Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/39

 DIONYSIUS

17

DIONYSIUS

authorization of the Areopagitica. A lover of theo- logico-mystical speculation, he showed an uncommon reverence for these writings, and by his glosses (P. G., IV), in which he explained dubious passages of Diony- sius in an orthodox sense, he contributed greatly to- wards the recognition of Dionysius in the Middle Ages. Another equally indefatigable champion of Dyophy- sitism was Anastasius, a monk from the monastery of Sinai, who in 640 began his chequered career as a wandering preacher. Xot only in his "Guide" (oSriyds), but also in the " Quiestiones " and in the seventh book of the "Meditations on the HexEpme- ron", he unhesitatingly makes use of different pas- sages from Dionysius (P. G., LXXXIX). By this time a point had been reached at which the official seal, so to speak, could be put upon the Dionysian writings. The Lateran Council of 649 solemnly re- jected the Monothelite heresy (Hartlouin, III, 699 sqq.). Pope Martin I quotes from the D. D. N., Li, 9; iv, 20 and 23; and the "Ep. ad Caium"; speaks of the author as "beatie memoria; Dionysius", "Diony- sius egregius, sanctus, beatus", and vigorously objects to the perversion of the text: una instead of nova dei et viri operatio. The influence which Maximus ex- erted by his personal appearance at the council and by his above-mentioned explanation of BtavbpiKr) ivipyeia is easily recognized ("Dionysius duplicem [operationem] duplicis naturae compositivo serraone abusus est" — Hardouin, III, 787). Two of the tes- timonies of the Fathers which were read in the fifth session are taken from Dionysius. Little wonder, then, that thenceforth no doubt was expressed con- cerning the genuineness of the Areopagitica. Pope Agatho, in a dogmatic epistle directetl to the Emperor Constantine (680) cites among other passages from the Fathers also the D. D. N., ii, 6. The Sixth (Ecu- menical Council of Constantinople (680) followed in the footsteps of the Lateran Synod, again defended "Ep. iv ad. Caium" against the falsification of Pyrrhus, and rejected the meaning which the Mono- thelite Patriarch Macarius assigned to the passage (Hardouin, III, 1099, 1346, 1066). In the second Council of NicEea (787) we find the "Celestial Hierar- chy" of the "deifer Dionysius" cited against the Iconoclasts (Hardouin, IV, 362). This finishes the first and darkest period in the history of the Areopa- gitica; and it may be summarized as follows. The Dionysian writings appeared in public for the first time in the Monophysite controversies. The Severians made use of them first and were followed by the or- thodox. After the religious debate at Constantinople in 533 witnesses for the genuineness of the Areopa- gitica began to increase among the different heretics. Despite the opposition of Hypatius, Dionysius did not altogether lose his authority even among Catho- lics, which was due chiefly to Leontius and Ephraem of Antioch. The number of orthodox Christians who defended him grew steadily, comprising high ecclesias- tical dignitaries who had come from monasteries. Finally, under the influence of Maximus, the Lateran Council (649) cited him as a competent witness against Monothelism.

As to the second period, imiversal recognition of the Areopagitic writings in the Middle Ages, we need not mention the Greek Church, which is especially proud of him ; but neither in the West was a voice raised in challenge down to the first half of the fifteenth century ; on the contrary, liLs w-orks were regarded as exceed- ingly valuable and even as sacred. It was believed that St. Paul, who had communicated his revelations to his dLsciple in Athens, spoke through these writings (Histor.-polit. Blatter, CXXV, 1900, p. 541). As there is no doubt concerning the fact itself, a glance at the main divisions of the tradition may .suffice. Rome received the original text of the Areopagitica un- doubtedly through Greek monks. The oppressions on the part of Islam during the sixth and seventh centuries V— 2

compelled many Greek and Oriental monks to aban- don their homes and settle in Italy. In Rome itself, a monastery for Greek monks was built under Stephen II and Paul I. It was also Paul I (757-767) who in 757 sent the writings of Dionysius, together with other books, to Pepin in France. Adrian I (772-795) also mentioned Dionysius as a testis graiissimus in a letter accompanying the Latin translation of the Acts of the NicEean Council (787) which he sent to Charlemagne. During the first half of the ninth century the facts con- cerning Dionysius are mainly grouped around the Abbot Hilduin of Saint-Denys at Paris. Through the latter the false idea that the Gallic martyr Dionysius of the third centurj-, whose reUcs were preserved in tha monastery of Saint-Denys, was identical with the Areopagite rose to an undoubted certainty, while the works ascribed to Dionysius gained in repute. Through a legation from Constantinople, Michael II had sent several gifts to the Prankish Emperor Louis the Pious (827), and among them were the writings of the Areopagite, which gave particular joy and honour to Hilduin, the influential arch-chaplain of Louis. Hilduin took care to have them translated into Latin and he himself wrote a life of the saint (P. L., CVI, 13 sq.). About the year 858 Scotus Eriugena, who was versed in Greek, made a new Latin translation of the Areopagite, which became the main source from which the Middle Ages obtained a knowledge of Diony- sius and his doctrines. The work was undertaken at the instance of Charles the Bald, at whose court Sco- tus enjoyed great influence (P. L., CXXII, 1026 sq.; cf. Traube, "Poet. lat. a>v. Carol.", II, 520, 859 sq.). Compared with Hilduin's, this second translation marks a decided step in advance. Scotus, with his keen dialectical skill and his soaring speculative mind, found in the Areopagite a kindred spirit. Hence, de- spite many errors of translation due to the obscurity of the Greek original, he was able to grasp the connexions of thought and to penetrate the problems. As he ac- companied his translations with explanatory notes and as, in his philosophical and theological writings, particularly in the work "De divisione natura?" (P. L., CXXII), he recurs again and again to Dionysius, it is readily seen how much he did towards securing recognition for the Areopagite.

The works of Dionj'sius, thus introduced into West- em literature, were readily accepted by the medieval Scholastics. The great mastera of Saint-Victor at Paris, foremost among them the much-admired Hugh, based their teaching on the doctrine of Di- onysius. Peter Lombard and the greatest Dominican and Franciscan scholars, Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, adopted his theses and arguments. Master poets, e. g. Dante, and historians, e. g. Otto of Freising, built on his founda- tions. Scholars as renowned as Robert Grosseteste of Lincoln and Vincent of Beau vais drew upon him freely. Popular religious books, such as the "Legenda aurea" of Giacomo da Varagine and the "Life of Mary" by Brother PhiUp, gave him a cordial welcome. The great mystics, Eekhardt, Tauler, Suso, and others, entered the mysterious obscurity of the writings of Dionysius with a holy reverence. In rapid succes- sion there appeared a n\imber of translations: Latin translations by Joannes Sarrazenus (1170), Robert Grosseteste (about 1220), Thomas Vercellensis (1400), Ambrosius Camaldulensis (1436), Marsilius Ficinus (1492) ; in the sixteenth century those of Faber Stapu- lensis, Perionius, etc. Among the commentaries that of Hugh of Saint- Victor is notable for its warmth, that of Albertus Magnus for its extent, that of St. Thomas for its accuracy, that of Denys the Carthusian for its pious spirit and its masterly inclusion of all previous commentaries.

It was reserved for the period of the Rena'^sance to break with the time-honoured tradition. True, some of the older Humanists, as Pico della Mirandola, Mar-