Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/35

 DIONYSIUS

13

DIONYSIUS

thoroughfare which traversed the town was impassa- ble. The bishop had to communicate with his flock by letter, as though they were in different countries. It was easier, he writes, to pass from East to West, than from Alexandria to .Alexandria. Famine and pes- tilence raged anew. The inhabitants of what was still the second city of the world had decreased so that the males between fourteen and eighty were now scarcely so numerous as those between forty and seventy had been not many years before. A controversy arose in the latter years of Dionysius of which the half-Arian Eusebius has been careful to make no mention. All we know is from St. Athanasius. Some bishops of the Pentapolis of Upper Libya fell into Sabellianism and denied the distinctness of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. Dionysius wrote some four letters to condemn their error, and sent copies to Pope Sixtus II (257-8). But he himself fell, so far as words go, into the opposite error, for he said the Son is a nolrifia (some- thing made) and distinct in substance, l^i-os xar' oialav, from the Father, even as is the husbandman from the vine, or a shipbuilder from a ship. These words were seized upon by the Arians of the fourth century as plain Arianism. But Athanasius defended Dionysius by telling the sequel of the history. Certain brethren of Alexandria, being offended at the words of their bishop, betook them.selves to Rome to Pope St. Dio- nysius (259-268), who wrote a letter, in which he de- clared that to teach that the Son was made or was a creature was an impiety equal, though contrary, to that of Sabellius. He also wrote to his namesake of Alex- andria informing him of the accusation brought against him. The latter immediately composed books enti- tled "Refutation" and "Apology"; in these he ex- plicitly declared that there never was a time when God was not Father, that Christ always was, being Word and Wisdom and Power, and coeternal, even as brightness is not posterior to the light from which it proceeds. He teaches the "Trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity"; he clearly hnplies the equahty and eternal procession of the Holy Ghost. In these last points he is more explicit than St. Athanasius himself is elsewhere, while in the use of the word consubstan- tial, ofiooiKrios, he anticipates Nica-a, for he bitterly com- plains of the calumny that he had rejected the expres- sion. But however he himself and his advocate Athanasius may attempt to explain away his earlier expressions, it is clear that he had been incorrect in thought as well as in words, and that he did not at first grasp the true doctrine with the necessary dis- tinctness. The letter of the pope was evidently ex- plicit and must have been the cause of the Alexan- drian's clearer vision. The pope, as Athanasius points out, gave a formal condemnation of Arianism long be- fore that heresy emerged. When we consider the vagueness and incorrectness in the fourth century of even the supporters of orthodoxy in the East, the de- cision of the Apostolic See will seem a marvellous tes- timony to the doctrine of the Fathers as to the unfail- ing faith of Rome.

We find Dionysius issuing yearly, like the later bishops of Alexandria, festal letters announcing the date of Easter and dealing with various matters. When the heresy of Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Anti- och, began to trouble the East, Dionysius wrote to the Church of Antioch on the subject, as he was obliged to decline the invitation to attend a SJ^lod there, on the score of his age and infirmities. He died soon after- wards. St. Dionysius is in the Roman Martyrology on 17 Nov., but he is also intended, with the companions of his flight in the Decian persecution, by the mistaken notice on 3 Oct.: Dionysius, Faustus, Gains, Peter, and Paul, MartyTs(!). The same error is found in Greek menologies.

The principal remains of Dionysius are the citations in EusEBlua, //. E., VI-VII. a few fragments of the books On Nature in Idem, Prtpp. Evang., xiv, and the quotations in ATH.tNABitJS. De Senlentid Dionysii, etc. A collection of these

and other fragments is in Gallandi, Bibl. Vett. Patrum, III, XIV, reprinted in P. G., X. The fullest ed. is by Simon db Magistris, S. Dion. Al. 0pp. omnia (Rome. 1796); also KouTH, ReliquifB SacTCB, III-IV. Syriac and Armenian frag- ments in PiTRA. Analecla Sacra, IV. A complete hst of all the fragments is in Harn.vck. Gesch. der aUchr. Lift., I, 409-27. but his account of the passages from the Catena on Luke {probably from a letter to Origen, On Martyrdom) needs com- pleting from SiCKENBERGEH. Die Lucasfcalene des Niketas von IleracU'ia (Leipzig, 1902). For the life of Dionysius see TiLLEMONT, IV; Acta SS., 3 Oct.; Dittrich. Dionysius der Grosse, eine Monographic (Freiburg im Br., 1S67); MoMzE. Denus d'Alcxandrie (Paris, 18S1). DoM Morin tried unsuc- cessfully to identify the Canons of HippoUjtus with Dionysius' 'ETrto-ToArj £iaKO^iKi) Sia 'IitttoAvtou (EcsEB., H. E., VI, 45-6) in Revue Benedictine (1900), XVII, 241. Also Mehc.^ti, Note di letteratura bibl. et cri^l. ant.: Due supposte lettere di Dionigi Aless. (Rome, 1901). For chronology see Harnack, Chronot., I, 202. II, 57. A very good account, with full bibliography, is in Bardenhewer, 6'i'.vc/i. der allkirchl. Litt., II. On the Chihastic question see Gry, Le MUlcnarisme (Paris, 1904), 101.

John Chapm.^n.

Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite. — By "Diony- sius the .\reopagite" is usually understood the judge of the Areopagus who, as related in Acts, xvii, 34, was converted to Christianity by the preaching of St. Paid, and accordingto Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., Ill, iv) was Bishop of Athens. In the course of time, however, two errors of far-reaching import arose in connexion with this name. In the first place, a series of famous writings of a rather peculiar nature was ascribed to the Areopagite and, secondly, he was popu- larly identified with the holy martyr of Gaul, Diony- sius, the first Bishop of Paris. It is not our purpose to take up directly the latter point; we shall concern ourselves here (1) with the person of the Pseudo- Areopagite; (2) with the classification, contents, and characteristics of his writings; (3) with their history and transmission; under this head the question as to the genuineness, origin, first acceptance, and gradual spread of these writings will be answered.

Deep obscurity still hovers about the person of the Pseudo-Areopagite. External evidence as to the time and place of his birth, his education, and later occupa- tion is entirely wanting. Our only source of informa- tion regarding this problematic personage is the writ- ings themselves. The clues furnished by the first ap- pearance and by the character of the writings enable us to conclude that the author belongs at the very earliest to the latter half of the fifth centurj', and that, in all probability, he was a native of Syria. HLs thoughts, phrases, and expressions show a great familiarity with the works of the neo-Platonists, especially with Ploti- nus and Proclus. He is also thoroughly versed in the sacred books of the Old and the New Testament, and in the works of the Fathers as far as Cyril of .Alex- andria. (Passages from the Areopagitic writings are indicated by title and chapter. In this article D. D. N. stands for "De divinis nominibus"; G. H. for "Ctelestis hierarchia"; E. H. for " Ecclesiastica hierar- chia"; Th.M.for "Theologia mystica", which are all found in Migne, P. G., vol. III.) In a letter to Poly- carp (Ep. vii; P. G., Ill, 1080 A) and in "Cajl. hier." (ix, 3; P. G., Ill, 260 D) he intimates that he was formerly a pagan, and this seems quite probable, con- sidering the peculiar character of his literary work. But one should be more cautious in regard to certain other personal references, for instance that he was chosen teacher of the "newlv-baptized" (D. D. N., iii, 2; P. G., Ill, 681 B); that his spiritual father and guide was a wise and saintly man, Hierotheus by name ; that he was advised by the latter and ordered by his own superiors to compose these works (ibid., 681 sq.). .\nd it is plainly for the purpose of deceiving that he tells of having obser^'ed the solar eclipse at Christ's Crucifixion (Ep., \ii, 2; P. G., Ill, 1081 A) and of having, with Hierotheus, the Apostles (Peter and James), and other hierarchs, looked upon "the Life- Begetting, God-Receiving bodv, i. e. of the Blessed Virgin" (D. D. N., iii, 2; P. "G., Ill, 681 C). The former of these accounts is based on Matt., xxvii, 45,