THE PRINTER TO THE READER
(From the Venetian edition of the year 1755, vol. II)
I detain you but briefly, kind Reader, on the threshold of this second and final volume of the Works of the Areopagite, since in the Warning prefixed to the former volume I have already informed you of the care and diligence I have applied to the preparation and embellishment of this edition. There is no need for me to speak at length of how exactly I have kept my word in making both volumes available to the public in the promised time, as the work itself speaks for itself. Still, a few things must be said regarding what has been added to this volume, and what I have done to ensure it appears in a more polished state.
I have seen to it that the Greek Scholia on the Areopagite Works were compared most diligently with the very elegant S. Mark codex; I have noted the variant readings and corrections—the shorter ones in the margin, and the longer ones, which should rather be called Additions that all previous editions lacked, at the foot of the page, together with the Latin version. You will find not a few of these, especially in the book *On the Divine Names*. I have added accurately, as found in the codex itself, the letters of the Greek alphabet, or numerical notes, by which the scholia of the Patriarch Germanus are distinguished in the codex from the scholia of Maximus the Monk.
A greater amount of labor had to be expended on adapting to this edition the Lansselian version of the Scholia of S. Maximus, which seemed somewhat inconvenient. And indeed I myself cannot quite grasp what the Parisian editor had in mind when, having published all the Areopagite Works with the Latin version of the distinguished Balthasar Corderius, he preferred to append the Lansselian version to the Scholia of S. Maximus on those same Works, even though there was at hand their version made by Corderius himself, and inserted into the Antwerp edition of 1634, which is without doubt more polished and accurate than that "tumultuous" one, as Lansselius himself calls it—being as it was done with the utmost haste under the pressure of some people’s requests, when he had initially intended, as he himself attests, to exhibit only the Greek of Maximus. Therefore, no blame should be attached to that man, a scholar very learned in other respects, if such a version resulted as slightly more obscure, less elegant, and in some places even less accurate. But it does not seem that the Parisian editor is to be excused for preferring it to the Corderian version and, having rejected the latter, adopting it for his own edition, especially when that additional inconvenience arose: because the words of the text of S. Dionysius, around which the scholia revolve, for the most part appear quite differently in this Lansselian version than in the Corderian, and indeed sometimes offer a meaning that is entirely different; it can only be detected with the greatest difficulty by a reader ignorant of the Greek language to which part of the text the individual scholia pertain: and this is especially true because the number of the paragraphs into which the chapters are divided in the Corderian version of the text of S. Dionysius has been completely omitted in the Lansselian version of the scholia, as well as in the Parisian edition; for which reason the use of those same scholia can only be most difficult.
These things had moved me to such an extent that I was on the verge of rejecting the aforementioned Lansselian version of the Scholia of S. Maximus and inserting the Corderian version of them, according to the Antwerp edition, into my own edition. Nor was there a lack of a learned man who would give me this advice, and who further added that this was required by the principle of uniformity (which must be maintained in any work, whenever possible), such that both the version of the Areopagite text and the scholia written upon it are by the same author. For this reason he also advised me to reject the Tilmannian version of Pachymeres’ *Paraphrase* on the Epistles of S. Dionysius and adopt the Corderian one, since Pachymeres’ *Paraphrases* on the books of S. Dionysius, and indeed the Scholia of S. Maximus on the same Epistles, are from the version of Corderius.
Two things, however, were primarily the cause of my not acquiescing to this advice (of whether rightly, the kind Reader shall judge). First, that I might not appear to fail in any part of the faith I had pledged to the public; since I had undertaken to reprint the Works of S. Dionysius according to the latest Parisian edition, which general opinion holds to excel the others; the second is that it seemed quite credible to me that the Parisian editor, when he wished to fashion his own work from a double edition—namely the Lansselian and the Corderian—had selected the better and preferable parts, even if it might appear otherwise to some. Therefore, I did not think that the notes of Lansselius on the aforementioned *Paraphrase* of Pachymeres, nor on the *Life of the Blessed Dionysius* written by Syncellus, and on his *Martyrdom*, should be omitted; although all these might appear to someone as entirely unnecessary, and perhaps not even useful (as such things appeared to Corderius, who, when he supervised his Antwerp edition about twenty years after Lansselius, omitted them all). Nevertheless, I myself judged it better to provide something in abundance than to be lacking in any matter that could be desired by anyone.
However, since a great desire possessed me to render this edition of mine as perfect as possible, I therefore asked the learned man who had advised me on all these matters to remedy the defect he had noticed in the Lansselian version of the Scholia of S. Maximus; which I obtained in some measure: for the words of the text of S. Dionysius, around which the scholia revolve, to the...
Corderian version he recalled; yet in such a way that, where the scholia explained any Greek word, he himself added the same word in Greek to the Latin Corderian version, having prefixed *Gr.*, that is, *in Greek*; so that it might become known to the reader that that scholium was devoted solely or primarily to explaining the force and energy of the Greek word. Furthermore, he not infrequently corrected the version itself, where greater necessity appeared: he amended the punctuation, which was most faulty, and finally attached a number to the individual paragraphs, by which the reader might more easily discover to what part of the text the individual scholia pertained. These things, if I am not mistaken, add no small ornament, nay even utility, to this edition of mine. Yet one might perhaps value more highly the Additions which are appended to this volume, drawn from another store. It is known to everyone who has touched upon any erudition how great, and for how long a time, the controversy has raged concerning the author of the Areopagitic Works: for although at the present time learned men almost universally agree in denying these Works to the great Dionysius, yet there are not lacking even today those who willingly fight to vindicate them for him; and others to whom at least this cause may not seem entirely hopeless or desperate. Since, therefore, a certain anonymous French author has labored on a small work, the title of which is *A Problem Concerning the Works Inscribed with the Name of S. Dionysius*, in which he most accurately puts forward the reasons and arguments of both sides (2), I therefore thought that I would be doing something pleasing to all if I added it, translated into Latin, to this my edition: for from it everyone will be able, with little labor, to have this famous cause more deeply examined and to judge it. Some have gone further, namely, to deny not only the Areopagitic Works to the great Dionysius, but also to contend that their author was infected with the stain of heresy. Among others, Michael Lequien, of the Order of Preachers, a man truly most learned and erudite, left no stone unturned in his second Damascene Dissertation to demonstrate that [the author] himself was addicted to the errors of the Eutychians or Monophysites. But, as it is a noble gift of his order to defend the truth, when need be, no less against its own than against others, there came forth from the same order one who proved that Lequien, although a most perspicacious man, was deceived in this matter, and most validly defended the orthodoxy of the author of the Areopagitic works against him. This is the most famous Fr. Bernard M. de Rubeis, whose Dissertation on this subject I provide in the final place, as a noble finishing touch to this edition of mine. From all these things I wish you, most excellent reader, only to be persuaded that I shall always take the greatest possible pains so that whatever works of the Fathers or other authors I shall undertake to reprint, they may come forth from my press more polished and more perfect than they had been before. Farewell.
(2) The anonymous author, who has compiled at great length the arguments for the authenticity or against the genuineness of these works, had already treated the matter excellently beforehand; the Rev. Father D. Le Nourry had done so in his *Apparatus to the Bibliotheca Maxima Patrum*. We have prefixed his Dissertation to the first volume of S. Dionysius; there is no reason, therefore, why we should again call to examination the arguments already set forth at length by the anonymous author. [EDIT. PATR.]