Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/40

 DIOSCORUS

18

DIOSCORUS

silius Ficinus, and the Englishman John Colet, were still convinced of the genuineness of the writings ; but the keen and daring critic, Laurentius Valla (1407-1457), in his glosses to the New Testament, expressed his doubts quite openly and thereby gave the impulse, at first for the scholarly Erasmus (1504) and later on for the entire scientific world, to take sides either with or against Dionysius. The consequence was the forma- tion of two camps ; among the adversaries were not only Protestants (Luther, Scultetus, DallKus, etc.) but also prominent Catholic theologians (Beatus Rhenanus, Cajetan, Morinus, Sirmond, Petavius, Lequien, Le Nourry) ; among the defenders of Dionysius were Ba- ronius, Bellarmine, Lansselius, Corderius, Halloix, Del- rio, de Rubeis, Lessius, Alexander Natalis, and others. The literary controversy assumed such dimensions and was carried on so vehemently that it can only be com- pared to the dispute concerning the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals and the Pseudo-Constantinian donation. In the nineteenth century the general opinion inclined more and more towards the opposition; the Germans especially, Mohler, Fessler, DoUinger, Hergenrother, Alzog, Funk, and others made no reserve of their de- cision for the negative. At this juncture the scholarly professor Franz Hipler came forward and attempted to save the honour of Dionysius. He finds in Diony- sius not a falsifier, but a prominent theologian of the fourth century who, through no fault of his own, but owing to the misinterpretation of some passages, was confounded with the Areopagite. Many Catholics, and many Protestants as well, voiced their approval. Finally, in 1895 there appeared almost simultaneously two independent researches, by Hugo Koch and by Joseph Stiglmayr, both of whom started from the same point and arrived at the same goal. The con- clusion reached was that extracts from the treatise of the neo-Platonist Proclus, "De malorum subsistentia" (handed down in the Latin translation of Morbeka, Cousin ed., Paris, 1864), had been used by Dionysius in the treatise "De div. nom." (c. iv, §§19-35). A careful analysis brought to light an astonishing agreement of both works in arrangement, sequence of thought, ex- amples, figures, and expressions. It is easy to point out many parallelisms from other and later writings of Proclus, e. g. from his "Institutio theologica", "Theo- logia Platonica", and his commentary on Plato's "Pannenides", "Alcibiades I", and "Timaeus" (these five having been written after 462).

Accordingly, the long-standing problem seems to be solved in its most important phase. As a matter of fact this is the decision pronounced by the most com- petent judges, such as Bardenhewer, Ehrhard, Fiuik, Diekamp, Rauschen, De Smedt, S. J., Duchesne, Batif- fol; and the Protestant scholars of early Christian lit- erature, Gelzer, Harnack, Ivriiger, Bonwetsch. The chronology being thus determined, an explanation was readily found for the various objections hitherto al- leged, viz. the silence of the earlier Fathers, the later dogmatic terminology, a developed monastic, ceremo- nial, and penitential system, the echo of neo-Plato- nism, etc. On the other hand it sets at rest many hypotheses which had been advanced concerning the author and his times and various discussions — whether, e. g., a certain Apollinaris, or Synesius, or Dionysius Alexandrinus, or a bishop of Ptolemais, or a pagan hierophant was the writer.

A critical edition of the text of the Areopagite is urgently needed. The Juntina (1516), that of Basle (15.39), of Paris (1562 and 1615), and lastly the princi- pal edition of Antwerp (1634) by Corderius, S.J., which was frequently reprinted (Paris, 1644, 1755, 1854) and was inclu<led in the Migne collection (P. G., Ill and IV with Lat. trans, and additions), are insuflii- cieiit because they make use of only a few of the nu- merous Greek manuscripts and tiike no account of the Syriac, Armenian, and .\raliic translations. The fol- lowing translations have thus far appeared in modern

languages: English, by Lupton (London, 1869) and Parker (London, 1894), both of which contain only the "C;el. Hierarchia" and the "Eccles. Hier. "; Ger- man, by Engelhardt (Sulzbach, 1823) and Storf, " Krchliche Hierarchie" (Kempten, 1877); French, by Darboy (Paris, 1845) and Dulac (Paris, 1865).

f"or the older literature, cf. Chevauer. Bio. bibl. (Paris, 1905). Recent works treating of Dionysius: Hipler. Diony- suts der Areopagite, Vntersuchungen (Ratisbon, 1861): Idem in Kirchenlex., s. v.; Schneider, Areopagitica, Verteidigung ihrer Echlheit (Ratisbon, 1886); Frothingh.^m, Stephen Bar Sudaili (Leyden, 1886): Stiglm.a.yk, Der Neuplatoniker ProkUis als Vorlage des sog. Dionysius Areopagila in der Lehre vom Uebel in Hist. Jahrb. der GOrres-Gesellschaft (1895), pp. 253-273 and 721- 748; Idem, Das Aufkommen der pseudo-dionysisehen Schriften und ihr Eindringen in die christliche Literatur bis znm Lateran- konzil (Feldkirch, Austria, 1895): Koch, Der pseudepigraphi- sche Charakter der dionifsischen Schriften in Theol. Quartal- schrift (Tubingen, 1895), pp. 353-120; Idem, Proklus. aU Quelle des Pseudo-Dionysius Areop. in der Lehre vom B'isen in Philologus (1895), pp. 438-454: Stiglmayr. Controversy with Dr.\seke, Langen", and NiR-schl in Byzantinischc Zeitschrift (1S9S), pp. 91-UO. and (1899), pp. 263-301, and Histor.-polit. Blatter (1900), CXXV, pp. 541-550 and 613-627; Idem, Die Lehre von den Sakramenten und der Kirche nach Pseudo-Diimy- sius in Zeitschrift fur kath. Theol. (Innsbruck, 1898). pp. 246- 303; Idem. Die Eschalologie des Pseudo-Dionysius, ibid. (1899). pp. 1-21; Koch, Ps.-Dionysius Areop. in seinen Beziehungen zum A'eoplatoni.'imus und .Myslericmrescn (Mainz, 1900). See also the articles on Dionysius tlie ,\reopagite in the Pntrologie of Bardenhewer (Freihurff. 1901), in the Realencyk. fiir prot. Theol., and in the Did. of Christian Biography.

Jos. Stiglmayr.

Dioscorus, Antipope, b. at Alexandria, date un- kno^\^l; d. 14 October, 530. Originally a deacon of the Church of Alexandria, he was adopted into the ranks of the Roman clergy, and by his commanding abilities soon accpiired considerable influence in the Church of Rome. Under Pope St. Symmachus he was sent to Ravenna on an important mission to Theodoric the Goth, and later, under Pope Hormisdas, served with great distinction as papal apocrisiarius, or legate, to the court of Justinian at Constantinople. During the pontificate of Felix IV he became the rec- ognized head of the Byzantine jiarty — a party in Rome which opposed the growing influence and power of a rival faction, the Gothic, to which the pope in- clined. To prevent a possible contest for the papacy. Pope FelLx IV, shortly before his death, had taken the unprecedented step of appointing his own successor in the person of the aged Archdeacon Boniface, his trusted friend and adviser. When, however, on the death of Felix (Sept., 530) Boniface II succeeded him, the great majority of the Roman priests — sixty out of sixty-seven — refused to accept the new pope and elected in his stead the Greek Dioscorus (17 Sept., 530). Both popes were consecrated on the same day (22 Sept., 530), Dioscorus in the basihca of Constantine (the Lateran) and Boniface in an aula (hall) of the Lateran Palace, kno\^^l as the basilica Julii. Fortu- nately for the Roman Church, the schism which followed was but of short duration, for in less than a month ( 14 Oct., 530) Dioscorus died, and the presbyters who had elected him wisely submitted to Boniface. In Decem- ber, 530, Boniface convened a synod at Rome and issued a decree anathematizing Dioscorus as an in- truder. He at the same time (it is not known by what means) secured the signatures of the sixty pres- byters to his late rival's condemnation, and caused the document to be deposited in the archives of the Church. The anathema against Dioscorus was, how- ever, subsequently removed, and the document solemnly burned by Pope Agapetus I (535). (See Boniface II.)

Liber Ponlificalis, ed. Duchesne (Paris, 1886), I. 281 sq.; .Ufi-b, ffifli-.s/n Homauonim Ponlificum (2ik1 ed.. Leipzig, 1885), 1.111-12. Ill l,ss:i A 11, ,l;„,,^,■,.■,lll.,■.l,.r„nl.•nl,^c:lrlngon

tlie election of .%:;(!, ,,, ll,.. . I,;,,ilc, lllu;u^ ..1 N M^ n:,, .■.ml pub- lished then, will, hi- rM,,,,,„-nl, II, .s', .,..;.! ( -..'/../.- .' ' Mil:i"'. -VXI, fas,-i,-. 123; Cl.i^^.ii ii, //.. Am,, I-:,. I /.■,r,\\\lll (Jan.. 19031.41-50; 77i.-of,.B,.s,/n Vi/.ir;.i/«/iri?nllK«l.lUsq.; tiHISAR. Cesch. Horns und der Ptipste (Freiburg im Br., 1901), I, 494 sq.; Worm, Papstwahl (Cologne, 1902), 12 sq.

Thomas Oestreich.