Prolegomena

PROLEGOMENA.

DISSERTATION ON THE WORKS OF ST. DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE

CHAPTER I. Analysis of all the works of St. Dionysius.

§ I. *The Book on the Celestial Hierarchy.* — The first book inscribed with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite bears the title *On the Celestial Hierarchy*, and, like the others that follow, it is addressed to Timothy the co-presbyter. From the very beginning of this book (cap. 1), the author, having professed that all light is derived to us from God the Father, sets out to treat his subject concerning celestial matters—matters which are most difficult, yet which were shadowed forth by material and corporeal things—using both Sacred Scripture and the Fathers, having first implored the aid of Christ the Lord. Wherefore (cap. 2), having made a distribution of his work, he first reveals why Divine Scripture everywhere presents angels to us in figures so lowly and so alien to their nature. Then (cap. 3) he defines and divides the entire hierarchy; and he clearly demonstrates what its end and purpose are, and what its functions and duties are. Hence (cap. 4) he passes to the explanation of the angelic hierarchy itself, and shows that God is participated in by no creature more excellently than by the angels; and, indeed, because they lead others to the knowledge of Divinity, for this reason they have been gifted with that name of "angels." And having been given this occasion, he teaches that through their ministry not only were divine visions displayed in the Old Testament, but also the Incarnation of Christ in the New Covenant was announced to us. He explains, furthermore (cap. 5), why the name of "angel," which specifically belongs to the lowest order of celestial spirits, is so indiscriminately attributed to the others—so that they themselves are never called by the other names in return. He then progresses (cap. 6) to the division of the angels, and shows that they are distributed into three hierarchies, and each of those hierarchies into three orders, in such a way that the first comprises the orders of the Seraphim (cap. 7), Cherubim, and Thrones; the second, those of the Dominations (cap. 8), Virtues, and Powers; and the third, finally, those of the Principalities (cap. 9), Archangels, and Angels. Thereafter (cap. 10), he clarifies how each hierarchy is purified, illuminated, and perfected; and he makes clear (cap. 11) why all Angels are promiscuously called by the name of ^A celestial virtues, a name which is peculiar to the second order of the second hierarchy. Afterward, he resolves and solves several difficulties that pertained to his argument (cap. 12), namely why a bishop is called an angel of the almighty Lord, why from the order of the Seraphim one was sent to Isaiah, and how great is the number of the Angels (cap. 13). Finally (cap. 14), with the corporeal images by which angels are figured in Scripture explained one by one, he concludes the book.

§ II. *The Book on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.* — In that former book, he had indeed laid the foundations for another book, which he wished to be inscribed *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*; but he himself testifies that he would not have laid a hand to it had he not been overcome by the prayers of Timothy. However, he had diligently commanded this same Timothy (cap. 1) from the beginning of his book not to disclose our mysteries to the uninitiated, and now he shows from what source the ecclesiastical hierarchy draws its illuminations, in what it agrees with the celestial [hierarchy] or differs from it, what its definition, beginning, and end are, and finally why it is handed down to us veiled in symbols and ^B corporeal figures. Thereafter, approaching more closely to the individual matters that pertain to it, he discusses point by point the sacraments of baptism (cap. 2) and the Eucharist (cap. 3), the consecration of the sacred ointment or chrism, *τοῦ μύρου* (cap. 4), the ordination of the sacred ministers of the Church—namely, bishop, presbyter, and deacon—and the solemn profession of monks (cap. 6). To these he subjoins an accurate description and exposition of the ceremonies by which the bodies of the dead were buried; and afterwards he discourses on the baptism of infants. Then, finally, he adjures and beseeches Timothy, if he has or can possess any clearer knowledge of these mysteries, to communicate them kindly with him.

§ III. *The Book on the Divine Names.* — In the third book, which our author asserts he wrote after the publication of his volume of *Theological Hypotyposes*, he disputes concerning the divine names (cap. 1). He professes that he will treat his argument from the Sacred Scriptures, where all the names of God, who is *ἀνώνυμος* (nameless) and *πολυώνυμος* (many-named), are exhibited. And indeed, he says (cap. 2) that those names of God are of a twofold kind: the others, as they call them, absolute and essential, which ^C nature

^A of the divine and most holy persons of the Trinity belongs without any division; others, as they speak, are relative, which so belong to each person individually that they cannot be attributed to another. Furthermore, to explain these, he uses the book of a certain Hierotheus, his master, and therein (cap. 3) he declares in few words why, after that excellent man, whom he praises with the highest encomiums, and with whom he says he was present at the Dormition of the Mother of God, he turned his mind to completing his own lucubration. After these things (cap. 4) he discourses on the individual names of God, and begins with an exposition of the Good and goodness, of the Beautiful and beauty, of love, affection, the lovable, and the beloved. Hence, however, seizing the occasion, he elucidates certain questions concerning the nature and origin of evil, and clearly reveals how it could have fallen upon the angels. He proceeds then (cap. 5) with the promised explanation of the names of God, and treats of the name of Being, which is so attributed to God that it is the principle and cause of all other things, ^B and in that mode (cap. 6), he reveals how the patterns of all things pre-existed in God. He explains furthermore how God is life, from whom all other living things receive their own: how (cap. 7) He is wisdom itself, the cause of all mind, reason, wisdom, and intelligence; how (cap. 8) He knows all things, and is known by creatures: how the Word, λόγος, is truth and the foundation of our faith: how all other things are derived from His infinite power; and (cap. 9) how His justice is the norm, salvation, and redemption of all. But to these (cap. 10) why God is called great and small, the same and different, like and unlike; what His rest, His seat, and His motion are, why He is named equal, all-containing, παντοκράτωρ, the Ancient of Days, ancient and new; and therein he contends to explain the nature of time and eternity. Afterward (cap. 11) he discourses concerning the peace of God, who is the author of all peace, and demonstrates that it is desired by all. Hence (cap. 12) he answers those things which Timothy, in a letter written to him, had requested—what it is to be of oneself, to be life of oneself, to be wisdom of oneself. Then, immediately returning to the explanation of the divine names, he makes it clear (cap. 13) why God is called the Holy of Holies, King of kings, Lord of lords, God of gods. Things being thus explained, he warns that he has explained the divine names according to his own abilities, and not according to their dignity, so that if anything has been said rightly by him, it should be attributed in its entirety to God Himself; but if anything is less right and perfect, he wishes that to be corrected by the skill of Timothy. He promises, finally, that he will write concerning symbolic theology after these things, and thus puts an end to his book.

V. On the book of mystical theology

V. Epistle

The fifth epistle, written in the same style as the preceding ones, is addressed to Dorotheus the λειτουργόν. In it, however, the author discloses what the divine darkness is, and makes it plain that God is truly known at that time when He is known to be above all science and knowledge.

The sixth is sent to the presbyter Sosipater, which, though the shortest of all, yet has the form of an epistle. In it, our author gives friendly advice to Sosipater, that he should devote his work not so much to arguing against heretics as to establishing the truth.

The seventh seems to be a reply to the bishop Polycarp, who had announced to him that he was being openly accused by the sophist Apollophanes for having allegedly not set forth the opinions of the Gentiles sincerely, but for having refuted them. He says, therefore, that when he disputed against the Gentiles, he always reported things truthfully as they were; and he asks Polycarp to signify to Apollophanes that it is he himself who abuses divine things against the divine. For he had been convinced of the divinity of Christ not only by those unusual movements of the heavens which had happened in the times of Joshua and Hezekiah, but primarily by the stupendous eclipse of the sun that he himself had seen at Heliopolis while Christ was being crucified. To recall this to his memory, and to exhort him to embrace the Christian religion, he beseeches and commands him.

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

And before him, there was found no one who dared to attempt this. Finally, by a wondrous vision of Saint Carpus, he demonstrates that a repentant sinner ought not to be rejected by him. ^A

At the beginning of the ninth epistle, addressed to Titus the bishop, our author clarifies what the symbolic and corporeal figures, which are attributed to God in Sacred Scripture, signify. Then, having set out to explain what Titus had requested, he points out what the drunkenness, reclining, sleep, and awakening of God mean; from which you may easily gather that nothing else is being explained there than the earlier words of the ninth chapter of the prophet Malachi.

In the tenth epistle, directed to John the Evangelist—at that time an exile on the island of Patmos—our author surely predicts his speedy return from exile to Asia, and that he himself would enjoy his presence there.

An eleventh epistle to the philosopher Apollophanes is added in some editions of our author; but since it is scarcely considered genuine by anyone, we shall dispute its authenticity at the end of this Dissertation, lest it be confused with others regarding which there is greater difficulty.

CHAPTER II

If a judgment were to be rendered concerning these works from the testimony of the works themselves, it is certain that they had no other author than Dionysius the Areopagite, whom the Apostle Paul brought to the Christian faith and who became his disciple. Nevertheless, the matters which are stated concerning the eclipse of the sun at the death of Christ, the body of the Mother of God, the Virgin, which was seen by him and the apostles after her death, and the return of John the Evangelist from exile, loudly proclaim and testify that they were written by that very Dionysius. But this is called into question: whether the author of these writings is truly that Areopagite whom he professes to be, or whether, by using the feigned name of so great a man, he wished to attribute authority to his own writings. This question, because of the author’s name and the great significance of the arguments treated in these works, appeared to be of such weight and moment that there is scarcely another in the examination of which critics seem to have applied greater diligence.

^B Furthermore, those who adhere to these works are divided into two parties. For some think that all these writings proceeded from Dionysius himself, in whose name they are inscribed. This opinion, indeed, from the time when they were first brought to the public, prevailed among almost everyone until the sixteenth century of the Church, with only a few—and to no effect—voicing complaints. Others, on the contrary, reject these works, books as well as epistles, thoroughly and entirely, adjudging them not to be the work of Dionysius the Areopagite, and considering them to be adulterated and falsely attributed to so great a man. When Valla and Erasmus had embraced this opinion, they encountered the fiercest attacks of all. But once the latter were broken—to such an extent that almost everyone, Catholic and heretic alike, ^C went over to their opinion—many others took up the defense and protection of that opinion against that of the ancients, in lengthy Dissertations recently published.

Therefore, since this question must be called back to examination in accordance with our duty, we shall treat it in such a way that, with the arguments on either side weighed in an equal balance, we may reveal with clarity and precision, as much as lies within our power, their force and strength, or their weakness and faults. To these we shall add all those things which we judge will be most conducive to eliciting and confirming the truth and to dispelling vain sophistries. Finally, we shall strive to clarify this question for our part with that method by which a sincere lover of truth may be able to form his judgment more easily and surely concerning these writings. ^D

CHAPTER III

It is certainly established that all the works of our Author were, by the almost universal consensus of all after the Conference held at Constantinople in the year 553, adjudged to Dionysius the Areopagite. Whether the opinion of the ancients was the same is still debated among the learned. For the supporters of Dionysius bring into the middle the testimonies of Origen, Athanasius, Clement of Alexandria, and Gregory of Nazianzus, by whom they think these writings were either cited by the name of Dionysius or indicated. They add that Dionysius of Alexandria, as Anastasius Sinaita, Saint Maximus, and Nicetas Choniates testify, published annotations and scholia on these same writings of Dionysius.

But their adversaries contend that neither Origen nor Athanasius—as all easily concede—but rather some later authors are the source of these things which are cited. As for the scholia, it seems certain that they are not the product of Dionysius of Alexandria. For Eusebius and Jerome, who most diligently reviewed the works of this patriarch of Alexandria, made no mention at all of these scholia. Furthermore, Anastasius and, following him, Maximus, state that this Dionysius was made a bishop from the number of rhetoricians: "But the great Dionysius" (these are the words of Anastasius) "having been made a bishop from the number of rhetoricians, in the scholia, etc." Maximus indeed says *ἀπὸ ῥητόρων* [from the rhetoricians], etc. But Dionysius, before he was assumed into the bishopric of Alexandria, was not a teacher of rhetoric; rather, he gave catecheses to the Christian people. What else, then, can you gather from this, than that these scholia were written by a certain rhetorician named Dionysius, whom Anastasius and Maximus falsely supposed to be the patriarch of Alexandria? Nor did Anastasius err only in this; for, as the rest...

of his work asserts, Augustine shed his blood for Christ: "Away," he says (cap. 1), "with Augustine, who in his writings signed the two natures in Christ with his own blood." Furthermore, the testimonies of the authors cited thus far in favor of the Works of Dionysius are of such slight reliability that the more learned defenders of the Areopagite have deemed it right not only not to urge them, but not even to propose them.

Another argument is of no greater weight, derived from the fact that Clement of Alexandria, both in what he hands down regarding the knowledge of God through negations, and in the fact that he compared men dedicated to the Gnostic life to those who pull on the anchor of a ship so that they may approach it, imitated our Dionysius. ^B For, on the contrary, some adversaries of the Areopagitic writings contend that it was not Clement who took those things from the true Dionysius, but the pseudo-Dionysius who took them from Clement, since the latter was older. Others, however, think it could easily have happened that both of them—even if one was entirely unknown to the other—used that comparison of the ship’s anchor being pulled, which is obvious to anyone. And in fact, that comparison is set forth by each in a clearly different manner and is applied to quite different subjects. As for what is handed down regarding the knowledge of God through negations, that is no less common and trite, and therefore it could equally be taught by two writers unknown to each other.

Regarding Gregory of Nazianzus, whom some suppose to have culled something from the Works of our author, ^C the difficulty is, without a doubt, greater. For while some deny that the same Works are the offspring of Dionysius the Areopagite, they acknowledge that they were read and perused by Gregory of Nazianzus, and are therefore older than he. But a more suitable place for discussing these matters will be given below.

CHAPTER IV.

The chief and primary momentum for the Areopagitic writings is derived from the fact that in the year 533, in the Collation of Constantinople, these Works of our author were first cited under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite by the Acephali or Severian heretics against the orthodox; shortly thereafter, they were accepted by the Catholics themselves as the true and genuine fruit of that same Dionysius; and finally, they were claimed for him by all other writers of every kind and level of erudition down to our own age. We shall compile long catalogs of these writers; but their individual testimonies—partly because they are too lengthy, and partly because no dispute is stirred up regarding their authority—we shall not cite in full, contenting ourselves with naming each one and their writings.

Accordingly, after the Collation of Constantinople, toward the end of the sixth century, Leontius of Byzantium, in Book I *Against Nestorius and Eutyches* and in the book *On Sects*, ^D attributes the Works to Dionysius the Areopagite. Before him, Ephrem, patriarch of Antioch.

Around the beginning of the seventh century, Gregory the Great held the same opinion in Homily 34 on the Gospel of Luke. In the same century, the Monothelite heretics and all the Catholics, whether in the Lateran or the general Council of Constantinople, or in their own writings, attribute and claim the same Works for Dionysius the Areopagite. Indeed, the heretics: Sergius, in his epistle to Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria; Themistius, in his epistle to Marcellinus the presbyter and Stephen the deacon. The Catholics, however: Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in his epistle to Sergius; Pope Agatho, in his epistle to Constantine Pogonatus; Maximus the Abbot and martyr, in his *Scholia*. Likewise, Pope Adrian I, in his epistle to Charlemagne in favor of the Seventh Synod. To these may be added Theodore the Presbyter in Photius’s *Bibliotheca*, codex 11. For although his age is unknown, he is nevertheless believed to be very ancient.

In the eighth century, John of Damascus, Book I of *The Orthodox Faith*, chap. 15, and Book II, chap. 3; Michael Syncellus, praised by Theodore the Studite in Book I, epistle 213; Anastasius of Nyssa, *Questions* 51 and 52.

In the ninth century, Pope Nicholas I, in his epistle to the Emperor Michael; Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in his *Bibliotheca*, codex 231; Hilduin, Abbot of St. Denis, in *On the Areopagite*; Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, in his epistle to Charles the Bald; Anastasius the Librarian, in his epistle to the same.

In the tenth century, Simeon Metaphrastes, in his *Oration on the Falling Asleep of the Mother of God*. To this place, perhaps, some writers of uncertain age may be summoned: Elias of Crete, in his second oration on St. Gregory of Nazianzus; Antonius Melissa, Book I, sermon 19, and several others.

In the eleventh century, Suidas in his *Collectanea*.

In the twelfth century, Euthymius Zigabenus, the monk of the Panoplia, title 11; Hugh of Saint Victor; Peter Lombard in his first *Sentences*, and other later scholastic theologians.

In the thirteenth century, Nicephorus Callistus, book 11 of *Ecclesiastical History*, chaps. 20 and 22; St. Thomas Aquinas in his second *Sentences*, dist. 10, quæst. 1, art. 12; George Pachymeres, paraphrast of the writings of Dionysius.

In the fourteenth century, Theodore Prodromus.

In the fifteenth century, Cardinal Bessarion, book I of *Defense of Plato*, chap. 3; Dionysius the Carthusian, in his preface to the *Dionysius Areopagita*.

In the sixteenth century, the Faculty of Theology of Paris condemned Luther and Erasmus in the Sorbonne assemblies for denying that these same writings proceeded from Dionysius the Areopagite, the former in the year 1520 and the latter in 1527. The later decree has often been published in the complete works of Erasmus, who is struck by it, and is obvious to everyone. But the former, by which Luther is proscribed, hitherto unedited, is drafted in the books of the Sorbonne, from which we have transcribed it, in these words: "Added also is this from the book on the Babylonian Captivity: In Dionysius, who wrote about the Celestial Hierarchy, there is almost nothing of solid erudition and

^A dream-like nonsense." In *Mystical Theology*, however, he is most pernicious, platonizing rather than christianizing. In *Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, he plays with allegories, which is the study of idle men." This proposition is false, asserted rashly and arrogantly, and is an injury to a holy man, illustrious for his signal erudition, whom Damascene calls the divine Areopagite, the most keen disciple of Paul, and most eloquent concerning God.

Yet, say the anti-Areopagiticists, it will seem probable to no one that so many and such learned men, councils, supreme pontiffs, and erudite writers over so many centuries possessed so little-accurate a criterion, and were so bereft of all knowledge of ecclesiastical history, that they never even thought to inquire about the author of these writings? Who could ever persuade himself that such sloth, negligence, and blindness could have befallen them? Therefore, to brand with such a mark of error men so outstanding in knowledge, dignity, and authority, it will seem to no one obviously not a wickedness.

CHAPTER V.

Those who deny that these writings are the genuine work of Dionysius the Areopagite say that for one to be able to conclude anything certain from such traditions, they must be consistent and altogether perpetual. But that this tradition of attributing these writings to Dionysius the Areopagite was neither consistent nor perpetual, they contend can be demonstrated by three arguments in particular.

The first is that these same writings, which—on account of the author's name and the sacred, and clearly divine, matters that are treated in them—ought to have been most famous and known to all Christians, were for the first three centuries of the Church known to absolutely no one, but were passed over in the deepest silence and buried in the densest darkness.

Why is it that those who, during those times, committed anything to memory concerning Dionysius the Areopagite, or those who published the most accurate catalogues of ecclesiastical writers, such as Dionysius of Corinth, Eusebius, and Jerome, never made any mention of his letters or books?

Finally, those who refute the errors and heresies exposed in these writings, namely Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and others; or those who labored on the same topics as our author, whether of faith or ecclesiastical discipline, are nowhere read to have cited his writings to settle their disputes, to refute heresies, or to establish the truth, though they were most effective and clearly necessary.

The second part of their argument is derived from the fact that even in the centuries when the opinion regarding these writings being attributed to Dionysius prevailed, some ^B men who were neither unlearned nor ignoble lived, who either said that it was doubtful, or entirely denied that it was true.

Finally, the third argument is drawn from the fact that when the matter was discussed more maturely, and examined more diligently by the standard of a stricter criticism, that opinion was at last rejected and exploded by almost all the writers of this age, if you except a few.

Yet the Areopagiticists loudly proclaim that the opinion of the modern critics, or of certain others more ancient, ought not be preferred to the judgment of so many writers cited by them. They do not, however, deny that there is no mention of the Works of Dionysius among the most ancient writers: but they say that this is a negative argument, and therefore nothing at all can be concluded from it.

But the adversaries press hard, and from this confession of theirs they urge that the tradition of so many writers, which fails completely during the first three centuries of the Church, is altogether weak, broken, and debilitated. To whom, they say, is it probable that writings of such moment and such an author were so lost that they were buried in the total oblivion of all for so long a space of time? Indeed, these books were sent by the author to Timothy, so that he might share them with all others initiated into the sacrament of the Christian faith. And if the matter stands so, Timothy doubtless, as one who ought to have cared that they be sent and delivered not only to the faithful Christians, but also to the clergy, and especially ^C to the bishops. These, in truth, ought to have taken particular care that, according to the ancient custom of the Church, they either be kept by them or be transcribed in the sacred archives of the Churches. Moreover, it seems certain that some copy of them had been left by Dionysius himself to his Athenian Church. Who, therefore, will deny that they ought to have been most famous and known to all as soon as Dionysius died?

But these things do not deter Pachymeres. For he has no doubt that these Works were known to the pagans and hidden by them, so that they might publish them after these times in their own name, and appear to be their fathers. "It must be known," he says, "that some external philosophers, especially Proclus, frequently used the contemplations of the blessed Dionysius, and indeed even his very diction." From this it is permissible to opine that the ancient Athenian philosophers, claiming his works for themselves, hid them so that they themselves might appear to be the fathers of his divine books. From whence he concludes that they could easily have been hidden and concealed for ^D the space of one or two centuries.

But although that were certain and most true, the force of the argument is not, however, diminished in any way whatsoever. For although the philosophers, and even all the heretics (which is indeed hardly credible), had conspired to hide the Works of Dionysius, or even had conspired for their destruction, nevertheless, toward many of their copies which were in the possession of the Christians,

and which ought to have been kept in certain church archives, they could not either force their way or take them away from them. What of the fact that when those writings were brought forth in the sixth century, all ^A received them with incredible applause, many described them with great labor, and some even illustrated them with notes and scholia? Why, therefore, did they not excite the same applause and similar admiration in the time of Dionysius? Why, as soon as they saw the light, were they immediately consigned to such dark places of obscurity?

Some supporters of the Areopagite say that they had indeed been scattered among the masses for a while, but that all their copies were either hidden or removed from the public eye by the Arians, who saw their errors condemned in them. But to this point, it is equally countered that those copies which were kept by the orthodox and in their churches could neither be hidden nor carried off by the Arians. And certainly, the zeal and enthusiasm of the Catholics for making manifest those writings, by which the orthodox truth was established, was no less than the concern and audacity of the heretics in abolishing them. Add, if you will, that the Arians were at times accused, and even convicted, of this fraud, either by those who renounced their heresy or by certain Catholic writers.

Wherefore, other defenders of the Areopagite affirm that these lucubrations, since they treat of very difficult and most obscure matters, and are written in an elevated, turgid, and obscure style, were studied by so few that they soon fell into long oblivion. But this answer is argued to be completely overturned by the very ^C words of our author. For he openly declares that he composed his book *On the Divine Names*, in which he disputes about more sublime and difficult subjects, in a simpler and clearer style, so that he might teach less perfect Christians those things which Timothy had transmitted to the more perfect, and to those who grasp more sublime things. Wherefore, he says*, "we also assign that teacher of perfect and mature insights, and the other scriptures, which most closely follow the divinely inspired writings, to those who grasp more sublime things: but we, for our part, have explained divine matters to those like us, according to our own capacity... for introductory discourses, or knowledge and instruction of a lower rank, are suitable for those who are initiating and who have been initiated... lest, according to our ability, we might allow those who lack the faculty for high-level contemplation, and who are destitute of support, to be left without what is written." Far, therefore, would he have strayed from his purpose if his oration, in the tragic buskin as the supporters of the Areopagite think, and turgid with bombast and words affected for pomp, were so difficult and obscure to everyone that anyone would have been deterred from reading his books.

Furthermore, however elevated and difficult the oration of our author may be, why were his books ^D considered of value by Christians in the second and third centuries, nor in that same or later times held in esteem, nor read and kept with the same care? Could it be that to these men, after the space of so many years and so many centuries, they became clearer and of greater weight and authority? Certainly, the book *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, where it is discussed concerning the sacraments and their ceremonies, which were in daily use and were most frequently explained to everyone, ought to have been obscure to no one, and could have been understood by all without difficulty. It ought, therefore, to have been dear to the most ancient Christians and kept in their hands; and for that reason, at least some mention of it ought to have been made by the earliest writers of the Church.

Although this is indeed something that the more moderate supporters of the Areopagite cannot deny, they derive their response from another source. They say that it was not the custom of ancient authors to bring in the testimonies of others for the confirmation of their own dogmas, unless they were forced to do so by the stubbornness of heretics; nay, against the enemies of the faith, they constructed their contentions from the testimonies of divine scripture alone. Hence... not even Athanasius himself used the authority of the Fathers for the defeat of the Arians, etc.

If the matter stands so, their adversaries urge, then truly the Dionysius the Areopagite cannot be called the author of the Works which are attributed to him. For he not only described many fragments of his teacher, but also cites the authority, opinions, and words of others, such as Ignatius, Justus, Bartholomew, Clement the philosopher, and also the vision of Carpus. What more? He also reports the opinions of others, and embraces those which he deems to be truer. Moreover, why do Irenaeus, Tertullian, and other Fathers not use the various testimonies of Dionysius the Areopagite, just as they do those of their other predecessors, against the heretics of their own time? Did the stubbornness of the heretics force these later testimonies upon them more than the Dionysian ones? Did the authority of Dionysius the Areopagite have less weight or efficacy for refuting them than the authority of others?

CHAPTER VI. Another argument of those opposed to the Areopagite, taken from the silence of Eusebius and Jerome, is examined.

But come, let us hear the adversaries of the supporters of the Areopagite, who urge their point against the tradition they have proposed even more sharply. They say, therefore, that the writings of Dionysius, although they were unknown to all other writers, could not have escaped the diligence of Eusebius, who had scoured the archives of so many libraries and churches, and especially the Athenian one, where they ought to have been kept with the greatest care, and who had spared no labor in inquiring after the works of the ancients. Yet it is evident that not all the writings of our author were known to Eusebius, from the fact that he nowhere made mention of them.

Baronius, a man most eminent in both knowledge and his purple mantle, openly denies that the writings of Dionysius were completely unknown to Eusebius. But if you were to ask him why Eusebius was silent about them, he replies that this writer, of a crafty and subtle spirit, because he saw that the Arian heresy—to which he was favorably disposed—was being destroyed by these books, passed them over in a deceitful and fraudulent silence. Yet this response of that most learned man displeased Haloixius, the most zealous defender of the works attributed to the Areopagite, so much so that he explodes it with not a little disdain in these words: "For I consider it an insult that some say he did this out of fraud. For what is there so clear in them concerning the eternal divinity of Christ, that is not contained much more clearly in the Holy Scriptures? ... nor did they cite the blessed Irenaeus as having most clearly professed the eternal coexistence of the Son with the Father." To this, moreover, may be added that not only the honorific mention of Irenaeus, but also that of Clement of Alexandria and many others—who, as we shall show in their proper place, are clearly contrary to the Arian heresy—is missing from Eusebius.

Others, therefore, contend that from that silence of Eusebius regarding the works of Dionysius, nothing certain can be concluded, since he silently passed over many other writers, men most celebrated for their writings and their doctrine, and especially Athenagoras, who had edited an excellent Apology for the Christian religion and a book on the resurrection of the dead. But if you were to say that the works of Dionysius, both by the name of the author and by his rank, and by the very arguments treated in them, ought to have been transcribed far more often than all the rest, and multiplied in various places, you will receive as an immediate response that the books of Athenagoras, though perhaps shorter, were nonetheless considered no less worthy of being described and multiplied by Christians. But the Anti-Areopagiticists object that certain things occur in the writings of Dionysius, namely concerning the sacred books of the Scriptures, concerning the eclipse of the sun at the death of Christ, concerning the falling asleep of the blessed Virgin Mary, and many other things well known, which, had they come to the knowledge of Eusebius, could never have been passed over by him.

Some also draw an argument for silence from Jerome, especially from his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*. From this indeed they conclude that the lucubrations of our Dionysius were unknown to him and not spread abroad before his time. "As if," the Areopagiticists say, "there were no other reason for Jerome's silence? For he had decided to discuss only those writers whom Eusebius had commemorated." But this had to be fortified by them with firm reasoning. For the same Jerome himself openly testifies to a different intention, while he signifies in these words the great difference that exists between himself and those who have edited catalogs concerning profane writers: "They, folding back ancient histories and annals, have placed them as if weaving a not small garland of their own little work from a huge meadow. But what am I to do, I who, following no predecessor, have had myself as the worst master, as the saying goes: although Eusebius Pamphili, in his ten books of *Ecclesiastical History*, was of the greatest help to us. There he declares not obscurely that he had no preceding master, and that Eusebius alone was of the greatest help to him." And in truth, that holy doctor makes mention of certain authors of whom there exists no commemoration in Eusebius. ^A

Perhaps a stronger weapon will be hurled from this against certain Anti-Areopagiticists who confess that these works of Dionysius were edited before the age of Jerome: from this, indeed, it is clearly concluded that they could have become known to Jerome, even though he was silent about them. But they do not believe themselves to be wounded by this weapon at all, as those who argue that those works were brought to light shortly before the time of Jerome, and thus are to be counted among the number of those about which he discusses in this manner: "But if any who have been written up to this day have been omitted by me in this volume, they will have to blame themselves rather than me. For I could not know those that I have not read, while they were hiding their own writings; and what may perhaps be known to others might have been unknown to me in this corner of the earth. Certainly, since they have become famous by their own writings, they will not greatly lament the losses caused by our silence." ^B

On the other hand, the Areopagiticists will thus retort their argument against their adversaries. "Were these same writings, which, by their own admission, began to be most well-known to everyone as soon as they were brought to light, really unknown to Jerome alone?" But the others clamor in vain, it is retorted. "For it is certain," they say, "that the writings of Dionysius were not recognized by everyone in the same way and at the same time." And from then they conclude that to Jerome, lurking in a corner of the earth while he was composing his book, nothing at all was known concerning those most recently published works. ^C

CAPUT VI. Concerning those writers who, after the publication of the works of Dionysius, considered them doubtful or adulterine.

Another point against the tradition of the Areopagiticists is that this silence of so many writers, so deep and so long-lasting, regarding the writings of Dionysius, is not only diminished on that account, but from it, it is also concluded that from the time when those writings began to be held as Dionysian, some writers were found again and again who stubbornly denied it. And they think that this, indeed, can be first proved from Hypatius, who, in the *Constantinopolitan Conference*, responds thus to those who were objecting the authority of the works of Dionysius to the Severians: "Those testimonies which you say are of Dionysius the Areopagite, from where can you show that they are true, as you suspect? For if they were his, they could not have escaped the blessed Cyril." But what do I say of the blessed Cyril? When the blessed Athanasius, if he had known for certain that they were his, would have, before all else, at the Nicene con- ^D

council, brought forward these same testimonies against the blasphemies of the diverse substance of Arius. If, however, no one among the ancients remembers them, from where now you can show that they are his, I do not know. From these words of Hypatius, uttered in the name of the Catholics, two things are gathered. First, indeed, that no mention of these Works was made among the ancients. And from that authority of Hypatius specifically, the prior argument, drawn from the silence of the earlier writers, receives no small amount of strength and firm reinforcement. Second, however, that men most learned in the sixth century were of the opinion that these Works were adulterated, and falsely inscribed with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite.

In the following century, the divine Maximus, a most fierce defender of these same Works, admits that they are attributed by some to Apollinaris, and by others to Dionysius the Alexandrian. In the ninth century, Theodore the presbyter, according to Photius, wrote a book in which he sought to prove that these same Works were the genuine offspring of Dionysius. But why, I ask, did he turn his pen to declaring them for Dionysius, if it were not that there was a question and controversy regarding them among the learned? And what of the fact that Photius himself copied only four arguments from this book, by which those Works were primarily shown to be falsely attributed to Dionysius? For from this, some infer that Photius himself subscribed to that same opinion. And certainly Possevinus, that champion of the Areopagitic writings, pronounces thus upon this opinion of Photius: that the Works of the blessed Dionysius are noted by him as pseudepigrapha. Finally, in the fifteenth century and thereafter, when this question began to be agitated more diligently, the more learned critics, with very few exceptions, clearly and thoroughly rejected all these Works from Dionysius the Areopagite. ^A

The Areopagites clamor against all this, and say that the Works of Dionysius were indeed first rejected at the Constantinopolitan Conference; but when the Fathers examined the matter more maturely, they embraced these same writings as the true and genuine works of such a great man with both arms. As for the rest, they say, truly, they are very few to be encountered over an interval of so many centuries; and they are without doubt not to be compared—much less preferred—in number, in erudition, or in authority, to the many councils, the Sorbonne decrees, the supreme pontiffs, the Fathers, and other writers who adjudicate these writings to Dionysius. But if you dare to accuse both supreme pontiffs, and the Fathers of the Church, and all others, of blindness and error, is it not better to be led into error (if it is right to speak so) with so many and such great men, than to prefer the opinion of certain critics, perhaps more audacious, to the judgment of those men?

The followers of the opposing party insist, however, that the entire force and strength of this response, however much weight it may appear to have, is broken and weakened for a double reason. First, because the objection regarding the tradition of the authors is neither perpetual nor constant; seeing that it, as we have proven, for the first centuries after the age of Dionysius, which is the first and primary requirement, is entirely lacking. Second, neither councils nor supreme pontiffs, having at any time passed a law, have sanctioned these Works to be the genuine work of Dionysius the Areopagite, but are held to have praised them only under that name by which they were inscribed. No mark of rashness, therefore, seems to be branded upon those who, with all the reasons of both sides weighed in an equal balance, have judged that one ought to adhere to the opinion which they judge more probable.

As for the Sorbonne decrees, already cited by us, it cannot indeed be denied that in the later edict against Erasmus, that man and others are rebuked who, having spurned the authority of famous men—that is, the ancient Fathers of the Church—rashly and with an imprudent zeal for novelties, totally and thoroughly rejected all the Works of our Dionysius from the Areopagite. But in the earlier decree against Luther, he is condemned for that reason primarily, and with very just right indeed, because, with an intolerable impiety and impudence, he dared not only to trample underfoot and destroy the method of writing that our author had used in accordance with the genius and custom of his own time, but also the doctrine of the orthodox faith handed down by him. These decrees of the Sorbonne, therefore, say the Anti-Areopagiticists, do not brand any mark of censorial severity upon those who, while always preserving the due honor and reverence for the Fathers, and not rashly, but with reason and judgment, and not with any zeal for novelty, but with a sincere love of truth, depart from the ancient opinion of the many, though not of all. ^{B C}

CHAPTER VIII. Arguments taken from the author's own Works are examined; and first, the arguments of the Areopagites.

The first kind of argument has been examined, by which the Works of Dionysius are either asserted or rejected by the authority of others; now let us proceed to examine the second, which is drawn from his own Works. Both sides believe that this kind of argument serves their own opinion. And first, if you believe the Areopagites, the subject matter of the Works, the style, the diction, and finally the time of writing, show that no other was the parent of them than Dionysius the Areopagite. For the subject matter or argument of the lucubrations is God, the Trinity, the angels, the Church, the ministers of the Church, the sacraments, which argue and indicate a subtle philosopher, and a great theologian, engaged in a most sublime argument. The style, moreover, and the diction are of a man practiced in meditating on divine and sacred things, who was compelled to fashion and compose new and singular terms for the adumbration of things that are otherwise inexplicable. Finally, the time of writing is contemporary with the apostles themselves and their disciples. ^D

^A It openly demonstrates this. For he professes that he himself saw the passion of Christ, and was afterwards instructed in the discipline of Paul and Hierotheus, and then was present at the exequies and burial of the holy Virgin Mary, and finally sent letters to the apostle John, who was living in exile on the island of Patmos. But these things do not fit Dionysius the Corinthian, nor Dionysius of Alexandria, nor any other Dionysius, except the Areopagite. Therefore, he alone must be called the parent and author of these Works, which have always had his name prefixed to them in all manuscripts, both Greek and Latin. And certainly, it seems a sin to call this author into suspicion of the most foul deception, fallacy, and sacrilegious simulation, when his writings not only everywhere breathe holiness, but were also, when carried to the monastery and city named after him near Paris, applied to various infirmities in honor of so great a man and divinely graced with many miracles.

Those, however, who stand on the opposite side, respond that the subject matter of the work could have been handled by another just as much as by Dionysius the Areopagite, but they deny clearly and thoroughly that the style and diction of Dionysius the Areopagite are to be found in these writings. They do indeed admit that the author inserted some things by which he might persuade the unsuspecting and simple that he lived in the time of the apostles and was a disciple of Paul; but they contend that more things were imprudently added by him in these same Works, whereby it is invincibly demonstrated that they were produced long after the age of the apostles and Dionysius the Areopagite. Whether, however, they can prove this, as they suppose, by certain weighty arguments, is a matter for us to weigh accurately.

CHAPTER IX.

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

Here, a knot of no small difficulty has tortured the Areopagites greatly, and to extricate themselves from it, they turn in various directions. For some, with Baronius, have thought that this Timothy is not he who was the disciple of Paul, but another younger one, the son of the senator Pudens, whose name is recorded in the Roman Martyrology and in the Acts of the SS. Perpetua and Felicity. Others, on the contrary, assert that that Timothy was the true disciple of Paul, and they impugn the opinion of Baronius with these arguments. 1. All writers before Baronius, both Greeks and Latins, were of that opinion. 2. Our author records that Timothy was inaugurated into the episcopal dignity, and he wishes his Works to be examined and corrected by him. 3. Baronius and other defenders of the Areopagite concede that he was a disciple and companion of Paul; the same mention of Timothy is made. 4. In all manuscript codices it is recorded that that Timothy held the Ephesian episcopate, over which the disciple of Paul presided. 5. Finally, our author, as we have said, boasts that he lived in the times of the apostles and therefore of the same Timothy. By these arguments, it is also refuted that Bivarius ^B fights for, following the chronicle of pseudo-Dexter, that this Timothy is none other than Eugenius of Toledo, to whom, because of the excellence of his intellect, the name of Timothy was given.

But the force of these Areopagitic arguments is, in turn, not easily overturned by the fact that the Gospel and Apocalypse of the apostle John, and the epistle of Ignatius, which were edited after the death of Timothy, are clearly and specifically cited in our author's writings, as we shall say below. Indeed, the words of the Ignatian epistle alone, which we will demonstrate were truly transcribed by him and not intruded into his text, openly prove this.

But those who stand on the opposite side respond that the matter of the work could have been handled by another ^C as well as by Dionysius the Areopagite, but they deny clearly and thoroughly that the style and diction of Dionysius the Areopagite are found in these writings. They do indeed grant that the author inserted some things to persuade the unwary simple-minded that he lived in the time of the apostles and was a disciple of Paul; but they argue that many things were imprudently added by him in those same Works, by which it is invincibly demonstrated that they appeared long after the age of the apostles and Dionysius the Areopagite.

Baronius adds that that Timothy is often called *pais*, child, by our author. But that he was addressed by that name by Dionysius the Areopagite will seem plausible to no one: For a bishop, says Baronius, is accustomed to call a fellow-bishop a brother, not a son, as could easily be demonstrated by a thousand examples. To solve the difficulties of this argument, other Areopagites gather various responses. And first, they say that Timothy is so called because he to whom Paul wrote these words while Nero was reigning: *Let no man despise thy youth*, seems to be younger than Dionysius the Areopagite. 2. Timothy, who was ruder in philosophy and secular discipline, and also in more sublime theology, held Dionysius as a master and consulted him by letter while absent. 3. Since Timothy was by nature sufficiently timid and pusillanimous, he needed a master not only in the teaching of science but also of virtue and constancy.

But by what example will it be proven that a bishop is called a boy by another bishop because he is ruder in philosophy and secular discipline? Then, by what same argument will you persuade me that Timothy was ruder in those sciences than Dionysius, and that he held him as a master in more sublime theology? Certainly, Dionysius recognized him as endowed with such learning that he wished his own more perfect cognitions to be communicated to him, and his own writings to be corrected by him. "We will also commemorate," Dionysius was saying, "your pontifical science." And elsewhere: ^D

"Communicate, therefore, and to me also illustrate the more perfect, etc."; and elsewhere in the book: "It will be a mark of your humanity to correct the one who is not voluntarily ignorant, and to suggest reasons to the one who desires to learn." ^A

We know indeed that Dionysius was at one time asked by Timothy regarding a certain theological matter, as he himself testified in this manner: "But because you asked me elsewhere by letter what I mean by 'being itself,' 'life itself,' 'wisdom itself,' and you say that you doubted how I sometimes invoke God as 'life itself,' at other times instead as the 'effector of life.'" But who would rightly infer from this that Timothy was more ignorant in philosophical matters than Dionysius, having had him for a master in theological matters? Is it because Augustine consulted Jerome, and other bishops consulted other bishops regarding theological or, if you will, philosophical matters, that we must say they were more ignorant than those they consulted, or that they were addressed by them by the name of sons? Surely no one ever said this, nor even dreamt it. ^B

Yet who could persuade himself that Timothy was so naturally timid and pusillanimous as to have needed a master of virtue and constancy, he whom Paul had as a companion in labors, journeys, dangers, and punishments, whom Paul sent to confirm others? "We sent," says Paul himself, "Timothy our brother, and Minister of God in the Gospel of Christ, to confirm you, and to exhort you for your faith, that no man should be moved in these tribulations." Was then a man of timid and pusillanimous nature to be sent to confirm and exhort others in tribulations?

It remains, therefore, that Timothy is called a boy for the reason that he was junior to Dionysius in age. And this can be confirmed by the fact that Ambrose, as we previously observed, called Bishop Constantius by the name of son. "I commend to you, son, the Church which is at Forum Cornelii." Truly, Timothy, before Dionysius' conversion, had not only given his name to the Christian religion, but was also a disciple and companion of Paul. Then, when Dionysius was laboring over his writings, he must have reached his ninetieth, or perhaps hundredth year, and Timothy was not then younger than eighty. Yet suppose him to have been seventy, or even only sixty, is it to be believed that a ninety-year-old bishop would have called another bishop of such advanced age, who already before him had embraced the Christian religion and had thereafter been a companion and disciple of the Apostle Paul, by the name of son? Nor does the example of Ambrose in any way make for this, since Constantius, when Ambrose wrote to him, had been educated among the Milanese clergy under the mastership of the same Ambrose, and had recently been assumed into the episcopate. ^C

Some insist that Christ called his disciples boys: "Children [or boys], have you any meat?" They add that Clement of Alexandria says all Christians were universally called by the same name, since Christians, because of the simplicity and sweetness of their morals, used to call one another by the name of boys. But that is altogether light and weak. For it was not lawful for a bishop to address and appeal to another bishop in the same manner as Christ called his disciples. Clement, however, does not name Christians "boys" because they addressed each other by this mutual appellation, but because he had given the title of *Pedagogue* to his book. Furthermore, although Christians might call one another boys, it is nowhere read that they, in their writings, called any man of advanced age, celebrated for science, dignity, and virtues, and raised to the episcopate, by that name.

CAPUT X.

Now, if we pass from the inscription of the books to their reading, there will occur throughout books and writers cited by our author who seem to demonstrate quite openly that he is not the Areopagite. For he exhibits and represents the same canon of sacred divine Scripture which is received by all today. But that canon of Scriptures was not yet perfected and sealed in the time of Dionysius. For the Apocalypse, the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, the second of John, and the Epistle of Jude, which he refers to this canon, were excluded from it by many. Then, John published his Apocalypse while he was exiled on the island of Patmos, that is, around the year of Christ 94 or 95; but he made his Gospel public, as many judge, after his return from the same exile, that is, not before the year 98. ^D Add to this that those books are not cited by Dionysius as new and recently published. Whence they conclude that he barely applied his hand to his writings before the hundredth year of Christ. But then that Dionysius would have been entering his ninetieth year, since he is believed to have completed twenty-five years at the time of Christ's passion, so that he might observe the eclipse of the sun. But who would easily persuade himself that a man, most learned from early youth, would have applied his mind to writing books when he was ninety years old and consumed by old age?

But the Areopagiticians are not at all moved from their opinion by these reasons. For they do not deny that there was for a long time a dispute about the number of canonical books, but they say that it can by no means be denied that, just as some rejected certain books from the sacred canon, so also other certain people may have thought that all those which are now ascribed to the same canon should be held as canonical. For not even because some...

^A of the more learned critics think that it was written by the apostle after his return from exile, are there lacking those who also assert that it was written before. But at whatever time it is said to have been written, nothing prevents, say the Areopagiticists, that very text, and even the Apocalypse of the same John, from having been cited by Dionysius, who, having exceeded his hundredth year, exchanged life for death under the empire of Trajan, or, according to others, under that of Hadrian. It must be admitted, indeed, that if this time of Dionysius’s death could be confirmed by certain reasons, the knot of this difficulty would without doubt be solved. But those opposed to the Areopagiticists contend that Dionysius did not live beyond the times of the Emperor Domitian. This they wish to be considered so certain that not only authors of more careful criticism, but also not a few of those who defend the writings as those of Dionysius the Areopagite, have subscribed to this opinion. Moreover, since the time of Dionysius’s death cannot be demonstrated with such evidence as would remove the entire difficulty, the minds of those belonging to the Areopagiticists will certainly not be overcome by that argument. Wherefore, neither will another similar argument have more weight with them, derived from the fact that in the titles of all the manuscripts our author is inscribed as Bishop of Athens. For no one has demonstrated with certain and plainly evident proof how long Dionysius held the Athenian episcopate, or at what time, whether by voluntary resignation or by his death, he finally left it. It will therefore seem uncertain to the Areopagiticists whether Dionysius did not resign the Athenian episcopate after the books of the Apocalypse and the Gospel were published by John. These foundations of arguments, therefore, will only have force among those who, sacrificing solely to the truth, will attempt—laying aside the prejudices of parties—to unravel those difficulties of Dionysian history.

CHAPTER XI.

Some Areopagiticists respond that Dionysius prolonged his life after the death of Ignatius; and hence that his epistles could have been praised by him. But being deeply distrustful of the solidity of this response, which they cannot reconcile with the arrival of this same Dionysius in Gaul, they flee immediately to another, and say that Dionysius published his writings indeed in Greece, but that they were subsequently so recognized and revised by him in Gaul that he added many testimonies from the Gospel and Apocalypse of John and from the epistle of Ignatius to them. But that is invented entirely without basis. For if the works of Dionysius had been republished by him in Gaul, he would without doubt have taken care, for the consolation of his own people and others, to have them translated into the Latin language and published, and many manuscripts of these same works, written in both Latin and Greek hands, would have been found in those regions. Yet none were ever found there; but the earlier ones were carried off from the East, and were written in Greek; nor do we have any Latin version of them more ancient than that which was edited by John Scottus. Furthermore, no one ever revised his own Works, and in their revision added many new things, without having warned his readers somewhere about these. Yet nowhere among our author do traces or notes of such a warning exist.

These responses, therefore, having been either spurned or omitted by other supporters of the Areopagitic opinion, they boldly assert that the cited words of the Ignatian epistle were impudently and ineptly intruded into the text of Dionysius by someone ignorant and unknowing of matters. And this they think can be demonstrated by several points. First, because the aforementioned authority of Ignatius contributed nothing to Dionysius’s argument. For Dionysius there proves that the word *eros*, love, is taken in a good sense by sacred authors. But the same word is used in this very epistle of Ignatius for desire and earthly love. Second, because if this pericopë ^D and sentiment of Ignatius were removed, Dionysius’s discourse would cohere better with itself. Third, that testimony of Ignatius is placed quite absurdly in the midst of testimonies of Holy Scripture. Certainly, a more prudent Dionysius would have given it a place after all the testimonies of Holy Scripture, and even after the authorities of Hierotheus his master, brought forward by him in the same place. Finally, the period which precedes this sentiment of Ignatius contains a most offensive falsity, and one utterly unworthy of such an erudite author. But this period contains these words:

"It has seemed to certain of our sacred Scripture commentators that the name of 'love' (*eros*) is more divine than the name of 'charity' (*agape*)." To this, they say, is most false. For if the name of love (*eros*) were more divine than the name of charity (*agape*), the sacred writers would without doubt have used it more frequently. But the word *eros* in the New Testament, where the word *agape* occurs more than ninety times, is not found even once; in the Old Testament, you will read the word *agape* most frequently, but the word *eros* only twice, in the books of Proverbs, where it is used to signify impure and profane love. Hence they conclude that both the aforesaid phrase, and the very opinion of Ignatius, had been intruded into the books of Dionysius by some malicious busybody.

But opponents destroy this opinion of the anti-Areopagiticists, and their foundations, by the fact that no manuscript has ever been found in which those words of Ignatius were not written in the Dionysian text by the same hand that wrote everything else. What of the fact that we read these same words cited by the author of the prologue to the Homilies on the Canticles, whom the anti-Areopagiticists admit to be Origen, as being truly Dionysian and in the same sense as they were used by our author? Origen, therefore, found nothing in them that was not consonant with the truth, arranged in the right order, and altogether apt and suitable for proving those things which Dionysius intended to prove.

But, they say, Dionysius could not have placed the testimony of Ignatius in the middle of other testimonies of Sacred Scripture; but should have placed it in its own, that is, the last place. But this argumentation is of no greater weight. For who would believe that writers are so held by these laws of citing books that it is not permitted for them to depart from them by so much as a nail's breadth? If indeed things were so, good God! how many testimonies of the ancients would appear to have been imprudently intruded into the books of later writers by the ignorant and unlearned, and from them subsequently to be deleted! For how many writers have not even thought about that method of citing which is now desired? How many testimonies of Scripture and the ancient Fathers will you find intermingled in their works?

Nor indeed was there any reason why they should more fastidiously object that the period which precedes this sentiment of Ignatius contains a most putrid falsity. For in the way it is stated, nothing is found in it but what is most true. For these are indeed the very words of our author, as was said above: "It has seemed to certain of our sacred Scripture commentators that the name of 'love' is more divine than the name of 'charity'." He said "to certain," not "to all." But he believed that it had seemed so to certain ones so persistently, that he at once indicated the writers and the writings where this was handed down. And certainly those who object to these things-even they themselves admit that that name of "love" is found in other books of Sacred Scripture than those cited by our author.

CAPUT XII. The fourth argument, deduced from other works and opinions cited by our author.

Furthermore, not only the authority of Ignatius, cited by our author, but also the testimonies brought forward by him from Bartholomew, Justus, and Hierotheus, his teacher, seem to the anti-Areopagiticists to demonstrate clearly that he is not Dionysius the Areopagite. But in truth, where in the world have these works of such great men, which he cites, ever existed? Who, besides this author of ours, has ever praised them? How did they escape the diligence of Eusebius, that most accurate searcher of the most ancient writers, and of all others? Did the writings of one apostle and of two apostolic men perish so quickly, that no mention of them exists except in our author? Certainly, the works of Hierotheus, who is said to have been the teacher of Dionysius the Areopagite and a disciple of the apostle Paul, whose piety and doctrine are extolled with the highest praises—works, they say, of such a man, to be published at least by Dionysius and Timothy, and to come from their hands into the hands of all Christians, and to be held by them in the highest esteem, and in the churches...

^A should they have been kept. Why then, for this highest of men, who is called "the Great," have his works been buried in such darkness and such oblivion that no trace of them remains except in the writings of our author? Why, moreover, do the very testimonies of Hierotheus appear to have been written in none other than the style of our author? For in both, the same genius and diction, and all other things, appear at first glance perfectly similar to those who read them. From which the conjecture is not altogether rashly held that the books of Hierotheus were never brought to light except in the studies of Dionysius.

But besides this, our author not only produces many testimonies of unknown men, but also recounts various opinions of learned men in such a way that he testifies that he adheres only to those which he considered to be closer to the truth. For where he discourses ^B about the Seraphim who was sent to Isaiah: "Some," he says, "according to the assigned definition concerning the communion of all intelligences, say..." And in another place: "Another has handed down to me a solution that is not altogether incongruous. For he said, etc." And concerning the hymn that was sung in the mass of the faithful: "But as for this hymn, some call it a canticle of praise, others a symbol of religion, others finally—in my opinion—a hierarchical Eucharist, etc." And concerning the wings of the Seraphim: "I do not think that the six wings which the Scriptures commemorate denote a sacred number, as has pleased some, but the virtues themselves." Finally, to pass over other things, concerning the election of Saint Matthias, he has this: "But since, concerning that divine lot which divinely fell upon Matthias, some have, in my judgment, not correctly thought differently from others, I myself shall set forth my own opinion." But truly, who could induce himself to believe that in apostolic times ^C Christians and apostolic men held such various opinions on these matters? Who could believe that there was such dissension and such discord among them concerning the way in which Matthias was assumed into the place of the traitor Judas, and concerning his divine lot and election? Had not the disciples of the apostles learned from them how that election took place? But assume they had received nothing about it from them; surely each of them could have been made certain of that election from other companions of the apostles, or from their successors who were still alive, so that there would be no ground for dissension and dispute.

The Areopagitics, on the contrary, cry out that from the very inception of the nascent Church, as Paul bears witness, there were among Christians, by diabolical arts, heresies and schisms, divisions and dissensions. There is nothing, therefore, they say, to wonder at if in the time ^D of Dionysius there was a dispute about the lot that fell upon Matthias. But as for the lost books of Hierotheus and others, there is nothing that you should admire more, since the many writings of the apostles and apostolic men have so perished that no trace of them has remained. But their adversaries, little moved by these things, argue that, concerning matters which pertain to the doctrine of the faith, there have always been questions raised in the Church by heretics; but concerning matters which were performed among the apostles publicly and by solemn rite, and which could be easily taught to all by them and their companions, no contention could have arisen that would be disputed in writings. Furthermore, the works of Hierotheus, and of Bartholomew, and of Justus, could not have been so easily consigned to perpetual oblivion as the studies of others. For it is certain, if we believe Dionysius, that they came into his hands and into those of Timothy: nor is there any doubt that they deemed them worthy of being communicated with many others, by whom they should have been preserved with the greatest care.

CHAPTER XIII.

Nor should you say that the word *archaias* (ancient) is used to signify not an ancient but a "first" tradition. For it will be proved that the word *archaias* was never used anywhere among Greek writers to signify that which, without any intermediary, was received from someone. Who, therefore, will easily persuade others, without bringing forward any reason, that Dionysius the Areopagite used this word against the signification received by all?

But come, let us see whether those things which our author affirms without hesitation concerning other dogmas handed down to him are more true: "But most especially," so he speaks, "we call those oracles which have been handed down to us in the sacred Scriptures and theological books by our sacred initiators, inspired by the divine Spirit, as also those which our teachers were instructed in by our sacred tradition, without writing, by a more subtle insinuation, not entirely separated from the celestial order, from mind to mind, by means of a word that is indeed corporeal, but at the same time immaterial (γραφῆς ἐκτὸς οἱ καθηγεμόνες ἡμῶν ἐμυήθησαν)." Therein

^A Migne does he record a tradition not written, which he asserts was handed down from mind to mind. But, I ask you, could Dionysius the Areopagite, the disciple of Paul, affirm in such explicit terms that he had instructors and teachers who had learned the order of the ecclesiastical hierarchy from others without writing?

Nor is it a wonder that he uses this same argument of tradition ^B spontaneously, not only there, but more than once elsewhere, to confirm what he has said. For where he discourses on the most holy mystery of the Trinity no less clearly and perspicuously than other Fathers did after the Nicene Synod, he says: "These and any other deifying lights, which our holy instructors have handed down to us in a secret interpretation consonant with the Scriptures, we have drunk in." The Greek reads *kryphia paradosis*, "secret tradition." And a little further on, "The authors of our theological tradition... assign... and by insisting on the sacred Scriptures, some things proper to the said union, and in turn to the distinction." These authors, then, or as it is written in Greek, *theologoi tes paradoseos* ("initiators of the theological tradition"), have elucidated the divine attributes, he says, by insisting on the sacred Scriptures, or, as he said before, by handing them down in accordance with the Scriptures. In that place he therefore brings forward the testimonies of those who, after the books of the New Testament had been published—and above all the Apocalypse and Gospel of John, which are cited there by him—offered authorities for the exposition of the dogmas concerning the divine Trinity. Who, then, were these instructors of Dionysius the Areopagite? Was it Hierotheus? But he is always called by him by name, "our instructor." If, therefore, he praises him in these passages, he surely joins others to him. But furthermore, whoever the masters of the Areopagite may have been, he certainly cites only those who wrote after the books of the Apocalypse and the Gospel of John had been published, in such a way that he was entirely convinced they had come into the hands and knowledge of all. Moreover, our author praised those works of his instructors not as if they were recently published, but as generally known to all. From which anyone can easily understand that all our writer's works were produced later than is believed, and that Dionysius the Areopagite could not have been their author.

CHAPTER XIV.

That argument gains strength from the proofs already advanced, because not only does Hierotheus, as we have said, discourse most clearly on the mystery of the Trinity, but our Dionysius also follows his preceding instructor in such a way that both seem to be arguing after the rise and condemnation of the Arian heresy. For he, no less than Hierotheus, ^C uses the word *hypostasis* quite often to signify the three persons of the divine Trinity. "That it is," he says, "a monad and a tri-hypostatic unity." And elsewhere: "As a triad that by the tri-hypostatic." But where he speaks concerning the circumincession of the divine persons, he says: "of the co-existent hypostases." Yet no one, if Socrates is to be believed, used that word to signify this before the Alexandrian synod, which was convened in the year 362. "For the rest," are the words of Socrates, "the bishops who were present at the Alexandrian council examined this question also with care, namely, regarding substance and *hypostasis*... But what we have learned regarding substance and *hypostasis*, nothing prevents our briefly explaining. Those who handed down Greek philosophy among the Greeks defined substance in many ways, but made absolutely no mention of *hypostasis*, etc." Jerome, for his part, having inquired of Pope Damasus as to whether this word ought to be used, said: "The whole school of secular letters knows no other *hypostasis* than *ousia*... Let the 'three *hypostases*' be passed over in silence, if it pleases, and let 'one' be held." Therefore, in Jerome's time, this word was not yet in use accepted by all, and the holy doctor did not judge that he could use it without consulting the Supreme Pontiff.

But the Areopagitici rise up, and with great spirits repelling the darts of their adversaries, they say it is certain that the pre-Nicene Fathers were so constant in asserting the doctrine which is handed down by the orthodox concerning the mystery of the most holy Trinity, that at the time when Arius began to disseminate his heresy, he was accused of spreading new and hitherto unheard-of dogmas, and was opposed by everyone against his impiety. Furthermore, they say there can be no doubt that the apostles explained this mystery, which is to be adored by Christians, especially by the more perfect, not darkly, but clearly and perspicuously, and in arming them against rising heresies in the doctrine of so difficult a mystery, they left nothing wrapped in obscurities for them. What wonder is it, then, if Dionysius, a disciple of Paul and most skilled in philosophy, explained the handed-down doctrine of this same mystery in words that are clearer and more philosophical than other writers?

^D Furthermore, although the use of this word *hypostasis* was not so frequent and promiscuous before the Nicene Synod, it is certain, however, that the word had been used by some. For Dionysius of Alexandria is read to have used it himself at times. But Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, writing to the other Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, says: "He declared his own *hypostasis*, saying: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,' etc." Finally, with these words of Paul: "the stamp of his *hypostasis*," the person of the Father...

^A marked out as eternal are affirmed by Basil, and praised by Theophylact, Gregory of Nyssa. Furthermore, although it may be granted that there was no use of this word before the time of Dionysius, it must be confessed that there existed someone among the Christians by whom it first began to be employed. What, therefore, prevents Dionysius, a man most skilled in philosophical discipline, who knew the force of this word handed down by Aristotle in some places, from being said to be the first among Christians to have used it with the same sense and meaning as that prince of philosophers?

Against this, however, the supporters of the opposing side urge and insist that although the ante-Nicene Fathers believed and taught that Christ the Lord is true God, the Son of the eternal Father, of the same substance as Him, and co-eternal with Him, nevertheless, by none of them was there ever discussed as clearly and explicitly as by our author regarding the divine persons, their attributes, and their relatives, as they call them, and their essential properties. And indeed, they ask, why did those who, after Dionysius, devoted their efforts to producing works in the second and third centuries of the Church, not possess the same discourses regarding the divine Trinity as he did? Why did no one ever follow the example of him or his teacher Hierotheus?

Those things which are adduced to prove the use of the word *hypostasis* are seen to have nothing of solidity or firmness. For critics and learned men easily acknowledge that the epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria is itself supposed and adulterated. As for the other epistle of the other Dionysius, no one can define at what time it was written. Baronius, indeed, thinks it was dated in the year 328, at which he marks the death of Licinius; but he rests upon a ruinous foundation. For Licinius did not end his life in the year 328, but in 324, as it appears to writers of more accurate criteria. Let us grant, however, that Alexander wrote his epistle at the time Baronius wishes; what follows from that? Truly, it should be no wonder to anyone that the word *hypostasis* might have been used by a man so close to the times of the Alexandrian synod; but it is certainly more wonderful that no writer, as Petavius shows, should have thought to follow in the footsteps of such a great man, except after the Alexandrian synod. And this certainly demonstrates how little that word was used at the beginning of the fourth century, and, a fortiori, in previous centuries.

Nor does that have any more strength and force, which is objected—that this term occurs in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and is explained by Basil and Gregory in the Dionysian sense. For both Basil and Gregory wrote after the Nicene Council; and they interpreted this word in a sense used in their own times. But no one before that council thought that the same word of Paul ought to be explained in this way. And this is indeed so certain that in the Latin version of the same Pauline epistle, the Greek word *hypostasis* is read translated not as *hypostasis* but by the figure *substantia*.

Nor does the authority of Aristotle, cited in one place, contribute to the matter. For it was of no moment among the first Fathers of the Church, since they spurned and despised the dogmas of philosophy. Moreover, if they drew anything from it with the passage of time, they embraced the tenets and doctrine of Plato rather than those of Aristotle.

CHAPTER XV. The sixth argument, elicited from those things which our author mentions concerning monks and their vows and solemn profession.

Those things which are produced by him in these lucubrations concerning the profession and order of monks clearly demonstrate that our author lived after the age of Dionysius the Areopagite. For there he shows not obscurely that this order of monks had been instituted before his own times; and he hands down most openly that their profession and monastic vows were made with solemn and public ceremonies, not otherwise than in the fifth and sixth centuries. But besides the fact that the writers of the earlier centuries of the Church, and even those who discoursed more accurately about individual orders of Christians in those same times, made no mention of a monastic order or of the profession of monks, certainly some very learned and most ancient investigators of monastic matters refer their origin to Paul, Antony, and Pachomius. Therefore, our author must be later than these, and he cannot be called Dionysius the Areopagite.

The Areopagiticists, however, do not think it difficult to solve this knot of no small difficulty by the distinction of a twofold kind of monks. For they say that one kind is that of coenobites and hermits, who, entirely secret from the people and separated from the society of other men, led a monastic life in monasteries and coenobia, or in woods and mountains. These they concede had their origin long after the age of Dionysius, and not before the times of Paul, Antony, and Pachomius. But they contend that there was another kind of monks, who, as the main part of the people and a more illustrious portion of the flock of Christ, were counted among the laity in such a way that the first place in the synaxis after the ministers of the Church was assigned to them. These, moreover, lived a pure and chaste life, free from earthly cares and dedicated to God alone, privately in their own houses in the cities or together in colleges. They say that these monks existed in the times of the apostles, and they assert that they are those about whom Philo Judaeus instituted the discourse which has been transcribed by Eusebius in his History. Nor would you say these, whom Philo does not call monks,

^A but therapeutae, were in truth not monks, but addicted to the Jewish, and by no means the Christian religion; and that Eusebius in this matter—as his learned interpreter Valesius observes—was deceived by a vain error. For from the Areopagitica you will hear that Valesius’s proofs against the author are naught and utterly frivolous. And certainly, they say, Eusebius, a man of supreme erudition in distinguishing the religion of the therapeutae, cannot be accused of such shameful hallucination without the mark of rashness. They add, moreover, that Jerome subscribed to this opinion of Eusebius regarding the Christian religion of the therapeutae in these words: “Philo, seeing the first Church at Alexandria still Judaizing, wrote a book about their way of life as if to the praise of his own nation.”

But if, if it were possible, the Areopagitica were to demonstrate with invincible arguments that the therapeutae gave their name to the Christian religion, let them be permitted to do so. But that those men at some time led the monastic life, such as is described by our author, they will, it is thought, never prove by any monument of antiquity. For, to pass over first those things which our writer has handed down regarding his monks—that they lived not in cities, but having gone forth outside the cities, lived in gardens and small fields, and therefore were similar to the Antonians, ^B which others deny—that, however, is what we ask above all: why Eusebius, who with such effort attempted to prove that the Philonean therapeutae were to be numbered among the Christians, nowhere said that the same men were monks, or had successors who, by their garments, tonsure, solemn vows, and way of living, being separated from all other Christians, professed a more perfect norm of monastic life? Why does Jerome, such a great preacher of the monastic profession, not report these same therapeutae in the number of monks, but mingles and confuses them with all the other Christians of the primitive Church? No other reason, without a doubt, can be brought forward than that neither the therapeutae at the beginning of the nascent Church, nor any Christians in the time of Dionysius, were such monks as are recorded by our author.

And that same thing can be confirmed again by the fact that the early times of persecutions raging against the Christians did not tolerate the monastic institution. For who could persuade himself that the tyrants and worshippers of idols, who attacked all Christians with the highest cruelty, would have left unpunished those who, living together in colleges, were more distinguished than other Christians by their tonsure, garment, and more perfect kind of life? The priest, our author says, stands at the altar... And he who is being consecrated stands behind the priest... following upon that mystical invocation. Which being finished, the priest approaching asks the man first whether he renounces all things divisible, not only vices, but even imaginations. Then he sets forth for him the most perfect life, testifying that it ought to surpass the middle way of living. Where, ^C when he who is being initiated has professed all things, the priest signs him with the sign of the cross and tonsures him... and, having taken off every garment, clothes him in another. But who has ever handed down to memory that in the first times of the Church any monk was seen in public, or captured by pagans, and tortured or killed, who was distinguished from other men of the Christian religion by his garment and tonsure? Where, I ask, is it read that any college, in which monks lived together, was plundered or destroyed by pagans or emperors? If you say that something not entirely unlike these things occurs in the Acts of some martyr, that will immediately be argued to be neither genuine nor sincere, nor certainly defined by their writers regarding the time in which that martyr died.

Finally, our author hands down that the name of therapeutae and monk was trite and common in his time and was given by his teachers to the Christians who solemnly professed the monastic rite: Hence our holy teachers, he says, have pursued them with divine appellations: some indeed called them therapeutae, others however monks: οἱ μὲν θεραπευτάς, οἱ δὲ μοναχοὺς ὀνομάζοντες. Who, I ask, could these teachers of Dionysius be, who imposed those divine names and appellations upon them? Not Philo, certainly. For he, being a Jew, could not be praised by Dionysius the Areopagite as one of his holy teachers. Who, therefore, are called teachers by him? Could it be Hierotheus or others, whose name has fallen away, and whose memory has vanished? But these ought to have been famous in their own times, and easily known to all. Why, therefore, did these alone, with their disciple Dionysius the Areopagite, record the names, order, status, profession, vows, tonsure, garment, and colleges of the monks in the first, second, and third century of the Church? Certainly, since other writers for such long spaces of three centuries have made no mention of all these things, this is surely no light argument that in the time of Dionysius no such monks and therapeutae existed.

CHAPTER XVI.

Maximum multitude of ceremonies, and their solemn apparatus and pomp, by which our author reports the sacraments of baptism, chrismation, and the Eucharist are accomplished and administered, the mass and liturgy celebrated, and the bodies of the dead buried, again reveal and demonstrate that he is later than Dionysius the Areopagite. For he signifies that all these rites are accustomed to be used by Christians with no less number, and no less solemnity, than when the Church was enjoying the most peaceful quiet, in his own time—that is, as he himself feigns—a time nearly most bitter with incredible vexations. ^D Nor do the Areopagitici themselves deny that of many

^A ceremonies mention is made in Dionysius; but they contend that they were instituted gradually in the time of the apostles and, by apostolic tradition, were so derived to others that, in the age of this same Dionysius, they could have grown without difficulty into the number which he describes. Furthermore, Christians, as they maintain, used these rites when, the fury of persecutions being either abated or mitigated, it was permitted to hold their synaxes in safe places. And to prove these things, they adduce the testimonies of Tertullian, who asserts that baptism was administered with no fewer ceremonies than our author claims. Basil indeed testifies that they were handed down from a silent and secret tradition even to his own time. Nor did the same Tertullian think otherwise of these and other liturgical rites: "Which," he says, "we vindicate without any instrument of Scripture, by the title of tradition alone, and from then on by the patronage of custom... If you demand the law of these and other disciplines of this kind, you will find none in the Scriptures: tradition is held out to you as the author, custom as the confirmer, and faith as the observer. You will either perceive the reason for the tradition, custom, and faith yourself, or you will learn it from someone who has perceived it." Nor do they wish certain Anti-Areopagites to be heard here, who, relying on no proofs, boldly deny that certain ceremonies were in use in Dionysian and apostolic times.

Yet that argument is rightly and deservedly urged against the Areopagites: that just as our author commemorates some rites which truly flourished in that first age of the Church, so he recounts many others which had their origin ^C after the Dionysian age. For who would have thought it likely that in the age of Dionysius there existed catechumens and public penitents who were ejected from the church after the readings of the Sacred Scriptures? Yet our author writes thus concerning them: "The custom of the most holy hierarchy permits catechumens and the possessed, and those who are led by repentance, to hear the sacred psalmody and the divine recitation of the Sacred Scriptures: but by no means the sacrifices and spectacles which follow thereafter," etc. Nor should the Greek word θεσμός, which is read there, be lightly passed over; for it means the same as a sanction or an ancient custom. But what sanction, pray, or what ancient custom could be noted by Dionysius which did not originate with the apostles themselves? But under no protection of antiquity or Sacred Scripture will you show a law laid down by the apostles, or a custom introduced by them, whereby catechumens and public penitents were present for the first part of the mass, and were forbidden from the mass of the faithful which followed. Enumerate, if you wish, those whom the apostles and their successors, the apostolic men, cleansed with the baptism of catechumens, those whom they absolved as public penitents, and you will find no one who they ever wished to be constrained by these laws. Unroll also, if you have the time, all the books ^D and you will find in them as well such frequent use of incense at that time, and not as many fumigations as are mentioned by our author in these words: "The Pontiff, about to celebrate the sacred prayer at the altar of God, beginning from the fumigation of the same, circles the entire ambit of the choir, until returning again to the divine altar," etc. Truly, Athenagoras and Tertullian testify that Christians sacrificed to God with neither incense nor fumigation. Indeed, the most eminent Cardinal Bona thinks they are to be understood regarding the custom of burning incense with the same rite, vesture, and apparatus as is done among the idols. But, with the permission of that great man, it should be observed more accurately what Tertullian writes: that Christians burned incense for two reasons, namely, for the burial of Christians, and when some stench offended the place. For he makes this twofold exception, either that incense was not offered by Christians elsewhere, or at least not used as often as is related by our author. Grant, however, that all those fumigations were in use then. But no one, I think, will easily induce his mind to believe that they were used in as many parts of the church as our author designates. For did Christians in the first times of the raging tyrants have churches which consisted of so many parts—a choir, a narthex, and a sacristy?

What, moreover, of the former? What is less heard of in the first century of the Church than this ceremony of consecrating chrism? "The Pontiff," says our author, "having taken the ointment, places it upon the altar, covered with twelve sacred veils." Who ever recorded in memory that that rite was ordained by the apostles or observed by apostolic men? Will you say that it was proper and peculiar to the Athenian Church? But take care that the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite remain safe! For he was the first bishop of the Athenians. Yet our author speaks of this rite not as something new and recent, and instituted by himself, but as something used everywhere by others. These writings, therefore, cannot be the offspring of Dionysius the Areopagite.

Finally, let us add that it seems altogether alien to the appearance of truth that the dead bodies of Christians were committed to burial with all those ceremonies which he also enumerates. For indeed, although supreme peace and tranquility were given to all the churches, they were neither more numerous nor more solemn. But for all the pagans, such magnificent pomp of a funeral and of Christian rites would have been altogether intolerable, nor is it related that in the age of Dionysius any Christian, paying the last rites to his own during such great parentalia, was ever caught by the heathens.

CHAPTER XVII

We have now touched upon some things concerning the style of our author, and we have shown that the Areopagitici have noticed nothing in it which is not truly Dionysian, and altogether worthy of an apostolic man and entirely suitable.

For indeed the style and genre of this writing is not simple, but elevated, and in accordance with the sublimity of the subject matter, it responds beautifully to the dignity and majesty of all the things discussed. Furthermore, this sublimity of style has brought forth obscurity. Yet that obscurity did not arise from the incompetence of Dionysius, but rather from the fact that he himself, by this difficult and dark manner of writing, wished, as divine Thomas says, to conceal the sacred and divine dogmas of our religion and its mysteries from pagans and infidels. ^A

The anti-Areopagitic critics, however, judge that nothing can be thought of that is more repugnant and contrary to the style of our author than the speech of the Areopagite and apostolic man. Of such great gravity, surely, it is to pass a definitive judgment on the style of one and the same writer! But how far this Dionysian manner of writing differs from the form of apostolic speech, they demonstrate from its amazing luxury, which often surpasses the buskined stage and dithyrambs. For nothing is sufficiently magnificent, inflated, turgid, or hyperbolic for our author. Superlatives do not suffice for him, but he increases and intensifies them as much as he can. He spurns ordinary words, consecrated by the use of the nascent Church, and substitutes for them new and hitherto unheard-of terms, molded for effect. It is not worth the effort to compile a catalog of all these, since it is easy for anyone to see them at a single glance in the *Onomasticon* and observations of Corderius, which are attached to the edition of the Dionysian works. ^B

Nor can you say that the subject matter in which Dionysius was engaged demanded this sublimity from him, by which he might impart and inspire ideas and thoughts that were certainly more sublime and more worthy of God than those of men. For that can in no way be said of the book *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, where he disputes about the sacraments and sacred rites that were frequented in daily use, and which were meant to be explained by a simple and popular method to the slower Christians just as much as to the more learned. Then, the intent of our author, as we have observed, was to explain these things in these books with a clearer and simpler speech to those less perfect Christians, whom Hierotheus, his teacher, had initiated into the perfect via a more sublime and obscure genre of writing. Therefore, he had to write in a popular and plain style, using received and common words. ^C

You might say that perhaps the same thing happened to Dionysius as to Tertullian and some other writers, who, carried away by the fire of a keener spirit, wrote their books in a singular style and used unusual and clearly insolent words. But however much the breast of Dionysius the Areopagite was enkindled with fire, it certainly could not have wandered so monstrously from its goal that in books he was writing for simpler and less perfect Christians, he would everywhere affect such sublimity and grandiloquence of speech. But such is the way those miserable men are accustomed to wander and be deceived, those who with impious temerity insert their own names into books, the talent and manner of writing of which they ^D can never attain. And what, too, that neither Tertullian nor any writer ever cast aside words which had been consecrated by the usage of the apostles and all Christians, so that other words, entirely unknown, might suffice everywhere? But our author rejects the words bishop, presbyter, and deacon as if they were obsolete, and always substitutes for them the words *ierarchai*, *iereis*, and *leitourgoi*: and in citing the books of either Testament, he rejects the words "Scripture," or "holy Scripture," "evangelical," "sacred writers," or the names of the writers, and substitutes for them the words of theology and theologian, or divine illumination, and those divinely inspired, or sacred initiators. Therefore, there appears to be nothing in the style of our author that could be compared with the books of Tertullian, and much less with the Epistles of the Apostle.

Nor, finally, is the obscurity of that speech to be excused on the grounds that Dionysius judged that his works should be hidden from infidels and the uninitiated. For since, as we have said, he wrote for Christians who were simpler and less perfect, they were, without a doubt, to be written not in vain and dark grandiloquence, nor in unusual words, and those fashioned through a vain desire for effect, but with the greatest clarity and with words received by the usage of all and unknown to none.

CHAPTER XVIII.

Concerning the lighter arguments of certain anti-Areopagitic critics, and the final proofs of the Areopagitic side; whether this author should be accused of falsehood, and whether his writings are adorned by miracles.

Certain other arguments are brought forward by some heterodox anti-Areopagitic critics, which, because they are either very flimsy or openly conflict with the truth and the certain doctrine and tradition of the orthodox, we willingly refrain from examining and reviewing them. For what, to pass over other things, is less significant than the point they trumpet with full cheeks, that the doctrine of the hierarchies and orders of angels, which is so clearly explained by our author, was unknown in the age of Dionysius? For he taught nothing about these things which he had not first received from the sacred Scriptures, and especially from the Epistles of Paul. ^C We do not indeed deny that he, following his own natural powers, unfolded more fully and even amplified the things he had drawn from sacred fonts. But it should seem strange to no one that a learned and talented man, imbued with much erudition in Platonic philosophy, should have retreated in his thoughts about celestial substances after the divine Scriptures, and should have added to them some things which, taken from the tenets of a sounder philosophy, he accommodated to the sacred dogmas of the Christian faith.

The rest of their arguments are lighter and of much less weight. Therefore, they can cause trouble for no one, and most of them all tumble down and are utterly overthrown of their own accord by those things which we have traded here and there in the preceding dissertations. It will suffice, therefore, to have examined the stronger arguments of the other anti-Areopagitic critics with all their weight, so that nothing of those things which might serve to confirm or weaken them...

[will be] considered to have been overlooked. The Areopagitici, however, renew the battle and, having launched a final assault upon their adversaries, urge that they are most audacious and utterly rash, [in that] they accuse our author of fraud, falsehood, and the most loathsome deceit, whereas his writings everywhere breathe pure piety, gravity, and holiness. And certainly, who could believe that a man so learned, and endowed with such great gifts of intellect, has reached such a depth of blindness and impudence as to have besprinkled his own writings, under the falsely assumed name of Dionysius the Areopagite, with so many and such great matters that conflict with the age, genius, morals, and style of that same Dionysius?

But to all these things, the anti-Areopagites cry out that the attacks of the victors are empty and vain. For who does not know that it is the custom for writers of this sort to adorn the works they write—which they themselves inscribe with the deceptive name of a saintly man—with that piety, gravity, and holiness with which they thought they would be adorned by the very men whose name they imitate? And it is no less part of their custom that some insert into their writings more, others fewer things, which contradict the genius of their counterfeit author and his times. Thus, indeed, God so willing, they are sometimes so blinded that, not having grasped the genius and manner of writing of him whom they feign, or measuring what should have happened in his age by the customs and discipline of their own time, or desiring to lend authority to what were actually their own deeds, they add things to their writings—whether prudently or incautiously—by which their frauds and deceits are eventually detected by the more clear-sighted.

But what, indeed, the Areopagitici insist, is it not the way of God, nor of His eternal providence, to decorate vain works and lies full of deceit with true miracles? Hilduin, however, an eyewitness, affirms that these Works of the Areopagite, when they were applied to the honor of such a great man during various infirmities, were divinely honored with many miracles. ^B

But more solid than all the rest is that final defense of the Areopagitic side, as it seems to be overthrown by the very words of Hilduin. For thus he writes of these miracles: "Since the oeconomus of the Church of Constantinople and other envoys, having completed their public mission for the sake of your glory, have brought the same authentic books, written in the Greek tongue; we received them on the very vigil of the solemnity of Saint Dionysius as a great gift. And this gift to our devotion, as if it had been sent from heaven by God, has been accompanied by divine grace; so that on that same night, nineteen most renowned powers [were manifested] in the healing of various infirmities of the sick from among the most well-known persons contiguous to our vicinity, to the praise and glory of His name, through the prayers and merits ^C of His most excellent martyr, Christ the Lord working..." ^D that nineteen miracles were indeed performed on the day the Dionysian books were brought to his monastery; yet he firmly asserts that these were produced, not by the virtue or application of the same books, but by the prayers and merits of His most excellent martyr, by Christ the Lord. Although these things had happened upon the emergence of the Dionysian books, yet it cannot be certainly concluded from this that they are the genuine work of Dionysius the Areopagite. For no one is ignorant that demons have been cast out in the name of the same Christ by those who were neither His disciples nor Christians, and that other miracles have been very often obtained from God through the true and ardent faith of Christians alone.

CHAPTER XIX. At what time these writings, according to the opinion of the anti-Areopagites, came to light.

Those who, for the reasons we have brought forward so far, deny that all the Works of our author are Dionysian offspring, diligently inquire at what time they came to light. Now it is certain that they were made public property before the Constantinopolitan Conference, held, as we have said, in the year 533. But as to how long before that they preceded it, there is great controversy among those writers. For Dalleus supposes that our author seems to have lived either towards the end of the fifth century or even in the sixth, and not to have published his offspring until about the year of our Lord 520. And he thinks that this can be proven from the fact that, in the mentioned conference, Hypatius, in the name of the whole Catholic Church, replied to the Severians that these books were completely unknown to Cyril, Athanasius, and other Fathers; but that type of proof is entirely trivial. For that Conference was not an ecumenical council, nor did it sanction anything concerning these writings by established law. Hypatius, therefore, did not speak in the name of the whole Church: but, as is wont to happen in such debates, he replied on the spur of the moment to the Severians who were objecting the authority of the same writings, that things concerning which he had heard nothing hitherto were not known to the ancient Fathers. Moreover, the Severians cited those things, not as new and recently published, but as the genuine work of Dionysius the Areopagite, already issued to the public from his age. Hypatius, however, and the other Catholics, having pondered the matter more maturely, freely confessed that it was true. But neither would the Severians have asserted that with such confidence, nor would the Catholics eventually have subscribed to their judgment, if these lucubrations had come to light only thirteen years prior, as Dalleus contends.

Wherefore others affirm that they are far older than these times. And to prove this, they show first that they are attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite by Ephrem, Patriarch of Antioch, in these words: "Since even the simple Jesus was composed according to Saint Dionysius the Areopagite." Ἐπειδὴ καὶ ἁπλοῦς Ἰησοῦς

^A But Ephrem was created Patriarch of Antioch when Justinian ascended to the helm of the empire in the year 526, and Ephrem himself passed away before the year 545. Furthermore, Dionysius is cited not only once by name by Andrew, Bishop of Caesarea, who published his books around the year 500. Indeed, in these he brought forward the testimony of a writer no later than the blessed Cyril.

Another argument for the same antiquity, though less certain, is elicited from the scholia which John of Scythopolis, according to Anastasius Bibliothecarius, composed on the works of Dionysius. For against this John, who had undertaken the defense of the Council of Chalcedon, wrote Basil the Cilician, who, as Photius states, was a presbyter of the Church of Antioch at the time when Flavian held the throne there, and Anastasius guided the helm of the Roman empire—that is, around the year 500. However, since the same Anastasius testifies that the first mention of the writers of Dionysius was made by the supreme pontiffs Gregory the Great, Martin, and Agatho, he is without doubt mistaken either by error or a slip of memory; and his authority cannot therefore carry much weight. The same must also be said of Anastasius Sinaita, who testified that before the end of the fifth century, Dionysius the Rhetorician had similarly published other scholia on the same lucubrations of Dionysius the Areopagite. But however much it may be said that both Anastasius erred, it must certainly be accepted that they neither invented nor guessed that scholia of this kind were published by those writers at some time. Moreover, those who write scholia on any author are accustomed to consider him a man of antiquity and of great name. Therefore, the Dionysian books were widely circulated long before the fifth century.

^B Furthermore, there are those who have attempted to diminish the authority of this historiographer, whom they claim to be most fabulous: "The words," they say, "that were described as coming from our Dionysian writings seem to have been added by Nicephorus himself from his own material, to confirm the narrative of Juvenal, rather than having been attributed to Juvenal by them." But if you object to these people that Nicephorus clearly and transparently affirms that the very words of Juvenal were transcribed by him, they reply immediately: "It is characteristic of historical writers to introduce men of whom they write, not speaking what they truly and certainly said, but what they think those men could have said." But many things appear to contradict this response. For first, the same could be said of any other writer who transcribes the words and speech of others. Everyone sees how false and absurd that is. Then, it is not the custom of Nicephorus to introduce men saying things that he himself thought they could have said, but things that they truly and certainly said. Finally, Michael Glycas writes in his Annals that when the tomb of the Mother of God, Mary, was opened upon the arrival of Thomas, nothing was found in it except the burial shrouds. And that indeed corresponds entirely to the Greek narrative of Nicephorus, where the Greek word does not signify "tomb," but "burial shrouds."

Why is it that Jerome set forth the nine ranks of angels no less distinctly than our author? From where, therefore, did he borrow this doctrine concerning the angels if not from his books? But this conjecture does not seem entirely happy. For who will deny that Jerome could have drawn that from the same source as our writer, the fountain of the Holy Scriptures? Who would also not be able to affirm with equal right that our author, being more recent, took his own material from Jerome? ^C Perhaps you will receive a more probable conjecture concerning the antiquity of the Pseudo-Dionysian works from the fact that some have assigned them to Apollinaris and Didymus, writers of the fourth century; and they have therefore been persuaded that these same works had already been spread among the common people in those times. But since nothing that is consonant with the errors and doctrine of Apollinaris and Didymus occurs in these same writings, those who assign them to those writers are certainly wandering entirely from the path. If, therefore, they failed so monstrously in the truth in this, why should they not also be mistaken about the time at which they opined these same writings appeared?

And this adds strength and foundation to these things which Suidas and Pachymeres report: that some external philosophers, especially Proclus, frequently used the contemplations of Dionysius, and indeed even used his very expressions. If these testimonies are therefore of certain faith, it must be confessed that the contemplations are older than that Proclus, who turned his efforts to the finishing of books mid-way through the fifth century under Leo the Thracian. Wherefore ^D Morinus is not entirely without reason: "At the very least," he says, "the writing of these books must be assigned to the beginning of the fifth century, and before the celebration of the Council of Chalcedon, nor can it by any probable reasoning be pushed to a later age." Launoius, however, thought our author lived at the time of the first Synod of Ephesus, and Erasmus at the time of Augustine.

Furthermore, Nicephorus narrates that Juvenal, Bishop of the city of Jerusalem, when asked by Pulcheria Augusta about the body of the Virgin Mother of God, cited all those things under the name of Dionysius, which

^A the Word of God [...] by the inconfused assumption of our human nature. And in the fourth epistle to Gaius: "Insofar as He was God and man, He exhibited a new, God-befitting energy among us." What could be expressed more clearly, what more transparently, after the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches were scattered, by any author ever?

Who, they say, is clearly different from all other ecclesiastical writers, and like to himself alone; he also adapted all his own tenets to the neo-Platonic school, and in the end, he everywhere deviates greatly from the words and notions of the holy Fathers. On the contrary, Gregory, whenever he deviates into certain more obscure and philosophical [arguments], derives his material from others, and therefore it seems very likely that he drew those things from the philosophers and from our Dionysius.

Furthermore, if you ask why he did not insert the venerable name of Dionysius to add great weight to his oration, you should accept the answer immediately that that name was not held in such honor in the age of that same Gregory as it was later. For then that author, not yet recognized as the true Areopagite, was considered merely a great man who was hiding under a borrowed name. What wonder, then, if Gregory did not call him by his own name, since he did not call any of the Catholics by name, but only pagans, and Symmachus, and Aquila? Moreover, he is believed to have cited him with these words: "As another also before us did philosophize very beautifully and most sublimely." Nor should Elias the Cretan be heard here, who thinks that Athanasius is being praised there. For both the logic of the time and the style of the writing are plainly opposed to this opinion. And indeed, Gregory would never have called Athanasius, with whom he had spent the better part of his life, "some one" who lived "before us." For by this kind of expression, Greek writers designate a man who is dead, whether he died before they were born or long before they wrote. Nor would Gregory ever have said of Athanasius, whom he does not commend in his panegyric oration for the sublimity of his style: "He has philosophized most sublimely." But both that style of writing and the logic of the time suit our author most excellently. Therefore, it will be proved to everyone that he was praised there by Gregory Nazianzen.

Those who are convinced by these weightier arguments may subscribe to that opinion as much as they wish; we neither begrudge nor resist them. However, the reason that moves us most of all not to grant them full assent is that the same argument by which it was demonstrated that the writings of our author were published after the birth of the Arian heresy will easily convince anyone that the same [writings] were produced after the emergence of the errors of Nestorius. For in them, the heresy against the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation is proscribed no less openly than all the errors against His divinity and the oneness of the nature of the three divine persons. For concerning the incarnate Son of God, we read in various places these things 39: "The primary goodness of God... having truly become a participant in all that is ours, without sin, and united to our humility, with the state of His own properties saved, and thus utterly unconfused and inviolate." In another book, however 40:

^D Wherefore, we can conclude with no light conjecture that our writer, seeing the greatest disturbances stirred up by the heretical Nestorians and Eutychians, turned his mind to writing, both to confound both parties and to defend the cause of the Catholic Church with all his might. And, that he might hasten this, he prefixed to his writings the great and venerable name of Dionysius the Areopagite. Therefore, his works seem to have proceeded from him between the year 431, in which the ecumenical council of Ephesus was held against the Nestorians, and 454, when the Council of Chalcedon was celebrated against the Eutychians. They were not, however, brought immediately into public light nor accepted by all, but emerged step by step, so that they did not come into the knowledge of all until the aforesaid Constantinopolitan Conference of the year 533. Furthermore, this can be adduced in confirmation of this opinion: that these writings are not found to be cited in these ecumenical councils by anyone, not even by Juvenal of Jerusalem, who sat among the leading Fathers of both synods. No other cause for this silence can be brought forward, except that the Dionysian lucubrations, then emerging from the shadows, were known to scarcely anyone before the Council of Chalcedon. Moreover, if you ask why more things occur in our author similar to what Gregory Nazianzen wrote, it can be answered without absurdity that they were assumed by our author—who says he often accepted his own [thoughts] from others and reported the opinions of others—for his own uses, with the name of Gregory passed over in silence, and rendered in his own style and unusual modes of speech.

But to whom these conjectures shall seem neither firm enough nor entirely probable, they must also admit that these works of our author far preceded the Constantinopolitan Conference, and even the beginnings of the sixth century, by an interval of time.

CHAPTER XX. On the utility of these works, and on other lost lucubrations of the same author.

Since, therefore, those works are of such antiquity, they ought to be held in the greater esteem among Christians, as they supply more things copiously for the benefit of those same Christians. For in them we are taught what the doctrine of faith and the discipline of morals was in the time of our writer and his predecessors. For although he is argued to be false in that he thought those things which he teaches flourished in the age of Dionysius the Areopagite, it is nevertheless clear that all those things must have existed before his.

For we learn from these writings what the Church taught in all those times concerning the worship of the mystery of the Trinity, concerning the divinity and Incarnation of Christ, and concerning the hierarchies and orders of the angels: ^A what it handed down concerning the administration of baptism and the eucharist, concerning the celebration of the liturgy or mass, concerning the consecration of chrism, concerning the sacred ministers of the Church, concerning monks and their vows and profession, and finally concerning the funeral rites and burial of the dead. Moreover, these ceremonies and these rites are not referred to in the writings of our author as recent and new, but as ancient and derived from the apostles. Wherefore all those who attribute these same writings to Dionysius the Areopagite contend that all those rites flowed from the apostles. But those who judge them to be the offspring of a more recent writer cannot deny that many of the same rites flowed from apostolic tradition: but the rest were instituted gradually, when peace and tranquility were granted to the Churches by the Christian emperors, and the temples in which the sacred mysteries might be performed publically were built by them. Hence we clearly conclude that such rites of celebrating the mass and administering the sacraments as are described by our author are such as began to be observed in the time of Constantine the Great and the fourth century.

Moreover, the great usefulness of these writings of our author left us with some sad longing for those others which have perished. Among these are numbered the book *On Divine Hymns*, the book *On Divine Representations* (ἐν ταῖς θεολογικαῖς ὑποτυπώσεσιν), the book *On Symbolic Theology*, the book *On the Soul*, the book *On Just and Divine Judgment*, ^B the book *On Things Which Fall Under Intellect and Sense*. And if faith is to be placed in the divine Maximus, the book *On the Legal Hierarchy*, and the book *On Angelic Ordinations and Properties*: but this last book will seem to many to be none other than the book itself *On the Celestial Hierarchy*. However, such was the loss of these books that no mention of them and no trace exists, except in the Works of our author himself, or because there is no testimony to uphold them.

CHAPTER XXI.

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

Now, to come to the editions of the Dionysian Works, they were printed with the Greek text at Basel in the year 1539, Cologne 1577, Paris 1565, Venice 1538, and by Morellius in the year 1562. With the Latin version alongside the Greek, they were printed at Paris in the year 1615, and again in the same place in 1644, and at Antwerp in the year 1663. Some of these works were published separately, namely two books, one *On Mystical Theology*, the other *On Divine Names*, with Marsilio Ficino as interpreter and commentator, at Venice in the year 1538, and among the works of the same ^C Ficino, at Basel in the year 1576; but the book *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy* with a Latin version at Basel, in the year 1539. The *Epistle to Polycarp* [is found] among the epistles of the Holy Fathers by Symphorien Champier, printed at Ass. [Lyon], 1516. The same with the epistles of Ignatius and others, Antwerp 1540, and Venice 1546. Two epistles in the *Orthodoxographia*. Finally, all the Works of our Dionysius are in the ancient libraries of the Fathers in Latin, and in the Cologne edition of Lansselius, and in our own Lyons edition, republished by Cordier.

The most ancient Latin version of these Works was prepared by Scotus Erigena, or Scotigena, who adorned it from Greek manuscripts brought to the monastery of Saint-Denis in the time of Emperor Charles the Bald. This version, with certain others, namely those of Petrus Saracenus, Ambrogio Traversari, and Marsilio Ficino, was published at Cologne in the year 1546. In the same year, another appeared at Strasbourg through the work of Clauser; and in the same city, Perionius published his own in 1557, which was put to the press again at Lyons in 1585. These were followed by the version of Lansselius, a priest of the Society of Jesus, published at Paris in the year 1625, and finally that of the theologian Cordier, a doctor of the same Society, which was brought to light at Antwerp in 1633.

Moreover, you would hardly find the works of any other of the holy Fathers upon which writers have expended greater labor in illustrating and explaining them. ^D For besides the versions mentioned, many have published scholia, notes, observations, and paraphrases upon these lucubrations of our author. And indeed Dionysius the Rhetor and John of Scythopolis in the sixth century of the Church wrote certain scholia upon them: but we suffer the loss of those, especially those which proceeded from Dionysius. In the seventh century, Saint Maximus, a most celebrated martyr, also composed continuous and more abundant scholia. But in these, neither the doctrine, nor the rites and discipline handed down by our author are explained, but certain observations are made on authors cited by him, by which Maximus attempted to attribute these writings to Dionysius the Areopagite. In very many scholia, however, he proposes those things which are to be read with careful consideration in the text of the author, and to be noted by all. All of which indeed breathe and smell entirely of the loftiness of the piety and sanctity of the same Maximus, such a martyr.

Pachymeres wrote a paraphrase or Commentary on the same Works of Dionysius, which is very often added to the aforementioned scholia of Maximus. Afterward, Hugo of Saint Victor, Albert the Great, the divine Thomas Aquinas, Dionysius the Carthusian, and certain others wrote some things on certain lucubrations of the same author. Furthermore, the Latin edition of the same Works... [alt-version omitted]

^A which we have in Paris, printed by the types of Henri Estienne in the year 1515, includes the version of Ambrogio Traversari, the notes of Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples, and the commentary of Josse Clichtove. Moreover, the scholia of Lefèvre have appeared in public quite often: at Strasbourg in 1498 and 1502, and at Paris in 1505. In these, however, Lefèvre either illustrates or corrects the version of Ambrogio Traversari; and so that he might perform this more perfectly, he made use of the Greek manuscripts that were kept in the Dionysian monastery. The very substantial notes on each of the Works of Dionysius have already been published by Father Corderius, and are called theological by him. And indeed, in reality, they pertain to scholastic theology, and he discusses more extensively and abundantly in them the matters by which he attempts to illustrate the book *On the Divine Names*.

CHAPTER XXII. Some new observations.

The author did not know Hebrew. It will be unpleasant to no one, and perhaps not useless, to add to these observations certain things that will not appear entirely unworthy of some attention. For in the first place, our author did not know Hebrew, inasmuch as where he brings forward some interpretations of Hebrew words, he adds immediately: "Those skilled in Hebrew say," or, "Those who know Hebrew."

Furthermore, it still seems doubtful and uncertain whether those words which are read in the inscriptions of the books, *To the fellow-presbyter Timothy, Dionysius*, stemmed from the author himself. For how could it be possible that he employed the word *presbyter* in the titles of his own Works, which he nowhere else wished to use in those same Works? However, we cannot conceal that the same inscriptions are presented in the same way in Greek and Latin manuscripts as they are in the printed editions; but in those hand-written codices, the oldest of which do not exceed the age of Saint Maximus, words of this kind could easily have been inserted into the titles by the scribes. But we willingly leave these conjectures of ours to the judgment of others.

On the omitted rites.

Neither does he commemorate all the ceremonies and rites that were customarily observed in the administration of the sacraments, as the purpose of his work seemed to demand more. For when he discusses the sacrament of confirmation to be administered after baptism, he did not say a word about the laying on of hands. Yet no one is unaware that it was used by the apostles and their successors. What is more, he himself, in the book *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, in the second part of each chapter, where he discusses only rites of this kind, omitted some whose memory he subsequently refreshes in the third part.

On a singular rite.

He also treats of certain ceremonies that were in use only in his own Church and perhaps in some neighboring ones. Such is that most singular rite of covering the sacred chrism with twelve feathers. That also seems peculiar in the celebration of the Mass, that after the names of the deceased were recited, a washing of the hands would take place, to be performed as close as possible to the eucharistic consecration.

On the Royal manuscripts.

There still exist many manuscript codices of these Works in the Royal Library in Greek, the most important of which, marked number 2262, is older than all of them and seems to show us an age of 600 years. It is believed that Morellius adorned his edition from this codex alone, without having inspected or examined the others that are marked with the following numbers.

On the Colbertine manuscripts.

We had in our possession two other codices from the most celebrated Colbert library, the former of which, written in a most elegant hand, indicates its age by these words added at its end: *Ετελειώθη ἡ παροῦσα βίβλος μηνὶ Ἰανουαρίῳ, ἰνδ. ς', ἔτος ςφ'*, that is: *This book was completed in the month of January, seventh day, fifth indiction, year of the world 6500*. Those two Greek characters ^D in the manuscript codex, connected together, mean nothing other than the year of the world 6500 and of Christ 992.

On the Latin manuscripts.

But in this codex, the notes of Saint Maximus are added, differing greatly from those which appear in the printed editions. Since we cannot describe all these variations, let it suffice to have observed this once. But if you ask whence that discrepancy in the notes arose, learn it from the testimony of Athanasius, which we shall soon bring forward, in which he affirms that the scholia of Saint Maximus and John of Scythopolis have distinguished themselves from one another. For from this you will gather that they could easily have [arisen] through the carelessness of unskilled scribes.

On the summaries of the chapters.

The same must also be said concerning the summaries of the chapters, as they are called, or the arguments that likewise appear in manuscript and printed books. For many of the chapter arguments are so alien to those things that are treated in the text that they seem to have been written by anyone else rather than by our author.

On the minor orders.

Some think that mention is made in these writings of some minor order of the Church, inferior to the sacred diaconate. However, having examined those [passages] with as much accurate reading as we could, no trace of those orders appeared to us anywhere. We are not indeed unaware that mention is made there of chanters; but nothing there signifies that a specific order of these was constituted in the Church.

^A In the Colbertine codex and several others, they are confused by being misplaced. By a certain monk named Longinus, the later Colbertine codex was written in the year of the world 6780, as noted by the same Longinus—that is, in the year of Christ 1272.

Concerning the Sandionysian manuscript.—We observed above that certain Greek codices were carried off to the monastery of Saint Dionysius near Paris during the reign of Charles the Bald; but we have suffered the lamentable loss of them along with almost all the other manuscripts of that very rich library. Another, which is held there now, was sent thither by the Emperor Manuel Palaeologus. And in witness of this fact, these words are set down at the end of the same book, but in a more recent hand: "This book was sent by the most noble king and emperor of the Romans, lord Manuel Palaeologus, to the monastery of Saint Dionysius, which is in Paris of Francia or Gaul, from Constantinople by me, Manuel Chrysoloras, sent as an ambassador by the aforementioned king, in the six thousand nine hundred and sixteenth year from the creation of the world, and in the one thousand four hundred and eighth year from the Incarnation of the Lord. Which said king came first to Paris four years earlier." This book was sent from Constantinople to the monastery of Saint Dionysius of Paris in Francia or Gaul by the most noble prince and emperor of the Romans, Lord Manuel Palaeologus, through me, Manuel Chrysoloras, an envoy sent by the said emperor, in the year from the creation of the world six thousand nine hundred and sixteen, and from the Incarnation of the Lord one thousand four hundred and eight. Which said emperor came to Paris previously four years before.

Moreover, we have found two hand-copied Latin codices, in which the version of John Scotigena and the divine Maximus, and the notes and scholia of the same John Scotigena [(1)] are exhibited. The first is from the Royal Library, the second from the Colbertine: the one written about 600 years ago, the other 400. In both are prefixed the epistles of the same John Scythopolitanus [(2)] and Anastasius the Librarian to Charles the Bald, in which they give him an account of their version and work. The epistle of John is inscribed thus: "To the most glorious of catholic kings, Charles, John, the humblest of those studying wisdom." The Anastasian, however: "Preface of Anastasius, librarian of the apostolic see, to the most excellent and most Christian king Charles the king." There he mentions that he is sending him the version of the Greek scholia of Maximus and John Scythopolitanus: which, indeed, he signifies how he distinguished one from the other by these words: "The scholia themselves, or paratheseis, whichever have the sign of the life-giving cross at their foot, are said to have been discovered by the blessed Maximus the confessor and monk; the rest, however, are said to be those of the holy John Scythopolitanus the bishop." ^B

Concerning the eleventh epistle to Apollophanes.—Finally, this must not be passed over without some observation, that neither in all these codices, whether Greek or Latin, nor in almost all editions, except for our Lugdunensian Library, is the eleventh epistle, inscribed in the name of our Dionysius, subjoined to the ten others above. In it, the author expresses much joy to Apollophanes the philosopher, to whom it is addressed, regarding his conversion to the Christian faith, and he renews his discourse regarding the eclipse of the sun which occurred when Christ was dying. ^C But this epistle presents not only the most certain evidence of falsity, but it seems to have originated neither from the same author nor from the ten previous ones, nor from the other Dionysian books. Indeed, it is not found in the manuscripts, as we have said, nor in editions of better quality. Furthermore, it is utterly abhorrent to the style of the other epistles and lucubrations of our Dionysius. Finally, it was completely and entirely unknown to the divine Maximus, that most diligent investigator of the Works of Dionysius. For he published no observations on it, as he did on the rest of Dionysius' Works. What is more, Maximus himself attempts to prove by mere conjectures that Dionysius had reached his twenty-fifth year when he observed the eclipse of the sun alone. But there would have been no need for conjecture on his part if this epistle, in which that is openly declared, had ever come into his hands. It seems, therefore, entirely likely that it was composed after the death of Maximus by some idle writer from the seventh epistle of our author to Apollophanes, in which he discusses the aforementioned eclipse of the sun. Moreover, the Pseudo-Dionysius seems to have written it for no other reason than to persuade everyone, in whatever way possible, that the same Apollophanes had at some time given his name to the Christian religion, to which the author of the seventh epistle had attempted to lead him. ^D

[(1)] Read John Scythopolitanus. Ed. Patr. [(2)] Read Scotigena. Id.

FR. J. F. BERN. M. DE RUBEIS

OF THE ORDER OF PREACHERS

On the Venetian edition of the works which are called the Areopagitica

PRELIMINARY DISSERTATION

In which special consideration is given to the Scholia of St. Maximus, and of John Scythopolitanus, and of Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople.

CHAPTER FIRST.

The Antwerp edition of the Areopagitic works: what was achieved in it. Another later edition from Paris. Casimir Oudin noted.

Having been assigned the task of informing the reader, in a preliminary dissertation, of what has been achieved for the greater benefit of the new Venetian edition of the works called the Areopagitica—and what was the previous edition chosen to be reprinted, whether any collation of the Greek text was made with the manuscript codices and with which ones, what minor works were added that either investigate the genuine author or demonstrate his credibility, or whether the published scholia belong solely to St. Maximus, or to some or even many by John Scythopolitanus, or also to some by Germanus, Patriarch of the regal city of Constantinople—it will be incumbent upon this dissertation to address these points as well as other matters closely related to them.

It would be a superfluous task to list here every edition of the Areopagitic works. I mention the most elegant Antwerp edition from the Plantin printing house of Balthasar Moretus in 1634. The title page of the first volume is: *The Works of S. Dionysius the Areopagite, with the Scholia of S. Maximus and the Paraphrase of Pachymeres, interpreted into Latin and illustrated with theological notes by Balthasar Corderius, Doctor of Theology of the Society of Jesus.* This same first volume contains, in Greek and Latin, the books *On the Celestial Hierarchy*, *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, and *On the Divine Names*, interpreted by Balthasar Corderius. The books are preceded by Corderius’s own *General Observations for the understanding of S. Dionysius*, and the *Prologue* of St. Maximus, and the *Proemium* of George Pachymeres; and to the individual chapters of the books are subjoined the annotations of Corderius, and the scholia of St. Maximus, and the paraphrase of Pachymeres; all of which that same most learned man, Corderius, translated into Latin.

The second volume comprises Corderius’s *Isagoge to Mystical Theology*, then the book *On Mystical Theology* itself, with the Corderian annotations, and the Scholia of St. Maximus, and the Paraphrase of Pachymeres, interpreted by the same Corderius. There follow the Epistles of Dionysius, which are ten in number, rejecting the one inscribed to the philosopher Apollophanes, which is condemned by the surest arguments ^A: and these are adorned by the subjoined Scholia of Maximus, the Paraphrase of Pachymeres, and the interpretations of Corderius in Latin. The bulk of the volume is increased by several minor works which follow: I. *The Life and Encomium of Dionysius the Areopagite from the Menaea*, translated by Peter Halloix, S.J. II. *The Life and Conversation of S. Dionysius the Areopagite by Symeon Metaphrastes*, rendered into Latin by an uncertain translator and revised by Corderius. III. *Of Dionysius the Areopagite from Suidas*, translated by Peter Lansselius, S.J. IV. *The Life of the Areopagite from the second book of Nicephorus*, edited in Greek and Latin by the same Lansselius. V. *The Encomium on S. Dionysius by Michael Syncellus*, translated by Basilius Millanius and corrected in many places by Peter Lansselius. VI. *The Martyrdom of S. Dionysius the Areopagite by Methodius, or, as others say, Metrodorus*, translated by Lansselius. VII. *The Life of the same, compiled by the Rev. Fr. Peter Halloix, S.J.*, and illustrated with his own notes. VIII. *Four Questions of the praised Halloix on the Life and Works of S. Dionysius.* IX. *Arguments and Testimonies for the Works of S. Dionysius from the Areopagitic Vindications of the Rev. Fr. Martin Delrio, S.J.* X. *An Apologetic Disputation on Dionysius the Areopagite and his writings by Peter Lansselius.* XI. *Variant readings in the Areopagitic Books.* XII. *The Dionysian Onomasticon of Balthasar Corderius.* XIII. *Index of Sacred Scripture.* XIV. *Index to the two volumes of the works of St. Dionysius.*

^B II. Ten years later, in 1644, a new edition was accurately completed at Paris by Laurentius Cottereau in Greek and Latin. The title is: *The Works of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, all that are extant, and the Commentaries by which they are illustrated. Vol. I... Vol. II... by the work and study of Peter Lansselius and Balthasar Corderius, priests of the Society of Jesus.* Added for the first time now is the *Defense of the Areopagite against the heretic Calvinist*, by the most illustrious and noble gentleman, M. Jean de Chaumont, counselor in the sacred and secret councils of the Most Christian King, and prefect of the secret Royal library. A new edition, more corrected and more complete than the preceding ones. The order of the prior edition is seen in this one to be slightly changed, and some Latin interpretations of Lansselius are selected over those of Corderius.

We wish the reader to be warned that in this Dissertation ^C and in the following, some things are indicated which pertain only to the Greek text of St. Dionysius, and which seem foreign to the nature of this edition, as it is purely Latin. We preferred to leave these to be distinguished by the learned reader rather than to mutilate them by cutting them piecemeal through the labor of the learned men whose edition we are following. ED. PATR.

^A In the first volume are placed ahead the General Observations of Corderius, and his Introduction into Mystical Theology, and the Prologue of Pachymeres with Corderius’s Latin translation. There follow, in Greek and Latin, with Corderius as interpreter, the books *On the Celestial Hierarchy*, *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, *On the Divine Names*, *On Mystical Theology*, with the interpretation, annotations, and paraphrases of Pachymeres of the same most learned man. The Epistles follow, which are numbered as ten, illustrated only by the annotations of Corderius.

What the second volume contains are these: 1. The Prologue of St. Maximus, with Peter Lansselius as interpreter. II. In Greek only, *’Ερμηνεία λέξεων*, which also exists in the Greek Morellian edition of Paris in the year 1562, in octavo. III. The Scholia of St. Maximus on the aforementioned Areopagitic books, with the same Lansselius as interpreter. IV. The Paraphrase of George Pachymeres on the Epistles, with Godefridus Tilmannus, a monk of the Paris Charterhouse, as interpreter. V. The Scholia of St. Maximus on the Epistles, with Corderius’s Latin interpretation. VI. Miscellaneous works, as in the earlier Antwerp edition, among which Lansselius translated into Latin the Encomium from the Greek Menaea, edited the Life composed by Metaphrastes, translated into Latin two excerpts from Suidas and Nicephorus, corrected the Life of Syngellus, and bestowed upon the Latin language the Martyrdom of Methodius, illustrating it with notes. VII. There follow the Martyrdom of Dionysius the Areopagite by Guerin, expressed in Latin verses, a Life composed by Halloixius, and his four *Questions*, the *Vindications* of Martin Delrio, and Lansselius’s *Apologetic Disputation*. ^C VIII. There is added the *Defense of the Areopagite against the heretical Calvinist minister of Charenton*, first written in French by Jean, Lord of Chaumont, and subsequently rendered into Latin. IX. The final place is held by the Notes of Lansselius on the Paraphrase of Pachymeres on the Epistles, and his Notes on the Life of Syngellus and on the Martyrdom of Methodius.

III. You have these enumerated one by one, in which they agree and in which they differ, whether you look at the order, the Latin interpretations, or the notes and miscellaneous works, in the two editions, the Antwerp and the Parisian. Regarding both, there is the judgment of Casimir Oudin in Volume 1, *On Ecclesiastical Writers and Writings* to the year 520, col. 1371. Balthasar Corderius, first of all in the diffusion and breadth of his Commentaries, in his investigation of more abstruse matters, and in his doctrine of all things... attempted with clearly excellent, though perhaps less fortunate, labor to elucidate the Life of St. Dionysius the Areopagite and all his Works, and whatever has been said about him by other Greeks, with the richest Commentaries. That incredible labor of Corderius will appear from an inspection of all the Works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, and all things pertaining to his Life and Encomia, which were published very beautifully in two folio volumes in Antwerp in the year 1634, in Greek and Latin, then reprinted in Paris in the year 1644, in the same form and manner. As for the claim that he should hereafter undertake a useless labor, which might begin the same argument, in this place Oudin shows himself less accurate in his review of both editions, to the point that he does not even seem to have seen one of them.

CHAPTER II

The new Venetian edition represents the Parisian edition, with the Greek text of the Areopagitic Works, and especially the Scholia, collated with the codex of the library of St. Mark. The miscellaneous works are augmented. Various opinions are held concerning the author of the Works.

1. That those interested in sacred literature might more easily and at less expense procure some more accurate edition of the Areopagitic Works, the Venetian printer, having consulted the common good, chose the Parisian edition as revised, insofar as it is richer in apologetic works, and adorned with the Latin interpretations of the most learned and most skilled man, Peter Lansselius.

Yet the new care has not been left out for amending the Greek text, whether of the Areopagitic Works or of the Scholia, and for adorning the work itself with various readings if there should be need, a more diligent collation having been made with the very clean codex of the Venetian library of St. Mark. ^B This task was carried out by the industrious and truly skilled Georgius Constantini, a Greek by birth, from the city of Joannina in Epirus. The labor resulted in profit. Variant readings occur frequently in the Works, and besides, not a few additions were able to be recovered in the Scholia. The margins of the folios provide all these. Concerning the Scholia of Germanus the Patriarch, which now for the first time are coming forth distinct from others in accordance with the authority of a codex, I shall speak later.

II. ^D The number of miscellaneous works is increased by the first work, which, written and published in French, bears on the front: *Problem posed to the learned concerning the books attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite: where it is asked whether one must say that this author drew his principles, a part of his doctrine, and the treatise of his Mystical Theology, from Saint Clement of Alexandria and Saint Gregory of Nyssa: or if these two Fathers took from him. In Paris at the shop of Jean de Nully, MDCCVIII.* A problem proposed to learned men concerning the books attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite: by which one is called to an examination, and it is inquired whether the Author of the works themselves derived his principles and part of his doctrine, and the Treatise on Mystical Theology, from Clement of Alexandria and from the divine Gregory of Nyssa: or whether those men borrowed something from him. And not only is the Problem, which is proposed, fortified by arguments and solutions on both sides, but arguments also appear in it, and solutions, which favor Dionysius the Areopagite as the true author, and those which oppose it. The Work will appear rendered only in Latin.

Among those who adjudge the Works away from Dionysius the Areopagite, some think him to be some orthodox author of a later age, others a heterodox one. Michael Lequienus argued very fiercely in his Dissertation against Peter Chapha, or Eullo, or some one of his followers infected by the Eutychian or Monophysite contagion.

follows this most learned man to the best of its ability; neither does Christian August Salig, in his treatise *On Eutychianism before Eutyches*, consider his opinion, which he knew of, to be plausible; nor does Maturinus Vessieres La-Croze approve of it again. Cnaphæus held the See of Antioch for the first time in the year 471, invaded it again in the year 476 and the following, and occupied it for a third time from 485 until the year 488.

As for the author, Dodwell considered him a Latin who was excellent in orthodoxy; Paschasius Quesnellius and Joannes Bona considered him an Egyptian; Lequienus considered him a Greek and an Attic writer. See chapter 6 of the Dissertation. Morinus defines the times of this same author, whoever he may have been, as after Nestorius and before the tumults of the Eutychians, as the fifth century was waning; indeed, Nicolaus Nourrius, a Benedictine ascetic of Saint-Maur, deems the works to have been forged within the year 431, in which the ecumenical synod of Ephesus was held against the Nestorians, and 451, in which the synod of Chalcedon was held against the Eutychians. Others consider the age of the forgery to be a little later.

^A ...from number 10 up to number 16 of the Damascene [treatise]. This excerpt holds a new place among the mentioned works. But our opposing Dissertation, *On the faith of the author of the Works which are commonly called Areopagitic, whether he was orthodox, or a heretic, or an Apollinarist, or a Eutychian, or a Monophysite*, ought to have followed this. It is already numbered ninth among thirty other Dissertations on the deeds, writings, and doctrine of Saint Thomas Aquinas, published in folio, Venice, by Joannes Baptista Pasquali, 1750. The same is available in his new Venetian edition of the Works of Saint Thomas, volume VIII, in quarto.

III. From these little works, various opinions become known which are circulated regarding the genuine parent of the Areopagitic Works. Let it be permitted to mention them briefly. And first, it can and certainly ought to be held as a settled fact that there exists no certain and genuine monument in antiquity by which it could be proven that the praised Areopagitic Works were known in the first four centuries of the Church, or even in the adult fifth, and toward its end. The author of the Problem which we mentioned above deals with this matter very fully: I also have dealt with it in the cited Dissertation, chapters 1, 2, 4, and following.

The first were the heterodox Severians, enemies of the ecumenical council of Chalcedon (to cite certain witnesses), who brought forward testimonies drawn from the Areopagitic Works in the Collation which they held at Constantinople with the orthodox, the first of whom was Hypatius, bishop of Ephesus. But he was the first who judged the same Works to be not by Dionysius the Areopagite, and attributed them to the ancient heretics, the Apollinarists. See the first chapter of the cited Dissertation. The aforementioned Collation was held in the beginning of the sixth century, that is, in the year 532: in which century, or even late in the fifth, Joannes, prelate of Scythopolis, fought for Saint Dionysius the Areopagite; Saint Maximus, abbot of Chrysopolis, fought also in the following century; and in a later age, a certain presbyter Theodorus, in Photius, codex 1. This Venetian edition provides the apologetic works collected together, which Halloix, Delrius, Lansselius, and Chaumontius wrote.

Among those who deny that the Works of which we speak are the genuine offspring of the Areopagite, there are various opinions about the author whom they seek; others hold him to be an orthodox man, and others a heterodox, differing also regarding his nation. Guillelmus Caveus thought that the author of the Works could be said to be Apollinaris, whom he thinks to have been sound in faith, the father of the heretic Apollinaris. Mathurinus Vessieres La-Croze attributes them to Synesius, bishop of Ptolemais: and he contends that Theophilus of Alexandria was the prompter for him to write them. What of the fact that Henricus Dodwell, in a letter to Caveus, invented the story that the Areopagitic Works were forged by a certain Latin Catholic man, seeing that he lived for a long time at Constantinople before his pontificate, and invented Dionysius—whom he might oppose to the Orientals for one hypostasis and other controversies agitated at that time. But truly, Joannes Philippus Baraterius had conjectured that they should finally be adjudged to the one more ancient than all these, the great Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria. All these fictions have been refuted in our Dissertation.

We have mentioned first Hypatius, bishop of Ephesus, who made the ancient heretical Apollinarists the authors of the Areopagitic [Works]. Joannes Scythopolitanus and Maximus refuted this opinion in the Prologue and in the notes. See chapter 3 of the Dissertation. The opinion of those who attributed the Areopagitic [Works] to the Eutychians and Monophysites is far more recent. Casimirus Oudinus, in *On ecclesiastical writers and writings*, in the place mentioned above, chapter 2, says thus: "I think, therefore, so that I may not dissemble, that all those Works, attributed with such pride to Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, were forged by the Severian heretics, who embraced the errors of Eutyches, and were foisted upon Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, under whose name they had forged them so that they might defend their errors by the false authority of the ancients. That they were forged around the year 520, when the Severians were holding power in the empire at that time, by whom they were first alleged in the year 532, in the Constantinopolitan Collation between the Catholics and the Severians, the Severians producing them from darkness, but the orthodox rejecting them as being until then unknown and unheard of by the Church. Joannes Dallæus has come to my view... in the work *On the writings which are circulated under the names of Dionysius the Areopagite and Ignatius of Antioch*, etc."

Chapter III

^A Scholia were written on the *Areopagitic Works* not only by Maximus, but before him by Joannes Scythopolitanus. In the published editions, they appear confused. Nourry has noted this. The scholia of Joannes Scythopolitanus in the manuscript codices are more extensive. There are indices by which some can be distinguished from others. Who Joannes Scythopolitanus was. He flourished and fought a noble battle against the Monothelite heretics. Scholia on the *Areopagitic Works* have appeared in the Antwerp and Parisian editions, and are appearing now in the Venetian one. But yet, that not one scholiast, Maximus, but another more prolific one, Joannes Scythopolitanus, lent his efforts to the work is attested most fully by Anastasius, librarian of the Roman Church, in his letter to King Charles the Bald, around the year 865. The words are: ^B "I began to search assiduously, if by chance some teacher could be found, or some writing, by which so great a Father (Dionysius the Areopagite) might shine more clearly upon us; and because he had already been handed down to our intelligence through the industry of a translator (Joannes Scotus Eriugena), so that he might be rendered more perfectly to our attentive minds. When, behold, unexpectedly, the *Paratheses*, or Scholia, on him, which I had seen when positioned in Constantinople, came into my hands; through which, translated as they were, he shone upon me a little more brightly. These things, which I found in the margins of his translated codex, as in the Greek, I immediately translated after a fashion, until they could be better translated by a learned man, and I, quite unskilled as a translator, appended them using corresponding signs... But of the Scholia themselves, or *Paratheses*, whatever ones have at their end the sign of the life-giving cross are said to have been found by the blessed Maximus the Confessor and monk; the rest, however, it is maintained, belong to holy Joannes Scythopolitanus, bishop." Who could not commend the accurate labor of Anastasius in distinguishing the scholia of both with great care? The cited letter is printed and prefixed to the *Commentaries on the Areopagite* elaborated by Dionysius the Carthusian, and edited through the benefit of the types in Cologne, at the expense of Peter Quentel, in the year 1536, in folio: and it is held among the *Ancient Irish Epistles* collected by James Ussher, and edited in Paris in the shop of Ludovicus Billaine, 1665, no. XXIV.

^C A fragment of the letter which Scotigena wrote to King Charles the Bald is prefixed to the commentaries crafted by Dionysius the Carthusian; the whole, however, is held among the *Ancient Irish Epistles* collected by Ussher. Anastasius the Librarian speaks of the labor of Scotigena with praise in the cited letter, saying: "And so, blessed Dionysius the Areopagite, whom it is established that among other things, through your industry (of the king Charles himself), most preeminent of princes, he was translated into the Roman tongue... It is wondrous how that barbarian man, who, placed at the ends of the world, just as he was far from men in his conversation, could be believed to be so distant in the diction of another's language, could grasp such things in his intellect, and possess the power to transfer them into another language. I refer to Joannes Scotigena, a man whom I have learned by report to be holy in all things." Regarding him, see Joann. Albertus Fabricius, *In the Latin Library of the Middle and Late Age*.

II. The scholia which Joannes Scythopolitanus wrote on the *Areopagitic Works* do not lie hidden, nor are they kept in manuscripts codices alone. They stand edited among those which appeared under the single name of Maximus, confused with them, which is certainly to be lamented. James Ussher and Michael Lequien have noted this matter. I bring forward the words of Ussher, which are read in William Cave, to the year 520, on Joannes Haxentius. Indeed, it holds in the *Theological Manuscript Library*: "Joannes Scythopolitanus wrote Scholia on the Areopagite Dionysius, just as did Maximus." But in the books of Dionysius edited from the year 1562 inclusive (namely, the year the Greek edition of the Morells first saw the light in Paris, in 8vo), the Scholia of Joannes and Maximus were confused together, which were distinct not only in the older editions (manuscripts) that were circulated in the time of Cyparissiota (the 14th century), but even in both codices used by Morell himself. In one of these, the Scholia of Joannes Scythopolitanus were placed on the margin without a name; in the other, however, separated, after the complete, intact text of Dionysius, the Scholia distinguished by the name of Maximus; they were the briefer, because they had been separated from the more ample ones of Joannes, with which Morell had joined them. Furthermore, those common Scholia of Scythopolitanus are exactly those same ones which are attributed by others to Dionysius the Alexandrian: which is evident from the opinion cited by Cyparissiota from the *Scholia of Dionysius*, which is found in these Scholia in the very same words. That this opinion, however, belongs to Scythopolitanus, not to Maximus, is clear from the Latin version of the Scholia of Scythopolitanus

^A (words are Lequien's; they could not have been inserted by any other author than Joannes Scythopolitanus, who, being attacked in various writings by Basil of Cilicia, a presbyter of the Antiochene Church, had denounced this same Basil as a most crafty propagator of Nestorian impiety in his anti-rhetorical dissertations, as Photius narrates in his *Bibliotheca*, cod. XCV and CVII.)

In the former codex the words of Photius are: "Read was Joannes Scythopolita, scholasticus [scholastic], against the deserters of the Church..." The writings in which Scythopolitanus writes... perhaps Basil of Cilicia is the author. And in another codex: "Read was the book of Basil, presbyter of Cilicia, against Joannes Scythopolitanus, who also has the name of Causidicus [Advocate], Δικαιολόγος." That this is one and the same Joannes Scythopolitanus, although surnamed differently, Scholasticus and Causidicus, no serious argument prevents us from affirming. In the former codex these items are present: "He wrote (Scythopolitanus) at the request of a certain patriarch, whose name is Julian." Julian ascended the see of Antioch after Petrus Cnapheus, in the year 471, and held it until the year 476. See Boschius, *De patriarchis Antiochenis*, among the *Acta Sanctorum*, volume IV of July. At this time, therefore, Scythopolitanus began to descend into the arena against the deserters of the Church, as Photius says, or against Eutyches and Dioscorus and the followers of that same sect. He seems to have taken up his pen against Basil of Cilicia later. In another codex Photius says: "Basil of Cilicia was a presbyter, as he himself affirms, of the Antiochene Church, at which time Flavian held the throne there, and Anastasius the helm of the Roman empire." This man held the empire from the year 491 to the year 518. The Flavian who is called the Antiochene patriarch refers to the second of this name, from about the year 499 to the year 512. All things cohere perfectly.

III. Now therefore, among the Scholia published under the single name of Maximus, there are undoubtedly those which Joannes Scythopolitanus wrote, confused with the same. I cite less accurately the words of Nicolaus Nourrius in the place cited above. "In the Colbertine codex, written by hand in the month of January, on the seventh day of the week, in the fifth indiction, in the year of the world 6500, that is, of Christ 992, there are added notes ^D of Saint Maximus, most discrepant from those which stand in the printed editions... If you ask from where that discrepancy arose, learn from the testimony of Anastasius (cited above), by which he affirms that the Scholia of St. Maximus and Joannes Scythopolitanus had been distinguished by him from each other. Hence you will gather that they could easily have been confused in the Colbertine codex and in many others by an absurd jumble due to the carelessness of unskilled copyists." By these words, Nourrius seems to have thought that the Scholia of Scythopolitanus had not yet been published, and were hidden in the codices. He is egregiously mistaken, as has been said.

However, it is worth the effort to point out that in our Venetian codex from the Marcian Library, the same Scholia which have been published in print are found to be more extensive and fuller: which indeed the present new [edition] will provide as additions.

edited by the learned man, Jacob Echard in his *Scriptores ordinis Praedicatorum*, Vol. II, for the year 1679, notes that the most illustrious ^A François Combefis had left ready for the press a third volume of the *Auctarium novissimae Bibliothecae Graecorum Patrum*, which would have contained the Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite, augmented and corrected from the Royal, the Saint-Denis, and the two Mazarin codices. These, namely, are the Scholia of Scythopolitanus, though that learned man attributed them to Maximus.

One may also add the more extensive Commentary on the fourth epistle of Dionysius the Areopagite, as it is commonly called, which is addressed to Caius: a work which Combefis claimed was the genuine [commentary] of Maximus from the Royal codex, and one which had never before been printed. But I suspect that this was the one published in the Oxford edition of 1681 in the Appendix to the five books of John Scottus Eriugena’s *De divisione naturae*; where it exists in Greek and Latin, translated by the Englishman Th. Gale, as the first Epistle of St. Maximus to Thomas, a holy man, on diverse questions, and in chapter 5 more extensive Commentaries on the fourth epistle to Caius are provided under the same name of Maximus.

IV. But are there indications by which the Scholia of Maximus and those written by Scythopolitanus, which are confused in the printed editions, might be distinguished? Indeed, Anastasius the Librarian very prudently interpreted them as being separate from one another, stating that whatever has the sign of the life-giving cross at its end is recorded as having been devised by the blessed Maximus, confessor and monk, while the rest are said to be by St. John, Bishop of Scythopolis. These are also not confused, but distinct, in the ancient codices, as Ussher notes, and in both codices used by Morell: in one of which the Scholia of John of Scythopolis are placed in the margin without a name, while in the other the Scholia bearing the name of Maximus are placed separately after the complete text of Dionysius has been concluded.

As for the editions themselves, signs of this distinction occur. In the Morellian edition of 1562, the Prologue is inscribed with these words: *Πρόλογος τοῦ ἁγίου Μαξίμου, ἢ κατά τινας, Ἰωάννου τοῦ Σκυθοπολιτῶν*, "Prologue of St. Maximus, or, according to some, of John of Scythopolis." To this, without any doubt, belongs the Scholium in which the Origenists are said to have recently emerged, in Palestine of course. Of the same authorship are the scholia in which the Nestorians are called Basilians. Ussher notes that the Scholia of Maximus are shorter, and that the ones written by Scythopolitanus are more extensive. We understand this to mean that Maximus also produced certain longer ones, and not only shorter ones; but that Scythopolitanus also wrote some short scholia, and not exclusively the more prolix ones.

Not infrequently, two scholia occur in the same words and with the same meaning of the author, one of Maximus, that is, and the other of Scythopolitanus, distinguished by these words: *ἄλλως*, or *εἰς αὐτό*. Accept some examples. In chapter 10 of the *Celestial Hierarchy*, to the words *κρυφιώτερα μέν*, "more occultly, indeed," after a fairly long annotation, another is added, with the adverb *ἄλλως* prefixed. In chapter 15, to the word *ρᾳστώνην*, a second exposition is brought forward, with *ἄλλως* prefixed. The same may be observed in chapter 2 of the *Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, to the words "to understand with mind and reason," and in chapter 3, to the words "in others" and to those, "he who has washed," and in chapter 4, to the words, "there is some celestial [being]," and to that, "to the lower [orders]"; and in chapter 2 of *The Divine Names*, to the words, "divine suffering"; and in chapter 4, to the words *καὶ ὑπερκόσμιον*.

In chapter 5, to the words "and is, and will be," a first note is added; another follows then with these words: *Εἰς τὸ αὐτό*; and in chapter 7, to the words, "and certain images." But these are enough: for one may not linger too long on these matters, which can be safely detected only by an inspection of the codices.

V. I return to the author John of Scythopolitanus, concerning whom it is not yet sufficiently known who he was, and both the words of Anastasius the Librarian and those of Photius cited above truly present a difficulty. The former calls John of Scythopolitanus, the author of the Scholia, a bishop; the latter deals with a John of Scythopolis, whom he calls now a Scholasticus, now a Causidicus, with no mention made of an episcopal dignity.

Nevertheless, Photius himself mentions John of Scythopolitanus as a prelate in codex 236, where he refers to the synodical epistle of Sophronius of Jerusalem (written against the Monothelites in the year 635), in which the blessed John, prelate of Scythopolis, who wrote piously concerning the Council of Chalcedon, is mentioned. But in what time did he flourish? Lequien, in *Oriens Christianus*, Vol. III, places John among the bishops of Scythopolis in the patriarchate of Jerusalem, probably around the year 496. If the matter stands thus, it still remains doubtful whether he was the one who compiled the Scholia on Maximus. The episcopal dignity, attributed to their author by Anastasius the Librarian, favors this: but the difficulties gathered from Photius pose an issue of no little weight. The aforementioned Lequien, in his *Dissertatio Damascena*, seems to attribute the aforementioned Scholia to a John of Scythopolis who was provoked by Basil of Cilicia, and who himself provoked him with his own writings: but he distinguishes this man from the Bishop of Scythopolis in his *Oriens Christianus*. Why could Anastasius the Librarian and Photius not be reconciled, if we were to say that John of Scythopolitanus, formerly a Scholasticus and Causidicus, a man most illustrious for his writings composed against the deserters of the Church and against Basil of Cilicia, had later obtained the mitre of the Church of Scythopolis? The times correspond. Lequien notes that John had presided over his own Church until about the year 518, to which he had been assumed to manage it by Theodosius, who is subscribed in the year 518 to the synodical epistle which John of Jerusalem sent against Severus of Antioch: *Θεοδόσιος ἐπίσκοπος τῆς Σκυθοπολιτῶν* ("Theodosius, Bishop of the Scythopolitans"). But this John of Scythopolitanus, a Scholasticus or Causidicus, who had already been asked around the year 471 by Julian, Patriarch of Antioch, to take up the pen...

to defend the Church against her deserters, and later pursued Basil the Cilician. ^A

There is another chronological note highly worthy of observation, which the annotation mentioned above (no. 2, in chapter 7, *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*) offers, where it is said that the followers of the myths of Origen have now appeared in Palestine. Indeed, great disturbances were stirred up in the monasteries of Palestine in the year 531 regarding the doctrines of Origen: but they had begun already, with the monk Nonnus as their instigator, who for that reason had been expelled from his monastery before the year 518, in order that he might be restored, having negotiated that same year with John, who had succeeded Elias as Patriarch of Jerusalem. Norisius recounts these things in a wider discourse in *On the Fifth Synod*, chapter 1, and Pagius under the year 532, no. 3. At this time, therefore, the author of the Scholia could most truly note that the followers of the myths of Origen had now appeared: a time which certainly corresponds most to John, an outstanding writer against Basil the Cilician and the deserters of the Church, and bishop of Scythopolis. Regarding the anathema cast upon Origen and the new followers of his myths at a certain Constantinopolitan synod under Mennas, patriarch of the royal city, between the year 538 and the year 544, before the fifth ecumenical synod, Lequienus discourses most brilliantly against Pagius and others in *Oriens Christianus*, volume III, under Eustochius, Patriarch of Jerusalem. ^B

While Theodosius was governing the Church of Scythopolis, there was a certain John, a Scholasticus of Scythopolis, son of Expelleuta, as we read in the *Life of Saint Sabas* (at Cotelier, in *Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae*), a good man and one illuminated in his mind. Lequienus remains in doubt whether this Scholasticus John of Scythopolis, son of Expelleuta, should be said to be the same person as John the Scholasticus of Scythopolis whom Photius mentions in codex xcv. These both are proven distinct by the different times of each, and the different studies of each: the one being a good man illuminated in mind, the other having been raised in disputes against the heterodox; so that it may now be established again that the John of Scythopolis of Photius, the Scholasticus and advocate, is one and the same person, and is one and the same with the John, bishop of Scythopolis, of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, the writer of the Scholia on the Areopagitic Works. I have decided to depart into another conjecture in the aforementioned Dissertation, chapter 4, no. 2, in which perhaps enough is done by the manner in which I indicated that a harmony between Photius and Anastasius Bibliothecarius might be formed. Let it be the judgment of each more learned one. But it seems finally established from all these that the Scholia are wrongly attributed by some to John Maxentius, the leader of the Scythian monks, who was living his life during these times, and that he is wrongly confused with John of Scythopolis, whether the bishop or the pursuer of Basil the Cilician. ^{C D}

CHAPTER IV.

A manuscript codex of the Venetian Marciana library attributes some of the published Scholia to Patriarch Germanus: everything concerning this is indicated. Observations: conjectures about Patriarch Germanus brought forward for Maximus. Who this Patriarch Germanus may have been. Other things which are reported among bibliographers on the *Opus Areopagiticum* with the Scholia are reviewed.

When certain very expert men were examining the manuscripts of the Venetian library of St. Mark, which contain the Areopagitica and the Scholia, and I myself was also engaged in it, I was immediately able to learn something singular from it: namely, that among the Scholia on the Areopagitic Works, there are found some which are attributed to a certain Patriarch Germanus. The book *On the Divine Names* holds the first place in the codex, and the Scholia adorn the margin. But this marginal note occurs at the beginning: Σημείωσαι· ὅσα μὲν ἔχουσιν ἀριθμὸν [γ], εἰσὶ Γερμανοῦ πατριάρχου· ὅσα δὲ ἄνευ ἀριθμοῦ, Μαξίμου μοναχοῦ. (Note: Those scholia which have a number are of Patriarch Germanus; those which lack a number pertain to Maximus the monk.) We all expected something new, which might greatly adorn the Venetian edition; but when a collation was made with the published ones, once they were printed, we discovered for certain that all those Scholia were presented under the single name of Maximus.

But there are not a few Scholia to be seen that are numbered with the letters of the Greek alphabet; these, to be sure, are the ones that are attributed to Patriarch Germanus in the codex. In chapter 1 of *On the Celestial Hierarchy* there are three numbered; in chapter 2, likewise three; in chapter 7, six; in chapter 12, four; in chapter 13, likewise four; in chapter 1 of *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy* there are seven, and again five; in chapter 2, three, and again seven; in chapter 3, two, and again five; in chapter 4, five; in chapter 6, three; in chapter 4 of *On the Divine Names* there are nine, and again three, and again four, and again nine, and afterwards seven; in chapter 7, three. The book *On Mystical Theology* lacks Scholia of this kind. There appear three on the 8th epistle, to Titus: the others do not have Germanus' Scholia. The Venetian edition represents these numbers as they are in the codex.

II. Therefore, if there is credibility in the aforementioned codex, the published Scholia are to be attributed not to Maximus alone, nor even to John of Scythopolis; but Patriarch Germanus also claims a part of them for himself. The annotation of John Albert Fabricius in the *Bibliotheca Graeca*, book V, chapter 1, no. 6, seems to bolster the faith of the codices, where he says thus: "The Scholia of Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, are still preserved in the Vatican library." Would they be the same as ours? Let those who are able to handle the Vatican codices with their hands, and look upon them with their eyes, and weigh them with their minds, render the reason; I must be indulgent to conjectures. I have carefully weighed the style, the manner, and the doctrine of the Scholia which are numbered with the letters of the alphabet, yet I see nothing by which they

^A should be said to have proceeded from another author, who was not Maximus, or John of Scythopolis. Let the wise reader weigh these same things according to his own expertise, and compare them, and pass judgment. In a certain note, numbered in that way, on chapter 2 of the *Celestial Hierarchy*, we read thus: "What, furthermore, an extreme resonance might be, I will explain in chapter 4 of the book *On the Divine Names*." By this resonance he understands the order of things established by God, and the illumination of the lower by the higher. Indeed, something of this sort is indicated or explained in the scholia numbered in the same way in chapter 4 of *On the Divine Names*. But does this manner of referring to a discourse in another place fit Germanus, who added some scholia to the Scholia of Maximus and Scythopolitanus? They certainly fit Scythopolitanus, who was the first to illuminate the Areopagitic Work with fuller notes. ^B They also fit Maximus, who wrote certain brief scholia separately from him.

This, however, must be especially noted: that the scholia which are numbered and attributed to Germanus are more frequently shorter, and if you collect them all, they are few rather than many. By these two indicators—the brevity and the paucity of the scholia—Ussher and Le Quien have pointed out to us that they are truly Maximus's. Hence, the conjecture enters the mind that the scribe who was copying the Marcian codex, finding scholia distinct from scholia, and being unaware of the author of the greater part of them, John of Scythopolis, attributed some to Patriarch Germanus and others to Maximus. Old manuscripts of good quality, in which the scholia of Maximus are accurately distinguished from the scholia of John of Scythopolis, are the only things that can dispel the shadows and settle the whole dispute.

III. Who this Patriarch Germanus was, if he himself wrote the Scholia on the Areopagitic Works, must be investigated. The whole matter is required in a few words. Two Germans of the same name are at hand, who held the throne of the royal city of Constantinople: both were illustrious in the sacred letters and writers of several works. The first ascended that seat in the year 715, and resigned it, by abdicating his dignity, in the year 730. The other wore those same miters from the year 1222 to the year 1240. I pass over the third Germanus, whom I have shown in the first dissertation, which I have placed under the *Life of Gregory of Cyprus* and published in print in the year 1753, to have obtained the dignity in the year 1264. ^C Bibliographers review the works of both with more diligent care, yet there is no mention in them of the scholia of which we are speaking. And yet, however many scholia on the Areopagitic Work have been published in print, they are all found in ancient manuscripts which predate the age of the second Germanus. Among these published scholia, those which are attributed to Germanus have a place; therefore, if any German, Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote them, he must undoubtedly have been the first.

IV. Finally, it may be permitted to note that some other writers are mentioned who wrote scholia on the Areopagitic Works, although they are not sufficiently known. Johann Albert Fabricius, in his *Bibliotheca Graeca*, book V, chapter 1, no. 6, reviews in a few words the Scholia of George Hieromnemon in the Medicean library. Among the manuscripts of the Royal Library of Turin, vol. 1, is numbered codex CCC.LXIX, a parchment manuscript of the fourteenth century, in which are contained the *Works of Dionysius the Areopagite*, with the scholia of a certain Andrew, as can be read after a few words of Dionysius on chapter 6 of *On the Divine Names*: «Ἀνδρέου ἐξήγησις, Andrew's narrative.» ^D Then the scholia of Dionysius are always placed under the text, written in red ink, so that they can scarcely be read. These scholia, however (the editors of the library say), as it has happened to observe from comparison, are entirely the same as the scholia of Saint Maximus published in print. Why might something similar, through a false nomenclature of Patriarch Germanus, not have happened in the Venetian Marcian codex?

John of Daras, a bishop in Syria, is said to have written commentaries on Dionysius the Areopagite in the Syriac language. Learned men disagree concerning the age of the man and the city whose episcopal miter he wore. Consult the most abundantly thorough John Morin, *On Sacred Ordinations*, from page 423, and also read the dissertation which we have called "written in French," *Problème*, etc. To these I add the very learned Joseph Simon Assemani in *Bibliotheca Orientalis*, volume II, chapter 18, where that very learned man shows that John of Daras flourished not before the year 700.

CHAPTER V.

Latin versions of the Areopagitic Work that are circulated are reviewed. The Latin version of a certain passage of *On the Divine Names* is more sincere and clear in Saint Thomas Aquinas than in others.

1. It will not be out of place, before I put an end to this small dissertation, to review the various Latin versions of the Areopagitic works that have been produced up to now and have appeared in print. This benefit at least can be gathered, that if anyone desires to undertake a collation of versions of this kind, so that some of the more obscure Areopagitic passages might be more clearly understood, he may know them and be able to find them easily.

John Scotus Eriugena first undertook the task of adorning this field. Johann Albert Fabricius deals with his true homeland in his *Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis*, so that I may pass over others in this place. We know that he applied himself to that work at the command of King Charles the Bald from his letter to that same king, which exists in its entirety among the *Irish Letters* collected by James Ussher, no. 23. He says, truly: that he translated from Greek into Latin the four books of the holy Father Dionysius the Areopagite, Bishop of Athens, which he wrote to Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus (namely, *On the Celestial Hierarchy*, *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*...

On the Divine Names*, *On Mystical Theology*), and ten letters of the same. The dedicatory epistle is dated the year 858, as Ussher notes in the margin.

Anastasius the Librarian mentions this version and even praises it in an epistle written to the same king in the year 865, in which he dedicates to him his own Latin version of the scholia of Saint Maximus and John, Bishop of Scythopolis. We have provided the words in chapter 3, no. I. This Latin version of the Areopagite works by Scotigena exists almost complete and edited in print by Dionysius the Carthusian, who employed it in his Commentaries on Dionysius the Areopagite, printed at Cologne, at the expense of Peter Quentel in the year 1556. In the Preface to the reader, the following is found: "The vulgar translation, which is said to be that of John Scotigena... is explained by our Carthusian Dionysius chapter by chapter, almost word for word, except that in interpreting certain letters of the Areopagite, our Carthusian uses the translation of another John—not in reality, but by the surname Saracenus: yet in the ninth and tenth (epistle), that of the Camaldulensian (Ambrose)." ^A

Not so many learned men were satisfied with the version of Scotigena, especially as time went on, such that they expended new labor in translating the Areopagite books and letters. Hence a second person assumed this task around the year 1118, John Sarracenus, or Sarrazenus, as Fabricius notes in the cited *Bibliotheca*. And he continues to relate this: "He translated into Latin the Hierarchy of Dionysius the Areopagite (namely both, the celestial and the ecclesiastical)." Gesner should see, who says in his *Bibliotheca* that Sarracenus translated all the books of the Areopagite, and that they were printed with the Commentaries of Dionysius the Carthusian at Cologne, etc. ^B Indeed, in these Commentaries, and in that same Cologne edition of the year 1536, at the expense of Quentel, there exists the Latin Sarracenus version of *On the Celestial Hierarchy* and *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, both dedicated to Master John of Salisbury: likewise the Latin version of *On the Divine Names* and *On Mystical Theology*, both similarly dedicated to Odo, Abbot of Saint-Denis: and finally the Latin version of eleven letters.

Third in number is Ambrose the orator, a monk of the Camaldulensian order, as he is inscribed in that same volume of Dionysius the Carthusian, which provides a version of the Areopagite books and eleven letters completed in its entirety by him. Traversarius is his surname, and the town of Portici, above Forlì, is his homeland. Bibliographers weave praises of this author, who was most famous at the end of the fourteenth and the passing of the fifteenth century. Read the most illustrious Apostolo Zeno on this, discussing him in his *Dissertationes Vossianae* written in Italian, volume I.

The fourth is Joachim Perionius, a Benedictine of Cormery. He dedicates his Latin version to the Cardinal of Vendôme. In an epistle dated the Kalends of May 1555, he states: "I have translated all his works that are extant, that is, *On the Celestial Hierarchy*, one book; *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, one book; *On the Divine Names*, one book; *On Mystical Theology*, one book; and ten epistles of the same. Scholia also on the book *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, not yet translated by anyone (so far as I know), which were edited at Basel in the Hervagiana workshop, I have converted." I use the Lyons edition by Guillaume Rouillé, 1585, in 8°.

On the front of the Commentaries of Dionysius the Carthusian, which we noted were edited in print at Cologne in 1556, there is also listed the Latin translation of Marsilio Ficino, an imperfect one as it contains only *On the Divine Names* and *On Mystical Theology*. More polished and accurate than all of these is the one that Balthasar Corderius, S.J., brought forth. In the preface, he says: "I have adorned this new edition with my own Latin interpretation, which (as I certainly endeavored) might express the force of his words (which is most present in them) more concisely, more clearly, and more appropriately for theologians, and which would render the genuine meaning in a plain style."

II. Learned men, however, have observed that some Areopagite passages could have been translated more successfully into Latin. I offer an example from chapter 2 of *On the Divine Names*, where § 6 has the Greek text thus: [Diakékritai de tēs agathoprepous eis hēmas theourgias, to kath' hēmas, ex hēmōn, holikōs kai alēthōs ousiōthēnai ton huperousion Logon, kai horasai kai pathein hosa tēs anthrōpikēs autou theourgias estin ekkrita kai exaireta.] The translation of Sarracenus is this: "It is distinguished, however, from the divine operation that is benign toward us, according to us, out of us, for the supersubstantial Word to have been made totally and truly substantial, and to do and to suffer whatever things are chosen and set apart from his human theurgy." The force of those words, [tēs anthrōpikēs autou theourgias], is not expressed at all: indeed, the interpreter seems to have read [theōrias], "contemplation," instead of [theourgias]. The translation of Scotigena also seems less accurate: "to operate and to suffer whatever things, by his divine action, are apart from his humanity, and are most to be wondered at." Perhaps he was reading [anthrōpinēs] instead of [anthrōpikēs]. Ambrose Camaldulensis has no more successful version: "and he did and bore those things which are of his human assumption, chosen and preeminent." It does not express the word [theourgias] sufficiently. Finally, the versions of Perionius and Corderius are imperfect: the former, "and he did and suffered all things which are preeminent and singular of his human action: these, and he performed and bore them, which are preeminent and singular of his human action."

Michael Lequien, however, bids the text to be translated in Dissertation II on Damascene, no. XV, thus: "and he suffered all that is excellent and outstanding in his human-divine efficiency." Saint Thomas Aquinas saw this version, whether produced by himself or by others in his own time, and he employed it in *Summa Theologiae* 3, q. XIX, art. 1, in the *argumentum* 1: "to operate and to suffer whatever things are fitting for his human and divine operation." Indeed, the Angelic Doctor, out of his own skill and the strength of the intellect in which he excelled, pursues in his own works now

^A Scotigena's and, in the manner of the Saracens, the Latin version, as has been observed elsewhere, to show it as infected with the Monophysite stain; and also more frequently, dispensing with either interpreter, he renders the sense of the Areopagitic text in clearer words; and he himself seems sometimes to have consulted the Greek text itself, or someone else by his request, to render it into Latin with a more accurate translation. Lequien makes use of that version of his in the cited place to show the author of the Areopagitic works as infected with the Monophysite stain. But Thomas Aquinas saw nothing in that same version that was not strictly orthodox, as he demonstrates in the solution of the first argument. I have treated this matter more fully in the Dissertation so often cited, in chapter 18, a place of Thomas indeed strangely overlooked and omitted by Lequien.

TO THE STUDIOUS READER, FROM THE PRINTER

Since there are many excellent printers in this city who perform their duties as accurately as possible, it has nevertheless happened, through the fault and negligence of a few, that some foreigners have a less than correct opinion regarding the diligence and fidelity in promises of the Venetian printers. Since this is not unknown to me, I strive with all my strength to both uproot the bad opinion of some and to confirm and increase the good opinion of others; so that I myself may be numbered not among the few who are negligent, but among others who are more diligent and accurate. I hope that I have already secured this to some extent with my edition of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, which was received with no small acclaim: and I trust that I will secure it much more with the present edition of the Areopagitic Works which I offer to you, studious Reader; for since I have spared neither diligence nor expense in preparing it in any way. Furthermore, what has been accomplished in it, and how many additions have been made to render it more ornate and dearer to you, you have sufficiently learned from the previous Dissertation of a distinguished man. I myself will be silent about the brightness of the paper, the elegance of the type, and other added ornaments, as these occur to your eyes of their own accord. However, there are two things about which I think it my interest to warn you particularly. The first is that I have applied truly singular study and diligence so that this edition might be produced as corrected as possible, or as free as possible from typographical errors: for which purpose I have used the work not of one, but of several men of learning. The result is that in this edition not only have no new errors been added, but even not a few have been removed from the old ones, namely those that had crept into previous editions. Indeed, so that this might not seem like mere boasting on my part (for this is indeed sometimes boasted of even by the most negligent printers), I had decided to place before your eyes in this place a complete list of the errors that have been removed. But because I feared that some might interpret this maliciously, I will present to you only a few errors of the Latin version by way of example; and indeed, from the kind of errors that could only be detected and corrected by a more attentive weighing of the sense, or even by comparison with the Greek text. Thus, the Parisian edition has, for example, *contentionem* for *consensionem*; *interitu* for *introitu*; *disturbatarum* for *distributarum*; *unctionem* for *vinctionem*; *corrupuisset* for *corripuisset*; *die* for *diis*; *quarum* for *aquarum*; *uti* for *voti*; *immunitionem* for *imminutionem*; *dicendi* for *discendi*; *investigabilem* for *ininvestigabilem*; *secundum* for *fecundum*; *suscipiet* for *suspiciet*, etc. These and not a few others of this kind have been corrected in this edition of ours through the work of learned men, skilled in both languages. I will say nothing of the greater number of coarser errors with which the Parisian edition is covered: for the correction of these is easier, and thus it is not to be specially commemorated here. But do not take all these things as said by me, dear reader, as if I wished to diminish the estimation of the Parisian editions (of which indeed many are most neat and accurate); but rather so that it may be made manifest that those who know how to estimate only foreign editions are in great error, and prefer them all to all Venetian ones without any distinction. But enough on this matter. The second thing about which I wish to warn you is that this first volume of the Areopagitic Works appears in public during this current month of April; in that very month, namely, in which I had bound myself by my word in the previous Declaration that it would appear: so that you may gather from this alone what you can safely expect regarding the promises I shall make to you in the future. Indeed, just as I myself judge that nothing is more unworthy of an honest man than to break faith once given to the public, so I have firmly resolved that it is better for me to suffer any loss whatsoever than to cast such a disgrace upon my name. This one thing, however, remains, excellent Reader, that you show that these things of mine please you. For thus my spirit will be added to day by day to undertake greater and better things for your favor and advantage. In the meantime, enjoy these and farewell.

NOTICE PREFIXED TO THE PARISIAN EDITION OF THE YEAR 1644

This new edition displays more to you than all others that have preceded it thus far. For it includes together the latest, and indeed those ones most accurate and absolute of all; that is, all the care and work which those two most grave and learned Fathers of the Society of Jesus, Lansselius and Corderius, applied, and strove so arduously and sagaciously to adorn, each as much as he could. Moreover, it contains something else, not yet previously published to the public. The edition of Lansselius, which had appeared in this same city of Paris in the year 1615, was followed by that other one, which Corderius prepared at Antwerp in the year 1634. Therefore, that one which appeared under the authorship of Corderius, as being later and more accurately elaborated, in the ed

edition of this new work, it pleased us to follow; and so the former volume of this work, which contains the entire context of S. Dionysius with the Paraphrase of Pachymeres, has been arranged from the version of Corderius, with his own annotations added at the foot of each chapter. As for the latter volume, however, in which the Scholia of S. Maximus and various other treatises and the dissertations and notes of many authors regarding the life or writings of such a divine author are contained; you will find some things in it from the version of Lansselius, and some others from the edition of Corderius. And since anyone might hope that the very same Scholia of S. Maximus and the Paraphrase of Pachymeres on the Epistles, together with the Paraphrase of all the other works and the annotations of Corderius, might be exhibited in the same series as an appendix to each chapter of the Dionysian text, so that the reader might not be disappointed in this expectation of his or seem to have been frustrated, we have added to each of these chapters of the aforementioned text, or to their appendix and end, indices and notes which refer and send back to the Scholia and the aforementioned Paraphrase, with the pages of both editions designated. Thus, neither has gratification been denied to curiosity, nor has anything been detracted from utility or the pleasure of readers; which on both sides remains as much the same as if these elements were contained in a single continuous text and structure. For in truth, nothing has been omitted in the rest, however much effort was involved, which might pertain to equipping this new edition most copiously according to the wishes and intent of all, and perfecting it in every respect; the reading itself will prove this more certainly than any commendation of words. Farewell.

CORDERIUS’ GENERAL OBSERVATIONS FOR THE EASIER UNDERSTANDING OF S. DIONYSIUS.

OBSERVATION ONE.

Magnus Dionysius, as a wise master builder, placed the word of God as the foundation of his works, both written and handed down; knowing well that nothing is more stable, nothing firmer than that, as the Lord says: *Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.* On this most firm foundation, therefore, his whole most sublime doctrine rests. And indeed, the first chapter of the *Celestial Hierarchy* is entirely about Holy Scripture, teaching that by its illumination one must ascend to the investigation and knowledge of celestial things. In the second chapter, he says that the celestial hierarchies are to be celebrated ^A *according to their mystical explanation in the Oracles*. And in chapter 6: *We, therefore, will say nothing of our own motion; but as many of the angelic visions as have been seen by the holy theologians, we, having been instructed in these, insofar as we are able, will expound by the power of the Oracles.* ^B Indeed, these are those Oracles whose rule is predetermined. For the Oracles handed down by God are the substance of our hierarchy. We call these Oracles most venerable, which have been given to us by our inspired initiators in holy and theological books; and likewise those which, by a more immaterial initiation from the same holy men, and one already in a way bordering on the Celestial Hierarchy, were taught to our instructors through a certain sacred translation ^C from mind to mind, by means of the word—which, though indeed corporeal, is yet immaterial—without writing. Where he beautifully describes the word of God, both written and handed down. He calls our holy initiators apostles, of whom both he himself and S. Timothy, to whom ^D he writes his books, were disciples. He says, however, that tradition approaches closer to the conversation of angels than Scripture, because although it is done by the instrument of the corporeal mouth, in which it is inferior to angelic speech—since they manifest their concepts to one another immediately—yet it is done in a less material way than script, because it is by word alone, whereas in writings both reed and ink are used as cruder materials.

S. Dionysius sets Scripture before himself as a rule.

In the book *On the Divine Names*, he again sets this same law for himself, that he should say nothing except from Scripture. Cap. 1, toward the beginning: *Let there be for us even now the sacred prescribed law of the Oracles, etc.* And immediately after: *Therefore, one must not dare to speak, nor even to conceive anything about the supersubstantial and hidden Godhead, beyond what has been divinely revealed to us from the sacred oracles. For the ignorance of His supersubstantiality, which is above reason and mind and essence, is to be ascribed to Him as a supersubstantial knowledge.*

^A Inasmuch as we look upward toward the ineffable, in proportion as the rays of the god-bearing oracles grant themselves to us, gathering ourselves together in temperance and holiness regarding divine things. Therefore, one should not presume to say or to think anything at all concerning the supersubstantial and hidden Deity, beyond what is divinely elucidated for us in the sacred oracles. For the ignorance of His supersubstantiality—to which a supersubstantial knowledge must be ascribed—surpasses speech, intellect, and essence. Wherefore, we aspire to that inaccessible light only as far as that ray of the divine oracles has let itself be insinuated, by which, through these more eminent splendors of divine things, we are tempered with a certain sobriety and sanctity.

Finally, in *Mystical Theology*, ch. 1, he hands down from the Scriptures that God has made darkness His hiding place, and that He dwells in inaccessible light; and by the example of Moses, he shows how one ought to enter into that mystic darkness. From these and his other writings, it is clear to all that S. Dionysius brings forward nothing that is not drawn from the word of God.

OBSERVATION II.

Why S. Dionysius speaks so magnificently of Scripture. By what names he calls the Scriptures. By what names he calls the apostles.

Since this holy man, as has been shown, draws and establishes his entire doctrine from the word of God, it is deservedly his primary care—in order that the word of God may have the greater weight among us—to impress its divine authority upon us through the most sublime and altogether divine formulas of speaking, and at the same time to draw us into admiration of it, and not to allow us to have humble thoughts concerning the Scriptures. Hence, he almost never calls them by the common name "Scriptures," but circumscribes them in an altogether divine manner, as can be seen from the places cited above and especially in chapter 1 of *Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, where in the title, sacred Scripture is called θεία ἔλλαμψις, that is, divine illumination, and in the context, Πατροκινήτου φωτοφανείας πρόοδος, that is, the procession of an illumination moved by the Father. And having invoked Jesus, composing himself reverently for his contemplation, he says there: «Ἐπὶ τὰς τῶν ἱερωτάτων λογίων Πατροπαραδότους ἐλλαμψεις ὡς ἐφικτὸν ἀνανεύσωμεν,» that is, Let us, as far as is possible, look up to the illuminations of the oracles handed down to us by the Fathers in the most sacred manner. And again, he calls it τὴν ἀρχικὴν καὶ ὑπεράρχιον τοῦ θεαρχικοῦ Πατρὸς φωτοδοσίαν, that is, the principal and super-principal illumination of the God-bearing Father, who is the source of Divinity; and a little later: τὴν θεαρχικὴν ἀκτῖνα, that is, the divine-principal ray; elsewhere "the theology," etc. Thus he calls the traditions in ch. 2, § 3, τὴν κρυφίαν καὶ ἱερατικὴν παράδοσιν, that is, the arcane and sacerdotal tradition, by which and other most sublime modes of speaking, he raises one to sublime meditations worthy of God. For this same reason, he addresses the holy apostles and other writers of Sacred Scripture, in ch. 1 of *Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, and elsewhere, as "theologians," as our "divine-initiated sacred guides," as "inspired hierarchs," as "the first masters of our hierarchy," [and in] § 5: "Being filled themselves with the sacred gift from the superessential Divinity, and sent by the divine goodness to propagate it to those who come after," etc.

OBSERVATION III.

The fourfold method of philosophizing about God.

Noteworthy is the fourfold method of this holy man for philosophizing about God. The first is, as God is conceived to exist in Himself, according to those properties and perfections which belong to Him by the nature of the thing or substantially with respect to Himself, such as being one in essence or divine nature, three in persons, and other things intrinsic to God. The second is, as He is considered with respect and order to creatures, namely, insofar as He is their author, governor, and end, and thus accommodates to Himself names taken from His effects. The third is, as God is represented in sacred Scriptures by the figures of various corporeal things, and is affected by their names, as when He is called a lamb, a lion, a rock, etc. The fourth is, as through the removal of all conceivable things, and the renunciation of ourselves, lifted on the wings of divine love, our mind is raised to God, and, breathed upon by the rays of His presence, is caught up and absorbed in darkness entirely outside and above itself. And indeed, he maintained the first method of treating divine things in the book *Hypotyposes*, as is evident from ch. 3 of *Mystical Theology*; but to the great loss of the Church, that most divine treatise has perished. The second method he preserves in the book *On Divine Names*. The third he had handed down in *Symbolical Theology*, of which he frequently makes mention, but it is likewise missing. Finally, the fourth and most miraculous practical norm of theologizing he hands down in *Mystical Theology*, which not only subjects and attaches the intellect to God, but also attracts the affection as much as possible, and, as S. Maximus and Dionysius of Alexandria speak, places and establishes it most felicitously in God by unlearned or rather God-taught mystagogies, so that no part of theology seems to have been omitted by this truly most divine man.

OBSERVATION IV.

What force the compounds with ὑπέρ have.

One should also note, with Lessius, lib. 1 *On Divine Perfections*, ch. 3, the wonderful and more than human mode of speech of S. Dionysius, which he uses to express the sublimity of his concepts, and to insinuate the infinite eminence of the Divinity above all things conceivable by the created mind, by the preposition

^A *hyper* [super/above], in calling God, for example, *hyperousios*, that is, superessential essence, because the very Divinity itself is in each person of the Trinity, taken as a whole, perfect, integral, and full; it is essence or substance higher than any essence conceivable by a creature. Likewise, *hyperagathon agatho-tēta* [super-good goodness], and *hypertheon theotēta* [super-divine divinity], higher than all goodness and deity conceivable. How all nouns composed with the particle *hyper* are to be expounded—such as *hyperphōtos* [super-luminous], *hyperarchios* [super-originary], *hypertelēs* [super-perfect], etc.—that is, more excellent than all light, all beginning, and all perfection. For that *hyper*, that is, "above" or "super," in the compositions of Dionysius designates an excellence that surpasses all created intelligence.

What force the word *ousia* [essence] has with the preposition *hyper*.

Since the preposition *hyper* is prefixed to no word more frequently than to the word *ousia*, it must be known that this word in Dionysius is for the most part taken for essence, substance, or nature, especially spiritual, and sometimes also, though more rarely, for matter. But when the preposition *hyper* is joined to it, the discourse is almost always about God and divine and supernatural matters. Hence, in the book *On the Divine Names*, chap. 1, § 1, and elsewhere passim, he calls faith *hyperousion epistēmēn* [superessential knowledge], because it cannot be had by the powers of nature, but its habit must be infused into us by God, and it is a work of divine grace so that the act of faith may be elicited. Thus also Christ, as the author of faith and grace, in chap. 1 of *The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, § 1, he calls *thearchikōtaton noun kai hyperousion* [most divine mind and superessential], that is, a mind most divine and supernatural. Similarly, he calls the sacramental rites, the sacraments, and the divine Scriptures in that same place, § 5, *to hieron dōron tēs hyperousiou thearchias* [the sacred gift of the superessential Godhead], that is, the sacred gift of the supernatural principate of God. For all these things look to an order more sublime than nature, namely, that of grace, by which we are elevated above nature to a certain divine state, as Dionysius teaches in *De eccl. hier.*, chap. 2, part 1.

OBSERVATION V.

In a similar way must be understood the names that are compounded with the particle *auto*, as when in the book *On the Divine Names*, chaps. 5 and 11, and elsewhere, he calls God *to auto einai* [being itself], *tēn autozōēn* [life itself], *tēn autosophian* [wisdom itself], etc., that is, to be per se, life per se, wisdom per se, and the like, which belong to God alone. For no creature is per se that which it is, but only by participation; but God alone is this very thing which is per se, that is, by His own essence and His own being, and not according to participation. Therefore, blessed Dionysius says in chap. 2 that these names, as befitting God, are attributed to the Divinity of the three Persons *amethektōs* [unparticipatedly], that is, essentially, and therefore absolutely, completely, integrally, and fully, just as the Divinity itself is in each of the three Persons, taken as a whole, perfect, integral, and full.

Hence, Father Franc. Turrianus well observed at Decad IV of John Cyparissiota’s *Exposition of Incorporeal Matters*, chap. 9, that divine names, according to Dionysius, are not, as some have indeed thought, said of God only according to cause—as "good" [is said] because He is the author of goodness, and "wise" because He is the author of wisdom, and similarly in other cases. For if they were spoken of God in this way, they would include in their intellect, as St. Thomas says, the goodness of the creature; and hence they would primarily be said of the creature, as if God were called good and wise in the likeness of the good thing to which He gives goodness and the wise thing to which He gives wisdom. But Dionysius did not think that divine names are said of God only according to cause, but rather that they are first attributed to God as befits Him, that is, unparticipatedly and essentially. For when Scripture says: *None is good except God alone*, it is as if it were said: No one is good per se—that is, no one above participated goodness except God alone. For thus the same Dionysius understood and interpreted this in chap. 2 of *On the Divine Names* at the beginning: so that God is now called good and wise because goodness in Him excels and surpasses all created and participated goodness. Moreover, Dionysius calls such divine names, which are attributed to God according to plenitude and not according to participation, *theoprepē* [befitting God], that is, names befitting God. If, therefore, they were said only according to cause, they would not be names befitting God, because, so spoken, they include in themselves, as I said, only created participations: as "good" includes the participated goodness whose author is the good God; "wise" includes the participated wisdom whose author is the wise God; and in the same manner for the rest. Wherefore it contradicts and opposes St. Dionysius to say that divine names, according to Dionysius, are said of God only according to cause: for, when so spoken, they are not "befitting God," and therefore, when accepted this way, they are not strictly "divine names." But according to the authority of Dionysius, divine names befitting God belong to God absolutely, perfectly, integrally, and fully—that is, supereminently and eminently.

OBSERVATION VI.

Here it must further be noted how St. Dionysius sometimes calls God *tēn autozōēn* [life itself], that is, life per se, but sometimes *tēs autozōēs hypostatēn* [the sustainer of life itself], or the sustainer of life per se. And in the same chapter 11, he himself reveals in what sense these things are to be understood, in these words: "It is not contrary to say that God is life itself, and the sustainer of life itself, or of peace, or of power; for [he says] some things are said of Him as the cause of all beings, from the things that are, and especially from the things that are primarily; others [are said of Him] as above all things and above the things that are primarily, as being superessentially above being."

^A God is therefore said to be life *per se*, that is to say, unparticipated, illimited, etc. But the author [says] *per se* life—that is, participated, limited, etc., or of that gift by which He makes living things—thus, indeed, so that *per se* life signifies the nature of life, that is, those things which fall into the definition of life.

OBSERVATION VII. What things composed of *archē* signify.

OBSERVATION VIII. That Dionysius affirms and again denies all things of God. How all things are affirmed of God.

How all things are denied.

Perfections exist in God in two ways.

OBSERVATION IX. The perfections of God are considered in two ways. How God is denominated wise, just, etc.

^A divine perfections can be considered in two ways: First, as they are in created things, or even as they are conceived by created intellect without the light of glory; second, as they are in God. If they are considered in the former way, they are distinguished formally among themselves, nay, even many are distinct really, and they are diverse forms or formal reasons. And although they are conceived as unlimited or of infinite perfection within their own species or formal reason, yet in the reasoning of being or perfection they are limited, because one does not include the other. In this way, these perfections are not in God formally, but only eminently, namely as in a cause of a superior and analogous order. But if they are conceived in the second way, then they do not have among themselves any formal distinction, but they are one most simple form, from which God receives the denomination of all those perfections, yet a far higher one than a created mind can conceive. For He is called wise, not as if imbued and informed by wisdom, but as wisdom subsisting of itself. He is called just, merciful, holy, not as affected, adorned, and imbued with these perfections (as it is conceived by us), but as substantial justice, mercy, and holiness, subsisting of itself. In the same way all other perfections which are attributed to Him are to be understood, because in Him there is no diversity of forms or formal reasons, but one most simple, self-subsisting form, infinitely elevated above all things, which is His very essence (which we can call Deity), through which all those denominations belong to Him on the part of the thing itself. For that is far more perfect and worthy of that majesty, infinitely elevated above all things that are and that are not (as Dionysius speaks). ^B

*How they mutually include one another.* Hence it follows, first, that all attributes, as they are considered in their highest elevation (as they are in God), mutually include one another, and all are intrinsically included in the concept of one, because they are one most simple form, devoid of all distinction in itself, in whose reason it is to include all those things formally and according to the highest identity, and that all those things are formally [it].

*How they are infinitely elevated.* It follows, second, that the divine perfections, as they are in God, are infinitely elevated above the same perfections considered as they are or can be in creatures, or even as they can be conceived by a created mind. The reason is, because as they are in God, they are infinite perfection not only within their own species, but absolutely and in the whole genus of being. Then also because in God they are not some accidental form, but a substance subsisting of itself, and having from itself all things infinitely, which pertain to the reason of each perfection; e.g., the divine wisdom is not a quality, but a substance subsisting of itself, having from itself not only an infinite intellectual light, but also every other intelligible object, and so of the others.

*There is no similitude between the perfections of God and the creature.* It follows, third, that the divine perfections, as they are in God, do not have any similitude with the perfections which are or can be in created things, as Dionysius teaches in chapter 9 of *The Divine Names*, and chapter 5 of *Mystical Theology*. For which cause God is said not to be a substance, not to be life, etc., because He is so elevated above all things that He has no similitude with any created or creatable thing. Yet because created things have some proportion to God as effects and certain imitations of Him (on account of which proportion, if it be in the highest degree, they are also said to be like God, and images of God, as is evident in the intellectual nature), and neither can we know God except from created things through an analogical ascent, therefore we transfer the names of created perfections to the divine perfections; otherwise we could in no way speak of divine things. But these names are to be taken in a far higher sense when they are attributed to divine things than when to created ones: for in God they signify a substance existing of itself, and therefore entirely unlimited, which of itself formally, without any elicited act, performs all things which created perfections can perform, and in a way infinitely more excellent. And so in the way of existing, or in the way of acting, or in the way of bestowing their formal effect, there is no similitude, etc.

*OBSERVATION X.* *In what sense common names are predicated of God first, and of creatures first. Names are posterior to things. Names invented by man.* Note that St. Thomas, part 1, qu. 13, art. 6, says that the aforesaid perfections, as to the thing signified by the name, are predicated of God before creatures; because such perfections flow from God into creatures; but as to the imposition of the name, they are imposed by us first on creatures, which we know first; whence they also have a mode of signifying which is proper to creatures. For (says Basil, lib. 2, *Against Eunomius*) the nature of things does not follow names, but rather names are invented after the things themselves. For if this were true, that names are not posterior to things, it would be necessary that those of whom there are the same denominations be one and the same substance, from which it would follow that, because those who are perfect in virtue are held worthy of the name of God and are called gods, men would be ὁμοούσιοι, that is, of the same substance as God. But just as to say this is manifest insanity; so to say that is equally madness. ^C Nay, even Gregory of Nyssa lib. 11, arguing against Eunomius: "The Lord," he says, "is merciful and compassionate, patient, and of great mercy." ^D What do these things mean to signify? The nature, or the operation? No one is so

foolish as to say it declares anything other than an operation. When, therefore, did the Lord show mercy, so as to derive the name from the operation of mercy? Was it before human life? Who then was in need of mercy? But truly, after the fall, there was absolute need of a work of mercy; yet the fall came into existence after man; therefore, the act of showing mercy and the name of mercy exist after man. Whence it is made manifest that the names themselves are posterior to the eternity of God, and were discovered after man and the mind of man. For the human mind, just as it discovered the names of other things, so also, having approached the names of God, and having obtained them as a sort of material, while pursuing those very effects and admirable things which it contemplates in the universe, and inquiring about God, assigned names to Him.

In what sense are common names understood of God, and in what sense of creatures?

From these things, therefore, it is gathered that when such divine names are said of creatures, which we know first and name first, they have a mode of signification that is suitable to creatures, as St. Thomas says; and according to our custom, they properly signify an operation or a participated effect—as "good" signifies created goodness, "wise" similarly created wisdom, and likewise in the other names signifying such participated perfections. And thus they are not said properly of God, because God is above these things, above "good," above "wise." But when they are said of God, they properly signify His essence and are said according to nature; while, when said of creatures regarding the thing signified, they are not used properly but by an abuse of words and by imitation and a certain analogical likeness. And thus those names that are common to God and creatures, regarding the thing signified, are said truly and properly—that is, essentially and of Himself—of God; but of the creature they are said neither truly nor properly, because they are not said of it of itself. Regarding the imposition of the names, however, they properly signify that to which they were imposed, for they were imposed first to signify those participated perfections which we know are effected by God in creatures, from which we are led, as best we can, to know the essential perfections of God, just as it is written: "The invisible things of God are understood, being seen by the things that are made."

What all names of God, when referred to God, signify as one and the same.

Note here with Cyparissiota, Decad IV, chapter 7, that just as divine names taken from effects represent a difference of operations, so when referred to God, they cannot represent different things. Hence, the great Basil says in his epistle to Eustathius: "All notions and names that befit God," he says, "are equal in honor among themselves, insofar as they do not differ in the signification of the subject matter." For the appellation of "good" does not lead the mind to one subject thing, and the appellation of "wise," "powerful," or "just" to another. But rather, whichever names you say, they signify one and the same thing. And if you say "God," you have indicated the same one that you conceived in your mind through the remaining names. From this, therefore, it becomes manifest that the same divine names and the same notions of ours are said of God, and that, when referred to God, they represent no difference in the subject matter, and that the names of God have a threefold cause: the efficient, indeed, the human mind itself; the material, that from which they are collected, that is, the effects; and the end, God to whom they are referred.

OBSERVATION XI. St. Dionysius the first author of scholastic theology.

The theological principles are taken from the first period of Dionysius. That every gift is from God, is from above, from the Father of lights. The Holy Spirit is the gift of the Father. Why the Father is called the Father of lights. That the Father is the principle of emanations. Good is diffusive of itself. God does all things for the sake of goodness. Grace is not given according to merits. It is immediately from God. It has a unifying power. It elevates man above the state of nature. God is the principle and end of all things.

It is also most worthy of observation how St. Dionysius first laid the foundations of scholastic theology, upon which the rest of the theologians who came after raised the entire doctrine concerning God and divine matters that is taught in the schools. Let the beginning of the first chapter of *The Celestial Hierarchy*, which we encounter next, be an example. If anyone weighs its first period attentively, he will marvel at as many oracles as there are words, and as many most profound principles of scholastic doctrine. It stands thus: "Πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ, καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον, ἄνωθέν ἐστι, καταβαῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς τῶν φώτων. Ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσα Πατροκινήτου φωτοφανείας πρόοδος εἰς ἡμᾶς ἀγαθοδότως φοιτώσα πάλιν ὡς ἑνοποιὸς δύναμις ἀνατατικῶς ἡμᾶς ἀναπλοῖ, καὶ ἐπιστρέφει πρὸς τὴν τοῦ συναγωγοῦ Πατρὸς ἑνότητα, καὶ θεοποιὸν ἁπλότητα. Καὶ γὰρ ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντα, καὶ εἰς αὐτόν." "Every good datum and every perfect gift is from above, descending from the Father of lights." And, "every emanation of illumination moved by the Father, flowing into us in a beneficent way, again as a unifying power restores us upwards, and turns us toward the unity of the gathering Father and His deifying simplicity. For from Him and in Him are all things." Behold how many principles of most sublime theology this brief period contains.

First, that every good is given by God; which the words signify: Πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθή. From which principle St. Thomas, in Part I, Questions 4, 5, and 6, elicits many conclusions, for example: that God is the highest good, that He contains the perfections of all things eminently, that creatures are good by participation in and likeness to Him, etc.

Second, that every perfect gift is from God, καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον, namely as an effective, exemplary, and final principle: Part I, Q. 6, Art. 4, and 2-2, Q. 3, Art. 2 ad 1; Q. 27, Art. 3, in the body. See also St. Thomas, Part I, Q. 38, and 1-2, Q. 68, where he discusses the rationale of a gift.

Third, that every perfect gift is from above. ^A *Ἄνωθέν ἐστι*. Hence St. Thomas, Part I, Q. 38, Art. 1, in the body, teaches that we cannot arrive at the perfect gift of God, but that this must be given to us from above. Likewise, that it is fitting for the divine persons to be given and to be a gift.

Fourth, that every perfect gift descends from the Father of lights. *Καταβαῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς τῶν φώτων*. Hence St. Thomas, Part I, Q. 38, Art. 2, maintains that "gift" is the proper name of the Holy Spirit, and that it is a personal name. Since, however, it proceeds from the Father and the Son as Love, he says it proceeds in the character of a first gift. Whence St. Augustine, Book XV *De Trinitate*, Ch. 19, says that through the gift, which is the Holy Spirit, many proper gifts are divided to the members of Christ. It is said to descend ^B from the Father, so that in the name of "gift" the property of its origin, which is procession, is implied. Thus St. Thomas, Part I, Q. 38, Art. 2 ad 2. Further, the gift is attributed to the Father as the principal sender, although it is also sent and proceeds from the Son (Q. 43). Nor is it without cause that God the Father is called the Father of lights, since from Him the two purest germs of divinity, the Son and the Holy Spirit, like splendor and light from the sun (if it be permitted to liken divine things to created ones), have sprouted forth by eternal procession. Whence it is sung in the hymn of the Church: *Lux lucis et fons luminis.* Although the name of "light" and "image" is appropriated to the Son, because He proceeds through intellect and in likeness. Thus St. Thomas, Part I, Q. 35.

Fifth, that the Father is the principle of emanations, ^C as well those that are internal as those that are named external, as those words intimate: *Ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσα πατροκινήτου φωτοφανείας πρόοδος*. Hence St. Thomas, Part I, Q. 33, Art. 4, teaches that the Father is the principle in the divine, and that the name of "principle" belongs to Him personally, and therefore names signifying "principle" are to be attributed to the Father. Here can also be understood the prevenient grace and the moving aid of God, concerning which St. Thomas, 1-2, Q. 111.

Sixth, that the good is self-diffusive, which those words indicate, *Εἰς ἡμᾶς φοιτῶσα*. See St. Thomas, Part I, Q. 5, Art. 4.

Seventh, that God does all things for the sake of His goodness, which the word *ἀγαθοδότως* implies. See St. Thomas, Part I, Q. 65, Art. 2.

Eighth, that the light of grace is infused into us by the gratuitous gift of God, and consequently is not given to us because of our merits, as the same word serves to signify. St. Thomas, 1-2, Q. 109, Art. 6, in the body.

Ninth, that the light of grace is infused immediately into the soul by God alone. St. Thomas, 1-2, Q. 76 and 112. Likewise, that it exceeds the condition of created nature, and is of a supernatural order: 1-2, Q. 114, Art. 1, in the body, and Art. 2 and 5 *ibid*. Consequently, that man without the gratuitous aid of God cannot dispose himself for grace: Part I, Q. 62, Art. 2, and 1-2, Q. 109, Art. 6. *

Tenth, that grace has the power of joining ^D man with God. *Ὁ θεοποιὸς δύναμις*. Hence St. Thomas, 1-2, Q. 111, Art. 5, teaches that *gratum faciens* (grace making one pleasing) is of greater worth than *gratis data* (grace freely given), because the latter only orders one to certain preparations for the ultimate end, but the former orders man immediately to the conjunction of the ultimate end.

Eleventh, that the light of grace raises the mind above the condition of human nature, as those words intimate, *Ἀνατατικῶς ἡμᾶς ἀναπλοῖ*. Also that it converts us to God, *Καὶ ἐπιστρέφει πρὸς τὴν τοῦ συναγωγοῦ Πατρὸς ἑνότητα*. Where it is not in vain said *συναγωγοῦ Πατρὸς*, since Christ Himself said: "No one comes to me, unless my Father draws him." For the calling is appropriated to the Father, just as the bringing to the Son, and the attaining or gaining of the prize to the Holy Spirit. Also the word *ἑνότητα* designates that grace gathers men together; by which is signified that spiritual union which is made through it to God. Finally, he teaches that we are rendered participants of a certain divinity through grace, as those words declare, *καὶ θεοποιὸν ἁπλότητα*. Where also the word *ἁπλότητα* significantly expresses the spiritual state of the soul, as being simple, and abstracted from things various and composite. See St. Thomas, 1-2, Q. 110, Art. 1, and 2-2, Q. 17, Art. 4, and Q. 81, Art. 8, and in many other places.

Twelfth, that God is the principle and end of all things. *Καὶ γὰρ ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντα, καὶ εἰς αὐτόν*. From which truth the Divine Thomas deduces very many conclusions, as can be seen in Part I, Q. 22, Art. 2; Q. 44, Art. 1, 2, 3; Q. 65, Art. 2; Q. 103, Art. 2; Q. 105, Art. 5; likewise Part 1-2, Q. 69, Art. 2, etc. These may suffice for knowing the lion by his claw, as the proverb goes.

OBSERVATION XII. It will also aid not a little toward a fuller understanding of St. Dionysius to know the passages which St. Thomas cites from him, so that just as the Angelic Doctor received a great light of wisdom from that sun, so in turn he distributes the rays of that same light, adapted to our comprehension, to be infused into us in hierarchical order.

CONCERNING THE CELESTIAL HIERARCHY. Chapter one, which concerns Scripture or sacred doctrine, which, as being of the same argument, he placed in the first rank after the example of Dionysius, is cited in Part I, Q. 1, Art. 9, in the body, and ad 2 and 3; likewise Q. 9, Art. 1 ad 5; likewise Q. 88, Art. 2, and Q. 108, Art. 1 and 4. In the *Prima Secundae*, Q. 99, Art. 3. In Part III, Q. 60, Art. 4; in Part 1 *Sent.*, dist. 22, Q. 1, Art. 2, and dist. 34, Q. 3, Art. 1; in Part II *Sent.*, dist. 9, Q. 1, Art. 8. Chapter two is cited in Part I, Q. 13, Art. 3, and Art. 12; Q. 54, Art. 3. In 2-2, Q. 112, Art. 2. In Part I *Sententiarum*, dist. 4, Q. 2, Art. 1; dist. 22, Q. 1, Art. 1 and 2;

dist. 34, Q. 3, Art. 1. In *Quaestiones Disputatae*, on the Power of God, Q. 3, Art. 4; Q. 7, Art. 5; Q. 9, Art. 7. ^A

Chapter three is cited in Part I, Q. 106, Art. 2; Q. 108, Art. 1 and 2. Also in 2-2, Q. 181, Art. 8. In Part III, Q. 84, Art. 3. In the Supplement to Part III, Q. 37, Art. 1; Q. 72, Art. 1. In Part II *Sententiarum*, dist. 9, Q. 1, Art. 1 and 2; dist. 10, Art. 1 and 2. In *Quaestiones Disputatae*, on the Power of God, Q. 2, Art. 3; on Evil, Q. 7, Art. 3; on Truth, Q. 9, Art. 3.

Chapter four is cited in Part I, Q. 12, Art. 11; Q. 13, Art. 3; Q. 57, Art. 1; Q. 108, Art. 3; Q. 111, Art. 1. In 1-2, Q. 3, Art. 7; Q. 98, Art. 3; Q. 111, Art. 1. In 2-2, Q. 2, Art. 6 and 7. In Part III, Q. 10, Art. 4; Q. 12, Art. 4; Q. 20, Art. 1; Q. 27, Art. 5; Q. 30, Art. 2; Q. 55, Art. 1 and 2. In the Supplement, Q. 77, Art. 2. In Part I *Sententiarum*, dist. 17, Q. 1, Art. 1. In Part II *Sententiarum*, dist. 9, Q. 1, Art. 1; dist. 12 in the *Expositio Textus* and Q. 1, Art. 5. In *Quaestiones Disputatae*, on Evil, Q. 3, Art. 4; on Truth, Q. 10, Art. 1, and Q. 11, Art. 5. ^B

Chapter five is cited in Part I, Q. 1, Art. 10; Q. 106, Art. 3; Q. 108, Art. 2 and 5; Q. 113, Art. 2. In Part I *Sententiarum*, dist. 17, Q. 1, Art. 4. In *Quaestiones Disputatae*, on the Power of God, Q. 6, Art. 7; on Evil, Q. 6, Art. 7; on Evil, Q. 3, Art. 7, and Q. 9, Art. 5.

Chapter six is cited in Part I, Q. 56, Art. 1; Q. 58, Art. 5; Q. 106, Art. 2; Q. 108, Art. 1 and 3. In Part III, Q. 21, Art. 2. In Part II *Sententiarum*, dist. 9, Q. 1, Art. 2.

Chapter seven is cited in Part I, Q. 12, Art. 8; Q. 57, Art. 5; Q. 106, Art. 2 and 4; Q. 107, Art. 2; Q. 108, Art. 1, 2, 5, and 6. In 1-2, Q. 28, Art. 5; Q. 67, Art. 2; Q. 111, Art. 1; Q. 112, Art. 1. In 2-2, Q. 2, Art. 6 and 7. In Part III, Q. 12, Art. 4; Q. 13, Art. 2; Q. 30, Art. 2; Q. 59, Art. 6; Q. 67, Art. 1. In Part I *Sententiarum*, dist. 37, Q. 3, Art. 1. In Part II *Sententiarum*, dist. 9, Q. 1, Art. 7; (dist. 10, Q. 1, Art. 1, 2 and 3). In *Quaestiones Disputatae*, on Truth, Q. 9, Art. 3. ^C

Chapter eight is cited in Part I, Q. 66, Art. 3; Q. 106, Art. 1 and 2; Q. 108, Art. 2, 5, and 6; Q. 112, Art. 2 and 4. In 1-2, Q. 111, Art. 1. In the Supplement, Q. 73, Art. 3. In Part I *Sententiarum*, dist. 37, Q. 4, Art. 3. In Part IV *Sententiarum*, dist. 24, Q. 2, Art. 1.

Chapter nine is cited in Part I, Q. 108, Art. 2, 5, and 6. In 1-2, Q. 98, Art. 5. In 2-2, Q. 2, Art. 7. In Part III, Q. 61, Art. 7. In *Sententiarum*, dist. 11, Q. 1, Art. 2.

Chapter ten is cited in Part I, Q. 18, Art. 2 and 3. In Part I *Sententiarum*, dist. 9, Q. 1, Art. 2.

Chapter eleven is cited in Part I, Q. 76, ^D dist. 10, Q. 1, Art. 2.

Chapter twelve is cited in Part I, Q. 55, Art. 3; Q. 106, Art. 4. In 2-2, Q. 2, Art. 6. In Part II *Sententiarum*, dist. 10, Q. 1, Art. 2. In *Quaestiones Disputatae*, on Truth, Q. 29, Art. 5.

Chapter thirteen is cited in Part I, Q. 112, Art. 2. In Part I *Sententiarum*, dist. 15, Q. 1, Art. 1; dist. 17, Q. 1, Art. 4. In Part II *Sententiarum*, dist. 10, Q. 1, Art. 2 and 4; dist. 11, Q. 1, Art. 2.

Chapter fourteen is cited in Part I, Q. 50, Art. 3. In *Quaestiones Disputatae*, on the Power of God, Q. 6, Art. 6; on the Virtues, Q. 1, Art. 8.

Chapter fifteen is cited in Part I, Q. 51, Art. 3; Q. 106, Art. 1; Q. 107, Art. 5; Q. 115, Art. 1. In 1-2, Q. 31, Art. 4.

CONCERNING THE ECCLESIASTICAL HIERARCHY

Chapter one is cited in Part I, Q. 108, Art. 4. In Part III, Q. 64, Art. 6. In the Supplement, Q. 31, Art. 3. In Part II *Sententiarum*, dist. 9, Q. 1, Art. 8. In Part IV *Sententiarum*, dist. 3, Q. 2, Art. 1. In *Quaestiones Disputatae*, on Truth, Q. 8, Art. 7.

Chapter two is cited in Part III, Q. 63, Art. 2; Q. 65, Art. 1; Q. 66, Art. 1; Q. 67, Art. 1 and 7; Q. 69, Art. 5; Q. 71, Art. 4; Q. 80, Art. 9; Q. 83, Art. 5. In the Supplement, Q. 29, Art. 1. In Part IV *Sententiarum*, dist. 1, Q. 1, Art. 2; dist. 6, Q. 2, Art. 1, 2, and 3; dist. 12, Q. 2, Art. 1.

Chapter three is cited in Part III, Q. 63, Art. 6; Q. 65, Art. 1 and 5; Q. 66, Art. 11; Q. 67, Art. 1; Q. 80, Art. 9; Q. 83, Art. 4 and 5. In the Supplement, Q. 29, Art. 6; Q. 37, Art. 2. In Part IV *Sententiarum*, dist. 8, Q. 1, Art. 1; dist. 24, Q. 2, Art. 1 and 2.

Chapter four is cited in Part III, Q. 16, Art. 3; Q. 72, Art. 2. In Part II *Sententiarum*, dist. 9, Q. 1, Art. 8. In Part IV *Sententiarum*, dist. 5, Q. 2, Art. 1; dist. 7, Q. 1, Art. 1 and 2; dist. 7, Q. 2, Art. 1.

Chapter five is cited in Part I, Q. 1, Art. 10; Q. 106, Art. 3; Q. 108, Art. 2; Q. 113, Art. 2. In 1-2, Q. 106, Art. 4. In Part III, Q. 61, Art. 4; Q. 67, Art. 1. In the Supplement, Q. 31, Art. 1 and 2; Q. 34, Art. 1; Q. 37, Art. 2 and 4; Q. 40, Art. 4 and 5; Q. 72, Art. 2. In Part IV *Sententiarum*, dist. 7, Q. 3, Art. 1; dist. 8, Q. 1, Art. 1; dist. 25, Q. 2, Art. 1. In *Quaestiones Disputatae*, on Truth, Q. 9, Art. 3.

Chapter six is cited in Part I, Q. 56, Art. 1; Q. 58, Art. 5; Q. 106, Art. 2. In 1-2, Q. 76, Art. 2. In 2-2, Q. 184, Art. 8; Q. 185, Art. 1; Q. 186, Art. 5; Q. 187,

Art. 3. In Part III, Q. 27, Art. 3. In the Supplement, Q. 71, Art. 3.

Chapter seven is cited in Part III, Q. 67, Arts. 7 and 8; Q. 68, Art. 9; Q. 72, Art. 4; Q. 78, Art. 3; Q. 80, Art. 4; Q. 81, Art. 3. In the Supplement, Q. 71, Art. 3. In the *Quaestiones disputatae*, *de malo*, Q. 8, Art. 1; Q. 16, Art. 6; *de veritate*, Q. 9, Art. 1.

ON THE DIVINE NAMES

^A Chapter one is cited in Part I, Q. 12, Arts. 1 and 2; Q. 13, Arts. 1 and 2; Q. 15, Art. 3; Q. 32, Art. 2; Q. 36, Art. 2; Q. 39, Art. 2; Q. 57, Art. 1; Q. 88, Art. 2. In 2-2, Q. 13, Art. 1; Q. 91, Art. 1; Q. 101, Art. 3; Q. 106, Art. 3. In Part I, Q. 20, Art. 1. In Part I *Sent.*, dist. 22, Q. 1, Art. 2 and 4. In *Quaestiones disputatae*, *de potentia Dei*, Q. 7, Art. 5; *de malo*, Q. 5, Art. 1; *de virtutibus*, Q. 2, Art. 2.

Chapter two is cited in Part I, Q. 32, Art. 1; Q. 67, Art. 2; Q. 93, Art. 2. In Part I *Sent.*, dist. 15, Q. 2, Art. 2; dist. 21, Q. 1, Art. 1; dist. 28, Q. 1, Art. 1. In Part I *Sent.*, dist. 13, Q. 1, Art. 3. In *Quaestiones disputatae*, *de potentia Dei*, Q. 10, Art. 1; *de malo*, Q. 16, Art. 7; *de veritate*, Q. 4, Art. 6.

Chapter three is cited in Part I, Q. 5, Art. 2; Q. 13, Art. 11; Q. 19, Art. 9. In 2-2, Q. 85, Art. 2; Q. 101, Art. 3. In Part I *Sent.*, dist. 37, Q. 1, Art. 2.

Chapter four is cited in Part I, Q. 48, Arts. 1, 2, 3 and 6; Q. 49, Art. 1; Q. 50, Arts. 2, 3 and 5; Q. 51, Art. 1; Q. 54, Art. 2; Q. 55, Art. 1; Q. 57, Arts. 4 and 5; Q. 65, Art. 4; Q. 67, Arts. 1 and 4; Q. 93, Art. 2; Q. 94, Art. 1; Q. 106, Art. 2; Q. 115, Art. 3. In 1-2, Q. 1, Art. 4; Q. 2, Art. 5; Q. 10, Art. 4; Q. 18, Art. 11; Q. 19, Arts. 1 and 6; Q. 24, Art. 1; Q. 26, Arts. 1, 2 and 3; Q. 27, Art. 2; Q. 28, Arts. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6; Q. 29, Arts. 3 and 4; Q. 35, Arts. 7 and 8; Q. 46, Art. 1; Q. 51, Art. 4; Q. 55, Art. 4; Q. 60, Art. 5; Q. 63, Arts. 1 and 2; Q. 70, Art. 4; Q. 71, Arts. 2 and 5; Q. 72, Arts. 1 and 9; Q. 80, Art. 4; Q. 87, Art. 1; Q. 78, Art. 1; Q. 109, Arts. 3 and 6; Q. 112, Art. 3. In 2-2, Q. 8, Art. 1; Q. 24, Art. 2; Q. 25, Arts. 4 and 7; Q. 27, Arts. 4 and 5; Q. 29, Art. 3; Q. 31, Art. 1; Q. 82, Art. 2; Q. 92, Art. 1 and 2; Q. 110, Art. 3; Q. 125, Art. 1 and 12; Q. 129, Art. 2; Q. 141, Arts. 1 and 2; Q. 145, Art. 2; Q. 158, Art. 1; Q. 159, Art. 8; Q. 162, Art. 1; Q. 165, Art. 1; Q. 167, Art. 1; Q. 175, Art. 2; Q. 177, Art. 1; Q. 180, Art. 6. In Part I, Q. 44, Art. 2; Q. 46, Art. 1. In the Supplement, Q. 49, Art. 5; Q. 50, Art. 1; Q. 89, Art. 4. In Part I *Sent.*, dist. 1, Q. 4; dist. 2, Q. 2, Arts. 1 and 4; dist. 17, Q. 2, text 1; dist. 17, Q. 2, Art. 1; dist. 34, Q. 2; dist. 34, Q. 3, Art. 2; dist. 37, Q. 4, Art. 1; dist. 42, Q. 1, Art. 2; dist. 44, Q. 1, Art. 5; dist. 46, Q. 1, Art. 3; dist. 46, *in expos. text*. In Part I *Sent.*, dist. 7, Q. 1, Art. 2; dist. 11, Q. 1, Art. 2; dist. 13, Q. 1, Art. 4; dist. 18, Q. 1, Art. 2. In *Quaestiones disputatae*, *de potentia Dei*, Q. 1, Art. 6; Q. 2, Art. 3; Q. 3, Arts. 6 and 15; Q. 4, Art. 2; *de malo*, Q. 1, Arts. 1, 2, 3 and 5; Q. 2, Arts. 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11 and 12; Q. 5, Arts. 1, 2, 9, 12 and 14; Q. 4, Arts. 1, 2 and 6; Q. 16, Arts. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6; *de virtutibus*, Q. 1, Arts. 1, 17, 18 and 19; *de veritate*, Q. 8, Art. 15; Q. 28, Art. 2.

Chapter five is cited in Part I, Q. 4, Art. 3; Q. 15, Art. 3; Q. 44, Art. 3; Q. 57, Art. 1; Q. 91, Art. 1. In 1-2, Q. 2, Art. 5; Q. 79, Art. 2. In Part I, Q. 13, Art. 1. In Part I *Sent.*, dist. 8, Q. 2, Art. 3; dist. 17, Q. 2, Art. 2; dist. 24, Q. 1, Art. 1; dist. 35, Q. 1, Art. 1; dist. 36, Q. 2, Art. 3; dist. 46, Q. 1, Art. 2. In *Quaestiones disputatae*, *de potentia Dei*, Q. 7, Art. 2; *de malo*, Q. 16, Art. 9; *de virtutibus*, Q. 1, Art. 8; *de veritate*, Q. 8, Art. 8; Q. 20, Art. 5.

Chapter six is cited in Part I, Q. 18, Art. 1. In *Quaestiones disputatae*, *de malo*, Q. 16, Art. 4.

Chapter seven is cited in Part I, Q. 14, Art. 10; Q. 55, Art. 2; Q. 56, Art. 5; Q. 58, Arts. 3, 4 and 5; Q. 75, Art. 7. In 1-2, Q. 112, Art. 1. In 2-2, Q. 1, Art. 1; Q. 8, Art. 1; Q. 180, Art. 5; Q. 188, Art. 7. In Part I *Sent.*, dist. 2, Q. 1, Art. 2; dist. 4, Q. 2, Art. 1; dist. 8, Q. 2, Art. 1, and Q. 4, Art. 3; dist. 19, Q. 2, Art. 1; dist. 38, Q. 1, Art. 3. In *Quaestiones disputatae*, *de potentia Dei*, Q. 6, Art. 6; *de malo*, Q. 16, Art. 1; *de virtutibus*, Q. 1, Art. 2, and Q. 2, Art. 3; *de veritate*, Q. 8, Arts. 8 and 15.

Chapter eight is cited in Part I, Q. 21, Art. 1; Q. 56, Art. 3. In 2-2, Q. 175, Art. 1. In *Quaestiones disputatae*, *de veritate*, Q. 8, Art. 9.

Chapter nine is cited in Part I, Q. 3, Art. 1; Q. 4, Art. 5; Q. 21, Art. 1; Q. 42, Art. 1; Q. 56, Art. 3. In Part I *Sent.*, dist. 5, Q. 2, Art. 2; dist. 19, Q. 1, Art. 2. In *Quaestiones disputatae*, *de potentia Dei*, Q. 7, Art. 7; *de malo*, Q. 3, Art. 1.

Chapter ten is cited in Part I, Q. 9, Art. 2. In Part I *Sent.*, dist. 19, Q. 2, Art. 1.

Chapter eleven is cited in Part I, Q. 44, Art. 2; Q. 84, Art. 5. In 2-2, Q. 29, Arts. 1 and 2.

^A Chapter twelve is cited in Part I, Q. 13, Art. 8; Q. 108, Art. 5. In 2-2, Q. 29, Art. 2. In Part III, Q. 27, Art. 2. In *Disputed Questions*, *On the Power of God*, Q. 9, Art. 7. Chapter thirteen is cited in Part I, Q. 11, Art. 1. In Part I *Sent.*, dist. 2, Q. 1, Arts. 1 and 3. In *Disputed Questions*, *On the Power of God*, Q. 7, Art. 5; Q. 9, Art. 7.

ON MYSTICAL THEOLOGY. Chapter one is cited in Part I, Q. 12, Art. 13; Q. 13, Art. 6. In Part III, Q. 92, Art. 2. In Part II *Sent.*, dist. 9, Q. 1, Art. 2. In *Disputed Questions*, *On the Power of God*, Q. 7, Art. 5; Q. 9, Art. 7; *On Virtues*, Q. 1, Art. 8. The *Epistle to Gaius* is cited in Part I, Q. 92, Art. 1. The *Epistle to Dorotheus* is cited in Part III, Q. 92, Art. 1. The *Epistle to Polycarp* is cited in Part I *Sent.*, dist. 13, Q. 1, Art. 4. The *Epistle to Demophilus* is cited in Part IV *Sent.*, dist. 19, Q. 2, Art. 2. From these and other passages that have escaped my notice, it is easily evident that the Angelic Doctor drew almost his entire theological doctrine from the purist fountains of Dionysius; since there is scarcely any period from which he himself, like an industrious bee, has not extracted the theological nectar and reduced it into his *Summa*—as if it were a certain hive—distinctly organized by many questions and articles as if they were cells, to preserve the theological honey. ^B

INTRODUCTION BY BALTHASAR CORDERIUS

OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS,

In order that access to the holy adyta of Mystical Theology may be easier and clearer for us, it will be worth the effort to set forth beforehand certain brief gateways, or preludes, from other works of the same holy Father, by which our mind, having been pre-exercised, may be prepared by a certain mystical rite so that, as far as is permitted, it may be holily joined to the most holy things. ^C Lest, however, we stray from the threshold—as the proverb says—and from our goal, it must be known before all else what is understood by mystical theology, and what its definition is, and what its principle or origin, who its goal is, what is required for it, in what way one must approach it, and by what means, finally, that wondrous union of mystical theology is perfected in the soul: all of which we shall briefly explain in the seven following chapters.

CHAPTER ONE.

What is understood by mystical theology.

Therefore, he who names mystical theology designates a certain wholly sacred and arcane wisdom, an image of God's primary beauty, matching its own principle, as far as is permitted: for the perfection of each of those who are imbued with mystical illuminations lies in this, that each one, according to his own capacity, may be promoted to divine imitation, and may receive into himself the operation of God, shining forth most divinely in the hidden part of the mind, which he may thereafter communicate to others by a hierarchical rite.

CHAPTER II.

What the definition of mystical theology is.

it seems to be defined clearly and concisely in this way: Mystical theology is experimental wisdom, affective toward God, divinely infused, which intimately joins to God a mind pure from every inordination, through the supernatural acts of faith, hope, and charity.

This definition consists of all the parts or members required for the proper definition of any thing according to the laws of philosophy. For the genus of the object defined here is experimental wisdom, or sapid [tasting] science. For this theology is not some idle or sterile speculation, but the most sapid contemplation of God, which imbues the mind with a most sweet spiritual savor (of which we are indeed capable in this life), and affects it far more delightfully than can be conceived or believed by anyone inexperienced in these spiritual delights.

The difference is "affective toward God," by which it differs from the remaining theological sciences that inform the intellect, since this more principally affects the will; although it also illuminates the intellect with a certain hidden light, for understanding God and all things in a more eminent, namely supernatural, way.

The property of this wisdom is exceeding above others, because it is divinely infused, not acquired by the art of human teaching, or by the perspicacity of genius, or by the assiduity of human study; indeed, it is a gift and charism of the most noble Holy Spirit, who, since He does not enter a malevolent soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins, requires in the subject a mind pure from every inordination. For, as the royal Prophet says: *Who shall ascend into the mountain of the Lord, or who shall stand in his holy place? The innocent in hands, and clean of heart, who hath not taken his soul in vain.* And Christ says: *Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.* Furthermore, the end intended through this wisdom is union with God, as close and sweet as is possible to be obtained in this life. The means, however, of obtaining it are supernatural theological acts—faith, hope, and charity—by which the mind immediately touches God: by faith, mark you, in darkness; by hope, in suspense; by charity, perfectly. For faith, since it is the *argument of things that appear not*, is that mystical darkness so celebrated by St. Paul and St. Dionysius, concerning which see chap. 1 and 2 of *Myst. theol.*, and our annotations in that same place. Hope, however, since it is of *things which are not yet possessed*, suspends the soul, as it were, in the expectation and desire for those same things, and thus through it occurs mystical suspension. Finally, charity, since it is the *bond of perfection*, most happily joins the soul to God Himself. And faith indeed [perfects] the intellect, hope the memory, charity the will and the affection above nature, ^B and informs them, so that the perfection and essence of all mystical theology are contained in these three most excellent acts of the theological virtues, as the venerable Father John of the Cross, most expert in mystical things, beautifully and copiously explains in his most divine books, *On the Ascent of Mount Carmel*, *On the Dark Night*, and the *Declarations* of his truly mystical Canticles.

From which it is clear that mystical theology is merely supernatural, both in its substance and in its mode of proceeding. Since both its principles, and its means, and its end, and its manner of tending toward this end, utterly transcend the powers and order of nature, as is easily gathered from what has been said, and will be made more abundantly clear from what follows. Whence it follows that both it itself, and the dispositions immediate to mystical union, depend not upon our own arbitrary will, but upon the grace alone of the merciful and condescending God. Who, since He is benign and of great compassion, in His dignity lavishly prevents us, and knocks at the door of the heart, and waits for us to open the way to Him by removing obstacles, prepared to direct and lead us even to Mount Horeb, and to the supreme summit of mystical theology, provided that we invoke Him with persistent and most fervent prayers, and most exactly observe His guidance.

CHAPTER III.

Since the mystical theology itself—what it is—has been, as I judge, rightly defined for us, it remains that we investigate its origin. Therefore, the beginning and origin of this mystical theology, to use the words of Saint Dionysius, is the fountain of life, the essence of goodness, the one Cause of all things, the Trinity, from which, through a redundancy of goodness, as other things [proceed], so also has this best gift and perfect donation most benignly flowed forth, *descending from the Father of lights* through the Son in the Holy Spirit, by whom this gift of wisdom is communicated to us in a most noble manner. Indeed, the emanation of all mystical illumination—always from the Father—exuding beneficially into us, as a unitive power, again, by calling us back to things above, simplifies us, and converts us to the unity of the gathering Father and the deifying simplicity, and, as they attend to it as is fitting, lifts up and unifies according to the capacity of each by its simplifying union. We say, therefore, with the same Saint Dionysius, that the principal beatitude of God, the nature of the divinity, is the beginning of deification, from which those who are to be deified are deified, [and] has granted mystical theology for the salvation and deification of men, in a manner, namely, that is more immaterial and spiritual, not by moving one extrinsically toward divine things, but by irradiating the most divine will into them by an intelligible reason and an intrinsically pure and liquid illumination. The goodness of this divine beatitude is always...

equal to itself, spreading its beneficial rays clearly to all mental eyes; and so, if the naturally endowed freedom of the will of those gifted with a spontaneous mind deserts the spiritual light, closing off the innate powers for receiving the light through a lack of love, it withdraws itself from the present light. Yet this light does not in the least abandon that person, but illuminates them even as they blink, and kindly goes to meet them should they turn away. Whoever, therefore, returns to the light instilled by God into nature will see, beginning with the help of God, who he himself finally is, and will thus bring back a holy gift through this access of light. Moreover, he who considers his own self with unreflecting eyes will eliminate the deep shadows of his own ignorance; but as he is still destitute of the most perfect union and participation with God, he will not willingly be alienated from the desire of the same, but will be raised in a certain holy order, first gradually from his own things to better things, and from those to the best, and finally, being made perfect by the grace of God, to the divine-princely union. And so, the divine beatitude admits the one thus brought to the communication of itself, and makes him a participant in itself as it were by a sign of its own light, rendering him intimate to God and a sharer of divine gifts. For life is not something forced upon us, nor is any necessity imposed, nor are the rays of divine illumination flowing from Providence blunted for those to whom provision is made by liberty; but the dissimilarity of mental eyes causes the outpouring illumination of paternal goodness to be either entirely void and, because of their repugnance, useless, or its participations to be unequal—small or great, obscure or clear—whereas that fontal ray, which is continuously expanded, is one and simple, and always behaves in the same way.

CHAPTER IV. What is the end of mystical theology.

The aim of all mystical theology is a continuous love toward God and divine things, which is divinely implanted and is consummated through union with Him; and which is prior to this, an all-embracing and irreversible flight from things opposed to Him; the most perfect knowledge of God, and the divine participation and enjoyment of His simple perfection, which refreshes and deifies ^C every contemplator of God in a spiritual manner. For since God has the end of all His sacred arcane knowledge as well as operation, constantly looking toward His most divine beauty, He expresses the same as much as he can, and he perfects his divine companions, making them certain holy images and most clear and immaculate mirrors, which receive the ray of the primordial light and of the highest divinity, and reflect it most sincerely back to God Himself from whom it flowed. Hence, mystical theologians participate in God primarily and in many ways, and they know the mystery of God in the most sublime and many ways. For when they order themselves intellectually, and contemplate in a supermundane way the divine-principled likeness, and strive to form their own likeness to the same, they merit with good reason to rejoice in a richer participation of it, because they are assiduous, and always extend themselves toward things ahead with an effort of love that never grows weary, and receive primordial ^B illuminations immaterially and liquidly, and are composed according to them, and have their whole life as spiritual. For they are to be considered pure, not just as if they were free from impure stains and colluvies, or as if they did not adhere at all to material images, but because they are higher than every created thing by reason of their supreme purity, or rather are coordinated with deiform virtues, and constantly hold their own proper and equitable movement through the love of God unchanged, and do not admit any diminution into something worse, but always have an unshaken and immovable seat of their deiform property. Furthermore, they are contemplators, not as if they were spectators of symbols that are perceived by sense or imagination, nor are they raised to God merely by the variety of the sacred Scriptures, but are filled with a higher light by every simple cognition and are refreshed, as much as is allowed to man, by the contemplation of that beauty which exists as the agent and source of all beauty, and which is above substance and shines forth in the Trinity. They also become participants in the communion of Jesus, not as if in images holily formed, which, like molds, express in them a deific likeness, but as if truly approaching Him, in that first participation of the cognition of His deific lights, so that the method of imitating God is granted to them in a most sublime way, and they communicate in His divine and human virtues in a primordial way, as much as is permitted. Likewise, they are perfected, not as if they were illuminated by the science of resolving sacred varieties, but because they are satisfied by the primary and excelling union of God, according to that supreme influence of divine love of which mortals are capable; for they are initiated into sacred mysteries by the divinity itself, while they are lifted up to God through love, and are not only established in Him by supreme purity and supreme constancy, but are taught by supernatural reasons of divine works by the divine principality itself ^D through God-taught initiations. Thus it happens that mystical theologians understand and penetrate all the hidden senses of Scripture and any natural sciences far differently than others (specifically, in a supernatural manner), since they do not gather knowledge by reasoning from divisible things or from divisible senses or reasons, but, being pure from all material and sensible plurality, they grasp whatever can be understood in divine or human sciences secretly and in an uniform spiritual manner from the material. For there is in them a certain spiritual power

and operation resplendent with unmixed and immaculate purity, and a clear vision of divine intelligences, which, through the absence of division and matter, is divinely fashioned into a deiform unity and into a mind and reason that are divine and more than wise. Hence, mystic theologians also attribute this sacred office to them, that they are, in the salvation and perfection of their neighbors, co-workers of God himself in a way that is utterly divine and more eminent than the rest; influencing the souls of men not altogether separated from the celestial order, and leading them from any vices and imperfections whatever to every virtue and holiness of life. ^A

CHAPTER V.

What is required for mystic theology.

For this theology, there is required above all a certain supernatural state proportionate to it, which, since it is as it were a certain second divine birth, truly no one could have understood, much less practiced, according to mystic theology, to whom this state itself has not been divinely breathed. For indeed (in human terms) existence is the primary task, so that we may subsequently handle those things that are within our province, since that which in no way exists has neither motion nor substance at all; but that which exists in any way at all, that same both acts and suffers those things which are of its own nature and state. Therefore, we say that by constant aspirations striding toward God, and by total mortifications and obliterations of contrary things, spiritual men obtain the immutability of this deiform state. For one must not flag in departing from all malice, but one must harden oneself manfully, and always, undaunted, resist its harmful remission; nor must one ever cease from sacred love, but one must continually and perpetually, with all one's strength, persist in it, always holily directing one's affairs toward the perfection and sublimation of the divine principality. For it is not permitted for mystic theologians to perform anything which might in the slightest degree conflict with divine inspirations—nay, nor even to dissent from them, if they invoke the divine clarity and holily aspire toward it, as is right. Therefore, there is need for a perfect abdication of self 100 and a continuous mortification in all things; since human nature, despoiled of divine goods by the fault of the protoplast, has received a life exposed to passions, and consequently man, having fallen away from the divine grace which was raising him to higher things, and having already been cast headlong into extreme contraries, has acquired a mutability exposed to various perturbations. Whence, since he who is at variance with himself cannot be gathered into one nor become a participant in one peaceful union, nor is it permitted to participate in the highest contraries at the same time, or to have divided lives while having some communication with the One, if he prefers the stable participation of the one God, necessarily ^B mortification must be applied, so that one may become devoid and free from all division of uniformity. Therefore, holy men, deemed worthy of the communion of divine things, while they are raised to the pinnacle of deification and mystic union in accordance with the measure of divine grace bestowed upon them, care least for those things that are of the flesh, beyond the necessity of nature, and that only in passing, as usage demands; and in this way, even their bodies, having been in a certain manner spiritualized through mortification, become in the mystic deification a temple of the divine-principal Spirit, in which the like is founded and located in the like. ^C

CHAPTER VI.

By what reason one must approach mystic theology.

Obstacles and impediments having been removed through the exercise of mortification, one must also apply the study of prayer, following the example of Dionysius, who begins mystic theology with the invocation of the most holy Trinity. We must, therefore, first be drawn by prayers to God, as to the principle of mystic theology, and then, drawing closer to Him, be taught all the best gifts which are placed with Him. For He indeed is present to all, but not all are present to Him; but when we pray to Him with holy supplications, and with a tranquil mind, and with one accommodated to divine union, then at last we also are present to Him. For He is not in a place in such a way that He is ever absent, or moves from one thing to another. Indeed, to say that He is in all things is less than His infinity, which both exceeds and contains all things. Therefore, let us prepare ourselves by prayers for the more sublime contemplation of the divine and benevolent rays. Just as if we were to grasp continuously with alternating hands stretched forward a most lucid chain suspended from the highest heaven and lowered down to here, we would seem to draw it to ourselves, but in reality we would not be pulling it down, as it would be present above and below, but rather we would be raised to the more sublime splendors of the radiant light. Or just as if, having entered a ship, we were to hold cables stretched out from a rock as far as us for the sake of help, we would not be pulling the rock to us, but in truth moving ourselves and the ship to the rock. Therefore, above all things, especially in mystic theology, one must begin with prayer: not that we may draw down the Virtue that is everywhere and nowhere absent, but that by divine commemorations and invocations we may surrender and unite ourselves to Him. For that essence, ^D the sweetness of whose fragrance surpasses the mind, loves to be invited to its manifestation by fiery and most pure minds through most fervent prayers, and imparts its most divine inspirations in clearest distributions to those who have thus invited it in a supramundane manner. For it is the true light which fills every mind with intellectual light, and casts out all ignorance and error from all minds in which it is, and to them all

^A it imparts its holy light, cleansing and freeing their mental eyes from the surrounding darkness and ignorance; it stirs and opens those who were oppressed and enclosed by the heavy gloom, and first gives a moderate splendor, then, as if they had tasted the light, to eyes that after this tasting now desire more light, it imparts itself more fully and shines more copiously, because they have loved much; and it always advances them further in proportion to their endeavor to look upward. For just as ignorance separates those who wander, so the advent of the light gathers and couples those who are enlightened, and it perfects them and converts them to that which truly exists, recalling them from many opinions, and contracting their various perspectives—or, to speak more properly, their various imaginings—into a single, true, pure, and simple knowledge, and fills them with one unifying light.

Furthermore, we receive this unifying light through Christ, who is the true paternal light that "lights every man coming into this world," through whom we have obtained access to the Father, the source of light. It is He who has filled the darkness ^B of our mind with a blessed and divine light, and has adorned our deformity with deiform ornaments; He has liberated the home of our soul together with the perfect salvation of our essence and nature—which had almost collapsed and fallen—from all the foulest passions and harmful defilements, having shown us the norm of the supermundane anagogy and divine life, by which we may be raised, so far as is possible, to His sacred likenesses. For that one, simple, and hidden most divine Word of Jesus, by the assumption of our humanity, proceeded into our composition and aspect without any change of Himself, out of His own goodness and kindness, and beneficially devised a unifying communion for us with Himself, joining those things in us which are lowly to His most divine excellences, so that we ourselves, as members to a body, might correspond to the identity of His same immaculate and divine life, lest we, being killed by corruptible passions, be found incongruous with those most holy members of His, and incapable of life.

Therefore, if we desire His communion, we must contemplate His most divine life in the flesh and, by imitating His holy sinlessness, strive for deiformity and an immaculate state. For in this way, in as much as it befits us, He will communicate His likeness.

Furthermore, the holiness and fragrance of the mind must be concealed by mystic theologians, since holy men are divinely commanded not to display the beautiful and fragrant likenesses of the hidden things of God for the sake of vain glory. Indeed, the hidden beauties of God, whose sweetness surpasses the intellect, are completely inviolate and appear spiritually only to spiritual men, ^A in our souls, as they require that they should have images conformable to themselves through virtue, which are incorruptible. For that uncircumscribed simulacrum of deiform virtue must be rightly imitated, so that the spiritual and fragrant beauty may report Him, and form and fashion itself into the most beautiful imitation of Him. And just as in sensible images, if a painter constantly intends to look toward the primal appearance, distracted by no other visible thing, nor divided by anything, he will, if one may so speak, in a certain way replicate the very thing that is to be depicted, and express the truth itself in the likeness, and the archetype in the image, and report one in the other without any difference of substance; so too for the mystic painters in the mind, the constant and intent contemplation of the sweet-smelling and hidden beauty produces an infallible and most deiform imagination.

Rightly, then, do the mystic painters, when they constantly fashion their mind toward that superessential, fragrant, and spiritual beauty, perform no virtue of those which are within them such that they might be seen by men, as it is written, but–hiding whatever is holy and most deiform in virtue within their mind, which was made to the image and likeness of God–they look only toward the primal appearance and understanding. For they not only do not see dissimilar things, but they are not even drawn toward the sight of them. Wherefore, as it befits them, they do not love those things which are seen rashly, but those things which are truly just and good; ^C nor do they look to that glory which is irrationally called blessed by the common crowd on all sides, but judging by the imitation of God what is good and bad in itself, they become certain divine simulacra of this divine fragrance, which, truly containing the good odor in itself, is never converted to that which appears unequally to the crowd on all sides, expressing the truth in its true images.

It is necessary, therefore, that we, if we aspire to His communion, contemplate His most divine life in the flesh, and by imitating His holy impeccability, strive for deiformity and an immaculate state. For by this reason, in so far as it is becoming to us, He will communicate His likeness. ^D Since, if we take what is above us in a human manner, and cling to the senses familiar to us, and compare divine things with our own, we are deceived if we measure the mystic and hidden theology according to that which appears from without; since we ought to know that, while our mind excels in the power of understanding by which it contemplates intellectual things proportioned to it, yet this union, by which it is joined to things superior to it, far transcends its nature. According to this union, therefore, those divine things must be understood, not by our own manner, but in so far as we ourselves totally renounce ourselves and pass over entirely into God, so that we may truly say with the Apostle: "I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me." Which is the cry of a true lover who had departed from himself into God, and no longer lives his own life, but that of the beloved, as one vehemently loved. Therefore, it is far better that we be of God than of our own; for thus divine things shall be able to be given to us, if we have been with God.

^A joined. We acquire this intimate conjunction by living faith, which is the constant foundation of the faithful, and establishes us in the Truth, and the Truth within us, while with an indissuadable identity we obtain a simple knowledge of the Truth of the things to be believed. For if knowledge unites known things with those who know, while ignorance is the cause for the ignorant person to always change and to be at variance with himself, he who believes in the Truth, according to Scripture, will be moved by nothing from the foundation of faith, in which he will have the constancy of an immovable and immutable identity. For anyone who is united to the Truth knows well how well he fares, even if many accuse him of being insane. For it escapes them—as is fitting—that he has passed beyond error through the truth of the true faith; but he himself truly knows that he is not, as they fable, insane, but that he has been liberated from the unstable and mutable motion of the variety that wanders in every way, by the Truth that is simple and remains always and in the same way about the same things. In this way the first professors of our divine wisdom died daily for the Truth, testifying—as is fitting—both in word and in deed that that singular recognition of Christian truth is of all things the simplest, and most divine; or rather ^B that this alone is the true and unique knowledge of the simple God. For the most divine knowledge of God is that which is received through nescience, according to that union which is above the intellect, when, namely, the mind, withdrawing from all things and abandoning itself entirely, is united to those rays shining from above, by which it is illuminated in that inscrutable depth of wisdom.

CHAPTER VII.

How that wonderful mystical theological union is perfected in the soul.

The most sublime interpreter of mystical matters, Ludovicus Blosius, in his *Spiritual Institution*, ch. 12, § 2, describing in a purely divine manner this union of mystical theology which he had experienced, says: "Happy is that soul which strives incessantly for purity of heart and holy introversion, and utterly renounces private love, or its own will, and its own inquiry. For this soul deserves to approach God more and more. At length, however, its superior powers being lifted up, clarified, and adorned by divine grace, it obtains the unity and nakedness of the spirit, and attains pure and unpainted love, and simple thought, which is devoid of thoughts. And so, being now capable of the excellent and ineffable grace of God, it is led to that living fountain which flows from eternity and satisfies the minds of the saints sufficiently and more than sufficiently. Now its powers shine like stars, and it becomes fit to contemplate the abyss of the Divinity, with a serene, simple, and joyful gaze, without imagination, and without any admixture of the intellect." Whence, when it turns itself to ^C God with love and turns completely, the light shining incomprehensibly into its depths, the eye of reason and intellect is struck and grows dim: but the simple eye of the soul itself—namely, its pure, naked, uniform thought, elevated above the intellect—remains open.

Further, by the natural light of the intellect, blinded by such great brightness, the soul beholds nothing in time, but, erected above time and place, assumes a certain property of eternity. For losing the images and the distinction and consideration of things, it now learns by experience that God far transcends all corporeal, spiritual, and divine images, and that whatever can be apprehended by the intellect, whatever can be said or written about God, whatever name can be imposed upon Him, it clearly perceives that all these things differ infinitely from the truth of the divine essence, and for that reason that the same essence is unnameable. Yet it does not know what God is, whom it feels. Hence, having made a fore-knowing without knowledge, it rests in God alone—lovable, naked, simple, and unknown. For divine light, because of its excessive brightness, is inaccessible: whence it is called darkness. Here the soul receives the hidden word which God speaks in the internal silence and secret recess of the mind. This it receives, and happily experiences the embrace of mystical union. For where ^D it has passed beyond the intellect and all images through love, and has been lifted above itself—which only God can provide for it—it now flows forth from itself and flows into God: and then God is its peace and its enjoyment. Therefore, placed in such an excess of mind, it rightly sings: "In peace I will sleep and I will rest" (Ps. IV, 9). The loving soul, I say, flows forth, and fails from itself, and as if reduced to nothing, it collapses into the abyss of eternal love where, dead to itself, it lives in God, knowing nothing, feeling nothing except the love which it tastes. For it loses itself in the vastest solitude and darkness of the Divinity: but to lose itself thus is rather to find itself. There indeed, stripping off whatever is human and putting on what is divine, it is transformed and transmuted into God: just as iron placed in fire receives the form of fire and is transmuted into fire. Yet the essence of the soul so deified remains, just as ignited iron does not cease to be iron. Therefore the soul itself, which before was cold, now burns; which before was dark, now shines; which before was hard, now is soft. It is entirely *deicolor* [God-colored], because its essence is suffused with the essence of God. Entirely incinerated by the fire of divine love, and entirely liquefied, it has passed into God, and united to Him without an intermediary, it has been made one spirit with Him: just as gold and copper are fused into one mass of metal. Moreover, of those who thus pass into and are caught up into God, there are different grades: for each one reaches into God Himself more profoundly and more sublimely, the more efficaciously and ardently, or lovingly, they turn themselves to Him.

O holy soul, which, singularly visited by God and elevated above all created things and above its own operations, is stripped in its memory-faculty of all images and perceives mere purity and simplicity; in its intellectual faculty, it perceives the pre-fulgent illuminations of the Sun of justice, and recognizes divine truth! Furthermore, in its loving faculty, it feels a certain heat of quiet love, or a contact of the Holy Spirit, as a living fountain flowing with rivulets of eternal sweetness, and thus it is invited and introduced into an excellent union with God. O happy hour! Then, indeed, the soul enjoys within itself a supernatural and most delightful solemnity and true joy, and in some way foretastes future beatitude. O how blessed is he to whom that most fragrant spring and that most pleasant summer arises, and to whom it is granted even for a moment to experience this divine coupling! For he is led to that which neither reason nor intellect can grasp, nor tongue express. Through wise ignorance he knows God better than his own exterior eyes know the visible sun. He is established so firmly in God that he feels God to be nearer to himself than he is to himself: whence he already leads a deiform and superessential life, having been made, according to the spirit, conformable to Christ in soul and body. Whether he eats or drinks, whether he keeps watch or sleeps, God, who lives superessentially in him, always works in him. God Himself teaches him about all things and reveals to him mystical spiritual senses. He visits, constrains, kisses, illumines, enkindles, penetrates, and fills him most frequently, or even incessantly. For since his soul is now a clear mirror without stain, suitably placed under and presented to the divine Sun, the Sun of justice cannot but ceaselessly diffuse upon it drops of grace, rays of wisdom, and sparks of charity. Very sublimely and wonderfully indeed does God sometimes reveal and manifest Himself to a perfect soul, though He does not yet show Himself as He is in His ineffable glory, but as He can be seen in this life.

GEORGIUS PACHYMERES ON THE WORKS OF S. DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE TO CYRUS ATHANASIUS, PATRIARCH OF ALEXANDRIA, SOJOURNING IN CONSTANTINOPLE. PROOEMIUM

Man of God, faithful servant and dispenser of the mysteries of Christ, and man of desires—of many other great ones, namely those which are of the spirit, the head of all of which is to be mortified in the flesh and to live for Christ; and this is not from yesterday, or the day before, or from a short time ago, but rather this has been your study from a long time, and indeed from infancy and almost from birth itself. Mount Sinai knows these things, and the famous tavern ^B there, where, nurtured in virtue and pre-exercised in spiritual labors, you were brought to the throne of Mark: and you are recognized as having obtained the vocation after him, by a long interval of time indeed, yet by virtue you are closest to him, although most remote in time. Moreover, you are posterior to his holy successors only insofar as, while they shone in their own times for the utility of the Christian people, you are reserved for our times, just as Providence knows, which keeps and produces all things. Furthermore, the manner of this one, the discourse of that one; the exact charity of this one, the psalm-singing of that one...

the intensity of another, the compassion of another toward all, ^A the zeal of another, the mildness of another, and another quality of good things from another, as if having acquired them from an archetype, you express in yourself the one supreme form of the image from all. And you appear as a varied and great thing, both to those who are far and to those who are near. This is your constant care, this is your persistent study, these are the best desires in which you find rest, all day long, seeking in spirit the things that are of the spirit. One of these, and not just some ordinary one, is the meditation upon the divinely inspired Scriptures, to which you attend every day, and with great skill unfolding the meaning of what is said, and the knowledge, and the character, and every form of education you express.

But, above all else, the divine booklet of the great Dionysius, the abode of the spiritual ^B and sweet Siren, taking hold of you, possesses you entirely, and fills you with the graces therein, not stopping up the spiritual ears of your soul with the wax of discourse, nor, indeed, binding you with attachments according to the world, but being free and exempt from all things, and having all your faculties for hearing and your intellect held wide open, for an apprehension suitable, clearly, both to the things that are spoken and to the things that are understood. But since that image is very clear, upon which the artist often and repeatedly applies the colors, and that discourse is clear, to which many others, and often only guessing at what is said, have not hesitated to add more; for this reason you reason clearly, and worthily of your good-loving purpose, whether this divine book might be unfolded, and the matter become commoner ^C to the ears of the many, and thence many might have benefit, receiving the things above intellect according to intellect, and the things above capacity according to capacity. For this is also a form of feeding which is not ordinary, when someone, not furnishing food from himself, yet by softening this beforehand or pre-masticating it, makes it easy to consume for the weak, not bringing forward other food, but working upon that which is set before.

You have reasoned and provided wisely about such a thing; yet the deliberation would have turned out well in the end, if you had sought another and not me, and had found a reason and a way befitting the matter, and had entrusted it to one worthy, and passed on sacred things ^D to one sacred. But now, "The altar is not for this sacrifice," as they say; yet you have also exhorted and stirred up, and with your prayers, as you were able, you have encouraged, as one beneficent, I think, enriching us with the communion of this desire, and you have not despaired so much through our weakness as you have hoped through the grace of God, whose power you have learned is perfected rather in weakness. What then were we to do, in the face of such a magnitude of exhortation, but to be struck dumb and to refuse? But yet, I know not how, forgetting our own weakness, and neglecting that "Know thyself," we have become entirely subject to your commands, and as children to a father, and as disciples to a Master, and as servants to a lord...

we have followed ^A in no other way than by trusting in your holy and God-persuaded prayers, by which, I believe, we were also invisibly lifted up, and easily sustained the undertaking.

And why is this strange? When even the voice sent forth by Elijah to Elisha, once heard, caused him to abandon those oxen, and the plows, and all other equipment, and he ran after the caller wherever his feet led him, even though he had destined those same oxen for sacrifice. In the same way, we also, neglecting secular troubles and tumults, devoted our whole selves to one study, which in truth we have consecrated to the sacred Scriptures. I will even disclose this secret, for it is true: I was so devoted to this task, and was so enraptured by it, that often, while I was free from conversation, I found myself crying out as I pondered on the one hand the depth of the meanings, and on the other the sublimity of the theology; here the scientific nature of divine matters, there the precision in their exposition; elsewhere moderation, elsewhere the inspiration of the Divine, and everywhere Divinity and security.

^B What then can I do but compare the writings of this Saint to a most fertile meadow, such that I might wish, by plucking them, to set before others the most beautiful things, but am unable, remaining instead immobile and, as it were, forced to be silent on account of the variety of grace? Thus I am not an interpreter, not a paraphraser, but a listener. For it would be a great thing if I were to become even a mystic of the heavenly trumpets, yet not of those sounding forth immediately and suddenly (lest the spiritual faculty of hearing thereby suffer harm), but of those penetrating gently and little by little to the more intimate sound of knowledge. ^C And this truly is the way of leisure for all, and of applying the intellect to the greatest things, by gradually subduing those things which are understood, and finally coupling perfect knowledge with the knower. This, moreover, was bestowed upon me by the intent of the proposed work, while I considered each of the things being said. Nor is it less to be added, that I was greatly assisted by following the ancients, as the elders of the people, in the ascent to the divine mountain of mystagogy. For when they interpret the writings of this Saint, they have shown me the way leading there, and have made me secure; for which reason I also strove until I reached the point I could reach, and where I have arrived. If indeed it is near, as I hope, thanks be to God, from whom comes everything that is done well by men, and thanks also to your holy ^D prayers, trusting in which I buckled down to this work, and by which aided, I have not wandered altogether too far from what is proper.

But if this is not the case, and I appear altogether useless and reprobate, what should be done if, clinging to many difficulties on account of inexperience, I perchance did not grasp something rightly? This very thing, I certainly did not neglect to offer in public to the best of my strength. But you, O soul imitating God in all things, I know well that you will not seek that which is by merit, but will accept the willingness; since it is said that even to God that which is done according to one's strength is pleasing. But enough of these things; it is now time to set forth the things that pertain to the great Dionysius, which have certainly been handed down in history by the ancients.

^A This senate of the Athenians declares his nobility and illustrious riches. For as the divine Luke records the history in the Acts, he too was one of the Areopagites. When, therefore, the holy apostle Paul had arrived in Athens, and had engaged in discussion with some of the Epicureans and Stoics, and was preaching the word of truth, certain philosophers there seized him and led him to the Areopagus, to answer for the things he had preached. But he preached there too, and became a hunter who took as his prey—besides many others—Dionysius himself, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them. And his title of dignity is also added; for he says, "the Areopagite," because of the man's preeminence, I believe, in wisdom and wealth, and thirdly, in an irreproachable way of life. For it was not for just anyone to be enrolled among the Areopagites, but for one whom profound wisdom, a virtuous life, and a life beyond reproach in all things had raised to such a dignity: since in Athens, from the nine established archons, the Areopagites had to be chosen, the number of whom amounted to fifty-one.

Outside the city was the tribunal on the Areopagus, so named because Mars had there received a sentence from Neptune regarding the "fixing" of his own scepter, for which he was condemned because he had killed his son, Halirrhothius. The Areopagites presided over the most grave matters, and their judgment allowed the condemned no right of appeal. Wherefore the philosophers dragged Paul, the divinest herald of the truth, as a proclaimer of new demons, before the council of the Areopagus. But at that time the ^B truly great Dionysius, who was serving on the council, delivered an incorruptible judgment—not in words, but in deeds themselves. For, bidding farewell to that hill and its dignity, and every other preeminence according to the world, he yielded to the sacred voices of Paul and was attached to Christ through him. He was indeed initiated into the dogmas of salvation by him, but he was instructed magisterially by the great Hierotheus, as he himself testifies in many places. Afterward he is also appointed by Paul as bishop of the faithful in Athens.

^C Many other writings were likewise composed by this holy man, of which he himself makes mention in his works that are still extant. Moreover, it is confirmed by testimony that these were kept for a long time, deposited in the Roman library. He writes most of them to holy Timothy, the bishop of the Ephesians, who, it is likely, was suffering many troubles at the hands of the leading proponents of the Ionian philosophy at Ephesus, and who was consulting this holy man—as one expert in secular philosophy—so that he might contend the more strongly. However, other works are gathered from the aforementioned writings of this Father which are not found among us, namely: *On Angelic Properties*, *On the Soul*, *On the Just and Divine Tribunal*, *On*