken up, some shone forth more brightly in his immortal writings. For, to [pass over] other things, that, having of his own accord laid down the bishopric of Athens, which he had received from the apostles, and having traversed many regions in sowing the seed of the [G]ospel, he came into Italy; that from Italy into Gaul, that is

<!-- note: col. 833 is the left column of the page headed 834; in these images its left edge is cut away, so every line of the full-width text begins mid-word, and the lost beginnings are marked [...] and not conjectured (the Latin's line-end hyphens "quæ-" and "spar-" cannot be joined, because the beginnings of the following lines are lost). Above this, both columns hold Halloix's notationes (93)–(98) on Caput XXI, which are set in the column's part (parts/c833_a.md), not here. After a short rule come the chapter heading (with Halloix's original page number 508 in the margin, left out), the italic argument, and six lines printed across the full page width. The sentence runs on ("hoc est …") into the next column. Bracketed words in the English are supplied. -->

<!-- Halloix's full-width text (Caput XXII) with Migne's footnotes under it. The calls (s)–(v) stand above the crop. --> (printed under page 435)

(s) ‹anchor: not visible (above the crop)› · call in cols 835–836 (full-width text)

I Tim. IV, 8.

1 Timothy 4:8.

(printed under page 435)

(t) ‹anchor: not visible (above the crop)› · call in cols 835–836 (full-width text)

Jac. I, 17.

James 1:17.

(printed under page 435)

(u) ‹anchor: not visible (above the crop)› · call in cols 835–836 (full-width text)

Rom. XI, 36.

Romans 11:36.

(printed under page 435)

(v) ‹anchor: not visible (above the crop)› · call in cols 835–836 (full-width text)

Joan. I, 9.

John 1:9.

(printed under page 435)

(99) ‹anchor: Marsilius Ficinus› · call in col 835

Marsilius Ficinus, Comment. in Dionysium, c. 3 De divinis nominibus.

Marsilio Ficino, Commentary on Dionysius, on chapter 3 of On the Divine Names.

(printed under page 435)

<!-- Halloix's full-width text (Caput XXII). No footnotes at the foot. --> (none) (printed under page 436)

<!-- Halloix's full-width text (end of Caput XXIII, start of Caput XXIV) with one footnote under it. --> (*) ‹anchor: epistolae exemplo docet› · call in col 840 Est inter epistolas sancti Dionysii ordine sexta.

It is the sixth in order among the letters of St Dionysius.

(printed under page 437)

<!-- Halloix's full-width text (Caput XXIV, on Dagobert; call (4) to a later notatio). No footnotes at the foot; only the signature line "PATROL. GR. IV. 27". --> (none) (printed under page 438)

<!-- Halloix's full-width text (Caput XXIV, the kings' devotion to St Denis) with one Migne footnote. The call (x) is not in the visible part of the text (above the crop, or on the previous page). Calls (7-8), (9), (10) go to later notationes. --> (printed under page 439)

(x) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in cols 843–844 (full-width text; not located)

Psal. LXIV, 5.

Psalm 64:5 (Vulgate numbering).

(printed under page 439)

<!-- Halloix's NOTATIONES on Caput XXV (under the heading "NOTATIONES."), printed above the start of CAPUT XXVI (body text, not set). Calls 2-3, 5 and 6 stand in Caput XXV above the crop on pp. 438 or earlier. --> (2-3) ‹anchor: Rex Clotarius› · call above the crop (Caput XXV) Rex Clotarius. Quae hic de Clothario memorantur, ea cunctorum Franciae historicorum consensione firmantur. Vide Aimoinum lib. IV De gestis Francorum, et Paulum Aemilium lib. I, et Robertum Gaguinum lib. III, et Belloforestium lib. I Historiar., cap. 30, et alios.

King Clothar. What is related here of Clothar is confirmed by the agreement of all the historians of France. See Aimoin, On the Deeds of the Franks, book IV; Paolo Emilio, book I; Robert Gaguin, book III; Belleforest, Histories, book I, chapter 30; and others.

(printed under page 440)

(5) ‹anchor: Quod utrumque Dagobertus› · call above the crop (Caput XXV)

Quod utrumque Dagobertus. De hac Dagoberti aut dexterae potius Excelsi in Dagoberto mutatione, tam vere quam eleganter Stephanus Forcatulus, lib. V [516] De Gallorum imperio: « Caeterum, inquit, constat Dagobertum qui quandoque aedes divorum spoliarat, praesertim Hilarii Pictaviensis aere fusili valvas fabrefactos praetextu Dionysium exornandi, et alia profanaque sine delectu legerat, jam senescentem ita ad templa exstruenda et ditanda animum convertisse, et divinis caeremonis augendis incubuisse, ut duos in uno homine Dagobertos fuisse quis crididerit: aliter atque Salomon, qui bona juventae infami senecta exhausit inter mulierum greges diis reprobis thura adolens et immolans, ac colens Astartem deam Sidoniorum, quae non fuit alia quam Venus. » Et paulo inferius: « Melius itaque accidit Franco regi, qui impietatis priorem maculam sequente sanctitatis decore eluerit, et impurae voluptatis sordes speciosis rebus gestis purgarit. Ut et Childericus ille de quo sermonem institueram, quo nihil unquam odiosius habuere Franci quandiu immersit se spurcis voluptatibus, nec charius, dum emersisset. Tum enim majore longe cupiditate revocarunt, quam expulerant. » Ita Forcatulus.

Which Dagobert [did] both. Of this change in Dagobert — or rather this change wrought in Dagobert by the right hand of the Most High — Étienne Forcadel writes as truly as elegantly in book V [Halloix p. 516] of On the Empire of the Gauls: "However," he says, "it is established that Dagobert, who had once despoiled the churches of the saints — in particular the doors of St Hilary of Poitiers, wrought of cast bronze, under pretext of adorning [Saint-]Denis — and had gathered other and profane things without discrimination, turned his mind, as he grew old, to building and enriching churches, and devoted himself to increasing the divine ceremonies, so much that one would think there had been two Dagoberts in one man: unlike Solomon, who squandered the good things of his youth in a disgraceful old age amid herds of women, burning incense and sacrificing to reprobate gods, and worshipping Astarte, goddess of the Sidonians, who was none other than Venus." And a little below: "It went better, then, with the Frankish king, who washed out the earlier stain of impiety by the beauty of holiness that followed, and purged the filth of impure pleasure by splendid deeds. As with that Childeric of whom I had begun to speak: the Franks never had anything more hateful than him while he was sunk in foul pleasures, nor anything dearer once he had emerged. For then they called him back with far greater eagerness than they had driven him out." So Forcadel.

(printed under page 440)

<!-- Halloix's full-width text (Caput XXVI; calls 16–19 go to later notationes). No footnotes at the foot. --> (none) (printed under page 441)

<!-- Halloix's full-width text (Caput XXVI; calls 21, 22 go to later notationes). No footnotes at the foot. --> (none) (printed under page 442)

(15) ‹anchor: Domine sancte Dionysi› · call above the crop (Caput XXVI)

Domine sancte Dionysi, etc. Haec desumpta sunt ex antiquissima Historia manuscripta, sive ex Caroli Magni constitutione illic inserta, quam ex parte refert Belloforestius in Cosmographia sua, ubi de oppido Sancti Dionysii agit. Sic est initium: « Praecepit etiam imperator, ut omnes Franciae reges et episcopi praesentes et futuri, pastori ejusdem ecclesiae essent obedientes in Christo, » etc.

Lord Saint Dionysius, etc. This is taken from a very ancient manuscript History, or rather from the constitution of Charlemagne inserted in it, which Belleforest reports in part in his Cosmography, where he treats of the town of Saint-Denis. Its beginning is this: "The emperor also commanded that all kings and bishops of France, present and future, should be obedient in Christ to the pastor of that church," etc.

(printed under page 443)

<!-- The whole page is NOTATIONES on Caput XXVI. The foot images show only the lower part of each column; the tops of col 853 (within note 16) and col 854 (within note 20, its §2) lie above the crop and are NOT set here. --> (printed under page 444)

(20) ‹anchor: Assumpta ab altari flammula› · call above the crop (Caput XXVI)

Assumpta ab altari flammula. Dicam de hac flammula, sive auriflamma, quae apud rerum Gallicarum scriptores, tam Gallicos quam Latinos, reperi digna litteris: ¶ 1. Auriflamma (quae Gallice Oriflamme vulgo dicitur) vexilium fuit sacrum et militare, quadratum, e rubro ac flammanti serico, regibus Galliae ad bella et peregrinationes procedentibus praeferri solitum. De quo Joannes Villaneus lib. XII Historiae ita scribit: « Philippus VI eduxit e templo divi Dionysii vexillum ex auro et flamma, quod educi inde non solet, nisi pro summis regis regnique necessitatibus, idque ex auro et purpura compositum est. » Ubi per aurum intellige limbos aureos; per flammam seu purpuram, flammei seu purpurei coloris pannum sericum, ut infra e Gaguino clarescet, num. 7. Quadratum porro fuisse, ac nihil auri nisi in limbis habuisse, inde colligi videtur, quod Brito Armoricus scribat illud simile fuisse illis vexillis, quibus uti Ecclesia solet in publicis supplicationi- [… top of col 854 above the crop] (quod oriflamme Gallice dicitur) valde reverenter accepit. » Hic autem in libro De gestis Philippi Augusti Francorum regis, ad annum Domini millesimum centesimum nonagesimum, ita de eodem Philippo: « Tandem in lacrymis ab oratione surgens, sportam et baculum peregrinationis de manu Guillelmi Remensis archiepiscopi, avunculi sui, apostolicae sedis legati, devotissime ibidem accepit: deinde desuper corpora sanctorum, duo standalia decenter insignita, pro memoria sanctorum martyrum, et tutela contra inimicos crucis pugnaturus propriis manibus accepit. » Ita ille. Ubi manifeste distinguit baculum peregrinationis a standaliis seu vexillis, quorum unum erat auriflamma; alterum, signum regale, quod utrumque nominat Brito infra num. 6. ¶ 3. Coelitus in terram delata creditur, ut quemadmodum Constantino Magno Labarum, sic Francorum regibus Auriflamma signum esset victoriae. Hinc flammulam victoriosam appellat Jacobus Meyerus lib. XII Annalium Flandriae: « Flammulam illam victoriosam gessit eo die, inquit, Milo Noerius, qui non diu post fuit in humanis. » Eamdem Stephanus Forcatulus appellat vexillum coeleste, lib. VI De Gallorum imperio, ubi sic scribit: « Nihil omnino Francos jam pietatis studiosos magis inflammavit, quam vexillum coeleste, purpureum, aureo licio variatum. Parcarum manu textum putares ad terrorem hostium nominis Christiani Francique, sparsis liliis similiter lectis ex hortis coelestibus, albicante circa medium cruce, non modo propter argenteum colorem signis militaribus familiarem, prae caeteris (quoniam, ut putat Plinius, longissime fulget), sed peculiariter a Gallis receptum in sacris et caeremoniis. » Sed ille: « Sunt qui hoc coeleste beneficium Carolo Magno collatum fuisse contendunt. » Inquit Gaguinus libro primo Historiae Francorum. Verum alii retro usque ad Clodoveum primum e Francis regibus Christianum, auriflammae originem referunt: idque velut certa ad posteros traditione fluxisse a majoribus credunt. Inde sunt aurei isti versus Ronsarci, Franciados lib. IV: / [522] Veis tu Clovis, grand honneur des Troyens? / Qui le premier abhorrant les payens, / Et des Gentils les menteuses escoles, / Pour suivre Christ, laissera les idoles, / Donnant baptesme aux François desvoyez. / Et lors du ciel luy seront envoyez, / Un oriflamme, estendart pour la crainte (continues)

The little flame taken from the altar. I will tell what I have found worth recording about this "flammula", or oriflamme, in the writers on French history, French as well as Latin. ¶ 1. The Auriflamma (commonly called in French the Oriflamme) was a sacred and military banner, square, of red and flame-coloured silk, customarily carried before the kings of France as they set out for war and on pilgrimage. Of it Giovanni Villani writes thus in book XII of his History: "Philip VI brought out of the church of St Denis the banner of gold and flame, which is not usually brought out except for the greatest needs of the king and kingdom; and it is made of gold and purple." Here by "gold" understand golden borders; by "flame" or "purple", a silk cloth of flame or purple colour, as will become clear below from Gaguin, no. 7. That it was square, and had no gold except in its borders, seems to follow from William the Breton's writing that it was like the banners the Church is accustomed to use in public processions … [… above the crop] "… (which in French is called the oriflamme), he received most reverently." And this writer, in his book On the Deeds of Philip Augustus, king of the Franks, at the year of the Lord 1190, says this of the same Philip: "At last, rising in tears from prayer, he there most devoutly received the scrip and staff of pilgrimage from the hand of William, archbishop of Reims, his uncle, legate of the apostolic see; then from above the bodies of the saints he received with his own hands two handsomely marked standards, in memory of the holy martyrs and as a protection, being about to fight against the enemies of the cross." So he. Here he clearly distinguishes the pilgrim's staff from the standards or banners, of which one was the oriflamme and the other the royal ensign, both of which the Breton names below, no. 6. ¶ 3. It is believed to have been brought down to earth from heaven, so that, as the Labarum was to Constantine the Great, so the Oriflamme might be a sign of victory to the kings of the Franks. Hence Jacob Meyer, Annals of Flanders, book XII, calls it "the victorious little flame": "On that day," he says, "Milo de Noyers carried that victorious little flame, who not long after was no longer among the living." Étienne Forcadel calls the same "the heavenly banner", in book VI of On the Empire of the Gauls, where he writes: "Nothing at all inflamed the Franks, now zealous for piety, more than the heavenly banner, purple, worked with golden thread. You would think it woven by the hand of the Fates for the terror of the enemies of the Christian and Frankish name, strewn with lilies likewise gathered from the gardens of heaven, with a cross showing white about its middle — not only because the silver colour is familiar on military ensigns above others (since, as Pliny thinks, it shines the farthest), but because it was specially adopted by the French in sacred rites and ceremonies." But [another]: "There are some who maintain that this heavenly gift was bestowed on Charlemagne," says Gaguin in book I of the History of the Franks. Others, however, carry the oriflamme's origin back to Clovis, the first Christian king of the Franks, and believe that this came down from their forebears to posterity by sure tradition. Hence these golden verses of Ronsard, Franciade book IV: [Halloix p. 522] "Do you see Clovis, great honour of the Trojans, who, first abhorring the pagans and the lying schools of the Gentiles, will leave the idols to follow Christ, giving baptism to the straying French? And then from heaven will be sent to him an oriflamme, a standard, for the fear … (continues)

(printed under page 444)

<!-- The whole page is NOTATIONES on Caput XXVI, all within note 20 (the Oriflamme). The foot images show only the lower part of each column; the tops of col 855 (end of §3) and col 856 (end of §5, §6 and the start of the Breton's verses) lie above the crop and are NOT set here. --> (printed under page 445)

(20) (continued) · call above the crop (Caput XXVI)

[… above the crop] vocat coelica dona in his versibus: / ..... at nobis dona, / Et pia Francorum placeant insignia regum; / Aurea coelesti primum sufflata colore / Lilia, Caesareis olim jam credita servis: / Auriflamma dehinc veterum victoria regum: / Tum sacrum nitidis allatum chrisma columbis. / Cui paria sentit Stephanus Forcatulus lib. VI De Gallorum imperio: « Tria, inquit, pignora de coelo missa imperii Gallici sempiterna: scutum liliatum, phiala odorosa, et vexillum splendidum, purpuram aetheream confitens pro certo. Nihil vero moramur incredulos et scurras, qui sorte humana, non divino consilio, regna institui arbitrantur. » ¶ 4. Asservabatur auriflamma in ipsa urbe et coenobio Sancti Dionysii, et magnis cum caeremoniis ab ara ejusdem sancti, per manus abbatis, a rege ad periculosam militiam aut longam peregrinationem accincto, assumebatur, et cum magnis item a reduce ibidem restituebatur. Jacobus Meyerus lib. XIII Annalium Flandriae: « Flammulam, inquit, (quod non nisi extremo discrimine solitum) ex penetralibus Dionysiaci coenobii deprompta, Petro Villerio fortissimo viro tradita. » ¶ Ejus vexilli utendi praecipua tempora indicat breviter Forcatulus, loco supra citato: « Vexillum, inquit, Gallis coelitus missum secundos bellorum eventus vel praestitit, vel ornavit: maxime contra Turcas et Sarracenos. Nec ullo libentius usus narratur Carolus Magnus in sacris bellis, non ullo felicius. Illud quoque praeferri jussit Philippus Augustus Jerosolyma debellatum tendens cum Richardo Anglorum rege, sumpsitque ex aede Dionysiana: sicut postea divus Ludovicus Libyam petens. Plane Carolus VI etiam adversus Anglos sibi profuturum putavit idem vexillum Vido Trimollio creditum: quod auriflammeum nuncupabatur, nimirum a colore. » Sic ille. ¶ 5. Acceptam in manus auriflammam dabat rex gestandam comiti Vilcassino, cui hic honos jure debitus erat, et cujus comitatus a Sancto Dionysio in feudum acceptus erat. Vide Sugerium in Vita sancti Ludovici Crassi Francorum regis, et Franciscum Belloforestium libro tertio Historiae, capite quadragesimo primo, ubi comes Vilcassinus Gallice comte de Vexin appellatur. ¶ De ea caeremonia sic breviter Papirius Massonus lib. III Annalium Franciae: Crassus anno millesimo centesimo vigesimo quarto, publicis tabulis [… top of col 856 above the crop] Quod cum flamma habeat vulgariter aurea nomen, / Omnibus in bellis habet omnia signa praeire: / Quod regi praestare solet Dionysicus abbas: / Ad bellum quoties sumptis proficiscitur armis. / Ante tamen regem signum regale tenebat / Montiniacensis, vir fortis corpore, Galo. / In quorum auctorum verbis est duo vexilla distinguere: unum B. Dionysii, sive auriflammam; alterum ipsius regis quod signum regale appellatur. ¶ 7. Amissa fuit auriflamma (ut auctor est Belloforestius in Descriptione oppidi Sancti Dionysii) in praelio contra Flandros commisso. De eadem auriflamma, ejusque amissione ita Gaguinus libro I Historiae Francorum, in Clodoveo: « Traditum quoque est pannum sericeum, rubrum, instar signi militaris quadratum, miro fulgore splendentem, [523] divinitus esse exceptum; quo in expeditionibus contra fidei Christianae hostes pro signo Franci reges uterentur: huicque vexillo nomen auriflammae hactenus permansisse, diuque a Dionysianis coenobitis asservatum esse: sed abutentibus signo adversus Christicolas regibus, illud evanuisse: alterum tamen non dissimili forma instauratum esse, quod ab episcopis et loci abbate consecratum inter sacra asservata. » Denique amissa creditur auriflamma ad montem Pabulanum, qui mons inter Duacum et insulas Gallo-Flandriae urbes hodieque illustris est. Commissam inibi pugnam anno Domini millesimo trecentesimo tertio inter Francos et Flandros praesente et fortiter dimicante Philippo Pulchro, Francorum rege, describit Jacobus Meyerus lib. X Annalium Flandriae. Quo in praelio et regem ipsum fuisse vulneratum, et flammulam a Flandris discissam ac laniatam, et Anselmum Cherosium ejus gestatorem interemptum, memorat. ¶ Negat tamen Dubleus recens scriptor lib. I Historiae suae, cap. 41, amissam esse: imo se illam vidisse asserit. Verum ego substitutam eam vidisse magis crediderim, quam illam veterem et primam, de qua nimis constat ex ipsismet Gallis scriptoribus esse deperditam. ¶ 8. In hujus flammulae sive auriflammae locum, alia quam simillima vexilla deinceps fuerunt substituta, ut ex iisdem Gallorum ac Flandrorum historiis condiscimus. ¶ 9. Ad auriflammae, seu veteris seu novarum, benedictionem, haec reperitur solita adhiberi precatio: « Inclina, Domine, aurem tuam ad preces humilitatis nostrae, et per interventum B. Michaelis ar- (continues)

[… above the crop] … calls them "heavenly gifts" in these verses: "… but to us gifts, and may the holy insignia of the kings of the Franks find favour: first the golden lilies, breathed upon with heavenly colour, once entrusted to Caesar's servants; next the Oriflamme, the victory of the kings of old; then the sacred chrism brought by shining doves." Étienne Forcadel holds the same, On the Empire of the Gauls, book VI: "Three everlasting pledges of the French empire," he says, "were sent from heaven: the shield of lilies, the fragrant phial, and the splendid banner" — confessing as certain its ethereal purple. "We pay no heed to the unbelievers and jesters who think kingdoms are founded by human chance, not divine counsel." ¶ 4. The Oriflamme was kept in the town and monastery of Saint-Denis itself, and with great ceremonies was taken from the altar of the same saint, by the abbot's hands, by the king when girded for dangerous warfare or a long pilgrimage, and with great ceremonies likewise restored there on his return. Jacob Meyer, Annals of Flanders, book XIII: "The little flame," he says, "brought out from the inner sanctuary of the monastery of Saint-Denis (which was done only in extreme peril), was handed to Pierre de Villiers, a very brave man." ¶ Forcadel, in the place cited above, briefly indicates the chief occasions of using that banner: "The banner sent to the French from heaven," he says, "either granted or graced the happy outcome of wars, above all against the Turks and Saracens. Charlemagne is said to have used none more gladly in his holy wars, nor any more successfully. Philip Augustus also ordered it carried before him when he set out to make war for Jerusalem with Richard, king of the English, and took it from the church of Saint-Denis; as afterwards did St Louis when he made for Africa. Charles VI, too, plainly thought the same banner would serve him against the English, and entrusted it to Guy de La Trémoille; it was called the 'oriflamme', no doubt from its colour." So he. ¶ 5. The king, having received the Oriflamme into his hands, gave it to be carried by the Count of the Vexin, to whom this honour was due by right, and whose county was held in fief from Saint-Denis. See Suger, in the Life of St Louis the Fat, king of the Franks, and François de Belleforest, History, book III, chapter 41, where the count is called in French "comte de Vexin". ¶ Of that ceremony Papire Masson writes briefly in book III of the Annals of France: "[Louis] the Fat, in the year 1124, by public charters … [… above the crop] "… which, since it has flame and gold, commonly bears its name, has the right in all wars to go before all other ensigns; which the abbot of Saint-Denis is wont to hand to the king whenever he sets out to war, having taken up arms. Before the king, however, the royal ensign was carried by Galo of Montigny, a man strong of body." In the words of these authors one can distinguish two banners: one of blessed Dionysius, the Oriflamme; the other the king's own, called the "royal ensign". ¶ 7. The Oriflamme was lost (as Belleforest states in his Description of the town of Saint-Denis) in a battle fought against the Flemings. Of the same Oriflamme and its loss Gaguin writes thus in book I of the History of the Franks, under Clovis: "It is also handed down that a red silk cloth, square like a military ensign, shining with wonderful brightness, [Halloix p. 523] was received from heaven, for the kings of the Franks to use as their standard in expeditions against the enemies of the Christian faith; that the name Oriflamme has remained to this banner until now, and that it was long kept by the monks of Saint-Denis; but that when kings misused the ensign against Christians, it vanished; and that another, of not dissimilar form, was made in its place, which was consecrated by the bishops and the abbot of the place and kept among the sacred things." Finally, the Oriflamme is believed to have been lost at Mons-en-Pévèle, a hill between Douai and Lille, cities of French Flanders, which is famous to this day. Jacob Meyer, Annals of Flanders, book X, describes the battle fought there in the year of the Lord 1303 [sic] between the French and the Flemings, with Philip the Fair, king of the Franks, present and fighting bravely. He records that in that battle the king himself was wounded, the little flame torn and rent by the Flemings, and Anselme de Chevreuse, its bearer, killed. ¶ Doublet, a recent writer, in book I of his History, chapter 41, denies that it was lost; indeed he asserts that he has seen it. But I would rather believe that he saw the substitute than that old and original one, which, as is only too clear from the French writers themselves, was lost. ¶ 8. In the place of this little flame or Oriflamme, other very similar banners were afterwards substituted, as we learn from the same histories of the French and the Flemings. ¶ 9. For the blessing of the Oriflamme, whether the old one or the new ones, this prayer is found to have been customarily used: "Incline, O Lord, your ear to the prayers of our lowliness, and through the intercession of blessed Michael the arch[angel] … (continues)

(printed under page 445)

Note: here the notes are Halloix's NOTATIONES. They begin on this page under a rule and the heading "NOTATIONES", and are numbered to the calls in the text from (25). The text above is Latin only, set across the full page width. So "call in col" gives the half of the page where the call stands. Calls (25) and (26) stand on page 446. The call for (27) is not in the page-foot images. (printed under page 447)

(27) ‹call not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not seen)

Apud Surium, tomo VI Vitarum.

In Surius, vol. VI of the Lives.

(printed under page 447)

(28) ‹Helgaudus Floriacensis› · call in col 859

Helgaudus in Vita Roberti regis Francorum.

Helgaud, in the Life of Robert, King of the Franks.

(printed under page 447)

(29) ‹sermone non casso› · call in col 860

Cui promiserat Deus sermone non casso. Promisisse Deum opem omnibus pro quibus supplicasset S. Dionysius, praeter Helgaudum Floriacensem hic laudatum, etiam testatus est Hilduinus in Vita S. Dionysii, ubi haec verba: Dilectio et benignitas quam habes, semper, pro quocunque petieris, impetrabit. Refert eadem verba Guilielmus Nangius in Vita S. Ludovici. Similem a Domino promissionem preces S. Viti martyris subsecutam esse, scribit Witichindus lib. II Gestorum Saxonicorum: « Hanc vocem, inquit, subsecuta est sponsio divinae promissionis rata et firma esse omnia quae rogasset. » De Gertrude l. I Insinuationum, cap. 23, scribitur, pro quocunque benignissimum Deum negotio invocaret, id eventu prospero semper suc- (continues)

To whom God had promised, by no empty word. That God promised help to all for whom St Dionysius should make supplication is attested by Helgaud of Fleury, cited here, and also by Hilduin in the Life of St Dionysius, where these words occur: The love and kindness that you have will always obtain whatever you ask for. William of Nangis reports the same words in his Life of St Louis. Widukind writes in Book II of the Deeds of the Saxons that a like promise from the Lord followed the prayers of St Vitus the martyr: "This utterance," he says, "was followed by the divine pledge of a promise that all he had asked would be ratified and firm." Of Gertrude it is written, in Book I of the Insinuationes, ch. 23 [the numeral is unclear on the scan], that whatever business she called upon the most kind God for, it always suc- (continues)

(printed under page 447)

(none) Note: the page foot holds only text. The continuation of notation (29) from page 447 is not printed here. (printed under page 448)

Note: the text is Latin only, set across the full page width, so "call in col" gives the half of the page where the call stands. Notationes (32)–(34) stand under the "NOTATIONES" rule in mid-page, at the end of Chapter XXVIII. Their calls are not in the page-foot images. The scripture note at the very foot of the page is printed as "(v)". The call in the text above reads "(y)". (printed under page 449)

(32) ‹call not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not seen)

Flodoard. lib. I Hist. Rhemensis, c. 24.

Flodoard, History of the Church of Reims, Book I, ch. 24.

(printed under page 449)

(33) ‹call not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not seen)

Rigord., lib. De gestis Philippi Augusti.

Rigord, in his book On the Deeds of Philip Augustus.

(printed under page 449)

(34) ‹call not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not seen)

Greg. Tur. lib. I Mirac. c. 72.

Gregory of Tours, Miracles, Book I, ch. 72.

(printed under page 449)

(v) ‹perditio illorum› · call in col 863

Eccli. XXXI, 6.

Ecclesiasticus 31:6.

(printed under page 449)

Note: the text is Latin only, set across the full page width, so "call in col" gives the half of the page where the call stands. Calls (35)–(39) stand on page 449. The calls for (40-41) and (42) are not in the page-foot images. (printed under page 450)

(42) ‹call not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not seen)

E veteribus codicibus S. Dionysii apud Parisios.

From the old manuscripts of St Denis near Paris.

(printed under page 450)

(43) ‹tumulo dejerare... (43)› · call in col 865

Gregor. Turon., l. V Hist., c. 32.

Gregory of Tours, History, Book V, ch. 32.

(printed under page 450)

Note: the text is Latin only, set across the full page width. Calls (44) and (45) are not in the page-foot images, which show only the end of Chapter XXIX (St Odilo on St Majolus). The Greek in (44) is small type on a low-resolution image. Its letters are secure, but its accents and breathings are a careful reading, not a certainty; check them at high zoom. (printed under page 451)

(44) ‹call not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not seen)

Continet indicem librorum S. Dionysii, quorum duplex ordo ponitur: unus eorum qui supersunt, alter eorum qui perierunt. Quod autem hos scripserit quos periisse diximus, ex illis ipsiusmet scriptis, quae supersunt, habemus testimonium. De symbolica theologia enim meminit c. 15 libri De coelesti hierarchia, et cap. 1 et 13 libri De divinis nominibus, et capite tertio De mystica theologia, et Epistola IX quae est ad Titum. Theologicarum informationum meminit c. 1 et 2 libri De divinis nominibus, et c. 3 De mystica theologia. De anima meminit cap. 4 libri De divinis nominibus. De justo et divino judicio mentionem facit ibidem. De divinis hymnis meminit cap. 7 libri De coelesti hierarchia. De iis quae intelligentia et sensu percipiuntur, sive ut vulgo, De intelligibilibus et sensibilibus, meminit cap. 1 et 2 libri De ecclesiastica hierarchia. Sunt qui inter hos deperditos recenseant librum De angelicis proprietatibus et ordinibus, cujus fieri putant mentionem in libro De divinis nominibus, cap. 4, sub initium in illis verbis: Καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα εἴρηται πρὸς ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῶν ἀγγελικῶν ἰδιοτήτων καὶ τάξεων. Et quaecunque alia a nobis dicta sunt in tractatu De angelicis proprietatibus et ordinibus. Ad quae verba sic S. Maximus in Scholio: Ἰδοὺ ἄλλο πόνημα Διονυσίου ζητεῖται. Ecce aliud opus Dionysii desideratur. Verum melius alii intelligunt, tantum significari partem eam libri De coelesti hierarchia, in qua proprietates et ordines angelorum exponuntur. Cum enim id ibi fuse tractatum sit, cui bono alius de ea re liber scriberetur? Tenet etiam non esse disjunctum librum, illa insignis Carthusiae lux et pulchra Eburonum gemma Dionysius Richelius, in sua Elucidatione librorum S. Dionysii. 531 Aliqui etiam addunt librum De legali hierarchia, cujus meminerit cap. 3 Ecclesiasticae hierarchiae. Sed male dispunxerunt, et perperam intellexerunt Dionysium; qui sic legendus est: Ὁ μὲν ἱερὸς λουτήρ, ὡς εἰρήκαμεν, ἐν τῇ κατὰ νόμον ἦν ἱεραρχίᾳ. Isti autem sic legerunt, ὡς εἰρήκαμεν ἐν τῇ κατὰ νόμον ἱεραρχίᾳ, sine ulla distinctione post vocem εἰρήκαμεν, hoc sensu: Ut diximus in legali hierarchia. Sed alium esse sensum, ostendit Pachymeras in sua paraphrasi his verbis: Ὁ ἱερὸς λουτήρ, ὁ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ εἰρημένος. Sacer luter, de quo in lege dictum est, sive sacrum lavacrum, de quo est sermo in Vetere Testamento. Et paulo post idem Pachymeras: Ὡς γὰρ ὁ νόμος εἶχε λουτῆρα, οὕτως ἐνταῦθα ἡ ἀπόνιψις γίνεται τῶν χειρῶν. Sicut lex habebat luterem, ita hic ablutio fit manuum. Quod ut clarius explicem, habet hunc sensum: Ut in lege veteri erat lavacrum, in quo sacerdotes lavabant manus ac pedes, antequam ad offerendum thymiama accederent: sic in nova lege sacerdotes ante sacrificium debent extremas manus lavare. Itaque ἡ κατὰ νόμον ἱεραρχία nihil aliud significat, quam legem veterem, seu Vetus Testamentum. Sic accepit idem Dionysius cap. 5 Ecclesiasticae hierarchiae, sub initium, de Judaeis loquens, quibus, tanquam pueris, Deus dedit legem: Νηπίοις μὲν οὖν, κατὰ τὸ Λόγιον, ἐδωρήσατο τὴν κατὰ νόμον ἱεραρχίαν. Quibus, inquit, pueri cum essent, dedit hierarchiam legalem, id est legem, sive statum legis. Quare melius hunc S. Dionysii locum intellexit Pachymeras, quam S. Maximus: si tamen idem Maximus (quod hodie legitur) Dionysii verbis addidit: Σημείωσαι, ὅτι οὐ λουτὴρ ἦν ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, καὶ ὅτι σύνταγμα ἔχει ἄλλο περὶ τῆς κατὰ νόμον ἱεραρχίας, ὅπερ οὐ φέρεται. Nota, in lege non fuisse luterem, et Dionysium habere alium tractatum de hierarchia

It contains a list of the books of St Dionysius, set out in two orders: one of those that survive, the other of those that have perished. That he wrote the books we have said perished, we have the testimony of his own surviving writings. He mentions the Symbolic Theology in ch. 15 of the book On the Celestial Hierarchy, in chs. 1 and 13 of the book On the Divine Names, in the third chapter On Mystical Theology, and in Letter IX, which is to Titus. He mentions the Theological Outlines in chs. 1 and 2 of the book On the Divine Names and in ch. 3 On Mystical Theology. He mentions On the Soul in ch. 4 of the book On the Divine Names. He makes mention of On Just and Divine Judgement in the same place. He mentions On the Divine Hymns in ch. 7 of the book On the Celestial Hierarchy. He mentions On What Is Perceived by Intellect and Sense, or, as it is commonly called, On Intelligibles and Sensibles, in chs. 1 and 2 of the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Some count among these lost works a book On the Angelic Properties and Orders, which they think is mentioned in the book On the Divine Names, ch. 4, near the beginning, in these words: "And whatever else has been said by us in the treatise On the Angelic Properties and Orders." [The Greek is followed by Halloix's Latin rendering of it.] On these words St Maximus says in a Scholion: "See, another work of Dionysius is wanting." But others understand it better, as meaning only that part of the book On the Celestial Hierarchy in which the properties and orders of the angels are set out. Since that subject is treated at length there, what good would another book on it have been? That illustrious light of the Charterhouse and fair jewel of Liège, Denys Rickel, also holds that it is not a separate book, in his Elucidation of the Books of St Dionysius. 531 Some also add a book On the Legal Hierarchy, which ch. 3 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy would mention. But they have punctuated badly and misunderstood Dionysius, who is to be read thus: "The sacred laver, as we have said, was in the hierarchy according to the Law." They, however, read "as we have said in the hierarchy according to the Law", with no pause after the word "we have said", in this sense: As we have said in the Legal Hierarchy. But Pachymeres shows in his paraphrase that the sense is otherwise, in these words: "The sacred laver, the one spoken of in the Law", that is, the sacred washing-place of which the Old Testament speaks. And a little later the same Pachymeres says: "For as the Law had a laver, so here the washing of the hands takes place." [Each Greek phrase is followed by Halloix's Latin rendering of it.] To explain it more clearly, the sense is this: as in the old Law there was a washing-place where the priests washed their hands and feet before they approached to offer incense, so in the new Law priests must wash their fingertips before the sacrifice. Thus "the hierarchy according to the Law" means nothing other than the old Law, or the Old Testament. Dionysius himself takes it so in ch. 5 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, near the beginning, speaking of the Jews, to whom God gave the Law as to children: "To infants, then, as the Oracle says, He granted the hierarchy according to the Law." To whom, he says, since they were children, He gave the legal hierarchy, that is, the Law, or the state of the Law. So Pachymeres understood this passage of St Dionysius better than St Maximus did, if indeed Maximus (as is read today) added to Dionysius's words: "Note that there was no laver in the Law, and that he has another treatise on the hierarchy according to the Law, which is not extant." Note that there was no laver in the Law, and that Dionysius has another treatise on the hierarchy

Note: on this page the last line of (44), "archia", is set flush right at the foot of the right notes column, below a gap; it completes "hier-/archia". The note ends there. (printed under page 451)

(45) ‹call not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not seen)

Hujus ad B. Joannem Epist. meminit S. Damascenus, orat. 3 De imaginibus.

St John Damascene mentions his Letter to Blessed John in Oration 3 On the Images.

(printed under page 451)

CAPUT XXX.

CHAPTER XXX.

Librorum sancti Dionysii index (44).

Index of the books of Saint Dionysius (44).

Primam in theologia laudem, secundum Scripturæ sacræ libros, sibi ex doctorum et piorum consensu vindicant sancti Dionysii Opera, multis probata et laudata cum philosophis tum theologis. Quorum librorum pars optima, Dei beneficio, hodie superest : nonnulla portio injuria temporum interiit.

By the consent of learned and godly men, the Works of Saint Dionysius claim for themselves the first praise in theology after the books of Holy Scripture. Many, philosophers and theologians alike, have approved and praised them. By God's kindness the best part of these books survives today; some portion has perished through the injury of time.

Supersunt hodie libri :

The books surviving today are:

De cœlesti hierarchia. 1. De divinis nominibus. 1. De ecclesiastica hierarchia. 1. De mystica theologia. 1. Item Epistolæ. Ad Caium. 1. Ad Sopatrum. 1. Ad Demophilum. 1. Ad B. Joannem evangelistam. 1 (45). Ad Dorotheum. 1. Ad Titum. 1. Ad Apollophanem. 1. Ad Polycarpum. 1.

On the Celestial Hierarchy, 1. On the Divine Names, 1. On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 1. On Mystical Theology, 1. Likewise the Letters: To Caius, 1. To Sopater, 1. To Demophilus, 1. To Blessed John the Evangelist, 1 (45). To Dorotheus, 1. To Titus, 1. To Apollophanes, 1. To Polycarp, 1.

His porro superstitibus hoc insigne laudis merito ascripsit seu Ambrosius Camaldulensis, seu Jacobus Faber Stapulensis, seu quilibet alius, quisquis primus fuit, theologia vivificans, solidus cibus. Nihil enim in omnibus istis Areopagitæ scriptis facile reperias, quam solidum cibum, quam theologiam vivificantem.

To these surviving books, moreover, someone deservedly ascribed this mark of praise: "life-giving theology, solid food". It may have been Ambrose of Camaldoli, or Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples, or anyone else; whoever it was first. For in all these writings of the Areopagite you will hardly find anything but solid food, anything but life-giving theology.

De symbolica theologia. De anima. De divinis hymnis. Theologicæ informationes. De justo et divino judicio. De iis quæ intelligentia et quæ sensu percipiuntur.

On Symbolic Theology. On the Soul. On the Divine Hymns. Theological Outlines. On the Just and Divine Judgement. On the Things Perceived by the Intellect and Those Perceived by Sense.

Quibus libris magno Ecclesiæ damno deperditis, idem qui supra, quisquis ille fuerit, hanc jure bono affixit tristis naturæ epigraphen : Infinitus thesaurus aut deperditus aut absconditus. Scripsisse autem Dionysium libros ejusmodi, nulli magis quam ipsi credimus. Quippe qui in iis, qui modo exstant, istorum qui non exstant, a se scriptorum meminerit. Libros porro qui supersunt, egregiis Deus opt. max. decoravit miraculis. Anno enim a Christo ortu circiter octingentesimo vigesimo quarto, cum Michael Balbus imp. Orientis legatos ad Ludovicum Pium regem Francorum et Occidentis imp. misisset, eo ipso die quo libri S. Dionysii per Theodorum diaconum, Ecclesiæ Constantinopolitanæ œconomum, qui unus erat e legatis, ad cœnobium Dionysianum allati sunt (erat autem Vigilia S. Dionysii) novem decim insignes variorum morborum curationes meritis tanti martyris designatæ sunt, eæque in personis notissimis, nec longe ab eodem cœnobio degentibus. Duobus autem fere post hæc sæculis, sive sub annum Domini nongentesimum sexagesimum septimum, Othone Magno imperante, aliud accidit prodigium, quod totidem hic verbis referam, quot nobis transmisit sanctus Odilo presbyter in Vita S. Majoli abbatis Cluniacensis : « Cum esset, inquit, aliquando sanctus Majolus in monasterio sanctissimi martyris Dionysii, et pro consuetudine nocturnis horis legeret ejusdem martyris et admirabilis philosophi librum De hierarchia cœlesti, gravi in eum incidente somno, cereus e manu ejus in libri paginam decidit : et ecce rem stupendam, ignis et naturæ suæ officium persequens, ellychnium et ceram consumpsit, paginam violare non est ausus ! » Ita S. Odilo.

These books were lost, to the Church's great harm, and the same man as above, whoever he was, rightly fixed on them this inscription of a sorrowful kind: "An infinite treasure, either lost or hidden." That Dionysius wrote books of this kind we believe no one more than himself, since in the books that now exist he mentions these, which he wrote and which do not exist. The books that survive, moreover, God, best and greatest, has adorned with remarkable miracles. In about the eight hundred and twenty-fourth year from the birth of Christ, Michael the Stammerer, emperor of the East, had sent envoys to Louis the Pious, king of the Franks and emperor of the West. On the very day on which the books of Saint Dionysius were brought to the monastery of Saint-Denis by Theodore the deacon, steward of the Church of Constantinople, who was one of the envoys (it was the Vigil of Saint Dionysius), nineteen notable cures of various diseases were recorded through the merits of so great a martyr, and these in persons very well known, living not far from that same monastery. About two centuries after this, around the year of the Lord nine hundred and sixty-seven, in the reign of Otto the Great, another wonder occurred, which I shall relate here in as many words as Saint Odilo the priest handed down to us in the Life of Saint Majolus, abbot of Cluny: "Once, when Saint Majolus was in the monastery of the most holy martyr Dionysius, and according to his custom was reading in the night hours the book On the Celestial Hierarchy by that same martyr and admirable philosopher, a heavy sleep fell upon him, and a wax candle dropped from his hand onto the page of the book. And behold a thing to be wondered at: the fire, carrying out the work of its own nature, consumed the wick and the wax, but did not dare to harm the page!" So Saint Odilo.

NOTATIONES.

NOTES.

<!-- note: the editors' prose fills the top of the column, printed full width: the Caput XXX heading (preceded in the scan by "520", the original edition's page number, omitted here), the index title, and the text from "Primam in theologia" to "Ita S. Odilo". "(44)" and "(45)" are Migne's note calls, kept as printed. A rule and the heading NOTATIONES follow. Below it, in two columns, notes (44) and (45) run to the column foot; they are commentary notes set elsewhere and are not set here. The chapter is complete in this column. Italics are not marked. Uncertain readings at the blurred right margin: "consensu" (line 1), "Cluniacensis" (the scan is unclear). "a Christo ortu" is kept as printed. -->

(none) Note: the foot of the page holds the start of Halloix's Quaestiones quatuor (title, preface, Quaestio prima), which is text, not footnotes. Only the last three lines of the notationes ending above the double rule are in the image, cut off at the left edge ("…non fuisse in lege luteres seu pelves ad lotionem sacerdotem ante sa-" | "…incertum est an ea sint quae sanctus Dionysius perscripsit, an vero desumpta tantum ex illis, saltem ex parte."). They belong to notes that start higher on the page, outside these images. They are not set here and need the full page. (printed under page 452)