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-
