Dionysius the Areopagite

ON ST. DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE, BISHOP AND MARTYR, AT ATHENS IN GREECE,

More probably under the emperor Hadrian.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Dionysius the Areopagite, bishop and M., at Athens in Greece. (S.)

BHL Number: 2172, 2182, 2183

BY C. B.

§ I. On what occasion and when Hilduin composed the Areopagitica, in which he confused St. Dionysius the Areopagite with the Parisian; with what good faith he did it, and what older Acts he had to light his way.

That from the very beginning of this Commentary it might be plain to everyone how rightly I here separate St. Dionysius the Areopagite, bishop of Athens and martyr, who in the present-day Roman Martyrology and some other sacred Calendars is joined today with Rusticus and Eleutherius [The Hilduinian Acts of Dionysius, which are to be discussed here in the first place,] as if they were his companions in martyrdom, from these — I would indeed most willingly show right now that that holy prelate is different, or distinct, from St. Dionysius, bishop of Paris and martyr, who had Rusticus and Eleutherius as companions in martyrdom,

. But so that I may do this below the more conveniently as well as the more validly, I think it expedient that I should first recount all the Dionysian Acts, or at least the chief of them, which confuse St. Dionysius the Areopagite with the Parisian or lead to that, and above all instruct the reader in what esteem each is to be held. But since these, whether written in Greek or in Latin, are manifold and various, with which shall I rather begin? That those which Hilduin, abbot of Saint-Denis in France in the ninth century, put together are not older than all the rest will become clear from what is to be said below. But although this is so, and therefore, if chronological order were regarded, a beginning would have to be made from the Acts which preceded those put together by Hilduin, I nevertheless prefer to make it from these latter, because, since of all the compositions which confuse the two said Dionysiuses some are indeed more recent than those put together by Hilduin, and others at least either seem to be such or may seem so to someone, the discussion can most conveniently and at the same time in order be led down from the Dionysian Acts of Hilduin to all the others in which, as in these, the two Dionysiuses are confused.

[2] Let us come to the matter itself. It was the thirty-fourth year of the ninth century, the emperor Louis the Pious, by a letter, when the emperor Louis, surnamed the Pious, who in the year immediately preceding, his sons Lothair, Pippin and Louis rebelling, had been deposed, was restored to liberty and even to his former authority, as the annalists and other writers of Frankish affairs commonly hand down to memory, after Lothair, the eldest, who held him captive, had been compelled to take flight by the two others, namely Pippin and Louis, who had at length been roused to arms by the unworthy manner in which their father was held by Lothair. Further, the emperor ascribed by name that happy turn of his fortunes, which had befallen him while he was kept in custody in the monastery of Saint-Denis in France, the places of his captivity being changed from time to time, to St. Dionysius, the singular patron of that monastery; and hence, desiring to promote the glory of that Saviour of his, he gave orders to Hilduin, then abbot of Saint-Denis, that whatever he had found out with tireless zeal about St. Dionysius, prelate of Paris — whom he himself, no otherwise than Hilduin, made one and the same with St. Dionysius the Areopagite — whether from books written, as he thought, by him, or from other codices or monuments drawn up in Greek or in Latin, he should collect from every quarter, and set out compendiously in a uniform and even style, so that, the tedium of reading being relieved, they might easily be read and known by all with profit and fruit. So we are taught by the very letter of the emperor Louis to Hilduin enjoining this, which today is prefixed to the Dionysian Acts in Surius, reprinted at Cologne in the year 1618 (this edition of that legendary or hagiologist — which I would wish the reader carefully to note here — I always use in the course of this Commentary), together with Hilduin's reply to the emperor Louis, and with the letter of the same Hilduin to all the sons of the Catholic church subjoined to this. Hear how that prince addresses Hilduin in that document, number 3.

[3] part of which is recited here, But we too, he says, have experienced his (St. Dionysius's) benefits in many and frequent bounties, but chiefly in the event of human vicissitude, in which, by the just judgment of God, as must always be confessed, visited with the rod of his correction and with the staff of his beautiful mercy, we were raised up again and restored by divine power before the aforesaid altar through the merits and consolation of our lord and most pious father Dionysius, and resumed the military belt by episcopal judgment and authority, and up to the present are sustained by his gracious help. Therefore, venerable guardian and worshipper of our provider and helper the lord Dionysius, we wish to admonish thee that whatever concerning knowledge of him has been taken by translation from the histories of the Greeks, or what, from the books written by him in his native tongue, and explained into our language by the command of our authority and by thy sagacious zeal and the sweat of interpreters, it shall be fitting to insert into this business, and also what thou hast already found in the Latin codices, adding to them the things contained in the little book of his Passion, as well as those things which thou hadst found in very ancient volumes or charters brought out from the press of the church of Paris, namely of his sacred see, and hadst shown to the eyes of our serenity, according as thou shalt know the agreement of things, causes and also times, thou shouldst reduce into one body, and compose from them a uniform text, so that they may be made known more compendiously to the devout, and the tedium of reading may be relieved for the fastidious or less capable, or for the studious, and likewise the profit of edification be provided for all.

[4] Thus far the emperor Louis; and Hilduin, impelled by this admonition or command of his — by imperial command, were written in the year 835, who moreover needed no spur to pursue the deeds and praises of Dionysius — at once put his hand to the work, and collected the Acts of that holy martyr from various monuments; and having set them out compendiously, yet at sufficient length, he transmitted them to the same emperor, adding also, as I mentioned above, a reply or responsive letter to him. Further, the letter of Louis, Hilduin's reply to it, and also another letter of the same Hilduin to all the sons of the holy catholic mother Church, which I think was written about the same time as that reply, together with the composition by which this writer did what had been commanded him by the emperor — called by the received manner of speaking the Areopagitica — stand published today in Surius, in the same order in which I have just recounted them here. But, you will ask, in about what year did Hilduin put together the three said Writings, and by name the composition in which he embraced the martyrdom and deeds of Dionysius? The letter by which the emperor Louis commanded that the Acts of that holy martyr be committed to writing was certainly not written before the year 834, as is clear from what was said above; nay rather, since that prince asserts in the said letter (go to his words which I have just recited) that from the restoration of his former authority, which, as has been said, took place in the year 834, up to the time when he ordered the Acts of Dionysius to be written, he had been sustained by the gracious help of this holy martyr, and so intimates that some space of time intervened between the restoration of his authority and the writing of that letter, it was perhaps written not before the year 835. These things being so, and since Hilduin, as he himself sufficiently indicates in the said Reply, number 2, collected and wrote out the Acts of Dionysius immediately after that letter was delivered to him, he certainly composed the work by which he did it not before the year 834, and most probably in the year immediately following it; so that certainly — since nothing persuades us either that it, or the two letters spoken of above, of which Hilduin gave the one to the emperor Louis and the other to all the sons of the catholic Church, had not yet been drawn up in the year 836 — the Areopagitica of this writer were written neither earlier than the year 834 nor later than the year 836, and therefore about the year 835.

[5] And so we have the time at which they came to be put together determined closely enough; [and although therefore, considering the age in which they were drawn up, they are not of great value,] it must now be inquired in what esteem they are to be held, in view either of the age or of the sincerity and good faith of the author. And first indeed, since he, being a writer of the ninth century, as has already been declared, lived more than five hundred years removed from the things which he hands down to memory about Dionysius in them, even if we should set it down that this saint underwent martyrdom no earlier than the beginning of the fourth century, to whom, I ask, could he make them certain and indubitable by his own authority alone? But as regards the sincerity which he used, he is accused of bad faith in citing both ancient monuments and authors by Launoy in the various Opuscula which he wove against the Areopagitica. But although I have indeed no mind either to write an apology for Hilduin or to embrace the opinion by which he makes the Dionysius of Paris the same as the Areopagite, I nevertheless judge it must be discussed here whether the candour or sincerity of that abbot is deservedly shaken by Launoy, because on it depend in part both not a few other matters and above all those things which I have decided to discourse on here beforehand concerning the genesis of the Dionysian Passion written by Hilduin, or the sources from which this composition chiefly flowed; so that, namely, it may become evident what credit each of these, and therefore, these too being considered, the aforesaid Passion and its author, deserve. Launoy, whom others too have followed, in his Judgment on the Areopagitica of Hilduin adduces five different heads, drawn from authors or monuments still extant; in which, since the falsity or bad faith of Hilduin betrays itself most openly, as he contends, he concludes that the sincerity or good faith of this writer wavers likewise in the other things which are drawn from authors or monuments not extant, since a liar is not believed even when he says true things. To observe the order in which they are proposed by Launoy, I begin from the one which is first with him.

[6] their author, however, upon Luke, or the Acts of the Apostles, Hilduin in his Reply to the emperor Louis, number 3, has thus: That he (namely St. Dionysius) was most noble in birth, and was renowned at Athens as distinguished in the teaching of Philosophy, the ancient or present ages have learned by the testimony both of other histories and of the Acts of the Apostles. But Launoy, in his Judgment on the Areopagitica of this writer, number 5, contends that Hilduin here egregiously imposes on Luke, the author of the Acts of the Apostles. He is so minded because in the Acts of the Apostles Luke speaks neither of the birth of Dionysius, nor of the nobility of his birth, nor of a teaching of Philosophy, nay hands down nothing at all from which either the one or both could be lawfully gathered. And indeed in the Acts of the Apostles only these things which concern Dionysius are read, in chapter 17: But certain men, adhering to him (Paul), believed, among whom was also Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them; where certainly in express or distinct words neither Dionysius's birth, nor the nobility of his birth, nor a teaching of Philosophy is mentioned. But does nothing lie hidden in that sacred text either, from which at least Hilduin could have gathered, or deservedly supposed, that both the nobility of birth and the teaching of Philosophy of Dionysius had become known to ancient ages from the Acts of the Apostles? That I certainly would not dare to assert with Launoy. For what if Hilduin judged that from the dignity or title of Areopagite which is attributed to Dionysius by Luke in the said text, both his noble birth and his teaching of Philosophy had been known in ancient ages?

[7] Acts, Certainly, since among the Athenians, as is plain from Isocrates in the Areopagitic Oration, St. Maximus in the Preface to St. Dionysius, Budé on the Pandects, Sigonio on the Republic of the Athenians, and not a few other writers, none were admitted into the number of the Areopagites, or judges of the Areopagus, except those who were at once illustrious both for nobility of birth and for the praise of Wisdom or Philosophy, so

he could not without foundation judge, and seems in fact to have judged. That opinion also stands firm as regards this last point, because Hilduin otherwise could not have shut the mouths of those who — as could have been done without any trouble, the Acts of the Apostles being everywhere at hand — had accused him of lying and imposture from those same Acts, as Launoy afterwards did; and for no reason does it appear likely that an honoured and prudent man, such as Hilduin was, would have exposed his reputation to so manifest a danger. And so the first head of the accusation directed against Hilduin by Launoy vanishes; I now proceed to the two others which immediately follow it. Hilduin, in his Reply to the emperor Louis, number 3, calls the woman named Damaris, converted at Athens by St. Paul the Apostle together with Dionysius the Areopagite, as is related in the Acts of the Apostles chapter 17, the wife of the latter; and since for the opinion on which he does so he cites the Acts of the Apostles and St. Ambrose, Launoy contends that this is done wrongly by him, and hence derives the second and third heads of his accusation against him. But although the Acts of the Apostles nowhere openly declare that Damaris was joined in marriage with Dionysius the Areopagite, Hilduin nevertheless did not lack every reason for judging that this was indicated clearly enough in them, as also that the whole, or entire, household of Dionysius was converted, which Launoy likewise carps at. This will become clearly evident from the things which I shall bring forward when below I treat of the birth and condition of Dionysius the Areopagite.

[8] Now as regards Ambrose, likewise cited by Hilduin in the cause already mentioned, St. Ambrose, Launoy affirms that Damaris is not called by him, contrary to what Hilduin says, the wife of Dionysius the Areopagite in the letter to the people of Vercelli, adding also that that letter is held by many to be of suspect authenticity. But in the Paris edition of the Works of St. Ambrose of the year 1690 it is counted among the genuine letters of this holy prelate of Milan, and there, tome 2, column 1028, number 22, it expressly has: Dionysius the Areopagite believed with Damaris his wife and many others; and the Benedictine monks who saw to that edition observe in the subjoined Annotations that all the editions and very many Mss., except the Roman edition, where "his woman" is found, have or read it so, and they add, a few things intervening, that besides, elsewhere too Damaris is called by Ambrose the wife of Dionysius the Areopagite. What then if, since Damaris is called the wife of Dionysius the Areopagite in many Ms. codices of the Works of St. Ambrose, as they teach, such a codex also lit Hilduin's way? That certainly appears by no means unlikely, just as it is not unlikely that, from the very Acts of the Apostles, as what is to be said below will show, it was in fact judged by that writer both that Damaris was the wife of Dionysius the Areopagite and that the latter was converted with her and his whole household by the Apostle Paul; so that truly the bad faith of Hilduin is no more proved from the second and third heads of the accusation brought by Launoy against him than from the first. Let us now examine whether it is perhaps made out by the fourth.

[9] Hilduin in his Reply to the emperor Louis, number XI, speaks in this manner: the action of Christ the Lord Since it is not written there (in the Passion of St. Dionysius) that he was consecrated bishop by Bl. Clement, but ordained apostle of all Gaul: of which ordination to the Apostolate, were not our intention directed to other things, we could sufficiently bring into these writings an example of authority both from the Acts of the Apostles and from the action of the Lord himself. These words of Hilduin Launoy takes up thus in his Judgment on the Areopagitica, number 8: But neither in the Acts of the Apostles, nor in the Gospels, in which the actions of Christ are contained, is it handed down that the Areopagite was consecrated by Clement Apostle of all Gaul. So indeed the matter stands; what Launoy says here is handed down nowhere either in the Acts of the Apostles or in the Gospel: but what then? Nor does Hilduin assert in the place cited by Launoy that it is handed down in them. For in that place he only intimates that he could bring an example of the ordination by which Dionysius was consecrated Apostle of all Gaul both from the Acts of the Apostles and from the action of the Lord himself; but he does not also affirm that the very ordination by which Dionysius was consecrated Apostle of all Gaul is handed down in these. Are the thing and an example of the thing perhaps the same, so that wherever the latter is handed down or found, the former is also? No one surely would ever have put that into his mind, except one who at the same time believed that two things, of which one is likened to the other, can be one and the same.

[10] and of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical, Launoy therefore did not make out what he wishes against Hilduin from the fourth head of the accusation against him already set out either; but that this is achieved by him at least through the fifth head, which is drawn from the History of Eusebius cited by Hilduin, may indeed seem so at first sight, but not when the matter is weighed more deeply. So that what I say, and what must further be said in this place, may be more clearly understood, I again set out first the words of Hilduin which bear on this. Thus then that writer declares in his Letter to all the sons of the catholic Church, number 2: Finally, every ambiguity being cast aside, what anyone has said to the effect that this very Dionysius, whose deeds are here written, is not the Areopagite and bishop of Athens, as from the supposition of Gregory, bishop of Tours, and the oversight of Bede the holy priest and of any others whatever, is bandied about without authority. Whoever wishes to know this more curiously — to designate by name some out of many — let him search out and reread the History of Eusebius of Caesarea, and the letter of Aristarchus, chronographer of the Greeks, to Onesiphorus the primicerius, and the writing of Visbius. Launoy, having likewise recited these words of Hilduin in his Judgment on the Areopagitica, number 9, presently recounts two texts drawn from the History of Eusebius, book 3, chapter 4, and book 4, chapter 22, in neither of which Dionysius the Areopagite and Dionysius of Paris are held as one and the same; and then concludes that it is found nowhere in the History of Eusebius that Dionysius of Paris is the same as the Areopagite; and surely not undeservedly, since in it, as he had premised, mention of Dionysius the Areopagite occurs in only the two said places. But Hilduin, in the words which I have just transcribed from him here, does not affirm that that is found anywhere in the History of Eusebius.

[11] [from which he does not intend to prove that Dionysius the Areopagite is the same as the Parisian,] For what? When he subjoins these following words, Whoever wishes to know this more curiously … let him search out and reread the History of Eusebius of Caesarea and the … letter of Aristarchus and the writing of Visbius, to some other things set out first, he certainly indeed sends the reader back to the History of Eusebius, and that in order to give him that which he has just premised, and to which therefore this pronoun refers, as proved from it. But what, to which therefore that pronoun refers, has he just premised, or asserted in the preceding words? Is it, as Launoy must have thought, that Dionysius of Paris is the same as the Areopagite? By no means indeed. Come, so that the matter may become clearer, let us weigh a little more accurately the words which contain what he premised. They run thus: Finally, every ambiguity being cast aside, what anyone has said to the effect that this very Dionysius, whose deeds are here written, is not the Areopagite and bishop of Athens, as from the supposition of Gregory, bishop of Tours, and the oversight of Bede the holy priest and of any others whatever, is bandied about without authority; and set out a little more lucidly (for Hilduin speaks somewhat obscurely in them) they yield this sense: Every doubt whether this very Dionysius, whose deeds are here written, is the Areopagite and bishop of Athens being finally cast aside, or, what comes to the same, since every doubt whether this very Dionysius, whose deeds are here written, is the Areopagite and bishop of Athens has finally been cast aside or driven off, whatever anyone has said against the opinion which makes the Dionysius of Paris the same as the Areopagite, whether from the opinion of Gregory of Tours or from the oversight of Bede and of any others whatever, is bandied about without authority.

[12] Two things therefore are asserted in the words of Hilduin of which we speak here: to be the same, the one is that every doubt whether Dionysius of Paris is the Areopagite and bishop of Athens has finally been driven off; the other, that whatever is said against the opinion which makes the Dionysius of Paris the same as the Areopagite, whether from the opinion of Gregory of Tours or from the oversight of Bede and of any others whatever, is bandied about without authority, or without the testimony of an older writer. And the first indeed is not different in substance from that which, as Launoy would have it, is asserted by Hilduin to be found in the History of Eusebius. But since only the latter is immediately premised to the pronoun spoken of above, or to these following words which contain it, Whoever wishes to know this more curiously, … let him search out and reread the History of Eusebius of Caesarea …, both these and that pronoun refer only to that same latter thing; and therefore Hilduin, by the same words — from which it is clear that it is not asserted by him in the place cited above, contrary to what Launoy thought, that the Dionysius of Paris is the same as the Areopagite according to the History of Eusebius — sends his readers back to the Eusebian history solely in order to show them from it that whatever is said against the opinion which makes the Dionysius of Paris the same as the Areopagite, whether from the opinion of Gregory of Tours or from the oversight of Bede and others, is bandied about without authority, or without a foundation that produces belief.

[13] That Hilduin indeed had only this as his purpose in that matter, the History, in citing I show moreover in this manner. There were in this writer's age those who opposed Gregory of Tours and Bede to those who held that Dionysius of Paris is the same as the Areopagite. For since the former was wholly persuaded, as he makes manifest in book 1 of the History of the Franks, chapter 30, that Dionysius first came into Gaul in the time of Decius, or after the year of Christ 250, and the latter committed to writing in his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (go to Hilduin's Reply to the emperor Louis, number 8) that Dionysius the Areopagite was bishop of the Corinthians, they argued both from the opinion of Gregory of Tours and from the said writing or assertion of Bede that the Parisian martyr Dionysius could not be the same as the Areopagite, since certainly Dionysius the Areopagite would not have prolonged his life beyond the beginning of the second century, and Dionysius bishop of the Corinthians would have closed his last day in peace in the very city of Corinth. Hilduin therefore, so as to give it as proved that they did not argue so rightly either from this — which in his Reply to the emperor Louis, number 9, he not undeservedly holds for an error or, as he speaks, an oversight — or from the opinion of Gregory of Tours, sends them back to the History of Eusebius, the letter of Aristarchus to Onesiphorus, and the writing of Visbius; and rightly indeed, since both in the letter of Aristarchus to Onesiphorus and in the History of Eusebius it is expressly handed down that Dionysius the Areopagite was bishop not of the Corinthians but of the Athenians, and he, according to the writing of Visbius, as at least it seemed to Hilduin from what is to be said below, fell as a martyr at Paris under Domitian by various torments.

[14] [wrongly by Launoy, although he sometimes attributes to writers what they do not have,] And so even from the aim alone which Hilduin had set before himself it is clear that the reader is not sent back by that writer, in the place cited, to the History of Eusebius as one in which it is found that the Dionysius of Paris is the same as the Areopagite. And since this is so, and therefore Hilduin does not ascribe to Eusebius what the latter did not assert here, his bad faith no more betrays itself in the last than in any other of Launoy's five heads of accusation against Hilduin which are drawn from authors or monuments still extant. And hence it now follows that Launoy wrongly contends that from these same five heads Hilduin's sincerity or good faith is rendered doubtful and suspect, or even wavers, in the other matters which are drawn from authors or monuments not extant. Hilduin indeed perhaps sometimes ascribes to monuments or their authors, and to other writers praised by him and now not extant, things which they perhaps did not even think of, because, namely, he most firmly judged that they meant to say them, either from the preconceived opinion by which he made the Dionysius of Paris the same as the Areopagite, or from other prejudices which had occupied his mind.

[15] he is accused of bad faith, Thus, because he thought that it was the same thing to have been sent into Gaul by Pope Clement as to be the Areopagite, he makes Fortunatus, in his reply to the emperor Louis, the patron of the opinion which makes the Dionysius of Paris the same as the Areopagite, on the strength of a hymn still surviving which is ascribed by some to Fortunatus of Poitiers (whether rightly or otherwise I shall discuss below in what is to be said of Dionysius of Paris), interpreting the aforesaid hymn of Dionysius the Areopagite, although in it only Dionysius, without the title of Areopagite added, is said to have been sent into Gaul by Pope Clement. But in a similar manner too it is found to have happened from time to time that other writers following have wrongly interpreted the words of earlier writers (go to Pagi in the Critica at the year 884, number 14, and at the year 508, number XI and following), and so have attributed to them things which they had not written; nor for that reason, however, are they accused of bad faith in citing authors or documents, and neither therefore ought Hilduin to be accused. For this it would be required that he could be convicted either of having attributed to authors and monuments things which he knew were neither found nor indicated in them, or of having himself invented the monuments which he praises; but nowhere is anything brought forward from which he may be said to have committed either. The matter will become more lucidly evident from the things which I am now about to say one by one about the authors and monuments cited by him. I make a beginning from the most ancient one which he praises, the little book of the Dionysian Passion, or the Acts of St. Dionysius, since I have decided to treat of these still in the present §.

[16] In his reply to the emperor Louis, number 5, he records thus of Dionysius the Areopagite: nor is this mark to be branded upon him from the most ancient How he carried his own head by angelic guidance, honoured with the service of the heavenly host in the celebration of his obsequies, to the place where he now rests, and in what order he was buried by Catulla, a certain mother of a family, the most ancient little book of his Passion explains; but Launoy, in his Judgment on the Areopagitica of the edition of the year 1660 (which, as I would wish the reader carefully to note here, I shall always use henceforth), page 77, affirms that what is handed down in these words about the carrying of his own head by Dionysius is not read in the most ancient little book of the passion of Dionysius which Hilduin here most expressly praises for that deed; having fallen into this, namely, because he thought that the little book of the Dionysian Passion recensed by François Bosquet according to the faith of five Ms. codices and printed at Paris in the year 1636 in part 2 of the Histories of the Gallican church, page 68 and following, in which nothing is handed down about that carrying of the head, was the same as the little book of the Dionysian Passion which Hilduin praises. But what if the little book of the Dionysian Passion which Hilduin praises is far different from the Dionysian Passion made public by Bosquet?

[17] A Passion of Dionysius, certainly very different from this and beginning with these words, After the blessed and glorious resurrection of our Lord, by which divine Power raised up in three days the true temple of God, destroyed by Jewish impiety, the little book of the Passion of Dionysius is exhibited by three of our Ms. codices, marked O Ms. 19, P Ms. 155 and Q Ms. 6, and besides there exist with us three other copies of it, of which one is noted as taken from a Ms. of Saint-Omer, another from a Ms. of Deutz, and the third finally from a Ms. of Fulda; and this Passion, which we are going to publish from the codex Q Ms. 6 for a reason to be alleged below, or certainly one not much unlike it, I think to be that very one which Hilduin praises in the words just recited and calls the most ancient little book of the Passion of Dionysius. With the said Latin Passion of Dionysius, of which we have so many copies, there agrees at once in substance and in most circumstances the Greek Passion of Dionysius written by Methodius, or rather, as I shall show below, by Metrodorus, and published first by Lanssel and then also by Cordier, together with Lanssel's Latin interpretation added, in tome 2 of the Works of Dionysius the Areopagite in the year 1634. But this very one too probably flowed from that Latin Passion of Dionysius which, as I have said, I think is praised by Hilduin in the place cited, or at least from another which was not much unlike it. What will be said below about the Greek Acts of Dionysius, which likewise lit Hilduin's way, will make this plain; now it must be shown that not the Passion which Bosquet published, but the one I have mentioned, or another not much unlike it, is praised by Hilduin in the place cited.

[18] Since Hilduin, in the five heads of accusation related above, ascribes to authors and monuments cited by him nothing at all which is not read in them, or at least cannot be drawn from them, as I have already shown, is to be branded, and since therefore Launoy wrongly contends from them that all credit is to be denied this writer in any other matters, it seems fair and wholly consonant with reason that, when Hilduin praises some monument in his own support, he should be judged to praise no other, if one is given, than that in which what he attributes to it is found — unless perhaps there is a reason why he should be thought to have used a bad interpretation, of which at number 14 and following. And since this is so, and the carrying by Dionysius of his own cut-off head, which he attributes to the Dionysian Passion praised by him in the place cited, is recorded in the Dionysian Passion of which, as I have already taught, six copies exist with us, but not likewise in the other which Bosquet published, it must be said that not this, but that one, or at least one not much unlike it, is praised by him in that place, where nothing suggests that a wrong interpretation, of which presently, intervenes. Hence further it now follows that Hilduin certainly cannot be accused of bad faith in citing it from the fact that he asserts that that carrying of the head is recorded in the most ancient little book of the Passion of Dionysius.

[19] [and at the same time, through this, what older Dionysian Acts must be credited with having lit Hilduin's way,] But Hilduin (go to his words at number 16) indicates that in the little book of the Passion which he praises there are recounted not only the carrying of the head, but also the angelic guidance by which this was done, and the heavenly host by which Dionysius was honoured at his obsequies; whereas in the Passion which our three codices mentioned above and as many Mss. exhibit, only these things which bear on this are read: To declare the glorious merits of the first Martyr and priest, so that the triumph of his glory might be the more amply evident in him through whom the saving fruit had first begun to spring up, the holy lifeless corpse of the most glorious Dionysius and venerable pontiff raised itself, and with blessed hand began to carry the head, cut off from the body, severed by the lictor's sword, hanging in its arms, and from that summit of the mountain brought it almost two miles with firm steps, by a new and previously unheard-of miracle, that a lifeless body ran in the manner of a living one, and a man already dead walked with firm soles; where, since no mention occurs either of angelic guidance or of a heavenly host, someone perhaps will contend, and indeed, as may seem, with some justice, that the passion spoken of above, from which these words are drawn, is not praised by Hilduin in the place cited above.

[20] lit the way, But although that Passion, as it exists with us in six copies, which partly our three codices recounted above, partly as many other Mss. supply, is most probably not praised by Hilduin in the aforesaid place, nothing however prevents its being believed that it is praised by the aforesaid writer as it was found in other copies which lit his way, and which, although they were different in some circumstances from the six copies existing with us, nevertheless agreed with these both in substance and in the chief circumstances. How true this is will come out still more clearly from what is now to be said. Hilduin, in Surius, in the Passion of Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs written by him, number 32, speaks in this manner about the carrying of his own head by St. Dionysius when already lifeless: To declare the glorious merits of the holy Martyr and first priest of the Gauls (namely Dionysius), so that, where the saving fruit had first begun to spring up, the triumph of his glory might be the more amply evident, the greatest awe seized all who stood by, and an ineffable light shone forth for all; and the corpse of the most blessed Dionysius raised itself, and with holy hand began to carry in its hanging arms the head, severed from the body by the lictor's axe, angelic guidance directing its step and heavenly light shining round about. And a multitude of the heavenly host became the companion of his lifeless body, as it carried its own head from the very mountain where he had been beheaded for almost two miles, up to the place in which he now rests buried by God's disposition and his own choice, praising God without ceasing with sweet-sounding hymns.

[21] Now compare this passage of the Passion written by Hilduin with the passage, transcribed just above, of the Passion which we have, as has been said, expressed in many copies, are owed, and you will recognize that this agrees with that, if not as regards all circumstances, at least as regards the substance and not a few of the very words by which it is set out, in narrating the aforesaid carrying of the head; and you will find that the same holds as regards many other passages of both these Passions, when a comparison of the one with the other has been made, especially from the passage in which Dionysius's coming to Pope Clement is related; so that indeed even from this it is evident that the Passion of Dionysius which I have mentioned is praised by Hilduin in the place cited above, if not as it exists in our six Ms. copies, at least as that writer found it expressed in one or more other copies, which did not differ much from ours as regards substance and chief circumstances. That I should the more readily believe this is also made by another passage of Hilduin, in which that writer, about the ancient Passion which he had to light his way, and which therefore in the place above

cited he praises, speaking in his reply to the emperor Louis, number XI, writes thus: But as for what they say is found written in the Passion of this blessed Dionysius, that St. Clement ordained him bishop and sent him to Gaul, let them know beyond doubt that either they did not receive the aforesaid Passion from true and more correct copies, or read it depraved by the fault of copyists, since it is not written there that he was consecrated bishop by blessed Clement, but that he was ordained Apostle of all Gaul.

[22] In Hilduin's age, therefore, as it is permitted to gather from these words, is probably to be understood, it is shown. there existed different, mutually discordant copies of the Dionysian Passion which that writer used for composing his Areopagitica, of which some indeed, but not likewise others, noted that Dionysius was ordained bishop by St. Clement the Pope; and since of the six copies existing with us of the Dionysian Passion — which, as I have already warned more than once, I think to be the same as the Passion employed by Hilduin and praised in the place cited above, or certainly not very unlike it — two indeed, but not likewise the rest, likewise note or record that very thing, this again is an argument how deservedly I so think, and anyone may so think. In the Passion employed by Hilduin and praised above, it is indeed also handed down, in the words just recited, that Dionysius was ordained Apostle of all Gaul, and this is found nowhere handed down to memory in the Passion of which six copies exist with us; but although the matter stands so, it is nevertheless related in express words in the latter that Dionysius was sent by St. Clement the Pope to the Western regions of Europe, where Gaul too is situated, to preach the Gospel there. What then if Hilduin only committed to writing what he hands down about the Apostolate of Dionysius over all Gaul, recorded in the Passion seen by him, because he judged that this was to be gathered, or at least could be gathered, from the Passion that lit his way, although not expressly noted in it? That indeed is not at all repugnant to all likelihood; but if it be otherwise, and perhaps a copy of the Dionysian Passion lit Hilduin's way which noted the Apostolate of Dionysius over all Gaul in distinct and express words, that copy, from the other things said above, appears most probable, and almost certain, not to have been very different in substance and chief circumstances from the Passion of which we have six transcripts.

§ II. It is set out of what age and credit are the Acts of St. Dionysius already mentioned which lit Hilduin's way, and notice is supplied of two other writers who likewise lit his way, a fragment of one also being transcribed.

[The Dionysian Acts mentioned in the preceding §, which are earlier than Hilduin's] That the older Acts of St. Dionysius mentioned in the preceding § — which, as I taught there, either themselves or others not much unlike them, Hilduin most probably had to light his way — were written when a very long space of time had already elapsed since the martyrdom of Dionysius, their anonymous author himself most clearly betrays, writing thus toward the end, or at number 17 and following: We have presumed to make known to you the course of their (Dionysius's and his fellow martyrs') passion, not from the capacity of our own wit or the industry of our own sense, but what has become plain to us by the report of the faithful of old, and what in part we have learned in certain old little pages, a few things, as we were able, smeared over by a long space of time. For, as we have learned from the conversation of experienced elders, fearing God and burning with the zeal of holy charity, they took pains to set down in sacred charters many things about the glorious contest of the blessed men, to the praise of Christ and the glory of the Martyrs, for the memory of posterity; but, negligence stealing upon them and the envy of the ancient enemy contriving it, they are said to have been consumed by the burning of flames. And so certainly it becomes known in general that the Acts of St. Dionysius, of which these words are part, were written a very long time after the Passion or martyrdom of the same Saint; but cannot the time when this was done be determined more closely too? I find nothing in the Acts themselves by which this may be done; yet I judge that these were composed before the Areopagitica were written by Hilduin, or before the year 835 according to what has been said, and indeed about the middle of the eighth century, or neither long after nor long before this epoch.

[24] Areopagitica, and not long after the century, Why this opinion holds, I set out. And first indeed, besides being far simpler than Hilduin's Areopagitica, as will become evident to one comparing these with those — whence some Acts are commonly judged to excel others in age — and more condensed, they nowhere attribute to Dionysius the title of Areopagite, contrary to what Hilduin's Areopagitica and all the other Acts later than these do. Moreover, Hilduin most probably used these same, or certainly ones not much unlike them, for weaving together his Areopagitica, as I have taught above. These things being so, it appears all but certain that they were composed before these, or before the year 835. Here now is why I think this was done about the middle of the eighth century, or neither long before nor long after this epoch. In the year 754 Pope Stephen II came from Rome into Gaul, and when there, in the monastery of Saint-Denis where he was lodging, he had fallen into so grave an illness that his recovery was despaired of by all, and even by the physicians themselves, he was prodigiously restored to his former health by St. Dionysius appearing to him; and when he had afterwards returned to Rome, he began to build there, in honour of his holy Saviour, a monastery, which afterwards Paul I, his brother, who had meanwhile succeeded in the place of the deceased, brought to completion, and gave to Greek monks to inhabit, as the former had prescribed before his death, namely so that a house sacred to St. Dionysius, a Greek by nation, as was thought, might also obtain Greek ministers or occupants.

[25] Thus, roughly as to substance, Hilduin in Surius hands down to memory immediately after the letter in which Pope Stephen testified that his health had been prodigiously restored to him by Dionysius. [in which the opinion that makes the Dionysius of Paris the same as the Areopagite] Launoy, indeed, in chapter 18 of the Discussion in which he refuted the Response given to the Dissertation on the two Dionysiuses, contends both that no monastery was begun at Rome by Pope Stephen in honour of St. Dionysius, and that no Greek monks were set in it by his successor Paul for the end which I have mentioned; but it appears not at all improbable that at least a church was begun at Rome by Pope Stephen in honour of St. Dionysius, and that a monastery, afterwards joined to it, was given to Greek monks for the end which I have mentioned. However this matter stands meanwhile — on which the discussion will return below, when I treat of the miracles wrought by Dionysius of Paris — it can seem likely, even from this, that some who held that St. Dionysius of Paris was a Greek or Athenian and the same as the Areopagite existed already from the age of Stephen II and Paul I, or about the middle of the eighth century: that the latter of those Pontiffs (go to Pagi in the Critica at the year 758) added the works which are circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite to the books sent by him in that year to Pippin, king of the Franks, and seems to have done so for this reason, that he judged he would thus do a thing pleasing to some Gauls, inasmuch as he knew their Author, or Dionysius the Areopagite, was held by them to be the bishop of Paris and their Apostle; as afterwards likewise Michael the Stammerer, emperor of the East, who in the year 827 sent the same Works, marked with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, to the emperor Louis the Pious, seems to have judged on the same ground.

[26] Moreover Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, who is said to have been born about the year 806, first arose, in his youth, as he himself testifies in his letter to Charles the Bald, subjoined in Surius to the Areopagitica of Hilduin, copied onto new parchment from very worn little quires the Life of Bl. Sanctinus, which makes St. Dionysius the Areopagite the same as the Parisian; and although parchments or papers can, from the humidity or some other corrosive quality of the place in which they are kept, be almost wholly eaten away, or so effaced that they become very difficult to read, in a space even much shorter than seven hundred or six hundred years — and therefore Chifflet, On the One Dionysius, page 77, wrongly attributes so great an antiquity to the said little quires because they were almost effaced and eaten away — yet it appears sufficiently likely for that reason that these, when they were copied by Hincmar onto new parchment, or about the year 825, bore an age of at least fifty or even sixty years. And since this is so, it follows that the opinion which makes Dionysius the Areopagite the same as the Parisian most probably began to obtain already from about the middle of the eighth century, which I intended to prove here first.

[27] about the middle of the eighth, But to come now to what is the main point, I judge that the Dionysian Acts, into whose age we must inquire here, were committed to writing at the same time too, or from the very beginning when that opinion arose, or certainly not long after: both because their anonymous author follows that same opinion, and because, in the manner of those who first embrace a new opinion which they know to be doubtful and open to controversy, he seems to do so only somewhat timidly. For although he hands down to memory that St. Dionysius, whom he relates to have been sent by Pope Clement to announce the Gospel to the Gauls, was converted to the Christian faith at Athens by St. Paul the Apostle, he nowhere openly distinguishes him with the title of Areopagite; which, however, other writers, in the middle of the eighth century, such as the anonymous author of the Acts of St. Sanctinus, mentioned above, seems to have been, and not much later either, did not hesitate to do. And so we now have that the Acts, the epoch of whose writing we are investigating, were probably woven together not long after the middle of the eighth century.

[28] nor do they seem to have been written long before either. But that they were probably not written long before the same time either appears even from this, that they record that St. Dionysius, bishop of Paris and martyr, was converted to the faith at Athens by St. Paul the Apostle, and yet this is found handed down to memory in no other writing which was certainly composed even only a short time before the middle of the eighth century. Moreover, the Passion of St. Dionysius, bishop of Paris, and his fellow Martyrs, which Bosquet published in the year 1636 in part 2 of the Histories of the Gallican church, seems to have been written when the seventh century was growing old, or even only when the eighth was a little advanced, as I shall teach below in the Commentary prefixed to that composition; and that the Acts falsely attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, the epoch of whose writing is to be determined here, flowed from that Passion, much more condensed than these, nay are only a sort of paraphrase of it, not a few phrases and sentences, conceived in almost the same words in both those compositions, show. And since this is so, the Dionysian Acts falsely attributed to the Areopagite, whose age we have investigated here, as

not long after, so also not long before the middle of the eighth century were drawn up, appears sufficiently likely from all that has already been said.

[29] Hence, from their age, they gain little credit for themselves. Further, to come now to the credit which those Acts deserve, this indeed is in general very slight in the things they record about Dionysius, as is clear even from this: that since they were written no earlier than about the middle of the eighth century, as has been said, and Dionysius the Areopagite underwent death for Christ about the year 120, their anonymous author did not flourish before more than six centuries had elapsed since the latter's martyrdom; and the credit or authority of this author, and therefore of these Acts, is particularly lowered also by the reasoning by which alone, as appears, he was induced to make St. Dionysius, bishop of Paris, the same as the St. Dionysius who was converted to the Christian faith at Athens by St. Paul the Apostle. Let us set out this last point a little more clearly. From the Acts published by Bosquet, which, as I have already warned, he had before his eyes, he had brought himself to believe that St. Dionysius of Paris was sent into Gaul by St. Clement the Pope (for in them it appears that one must read not, with Bosquet, Who, as they say, by the successors of the Apostles, but, as I shall show below, Who, St. Clement, successor of Peter the Apostle, handing him the commission); and since he had found out from elsewhere that St. Dionysius, who was converted at Athens by St. Paul the Apostle, flourished at the time when St. Clement occupied the chair of St. Peter at Rome, he concluded from this without hesitation, even committing the matter to writing, that this latter Dionysius was one and the same with the Dionysius sent into Gaul, as he thought, by Pope Clement. But how absurd and faulty this method of arguing is, everyone will perceive who has considered that at the time when Clement sat at Rome not one only, but many Dionysiuses, distinct from the Dionysius converted at Athens, could flourish and be sent into Gaul by that successor of St. Peter. Other things besides could be adduced in this place for diminishing the credit and authority of the same anonymous author, or of the Acts written by him; but I think it has already been sufficiently proved how slight this is, and therefore, leaving these aside, I turn the discussion now to two other monuments, also employed by Hilduin, as he himself testifies in his Reply to the emperor Louis, for composing the Passion of St. Dionysius.

[30] The one is the Letter of Aristarchus, chronographer of the Greeks, to Onesiphorus the primicerius; Two, notice of which is given here, the other, the writing of Visbius. Both seem to be fabricated. I shall prove the matter below; now I set out how I think it was done. The opinion which confuses St. Dionysius the Areopagite with the Parisian growing stronger and stronger after the middle of the eighth century among the Gauls, and chiefly, as appears, among the monks of this nation, there were found in the lapse of time persons who, since they supposed that their Dionysius had fallen for the faith by various torments, having wrought a signal miracle even after death, and had come to Rome, leaving the Athenian episcopate, and yet did not see recorded either in the Acts published by Bosquet or in the others into the epoch of whose writing we have already inquired in what manner this was done, and what and of what kind those torments and that miracle were, judged that this defect, as they thought, of those Acts must be supplied. To this end, thinking that they need not spare even fictions in order to strengthen more the opinion which they had deeply imbibed about their Dionysius, at once Areopagite and Parisian, and about some other things concerning him, they fabricated various documents leading to that end under the false names of writers. Among these a letter written in Greek and, so that the fraud might be more easily covered, attributed by a Gallic writer to Aristarchus, Chronographer of the Greeks, in which he narrated in order to Onesiphorus the primicerius, who had inquired about it, besides some other things, the birth, learning, manner of life and preaching of Dionysius the Areopagite, and his coming to Rome after a bishop had been substituted for him at Athens, holds by no means the lowest place; as neither does the writing of Visbius, in which he explained both the signal miracle after the death of Dionysius and all the torments endured by him before, of which he is also feigned to have been an eyewitness.

[31] Further, Launoy indicates in more than one place in his Judgment on the Areopagitica of Hilduin that he suspects that both these documents, wholly fictitious according to what is to be said, other documents, though fictitious according to what is to be said, were fabricated by Hilduin himself, or at least falsely cited by him as existing, though they existed nowhere. But this suspicion of his does not seem fair; for since, as I shall teach below, the entire writing of Visbius, as also a not small fragment of the letter of Aristarchus to Onesiphorus, is found even today, it appears most probable, nay all but indubitable, that these two fictitious documents were found already from the age of Hilduin, who praises them; and that they were not fabricated by Hilduin himself you may rightly argue even from this, that he affirms in his Reply to the emperor Louis that the letter of Aristarchus was drawn by him from Greek sources, and that the writing of Visbius was found in a volume quite thoroughly hidden away; and in this matter that writer, as one who is not convicted of bad faith in citing monuments and writers, as I showed above, cannot deservedly be accused of lying or fraud. Indeed, to bring out my opinion still more openly, so far am I from holding Hilduin suspect of guile or lying here, that on the contrary I suppose him to have been deceived by the arts of others.

[32] Hilduin, deceived by the art of impostors, held as genuine, Learn how the thing could have been done, and probably was done. Hilduin asserts in his Reply to the emperor Louis, number 7, that all the monuments, and therefore by name also the two fictitious ones mentioned above, which he used for weaving together the Passion of St. Dionysius, were found by him hidden away and negligently left. Hence further it is permitted to suspect, nay even, as it certainly appears to me, to think, that the impostors who had fabricated those monuments, mixing them with other genuine monuments transcribed by themselves, laid them aside in certain hidden places — which, however, they knew would both be searched from time to time and would give an appearance of antiquity, even within a short space of time, to paper or parchment documents shut up in them — with this sole design, that after they were found they might add the weight of their supposed antiquity to the opinion, then growing strong, about one Dionysius, at once Areopagite and Parisian, and about some other things concerning him, for the strengthening of which they had been fabricated; and that so it came about that, when afterwards, as the impostors had foreseen, and perhaps even taken care should happen, they had in fact been discovered and handed over to Hilduin, they easily deceived this writer, already too inclined beforehand, from prejudices conceived in his mind, to the opinion which makes St. Dionysius the Areopagite the same as the Parisian and maintains some other things about him, by the appearance of antiquity which they displayed, and were praised by him no otherwise than genuine and sincere monuments, and employed for weaving together the Passion of Dionysius. But, someone will perhaps now inquire, how do you prove that those two monuments which, as has been said, Hilduin held as genuine, are spurious and fictitious? So that I may do this more conveniently, it is expedient to treat of both separately. I begin from the letter of Aristarchus to Onesiphorus, since it is mentioned by Hilduin before the writing of Visbius.

[33] and one of these, namely the letter of Aristarchus, a Fragment of which, In our codex Q Ms. 6, and likewise in our manuscript which is noted as taken from a codex of Saint-Omer, there is a sermon, recited on the feast of Sts. Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius to the monks of Saint-Denis in France, as appears, by a monk likewise, as appears, of Saint-Denis; and the Sermon contains the Fragment, already mentioned by me above, of the Letter of which we speak here, woven into it by its author or sacred preacher, though indeed very ineptly. This, which has not yet been published in print and yet, even when read, betrays to the reader that it is spurious and fictitious, I transcribe here entire beforehand, if only for this reason, being about to adduce in the following § some things which render this more evident, after I have also set out first in the present one some things about that letter as employed by Hilduin. In the codex Q Ms. 6, then, it is expressed in these words: In the name of God, Eugyppius Aristarchus to Onesiphorus the primicerius, greeting. We have received the letters of your charity, Anatolius bringing them, in which it is read inserted that, so far as I should remember from my own memory or from the ancient tradition of those of old, I should take care with literary zeal to write back to you about the various dogmas or the variety of sects of the Athenians, or about the site or composition of the city of Athens; and among other things we found in your writings that I should touch upon for you in brief style the things which were done in the city of the Athenians itself in the times of the Apostles. How they resisted the Apostle Paul when he came there, through vain philosophies and deceitful contrivances of things.

[34] Nay further you have sought from us that I should express to you clearly, concerning Symmachus and Apollinaris the Chronopagite, and also concerning Dionysius the Areopagite, who as hearers of the Apostle Paul were renowned at Athens in his times, what I knew of them, or of what lineage of the Athenians and from what stock they sprang: which, according to the weakness of our wit, through the tradition of antiquity in times gone by, as we have been able to hear, we have sent to you through Anatolius, your son and letter-bearer. Athens is a city situated on the border of Thrace and the Lacedaemonians, of the city of Athens mountainous in the lie of its lands, shut in by the jaws of the Ionian sea, touching the Aegean sea on the left side; a renowned and ancient city, opulent in the fertility of its lands, nurse of speech and eloquence, mother of philosophers and wise men, it excelled other cities in the opulence of various arts and riches. It is situated in the province of Attica, where Cecrops and Menander were renowned as kings of nations, where Apollo and Hippocrates and Aristotle were born, who in those very times shone with the flowers of wisdom in the whole world. In this city especially, in the time of the kings Cecrops and Menander, the worship of images and the superstitious religion of idols, first found, shone forth. For it is described as divided into five regions.

[35] The first region is that which looks toward the Aegean sea, a mountain overtopping the city, where golden images of Saturn and Priapus were worshipped with various delusions; and the description of its five regions, which region the Greeks call Chronopagus, Saturn. The second region of Athens is that which looks toward Thrace, where there was a Terebinth of wonderful size, and where the image of Faunus, a rustic man, was worshipped by shepherds on appointed days. The third region of the city of Athens is that which looks toward the harbour of Neptune, where the image of Diana and of Aegean Neptune was worshipped; which place they call Possedonpagus; for the Greeks call Neptune Possedon. The fourth region of the Athenian city is where the idol of Mars and the image of Hercules were worshipped, which is on the hill of Tritonia, a mountain placed in the middle of the city, where a concourse of the whole city came, at the new moon, namely to worship Mars and Hercules, whom they adored as the strongest gods; which place the Greeks call Areopagus*

. For Aris in Greek is called Mars in Latin. The fifth region of the Athenian city is that which looks toward the Scaean gate, where the idol and image of Mercury was placed; which place is named Ermipagus; for Mercury is called Ermis in Greek.

[36] This city, in the opulence of sea and land, of woods and mountains, of rivers and green places, flourished as the most noble beyond the other cities of Greece; and the conversion there to Christ, by St. Paul, of a certain Apollo, and she which was then preferred to the other cities, is now oppressed, cut off and brought low by the onslaught of the nations. Apollo was so called, being derived from the lineage of a certain Apollo, a most noble prince of the Athenians, whose father Nicolaus, a man of great wit, strong in the study of letters, was a citizen and renowned master of the Argolic art; whose son Apollo, while he was held distinguished among the schools of the philosophers and was turning over authentic libraries, while he was given to philosophy and to vain superstitions according to the rite of the pagans, heard the Apostle Paul preaching new and previously unheard-of dogmas; and since he was not able to resist him, he found that the doctrine which Paul taught among the Athenians was true. Leaving the vain superstitions of the nations, prostrate at the feet of the Apostle, he besought him to show him the true doctrine and the way of salvation, and declared himself a disciple of Christ, not of Saturn.

[37] and of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, after he had first These things having been so done, when on a certain day Paul had come to the Areopagus, he began to question blessed Dionysius what he worshipped, or to what divinities he did service in so spacious and venerable a place; to whom Dionysius said: The gods whom our fathers worshipped, by whose power and skill mother earth is held together, these we worship and adore; the altars which thou seest are consecrated in the name and honour of Mars and Hercules, Mercury and Priapus. But when Paul had surveyed each of the altars and images of the false gods, among the other altars he found one altar on which there was a title written above, To the Unknown ; and Paul, turning to them, asked them: Who is that unknown God? To whom Dionysius answered among the others: Because that God has not yet been shown among the gods, but is unknown to us and is to be in the age to come, and he is the God who is to reign in heaven and on earth, and his kingdom shall have no end.*

[38] had a conversation with the Apostle, Paul, questioning them, said: What does it seem to you? Will he be a man, or a spirit of the gods? Answering, they said that he is both true God and true man, and he is to renew the world, but is as yet unknown to men, because his conversation is with God in heaven. Paul said: That God I preach to you whom you have held unknown until now. He was born of a virgin, he sits at the right hand of the Father, true God, true man, through whom all things were made. God is known in Judea, and great in Israel and holy is his name; him whom you have held unknown until now, now know, because he is the only God, and besides him there is no other god, who has brought us back from death to life, who has joined heaven and earth, men and angels, in the unity of his kingdom, who makes alive and puts to death, who shuts and no man opens, who opens and no man shuts.

[39] and the miracle wrought by him While Paul was preaching these and very many other things, as he preached through each of the temples that Christ is the Son of God, Dionysius, hearing the true doctrine and the dogma of salvation, and recognizing that the idols which he served were nothing, and were demons rather than gods, evidently perceiving the Holy Spirit and the words of life in Paul's doctrine, urged on by divine grace, turning to Paul asked of him that he would beseech the divine mercy for him and that he might merit to be his disciple. And when on another day Paul was making a journey, a certain blind man, deprived of the light of his eyes, asked to be healed by Paul's power.

[40] by him a miracle Presently therefore the holy Apostle, made an imitator of Jesus his Lord and Master, placed his cross upon the long-closed eyes, saying: Christ, namely our Lord and Master, who put clay on the eyes of the man born blind and he merited to receive light at once, may he himself by his power restore light to thy eyes. In wonderful manner he who was born without light merited to receive light, and at once he addressed him with these words, saying: Go to Dionysius and tell him that Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ, has sent me to thee, that, mindful of thy promise, thou be not slow to come to him, and that, receiving the Baptism of salvation, thou mayest be absolved from all the bonds of sins. At once he who had received light fulfilled with the foot of obedience the words of him who commanded, and hastening to Dionysius announced to him in order the words of Paul.

[40] But Dionysius, already chosen of the lord, when he looked upon the blind man blinking with steady sight, having seen, setting forth the conversion, addressed him with these words, saying: Art thou he whom all the neighbours had known as one born blind? To whom he answered: I am indeed he who was born blind, and until now the light of the present life was denied me; but Paul himself, who has bidden thee come to him, invoking the power of Jesus Christ his Master, has granted me the light of health. Who at once, rising, hastens to the admonitions of blessed Paul who sent for him. Why should I delay longer? Immediately he believed, and sprinkled with the wave of sacred Baptism, the errors of the pagans being renounced, he gave himself over to his teachings to be instructed, and then, at Paul's bidding, preached the Gospel of Christ.

[41] Now compare this Fragment of the letter of Aristarchus with the Passion of Dionysius written by Hilduin, he employed for writing the things indicated here. and you will see that what occurs in the latter from number 2 (for what it has at number 1 seems to be taken from the Acts into whose age and value we have already inquired) up to number 9 is almost only a paraphrase of the same Fragment; so that indeed, since Hilduin, in his Reply to the emperor Louis, number 3, counts the letter of Aristarchus among the documents employed by himself for composing that Passion, it does not seem to be doubted that he drew from it whatever he hands down to memory in that place, that is, in the aforesaid Passion from number 2 up to number 9, about the site of the Athenian city, and the lineage, conversion and preaching of Dionysius; and since the things which he records in the same Passion from number 9 up to number 18 about the learning of Dionysius, his manner of life, age, ordination, and his coming to Rome after a bishop had been substituted for him at Athens, were also handed down, as Hilduin testifies in his Reply to the emperor Louis, number 3, in the aforesaid letter of Aristarchus, it does not likewise seem to be doubted that he drew all those things chiefly from it (for the Greek Acts, which I shall mention below, were probably also of use, according to what is to be said). And so I have now sufficiently taught, as I had intended, how much and where Hilduin employed the letter of Aristarchus; we are now to see that it is fictitious and spurious.

* Hilduin: of the Tritonian mount, placed in the middle of the city.

* Hilduin: to the unknown God.

§ III. It is shown that the letter of Aristarchus, as also the writing of Visbius, which is recited, is fictitious; and it is set out from what other Latin sources Hilduin drew besides.

[The letter of Aristarchus, from the author to whom it is attributed, from the time at which it was written,] The things which are supplied at the beginning of the Fragment just recited (go to number 33) most openly betray that the letter of Aristarchus was written from the ancient tradition of those of old, or, as is read in the same place at the following number, from the tradition of antiquity through times gone by. And since this is so, it must be that this chronographer of the Greeks, as Hilduin notes, to whom it is attributed, flourished only long after the age of Dionysius the Areopagite, of whom he treats, and probably indeed not before some centuries too had elapsed after it. But since absolutely no chronographer or even historian of that name, who was then alive, much less one who mentioned Dionysius, is recorded among writers, even on this ground the suspicion arises that Aristarchus, or Eugyppius Aristarchus, the chronographer who wrote the letter which we here mention, was born from the brain of an impostor alone, and that the letter therefore is spurious and fictitious. Further, this suspicion is increased by the very time at which it was written, or rather fabricated. For since this, from what has been said, is probably even some centuries later than the age of Dionysius the Areopagite, nothing at all prevents its being believed to be removed as far as the epoch assigned by me above, or as far as the middle of the eighth century, after which, together with the opinion which makes the Dionysius of Paris the same as the Areopagite, there also arose persons who, in order to confirm it and make it more probable, judged that nothing should be left untried, so that they can not undeservedly be judged to have indulged even in fictions in order to attain this end of theirs.

[43] and from the place in which it was found, it is concluded to be fictitious, Moreover, that letter, if it were genuine, would have been written by Aristarchus not only in Greek, but also, as appears, both in Greece and to a Greek man living in the parts of the Eastern church. But if this is so, how did it come about that it was found, not in Greece or the Eastern church, but in the Dionysian monastery of France, and indeed only in very hidden volumes of it, in the age of Hilduin, as this writer himself testifies in his Reply to the emperor Louis, and in other letters to all the sons of the Catholic Church? That indeed, if it had been both written in Greece by a Greek man and sent to a Greek man too, seems not likely to have easily happened; and therefore no slight weight accrues from this to the opinion by which, as I indicated above, I bring myself to think that it was fabricated in Gaul under the false name of Aristarchus by a Gallic impostor skilled in the Greek language, by whom it was also concealed in a hidden place with this design, that, found afterwards and held as an ancient monument, it might win belief for the things which he himself by this art wished to be believed about Dionysius, and chiefly indeed that he came from Athens to Rome. Further, in order to prove the same letter of Aristarchus spurious and fictitious, I could bring forward still other arguments, and one in particular drawn from Symmachus and Apollinaris the Chronopagite, known to absolutely no other writers, whether Greek or Latin, and yet, according to it, converted to the faith of Christ at Athens by Paul the Apostle, and indeed before Dionysius the Areopagite; but since those already brought forward settle the matter sufficiently, as appears, I now proceed to the writing of Visbius.

[44] And this first, although already made public by Morin, On Sacred Ordinations, part 2, chapter 4, number 4, nor the writing of Visbius, I transcribe here beforehand entire from our Ms., which differs somewhat from Morin's edition, and which is noted as taken from an old codex, without, however, any more distinct notice of it being added; both because it is not very prolix,

and because thus, when it has to be consulted for the cause or on the occasion of things to be said, it will be ready to hand for the reader. That writing therefore, which you might perhaps not ineptly call a profession of faith or a declaration of last will, runs thus: Wherefore I, Visbius, son of Lisbius, , Christ Jesus, whom Dionysius the Ionian, who is called Macarius, preached to us, to be God, conceived of the Holy Spirit from the worthy Mary, who was never otherwise than a virgin; and a man born without any stain, and who suffered and died for the salvation of men; who rose again, and sitting in heaven at the right hand of his Father, who is God likewise living, is in every place, until he shall come to judgment, when that kingdom shall begin which has no end. I give to him and to thee, his good Minister, Masso the priest, schopos, all my postliminium, with that which is in the Urbanium of this.*

[45] I renounce those things, because Dionysius Macarius bought from my father for making a baptismal house, which, entire, because he said that God Jesus was born in a hired place, and with its price a burial of captives was bought; and there remained to me from my mother Larcia, who betrayed my father, made a Christian by Macarius Dionysius, to Fescenninus Sisinnius; and after excessive tortures, scaffolds, and chains, and files of three soldiers, and beasts made tame, and ovens extinguished, when she saw in the prison of Glaucinus Macarius Dionysius celebrating the Lord's mysteries, a light, such as man has not seen, over all who believed through him; that in the breaking of bread the Lord Jesus with a multitude of those in white had given it to him, and that she heard him saying: Take, dear one, this gift, which I shall soon fulfil for thee together with my Father, because thy reward is very great with me, and salvation in my kingdom for all who shall hear thee. Now thou shalt act bravely, and thy memory shall be in praise; and the love and kindness which thou hast shall always obtain for whomsoever it shall ask. And so when, his neck being cut, she had seen him carrying his head with great light, she cried out that she was a Christian, and was slain. For I, led to Rome, Domitian being his pilatus , served as a soldier through three Caesars.*

[46] Now because thou promisest me, if I forsake these things and serve as a soldier for God Jesus with Dionysius Macarius, is transcribed here, as a production of better note, and with the justified Rusticus and Eleutherius, and my father and mother, and all who have died loving Jesus, that kingdom from him where I must not die, but always have glory, and to see the kings for whom I served as a soldier in torments with those who do not believe: so I believe the whole, and hand over all my goods for the sustenance of those who so believe, and I make myself a stranger to this world, and hand myself over to God Jesus, and give my name at the baptismal font. I, Visbius, believe Jesus Christ with the Father and the Holy Spirit to be one God, and I cast off the world and the will of the devil. Morin, who had said by way of preface that he had found this writing, or narrative, of Visbius which, as I have said, he published, in a Sacramentary received from the most illustrious man Vion, lord of Hérouval, and either of equal age with Hilduin or even older, at once subjoins to it, after transcribing it entire: Behold the most limpid spring from which Hilduin derives the streamlets of his history! Behold that treasure hidden through past ages, which was at length revealed by divine assent to Hilduin (see his words bearing on this in his Reply to the emperor Louis, number 5) as he searched most diligently!

[47] [it is evident from the style, by no means fitting the time at which it was written, to be a spurious offspring;] Thus namely that writer, with an irony continued in still other words which he presently subjoins and which for brevity's sake I omit, plants a sting in the writing of Visbius, and at the same time mocks Hilduin for admitting it as a legitimate offspring; and surely not undeservedly. For since Visbius plainly hands down in his narrative, already transcribed here, that he was led to Rome after Sts. Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs had been killed for the faith under Domitian, and that there he served as a soldier under three emperors, the next successors of Domitian evespillatus, that is, carried out by the corpse-bearers, or dead, it is necessary that he flourished partly as the 1st century was growing old, partly as the 2nd was beginning. But who would bring himself to believe that a writer who lived so little removed from the age of Augustus would have used a style, as he does, so barbarous, so rough, so foreign to all pure Latinity? Surely, whoever has done this will find nothing at all in the Latin tongue so formless, so childish, so gaping, so full of faults, as he would easily believe to have been written even in the first century of the Christian era. And so, even if some other things are omitted which I brought forward above against the Epistle of Aristarchus, and most of which show, as that, so also the Writing of Visbius to be spurious and fictitious, it is abundantly clear that this is certainly such even from the style alone of the masked author, which, since it by no means agrees, according to what has been said, with the age in which he pretends to have lived, most clearly betrays that it was committed to writing long after the first century.

[48] and that spurious composition nevertheless, certainly before the year, And I taught above that that spurious offspring, together with a birth of not very unlike bran, was born by the fraud of an impostor, whether one or more, only then for the first time when the eighth century had already elapsed in its middle part, for this reason, that some at that time are believed to have devoted their efforts to devising fables and furnishing fictitious writings, in order at length one day to win belief for things previously unheard of which they longed to be believed about their Dionysius. But since, for assigning that epoch to the narrative of Visbius, there militates besides some particular reason, which does not serve for defining the age of the letter of Aristarchus, I wish to show this too to the reader here. Visbius, or the fabulist who imposed on himself the name of Visbius, at the beginning of his fictitious writing calls Dionysius Ionian; and although today only those who were born in Ionia, a region of Asia Minor, are called Iones or Ionians, the Athenians nevertheless, before they derived this their name from Minerva, in Greek Ἀθηνὴ, were called Iones or Ionians, as Stephanus witnesses in On Cities under the word Ionia; and the same were once Athenians and Iones, as Strabo hands down to memory in book 14. What then if the writer falsely assuming the name of Visbius had learned this, and, in order to designate Dionysius, the bishop and martyr of the Parisians of whom he treats, as having been an Athenian, called him Ionian by the antiquated name of the Athenians? That indeed this was done by him for that end alone — since no better one can be assigned, and it is nowhere found handed down to memory that Dionysius, bishop of Paris, was born in Ionia, a region of Asia Minor — appears very likely, nay all but indubitable.

[49] Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and no writer is found [as is proved here, not fabricated before 750, Hilduin held as a legitimate offspring,] who before the eighth century, already elapsed in its middle part, made Dionysius, bishop and martyr of Paris, an Athenian by birth, it follows that, just as I have already decided above, and indeed, as appears, not undeservedly, that the Acts to be published, which hand down that the same Dionysius was converted at Athens by St. Paul the apostle, were probably not composed before the middle of the eighth century, since this is handed down to memory by no writer of an earlier time, so also for the same reason I may not undeservedly here decide that the narrative of Visbius was probably got up, or rather fabricated, no earlier, and indeed not except after the Acts of St. Dionysius which we shall publish — which is also to be understood of the Epistle of Aristarchus (go to number 30) — which therefore I have now in fact decided. But this spurious and invented monument, although so late after the age of Dionysius basely and fraudulently fabricated by an impostor who did not blush to feign himself a contemporary of Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs, Hilduin held as a genuine and legitimate offspring of a writer of the best credit, and also employed for weaving together the Passion of Dionysius, as he makes plain in his Reply to the emperor Louis, number 5; and to prove that he deservedly did so, he says that the ancient Missal books agree with the Writing of Visbius, or, if you prefer, two Masses of Sts. Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs contained in them, which he decides were composed already from a time near to their Passion.

[50] Thus namely he thought it should be done, because they had been ordered according to the ancient rite in Gaul, and the same, together with the two ancient Masses which he praises, customarily used there for several centuries, the Roman rite not yet having been introduced there; and that ancient rite, as he contends in his Reply to the emperor Louis, presently again to be praised, number 6, from the letters of Innocent I, Gelasius I, and finally also of Gregory I, who died in the year 604, Roman Pontiffs, to the prelates of Gaul about abrogating the old order of Masses in Gaul and introducing the Roman, and from the latter's answers to these, had been abrogated long before his own age, or had ceased to be employed among the Gauls, already from at least the sixth century or the beginning of the following. But let us grant for the moment that the two Masses of Sts. Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs praised by Hilduin were as ancient as this writer would have them, nay were composed immediately after their martyrdom; how, I ask, even this being granted, could they greatly agree with the Writing of Visbius? Among other things which it contains there occur the apparition of Christ the Lord offered to Dionysius in prison a little before his martyrdom, and at the same time the signal miracle by which, after this, that Saint carried with his own hands his cut-off head. Are these perhaps, and other things which the Writing of Visbius likewise supplies, and which, if they were true, would to some extent commend it, also recorded in the two ancient Masses praised by Hilduin? This writer indeed seems at first to intimate it in the place cited above; but what he subjoins afterwards, and indeed presently, shows the contrary.

[51] Hear how he speaks in the same place. In which volumes, he says, although these, in the things which are proposed here, do not (namely the ancient Gallican Missals) there are two Masses which, during the celebration, in order to call forth the clemency of the divine Compassion and to stir up the hearts of the people to zeal of devotion, briefly record the torments of the Martyr (Dionysius) and his Companions, just as the other Masses written there of other apostles or martyrs, whose Passions are extant, also most notably chant them. The chant, sense and words of which Masses seem so to agree with the course of their passion which we have sent you, that it is doubtful to no one that their contests were described by a witness of their martyrdom, and that from the truthful history itself the memory of their torments was committed to the aforesaid prayers. Thus here Hilduin sets out clearly enough what the two ancient Masses praised by him supplied about Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs: and since

this is so, and he only asserts that these briefly recorded the torments with which those Saints were afflicted, and makes no mention of any other thing as one which they likewise recorded about the same Saints, he declares even by his silence alone that those same two Masses did not also record other things, and by name the things which are narrated in the Writing, or rather the fiction, of Visbius about the apparition of Christ the Lord offered to Dionysius in prison and about the head carried by him after martyrdom. And indeed, although sometimes in the ancient Gallican Masses even the entire Acts of the Martyrs were recited, and therefore not only the torments which they had suffered but all the other things concerning them too, this was nevertheless very rare; and generally in the Masses of Martyrs, as you will easily find from the three ancient Missals published by Mabillon in On the Gallican Liturgy, book 3, almost only the torments endured by them were recorded, and that indeed expressed only in general locutions or phrases, which determined neither the arena, nor the day, nor the year of the martyrdom.

[52] not even in the very torments with which Dionysius was afflicted, All things therefore being carefully weighed, it appears sufficiently certain that the two ancient Gallican Masses which Hilduin praises could agree with the narrative of Visbius only in the torments with which it notes that Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs were afflicted. But not even in that matter, much less in the other things which are also narrated in the Writing of Visbius, could they agree with it or add great weight to it, if they were not of so great antiquity as we have for the moment granted Hilduin they were; and that it is deservedly to be doubted whether they were truly of so great antiquity, I now show, so that what I have already said may also become clear. The ancient Gallican Liturgy, or the ancient rite or order of celebrating mass, first ceased to be used in Gaul, as is now admitted by all, under the rule of Charlemagne, the Roman liturgy having been substituted for it as the eighth century was growing old; and hence it follows that it was certainly not abrogated in that kingdom so long before Hilduin's age as he decides, and therefore that either that writer wrongly gathered what could not be gathered from the letters of the three Roman Pontiffs mentioned above, namely Innocent, Gelasius, and Gregory, later than both of these, and from the answers given to these by the prelates of Gaul, or that these monuments were supposititious and spurious. Whichever of the two must meanwhile be decided — which it does not concern us to investigate here — it plainly follows indeed from the time already designated at which the ancient Gallican Liturgy was first abrogated in Gaul that Hilduin wrongly attributed to the two Masses of Sts. Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs praised above so great an antiquity as we have already stated, from the fact that they had been composed according to it.

[53] For since the ancient rite according to which they had been ordered ceased, as has been said, to be employed in Gaul from the time at which they were written, on account of the things which only when the eighth century was already growing old, why could it not have come about that they were first composed about the middle of the eighth century, and therefore much later than Hilduin decides? This writer indeed also says that the Missal books in which they were contained were so ancient that they were almost consumed by excessive age; but since books of this kind are easily worn out, from the daily and almost continuous use in which they are employed in churches, within a space not even very long, it can happen that the Missal books which seemed to Hilduin almost consumed by excessive age had been written eighty or even only seventy years before. Moreover, the art of printing not yet having been invented, in Missal books, which were then to be written by hand, some empty leaves were customarily left, destined to receive new Masses or any prayers whatever which might perhaps be composed in the lapse of time. What then if the Missal books in which Hilduin found the two Masses of Sts. Dionysius and his fellow martyrs praised above were indeed quite ancient, but these much more recent, and composed not even earlier than after the middle of the eighth century, and only then also inscribed in them? Surely, since nothing prevents the thing from having been able to be done so, it can not undeservedly be called into doubt whether it was truly so done.

[54] Nor is there reason for you to reply that it can scarcely be doubted, are adduced, uncertain, they could add great weight to confirming, since Dionysius and his fellow martyrs probably obtained a most celebrated cult in Gaul already from the fifth and perhaps even the fourth century of the Church, that Masses of them also, which were very ancient, and perhaps composed already from the fourth century, were found there in Hilduin's age: for although we should grant that for the moment, it is nevertheless not established that those which lit Hilduin's way were certainly such. Moreover, Mabillon in book 3 of the Gallican Liturgy exhibits, as I have already intimated above, three ancient Gallican Missals, of which he teaches at the beginning of the same book that the first was written at the beginning of the eighth century and the other two earlier; and in none of these, not even in the most recent of all, or the first, is a Mass of Sts. Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs proposed for recitation; so that even hence it is permitted to doubt whether before the beginning of the eighth century, nay even before it was already well advanced, any Masses composed of Sts. Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs were found in Gaul. Now indeed, since this is so, and hence therefore, and from other things already said, it can not undeservedly be called into doubt whether the two praised by Hilduin are not later even than the middle of the eighth century, these surely could not, even in the torments with which the Writing of Visbius hands down that Sts. Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs were afflicted, agree with it or add great weight to it.

[55] But although the matter stands so, and therefore they were not to be made much of, he nevertheless employed them for explaining these things; Hilduin nevertheless not only praised them as agreeing with the Writing of Visbius, but also employed them together with it for setting out the various kinds of torments with which he writes that Sts. Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs were tortured, in such a way that whatever he hands down to memory on that subject he most probably drew almost wholly from the same and from the Writing of Visbius, inserting however from time to time his own conjectures, which he thought probable. This opinion holds because, although Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs are recorded in the Acts, both Greek and Latin, to have fallen for Christ with their necks cut off, yet the torments which they suffered before that kind of death are set out in detail neither in those same Acts nor in any other writings.

[56] [in such a way, nevertheless, that the Acts to be published were perhaps also of use,] Yet since in the Dionysian Acts published by Bosquet, and already praised several times above, these following words are read of Sts. Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs, Terror being applied, and afflicted with many injuries and punishments, wasted with stripes, they testify that they are Christians, and, the stroke of the executioner being seen, they declare with a great voice of confession that they are servants of our Lord and God, those Acts were perhaps of some use to Hilduin in describing the torments which these underwent before their death; as also the others which, as I have already warned, will be subjoined to this prefatory Commentary, and which toward the end intimate that it is not to be doubted that Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs were tortured with many torments for the faith. Certainly, that together with these, or ones very similar, the Bosquetian Acts of Dionysius, nay even other Acts too which differed not a little in circumstances both from these and from those, lit Hilduin's way, this author himself makes me believe, writing thus in his Reply to the emperor Louis, number XI: We have seen several little codices (copies) of it (the Passion of St. Dionysius), which in some places seemed to agree in sense but to differ in wording; but in some could be associated neither in sense nor in the tenor of the discourse.

[57] various copies of which, differing much among themselves, There is added that the things which are narrated in the Passion composed by Hilduin and in the Acts, whether the Bosquetian or those to be published by us, differ from one another from time to time, if not in substance, at least in circumstances quite worthy of note, so greatly that it would be necessary that Hilduin, unless he had before his eyes Acts too which differed much both from the Bosquetian and from those to be published here, or at least copies of these which were not a little different from the copies existing with us, had sometimes both indulged in conjectures most far-fetched, nay scarcely, or not even scarcely, tolerable, and formed conclusions most painfully to be extracted from what he had read; but this, although Hilduin too (go to what is said at number 14 and following perhaps sometimes interpreted authors less rightly from his own preconceived opinions, and also sets before the reader in a manner, as if openly handed down in them, things which he found contained only somewhat obscurely in older writings (go to what was said at number 6 and following), does not seem to be maintained, if only the things which are contained neither in the Acts just mentioned nor in any other writings, whether already mentioned or to be mentioned below, and are nevertheless committed to writing by him, could have been drawn from elsewhere than from conjectures and conclusions of this kind, and can not undeservedly be judged to have been in fact so drawn, as is done here, chiefly on account of Hilduin's words just recited. Further, to finish now what I proposed in the present §, Hilduin, in his Reply to the emperor Louis, counts among the documents which he employed for composing the Passion of Dionysius also two Hymns, of which the one was composed by Eugenius, bishop of Toledo, and the other by Venantius Fortunatus.

[58] The former most openly confuses Dionysius the Areopagite with the Parisian; but the latter indicates not obscurely that the latter was sent into Gaul by Pope Clement. together with other documents still recounted here, he had before his eyes. But since it by no means confuses Dionysius the Areopagite with the Parisian, our plan requires that we treat of it, not here, but below, in giving the Commentary on St. Dionysius of Paris; but as regards now the Hymn which was composed by Eugenius, bishop of Toledo, it is to be held as indubitable that it is spurious and supposititious, as I shall prove below by more than one argument — because that can be done there more conveniently than here — when I set up the discussion about the two Dionysiuses, the Areopagite and the Parisian, to be distinguished from one another. And these are the things which I had to say here about the sources of the Latins from which it is clear, either from the sayings of this writer himself or from elsewhere, that Hilduin drew. For the rest, what still remains to be warned here: I have counted among these the letter of Aristarchus to Onesiphorus also, though originally written in Greek, if Hilduin is to be believed here, because it was most probably drawn up and fabricated not by a man Greek by nation but by a Gaul, who knew Greek and belonged to the Latin Church, as anyone will without difficulty perceive from the things I discoursed above. Let us now approach the Greek documents which also seem to have lit Hilduin's way.

* supply: I profess profiteor

For ejus pilato his pilatus, Surius has evespillato* carried out by the corpse-bearers.

§ IV. Neither of the Greek Passions of Dionysius, of which Chifflet published the one, and Lanssel and Cordier the other, is to be ascribed to St. Methodius, and both flowed from Latin sources.

The Passion which Lanssel and Cordier published That some Dionysian Life or Passion was woven in the Greek idiom by St. Methodius, Patriarch of Constantinople, is indubitable from two Letters published today by Surius at the end of the Areopagitica, of which the one Anastasius the Librarian wrote in the year 876, as is clear from the Chronological notes with which it is furnished at the end, and the other Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, wrote not long after, to the emperor Charles the Bald, who then died in the year 877. I transcribe here the words of both which plainly prove the matter. In the former, recited also by Chifflet in the Dissertation on the one Dionysius, Anastasius supplies these following words near the beginning: The Passion of the holy hieromartyr Dionysius, formerly the Areopagite and afterwards prelate of Athens — whose text, as he says afterwards, blessed Methodius, having discharged the Pontificate (as he speaks) of the city of Constantinople, published — … even when set among various ailments, having taken up the contest of interpreting, I have rendered into Latin speech; but in the latter, counted also among the letters written by Hincmar to Charles the Bald by Flodoard, book 3 of the History of Reims, chapter 18, toward the end, Hincmar exhibits at the beginning these words: Having read the Passion of blessed Dionysius, dictated in Greek by Methodius, who was sent from Rome to Constantinople, and written in Latin by Anastasius, skilled in both tongues and most learned in every respect, librarian of the holy Apostolic See, as he narrates in his Preface (the letter to Charles the Bald just mentioned), I recognized that the things which I had read in my youth agreed with those which are written there. But what is that Passion of St. Dionysius, written in Greek by St. Methodius, Patriarch of Constantinople, which Anastasius and Hincmar mention in these words? Some think that it is the very one which first Lanssel at Paris in the year 1615, and then Cordier at Antwerp in the year 1634, both priests of the Society of Jesus, published together with the Works customarily circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite; but wholly wrongly, as the things which I subjoin prove.

[60] does not have St. Methodius as its author, Since the Passion of Dionysius woven in Greek by Methodius was, beyond all doubt, communicated to Hincmar as soon as it had been translated into Latin by Anastasius, or certainly not long after, as the things just alleged suggest, that writer doubtless had thoroughly perceived what it was and what it contained; and he speaks thus of it, already read through by himself, in words partly recited just now: I recognized that the things which I had read in my youth agreed with those which are written there (in the Passion of Dionysius composed in Greek by Methodius and rendered into Latin by Anastasius), namely, through whom and in what manner the acts of the martyrdom of blessed Dionysius and his Companions came to the knowledge of the Romans, and thence to the notice of the Greeks. It was therefore, as everyone will draw out from these words of Hincmar, expressed in the Dionysian Passion which Methodius wrote in Greek and Anastasius rendered into Latin, Through whom and in what manner the acts of the martyrdom of blessed Dionysius and his Companions came to the knowledge of the Romans and thence to the notice of the Greeks; and since this is so, and this is nowhere in any way expressed in the aforesaid Passion which Lanssel and Cordier published, it becomes wholly certain and indubitable even from this that this is not the Passion of Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs written in Greek by Methodius and given Latin dress by Anastasius.

[61] as neither is the other, by Chifflet, Hence further it now follows that, since that is likewise nowhere in any way expressed in the other Dionysian Passion which Chifflet exhibits in his Dissertation on the one Dionysius as written in Greek by Methodius and rendered into Latin by Anastasius, beyond all doubt neither is that the Passion of Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs woven in Greek by Methodius and given Latin dress by Anastasius, and it is therefore wrongly thrust upon us for this by Chifflet in that place. But, says this writer on page 47 of the cited Dissertation about the Dionysian Passion which he published, It is not permitted to doubt that this is the very Passion of St. Dionysius written by Methodius, as its interpreter Anastasius affirms, and then Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, recounting whose letters to Charles the Bald Flodoard says, in book 3 of the History of the church of Reims, chapter 18: "Likewise, about the Passion of St. Dionysius dictated in Greek by Methodius of Constantinople and written in Latin by Anastasius, librarian of the Roman See, and about the life or acts of blessed Sanctinus, and what he found in these about the commemoration of St. Dionysius." Indeed, that the Dionysian Passion which Anastasius and Hincmar together, namely in the words recited at number 59, held for the offspring of Methodius was in fact by Methodius, it is neither right to doubt nor, further, would I wish to; but whence, I ask, did Chifflet either perceive or gather that the discussion in that place by those two writers is about the Passion which he published?

[62] who, why he thought the contrary, is set out, brought into light, Chiefly, unless I am mistaken, from this, that he found the letter of Anastasius to Charles the Bald, praised above, prefixed in place of a Prologue or Preface to the Passion which he published, in the manuscript copies seen by him which contained both. But from this he could not conclude what he thought. For it sometimes happens that things which bear on the same subject are found written in books, and especially in manuscript codices, in uninterrupted sequence, as if they belonged also to the same author, although meanwhile they have wholly different authors. An example of this thing, to which not a few similar ones could be adduced from elsewhere too, is opportunely supplied in the very matter of which we treat here by our codex P Ms. 159; for in this, whatever occurs in the Bosquetian Passion of Dionysius, written by an anonymous author, from the beginning up to these following words, Therefore after the saving Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, is set before the Areopagitica of Hilduin in uninterrupted sequence in place of a Prologue or Preface, although meanwhile the one has one author and the other another, beyond all controversy. But, someone will perhaps say, the very title which the Dionysian Passion edited by Chifflet bears makes Methodius its author. I confess it runs so: but what if that very writer prefixed it to that composition from the preconceived opinion by which he thought it was to be ascribed to Methodius? That this was not done by him is by no means established; but be it even that each of the three manuscript copies of good note in which Chifflet, as he himself says on page 5 of the aforesaid Dissertation, found the Passion of Dionysius published by him bore the title mentioned, not even from this would you rightly claim it for Methodius.

[63] For why could it not have happened that he who copied the oldest of those three copies (for I do not think they are all of the same age), they published, induced only by rather slight little reasons, judged that the Passion of Dionysius expressed in it was to be attributed to Methodius, and therefore, wrongly prefixing the aforesaid title to the copy written by himself, nevertheless brought it about by his example that the two others were afterwards furnished with the same? Indeed, nothing at all stands in the way of its being believed that this could have been done in this manner; and therefore the title of the Passion published by Chifflet, even if it had been prefixed to each of the three said copies of it, can in no way claim it for Methodius against the argument formed from the words of Hincmar related above, which invincibly proves that the same must be denied to that holy patriarch of Constantinople, much less does it in fact claim it. And since this is so, and certainly the Passion of Dionysius which Chifflet published was not, from what has already been said, written by Methodius, Baronius and Vossius most probably wrote not undeservedly that the Passion of Dionysius which had Methodius for its author has now perished; and certainly therefore Pagi, in the Critica at the year 876, number 12, did not rightly carp at the former of those writers in this matter, because, as he thought, the Methodian Passion of Dionysius had been edited by Chifflet.

[64] But by whom shall we decide that the Passion of Dionysius which Chifflet edited, and by whom likewise the other which Lanssel and Cordier published, were written? but both this and that, which is to be attributed to Metrodorus, Since the former is found attributed solely to Methodius, and yet, as already proved, does not have him as its author, by whom it was woven is wholly in obscurity; but as regards the latter, or that which Lanssel and Cordier published, the title which it bears in both these editors indicates that it was composed by Methodius, or, as others would have it, by Metrodorus: and since it does not have Methodius as its author, as is clear from what has been said above, and nothing prevents its being attributed to Metrodorus, it was most probably in fact written by him, although meanwhile an author of this name, from whom it could have flowed, is found neither inserted in the Catalogues of writers, whether ancient or new, nor recorded in any other literary monuments whatever, and therefore only an imperfect, nay almost no, notice of him is available. But whoever he may at last be, both he indeed and he who composed the Passion edited by Chifflet had before their eyes the writings of the Gauls or Romans, or certainly of more recent Greeks who had drawn from these themselves. For whence else could he have learned the things he hands down to memory about the death or passing of Dionysius, of which, as Hilduin says in his Reply to the emperor Louis, number 10, the Greek writers (he speaks of the ancient ones) committed nothing at all to writing, because that event was wholly unknown to them on account of the distance of the lands?

[65] from Latin Acts, as here, Was Hilduin perhaps mistaken in this matter? It does not pertain to our purpose to examine that here; but however it stands, this writer himself supplies indeed the things from which you may not undeservedly gather that a Latin Passion lit the way of the author of the Greek Passion edited by Chifflet. For in order to bring into concord Eusebius and the author of the Dionysian Passion which, as he says, he had before his eyes — of whom the one tied the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul to the thirteenth, the other to the fourteenth year of Nero — he maintains that the former spoke according to the Greek manner of computing years, the latter according to the Latin; but he does not seem likely to have had recourse to the said end unless he had held the writer of the Passion lighting his way for a Latin author (for he would undoubtedly have held Eusebius for a Greek), a Passion which therefore was woven in the Latin tongue. But, you will ask, what was that Passion, drawn up in the Latin tongue, which lit the way of the author of the Greek Passion edited by Chifflet? As this, so also that which Lanssel and Cordier published fixed the martyrdom of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul to the fourteenth year of Nero; and moreover the former of those compositions agrees with the latter, as also with the Latin Acts of St. Dionysius which we discussed in §§1 and 2, and which, as we warned there, we shall subjoin to this Commentary, in not a few circumstances and in the very substance too

almost everywhere agrees: and since this is so, it appears sufficiently likely that both were composed from these same, or certainly not much unlike, Latin Acts; and the author of the Chiffletian Passion indeed so wrote this composition of his that he rendered those Latin Acts paraphrastically, as appears, and very greatly enlarged them with observations drawn from his own store.

[66] and chiefly indeed as regards the latter But as regards Metrodorus, or the author of the Greek Passion published by Lanssel and Cordier, he so discharged here the office of an interpreter that he expressed the same Latin Acts, for the most part accurately, almost no, or certainly only few, changes or additions being made. And indeed the aforesaid Acts agree almost everywhere so exactly with the Passion written by that author that certainly it is wholly necessary either that the latter flowed from the former by translation, or the former from the latter. And I indeed hesitated at first, for that reason, which should be decided; but having carefully weighed the various sentences of which both those compositions consist, and the locutions too in which each of them is expressed, I discovered that the Latin Acts of which we speak here, falsely attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, did not flow from the Greek composition of Metrodorus, but the latter from the former, translation being employed by that Greek writer, who therefore also knew Latin; and by what reasoning chiefly I arrived at this, I set out. These following words, A certain matron, Catulla by name, who, though she was still held bound to the errors of the pagans, nevertheless showed both in mind and in deed that she desired to be converted to the faith of Christ through the examples of the Martyrs, occur in the Latin Acts which we shall publish, at number 14; and considering the obvious and natural sense which they present to the mind, the author rightly affirms by them that the matron of whom he treats was still entangled in the errors of the gentiles, and would only very unsuitably have asserted that she was still seized with the terrors, or fear, of the gentiles.

[67] Wherefore, since nevertheless in that place which corresponds in the Dionysian Passion composed by Metrodorus to the words of the Latin Acts just recited, by one argument this writer hands down that the same matron was seized with fear of the gentiles, that indeed is an argument that the aforesaid Latin Acts lit his way, in which, because they were written in a character more difficult than could be read conveniently and correctly, he wrongly read the word terroribus terrors for the word erroribus errors, only a small difference of one little letter intervening between the two. Further, the force of the argument is increased by this, that he who wove the aforesaid Latin Acts would certainly in no way, if he had employed that Passion for composing his own composition, have translated into Latin by the word error the Greek word φόβος, which Metrodorus uses in the cited place of the Passion written by him to signify fear, and therefore would not have written that the matron of whom he treats was still seized with the errors of the gentiles. Moreover, as the author of the Latin Acts puts the word error, so also Metrodorus puts the word φόβος in the plural Number; and since the former does so aptly, but the latter ineptly, as will become clear to one who considers it, hence again you may argue not at all undeservedly that the Latin Acts, which he wished to express even as regards the plural number which they use, lit his way.

[68] But so that the matter may become still clearer, here it is confirmed besides in another way. and likewise by a second, The Latin Acts of St. Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs which, as I have already warned above, we are going to publish from our Fulda codex Q Ms. 6, have thus at number 15: She (the matron Catulla) unlocked the secrets of her breast to her faithful ones, that, the precious bodies of the blessed Martyrs being withdrawn, they should secretly hide them in a cut stone, far from the aforementioned city, in a little field which she had prepared for the crop that was to come; who, fulfilling her orders, hastily carry out what had been commanded them; in two copies of the same Acts, of which we have the one received from a Ms. of Saint-Omer, and the other our codex P Ms. 155 supplies, in place of the word secto [cut], which is one of those just recited, the word sexto sixth is read, and rightly indeed, so far as I think; for besides that the Dionysian Passion written by Hilduin also agrees with that reading, at number 34, the author of the Acts most probably, not to say undoubtedly, meant to signify that the bodies of the Martyrs were ordered to be hidden at the sixth stone, or milestone, from the city of Paris, in a little field prepared for sowing, and were in fact hidden or buried there, especially since the Bosquetian Acts of St. Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs too, which, as I taught above, lit his way, note that this was done at the same distance from the city of Paris, or, as they likewise speak, at the sixth stone from it. But, to come now to the point, Metrodorus, or the author of the Dionysian Passion published by Lanssel and Cordier, does not assign the distance from the city of Paris of the place in which the bodies of the Martyrs were hidden or buried, but only hands down that they were laid in a rock which was situated in a little field prepared for sowing, ἐν τῇ πέτρᾳ, τῇ είς μικρὸν κειμένῃ πεδίον, τὸ ἑτοιμασθὲν εἰς σπορὰν.

[69] added to it, And since this is so, the author of the Latin Acts surely cannot have drawn from this writer what he hands down to memory about the distance from the city of Paris of the place in which those same bodies were hidden or buried; but on the contrary, that the latter could have drawn from the former's composition what he writes about the coffin or rock of the said bodies in which they were buried, and in fact, which is chiefly to the point here, most probably did draw it, the things now to be subjoined will show. The laws of exact syntax do not permit the preposition in to be prefixed to nouns put in the ablative case which signify the distance of places. Wherefore, since this preposition, in the copy of the Latin Acts praised above which our Fulda codex exhibits (go to its words which I have just recited), is prefixed to the noun lapis stone, and to what is joined with it — not the ordinal number sextus, but the Participle sectus — put in the ablative case, there is surely reason for judging that by those words is designated, not the distance from the city of Paris of the place in which the bodies of the Martyrs were buried, but a cut or hewn stone or rock, in which they were buried as in a coffin. What then if a copy of the Latin Acts which was similar to our Fulda one lit Metrodorus's way? That indeed this was in fact done, and that he therefore drew from a document of this kind what he writes about the bodies of the Martyrs hidden or buried in a rock which was situated in a little field prepared for sowing, appears most probable, nay even almost certain. I suppose so, both because otherwise it cannot be declared from what source he drew it, and because, since the word lapis signifies not only a measure of road, or milestone, but also, and indeed primarily, a rock, it could most easily have come about that he judged that this latter signification was present in the said word in such a copy of the Latin Acts — one which, from what has been said, rather helps than hinders this — and therefore also used the same word in that sense in the cited place. Here then is what I suppose about the Greek composition of Metrodorus, drawn by translation from the Latin Acts to be subjoined to this Commentary, now strengthened by yet another argument, as I had decided to do; and this indeed appears so valid that I think nothing more need be added to it for establishing that opinion of mine still more.

[70] the things too which seem to make for the contrary being resolved, But, you will say, the composition of Metrodorus, or the Greek Passion of St. Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs which Lanssel and Cordier published, differs not a little from those Latin Acts in some circumstances too which are worthy to be noted. For these record at number 4 that a certain Philip, bishop of Spain, closed his last day in that region when, as they narrate, Dionysius came from Athens to Rome to Pope Clement and was sent by him to the parts of the West; but on the contrary the Passion elaborated by Metrodorus notes that the same Philip was then first sent into Spain by Clement. Moreover, the Latin Acts to be published only hand down that, when the fame of Dionysius from his announcing of the Gospel had been spread far and wide through Gaul, this was then also brought to the ears of the emperor Domitian; but Metrodorus's composition sets forth that then also — of which these say not even a word — Dionysius was summoned by Domitian to the imperial palace. I confess it; this, in those two heads and in some others besides of less moment, sometimes disagrees with the Latin Acts which we shall publish; but what then?

[71] Copies of these which disagreed among themselves in circumstances it is proved, was most probably woven. were formerly found not a few, as is clear from what has been said above; and even the six copies which, as I warned before, exist with us, although from the beginning up to the place where the bodies of Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs are treated of as stolen away and secretly buried they agree everywhere fairly well, yet from there to the end the other five copies disagree not a little from the copy which our codex P Ms. 155 exhibits, and chiefly in this, that these indeed clearly hand down that a church was built over their bodies by the very Christians who had been converted to Christ by Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs, while that one indicates not obscurely that this was done by other Christians who lived later. What then if, as in this five other copies differ from the said copy, so also there once existed a certain copy, from which other copies differed both as regards Philip, sent first into Spain by Clement when Dionysius came to Rome, and as regards Dionysius summoned to Domitian's palace, and Metrodorus expressed it in these two heads? Nothing surely is repugnant to its being believed that both this and that could have been done; and that it was in fact done can seem likely besides from this, that various copies of the Latin Acts which we shall publish, differing very much among themselves in circumstances, were not only found formerly, and are still found today, but also could have been communicated without any trouble to Metrodorus, although a Greek man, as what is to be said in the following § will disclose. Although therefore the Greek Passion of Dionysius woven by Metrodorus disagrees in the two heads already mentioned with the Latin Acts which we shall publish, it was nevertheless most probably composed from them, and therefore, as follows from what has already been said above, so also was the other which Chifflet edited.

§ V. The age and credit of various Greek Acts, and by name of those already recounted: why neither these nor the Hilduinian, and yet the Latin ones mentioned in § I, are to be published, and who are to treat all things which concern Dionysius.

The Passion which has Metrodorus as its author, before the year 835, The Latin Acts of Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs which we shall publish were written between the year 750 and the year 800, as the things we said above about their age demonstrate; and since this is so, and, as I have already taught, the composition of Metrodorus flowed from these same Acts, it is necessary

that this was certainly not elaborated before the time which intervened between the two years just mentioned; but was it done in that very intermediate time, or later? Metrodorus, although he writes that Dionysius, bishop of Paris, was converted at Athens by Paul the Apostle, nevertheless nowhere distinguishes him with the title of Areopagite, contrary to what writers both Greek and Latin who flourished after the Areopagitica of Hilduin were written, or after the year 835, are wont to do; and since this is so, and he has interpreted the Latin Acts which lit his way — which, as I have already warned above, also do not distinguish Dionysius with that title — purely and simply, without any addition anywhere of any name suited to the subject he was treating, he probably composed his composition before the Areopagitica were written by Hilduin, or before the year 835. Moreover Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople from the year 784 to the year 806, ordered inquiry to be made solicitously through his legates whether St. Dionysius, first bishop of Athens, who, a bishop having been substituted for him at Athens, had betaken himself to Rome, had been sent from there into Gaul and had then been consummated there by a glorious martyrdom.

[73] nay even probably So Hilduin testifies in his Reply to the emperor Louis, and he seems to merit entire and undoubted credit in that matter, as one who lived not much removed in age from it, especially since that inquiry was probably instituted by the legates of Tarasius either in Gaul itself, the native soil of Hilduin, or, as Chifflet thinks in his Dissertation on the One Dionysius, page 72, with Pope Hadrian I at Rome, whence notice of the matter could easily reach the Gauls; and that, as appears, not very long after the year 784. Further, since Tarasius ordered inquiry to be made into the said matter, and that solicitously, it is necessary that he certainly doubted whether what he had heard about Dionysius, first bishop of Athens, who set out for Rome and then gained the palm of martyrdom in Gaul, was consonant with the truth, and that not for reasons of any sort, but for such as seemed solid to him; and these, so far as I think, more probably arose (for you would not easily assign what source they rather had) from the Commentaries of the Gauls about Dionysius and from Lives or Passions of the same Saint composed from these in Greek by Greek writers, in which Tarasius knew that the mission of that Athenian prelate into Gaul and the martyrdom endured there for the faith were recorded. Now indeed, since Tarasius probably did not order inquiry into the said matter immediately when he had begun to doubt of it, both the Commentaries which I have mentioned were probably communicated to the Greeks, and Lives or Passions such as I have spoken of written in Greek from them, already from about the year 780, and perhaps even earlier.

[74] both this and the other, published by Chifflet, And by name indeed I think the two mentioned above, of which, as I have taught, Chifflet published the one, and Lanssel and then also Cordier the other, are to be counted among compositions of this kind written at that time (for several, which have now perished, perhaps also existed): the latter on account of the things which, after some preliminaries, I shall say below; and the former because its anonymous author speaks in this manner near the beginning, in Chifflet: The Passion of blessed Dionysius has been found; the contest of blessed Dionysius, brethren, has been revealed; the most holy end of Dionysius, long desired and hidden from all, has shone forth; and since by these words he professes, as will be evident to one considering them, his supreme joy at the Passion of Dionysius recently found, he undoubtedly composed the composition in which he does so at once at the time when it had happened that the Passion which he mentions was found, and therefore, since this was beyond all doubt no other Passion of Dionysius than that very Latin one which, as I taught at number 65, he had to light his way, immediately when he began to have knowledge of it. But when was this done, or, what comes to the same, when did the Gauls first communicate to the Greeks the Commentaries written in Latin which confused Dionysius of Paris with the Areopagite or led to that? In the year 757, as may be seen at that year in Le Cointe, number 10, and in Pagi in the Critica, numbers 6 and 7, Constantine Copronymus, emperor of Constantinople, sent gifts to Pippin, king of the Franks, and there was negotiation about establishing friendship between those two princes through legates sent back and forth.

[75] The same Constantine Copronymus, besides the one already mentioned, already from, as here and another by which he sought Pippin's daughter Gisela in marriage for his son, sent still other embassies to the same king of the Franks, and indeed a most celebrated one in the year 764, on which Pagi in the Critica at that year, number 4 and following, teaching also in the same place that an embassy was likewise then sent by Pippin to Constantine. In the year 781 (go to the same Pagi in the Critica at that year, number 3) the empress Irene sent an embassy to Charlemagne, by which she asked his elder daughter in marriage for her son Constantine. There passed therefore very much intercourse — which could without difficulty be proved by not a few other equally certain indications besides, commonly met with in historians and annalists — between the Greeks and the Franks or Gauls from the year 757 to the year 781; so that the latter could surely then very easily communicate to the former the Latin Acts, or the Commentaries written in that idiom not long, as I taught in §2, after the middle of the eighth century, or the year 750, which made Dionysius the Areopagite the same as the Parisian, or at least maintained that the latter was converted to the faith at Athens by Paul the Apostle.

[76] And since this is so, that it was in fact then done it is proved, was composed from about the year 780; appears most probable even from this, that the Gauls mentioned by me in §2, who undoubtedly strove with every effort and endeavour to propagate, or instil into others, the opinion deeply imbibed by them about one Dionysius, at once Parisian and Areopagite, by no means seem likely to have neglected so apt an occasion of doing so by the aforesaid Commentaries or Latin Acts. Now indeed, since from what has been said above the author of the Greek Passion published by Chifflet put his hand to composing that composition of his at once when he had come to know the Latin Passion, or the Commentaries of the Gauls written in that idiom which made Dionysius the Areopagite the same as the Parisian or led to that, this was most probably woven already from about the year 780, and perhaps even earlier. Hence further it now follows that probably about the same time also the other Greek Passion of Dionysius which I mentioned above was written by Metrodorus; for since both this and that flowed from the same Latin Acts, as I taught above, and neither anywhere makes mention of the other, both were probably woven at about the same time. And so I have now defined closely enough what age those compositions have; now I subjoin how much they are to be esteemed.

[77] Although indeed they were elaborated long, nay, as it is easy to gather from what has already been brought forward, but neither, since the things which you might adduce for one, more than fifty years before the Areopagitica were written by Hilduin, or before the year 835, yet even from this, that, as I taught above, they flowed from Latin Acts of most doubtful credit, they deserve to be held in only slight value, and can make nothing that they hand down to memory certain and indubitable by their own authority alone. But, you will say, Metrodorus speaks thus toward the end of his composition: For we have not had it from our own manners, nor from our own foreknowledge, but it has been accomplished by us from an old narrative; and the few things which we have heard from certain and firm antiquity and from long times, those we commit to writing as we were able, not having undertaken an exposition from ourselves and rashly, but as we have had the narratives of great doctors of the deeds done, fearing God; and by these words he indicates not obscurely that the things which he hands down to memory in his composition he drew from an ancient narrative and from firm antiquity. I confess it runs so; but what then? Does it perhaps follow from this that Metrodorus at least, as one who drew what he writes from ancient and certain monuments, wins entire credit for himself?

[78] nothing even in his favour By no means: for since he composed his composition from the Latin Acts which we shall publish, or certainly from ones not much unlike them, what if these, which, as I taught above, do not deserve to be held in great value, were those very monuments of certain and firm antiquity, as he wrongly thought, from which he drew what he committed to writing? But if that perhaps displeases, as it may, the other answer to the objection made, which I subjoin, certainly cannot displease. Since Metrodorus translated the praised Latin Acts into the Greek tongue, as you will gather from what has been said above, the office of interpreter which he discharged brings it about that by the old narrative and the certain and firm antiquity, from which he says he received what he records, he must be judged to have understood no other sources than those from which the anonymous author of the same Latin Acts affirms that he drew, in that place which corresponds to the words of Metrodorus just recited. Hear therefore how the latter speaks in that place, at number 17 and following.

[79] prove, he merits entire credit; As dull and unworthy men, he says, we have presumed to make known to you the course of their (St. Dionysius's and his fellow Martyrs') passion, not from the capacity of our own wit or the industry of our own sense, but what has become plain to us by the report of the faithful of old, and the few things, as we were able, which in part we learned in certain old little pages smeared over by a long space of time. For, as we have learned from the conversation of experienced elders, fearing God and burning with the zeal of holy charity, they took pains to set down in sacred charters many things about the glorious contest of the blessed men … for the memory of posterity, but … they are said to have been consumed by the burning of flames. The things therefore which the anonymous Author of the Latin Acts of which we speak here hands down to memory in them, he drew, as he says in the words recited, partly from the report of the older or elder men, partly from certain ancient writings; and Metrodorus must be judged to have understood these two sources of the writing composed by him by the old narrative and the certain and firm antiquity. Now indeed, since those Latin Acts, even if drawn both from the report of elders and from certain ancient writings, by no means merit certain and indubitable credit, as I taught in §2, who would ascribe value and esteem of this kind, in regard of those two sources, to the composition of Metrodorus, which flowed from the same Latin Acts by translation, rather than to the writing of Chifflet's anonymous author, likewise derived, as has been said, from these? No one surely, except one who has judged that what is not in a thing can be drawn out of it.

[80] Further, to turn the discussion now elsewhere, nothing either is available which persuades us to make more nor is there reason why either Nicephorus or Metaphrastes,

of either the two Lives of St. Dionysius written in Greek by Nicephorus Callistus and Simeon Metaphrastes, which Cordier added, in Greek also, together with a Latin interpretation, to the Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, as some would have them, published by him at Antwerp in the year 1634, or of the Greek encomium of the same St. Dionysius composed by Michael the syngelus, or, as others write, syncellus, priest of Jerusalem, which Cordier likewise added to the said Works in Greek and Latin, Basil Millanius, monk of Monte Cassino, being the interpreter. For both Nicephorus Callistus and Simeon Metaphrastes, who confuse St. Dionysius the Areopagite with the Parisian, flourished long after the various documents of the Gauls which did the same had been communicated to the Greeks, and, as is agreed among all, after the very Areopagitica written by Hilduin; and since both record that Dionysius, after he had already finished his martyrdom by the sword, carried with his own hands the head cut off from him, which the said Areopagitica also hand down, they most probably, nay undoubtedly, drew their material either from these writings, of wholly doubtful credit, as I shall say below, or from other earlier Latin sources of similar bran, or from Greek ones born of Latin; and I indeed, since the Lives of the Saints and Passions of the martyrs written by Metaphrastes were formerly much used by the Greeks, and Nicephorus flourished more than three centuries after the age of this writer, suppose it sufficiently likely that he drew his material from Metaphrastes himself; and that a Dionysian Passion which differed somewhat from those mentioned above lit the latter's way — unless he wrote some things perhaps from his own genius — I suspect even from this, that he hands down not only, as those do, that Dionysius carried his head for some time in his hands when it had already been cut off from him, but also that he laid it in the lap of a woman named Catulla.

[81] However that may be, it is sufficiently and more than sufficiently clear from what has already been said that Metaphrastes and Nicephorus are certainly not to be made much of in the things which they hand down to memory about Dionysius; or even Syncellus should be held in greater esteem; but as regards now Syncellus, who, likewise making Dionysius the Areopagite the same as the Parisian, hands down that the latter was converted to the faith by Paul the Apostle and then crowned with martyrdom in Gaul, although he probably composed his encomium of this same Saint before the Areopagitica were written by Hilduin, or the year 835 (for he is said to have flourished already from the year 830), he most probably did so not before the Commentaries of the Gauls, or the Latin Acts, were communicated to the Greeks, and the Lives or Passions of St. Dionysius composed in Greek from these from about the year 780, as I taught above, and perhaps even earlier. And since this is so, and it can scarcely be doubted that he had those very compositions, or certainly compositions of this kind, before his eyes, he most probably drew the things he records about Dionysius only from muddy sources, or from monuments of almost no value, as it is easy to gather from what has been said above, and therefore he too does not seem to be held in great esteem. Let the studious reader now consider whether those very many persons of whom Leo Allatius speaks in his Diatribe on the writings of the Methodiuses, number 38, deservedly refer Dionysius, patron of the Parisians, to the times of the Apostles on the authority of Methodius and Syncellus, and make him the same as Dionysius the Areopagite; as far as concerns me, I think that will surely be approved by none of the learned when the matter has been more deeply inspected.

[82] the latter of whom, although he did not by design swerve from the truth, For besides that, from what has been said, the Dionysian Passion of doubtful credit, as I have taught, edited by Lanssel and Cordier, does not even have Methodius as its author, contrary to what Allatius thought, both he and Syncellus received their narratives about Dionysius not from ancient Greek writers, but either from the Latin Acts already so often mentioned, of almost no, or certainly, as I showed above, of very slight value, or indeed from Greek writers, but who were more recent and had themselves drawn from Latin monuments of adulterate stamp; as it is easy to perceive both from what has already been said and from what is to be said just below about Methodius, and most of all from this, that not even one Greek writer who is certainly known to have flourished even a little before the year 780, much less already from an age not much removed from the age of Dionysius, makes Dionysius the Areopagite the same as Dionysius, patron of the Parisians, or even hands down to memory that the latter was converted to the faith by St. Paul the Apostle — which, from what has been said, Syncellus and, as Hincmar, presently to be praised, witnesses, Methodius wrote — and was then crowned with martyrdom in Gaul. Far be it indeed from me to affirm that Syncellus, much less Methodius, a man illustrious for holiness and on this account already inserted in our Work at the 14th of June, the day on which he is celebrated in the sacred Calendars of the Latins as well as of the Greeks, out of zeal for human favour which they courted, peddled as sincere and genuine histories fabricated by themselves or by others about Dionysius and the martyrdom and deeds of him and his companions, and so betrayed the truth.

[83] yet sinned by excessive credulity, and Methodius too by the same fault, But what great sin, I ask, shall I commit if I bring myself to think, and further affirm, that both those writers, who are very much commended for the probity of their life and manners, were somewhat more easy than was fitting in believing narratives of doubtful credit? Are not John Damascene and not a few other writers of equal, or certainly not much less, holiness commonly spoken of as too credulous, and for this reason too carped at today by not a few men as learned as they are pious, who exercise even only a modest and by no means severe criticism? And indeed that Syncellus laboured under excessive credulity is clear even from this, that, as you will easily draw out from what has already been said, he gave credit either to Latin monuments of adulterate stamp or to more recent Greek writers who had drawn from these, and accommodated his encomium of Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs to them; and as regards Methodius, although not to the same writings as Syncellus, he nevertheless gave credit to similar ones, or of still worse stamp. The matter will become evident from what is now to be said. In the Passion of Dionysius composed by himself Methodius handed down to memory things consonant with which Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, had read in his youth. So this writer himself, when he had read the composition of Methodius given Latin dress by Anastasius the librarian, testified in his letter to Charles the Bald, written, from what has been said above, certainly not later than the year 877. His words bearing on this, though already given above, I transcribe here again. I recognized, he says, that the things which I had read in my youth agreed with those which are written there (namely in the Passion of Dionysius written in Greek by Methodius and rendered into Latin by Anastasius); namely, through whom and in what manner the acts of the martyrdom of blessed Dionysius and his Companions came to the knowledge of the Romans and thence to the notice of the Greeks.

[84] Through whom therefore, and in what manner or by what means, the passion of St. Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs came to the knowledge of the Romans and thence to the notice of the Greeks, [because the things from the Life of St. Sanctinus praised by Hincmar, who had read them as a young man,] Hincmar had read while still a youth, and found, when already old, or when he gave the said letter to Charles the Bald, that the things which were written in the Methodian Life or Passion of Dionysius agreed with those two heads. But where had Hincmar read in his youth the things he mentions? In the Life of St. Sanctinus, as he declares after the words just recited, found by the abbot Wandelmar in very worn little quires, and, as I taught above, most probably written not very long after the middle of the eighth century; and this, which, as it is exhibited at the end of the said letter of Hincmar, was sent to Charles the Bald together with it, after the course of the life of Dionysius, whom it expressly calls the Areopagite from the very beginning, set out concisely and briefly up to the time when he was sought for martyrdom, supplies these following words bearing on the present subject. When blessed Dionysius learned that they (namely the lictors sent by Domitian to seize Dionysius) were approaching the borders of the Parisians, he summoned Sanctinus and Antoninus to himself: whom he commanded that they should attend skilfully to his discourses and contests, and commit them to memory: and, observing by what kinds of torments he ended the life of the body through the punishments of the passion, they should strive as quickly as possible to announce them in order to the Pontiff of the Roman See and to the faithful whom they should find there at that time (because where the persecution against the world of Christians proceeded from, there it was blazing the more fiercely); and they should earnestly beseech them to make these things known to the citizens of the Athenians: so that they too might give thanks to the Lord for the course of his labours completed, and become devoted to his cult.

[85] Blessed Dionysius having been consummated by the palm of martyrdom, Sanctinus and Antoninus, the Life of St. Sanctinus as they had been commanded, hastened to undertake the journey to Rome: and on coming into Italy, Antoninus was seized with a violent fever. Sanctinus having stayed some days in attendance on him, by the counsel and consent of the same Antoninus, lest the command of blessed Dionysius be hindered by any occasion, arranged to carry out the journey begun: and having sufficiently entrusted gifts and honourable linens to the head of the house in which Antoninus lay, he asked, and adjured him by the Lord, that, if Antoninus recovered, he would thereupon minister to him most abundantly: but if he departed this life, he would bury him most honourably: and so he took up the journey which he had begun, to be carried through. And when blessed Sanctinus had already reached the borders of the Romans, Antoninus departed this life. The head of the house, keeping all the things which had been entrusted to him for attending him, lifted the planks of his stable, in which his animals stayed, and threw him into the pit where the dung and urine of the animals flowed down, and put back the planks over him. All of which Sanctinus presently knew through the Holy Spirit, and returning with the greatest haste to the house in which he had left Antoninus lying, he arrived weeping and grieving, and asked the head of the house: Where, he said, is Antoninus my dearest brother? He, with feigned groans and sighs, pretending sorrow, said: He is dead, and as thou didst entrust to me, I have buried him most honourably. To whom Sanctinus said: Thou liest, son of the devil. Thou hast thrown him into the dunghill, a holy and just man: and now come with me to the place of the stable into which thou hast thrown him.

[86] are exhibited here, *And he, struck with fear, did not dare to resist coming with him to the place where he had thrown him. And lifting the planks from there, Sanctinus cried with tears in a loud voice, saying: Brother Antoninus, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, for whose name and love the precious martyr Dionysius suffered, arise, and let us together accomplish the obedience which the same our father and master enjoined on us in common. And at once Antoninus, wrapped in dung, arose: whom Sanctinus drew out of the pit of the stable, and most carefully washed, and with clean and honourable garments

clothed him: and so, offering to God the sacrifice of praise, they partook of the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ: and taking food they were strengthened, and setting out on the journey begun, they arrived at Rome, the Lord helping them. And blessed Clement having already been crowned with martyrdom, they found consecrated as Pontiff in the same See St. Anacletus, a Greek by nation, from Athens, who had been ordained priest by blessed Peter the Apostle. To him, in all things, as blessed Dionysius had commanded them, they narrated his acts and the order of his martyrdom. And the business being completed, they returned to the city of the Meldi, where, applying themselves to holy preaching and pious works, Sanctinus, full of faith and virtues and good works, passed to the heavenly kingdoms. Antoninus succeeded him in the Episcopate, and, living for many years in the holy office, with manifold fruit of good works and gain of souls, departed to the Lord.*

[87] and are wholly fictitious, Here is through whom and in what manner, or by what means, according to the things which Hincmar, while still a youth, had read in the Life of St. Sanctinus, the Passion of St. Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs came to the knowledge of the Romans and thence to the notice of the Greeks. But who, I ask, is still today so little skilled in the critical art as not to hold the means by which this was done for wholly fabulous and fictitious? As far as concerns me, I judge that the whole narrative already given, in which it is set out, is refuted, if any narrative ever was, by its mere reading or exposition. For what? That Dionysius, near to martyrdom, gave Sanctinus and Antoninus the commands which are recorded in it — that indeed, as it is most repugnant to the manners of the first Christians, so is it destitute of every appearance of truth. Moreover, what is also related in the said narrative about Antoninus, seized with fever on the journey toward Rome, carried off from life there, thrown into a dunghill, and then recalled to life by St. Sanctinus, to whom in his absence the Holy Spirit had revealed what had been done concerning him, appears even at first sight so absurd, so preposterous, so insipid, that scarcely anything else occurs anywhere which bears more openly the appearance of an old wives' fiction. And these things alone, even if not a few others which could be brought forward to the same effect are passed over in silence, show that the narrative of which we speak here, and therefore the means also set out in it by which the martyrdom of St. Dionysius came to the knowledge of the Romans and thence to the notice of the Greeks, is wholly unworthy of credit, and to be held for nothing but a pure and simple fiction.

[88] Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and the Passion of St. Dionysius written by Methodius was, as regards that means, consonant, by the witness of Hincmar from what has already been said, with the Life of St. Sanctinus, or with the narrative already given from it at number 84 and the two following, he held as true and genuine, laboured, and since of doubtful it follows that this writer was one who could easily admit even things which were wholly fabulous and fictitious as true and genuine, and therefore that he laboured under excessive credulity no less than Syncellus. Nor does the agreement, already explained, of Methodius with the Life of St. Sanctinus, or with the fictitious narrative which I have already given from it, teach us this only, but also that the earlier Acts of St. Dionysius, whether Latin or Greek that had flowed from Latin sources, employed by Methodius for composing his composition (for that such lit his way most probably you will easily gather from what has been said above, and at the same time from this, that he put his hand to writing only after the Commentaries of the Gauls about Dionysius had been communicated to the Greeks, nay, as I shall teach below, only after the ninth century had already been begun for some time), were of doubtful credit; for although, as it is easy to draw out from all that has already been said above, they were undoubtedly distinct or different both from the Latin Acts mentioned before, which lit the way of Metrodorus and Chifflet's anonymous author, and from the Greek compositions likewise elaborated by these, they nevertheless most probably also contained the fabulous narrative which I have already recited above from the Life of St. Sanctinus in Hincmar.

[89] And this last point, namely that the fabulous narrative which I have spoken of the Acts which he employed were of credit, his composition, was contained in the Acts employed by Methodius, and moreover that these were somewhat later than the middle of the eighth century, appears to me indeed most probable: the latter because that fabulous and fictitious narrative was most probably first committed to writing by the anonymous author of the Life of St. Sanctinus, which, as I taught above, was written after the middle of the eighth century, and was then only afterwards carried from it by another writer into the Latin Acts of Dionysius; the former partly for this very reason, partly also because, since the Life of St. Sanctinus, in which, as has been said, that narrative was first set down, was never, as appears, communicated to the Greeks, he would seem to come nearest to the truth who has maintained that Methodius drew it either from Latin Acts of Dionysius, or certainly from Greek ones which had flowed from Latin. However that may be, since those Acts of Dionysius, whether Latin or Greek, according to which, as has been said, Methodius most probably composed the Passion of this Saint, were of doubtful credit, as I have already taught, it follows that that composition, even if it had not now perished, contrary to what from what has been said above has happened, would nevertheless not be held in great esteem, nor could it therefore much support those who make Dionysius the Areopagite the same as the Parisian or maintain other things bearing on that.

[90] Nor does it matter that it is contended by those who deny two Dionysiuses, in Leo Allatius in the Diatribe written by him on the writings of the Methodiuses, number 40, [although elaborated before the year 822 and composed from various writings which Anastasius] that Methodius, when he was acting at Rome as apocrisiarius of Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, with Pope Paschal, pursued the deeds of St. Dionysius in historical style, and that the composition by which he did it was left by him at Rome; for although in this matter it is most probably, as it certainly appears to me, to be assented to them — because the Passion of Dionysius written by Methodius, when it had long been sought by order of Charles the Bald, was at length found at Rome, as Anastasius the Librarian testifies in his letter to this emperor in Surius — and therefore that holy patriarch of Constantinople most probably elaborated his composition on Dionysius between the year 810 and the year 822 (for then, as the things said about him with us at the 14th day of June show, he acted as apocrisiarius at Rome), it follows from this only that he did not receive the things which he hands down to memory in it from the Areopagitica of Hilduin, written only about the year 835; but not likewise that he reduced into a compendium, as they would have it, or contracted into a written epitome, whatever he had found set out more prolixly about Dionysius in older Greek writers. Anastasius indeed, who translated into Latin the Passion of Dionysius written by Methodius, teaches us in his letter to Charles the Bald, presently to be praised again, that the latter excerpted a few things out of many preceding writings; but he does not declare that those many preceding writings which he mentions were composed by older Greeks.

[91] praises, it does not merit to be held in great esteem. There were, as I taught above, long before the year 822, commentaries made to this end, or Acts written in the Latin idiom, by the Gauls who strove with every effort to propagate the opinion imbibed by them about one Dionysius, at once Parisian and Areopagite, and these were also communicated to the Greeks. Wherefore, since Methodius, while he was living at Rome between the year 810 and the year 822 according to what has been said, most probably, as he easily could, so also in fact had in his hands Commentaries or Acts of this kind, and indeed several, those many preceding writings, from which Anastasius indicates in the aforesaid letter that the Passion of Dionysius then written by that Saint was composed in compendium, were most probably no other than either those written in Latin by the Gauls, just praised, or those which had flowed from these, drawn up in the Greek idiom by Greek writers — unless perhaps you prefer that both these and those lit Methodius's way. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and all those monuments, whether expressed in the Greek or the Latin tongue, were, from what has been said above, not to be made much of, Methodius can by no means again win for himself, or recover, either from the time at which he wrote, or from the documents which, by Anastasius's account, he employed for writing, the certain and indubitable credit which, as I have taught, he lost even by employing only the Acts of Dionysius in which was found the fabulous and fictitious narrative, spoken of above, originally received from the Life of St. Sanctinus; so that it therefore remains that the composition woven by him, or the Passion of St. Dionysius, even if it still existed, is not to be held in great esteem, as I have already decided above, and would therefore not greatly support those who confuse Dionysius of Paris with the Areopagite.

[92] [This nevertheless, as also the Passions of Dionysius mentioned above, of no better stamp, and spurious,] But whatever, at length, that Passion of St. Dionysius which Methodius wrote may have been, Hilduin indeed probably employed both it and the two others mentioned above, of no better stamp according to what has been said, of which Chifflet published the one and Lanssel and Cordier the other, for composing the composition in which he embraced the deeds and martyrdom of Dionysius. That writer indeed nowhere openly declares it; but in his letter to all the sons of the holy Catholic mother Church, number 1, he writes thus: It seemed good to me to spend some sweat in this part too, so as to bring back into the light … the knowledge of the order of the conversion and preaching and coming to Rome, or of the triumphal martyrdom, of the most blessed Dionysius, which is contained chiefly in the histories of the Greeks, and was kept covered among the Latins in no small portion, as if buried in the chests of the ancients; and since in these words he puts the noun History in the plural number, he indicates clearly enough that he had before his eyes not one only but several histories of the Greeks, that is, rather brief compositions written about Dionysius by Greeks, as appears most probable; or (for no histories of the Greeks of another kind are known which might contain for the greatest part the things related here by Hilduin) Passions of the same Saint drawn up in the Greek tongue; and since the knowledge of Dionysius which he mentions was, as he says, kept covered among the Latins in no small portion, and contained for the greatest part in the Histories of the Greeks, or in the Passions of St. Dionysius drawn up in the Greek idiom, he probably not only had such compositions before his eyes, but also employed them for setting before the reader the said knowledge in the Passion of Dionysius written by himself.

[93] And I indeed, since Hilduin the Passions of Dionysius, and the spurious says that the Greek writers (the ancient ones namely, for otherwise what he records would not be true) committed nothing to writing about the death of Dionysius the Areopagite, because his passing was wholly unknown to them on account of the distance of the lands,

and affirms in his reply to the emperor Louis that the mission of Dionysius into Gaul made by Bl. Pope Clement is recorded in the pages of the Latins, bring myself to think that these two things — namely the mission of St. Dionysius into Gaul, and his death or martyrdom and all that bears on it, which he hands down to memory in his Areopagitica — he drew from the writings of the Latins, and by name from the Latin Acts which we shall publish, or at least from ones not much unlike them, and chiefly from the writing of Visbius mentioned above, to which the two Masses and likewise the two Hymns mentioned in §3 can be added; but that most of what he records about the coming of Dionysius to Rome and all that preceded it he received for the most part either from the letter of Aristarchus to Onesiphorus, or from the histories of the Greeks, that is, from the Passions of Dionysius drawn up in Greek mentioned above and others similar (for nothing stands in the way of several others too being believed to have lit his way) — none of which, however, he anywhere designates even by a somewhat obscure indication, perhaps because he observed that they had been composed from the Latin little book of the Dionysian Passion which he had to light his way, or from the Latin Acts which we shall publish, and hence judged that by designating them he would add nothing of moment to his narratives about Dionysius.

[94] And not only those, but still other writings, which he likewise designates by no indication, which I have recounted above, Hilduin employed for composing the Areopagitica. Hilduin had to light his way, and perhaps also employed for elaborating his composition on Dionysius. Hear how he speaks in his reply to the emperor Louis, number 7. And these things, he says (namely the writings about Dionysius), which we have, — to speak with the pardon of our predecessors entreated — we found hidden and negligently left; and we rejoice that we possess others, not yet brought forth, because they have not yet been clearly worked out. So he; but of whatever kind those writings were which Hilduin here intimates had not yet been brought forth into light, or communicated generally with others, while he was writing his Areopagitica, those indeed which this writer perhaps also employed, as I have already said, were, so far as I think, of no better character than those mentioned above — that is, than the writing of Visbius, than the letter of Aristarchus to Onesiphorus, than the Latin Acts of St. Dionysius which we shall publish, and finally also than the other Greek ones which flowed from these, written by Methodius or by Metrodorus and Chifflet's anonymous author; and since all these are either fictitious or certainly of very doubtful credit, as I have taught above, and Hilduin nevertheless builds upon them almost all the things which he hands down to memory in the Dionysian Acts woven by himself, the writers of the Literary History of France, tome 4, page 611, deservedly indeed pronounce that this writer, although he believed in good faith that what he writes was consonant with the truth, nevertheless received the testimonies which he alleges to win credit for his statements either from apocryphal writings, or certainly from ones by no means fit for that end.

[95] These therefore will not be published, as neither any And so now enough and more than enough, so far as I think, has been treated about the Hilduinian Acts of Dionysius and the muddy sources from which these flowed; now let the studious reader weigh with even balance all that bears on this and has been brought forward up to this point, and I do not doubt that he will judge that literary offspring of Hilduin contemptible and to be held in no esteem; as far as concerns me, I think it can neither patronize nor add any weight to the very opinion about one Dionysius, at once Parisian and Areopagite, for the strengthening of which it was nevertheless produced. Why say more? I judge a composition of this kind, almost the whole matter of which has been taken either from fictitious monuments or from monuments of almost no credit, wholly unworthy to obtain a place in our Work. Into it we do indeed sometimes insert even spurious and worthless Acts of the Saints, so that, even when read, they may themselves betray how little they deserve to be valued; but we do so only when they have not yet been published by the benefit of print, or, if indeed published, are nevertheless known to be in the hands of only a few; but the Hilduinian Acts of St. Dionysius were not only brought forth into light by Maternus Cholinus at Cologne in the year 1563, with a Preface of Matthaeus Galenus prefixed to them, and then again in print at Paris in the year 1565, but also stand inserted in the most ample collection of Acts edited by Surius, which is found everywhere in libraries; so that likewise they ought by no means to be inserted into our Work, in which they might be read and, even when read, themselves betray their doubtful credit.

[96] Greek Acts, but why the Latin ones mentioned above are to be published, Hence it also comes about that I have judged that none of the Greek Acts of Dionysius already recounted above and woven by Chifflet's anonymous author, Metrodorus and Metaphrastes — which also, as drawn from fabulous Latin Acts, are of doubtful credit, as I have already taught — are to be published at the end of this Commentary, since they can be read either in Chifflet or in Cordier, by whom they were edited; as neither the encomium of Dionysius composed by Syncellus, which was likewise brought forth into light by Cordier, as I taught above. But since the Latin Acts already mentioned so often in §1 and elsewhere, which, as I taught in §2, are also of doubtful and almost no credit, have hitherto nowhere been printed, I shall subjoin them to this Commentary, as I have already warned in §1 that I would do, not only that, when read, they may themselves make manifest how little they are to be valued, but also that, when they have been compared by the reader both with the Acts woven by Hilduin and with the Passion written by Metrodorus in the Greek tongue, it may become clear even thus that they lit the way of both these writers, and supplied almost the whole matter of writing to the latter of them; and thus everyone who has not been reluctant to compare these two compositions with each other may clearly perceive that it is not the Latin Acts which we shall publish that flowed from the Metrodorian ones written in the Greek idiom, but, as I taught in § IV, the latter from the former.

[97] Further, to despatch what still remains of the subject of the present §: and in what order all things which concern Dionysius in the said Latin Acts which I am going to subjoin to this Commentary, St. Dionysius, whom they make bishop of Paris, is narrated at number 3 to have been converted at Athens by St. Paul the Apostle, which the sacred Pages relate of St. Dionysius the Areopagite; and thus, the two Dionysiuses being confused, though only (go to number 27) somewhat timidly, both the things which concern Dionysius of Paris and those which concern the Areopagite are attributed both there and in other places to one and the same Dionysius, who was at once the Areopagite and bishop of Paris. And since this is so, and only the things which concern Dionysius the Areopagite come up for discussion and illustration here, I shall discuss in this prefatory Commentary, and illustrate in the manner customary with us where there is need, not all the things which are found handed down to memory in the same Acts about Dionysius, at once Parisian and Areopagite, but only those which are found committed to writing, and ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, also by writers who do not confuse the two Dionysiuses, the rest being referred, to be examined and further cleared up, to the Commentary to be prefixed to the Acts of St. Dionysius, bishop of Paris. Thus, because both the things which are narrated in the Acts to be subjoined to this Commentary about the head carried by St. Dionysius when it had already been cut off from him, and also about the bodies of the same Saint and his fellow Martyrs, stolen away through the care of a certain woman still a heathen, named Catulla, and committed to the earth at the sixth stone or milestone from the city of Paris, are not found committed to writing and attributed to him even by those who distinguish the Areopagite from Dionysius of Paris, I shall by no means take them up to be examined or discussed in this Commentary. But someone will perhaps now ask: will you devote your effort only to examining, and duly illustrating when that seems fitting, those things which are both handed down to memory in the Acts to be published and found ascribed to this latter Saint by writers who do not confuse Dionysius of Paris with the Areopagite?

[98] By no means indeed, but also to those which, concern him, are all to be treated, is declared. although they are recorded not in the Acts but only elsewhere, I shall nevertheless have found to concern St. Dionysius the Areopagite. Yet since the things which are found written about the Works ascribed by several authors to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, and about the sacred remains of this Saint of ours, and which therefore concern him, can, as appears, be more conveniently treated separately from all the rest which will come up for discussion in this prefatory commentary, I shall subjoin to the Acts to be published, in which they are not mentioned by even a word, two appendices, in one of which I shall treat of the relics of our Saint, and in the other of the Works customarily circulated under his name and in fact ascribed to him by some, especially formerly. For the rest, although the matters which come up for disputation about distinguishing the two Dionysiuses, the Areopagite and the Parisian, from each other concern one of those two Saints as much as the other, I shall nevertheless examine in this Commentary on the Areopagite whether the opinion of those who confuse him with Dionysius of Paris is to be stood by, or on the contrary that of those who distinguish the one from the other, because I am now going to treat of Dionysius the Areopagite, and only afterwards of the Parisian, and it is fitting that the reader be taught that the one is to be distinguished from the other before I set about discussing the things that are narrated of either of these Saints; and since, so that this may be effected as soon as it can, it also seems best — all and each of the compositions which come under the name of Acts or Passions of Dionysius the Areopagite having now been discussed, and the esteem in which each seems to be held having been determined — I begin in the § immediately following a sufficiently prolix treatise, in which I have decided to discourse on distinguishing Dionysius the Areopagite from the Parisian and to bring forward the more valid arguments that lead to it, intending afterwards to subjoin to it the remaining things which concern Dionysius the Areopagite and which I have already warned are to be examined and elucidated in this Commentary.

§ VI. With what lot, and of what kind, the opinion which makes Dionysius the Areopagite the same as the Parisian has fared for several centuries; how in the century just past, after it had long prevailed, it began to be vigorously attacked, and was at length deserted by almost all the learned.

The opinion which confuses the two Dionysiuses, not long after it had prevailed, That the opinion which makes Dionysius the Areopagite the same as Dionysius, prelate and martyr of Paris, had already occupied the minds of some before the Areopagitica were written by Hilduin, or before the year 835, no one will deny who has attentively turned over what I have discoursed up to this point. Nay rather, that the same opinion began to prevail already from about the middle of the eighth century, and moreover was committed to writing not very long after by the Gauls, among whom it had arisen, is suggested even by the Life alone, in which, by the author, a Gallican monk, as it seems not to be doubted,

it is expressly handed down that Dionysius, apostle of the Parisians, was the Areopagite — the Life of St. Sanctinus praised at number 26 and elsewhere above, read by Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, while he was still a youth, and written, according to what has been said above, about the year 760 or 770. Hilduin indeed says in his Letter to all the sons of the Catholic Church, number 2: For the rest, we think that no one of sound mind will accept these things the less because they had not been rehearsed in an earlier time, since he clearly knows that he who created all things at once did not will that all things be revealed, or to all at once; but these words of that writer ought to be understood neither of the opinion which makes Dionysius the Areopagite the same as the Parisian, nor of any other things handed down to memory by him about Dionysius, as though these had not been rehearsed or committed to writing at an earlier time, but of the ancient monuments employed by him which had not previously been brought out into the light and praised. This is clear even from this, that he immediately sets these words before those just recited: True things, therefore, written about him (namely Dionysius) by truthful men, and simply collected into one; and, if they have been indignant at our unskilfulness, let them have recourse to the monuments of the ancients, because we have not forged our own things nor new ones, but have dug out the ancient sayings of the ancients from very ancient volumes, and, the sincerity of truth being preserved, we set them in clearer pages.

[100] was also committed to writing by the Gauls, and far Nor is this only, which I have already said, clear from these words, but also that Hilduin asserts that he drew all the things which he writes about Dionysius, and therefore also those which he records about one only Dionysius, at once Areopagite and Parisian, from older monuments. And indeed that by name as regards this last point the matter stands so, or at least that Hilduin, contrary to what some have maintained, is not the first inventor of the opinion which confuses the two Dionysiuses, namely the Areopagite and the Parisian, is again evident even from the Life of St. Sanctinus alone, already praised so often, and written, as is plain from what has been said above, long before the age of Hilduin, inasmuch as in it St. Dionysius the Areopagite is most openly confused with the Parisian, or, what comes to the same, these two Dionysiuses are held for one and the same. Further, that opinion, when it had first begun to prevail, was not only committed to writing by the Gauls; but also (for I now set about explaining what fortune the same afterwards had) not very long after the said middle of the VIIIth century, chiefly through the agency, as appears, of monks of that nation, who judged it very honourable to their nation that Dionysius the Areopagite, that most celebrated disciple of St. Paul the Apostle mentioned in the sacred Letters, should be numbered among the Apostles of Gaul, it was disseminated and propagated far and wide, and, on the occasion which I have set out above, communicated to the Greeks too, who also adopted it, and it gained not a few patrons even before the Areopagitica were written by Hilduin, or before about the year 835.

[101] How true this is it is permitted to gather both from the deed of Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople from the year 784 to the year 806, and then widely disseminated, it was also adopted by very many, who ordered inquiry to be made solicitously through his legates, as Hilduin witnesses in the Areopagitica — who in this matter is to be believed, as I taught above — whether Dionysius, first bishop of the Athenians, had gone to Rome, a bishop having been substituted for him at Athens, and had then been crowned with martyrdom in Gaul, and, being informed that the matter was so, inclined readily, as appears, to the opinion which confuses that Saint of ours with Dionysius of Paris; and also from the two Lives or Passions of Dionysius praised above, written by Metrodorus and Chifflet's anonymous author (the other, woven by Methodius, I do not adduce as part of the argument, since it has perished) certainly before the year 820, as is clear from what was alleged before on that matter; which, although they do not openly fuse Dionysius the Areopagite and the Parisian into one, nevertheless hand down to memory things leading to that, namely that this latter Saint was converted at Athens by St. Paul the Apostle, and went from there first to Rome and then, by order of St. Clement the Pope, into Gaul, where he also underwent martyrdom. Moreover Hadrian I, who occupied the Roman Chair of St. Peter from the year 772 to the year 795, gave the books ascribed by many to St. Dionysius the Areopagite to Fulrad, abbot of Saint-Denis in France, as Mabillon testifies in the Benedictine Annals, book 31, number 42; and the same books or Works were also sent as a gift in the year 827 by Michael the Stammerer, emperor of the East, to Louis the Pious, emperor of the West; and since both Hadrian and Michael undoubtedly did this in order thus to gratify those whom they were honouring with that gift, the former most probably judged that Dionysius of Paris and the Areopagite were held by Fulrad, and the latter that they were held by Louis, for one and the same.

[102] And indeed that Fulrad in fact held both Dionysiuses for one and the same it was adopted, yet not so but that even then, appears besides even from this, that he was one of the monks of Saint-Denis, and these probably already then made Dionysius, the patron of their monastery, the same as the Areopagite; and as regards the emperor Louis the Pious, that prince himself betrays that he was of the same opinion, inasmuch as in the Letter mentioned above, by which he commanded Hilduin to write the deeds of St. Dionysius, he not obscurely ascribes to Dionysius of Paris the Works which are customarily marked with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, and supplies besides other things naturally suited to persuade the same, as anyone who has inspected it in Surius will without difficulty find. Further, from the fact that the aforesaid emperor judged Dionysius of Paris to be the same as the Areopagite, it appears to me by no means to be doubted that at that time too, especially after the Areopagitica were written by Hilduin, the Gauls in great number adhered to the same opinion. But although this is so, there do not seem to have been lacking, even then and before, those who contradicted them and contended that the two Dionysiuses, namely the Areopagite and the Parisian, must be distinguished from each other, or at least by their silence disapproved the opinion of those who maintained the contrary when occasion of speaking of it was given. The anonymous author of the Deeds of King Dagobert, a monk of Saint-Denis in France, edited by Duchesne in tome 1 of the Writers of the History of the Franks, flourished either about the year 750, or, as others prefer (go to the Writers of the History of France, tome 4, page 163 and following), about the year 780 or still a little later; and he, although he describes at length the history of the finding of the bodies of Sts. Dionysius and his companions, records the most magnificent church built by King Dagobert to the holy Martyrs, enumerates in detail the votive offerings hung up by the king, and finally pursues at length the foundation of the monastery of Saint-Denis and the most ample revenues conferred on it by King Dagobert, nevertheless nowhere makes mention of a Dionysius who was at once Areopagite and bishop of Paris.

[103] while Hilduin was writing his Areopagitica, as two texts of his, And Morin indeed, who judged that that anonymous author, wont to adorn even old wives' fables with his style, flourished about the year 750, concludes, not at all ineptly, in On sacred ordinations, part 2, chapter 3, number 1, from his said silence about a Dionysius at once Areopagite and prelate of Paris, that not even the slightest breath of a little rumour about a Dionysius who was at once Areopagite and bishop of Paris had yet then, when he was writing, blown upon the Dionysian monks or the Parisian territory; but since I think it more probable that the praised anonymous author wrote no earlier than about the year 780, I think that he, though by no means averse to admitting old wives' fables, nevertheless made no mention of a Dionysius at once Areopagite and prelate of Paris because, although the opinion which fuses both these Saints into one had already arisen when he was writing, it by no means seemed to him to be approved. The matter indeed is not certain; but that in the age of Hilduin and of Louis the Pious, or when the former of these was writing his Areopagitica, there also existed those who contradicted the opinion confusing the two Dionysiuses, the Areopagite and the Parisian, appears indubitable. For this is clear from Hilduin's Areopagitica themselves, inasmuch as in them this writer tries to refute those who dared to contradict the opinion of those confusing Dionysius the Areopagite with the Parisian, and to defend the opposite. Two texts bearing chiefly on this, of which he supplies one at number 8 and following and the other at number 13 and the two following in his Reply to the emperor Louis, I transcribe here, if not entire, since they are rather prolix, at least in part.

[104] which are transcribed here, texts The former runs thus: For the rest, we fail with wonder at the chattering levity of those who, contending that this Dionysius cannot be the Areopagite, vainly gather together for their own defence these things which follow: namely, that the venerable and holy priest Bede said in the treatise on the Acts of the Apostles that Dionysius the Areopagite was bishop not of the Athenians but of the Corinthians, adding that he died there; and that the little book of this man's Passion testifies that he was ordained bishop by Clement, the Roman Pontiff, and sent across into these parts of Gaul; because also the Passions of various holy Martyrs, slain under various emperors, contain that they came to these parts with this most holy Man, which the very hearing of men of sense manifestly refutes. And that Gregory of Tours, as he had said he had read in the Passion of St. Saturninus, records by supposition that this very man was directed into these regions in the time of the persecution of Decius under blessed Sixtus with six other bishops, whose Lives or Passions by no means agree with his statements in the reckoning of times. Behold the whole authority of the less knowing, discordant with itself, to which we answer as if superfluously for the satisfaction of the unwise, since we have in our hands the true narrative of truthful histories about this holy Pontiff and martyr; asking first that those contentious in this right wipe their eyes of the white film of arrogance contracted from the usurped wisdom by which they wish to seem knowing, so that they may reread clear things clearly and true things faithfully; and, if they opened only one eye when they read what the venerable priest Bede had said in the aforesaid Work through oversight otherwise than he ought, let them open the socket in which the other eye ought to have been, where the same man reproves himself and, forestalling the voice of his reprovers, wrote a retractation.

[105] The latter is expressed in these words: The truth, therefore, about this most holy and most ancient Father having been clearly worked out and made public to all who wish to know by so many and so manifest assertions of testimonies, show, Hilduin was writing, it was contradicted by some; *and the most certain reason having been so thrust upon those who wish not to know that, even if they will, they cannot be ignorant of what is true concerning him, let the deadly and too profane contention cease that the same Dionysius is not the Areopagite; because he who in any way longs to detract from the fame of the martyr, without doubt to the truth, bearing witness to which, crossing so many seas, to be exiled into so distant a region, and

he so most bitterly endured to suffer for it, strives with blind brow and feeble strength to detract. For, as he will have to be judged truly impious and obstinate who, after so many confirmed judgments, has left anything to be handled thence by perverse mind for his own opinion, so whoever, after the truth has been found, shall doubt anything further about this, since he seeks lies of set purpose, will not undeservedly be, by the decree of the upright, the companion and disciple of him who from the beginning was a liar and the father of lies.* Thus far Hilduin, who, since, as I have said, he tries by the words given to refute or confute those who asserted that the two Dionysiuses, the Areopagite and the Parisian, are to be distinguished, nay even, adducing the arguments they used, most sharply censures those contending so — which he does also in other words subjoined to the text last recited — and holds up to scorn the effort spent by them for establishing their opinion as a deadly and too profane contention, indeed most clearly betrays that in his age, and therefore also in that of Louis the Pious, or at least when he was writing his Areopagitica, there were those who contradicted the persons fusing the two Dionysiuses into one, and moreover went over to the opposite opinion.

[106] which also through the whole yet, as from one then living, who Nor further, afterwards, although by his Areopagitica and by the supreme authority in which he excelled he caused his opinion about one Dionysius, at once Areopagite and Parisian, to be embraced by not a few, could he so promote and propagate it among all, even with the help, at least, of most of the monks of Saint-Denis, that there did not still remain through the whole IXth century — in which he ceased to live not very long after the Areopagitica were written — those who, not adhering to it, went over to the contrary side and distinguished both Dionysiuses from each other, namely the Areopagite and the bishop of Paris. Ado, who in the year 860, from a Benedictine monk, was created archbishop of Vienne in Gaul, in his Martyrology — which, as our Sollerius teaches from Mabillon in his Preface to Usuard, number 131, he wove about the year 858, before he was raised to that chair, or perhaps even a little earlier — celebrates two Dionysiuses, one on the third and the other on the ninth day of the month of October. And of the former, whom he distinguishes with the title of Areopagite, he writes thus at the said third day of October: The birthday of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, who, instructed by the Apostle Paul, believed in Christ, and was ordained by the same Apostle first bishop at Athens, and under the emperor Hadrian, after a most illustrious confession of the faith, after the most grievous kinds of torments, is crowned with a glorious martyrdom, as Aristides of Athens, a man wonderful in faith and wisdom, is witness in the Work which he composed on the Christian religion. This Work is held in the highest honour among the Athenians, and is held most illustrious among the monuments of the ancients, as the more skilled Greeks affirm; and of the latter, whom he records as crowned with martyrdom at Paris, or, as he says, apud Parisium, he supplies these following words at the 9th day of October: On the seventh day before the Ides of October, at Paris, the birthday of the holy martyrs Dionysius the bishop, Eleutherius the priest, and Rusticus the deacon: which blessed bishop, directed into Gaul by the Roman pontiff to exercise the work of preaching to peoples estranged from the faith of Christ, at length came to the city of the Parisians, and having faithfully and ardently carried out the holy work for some years, was seized by the prefect Fescenninus Sisinnius, and with him the holy priest Eleutherius and the deacon Rusticus, punished with the sword, completed their martyrdom.

[107] distinguishes two Dionysiuses, from Ado, Here then is one writer of the IXth century who, although he could have known Hilduin's Areopagitica, as being later in age than this abbot of Saint-Denis, and most probably also read them, nevertheless by no means adhered to the opinion established in them about one Dionysius, at once Areopagite and bishop of Paris, but on the contrary judged that these two Saints are to be distinguished from each other, as will become more evident from the things which I shall adduce below for the opinion of two Dionysiuses. Those who do not admit two Dionysiuses do indeed say that one and the same is commemorated twice by Ado; but that they wrongly invent this in order to elude the argument drawn from that holy martyrologist against their opinion, I shall show below, when I am about to answer the things which can be opposed to the opinion, to be embraced and further proved by us, of the two Dionysiuses, the Areopagite and the Parisian, to be distinguished from each other and in fact distinct. Now I go on to prove what I asserted about the contrary opinion, very much propagated indeed by Hilduin in the IXth century, yet not admitted by all at that time, nay on the contrary rejected, or certainly called into doubt, by not a few. The emperor Charles the Bald in the year 875 ordered inquiry to be made for the Passion of St. Dionysius written in Greek by Methodius, patriarch of Constantinople, and when it had long and much been sought in vain, it was at length found at Rome in the greatest of the monasteries; and then Anastasius the Librarian, who teaches us these things in his letter to that emperor, already praised more than once above, translated that Greek composition of Methodius into the Latin tongue and sent it to the same emperor.

[108] Further, in it he supplies these following words, which bear on our present purpose, and of Anastasius the librarian recited here, and which I transcribe together with some others proving what I have already said: The Passion of the holy hieromartyr Dionysius, formerly the Areopagite and afterwards prelate of Athens, which I read at Rome when I was a boy, and which I had heard from the legates of Constantinople had long been sought according to your command, and was at length found in the greatest of the monasteries situated at Rome, — even when set among various ailments, having taken up the contest of interpreting, I have rendered into Latin speech as far as I could, God helping; although not wholly word for word, yet drawing out the sense thoroughly. Let, therefore, the opinion of some now cease who maintain that he who at Paris is fragrant in body and in miracles is not Dionysius the Areopagite, since this the style of the Greeks too, agreeing with the Latin tongue, testifies and proclaims: in which tongue indeed he was born, and in which he is proved to have woven his lofty Writings. Thus far the praised writer, who, although he makes Dionysius the Areopagite the same as the Parisian, nevertheless by these words declares most openly indeed, as everyone will confess, that still at the time when he wrote the said letter, or in the year, as I warned above, 876, there existed some who contended that Dionysius the Areopagite was different from the Parisian.

[109] Hincmar indeed, archbishop of Reims, in the letter which, not long, according to what has been said above, after the one already mentioned had been drawn up by Anastasius, whatever may be argued to the contrary from Hincmar, by the words he likewise gave to the emperor Charles the Bald, with a copy of the little quires of the Life of St. Sanctinus, already mentioned so often above, added to it, speaks in this manner: Therefore I thought that the copy of them (namely of the Acts of St. Sanctinus) which I kept for myself should be offered to your devoted and good zeal, so that, if there are any remnants of those who denied that our lord and father, your patron Dionysius, is the Areopagite, baptized by blessed Paul the Apostle and ordained bishop of the Athenians, and directed into Gaul by blessed Clement, they may recognize from these things which the Greek testimony, and the attestation of the holy Roman See, and the Gallican contestation intimate, as settled also in this cause, what was said long before us; because truth, the more often it is stirred up, the more it shines out into light; and since by these words he insinuates only that he doubts whether, at the time when he was writing the said letter, there still survived any remnants of those who had denied that Dionysius the Areopagite was the same as the Parisian, there will perhaps be someone who brings himself to think both that Anastasius spoke less accurately, and that at the time when he and Hincmar gave their said letters to the emperor Charles the Bald there existed in Gaul either absolutely none, or certainly only very few, who distinguished Dionysius the Areopagite from the Parisian. But if the matter then stood so, to what purpose had Charles the Bald a little before ordered inquiry to be made so solicitously, as Anastasius betrays in his letter to that emperor in the words just recited, and as Hincmar does not deny, for the Passion of Dionysius drawn up by the patriarch Methodius?

[110] and by testimonies drawn from elsewhere That prince most probably did this because, when he understood that by some it was stubbornly denied that Dionysius the Areopagite was the same as the Parisian, and hence remained in doubt whether to adhere to them, or on the contrary to others who thought the contrary, he wished to consult the Passion written by Methodius, a most holy man, in order to discern from it which of the dissenting parties to embrace, especially because he had perhaps heard that there were written in it things from which all doubt on that matter could be laid aside. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, this surely is an argument that still at the time when Anastasius and Hincmar were writing their letters to Charles the Bald there existed in Gaul some who not only doubted whether Dionysius of Paris was one and the same with Dionysius the Areopagite, but also contended that these two Saints are to be distinguished from each other; so that perhaps Hincmar wished to speak of those who denied that Dionysius the Areopagite was the same as the Parisian in the manner of one doubting rather than affirming, lest he should supply anything by which the emperor could in any way be confirmed in his doubt about the matter. However that may be, Usuard, who, as our Sollerius teaches in his Preface to him, number 160, wove his Martyrology about the same time, or about the year 875, and inscribed it to the emperor Charles the Bald, already so often praised, commemorates on the third day of October a Dionysius crowned with martyrdom after the most grievous kinds of torments, as Aristides, as he says, witnesses, and then on the ninth day of the same month a Dionysius who suffered with his fellow martyrs Eleutherius and Rusticus; and in this way, as I shall show below in the arguments which I shall adduce for establishing the opinion of two Dionysiuses, he distinguishes Dionysius the Areopagite from the Parisian no otherwise than Ado; so that even hence you may not undeservedly argue that still at the time when Anastasius and Hincmar were writing their letters to Charles the Bald, of which above, or in the year 876, there existed in Gaul those who at least judged that those two Saints are to be distinguished from each other.

[111] it is proved, And not only at that time, but even somewhat later, that this opinion still pleased some, you may not ineptly gather by a like, or rather the same, manner of arguing from Notker the Stammerer, Benedictine monk of the monastery of St. Gall, or, if you prefer, from the Martyrology woven by him — unless perhaps he, thinking nothing at all about the two Dionysiuses, whether to be distinguished or not to be distinguished, only followed in the footsteps of Ado in the matter of which we speak here, as he often does elsewhere. For that Martyrologist, who composed this composition of his under the Pontificate of Pope Formosus, as he himself asserts at the VIIth day before the Kalends of May, and therefore between the year 890 and the year 897 (for Formosus occupied the Roman chair of St. Peter in the space between these two years), in the monastery of St. Gall, commemorates on the third day of October a Dionysius, whom he expressly calls the Areopagite, and then on the ninth day of the same month a Dionysius, to whom Eleutherius and Rusticus in martyrdom

he joins as companions, likewise records in the Martyrology composed by himself. But why do I adduce here the testimonies of Usuard and Notker, which are suited only to show that the opinion of two Dionysiuses still prevailed when the ninth century was far advanced, when another is at hand which proves that it was moreover sharply defended at that time? An anonymous monk, who about the year 877 (go to the 3rd Benedictine Century, part 2, page 342, number 20) added a third to the two books of miracles of St. Dionysius, adduces not a few things in his Preface before it in order to refute those who would not hold Dionysius of Paris for the Areopagite, and so too in the course of his composition censures them: But let the unbelievers, while they wish to extinguish the name of Dionysius the Athenian and Areopagite, be held not only as the other part of Fescenninus Sisinnius, his slayer; but also, on account of the hatred and envy with which they are convicted of detracting from his servants, let them be pierced through by the dart of blessed John, saying: Whoever hates his brother is a murderer; and who would judge that that writer would have either spoken so, or done what, as I have said, he does in his composition, unless at the time when he was writing there had been those who contradicted the persons making Dionysius the Areopagite the same as the Parisian, and stubbornly sustained the contrary opinion?

[112] And so I do not think that anyone who has in any way weighed the things already disputed on this matter will doubt that there most probably existed through the whole ninth century took place as the IXth century was passing; afterwards, however, that opinion, those who distinguished Dionysius of Paris from the Areopagite and further contended that he must be distinguished. But were there likewise found afterwards, in the following centuries, those who dared to contradict the opinion, then certainly disseminated far and wide and admitted by most, as appears, about one Dionysius, at once Areopagite and bishop of Paris, and to sustain the contrary? That there were indeed from time to time, after the ninth century had already elapsed, those who still remained doubtful and wavering whether St. Dionysius the Areopagite was truly one and the same with Dionysius of Paris, nay even judged that the one was in fact distinct from the other, appears to me sufficiently likely, not to say wholly certain and indubitable; but that there were also always those who dared to defend this opinion of theirs publicly, whether by writing or by disputing, against those who embraced the contrary, I do not think comes equally near to the appearance of truth. Why I am so minded as regards the first, I set out. Launoy, in his Discussion of the Response made by Millet to Sirmond's Dissertation on the two Dionysiuses, chapter 19, having brought forward various Martyrologies of various churches and monasteries from the seventh, eighth and ninth century, as he says, which, because they announce Dionysius the Areopagite on one day and the homonymous bishop and martyr of Paris on another, seem to distinguish the latter from the former, also recounts various Martyrologies of various churches from the tenth and five other subsequent centuries in which the same, as appears, is done; and hence that writer concludes that both the churches and the monasteries for which those Martyrologies were in use confirmed by public use and assertion the distinction of the two Dionysiuses; whether rightly or otherwise, let us consider.

[113] Millet, in his Response to Sirmond's Dissertation on the two Dionysiuses, contends that all the praised Martyrologies although from time to time the contrary opinion of two Dionysiuses are to be held for one and only one, namely Usuard's Martyrology, inasmuch as, as soon as it had been composed in the ninth century, it was customarily read in almost all churches; but although he does not seem to be assented to in this matter as regards each and every one of those Martyrologies, I nevertheless cannot assent either to Launoy, who would have it that all the churches and all the monasteries in which the aforesaid Martyrologies were customarily read confirmed by their assertion the distinction of the two Dionysiuses, and therefore adhered to the opinion of two Dionysiuses, the one Areopagite and the other Parisian. For why could it not have happened that the Martyrologies recounted by Launoy in the place cited, in which, as he contends, two Dionysiuses are most openly distinguished from each other, were read in the sacred places enumerated by the same writer, and yet that these did not each and all think that one Dionysius must be distinguished from the other? The present-day Roman Martyrology, in which Dionysius the Areopagite is confused with the Parisian beyond all controversy, is customarily read in almost all churches and monasteries, and yet all these sacred places, or those who belong to them, do not judge that Dionysius the Areopagite is one and the same with Dionysius of Paris, as everyone will confess. By no means therefore does it follow from the Martyrologies of the 10th and the five following centuries praised by Launoy — on which meanwhile see the discussion still to be held below — that at that time the opinion which sets down St. Dionysius the Areopagite as different from the Parisian was received by almost all churches, as that writer seems to want. But although this is so, and the contrary opinion, which makes St. Dionysius the Areopagite the same as the Parisian, seems to have then occupied the minds of very many and to have always grown stronger and stronger with the lapse of time, it nevertheless appears sufficiently likely even from these same Martyrologies that there were not lacking even then, from time to time, those who followed the opinion of two Dionysiuses: namely, because at least some of these have as their authors persons who announced the latter on one day and the former on another, not following the example of an earlier Martyrologist, but from the judgment by which, having instituted an examination of the matter, they thought Dionysius the Areopagite distinct from the Parisian.

[114] still some followers existed, Certainly that at least in the tenth century, nay also in the eleventh and twelfth, the same opinion had not yet been driven out of the minds of all, there are proof Fulbert, bishop of Chartres from the year 996 to the year 1007, and Abelard, a monk of Saint-Denis in the twelfth century, most famous for his writings; of whom the former makes St. Dionysius, bishop of Paris, a companion of St. Piato, who, he teaches, underwent martyrdom under Maximian; and the latter, because he had asserted that St. Dionysius, patron of the monastery of Saint-Denis, is not the same as the Areopagite, was most badly treated by the monks of Saint-Denis and their abbot, among whom he too lived, having become a monk through a wholly singular and shameful mishap which had befallen him on the occasion of Heloise, as is found handed down to memory and further proved both in his Life, published at Paris in print by Gervaise in the year 1720, and elsewhere. Moreover Innocent III, who presided as Pontiff of the Catholic Church from the year 1198 to the year 1217, in a Bull produced by the monks of Saint-Denis themselves, which he gave in the year 1215 to the monks of Saint-Denis when he was sending them relics of St. Dionysius (whether the Corinthian or another, we shall discuss below) brought from Greece, speaks in this manner: Whether the glorious martyr and pontiff Dionysius, whose venerable body rests in your church, is to be judged to be him who is called the Areopagite, converted by the Apostle Paul, the opinions of various persons are various. For some confess that Dionysius the Areopagite died and was buried in Greece, and that there was another Dionysius who preached the faith of Christ to the peoples of the Franks. But others assert that he came to Rome after the death of blessed Paul and was destined into Gaul by St. Clement the Pope, and that it was another who died and was buried in Greece; yet both distinguished in Work and illustrious in word.

[115] Thus Pope Innocent III; so that partly from this, among most, especially of the 14th and 15th century, no one contradicting, partly from other things already said, it becomes indubitable that there still existed in the tenth century and the two immediately following, nay even in the thirteenth century, some who judged Dionysius the Areopagite to be different from the Parisian. But whether there then also existed those who tried to champion that opinion publicly, whether by writing or by disputing, is not equally certain, as I have already indicated above; nor indeed would it have been sufficiently safe and secure everywhere to do so, as what I have just narrated of Abelard shows. So, namely, had the opinion which maintains that Dionysius the Areopagite is one and the same with Dionysius, bishop and martyr of Paris, then grown strong among most, especially monks, that whoever dared openly to go against it or to attack Hilduin's Areopagitica would be held for a man who wished to detract from the most holy patron of Gaul, and therefore from this kingdom itself. Further, with the lapse of time, chiefly through the agency of those who stubbornly defended Hilduin's Areopagitica and the corrupted Acts of St. Martial of Limoges, Austremonius of Auvergne, Saturninus of Toulouse, Lucian of Beauvais and Eugenius the martyr, the same opinion about one Dionysius, at once Areopagite and Parisian, grew, so that all the writers who in the fourteenth century and the following treated of Dionysius, bishop and martyr of Paris, unless they left the matter untouched, went over with hands and feet to the opinion which makes him the same as the Areopagite. Bellinus indeed, in the Martyrology which he composed as the fifteenth century was growing old, celebrates on the third day of October a Dionysius crowned with martyrdom, as Aristides witnesses, and on the ninth of the same month Dionysius, bishop and martyr of Paris, and so seems to distinguish the latter from the former.

[116] But whether he did this only by the example of Usuard, whom he had before his eyes, [it obtained among writers; but as the 16th century was growing old, called into doubt, and thereafter,] or because, the matter having been carefully examined and weighed in the balance of truth, he thought Dionysius the Areopagite different from Dionysius, bishop and martyr of Paris, appears doubtful and uncertain; so that therefore that Martyrologist does not make what I have asserted about the opinion which makes Dionysius the Areopagite the same as Dionysius of Paris, as admitted by the writers of the fifteenth century too, less consonant with the truth. Further, not only, as I have already said, did that most celebrated opinion about one Dionysius, at once Areopagite and prelate of Paris, prevail commonly among writers in the fourteenth century and the following, but also, the sixteenth century having already begun, it still clung most firmly to the minds of very many. But as this same century was already growing old, it began again to be called into doubt, as Cardinal Baronius, who flourished then and adhered to the opinion of one Dionysius, teaches me, writing thus today in his Annotations to the Roman Martyrology: I know well enough that that question about Dionysius, bishop of the Parisians — whether he is to be judged to be the same who was taken from the Areopagus to the faith of Christ, and thence to the government of the Athenian church — already agitated and defined seven hundred years ago, is again brought into controversy by some; with whom I have a more prolix disputation in the Ecclesiastical Annals. So he; and the question about Dionysius, whether he is one or twofold, which he says here was defined seven hundred years before, continued from the time mentioned by that writer to be controverted, some standing for one, others for a twofold Dionysius, until at length the opinion of one Dionysius was attacked by Jacques Sirmond, priest of our Society, and then by several others following him, with such success that, although there were by no means lacking at that time those who opposed other Opuscula to the Opuscula written by them to this end, nevertheless the credit of that opinion first began to waver among not a few, and then with the lapse of time commonly among all

began to displease.

[117] Hence further the matter came to this, that today only very few are found which, on what occasion it happened, who either make Dionysius the Areopagite the same as Dionysius, bishop and martyr of Paris, or even call into doubt the opinion which distinguishes the one from the other. How the thing came about, I set out. Launoy, in the collection of the various Opuscula which he had elaborated about the two Dionysiuses, the Athenian and the Parisian, printed at Paris in the year 1660, presently, after only a few preliminaries, prefaces thus to the reader: It was … the year one thousand six hundred and twenty-nine, when the most illustrious man Jacques Sirmond edited the ancient Councils of Gaul and distributed them into three tomes. In the second he gives the letter of Louis the Pious to Hilduin, in which the Emperor orders him to write the life of St. Dionysius. Sirmond, in his observations on this tome, hands down these things about the subject of the letter: "It is customarily prefixed to the Areopagitica of Hilduin, abbot of Saint-Denis. For by the command of this letter Hilduin wrote his Areopagitica, and first of all taught that Dionysius of Paris was the same as Dionysius the Areopagite, bishop of the Athenians, whereas before they were distinguished by all; so much so that in the ancient, and now also in all the Martyrologies of the Churches of Gaul, one day is assigned to the birthday of Dionysius the Athenian, the 5th day before the Nones of October, another to the birthday of Dionysius of Paris, the 7th day before the Ides of the same month: and this very distinction of the two birthdays is observed also in his Martyrology by Usuard, who wrote a little before Hilduin, in the reign of Charlemagne, in the very city of the Parisians, in the monastery of St. Germain, where also ancient copies of that work are preserved which give credit to the matter.

[118] by the words of Launoy recited here "But who would believe that Usuard was ignorant of, or dissembled, the opinion of the Gauls about their Dionysius? Finally, John Eriugena, or Scotus, a writer of that age, in the letter to Charles the Bald which he prefixed to his Latin version of the Greek works of Dionysius, alluding to this then new opinion of Hilduin about a single Dionysius, says that it was the assertion not of the ancients but of the moderns, that is, of the men of his own time. Further, the things which distinguish Dionysius of Paris from the Athenian are so many and so open that it is a wonder that some are found who in so great a light see nothing. Yet they protest, and vehemently contend that they may reduce the two Dionysiuses into one, nor do they suffer the matter to be discussed against them or called into question, as if it mattered little to the Parisians to take care not to attribute to another the grace which they owe to their Apostle, or as if it were a slight injury to the Church, when it has two bishops excelling in holiness, to take one away." This observation displeased some who were foremost in dignity rather than in learning, whom perversely religious men had stirred up. In order that their wishes might be satisfied, the leaf of paper where the observation was was reprinted, and that which had displeased was removed from it. This manner of acting escaped no one; it came to the knowledge of all. Thence it happened that curious buyers were unwilling to procure for themselves the ancient councils of Gaul unless they had the leaf of paper which it had been resolved to suppress.*

[119] The bookseller, when he perceived this, anxious for his business, is set out; no longer refuses to those asking for it the leaf which he had kept against every eventuality: in order to sell and dispose of his books, he of his own accord grants it. The buyers had what they wished to have. And so the matter was safe, because the truth did not blush. For it never blushes, except while it is hidden. It was not hidden; it came forth into open light, the King above all favouring it, and the chief minister of the King, to whom the investigation and defence of ancient tradition was pleasing. Sirmond's observation, if it was not true, could have been confuted by a briefer observation: there needed only to be published and brought forward one author older than Hilduin who had committed to writing that Dionysius, bishop of the Parisians, was the same as Dionysius the Areopagite, bishop of the Athenians. What, if it could have been done, was easier to do? Then the whole observation would have been given up for lost, and would have fallen as though shaken by some necessary motion. But indeed, since not even one author earlier than Hilduin could be published and brought forward who said what had to be said, the truth, which is content with its simplicity, seemed, beyond reason, to need a composition of many things and words. This is the spring, this the origin of many volumes and various dissertations.

[120] Thus far Launoy, who, although he here wholly wrongly makes Hilduin the first author of the opinion of one Dionysius, with success by Sirmond at once Areopagite and bishop of the Parisians, as the things just disputed in the five preceding §§ clearly show, nevertheless opportunely teaches us that from the observation of Sirmond, contained in these words — who likewise flouts Hilduin as the first author of that opinion — on the letter of Louis the Pious to that abbot of Saint-Denis, though of only a few lines, several volumes and various dissertations had their origin; nor does he in this matter swerve at all from the truth, as not a few printed Opuscula which still survive today give assurance. The chief of these Launoy recounts while he goes on, as he began in the words already given, to preface to the reader at the beginning of the mentioned Collection of his Opuscula with other words which he subjoins; and I too, because I think it will not be unwelcome to the reader, recount them here after that writer's example, though in other words than those which he employed. Germain Millet, monk of the monastery of St. Denis, was the first of all, so far as I know, to come forth into the line of battle against Sirmond, having taken up a literary contest, and in four books, published in the year 1638, he attacked that writer's brief observation, which the words of Launoy already given contain, and strove in every way to overthrow and uproot it entirely. But Sirmond, by a little book which he inscribed Dissertation on the two Dionysiuses and made public in the year 1641, persuaded not a few of the learned that Millet's efforts had been slight and empty. Among these, as appears, was the very man who teaches what I have already said, John Launoy, theologian of Paris.

[121] and by Launoy, though others still defended it, Certainly, when he had perceived that Hilduin was accused of novelty by Sirmond, and had attentively and carefully turned over his Areopagitica in order to examine whether this accusation was true, he at length, as he himself again says in the place just cited, found that abbot of Saint-Denis wholly unworthy that any credit be given him; and this judgment of his about the same Hilduin — which, however, from what has been said above, was not fair in every respect — he made public in a small Opusculum, by which he transfixed with thirteen animadversions the little book of Jean Samblancat of Toulouse, who had meanwhile come forth against Sirmond, in the very year 1641, in which Sirmond's Dissertation praised above had been brought forth into light, as it was passing. Further, in the year immediately following Millet tried to refute this, adducing not a few arguments, in another composition published under the title of a Response to the recently published Dissertation on the two Dionysiuses; and since Sirmond had neglected that Work and had not deigned it any response, Launoy, lest Millet should congratulate himself beyond measure on Sirmond's silence, discussed the mentioned Response of that writer, and in the very year 1642 in which the latter had sent it out, while it was still running, he examined it according to the rules, as he says, of finding and asserting the truth, in an Opusculum which in its prefixed title is called a Discussion of the Response to the Dissertation on the two Dionysiuses.

[122] was attacked, so that those who defend it today, almost none, Why say more? Millet stopped here, and no longer applied his mind to defending his Response; but in his place there succeeded Hugues Ménard, himself also a monk of the monastery of St. Denis, who wrote against Launoy's already praised discussion a Diatribe which he entitled On the single St. Dionysius the Areopagite, bishop of Athens and of the Parisians, and gave it to the public light in the year 1643. He had not prefixed his name to the edition; but since he departed from life not long after, the monks of Saint-Denis caused the first leaf of the little book to be reprinted and the name of the author, or of Hugues Ménard, Benedictine monk of the congregation of St. Maur in France, to be inscribed on it. Launoy observes some things on this matter; but these, because they bear either nothing or certainly very little on our purpose, I pass over in silence, and set out what labour was then spent on refuting the aforesaid Diatribe. Launoy revised the Discussion of Millet's Response to Sirmond's Dissertation on the two Dionysiuses, which, as has already been said, he had published in the year 1642, and published it again in print in the year 1660, made more correct and enlarged by various additions by which he attacked Ménard and strove to refute the Diatribe published by him. And so now I have recounted in chronological order up to the year 1660 all the Opuscula, whether on one or on two Dionysiuses, to whose writing and giving to the public light the Observation of Sirmond, related in the words of Launoy just given, furnished the occasion or origin; but in order now also to set out in a few words what outcome the controversy at length had, agitated in those compositions even sometimes with the greatest heat of minds, there were indeed, when it first began to be raised, some men (go to the words of Launoy just recited), even foremost ones, who took it very ill that the opinion of one Dionysius which they had deeply imbibed should be attacked, and could in no way be induced to depart from it and embrace the contrary.

[123] But at length the opinion championed by Sirmond and Launoy, which sets down the two Dionysiuses, namely the Areopagite and the Parisian, almost all the learned having embraced the contrary, survive. as distinct from each other, so pleased with the lapse of time that all the learned commonly, and first of all Adrien de Valois, Morin, Le Cointe, Pagi, Tillemont, Chastelain, Baillet and not a few others, embraced it, nor is it possible today to find any but very few who either attack it or contend that the other, which makes Dionysius the Areopagite the same as the Parisian, is to be adopted. Indeed, when François de Harlay, archbishop of the Parisians from the year 1671 to the year 1695, had heard both this and the contrary opinion debated, the weight of reasons on both sides being adduced, by theologians selected from the sacred faculty of Paris for the emendation of the Parisian Breviary, he still judged that its honour was to be preserved for the opinion of one Dionysius in the ecclesiastical Office (go to tome 6 of July of our Work, page 76); but this judgment of his Louis Antoine de Noailles, who next succeeded him in the chair of Paris, reformed, and distinguished two Dionysiuses in the Parisian Breviary, which came out in the year 1700 by his authority and with the consent of the venerable Chapter; although meanwhile Chifflet and Noël Alexandre, about the year 1676, had tried by their writings to raise up again the same opinion of one Dionysius, already wholly laid low before; whether they deservedly or undeservedly strove to do so will become evident from the things which I am about to say in the course of what follows.

§ VII. Whether the opinion of a single Dionysius, which is older than Hilduin, as is shown more specifically, the objections to the contrary being resolved, prevailed even before the middle of the eighth century, and what is to be thought of some arguments by which this may be proved.

Even if the opinion of one Dionysius, in Hilduin's age, Launoy, who contends that the two Dionysiuses, the one Areopagite and the other Parisian, are to be distinguished, in more than one place in his writings, which on this subject

he elaborated, in his compositions, applies all his efforts to proving that it is established by legitimate tradition, derived from the source, that Dionysius the Areopagite is different from the Parisian. And indeed, since the dictum of Tertullian in the book Of Prescriptions against the heretics, chapter 31, expressed in these words, From the very order it is made manifest that that is … true which was handed down first; but that is extraneous and false which was brought in later, is admitted by all beyond any controversy, Launoy not undeservedly tries with all zeal and effort to prove what I have said. For if you have clearly shown that the ancient tradition, which was from the beginning, is adverse to the opinion of one Dionysius, you will at the same time have proved from the said dictum of Tertullian that this is most far removed from the truth. And Launoy indeed brings forward not a few things which demonstrate that the opinion of one Dionysius is not founded in a tradition of this kind; but although he also rightly does not make the same opinion — which, as we have already seen, occupied the minds of not a few for several centuries — older than the middle of the eighth century, he wrongly contends that it was first introduced by Hilduin, or is to be ascribed to this abbot of Saint-Denis as the one from whom it drew its first origin. And this is most manifestly clear even from the sole Epistle of Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, to Charles the Bald, which I have already praised more than once above, in which that writer teaches that, when he was a youth, he read the Life of St. Sanctinus, in which, as anyone who has turned over the said letter of Hincmar either in Surius or in Chifflet will easily discover, Dionysius the Areopagite is most openly held as one and the same with Dionysius of Paris; but since Launoy, to whom Pagi too afterwards joined himself, speaks not rightly enough about the said letter and its author Hincmar, these two writers must be met and further confuted by me here — so that the things which I discoursed above from it, or rather from the Life of St. Sanctinus, for fixing the opinion of one Dionysius before Hilduin's age, may stand unshaken and firm — before I approach what I have decided chiefly to do here.

[125] contrary to what Launoy, who is refuted here, Launoy therefore, so as not to be compelled by the already praised letter of Hincmar to confess the opinion of one Dionysius, at once Areopagite and Parisian, to be older than Hilduin, seems to call into doubt whether it is truly to be attributed to this writer. Hear how he speaks of this literary monument in the Collection of his Opuscula on the two Dionysiuses, published, as was said above, in the year 1660, page 412: Thus far, he says, about the Epistle of Hincmar, which is lacking among his Works. Sirmond rather scorned it than failed to see it. He judged it indeed unworthy to be counted among the Works of Hincmar. Jean Busée and Jean Cordes, each in his own edition, went before Sirmond and gave the example of neglecting the epistle. The counsel of the three men is helped by our examination, which takes away all authority from the epistle, and fixes an epoch for many novelties. For in Hincmar, who died in the year 882, the pronouncement of Baronius has place: "What is brought forward by a more recent author about things so ancient without the authority of some older one is despised." Baronius forgot this pronouncement of his both at the year of Christ CIX and in the Martyrology at the VIIth day before the Ides of October, where he praises the epistle of Hincmar in order to confirm the coming of Dionysius the Areopagite into Gaul. Martin Delrio in chapter XXIX of the Areopagitic Vindications, and others whom it would be long to enumerate, do not make Baronius's opinion certain, but only follow it. So he; but since Flodoard, History of the church of Reims, book 3, chapter 18, expressly ascribes that letter (go to number 61 of this Commentary) to Hincmar, it is wrongly called into doubt whether it was in truth drawn up by this archbishop of Reims; and although it is neither suited to confirm the coming of Dionysius the Areopagite into Gaul, as is already plain from what has been said above and will become more evident from what is to be said below, nor do the things which Hincmar draws from his own store about this merit entire credit, yet this writer, if he truly also read in the Life of St. Sanctinus what he affirms in his aforesaid letter that he read in it, surely does not allow it to be doubted, as will become clear to one reading it, that the opinion which makes Dionysius the Areopagite the same as Dionysius, prelate of Paris, is older than Hilduin.

[126] Pagi undoubtedly observed this when he asserted in the Critica at the year 834, number 13, that what Hilduin writes in the Areopagitica about Dionysius the Areopagite — that, a bishop having been substituted for him at Athens, he set out for Rome, and was sent from there by Pope Clement into Gaul, where he also underwent martyrdom — was committed to writing by no writer before him, at least no Latin one; and Pagi, whose reasoning against Hincmar and hence, in order to resolve the argument militating against this assertion of his, already proposed from the said letter of Hincmar, or rather from the Life of St. Sanctinus added at its end, he takes another way. For after he has declared that Hincmar asserts that what has already been said was read by him in the Life of St. Sanctinus, he presently continues in this manner at number 14: Thus abbreviators and interpolators often attribute to authors things which never came into their minds, although they profess that they have added nothing of their own to them, because, namely, they held it most persuaded that they meant to say them, as I demonstrated by an illustrious example at the year DVIII, number XI and following. That Hincmar and Anastasius had this as their custom, it is easy to show. The former, composing the Life of St. Remigius, archbishop of Reims, recited by Surius at the 13th day of the month of January, asserts in the Preface that he "learned by faithful report" from old men and religious men already advanced in age that they had heard it narrated "by their forefathers" that "they" had seen a book of very great size, written in an antique hand, on the Birth and Life and virtues and death of blessed Remigius, our most holy patron. Which perished on this occasion, etc. And that he would hand down what he found in the histories published by his forefathers.

[127] Then in the Life of the same Saint he says that Clovis and his people received the grace of Baptism on the day of Easter. is transcribed here, and with various reasons brought forward here And yet neither he himself nor his forefathers had read this in that book, but only that it happened on the solemn Feast of Christ, which was wrongly interpreted by them of the day of Christ's Resurrection; whereas it is now certainly established that it was done on the birthday of Christ. Wherefore no greater credit is to be given to Hincmar when in the praised Epistle, in order to win credit for the Latin version which Anastasius had published of the Life of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, elaborated in Greek by Methodius, he says: "I recognized that the things which I had read in my youth agreed with those which are written there," and that then Wandelmar had found in the little abbey of St. Quentin entrusted to him "very worn little quires, and the things which had been written in them, almost effaced, about the Life and Acts of blessed Sanctinus;" that Wandelmar indeed had died, and that in that place some things had been burned by the Normans and some plundered, but that he had kept a copy of the Life of Sanctinus, and offered it to his majesty, "So that, if there are any remnants of those who denied that our lord and father Dionysius is the Areopagite, and baptized by blessed Paul the Apostle and ordained bishop of the Athenians, and directed into Gaul by St. Clement, they may recognize as settled in this too, from these things which the Greek testimony and the assertion of the Roman See and the Gallican contestation intimate, what was said thence before us." But Hincmar had no more read in the Life of Sanctinus that Dionysius, sent by Clement into Gaul, was the Areopagite, than in the cited book of the Life of St. Remigius that Clovis was baptized on the day of Easter.

[128] So he; but where did Hincmar ever say that he read in the praised book of the Life of St. Remigius what Pagi says here? and various things brought forward here I have turned over in Surius from head to foot the Life of St. Remigius written by Hincmar, which has also already been edited with us at the 1st day of October, the day sacred to that holy prelate of Reims, and could not find a word in it by which Hincmar in any way insinuates that he read in the said book of the Life of St. Remigius what he hands down to memory about the day of Easter on which Clovis was baptized. And indeed who would believe that Hincmar anywhere indicated that he found this written in a book which, as he himself professes in his Preface prefixed to the Life of St. Remigius, no longer existed in his age and had been sought by him in vain? Who even read in that monument, as Pagi besides indicates, at least that Clovis was baptized on a solemn feast? Hear how he speaks with us in the said Preface, number 7. Whence, he says, it pleased your good desires that my service should collect those things (the deeds of St. Remigius) into one for the knowledge of the ignorant and of those following. Which I would also long since have done, had not a vain hope deluded me, certain persons saying that in this place and that place I could find a great book (namely the one mentioned by Pagi in the words already given) on the life and virtues of our lord and patron himself (Remigius). Sending to which places, I found the things which had been promised me wholly false. But now, with the Lord's help, … I shall undertake what I have long put off, beginning from the forefathers and birth of him (namely St. Remigius), and so directing in sequence both the things which I found about him in the Histories published by our forefathers, and those which I found scattered in various little sheets; and also those which I have gathered by common report.

[129] reasons See how openly Hincmar betrays that the book of the Life of St. Remigius mentioned by Pagi was sought by him in vain, and therefore did not light his way. See the far different sources from which this writer himself teaches that he drew whatever he writes in the Life of St. Remigius. With us, in the Commentary prefixed to the Life of St. Remigius, it is shown that Clovis was baptized not on the feast of Easter but on the Nativity of the Lord; and concerning Hincmar, who nevertheless records the Baptism of that king on the feast of Easter in the Life of St. Remigius, these following things are observed: The time of the Baptism, which Gregory passed over in silence, Hincmar received from the epitomized History of Fredegar, in whose chapter 21 it is read thus: "When Clovis had returned from the battle mentioned above to Reims" (that is, "to Reims"), "he was secretly consecrated with the grace of Baptism, together with six thousand Franks, at the Lord's Easter, by St. Remedius" (so he calls St. Remigius) "bishop of the city of Reims, queen Chrotechild also drawing him on." So he: and the discipline of the Church at that time indeed required that Baptism, outside the case of necessity, should be solemnly celebrated only on the feasts of Easter and Pentecost, a beginning being made on the Vigil. Hence I judge it came about that Fredegar assigned the Paschal feast, and to the same

Hincmar, Flodoard and others easily assented without further examination.* Although therefore Hincmar wrongly writes in the Life of St. Remigius that Clovis was baptized on the feast of Easter, he nevertheless drew it from elsewhere than from the ancient book of the Life of St. Remigius which Pagi mentions.

[130] it is shown to prove nothing at all, Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and Hincmar nowhere, according to what has been said, indicates that he read that in this book, Pagi wrongly concludes from the time of Clovis's Baptism, which that archbishop of Reims did not read recorded in the ancient book of the Life of St. Remigius, that likewise he did not read in the Life of St. Sanctinus what he declares he read in it about Dionysius the Areopagite, sent into Gaul by Pope Clement. Moreover, even if we should grant for the moment that Hincmar said what Pagi would have about the time at which Baptism was conferred on Clovis, who would conclude from the fact that he had erred in that matter, or had attributed to the book of the Life of St. Remigius what he had not read in it, that he likewise attributed to the Life of St. Sanctinus what he had not read in it, and was also accustomed to ascribe to other authors things which never came into their minds? No one indeed, so far as I think, except one who has brought himself to think that things which happen once are wont to happen often, or rather even always. There is added that the whole narrative transcribed above here from the Life of St. Sanctinus requires that the Dionysius who in it, as Hincmar says, is narrated to have been sent into Gaul by Pope Clement was the Areopagite; and since it more easily happens that someone is deceived in a thing which occurs expressed by a single word (for one is not seldom taken for another by mistake) than in another which runs through a whole narrative, it follows that, even if Hincmar had said by mistake that the day on which Clovis was baptized was read by him in the aforesaid book of the Life of St. Remigius, where he had not read it, it is not at once to be maintained that he likewise asserted by mistake that what he had not read in the Life of St. Sanctinus about Dionysius the Areopagite, sent into Gaul by Pope Clement, was nevertheless read by him in it.

[131] Nor would Pagi have had recourse to this either, unless he had stubbornly held Hilduin for the first author of the opinion introduced about one Dionysius, at once Areopagite and prelate of Paris, contend, it is certainly especially if he had observed that all the things which occur in the said Epistle of Hincmar from these three words, The Holy Areopagite Dionysius, to the end, constitute the very Life of St. Sanctinus, or certainly a compendium of it, woven by Hincmar from the copy of that same Life which, as he teaches, he sent together with his letter to Charles the Bald, and which therefore he most probably still read when he wrote it. However this matter stands meanwhile, on which the discussion will return below, all that has already been said brings it about that it is certainly not to be doubted that Hincmar in fact read (for I do not think that writer lied) what he declares in the Epistle to Charles the Bald mentioned above — certainly to be ascribed to him, according to what has been said — that he read about Dionysius the Areopagite, sent into Gaul by Pope Clement, in the Life of St. Sanctinus, drawn up, as I taught above, long before the Areopagitica were written by Hilduin; and since this is so, the opinion which sets down Dionysius the Areopagite as sent into Gaul by Pope Clement, and therefore as the same as Dionysius, prelate of Paris, is certainly older than Hilduin, and prevailed quite long before he applied his mind to writing his Areopagitica, and therefore that writer, contrary to what Launoy and Pagi contend, is not its first author. How true this is is clear besides both from many other things already alleged before and most of all from the Dionysian Passions praised above, which hand down to memory that Dionysius, prelate and martyr of Paris, was converted to the faith at Athens by St. Paul the Apostle, written in the Greek idiom by Metrodorus, Chifflet's Anonymous and Methodius before the year 822, if not earlier, as it is easy to draw out from what has been disputed above.

[132] Launoy indeed contends that these were not drawn up before the Areopagitica were written by Hilduin; but he gives this as by no means proved from these words of Hilduin to the emperor Louis the Pious, number 10, as he chiefly would have it: Of whose (namely Dionysius the Areopagite's) death the Greek writers have said nothing, because on account of the distance of the lands his passing was wholly unknown to them. earlier, yet not also, as from the Life of St. Sanctinus For Hilduin speaks not of any Greeks whatever, as if none of them at all had said anything about the death of Dionysius the Areopagite, but, as he betrays sufficiently by the very words already recited, only of those to whom he judged, and further affirms in the cited place, that the passing of that Saint was wholly unknown; and since he insinuates a little after the words already recited that the death of St. Dionysius the Areopagite became known, inquiry having been made into the matter, to Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople from the year 784 to the year 804, he neither thought nor wished to signify by the words already given that it was unknown to the more recent Greeks. And since this is so, Launoy surely by no means gives it as proved from these words that Metrodorus and Chifflet's anonymous author, because they committed something to writing about the death of Dionysius the Areopagite, drew up their compositions only after Hilduin's Areopagitica had been written. And so now it is evident, no less from these than from the Life of St. Sanctinus, already praised so very often, that the opinion of one Dionysius is certainly earlier than the age of Hilduin. But can it also be concluded from that Life, as someone will perhaps think, that the same opinion prevailed before the middle of the eighth century? So Chifflet wholly insists. Hear how he speaks in his Dissertation on the one Dionysius, page 76: To the same Charles also, he says, Hincmar of Reims sent the Life of blessed Sanctinus, in which he recounts the mission of St. Dionysius, his master, into Gaul by St. Clement the Pope, and his illustrious martyrdom at Paris: and he warns that he formerly received it from a certain Wandelmar, prefect of the little abbey of St. Sanctinus, "in very worn little quires, almost effaced through age, and copied it accurately onto new parchment." Now certainly we would scarcely call a parchment so old which had not been written seven hundred, or at least six hundred, years before; and almost as many years above the age of Hincmar reached back to the very times of St. Dionysius.

[133] Chifflet, and from the Writing of Visbius, So he, wishing, namely, that the Life of St. Sanctinus, in which Hincmar had read the mission of St. Dionysius the Areopagite into Gaul expressed, was written already from the very age of this Saint, or certainly not long after, and therefore that the opinion which confuses the two Dionysiuses, namely the Areopagite and the prelate of Paris, not only prevailed before Hilduin's age, but even anticipated it by some centuries. But since parchments or papers, as I have already taught at number 26, can be almost wholly eaten away in a space far shorter even than seven hundred or six hundred years, he wrongly attributes so great an antiquity to the little quires read by him because they were almost eaten away; and that the Life of St. Sanctinus which these contained was written no earlier than about the year 760 or 770 is sufficiently likely both from the place of this Commentary just mentioned, and also from this, that absolutely no writer who certainly flourished before the year 750 is found to have made Dionysius the Areopagite the same as Dionysius, prelate of Paris, and therefore neither would the author of the Life of St. Sanctinus seem likely to have done so, had he flourished before the said year. And since this is so, it cannot be obtained from the Life of St. Sanctinus, or, if you prefer, from the Compendium of it given by Hincmar in his Epistle to Charles the Bald, that the opinion which makes Dionysius the Areopagite the same as Dionysius of Paris should be set down as older than the middle of the eighth century, much less that it should be certainly believed to have had place already from the age to which it is thrown back by the reasoning of Chifflet just recited. But, in order to give it as proved that the said opinion prevailed already from an age near to the martyrdom of St. Dionysius, they also bring forward, or certainly can bring forward, the Acts of St. Dionysius written by Visbius, an eyewitness, as they say, of the martyrdom of St. Dionysius, which, almost consumed by age, Hilduin, as they speak, rescued from destruction and offered to Louis the Pious, king and emperor of the Gauls; and those Acts, says Noël Alexandre on the ecclesiastical History of the 1st century, dissertation 16, proposition 2, testified that Dionysius the Areopagite, converted to the christian faith by the Apostle Paul, sent by St. Clement into Gaul, founded the Parisian church and watered it with his blood, as Hilduin relates.

[134] Further, to those replying that those Acts were fabricated by Hilduin in order to win greater celebrity for his monastery of Saint-Denis, although these were meanwhile fabricated, as here he answers that this cannot be said without calumny, and then continues thus: For who would easily believe that a religious and pious man, who restored regular observance in the abbey of St. Dionysius, whom Lupus, abbot of Ferrières, in epistle 110 calls "a Master of churchmen conspicuous at the summit of nobility, dignity and moderation; whom Walafrid, in tome six of Canisius's Ancient Reading, in the Poems written to him, calls a great Aaron, whose brightness of manners is commended together with the probity of his mind;" who, I say, would believe that he imposed on a most religious emperor, on bishops, on all Christians? Certainly, if he had fabricated those Acts of Visbius, there were not lacking learned and sagacious men in the Gallican church who would have scented the fraud and attacked so splendid a lie. For tell me, pray, did "the truth that was to be freed await" Sirmond and Launoy? Thus the praised writer; and although the reasons by which he here strives to prove what he has proposed are very weak and could be confuted without any trouble, he nevertheless rightly contends that the Acts of Visbius, or the Writing of this masked author, of whom above, were not fabricated by Hilduin: for besides that this writer, as I taught above, is not of bad faith in citing authors and monuments, he says in his Reply to the emperor Louis, number 5, that the writing of Visbius was found at Paris by divine assent in a volume quite thoroughly hidden away.

[135] And that Hilduin did not invent this is clear from the Epistle of Louis the Pious to him, praised more than once above, it is proved, was not by Hilduin, in which, while this emperor enjoins on that writer to write the Life of St. Dionysius, he at the same time also orders that there be added to it the things which he had found in very ancient volumes or charters brought out from the press of the church of Paris, namely of his sacred see, and had shown to the very eyes of the emperor; from which words, that volume, sufficiently hidden away, in which the writing of Visbius was found at Paris,

which Hilduin speaks of in the place just cited, appears indubitably to have been seen by the emperor Louis no less than by this writer. Le Beuf, canon of Auxerre, in his Dissertations on the History of Paris, page 59 and following, contends indeed that the recited words of Louis are to be understood of the Missal books exhibited to him by Hilduin and used for weaving together the Passion of St. Dionysius: namely because, since Hilduin recounts them in the last place in his Reply to the emperor Louis, and most probably does so (for it is fitting that the order of the reply should agree with the order of the request) in the same order in which that prince commanded him to employ for writing the Passion of Dionysius the monuments which he understood by those words, and mentions last. But Louis in his Epistle to Hilduin speaks first of the little book of the Dionysian Passion to be employed by him, and only then subjoins the words just transcribed here; while Hilduin, when he has spoken of the same little book of the Dionysian Passion, recounts not the said Missal books but the Acts written by Visbius, or rather the Writing of this masked author; so that, if the praised Le Beuf notes rightly, this fictitious monument, rather than the aforesaid Missal books, ought to be understood by the recited words of Louis, although meanwhile the emperor, as using the plural number, perhaps wished to extend them to those also. However this last stands, the writing of Visbius was indeed seen both by the emperor Louis and by Hilduin, and therefore it does not appear likely that it was fabricated by the latter. But although this is so, nothing is had from it by which it may in any way be proved that the opinion of one Dionysius prevailed already from an age next to the martyrdom of St. Dionysius.

[136] Noël Alexandre would have it, than the middle of the eighth century, For what? That writing of Visbius nowhere hands down to memory that Dionysius the Areopagite, sent into Gaul by Pope Clement, either founded the church of Paris or watered it with his blood, contrary to what Alexandre judged, who most probably did not see that monument, already given by us at number 44 and the two following. And although it calls the Dionysius crowned with martyrdom at Paris Ionian, and so seems, as I taught at number 48, to make him an Athenian and therefore the same as Dionysius the Areopagite, it nevertheless merits no credit in this matter, nor in any way claims for the opinion of one Dionysius an antiquity which approaches the time near to the martyrdom of Dionysius: not the first, because, as I have already taught at number 47, it is wholly spurious and fabricated by an impostor; not the second, because it was most probably not written before the VIIIth century had already elapsed in its middle part, as appears both from what I have already discoursed at number 48, and also from this, that in documents written before the middle of the VIIIth century no writer named Visbius anywhere occurs. Whatever therefore Alexandre declares about the writing of this masked author, which he even contends excels the Dionysian Acts published by Bosquet, there is surely no reason why we should set down from it the opinion which makes Dionysius the Areopagite the same as Dionysius, prelate and martyr of Paris, as older than the middle of the VIIIth century, which was chiefly to be shown here.

[137] whatever may be argued to the contrary from Metrodorus, is older, Nor would you rightly attribute greater antiquity to the same opinion from the Greek Passion of Dionysius which, as I taught above, has as its author Metrodorus, a writer not otherwise known; and that even if I should grant for the moment that he committed to writing the words recited at number 77, in which he declares the sources of his writing, not from the Latin Acts which he translated but from his own genius. For since that writer is known from absolutely no literary monuments or other writers, it can be called into doubt whether he was of such probity and sincerity of mind as to merit entire credit in all things, and therefore also whether he wrote consonantly with the truth when he brought forth these words, already recited above, as I have said, toward the end of the Passion written by himself: For we have not had it from our own manners, nor from our own foreknowledge, but it has been accomplished by us from an old narrative; and the few things which we have heard from certain and firm antiquity and from long times, those we commit to writing as we were able, not having undertaken an exposition from ourselves and rashly, but as we have had the narratives of great doctors of the deeds done, fearing God. Although therefore Metrodorus signifies not obscurely by these words that he received from ancient monuments of certain and indubitable credit the things which he hands down to memory in his Passion of St. Dionysius about Dionysius, converted to the faith by Paul the Apostle, who then, when he had come to Rome, a bishop having been substituted for him at Athens, was sent by Pope Clement into Gaul and then suffered martyrdom there, yet even the things which I have just said bring it about that what he writes about Dionysius is not to be held without hesitation for true. Moreover, it may also happen that this writer, not otherwise known, as has been said, through a defect of skill or sufficient criticism held recent and spurious monuments for ancient and genuine; so that certainly the composition of Metrodorus on Dionysius either — which is also to be understood, as you will easily gather from what has been said above, of the Epistle of Aristarchus and of the compositions of Methodius and Chifflet's anonymous author — supplies nothing by which the opinion of one Dionysius, at once Areopagite and prelate of Paris, should be set down as older than the middle of the VIIIth century; but whether nothing is had from elsewhere either by which this might be done, I shall discuss in the following §.

§ VIII. Three other arguments, which make for setting the opinion of one Dionysius before the middle of the eighth century, are discussed and refuted.

[That the opinion of one Dionysius is older than the middle of the VIIIth century, neither the argument proposed here,] Those who contend for the opinion of one Dionysius, at once Areopagite and Parisian, adduce three further arguments, to be discussed in the present §, to prove that it prevailed before the middle of the eighth century. And of the first two, from which it pleases me to begin here, they derive the one from the Hymn on St. Dionysius which St. Eugenius of Toledo composed, praised by Hilduin in the Areopagitica, and the other from the Martyrology of Bede, from the most ancient Life of St. Genevieve, from the Diploma of Pippin, king of Gaul, and finally from the Hymn, likewise, of Fortunatus, bishop of Poitiers; in all of which four monuments St. Dionysius is said to have been sent into Gaul by St. Clement, who occupied the Roman Chair of St. Peter in the first century of the Christian era. But to refute this latter argument in the first place, let us admit for the moment the four monuments mentioned as genuine; let us grant also that it is rightly said in them that Dionysius was sent into Gaul by St. Clement the Pope; nevertheless it will by no means follow from this that that Dionysius was the Areopagite. For why could not a namesake of the Areopagite, and yet different from him, have been sent by Clement? Noël Alexandre indeed says in the place cited above that in the age of Pope Clement no other flourished, besides the Areopagite, who was called Dionysius. But he brings forward absolutely nothing by which he gives it as proved, nor do I know whether he could have produced anything suited to win even any appearance of truth for that assertion of his. In the Hieronymian Transcripts in Fiorentini not a few martyrs are recorded, different from Dionysius the Areopagite and yet distinguished by the name of Dionysius, and since their age as well as the epoch of their martyrdom are in obscurity, who would assert for certain that none of them flourished in the age of Pope Clement? No one surely, so far as I think. Our predecessors have already brought into our Work some martyrs marked with the name of Dionysius; and since, as regards some of these, they did not in any way determine either the century in which or the emperor under whom they suffered, they would most certainly not have said that none of them underwent martyrdom while Pope Clement was still surviving.

[139] the argument derived from four monuments, And indeed no one today is so much a stranger in the critical art as to think that in Clement's age there existed only one Dionysius who could have been sent by this holy Pontiff into Gaul for preaching the Gospel. Nor is there reason for you to reply that the name Dionysius is not Latin but Greek; for although that is so, not a few Latins or Romans even in the first centuries of the Christian era flourished who had the name Dionysius. Moreover, even if we should grant for the moment that the Dionysius who was sent by Pope Clement into Gaul was a Greek by nation, would it follow from this that the Dionysius sent into Gaul by Clement was certainly no other than the Areopagite? Was there perhaps no one but him in Greece too at that time who could have come thence to Rome and then been sent into Gaul by Pope Clement? Indeed it does not appear likely that anyone of the number of the learned will bring himself to think so even today. All the things therefore which I have already said being considered, that the Dionysius who was sent by Pope Clement into Gaul is the Areopagite can by no means be proved from the four monuments mentioned above. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and the argument derived from them therefore serves only for ascribing to Pope Clement the mission of St. Dionysius, bishop and martyr of Paris, into Gaul, but not also for fixing the opinion of one Dionysius before the middle of the VIIIth century, whether these same monuments, and any others which set down Dionysius, prelate and martyr of Paris, as sent into Gaul by Pope Clement without any indication at all added by which he might be confused with the Areopagite, are consonant with the truth in this matter must be investigated, not here, but in the Commentary to be prefixed below to the Acts of St. Dionysius of Paris, to which, from what has been said, they properly belong.

[140] nor the one which here Content therefore to have referred thither the reader who will wish to know the things which I am besides going to say about these same monuments and about the mission of Dionysius into Gaul through Pope Clement asserted in them, I now proceed to the other argument, derived from the said Hymn of Eugenius of Toledo, and likewise not proving the matter. And first indeed I transcribe here entire the Hymn which is thrust upon us for that Hymn and plainly holds Dionysius of Paris for the Areopagite. It is expressed in these words:

Citizens of heaven, applaud The joyful light of the world, By which is illumined from heaven The grace of this day.

The most exalted faith of the Martyr And the life of the sacred prelate, Of the noble Dionysius, Has received from heaven the palm.

From the Areopagus of Athens * He took the diadem of the King Of heaven, a shining gem, Dionysius the sophist.

Paul teaching, the faith of the faithful Has a mirror, And the gentile world a mirror *, Which before knew a wonder *.

Shining with wondrous doctrine He illumined Greece: And this * renowned Pontiff Went to the Roman city.

Clement, prelate at Rome, Commanding, he came to Gaul: On whom the radiance of the splendid sun Shone forth in signs, in speech.

At length, the demon driven back, The sacred work being built, Afflicted with the greatest punishments, His neck being cut, he sought heaven *.

Hail, Father, climbing to the pole,

Hail, Gracious one, visiting the earth, Hallowing the yearly gifts of the feast With thy presence.

Offer, best of priests, Our groans and prayers. Strengthen our faith, Martyr of God, And correct our ways.

By thy help govern the frail In the sea of this world, And those stripped of the body Receive, kindly and loving,

That without end glory To God the Father with the Son Together with the Holy Spirit We may sing with thee for ever.

Here now also is whence I received that monument. There exists with us a not small Manuscript, which is noted as received from a Ms. of Brogne and at the same time collated with a Ms. of Saint-Ghislain, containing the Life of St. Eugenius — namely of Toledo, as is indicated in more than one place in it — archbishop and martyr, as also the translation of his relics made by St. Gerard, abbot, to the monastery of Brogne, and the miracles afterwards wrought there by the same St. Eugenius. And that Life of St. Eugenius contains the Hymn already recited, and supplied it to me to be transferred here, a collation having been made with another copy of it which is brought forward in tome 2 of the Works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite published at Antwerp in the year 1634, page 353.

[142] Further, that composition ascribes this monument to St. Eugenius the martyr, and to Eugenius the martyr, who was at once who was also archbishop of Toledo. But rightly? Before I bring out my opinion on this matter, I transcribe here the Compendium of the mentioned Life of St. Eugenius, woven by Launoy from the copy of the same Life which this writer had excerpted from a Ms. codex of Saint-Remi of Reims, and agreeing closely, both in substance and in circumstances, with our Brogne transcript, which I have already praised. It runs thus: Dionysius the Areopagite departs from Rome, whither he had come from Athens, a bishop having been substituted for him there, into Gaul; he brings with him Eugenius, a Roman citizen; he sends away from Arles into Spain, to Toledo, the prelate created by himself. This Eugenius founds a church, converts peoples to the faith of Christ, dedicates the church of Toledo in honour of Bl. Stephen the protomartyr, writes an epic poem composed of XIV verses for the benefit of the Christians, which begins thus: "God, King of the immense, by whom the fabric of the world stands." Then, when he had furnished his church with a fitting number of clerics, he sets out from Toledo for Lutetia to see his master. But when, not far from the city, he came to a place named Diogilum, he learns from the inhabitants of the death of the Areopagite; then he composes the hymn whose beginning is: "Citizens of heaven, applaud." This having been sung gladly, he dissolves into tears, but at length consoles himself and the others weeping with him from this, that Dionysius had flown away into heaven. Hence he scatters the seed of the Gospel here and there; which being soon learned, he is taken by the lictors, and ordered by Fescenninus to be put to death. Let us now come to the point.

[143] bishop of Toledo, Besides that St. Eugenius, who, as is handed down here, was at once martyr and bishop of Toledo, seems never to have existed in the nature of things (go to what has already been disputed with us at the third day of this month, in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Gerard, abbot of Brogne, § V), there is also ascribed to that Saint (for we shall grant for the moment that he was at once martyr and bishop of Toledo), in the Compendium of his Life already given, a poem composed of fourteen verses; and since this, as is agreed among all, has as its author St. Eugenius the Younger, bishop of Toledo, who died a confessor, not a martyr, in the seventh century of the Christian era, and is therefore wrongly ascribed to an Eugenius who was at once martyr and bishop of Toledo in the compendium already given, and therefore also in the said Life of St. Eugenius from which this was drawn together, it comes about even from this that it can not undeservedly be called into doubt whether the Hymn transcribed above here is not likewise wrongly attributed in that Life to St. Eugenius, at once martyr and bishop of Toledo. And indeed, since no one among the Westerners before Hilary and Ambrose sang hymns in the Church in praise of God or the Saints, as Launoy teaches from Isidore of Seville in his Discussion of Millet's Response to Sirmond's Dissertation on the Two Dionysiuses, chapter 18, who would easily bring himself to think that the aforesaid hymn, woven in praise of St. Dionysius, is rightly ascribed in the recited Compendium of the Life of St. Eugenius, and therefore also in that Life, to Eugenius the martyr, who presided as bishop over the church of Toledo in either the first or the second century of the Christian era? No one surely, so far as I think, except one who is ready easily to hold for things truly done, admitting no suspicion at all either of falsehood or of fiction underlying them, whatever things are thrust upon us as done in earlier centuries and yet, because they conflict with the manners or customs of those centuries, are relegated to the class of fictitious things and despised by men of sounder judgment.

[144] and likewise to Eugenius the Younger, bishop of Toledo, However the matter stands, that the aforesaid Hymn can by no means be ascribed to St. Eugenius who was bishop of Toledo in the first or the second century of the Christian era and died a martyr, is so clear and evident that Ménard himself, in his Diatribe on the Single Dionysius against the Discussion made by Launoy of Millet's Response to Sirmond, chapter 18, number 8, not obscurely confesses it, although meanwhile, in order that a greater antiquity might be claimed for the opinion of a single Dionysius which he defends, he would undoubtedly have wished to ascribe it to an Eugenius who had flourished in either the first or the second century rather than to any other namesake of a later age, had not manifest truth prevented it. But in order both to clear Hilduin of imposture — who in his Reply to the emperor Louis the Pious, number 7, attributes the hymn woven in praise of St. Dionysius to St. Eugenius of Toledo — and to show that his opinion of a single Dionysius is older than the age of Charlemagne, nay than the middle of the eighth century, he ascribes the writing of the Hymn transferred above here, not different, as we shall grant for the moment, from the Hymn praised by Hilduin, to Eugenius the Younger, bishop of Toledo, who flourished about the year 650. And indeed Ménard rightly contends that the Hymn composed on Dionysius, which Hilduin in the place cited above attributes to St. Eugenius of Toledo without any more distinct notice of him added, was not fabricated by this writer himself; for besides that Hilduin, as I showed above, is by no means to be judged of bad faith in, and therefore to have praised writings composed by himself as if woven by others, it appears sufficiently likely that the impostors, who did not blush to devise the compositions I have mentioned above under the feigned names of Aristarchus and Visbius, also fabricated the hymn which Hilduin praises under the name of St. Eugenius of Toledo, especially since Eugenius the Younger, bishop of Toledo about the middle of the seventh century, excelled in the faculty of writing poems, and therefore they could seize from this the occasion of fastening upon him the aforesaid Hymn, which they had written metrically, or, to speak more exactly, rhythmically, and in fact fasten it upon him without any very great danger of the imposture and fraud being detected.

[145] But to come now to what is chiefly to be discussed here, whatever Ménard may argue to the contrary by the reasoning given here, Ménard in the place cited above ascribes that Hymn not to impostors by whom it was foisted upon Eugenius the Younger, bishop of Toledo, but, as I have already said, to that prelate himself, as his legitimate and genuine offspring; and to show that he does so deservedly, he reasons in the same place in this manner: Hilduin in the Areopagitica, in order to prove that St. Dionysius, prelate of the Parisians, is the Areopagite, cited to this effect the Hymn of St. Eugenius of Toledo, in general, without distinction of martyr or confessor. In the Life of St. Eugenius, bishop and martyr, which the adversary cites from the codex of Reims, this Hymn is attributed to Eugenius the martyr, which begins thus: "Citizens of heaven, applaud the joyful light of the world," and at the same time these verses:

"God, King of the immense, by whom the fabric of the world stands, What wretched Eugenius asks, do thou in clemency fulfil," etc.

Which hexameter verses indeed stand first after the preface among the Opuscula of Bl. Eugenius the younger, bishop of Toledo, which came out at Paris through the care of the most learned Sirmond, yet without the aforesaid Hymn. And since this Hymn with the verses named before stands in the Life of St. Eugenius, martyr, bishop of Toledo, cited above, in the Ms. codex of the library of the monastery of Saint-Remi situated at Reims, it is a sign that its author is the before-praised Eugenius the Younger, although the author of the aforesaid Life, deceived by the ambiguity of the equivocal name, attributed it to St. Eugenius the martyr simply indeed, not fraudulently. Which is confirmed from two very ancient Ms. codices of the monastery of Saint-Germain-des-Prés and of Saint-Père-en-Vallée near Chartres, in which, to say nothing of the Ms. codex of the monastery of Saint-Denis, this Hymn is found after the Areopagitica of Hilduin under this Epigraph: "Hymn of Eugenius, bishop of Toledo, composed rhythmically on St. Dionysius."

[146] Thus far the praised writer; but although in the same Life or Passion of St. Eugenius, and at the same time by the reason who was a martyr and bishop of Toledo, in which the hexameter verses ascribed by all beyond any controversy to Eugenius the Younger, bishop of Toledo, are read, the Hymn recited by us above is also found, it by no means appears to me to follow from this that it is likewise to be ascribed to that holy bishop of Toledo. For why could it not have come about that he who wove that fabulous Life of St. Eugenius, martyr and prelate of Toledo (go to what has already been said bearing on this at the third day of this month, in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Gerard, number 68 and following), deliberately ascribed in it both the said hexameter verses and the aforesaid Hymn together to the Hero whose deeds he was committing to writing, although he had nowhere found both this and those joined — because, although, as has just been said, he had nowhere found both those Hexameter verses and the Hymn mentioned joined or written out in continuous sequence, he nevertheless wrongly judged, for only rather slight causes, that both this and those were composed by one and the same author? Surely there is no reason why he should not be believed to have erred in this matter, since, as Ménard himself confesses in the words recited, he most certainly erred in assigning the determinate author from whom the aforesaid verses and Hymn proceeded. But, you will say, the Hymn of which we speak here is ascribed in three very ancient Ms. codices, namely of the monastery of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, of Saint-Père-en-Vallée near Chartres, and of the monastery of Saint-Denis in France, to St. Eugenius the Younger, bishop of Toledo, as Ménard again witnesses in the words recited. So it entirely runs; but what age indeed do those very ancient codices have? Were they drawn up before the age of Hilduin?

[147] not one confuted, may argue, the rhythmic Hymn is wrongly ascribed, For indeed, if the codices mentioned excelled in so great an antiquity, this would greatly strengthen the cause which Ménard champions, and yet this is asserted by that writer on no ground at all; so it becomes all but indubitable to me even from this that they seemed to Ménard himself to be of a later age, and in fact only were such. What then if

they were drawn up after the age of Hilduin by inmates of the monasteries to which, from what has been said, they belong, who, since they had gone over to this writer's opinion about one Dionysius, at once Areopagite and prelate of Paris, and held as true and genuine absolutely all the documents on which he builds it in his Areopagitica, thought that the Hymn on Dionysius which Hilduin praises in the Reply given by him to the emperor Louis the Pious, number 7, as composed by Eugenius of Toledo, in support of his opinion of a single Dionysius, should also be counted among these; and hence, though they had nowhere found the Hymn transcribed above here joined with the other Works of St. Eugenius the Younger, bishop of Toledo, they nevertheless marked it, in the codices in which they inscribed it, with the name of Eugenius the Younger, bishop of Toledo, from the spurious notebooks that had lit Hilduin's way, or from transcripts of them, and joined it to the other Works of the same saint which they were transcribing? What if also, when one writer of the said codices, relying on Hilduin's authority, had attributed the aforesaid Hymn to Eugenius the Younger of Toledo, the two others followed him without examining the matter and with closed eyes, so to speak? Nothing surely stands in the way of either the one or the other having been able to happen, and therefore it can not undeservedly be called into doubt whether it did not in truth happen, especially since that Hymn does not appear among the Opuscula of Eugenius the Younger, bishop of Toledo, which Sirmond published in the year 1628. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, it must be very doubtful whether that bishop of Toledo ever composed the Hymn which the three codices mentioned by Ménard exhibit, and therefore it is wrongly ascribed to him, as one by whom it was certainly composed, by Ménard and others who defend the same opinion of one Dionysius as he.

[148] But, you will say, by whom then was that Hymn woven, inasmuch as either fabricated by an impostor, if it does not have Eugenius the Younger, bishop of Toledo, as its author? I suspect the thing was done by some impostor who falsely assumed the venerable name of Eugenius of Toledo in order the more easily to win credit for the opinion of one Dionysius imbibed by himself. I am so minded because Hilduin, in his Reply to the emperor Louis, number 7, not obscurely counts that Hymn among the Writings which he found hidden away and negligently left, and found among these, as he indicates, both the writing of Visbius and the epistle of Aristarchus to Onesiphorus, both of which compositions are beyond all doubt, as I taught above, fictitious and attributed to feigned names of writers; and since this is so, it comes about even from this that we can deservedly fear that the Hymn which he found joined to these spurious monuments was also of similar bran. Moreover Hilduin, in his Reply to the emperor Louis at the number just cited, writes thus: Nor will anyone be able to wonder why we have the Hymn of St. Eugenius of Toledo on blessed Dionysius, and seem to lack the writings of neighbouring wise men, except a few; and from the caution employed by Hilduin in these words, Nor will anyone be able to wonder, etc., it appears to follow that, if not Hilduin himself, at least others who flourished in the very age of this writer doubted whether the Hymn which he praises in the words already given, as composed by St. Eugenius of Toledo, was to be held for his genuine offspring. And these and other things related above, from which, so far as I think, it is sufficiently and more than sufficiently clear that we can certainly with good reason doubt about that matter, we have disputed up to this point, admitting for the moment that the Hymn transcribed by us above here was in no respect at all different from the Hymn which Hilduin praises without reporting the words of which it consisted: but what if the little verses or words by which the Dionysius praised in it is plainly held for the Areopagite were absent from the Hymn that lit Hilduin's way, and were only afterwards thrust into it by the writer of the fabulous Life of St. Eugenius, in order to add weight to the opinion of one Dionysius imbibed by himself?

[149] That certainly is by no means foreign to the appearance of truth; for although, [or at least interpolated by the author of the spurious Life of St. Eugenius, gives it as proved,] these being cut out, the rest only hands down that the Dionysius of whom it treats was sent into Gaul by Pope Clement, Hilduin also praises for his opinion of one Dionysius another Hymn, falsely attributed to Venantius Fortunatus, as I shall teach below, although in it Dionysius, bishop of Paris, is not openly held for the Areopagite, but is only insinuated to have been sent into Gaul by Pope Clement; so that likewise therefore he could have praised for the same opinion of his the Hymn ascribed to Eugenius of Toledo, even if only the same thing had been insinuated in it. Moreover, the anonymous writer of the Life, praised above, of St. Eugenius who was at once bishop of Toledo and martyr — in which the Hymn of St. Eugenius of Toledo on Dionysius stands inserted, as it has been given by us above — indulges in fictions in more than one place, or, to speak out openly what the matter is, from head to foot, as anyone who has turned over that spurious monument will easily discover, and as can be clearly shown by more than one reason with us at the 15th day of November, on which we are to treat of St. Eugenius the martyr. Now indeed, since this is so, there is surely reason why we can doubt whether a writer of this kind did not substitute an entirely new Hymn for the Hymn praised by Hilduin, or whether he did not make the latter fuller by some words or little verses, namely the ninth and the eleven following, by which the Dionysius extolled with praises in it is clearly thrust upon us for the Areopagite. However that may be, it is sufficiently and more than sufficiently clear from what has already been disputed that the Hymn, whether the one transcribed above here or the one praised by Hilduin, cannot be held for a monument of tested credit by which the controverted opinion of one Dionysius which we are attacking here may be proved older than the middle of the VIIIth century; so that therefore what I asserted before about that opinion not being to be dated before that time stands firm and unshaken against the argument drawn from that Hymn too.

[150] as neither the Fragment of a Chronicle produced by Nicolás Antonio, I now proceed to the third, which still remains to be discussed and refuted in the present §. The Fragment of the Chronicle of Flavius Marcus Dexter, which Nicolás Antonio, in the Bibliotheca Hispana Vetus, tome 2, page 274, would have held for a genuine and legitimate monument of this historian, if any was transmitted into Spain in the 16th century from the German library of Fulda, records thus in this author, cited tome, page 275: Marcus Marcellus, son of Marcus Marcellus, prefect of the City, who is also Eugenius, formerly a disciple of St. Peter the Apostle, but afterwards of St. Clement the Pope, sent by the same and by Dionysius the Areopagite into Spain, preaches and teaches the Toledans, XCV; and from these words, inasmuch as in them Eugenius is handed down to have been sent into Spain by St. Dionysius the Areopagite and to have taught the Toledans in the ninety-fifth year of the Christian era, it can be contended that Dionysius the Areopagite came into Gaul in the first century for the sake of preaching the Gospel, and therefore that the opinion of one Dionysius, as being recorded in the praised Fragment of the Chronicle, which was written long before the eighth century, is older than the middle of the eighth century. And indeed by this objection, if only the foundations on which it rests were firm and solid in every respect, the matter could seem in some way to be proved. But Nicolás Antonio himself would have the Fragment of the Chronicle of Flavius Marcus Dexter which he praises and further supplies in the cited tome held for a genuine and legitimate offspring of that Historian only if some genuine and legitimate monument of his was transmitted into Spain in the sixteenth century from the library of Fulda; but it is commonly known to the learned today that no Chronicles or historical monuments of Dexter, Maximus, Julian, Luitprand and very many other authors who wrote on Spanish affairs were sent into Spain in the XVIth century from the abbey of Fulda in Germany, or from its library, with which their originals or autographs existed. Nicolás Antonio seems indeed to have held even absolutely the Fragment of the Chronicle which I have just praised for a genuine offspring of Dexter, from what he writes in the cited Bibliotheca Hispana Vetus, tome 1, page 156, number 376, and in other places. But whether rightly or otherwise can be examined more opportunely when St. Eugenius the martyr is treated of at the 15th day of November. Here meanwhile let the reader know beforehand that that monument, whatever Antonio may argue, is very suspect to me.

[151] But even if we should grant for the moment that it is to be admitted as a genuine offspring of Dexter, a Writer far older than the middle of the VIIIth century, even if it were not to be held for a spurious monument. and that it truly stands handed down to memory by him, in the words just recited, that Eugenius the martyr, who was the first bishop of Toledo, was sent into Spain by St. Dionysius the Areopagite, not even from this would it follow either that St. Dionysius the Areopagite ever came into Gaul for the sake of preaching the Gospel, or that Flavius Marcus Dexter, because he ascribes the mission of Eugenius into Spain to the Areopagite, judged that this happened. St. Polycarp sent some of his disciples, as may be seen with us in tome 2 of January, in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of that holy bishop and martyr, page 694, from Asia, where he was dwelling, into Gaul for the sake of announcing the Gospel there, and yet he himself never came into Gaul. What then if it happened that Dionysius the Areopagite, even if he never came into Gaul, nevertheless sent Eugenius, nay many others of his disciples too, from Greece, where he was dwelling, into Spain, to convert it to the faith of Christ? That surely Dionysius the Areopagite could do as well as Polycarp could do what I have already said. Dexter indeed seems to make Eugenius a Roman; but the Romans, even in the first century of the Christian era, were accustomed to send their sons to Athens to apply themselves to letters there. What then if Eugenius, when he had been converted to the faith at Rome by St. Peter the Apostle, went away to Athens by his parents' order, and, given into the discipline of Dionysius the Areopagite, was afterwards sent by him from there into Spain, the assent of Pope Clement then being added? Nothing surely seems to stand in the way of the thing having been able to be done in this manner. Now indeed, since it stands so, it would certainly by no means follow from the fact that Flavius Marcus Dexter had handed down to memory that Eugenius was sent into Spain by the Areopagite, either that Dionysius the Areopagite ever came into Gaul, or that that writer, far older than the middle of the VIIIth century, judged this to have happened; and therefore it cannot be concluded from the things he writes above that the opinion of one Dionysius, or of a Dionysius the Areopagite who came into Gaul, prevailed before that time. Other arguments besides can be brought forward which make for proving it in some way; but these in the following §

I am going to propose and further refute.

* another reading: church ecclesia

* another reading: dart spiculum

* another reading: Whom before … wall Quem ante murum

* another reading: hence hinc

* another reading: goes to adit

§ IX. The remaining things which serve to make the same opinion older than the middle of the eighth century are proposed and refuted.

[The people of Crotone, that Dionysius the Areopagite, while going from Athens to Rome,] Ughelli, in tome 7 of Italia Sacra, among the Bishops of Crotone, which was formerly a city of Magna Graecia and is now of Further Calabria, writes thus: For the rest, Peter, the prince of the Apostles, promulgating the Gospel through the neighbouring cities, as some would have it, the people of Crotone drank in the faith of Christ; but others have narrated that the people of Crotone first received the faith from St. Dionysius the Areopagite passing there. For there is a constant report among the people of Crotone that the Areopagite, going to Rome, turned aside to Crotone and converted the people of Crotone to Christ; wherefore the people of Crotone use the effigy of St. Dionysius in the sign of their city, whose feast they celebrate with an octave, and venerate and worship him as their tutelary saint and first bishop. And then, some things intervening, recounting Dionysius the Areopagite in the first place among the bishops of Crotone, he records thus: St. Dionysius the Areopagite, disciple of Paul the Apostle, bishop of Athens, is deservedly to be called the first prelate of Crotone, since into that city (as the natives report), while he was passing through there and going to Rome — as, so admonished by the Evangelist John, he was to be present at the martyrdom of the Apostles — he confirmed the faithful in the faith, long since disseminated either by the Apostles themselves or by their disciples. Having entered Crotone, therefore, as tradition reports, he made a stay there for some days, and was acclaimed bishop by the faithful of Christ; who, having confirmed the church, leaving a coadjutor, continued his journey, all weeping together, who afterwards worshipped him with the greatest veneration.*

[153] passed through their city and was acclaimed its bishop, affirm: For the rest, the people of Crotone, in order to assure posterity that Dionysius was their first bishop, dedicated a chapel in the Cathedral to his name, where they placed with the greatest religion a sacred image of the Virgin Mother of God, painted to the life, which he had brought with him from the East and had given as a gift to the people of Crotone as a pledge of love; and they made him their tutelary Saint: wherefore they wished his image, sitting in a Chair and holding the city in his hands, to stand as the noble sign of the City, under which these words are read: I am the sign, and prelate Dionysius, bishop of Crotone. Let it therefore stand that Dionysius was first ordained bishop of Athens by Paul the Apostle, soon acclaimed prelate by the people of Crotone, thence in the year of Christ XCVIII, as almost all the French Writers affirm, created Pontiff of Lutetia of the Parisians by Pope Clement I, where he received for the faith of Christ the glorious palm of martyrdom in about the CXXth year of his age, about the CXXth of human salvation. Nor will this very thing stir wonder in those to whom the custom of the primitive Church of Christ has not been wholly unknown. For, as we have said more than once, since those beginnings of Christ did not everywhere abound with workers, it came about that one and the same man, whose piety had been proved, was destined successively to several churches for the sake of preaching, and they, either for the nobility of the conversion begun from him, or with mindful memory and grateful spirit toward the author of their future salvation, called that very man their Apostle and bishop; which must be believed to have happened to Dionysius among the people of Crotone. Baptista Mantuanus records that Dionysius came into this city on his way from Athens to Rome, in his life, in these verses:

Now the ship, grazing the nearest straits at Aulon, Turns its course toward Otranto, the North wind blowing, toward Tarentum. It glides on, and Crotone appears, etc.

[154] but the tradition on which they build this, only in a more recent age, Thus far Ughelli; but he confirms by absolutely no ancient monument the things which he records about St. Dionysius the Areopagite, and which, if they were true, or at least had been believed by the people of Crotone before the middle of the eighth century, would make it all but indubitable that the opinion of one Dionysius is consonant with the truth, or certainly flourished before that epoch. He brings forward indeed the constant report or tradition which flourishes among the people of Crotone; but he adds nothing which in any way proves that it is legitimate and was begun even from the middle of the eighth century. For what? Would that perhaps be accomplished by what he hands down to memory about Dionysius the Areopagite, held by the people of Crotone for their patron and wont to be accorded great veneration among them, or even by what he hands down about the effigy of the same Saint used by the people of Crotone in the sign or coat of arms of their city? Certainly not at all. From this, indeed, something could be drawn which would support the already explained tradition of the people of Crotone, if it could be solidly proved that already from the first centuries of the Christian era either Dionysius the Areopagite was honoured by the inhabitants of this city as patron of Crotone, or the effigy of the same Saint was used in the sign of Crotone. But absolutely no ancient monument of tested credit, suited to prove either the one or the other, is available from anywhere. Why say more? That the tradition of the people of Crotone about Dionysius the Areopagite, who announced the faith among them and first occupied the episcopal see, first arose only in a more recent age, and one more removed from the first centuries of the Christian era, appears most probable even from this, that on this matter there is the deepest silence among absolutely all the ancient writers, whether Greek or Latin, nay even with Hilduin himself, who nevertheless collected with the greatest diligence from every quarter whatever things could in any way serve to confirm his opinion about one Dionysius, at once Areopagite and prelate of Paris. Ughelli indeed praises John of Mantua, celebrated in the art of composing poems; but he flourished no earlier than the fifteenth century.

[155] As regards now the custom of the primitive Church which the same Ughelli further adduces for the tradition of the people of Crotone, and seems to have arisen only from error. nothing either can be made out from it for carrying its beginning back to the first centuries of the Christian era. For although at the beginning of the Church, or of the Christian faith announced to the nations, some are read to have been sent from time to time, because the Lord's vineyard did not then abound with workers, to one church after another for the sake of disseminating the divine word, when they had proved their virtue and piety somewhere, and these churches not seldom called them their Apostles and bishops in order to show a grateful mind toward the authors of their salvation, nothing at all suggests that this happened to Dionysius the Areopagite among the people of Crotone. What then if the people of Crotone, when they had first been converted to the faith of Christ, obtained a bishop named Dionysius, and their descendants afterwards, because they found nowhere noted who or of what kind that Dionysius had been, carried away by the preposterous desire with which several other churches too are known formerly to have striven in every way to bring their beginnings as near as possible to the times of the Apostles, held him more easily than was fitting for the Areopagite? That indeed this was in fact so done appears to me by no means unlikely, so that perhaps he would not depart far from the appearance of truth either who should assert that the tradition of the people of Crotone about Dionysius the Areopagite, who both preached the faith among them and first occupied the episcopal Chair, first arose at the time when the French in the XIIIth century occupied the kingdom of Naples, in which Crotone is situated, and could communicate to the people of Crotone their opinion about Dionysius the Areopagite, who, a bishop having been substituted for him at Athens, had come to Rome, and had been sent from there by Pope Clement into Gaul, where he also underwent martyrdom, for the sake of preaching the Gospel.

[156] That I should suppose so, I readily incline chiefly for this reason, that the people of Crotone could then count it a singular honour or happiness to have an Apostle who was common both to themselves and to the French, then ruling in their region, [Therefore the opinion of one Dionysius cannot on its account be set down as born before the middle of the VIIIth century.] and so it could easily have come about that they then persuaded themselves that Dionysius, the first bishop of their city, was none other than he who, leaving Athens, had gone first to Rome and then into Gaul, and so gave rise to an opinion which afterwards was believed to be founded in ancient tradition. But if anyone would have this to have happened already from the tenth century, in which the Normans, who had come from Gaul, occupied Sicily and the kingdom of Naples, the Saracens and Greeks being driven out, I shall indeed not greatly object. However the matter stands meanwhile, no monument indeed of tested credit which is certainly older than the middle of the VIIIth century, and which in any way confirms the things narrated by Ughelli about the stay and episcopate among the people of Crotone of Dionysius going from Athens to Rome, is produced by this writer, nor do I know whether one can be produced from anywhere. Certainly to me, having most diligently examined all the writers, whether sacred or profane, in whom I thought anything would perhaps be found about the people of Crotone or about things concerning them, no monument of this kind presented itself anywhere. And since this is so, the argument which can be derived from the episcopate among the people of Crotone of Dionysius the Areopagite going from Athens to Rome, for dating before the middle of the VIIIth century the opinion of a single Dionysius, at once Areopagite and prelate of Paris, by no means claims so great an antiquity for it. Let us consider whether the other things which are still adduced to this end do better.

[157] Nor does so great an antiquity for it, what Baronius, commenting on Hincmar, Baronius, in his Annotations to the present-day Roman Martyrology at the 9th day of October, observes thus about St. Dionysius: With whom (namely with those bringing into controversy whether Dionysius, bishop of Paris, is to be judged him who was taken from the Areopagus to the faith of Christ and thence to the government of the Athenian church) I have a more prolix disputation in the Ecclesiastical Annals. Here, however, as the plan of the work allows, I shall touch only a few things which may be enough for a pious mind, and first of all I shall give the words of Hincmar, bishop of Reims, a not undistinguished author of those times, by which, writing to the emperor Charles the Bald, he left the matter itself attested in these words, when he says: "That your Father Dionysius is the Areopagite, baptized by blessed Paul the apostle, and ordained bishop of Athens, and directed into Gaul by blessed Clement, let them recognize as settled in this cause, from these things which the Greek testimony, and the attestation of the Holy Roman See, and the Gallican contestation intimate, what was said long before us." Thus he; which, lest they seem to have been said perfunctorily, it will be worth the effort to weigh one by one. So the most learned father of the Ecclesiastical Annals, then recounting all the things which might bear on the Greek testimony, or the attestation of the Holy Roman See, or finally the Gallican contestation, or which he judged did in fact bear on them, employing however a freer interpretation of Hincmar's words than seems fitting; and so, as appears, striving chiefly to prove the antiquity of the opinion which sets down Dionysius the Areopagite as the same as the Parisian.

[158] or concerning the Greek testimony mentioned by this writer, And among the things which bear on the Greek testimony he counts the embassy of Michael the Stammerer, emperor of Constantinople, by which he sent the books ascribed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite as a gift to Louis the Pious, the Life of St. Dionysius written by St. Methodius, the Acts woven by Metaphrastes,

and finally the encomium of Dionysius composed by Michael Syncellus, priest of Jerusalem. But the embassy of the emperor Michael to Louis the Pious, and the writing of the Acts of St. Dionysius, whether by Methodius, or by Metaphrastes, or finally by Syncellus, is beyond all controversy not earlier than the middle of the eighth century, as is clear from what has been disputed above, and therefore nothing can be made out from the Greek testimony alleged by Hincmar, even if all that Baronius would have bore on it, for dating the opinion of one Dionysius before the middle of the VIIIth century. This writer adds indeed that the Synod of Florence, by citing the Acts of St. Dionysius, showed that they are worthy of veneration; but what then? The aforesaid Synod only cited the Acts woven by Metaphrastes in order to give to the Greeks, through Greeks, the procession of the Son from the Father in Divine things as proved; whence it surely does not follow that it held all the things narrated about Dionysius in those Acts as true and derived to posterity by a legitimate tradition preceding even the middle of the eighth century. And since this is so, nothing either is had from the deed of the Synod of Florence objected to us, either for confirming in any way the opinion of one Dionysius or for placing it before that time. Further, the same judgment is to be passed on the miracles which, as Baronius says besides in the place cited, were wrought when the books commonly ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite were brought to Paris by the legates of the emperor of Constantinople just praised. For what? Not seldom too the Saints are found to have wrought miracles upon their invocation, even though those by whom they are invoked with firm faith are in error either about their relics or about any other things, as the things which our Work supplies in more than one place, and chiefly in tome VI of July in the historical Commentary on St. James the Greater, part 1, number 114 and the three following, are a by no means doubtful proof. For the rest, in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year 109, number 45 and following, Baronius adduces still other things which he refers to the attestation of the Greeks; but these I shall refute more conveniently below, when I prove that the Greeks of old did not confuse Dionysius the Areopagite with the Parisian.

[159] Now from the Greek testimony alleged by Hincmar I proceed with Baronius to the attestation of the Roman Church adduced by the same writer, or concerning the Holy Roman See, by the words transcribed here, first transcribing here his own very words. These things, he says in the place cited, concerning the things which bear on the attestation of the Greeks; but as for what pertains to the testimony of the Holy Roman Church, by which the same Hincmar affirms the same thing to be confirmed, I think it is to be referred to this, that Hilduin, when he cites the ancient Gallican Missals for proving that matter, says that they were approved by the authority of the Roman Pontiffs Innocent, Gelasius and Gregory, whose letters on that matter he testifies exist with the same church of Paris. For in the sacred Prefaces of the Mass it was the custom that the life of the Saint whose solemnity was being kept, summarily collected, should be publicly recited, as is still seen in the Sacramentary of St. Gregory and in the Ambrosian Missal. To these is added the opinion of Pope Stephen, attested by deeds rather than words; for at the time when he crowned king Pippin in Gaul, when, being ill, he had recovered from his sickness by the help of St. Dionysius, the sacred relics of the same having been translated to Rome, he caused a monastery to be erected in his honour, which he handed over to Greek monks, and, giving it a name, called it the school of the Greeks; which, left unfinished at his death, was wholly completed by his successor Pope Paul. These very things the emperor Louis wished to be commended by Hilduin to perpetual monuments, as the letters of the same emperor written to him declare. And what cause, I ask, do we judge there was why he wished the monastery of St. Dionysius both to be assigned to Greeks and to be called the school of the Greeks, except that in the house of a Greek man his Greek fellow-countrymen might settle as by the right of hospitality? The Holy Roman Church moreover seems to have agreed with this truth for this reason also, that it received the Acts brought to Rome by St. Methodius and faithfully kept them; especially since Anastasius, librarian of the same holy See, a man of the highest learning and authority of those times, sent the same, given Latin dress, into Gaul to the emperor Charles the Bald, together with letters which are still extant.

[160] and further discussed Thus far he; but whatever he records, whether about the monastery built at Rome in honour of this Saint by Pope Stephen, when in Gaul he had recovered from a deadly illness upon invoking St. Dionysius, and given to Greek monks to inhabit, or about the Methodian Acts of the same Dionysius, preserved at Rome and also, contrary to what he intimates, most probably (go to what was said at number 90) woven there, is later than the middle of the VIIIth century, and therefore by no means proves that the opinion of one Dionysius is older than that epoch, or prevailed before the year 750. As regards the ancient Gallican Missals which Hilduin is said to have proved approved by the letters, still extant, of the Roman Pontiffs Innocent, Gelasius and Gregory, it is already sufficiently and more than sufficiently clear from what I discoursed on this subject at number 50 and the four following that nothing can be made out from these either for dating the opinion of one Dionysius before the middle of the VIIIth century, even if meanwhile what Baronius asserts about the custom of summarily recording in the Prefaces of Masses the Acts of the Saints whose festivals were being kept were exactly consonant with the truth. The matter will become plain to him who has weighed what has already been said in the place cited; yet it is fitting to note carefully, so that what I decided there may stand the firmer, that the words transcribed there from Hilduin ought not to be so understood as if that writer wished to signify by them that the Dionysian Passion which he sent to the emperor Louis the Pious agreed in absolutely all things, and therefore also in those which make Dionysius the Areopagite the same as the Parisian, with the Masses contained in the ancient Gallican Missals praised by him; for although he affirms that their chant, sense and words agreed closely with the course of the Passion which he sent to Louis, he nevertheless makes mention only of the contests and torments which were endured by Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs and are recounted in the said Masses from their Passion, he who would undoubtedly also have recorded other things, if there had been any in which he had seen that the aforesaid Masses likewise agreed with the Passion sent to Louis the Pious.

[161] and refuted, attestation; And indeed, since Hilduin in the place cited insinuates that the ancient Gallican Missals agree both with the Dionysian Passion and with the Writing of Visbius, which record not only the torments by which Dionysius, tortured, underwent martyrdom, but also the apparition of Christ offered to the same Dionysius and the carrying by him of his own head when it had already been cut off from him, and then, in order to give it as proved, makes mention only of the torments inflicted on Dionysius, in recounting which the two Masses contained in the said Missals agreed with the course of the Dionysian Passion, that indeed is a very valid argument that only those torments, and not also the apparition and carrying of the head which I have spoken of, were recorded in the aforesaid two Masses. Hence further it now comes about that it can not undeservedly be called into doubt whether anything which could in any way support the opinion of one Dionysius was found in those same Masses, or in the ancient Gallican Missals in which these were contained. However it stands, since indeed the things which I discoursed at number 50 and the four following likewise make it doubtful and uncertain whether the two Masses on Dionysius which I have spoken of are older than the middle of the VIIIth century, nothing surely can be made out from these for dating the opinion of one Dionysius before that time. I now come to the Gallican contestation, which Hincmar recounts in the third place and Baronius also adduces as part of the argument.

[162] And the latter writer refers to this also the ancient Gallican Missals, [or finally concerning the Gallican contestation, argues, claims antiquity. By that alone] from which what has just been said proves that absolutely nothing can be drawn for fixing the opinion of one Dionysius before the middle of the VIIIth century, as also the very Acts of St. Dionysius collected by Hilduin from ancient monuments, as he says, and from the writing of Visbius, from which likewise absolutely nothing can be drawn for attributing so great an antiquity to the same opinion, as everyone will confess who has attentively weighed in the balance of truth the things disputed in the five earlier §§ of this Commentary. But Hincmar, on whom, as I have already indicated, Baronius commented rather freely, by the Gallican contestation understands solely, as appears, the Life of St. Sanctinus found by the abbot Wandelmar and copied by himself, when he was still young, from the very worn little quires in which it was contained. For after he has set up the discussion about the Life or Passion of St. Dionysius written in Greek by Methodius and translated into the Latin tongue at Rome by Anastasius the Librarian, which he had received from Charles the Bald, he presently continues thus in his letter to this prince, having premised some further things about the Life of St. Sanctinus, or about the little quires almost worn away by age which contained it: A copy of them (namely of the little quires on the Life and deeds of St. Sanctinus) which I kept for myself, I thought should be offered to your devoted and good zeal; so that, if there are any remnants of those who denied that our lord and patron Dionysius is the Areopagite, baptized by blessed Paul the Apostle and ordained bishop of the Athenians and directed into Gaul by blessed Clement, they may recognize as settled in this cause too, from these things which the Greek testimony, and the attestation of the holy Roman See, and the Gallican contestation intimate, what was said long before us.

[163] Since therefore he sent to Charles the Bald the copy of the little quires on the Life and deeds of St. Sanctinus, Hincmar understood the Life of St. Sanctinus; but nothing either from this, which he had kept for himself when, still young, he copied them onto new parchment, with this end, as he declares in these words, that, if any still denied that Dionysius, bishop of the Parisians, is the same as the Areopagite, these might recognize their error both from the Greek testimony and the attestation of the holy Roman See — by which, as seems from what he premises, he wishes solely the Methodian Passion of Dionysius, given Latin dress by Anastasius, to be signified — and also from the Gallican contestation; by this latter he certainly understands nothing other than the Life of St. Sanctinus, or the little quires written about it, a copy of which he was sending to Charles the Bald, as having been both composed by a Gallic man and written in Gaul. But although this is so, and therefore Hincmar praises for his opinion of one Dionysius a monument certainly drawn up long (see what has already been said on this matter at number 30) before the Areopagitica were written by Hilduin, that opinion nevertheless from it neither

can be proved older than the middle of the eighth century, nor in any way be confirmed, as is sufficiently and more than sufficiently clear from what I have already discoursed above on this subject, so that it is not necessary here to bring forward more in order that the age, and chiefly the very doubtful credit, of that monument may become more clearly evident. But Mabillon, in the Old Analecta of the edition of the year 1723, page 213, speaks in this manner about the Acts or Life of St. Sanctinus found by the abbot Wandelmar in very worn little quires and copied by Hincmar onto new parchment: If we had at hand at this time those very old Acts (namely of St. Sanctinus) which were then (namely when Hincmar was still young, or about the year 825) found almost obliterated in a Ms. codex, they would bring great light to the long controversy which has long since been agitated among the learned about the two Dionysiuses.

[164] more than is fitting by Mabillon Thus he, signifying namely that much light would accrue, for settling the question in which it is controverted by the learned whether Dionysius the Areopagite is one and the same with the Parisian, from the very old Acts of St. Sanctinus, if they existed today, and at the same time manifesting his opinion, by which he judged that these were no longer to be found. But these things appear to me by no means consonant with the truth. For whatever is read in Chifflet and Surius in Hincmar's Epistle to Charles the Bald, already praised so very often, or rather at its end, from these three words, The Holy Areopagite Dionysius, to the end, is the very ancient Acts of St. Sanctinus, or certainly a compendium of them woven by Hincmar from the same. I suppose so because it contains the things which Hincmar says he read in the Life of St. Sanctinus about the manner in which the deeds of St. Dionysius and his companions came to the knowledge of the Romans and thence to the notice of the Greeks. Yet, to say more openly what I think, it appears more probable that it is the very ancient Acts or Life of St. Sanctinus found by the abbot Wandelmar and copied by Hincmar onto new parchment from the little quires almost eaten away by age, because, although it most certainly bears the appearance of Acts or of a Life, as everyone will confess, Hincmar nevertheless nowhere insinuates that he is either subjoining or inscribing in his Epistle the Life of St. Sanctinus or a compendium of it; and it could easily have happened that, since Hincmar sent to Charles the Bald together with it the copy of the Acts or Life of St. Sanctinus transcribed by himself while still young, someone afterwards found it joined to the said epistle and therefore added it at the end of the epistle which he was copying.

[165] made, can be made out for so great an antiquity of the opinion of one Dionysius, That I should so suppose is also brought about by Mabillon himself, or rather by the copy of the praised Epistle of Hincmar to Charles the Bald which he supplies in the place cited above, inasmuch as it by no means has joined at its end the things which, as I have already said, are read in the copy of the same Epistle in Surius and Chifflet. And these are the things which bring it about that I suppose the things which occur in Surius and Chifflet at the end of Hincmar's epistle to Charles the Bald to be the very ancient Acts of St. Sanctinus, in which Hincmar affirms in his Epistle to Charles the Bald, already mentioned so very often, that he read in his youth through whom and in what manner the deeds of the martyrs blessed Dionysius and his companions came to the knowledge of the Romans and at the same time to the notice of the Greeks. Further, as regards now the opinion by which Mabillon also judged that much light would accrue, for settling the question in which it is controverted by the learned whether Dionysius the Areopagite is one and the same with Dionysius of Paris, from the very old Acts of St. Sanctinus, if they were found today — that Mabillon was deceived in this matter, and that certainly from the said Acts of St. Sanctinus, which, contrary to what this writer thought, are found today, the opinion of one Dionysius, at once Areopagite and prelate of Paris, can neither be confirmed nor set down as older than the middle of the eighth century, everyone will easily admit who has attentively turned over, and examined according to the laws of truth, the things which I have discoursed in more than one place above about those same Acts and their very doubtful credit.

[166] One argument only still remains to be discussed, from which they contend that so great an antiquity is to be attributed to that opinion, [as neither from the ones recounted here, in which concerning Dionysius the Areopagite] drawn chiefly from the Martyrology of Bede and the Hieronymian transcripts: namely, since in these, as in that, St. Dionysius, bishop of Paris, together with his fellow martyrs Rusticus and Eleutherius, is celebrated at the 9th day of October, no mention being made anywhere, whether at this or at another day, of Dionysius the Areopagite, bishop of Athens, they argue that the announcement by which this is done in those most ancient sacred Calendars concerns both Dionysius the Areopagite and Dionysius of Paris, and that the latter is therefore one and the same with the former on the faith of the Hieronymian Transcripts and of the Martyrology of Bede together; and in order to give it as proved from this at the same time that the opinion of one Dionysius flourished even before the middle of the eighth century, they object the most ancient of all the Hieronymian Transcripts in Fiorentini, namely that of Echternach, and that of Corbie, which likewise stands published by d'Achery in tome 2 of the Spicilegium, in which also Dionysius of Paris is announced at the 9th day of October, Dionysius the Areopagite being nowhere else specifically commemorated. But be it as they say: let only one Dionysius, who is venerated at Paris together with Rusticus and Eleutherius on the ninth day of October, be recorded both in the most ancient Hieronymian transcripts and in the Martyrology of Bede, nay let very many others, and by name the Martyrologies of Wandelbert and Rabanus, in which the same is done, be joined to those two sacred Calendars: do they draw from this, by legitimate argument, what those who defend the opinion of one Dionysius contend? By no means indeed.

[167] For since in other Martyrologies, and indeed more in number, is silent at the third day of October, from the Martyrologies; two Dionysiuses are announced, namely the one, the Athenian or Areopagite, at the third, and the other, the Parisian, at the ninth day of October, what can be concluded from the silence of the Martyrologies spoken of above, in which no Dionysius is recorded at the third day of October? Although, says Launoy in his Discussion of Millet's Response to Sirmond's Dissertation on the two Dionysiuses, article 7, number 3, in some Martyrologies a single Dionysius is read at the ninth of October, does it follow that he was the Areopagite, especially since he is signified neither as Areopagite, nor Athenian, nor converted by the Apostle Paul? If in one or another Martyrology there were no Dionysius, would you conclude that no Dionysius ever existed in the nature of things? This kind of simple negative argument no one who has sense uses, while in the same period of time one book has what another has not. Thus he, contending, namely, that from an argument drawn from the silence of writers who flourished in the same period of time, whether for denying or for maintaining something, nothing at all can be legitimately concluded unless it is universal, or observed by absolutely all, none excepted, and therefore that from the praised sacred Calendars which are silent about Dionysius the Areopagite at the third day of October nothing at all can be concluded for the opinion of one Dionysius, because other sacred Calendars speak of him at that time; and indeed not undeservedly.

[168] for although this is done even in those which are most ancient, But, say those who champion it, the Hieronymian Transcripts — which may be said of the Martyrology of Bede too — are older than all the sacred Calendars in which Two Dionysiuses are recounted, one at the third and the other at the ninth day of October, and these therefore cannot, by commemorating two Dionysiuses, prevent the argument formed from the silence of the former from obtaining its force. Thus certainly, if it were established in every respect that both the Hieronymian transcripts and the Martyrology of Bede are far older than the other sacred Calendars which distinguish two Dionysiuses, it could be argued not at all ineptly — though meanwhile not even so, as will become evident from what is to be said below, would the matter be proved — against those who contend that Dionysius the Areopagite is to be distinguished from the Parisian. But although indeed the Martyrology which is adorned by many with the name of St. Jerome is beyond all controversy much older than all the sacred Calendars in which two Dionysiuses, the one Areopagite and the other Parisian, are expressly marked, nevertheless its transcripts, whether in Fiorentini or in any others, do not by so great an antiquity — which is also to be said of the Martyrology of Bede — excel absolutely all the sacred Calendars which distinguish two Dionysiuses.

[169] [then nevertheless in the Little Roman, which to their, although Papebroch once thought otherwise,] For what? Of all the transcripts of the Hieronymian Martyrology none at all is found older than the Echternach, or Antwerp, copy in Fiorentini, which, as well as the Martyrology of Bede (go to Sollerius in his Preface to Usuard, numbers 20 and 45), was not drawn up before the beginning of the eighth century; and this antiquity of it and of the Martyrology of Bede is not so great that the Little or Old Roman Martyrology, edited by our Rosweyde, which distinguishes two Dionysiuses, does not come very close to it in age. Our Papebroch indeed, in tome V of June, page 550, speaks of that old Martyrology in this manner: Meanwhile I would not dissemble that our Rosweyde was greatly deceived when he judged that a certain Calendar found by him before the Martyrology of Ado was the old Roman Martyrology praised by St. Gregory; and by that title he led both Bosquet and de Marca into error. Our Bolland acknowledged this in the apparatus to January; but what kind of thing it was Fiorentini examined more deeply, in the notes to another very ancient one, which, commonly marked by us with the name of Jerome, he himself maintains can truly and alone be called the old Roman; but that that Calendar of Rosweyde is so far from being old that it was not written before the year MLXXIII, and was enlarged with the names of Saints, and besides with a few words borrowed partly from Ado, partly from the compilation of more recent writers. So indeed, as I have said, our praised predecessor, subjoining besides some things by which he proves that the old or little Roman edited by Rosweyde is more recent than the year 1073. But hear how our Sollerius speaks opportunely for the present purpose in his Preface to Usuard, number 91 and following, in which he contends against Valois and others, with Chastelain, that the same Martyrology was both woven before the middle of the eighth century and can not unfittingly be called Roman.

[170] Other arguments of Chastelain, he says, for the authenticity, antiquity and authority of the Little Roman are found scattered through the whole first Two-month period, published by him with excellent notes, the completion of which Work would that we might see some day! But what has already been said suffices beyond measure, unless I am mistaken, for the objections of Valois and others to be wholly uprooted. Here the reader must be warned in a word that my venerable master Daniel Papebroch is by no means to be objected to me among the adversaries, while I write these things, to Papebroch thought,

the crown of his labours, heavy with age and merits, called by the Lord, as we fully trust. Let him not, I say, be objected to me here among the adversaries, although in various places in our great Work on the Acts of the Saints, but chiefly in tome V of June, page 550, letter C (go to his words which I have just recited from this place), he incidentally champions the opposite opinion. Long since and often he confessed that he was here of the number of those whom Chastelain was just now speaking of, men otherwise most learned, who, the matter not having been sufficiently examined, transcribed others, and therefore did not think of our Little Roman as it deserved. There certainly Papebroch embraced the whole opinion of Fiorentini in a few words; but having afterwards heard the more solid weight of our reasons, he wished that more unfair censure, adopted both in that place and in any other in the Acts, to be wholly struck out and erased. Thus far Sollerius; and lest anyone should think that Papebroch perhaps at some time, before he died, returned to his former opinion about the Little Roman Martyrology and its age, which he had abandoned, impelled by better weight of reasons, he asked, not long before his death too, that all his sayings and writings which concern the matter of Martyrologies should be recalled and reformed to Sollerius's opinion about the Little Roman, as the latter gives assurance here in the Preface just cited, number 128.

[171] And indeed he did so not undeservedly. For Sollerius comes very near to the age, the Areopagite is recorded; demonstrates whatever he affirms about the Little Roman Martyrology and chiefly its age, which he refers to about the year 740, so solidly, so plainly, so invincibly, that he compels even the unwilling to assent to what he maintains; and after the Preface published by him before Usuard, in which he treats the matter of set purpose, no one at all, so far as I indeed know, has been found who has either contradicted him, or recalled the age of the Little Roman to the XIth century, as Papebroch and Fiorentini had once done, and therefore made less of it than is fitting, or in any way turned aside to the refuted opinions of Fiorentini and Valois. Here then is a Martyrology which by its antiquity comes at least very close both to the Martyrology of Bede and to the most ancient transcript of the Hieronymian Martyrology, commonly called that of Echternach or of Antwerp; and it announces Dionysius the Areopagite at the third, and the homonymous bishop of Paris at the IXth day of October, and so most openly distinguishes the one from the other, as we shall give plainly and at the same time solidly proved below. And so indeed it is most manifestly clear that from the silence of the most ancient Hieronymian transcript of Echternach, as well as of Bede, about Dionysius at the third day of October, nothing at all can be made out for dating the opinion of one Dionysius, at once Areopagite and prelate of Paris, before the middle of the eighth century, and therefore for confirming it; because, namely, although in those two sacred Calendars absolutely no Dionysius is recorded at the third day of October, this is nevertheless done in a Martyrology which does not yield much to them in antiquity.

[172] [nor, even if it were otherwise, would you prove the matter, even from what has been said, since indeed in these] But even if it were otherwise, and therefore no Martyrology existed equal or even nearly equal to the two aforesaid in which Dionysius is celebrated at the third day of October, not even so would you draw anything from the said silence of both the Echternach Hieronymian transcript and the Martyrology of Bede about Dionysius for fixing the origin of the opinion of one Dionysius before the middle of the eighth century. Those who champion the opinion of one Dionysius do indeed say that Dionysius the Areopagite by the celebrity of his name very far surpasses very many Saints marked in the Martyrologies of Jerome, Bede, Wandelbert and Rabanus, and since their compilers would not seem likely to have allowed themselves to pass over such a Saint wholly in silence, that by the Dionysius whom they mark on the ninth day of October at Paris no other is understood by them than the Areopagite, and that therefore he and Dionysius of Paris are held for one and the same Saint. But no one will deny that St. Cornelius the Centurion, Parmenas and Onesimus the martyrs, and other disciples of the Apostles named in the sacred Letters, likewise excel in the celebrity of their name not a few Saints whom the Martyrologies of Jerome, Bede, Wandelbert and Rabanus record, and yet neither Cornelius, nor Parmenas, nor Onesimus appears in the Hieronymian transcripts in Fiorentini; so that indeed it ought to seem no wonder to anyone that St. Dionysius the Areopagite is also nowhere commemorated in these, from which St. Publius the martyr too, himself also bishop of Athens, is absent, and it is therefore by no means to be concluded that he is designated by the Dionysius who is celebrated in the same Hieronymian transcripts at the IXth day of October. Moreover, the most ancient Hieronymian transcript of Echternach or Antwerp was drawn up in Gaul and enlarged with not a few Saints who were absent from the original text of the Hieronymian Martyrology, as our Bolland teaches in his general Preface on the Lives of the Saints prefixed to tome 1 of January, chapter 4, §4.

[173] [that the Areopagite is passed over in silence at the IIIrd day of October should be no wonder,] What then if in that Transcript — after whose model the same was afterwards done in the other transcripts in Fiorentini — St. Dionysius of Paris, who before was absent from all the older Hieronymian transcripts no otherwise than Dionysius the Areopagite, was afterwards marked, no mention at all of the latter being made, for this reason, that in Gaul not the Areopagite, but the other, who had been bishop of the Parisians, was customarily accorded ecclesiastical cult every year? That the thing was certainly so done for the cause alleged is by no means repugnant to every appearance of truth, and it comes about even from this that, even if a Dionysius — by whom, as seems indubitable, the Areopagite is not designated — is commemorated in the said Hieronymian transcripts at the IXth day of October, this ought to move no one's wonder. Nor, even if in the very Hieronymian Martyrology such as was in use at Rome (see Sollerius in his Preface to Usuard, number 22) in the age of St. Gregory the Great, or already from the VIth century, only one Dionysius, who is venerated on the IXth day of October, had been commemorated, ought that to seem a wonder to anyone; for besides that in that Hieronymian transcript then used at Rome, no otherwise than in the others in Fiorentini, many Saints, more celebrated even than others who were recorded in it, had undoubtedly been omitted, it would have been done, not because at Rome they then confused Dionysius the Areopagite with the Parisian, but because they were wont at that time to celebrate this one alone there. Further, as regards now the Martyrology of Bede — not indeed that supposititious one such as was published by Plantin, but the one which was edited by our predecessors before tome 2 of March, employing also the most ancient Ms. copy of St. Cyriacus, which Baronius singularly commended and employed in recensing and arranging the Roman Martyrology — it is likewise no wonder that Dionysius the Areopagite is passed over in silence in it, inasmuch as in it many days of the Calendar occur untouched, or empty of names of Saints; so that therefore it cannot be argued from this that the Areopagite is designated by the Dionysius who is recorded at the IXth day of October in the same Martyrology.

[174] Moreover, if nevertheless not all the Saints whom our predecessors marked in larger characters before tome 2 of March, as belonging to the genuine Martyrology of Bede, as they thought, are to be said to belong to it, from the most ancient Martyrologies, but, as our Sollerius suspects in his Preface to Usuard, chapter 1, article 2, bringing forward some new conjectures about the Martyrologies of Bede and Florus, only those which are also marked in the Metrical Martyrology of Bede published by d'Achery in tome 10 of the Spicilegium from page 126, what, I ask, would you draw from the fact that Dionysius the Areopagite is nowhere recorded in the genuine Martyrology of Bede, either for establishing the opinion which makes him the same as Dionysius of Paris or for dating it before the middle of the VIIIth century? Nothing certainly: for the metrical Martyrology which I have just praised has only this in the month of October:

On the sixth day before the Nones of October Bosa desires to have Solemnities on earth, who rejoices in highest Olympus. And the twin Ewalds are worshipped by lot on the fifth. Paulinus the master holds by right the sixth before the Ides, Luke the doctor, succour us on the thrice-fifth before the Kalends. On the fifth let us bring our vows to Simon and Jude;

And since the aforesaid metrical Martyrology, which is ascribed to Bede, commemorates in the whole month of October no other Saints than those who are comprised in the six verses already recited, and among these neither Dionysius the Areopagite nor the Parisian appears, surely from the genuine Martyrology of Bede, if only the Saints recorded in the said metrical one belong to it, absolutely nothing can be concluded either for proving the opinion of one Dionysius or for fixing it before the middle of the eighth century. And so it follows from all that we have already discoursed about the Martyrology of Bede that, whether the one which our predecessors published before tome 2 of March, or another, which would have contained only the Saints contained in the metrical Martyrology of the same Bede published by d'Achery and is not known to exist anywhere, is to be held for the genuine Martyrology of Bede — namely the one written in prose, or in free speech — nothing can be drawn from it any more than from the Hieronymian transcripts which either in any way confirms the opinion of one Dionysius or proves that its origin is to be fixed before the middle of the eighth century.

[176] [or from the others recorded here, more recent than the middle of the VIIIth century, would you prove.] I now come to Rabanus and Wandelbert, who likewise celebrate in the sacred calendars woven by them only Dionysius of Paris on the ninth day of October, no mention at all of the Areopagite being made, nay also to Florus, to whom — if the Martyrology which our predecessors published as the genuine one of Bede before tome 2 of March is not in truth Bede's — will have to be attributed the announcement of Dionysius of Paris made in it at the IXth day of October, no mention anywhere of the Areopagite being made. Since, finally, as Sollerius teaches in his Preface to Usuard, those three martyrologists composed the sacred Calendars put together by themselves after the opinion of one Dionysius had arisen, or after the middle of the eighth century had already passed for some time — namely Florus about the year 830, Wandelbert in the year 842, and finally Rabanus in the year 845 — besides most of the things by which we washed away above the objected silence of other Martyrologies about Dionysius the Areopagite at the third day of October, it can moreover be answered not ineptly to the fact that those three Martyrologists pass over this Saint of ours, that none of them, even if it were granted that they in fact held Dionysius the Areopagite and the Parisian for one and the same Saint, could greatly support the opinion of one Dionysius or its antiquity: namely because, since they flourished after the middle of the VIIIth century, as follows from what has already been said, it is greatly to be feared that they drew their opinion about Dionysius the Areopagite, as one and the same with the Parisian, from the spurious documents which, from what has been said above, had already then been fabricated for establishing the opinion of one Dionysius, and not from ancient monuments of tested credit or from legitimate tradition,

formed their judgment. And so you now have the things which still had to be proposed and further refuted for the opinion of one Dionysius (for what they argue besides from the church of St. Stephen at Paris, formerly called De gressibus, but now De Græcis, and which has been abundantly confuted by Launoy in the Discussion of Millet's Response, chapter 18, does not deserve to be adduced here either); now I undertake to establish the opinion of two Dionysiuses in the following §.

* read: in that city in ea urbe

§ X. The weight of some reasons which make for the antiquity of the opinion of two Dionysiuses among the Latins is brought forward from their Martyrologies and from elsewhere.

[Since many things persuade that the opinion of one Dionysius, which is more recent than the middle of the VIIIth century,] Whatever is customarily adduced by those who judge that Dionysius the Areopagite is the same as Dionysius of Paris, either for establishing their opinion or chiefly for fixing its origin before the middle of the eighth century, I have already set before the reader's eyes in the three §§ immediately preceding. I have also added things which, although I had found them adduced to that end by no one, I had observed could nevertheless be adduced not at all undeservedly. But I judged that the things which have been disputed up to this point in this Commentary make it sufficiently and more than sufficiently manifest that the matter is not settled by either these or those, or that the antiquity which those who follow the opinion of one Dionysius would wish asserted for it is not claimed for it. Yet, still remaining in a manner doubtful and wavering as to what I should at length decide here, or pronounce in a matter which formerly exercised so many of the learned, especially in the past century, and drew them apart into different parties, and at the same time striving to take care that I should admit nothing rashly, I turned over again and a third time from head to foot the published compositions on one Dionysius of Noël Alexandre, of Chifflet, and chiefly of Millet and Ménard — which two writers are known to have gathered with the greatest care and zeal whatever things, employing the most diligent investigation, they found committed to writing anywhere for their opinion of one Dionysius — and I examined attentively whether anything anywhere occurred in these suited to claim for the opinion of one Dionysius an age earlier than the middle of the eighth century.

[177] But I found brought forward or cited neither a monument nor a writer of tested credit Eriugena also, a writer of the IXth century, whose words here who is both certainly older than this epoch and makes Dionysius the Areopagite the same as Dionysius of Paris, whether by Alexandre and Chifflet, or even by the two latter writers of the Benedictine Order, namely Millet and Ménard; and since these, as already insinuated, spent tireless effort on discovering monuments and writers of this kind and drawing them into light from the shelves of libraries, I firmly brought myself to think that no support in certain and firm antiquity which claims for the opinion of one Dionysius an age higher than the middle of the eighth century can be found anywhere, much less will ever in fact be found. So further it came about that, all doubt about the matter being cast aside, I have thereafter judged that same opinion a fiction of a more recent age, which was born, either from error or from licence of fabrication, not before the VIIIth century had already slipped past in its middle part. And in this opinion afterwards I was also confirmed by John Eriugena, a writer of the IXth century, who in a certain letter of his to the emperor Charles the Bald, praised by Launoy, Millet, Ménard and others, writes in this manner: The aforesaid Dionysius (namely the Areopagite) is said to have been the disciple and helper of Paul the apostle, by whom he was constituted bishop of the Athenians, whom Luke mentions in the Acts of the Apostles, and Dionysius of Corinth, an ancient man, also blessed Polycarp in the epistle to the church of the Athenians, Eusebius Pamphili likewise in the Ecclesiastical History, and also St. Gregory in his Homily where he briefly set out the orders of angels.

[178] This same man too, not the aforesaid men, [are given, says that it first arose under his own age, contrary to what Millet and Alexandre] but others of modern time assert, so far as his life, handed down by faithful men, testifies, came to Rome in the times of Pope Clement, namely the successor of Peter the Apostle, and was directed by him into the parts of Gaul for the sake of preaching the Gospel, and was crowned at Paris with the glory of martyrdom together with his most blessed companions, namely Rusticus and Eleutherius; for since he asserts in these words that the coming of Dionysius the Areopagite to Rome, and his mission thence into Gaul made by Pope Clement, is maintained not by the ancient writers of ecclesiastical affairs but only by more recent ones, and since he would undoubtedly seem likely to have spoken otherwise if he had judged that the opinion of one Dionysius, who was both the Areopagite and preached the Gospel in Gaul, sent there by Pope Clement, had arisen even before the middle of the VIIIth century, there was surely reason why I should be moved by the authority of that writer, who flourished about the year 858 and indicates that the opinion of one Dionysius was not ancient in his age, to believe still more firmly that the same opinion — which, impelled by other reasons, I already believed — arose only in a more recent age, or only after the middle of the VIIIth century, nay to doubt no longer of its truth. Millet indeed says in his response to Sirmond's Dissertation on the two Dionysiuses, and after him Noël Alexandre in the place cited more than once above, that these following words which occur in the recited text of John Eriugena or Scotus, not the aforesaid men, but others of modern time, are not extant in the Ms. codices of better note, namely in the most ancient codex of the monastery of Saint-Michel-in-Peril-of-the-Sea, and in another of the Thuanean library; but neither Millet nor Alexandre adds what age those Mss., which they call most ancient codices of the best note, displayed. What if they were drawn up only after Eriugena's age by monks who, because they noticed that the opinion of one Dionysius deeply imbibed by themselves could be accused of novelty from the recited words of Eriugena, cut them out of Eriugena's text, and brought it thus mutilated into the aforesaid codices?

[179] whose reasons, Indeed it appears most probable that in those two codices — which I think all but indubitably were drawn up only after Eriugena's age (for, if it were otherwise, Millet and Alexandre would not have passed it over in silence) — the aforesaid words were omitted of set purpose: both because they are read in the published edition of Eriugena, and because, even if they are decided to be cut out of the recited text of this writer, this does not harm the cause of those who admit two Dionysiuses, namely the one Areopagite and the other Parisian, and it is therefore not to be thought that anyone of their class thrust those words into the epistle of Eriugena praised above when he was transcribing it. The matter will shine out still more clearly from what is now to be said. From the text of Eriugena, as it has been transcribed above here and has these following words inserted in it, not the aforesaid men, but others of modern time, it follows that Eriugena judged that the coming of Dionysius the Areopagite to Rome and the mission thence into Gaul made by Pope Clement is asserted not by the older but only by more recent writers. But can not that very thing be concluded from Eriugena's text even though those words were erased from it? Come, let it be as those who defend the opinion of one Dionysius would have it. Let Eriugena, after the discussion begun about Dionysius of Corinth, Eusebius, Polycarp and Gregory, all of whom (go to the words recited at number 177 and following) he says mentioned Dionysius the Areopagite, have presently said only, the words which I have just recalled being omitted, This same man (namely Dionysius the Areopagite) they assert, so far as his Life, handed down by faithful men, testifies, came to Rome in the times of Pope Clement … and was directed by him … into the parts of Gaul; let Eriugena, I say, have said only this in that place: whom, I ask, did he wish designated by these words, This same man they assert, as the asserters of the thing which he subjoins?

[180] as well as other reasons of Ménard, are refuted, Polycarp, Dionysius of Corinth, Eusebius, or Gregory? Certainly not at all; for these nowhere assert that Dionysius the Areopagite went to Rome and was sent from there into Gaul. Whom then shall we say he understood? Surely no others than more recent ones, and indeed those who in Eriugena's age were still surviving among the living. Ménard indeed, in his Diatribe against Launoy, already praised more than once above, answers this writer, who asked that very thing which I have just asked as regards those whom Eriugena designates by the words just given, in chapter 8, that Asserters of this kind (namely those designated by Eriugena in the place indicated above) are Christian men persuaded by tradition and by the ancient Acts of St. Dionysius and Bl. Sanctinus, not by that Life of Dionysius which Hilduin wrote; but what does he wish to persuade us by these words of his, in confirmation of which he presently subjoins these, For when authors use in general these words, "they say, they report, they assert," and the like, they do not understand the more recent only; for these are indications of a persevering report? Namely, that in the place cited above there are counted by Eriugena, among those who assert that Dionysius the Areopagite came from Athens to Rome and was sent thence into Gaul by Clement, not only those who flourished in the very age of Eriugena but also those who had flourished much earlier. But to give this as proved he brings forward absolutely nothing, nor do I know whether he could have brought forward anything. For those who employ the said formulas of speaking are to be judged, in the obvious sense of the words, to designate by them only those who flourished at about the same time at which they are uttered, especially if, as is done here, a discussion has been set before them of ancient writers who it is certain and indubitable are not designated.

[181] For since indefinite formulas of speaking of this kind ought to be determined to something definite contend, first arose, writes, either from the things which are set before them, or certainly from the state of the very person by whom they are uttered, I do not sufficiently see on what ground, by the formula of speaking they assert employed by Eriugena, those also who flourished long before the age of this writer ought to be understood. Further, since Eriugena, in the place cited above, immediately after the words This same man they assert, subjoins so far as his Life, handed down by faithful men, testifies, they contend moreover that the credit of those men who wrote the Life of Dionysius the Areopagite and handed down that he came from Athens to Rome and then into Gaul is commended by Eriugena, and therefore that, whether he understands by the word they assert more recent or older writers, he in no way harms the opinion of one Dionysius, or, to speak better, its age, which is to be fixed before the middle of the VIIth century. But Eriugena, when he says so far as his Life, handed down by faithful men, testifies, sets out not his own mind about it, but what those who asserted what he subjoins about Dionysius supposed about that Life, as anyone who has accurately weighed the words of Eriugena recited above will very easily discover. Whatever therefore either Millet or any others oppose to the words of Eriugena recited above, neither here to them of St. Dionysius

the Areopagite, in which that Saint is handed down to have come into Gaul for the sake of preaching the Gospel, did he commend the Life, nor by the word they assert did he praise older writers by whom that same thing is handed down. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, Eriugena certainly, as one who ascribes the opinion of one Dionysius, or of Dionysius the Areopagite sent into Gaul, to more recent authors, betrays not obscurely that the same opinion first arose in his age, or the ninth century, or certainly not long before, and is therefore not older than the middle of the eighth century.

[182] Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and certainly before that epoch of time either the opinion of one Dionysius [even hence it follows that the opposite is older than the same middle of the VIIIth century;] or the opposite one, which distinguishes two Dionysiuses, namely the Areopagite and the Parisian, from each other, occupied the minds of men, it comes about even from this that I bring myself to think that the latter prevailed before the middle of the VIIIth century, nay even from the very beginning, and therefore already from the first centuries of the Christian era. But in order to put this beyond all controversy, I now set about bringing forward not a few other arguments, by which at the same time I think it will come about that the reader will easily go over to the opinion of two Dionysiuses. Launoy, in order to show that the distinction of two Dionysiuses, of whom the one was bishop of Athens and the other of Paris, was asserted in the IXth and VIIIth century, nay already from the VIIth, recounts in his Discussion of Millet's Response to Sirmond on the two Dionysiuses, chapter 19, various Martyrologies woven at that time, as he says, namely those of Bede, the Little or old Roman, those of Verdun, Lyons, Reims, the Usuardine, Adonian, Notkerian and not a few others which I forbear to name; in all of which, since Dionysius is celebrated at the third and again at the ninth day of October, other marks of distinction also being employed, he contends that by this very fact the distinction of two Dionysiuses, of whom the one is the Areopagite and the other bishop of Paris, is maintained or asserted in them; and if in this matter that writer is to be stood by, it will follow that the opinion which sets down Dionysius the Areopagite as different from Dionysius, prelate and martyr of Paris, certainly flourished in the ninth and eighth century, nay already from the seventh. But although that opinion flourished even earlier than the seventh century, it by no means appears that Launoy is to be stood by as regards all that he maintains about the said Martyrologies and contends from them. For as regards the various Martyrologies of the eighth century which he cites and which, as he says, make for the third and ninth day of October, he proves by absolutely no argument that they were composed at that time, nor do I know whether even one of them was in fact put together at that time.

[183] [and although this is also done from the Martyrologies by Launoy, who in assigning the age of some of these] I am so minded because among the Martyrologies woven in that century, as he would have it, he counts also the Adonian and the Usuardine, which nevertheless all the learned today acknowledge with unanimous consent were both composed only in the following century, and indeed only when it was already much advanced. Let us proceed to the Martyrologies of the ninth century: he cites only one which was composed at that time, the Notkerian; and although he had cited very many others too of the same age, later however than the year 875, in which Dionysius is announced on the third and again on the ninth day of October, he nevertheless seems by no means likely to have made out from them what he had proposed to himself, unless perhaps the same Martyrologies — which is to be said of the Adonian and Usuardine — had had authors who, after first conducting an accurate and careful examination by which they investigated whether only one or a twofold Dionysius was to be set down, had marked one Dionysius on the third and another on the ninth day of October because, namely, they thought Dionysius the Areopagite distinct from the Parisian. But since all those Martyrologies had been drawn up after the Martyrology woven by Usuard in the year 875, it is doubtful whether their authors announced Dionysius on the third and again on the ninth day of October only by the example of Usuard, whom they had followed without discussing the matter and with eyes in a manner closed, or for the reason which I have already set out. And since this is so, who would firmly bring himself to think that the distinction of Dionysius the Areopagite from the Parisian is asserted by Martyrologies of this kind, although they supply two announcements of Dionysius for two different days? No one surely, so far as I think.

[184] is deceived, Yet if two announcements of this kind had passed with the progress of time from a Martyrology in which they had originally been marked on the authority and credit of some monument drawn up not too long after the age of each Dionysius, into other Martyrologies afterwards, and from these again into others, until at length, the transcription being often repeated, they had been brought into the aforesaid Martyrologies of the ninth century or even of later centuries, that indeed would be a by no means doubtful argument that the opinion which sets down two Dionysiuses, distinct from each other, prevailed already even from the first centuries of the Christian era. But that it came about in the way I have said that the two said announcements are read, or were read, in the Martyrologies of either the ninth or the other subsequent centuries cannot be known for certain, and hence nothing can be concluded from them for referring the opinion of two Dionysiuses to the first centuries of the Christian era. And hence it now comes about that whatever Martyrologies have been alleged, whether of the ninth or of other later centuries, these cannot be of great weight with me for giving as in fact proved what I here set about proving concerning two Dionysiuses to be distinguished from each other — if, however, you except the Martyrologies which have Usuard and Ado as authors; what can be drawn from these for the opinion of two Dionysiuses we shall presently see; now let us consider what is to be thought of the Martyrologies which Launoy praises for himself and refers to the seventh century. Nor can it be proved from these — among which the Martyrology of Bede which he mentions is merely spurious — that the opinion which distinguishes two Dionysiuses had place at that time. For since he wrongly counts among them the Little or old Roman Martyrology, which, as you will easily understand from the Preface prefixed to Usuard by Sollerius, was certainly not written before the eighth century, it can not undeservedly be called into doubt whether he does not likewise err in assigning the age of the other Martyrologies which he praises and refers to the seventh century.

[185] There is added that by the reasons by which, as he insinuates, impelled, he refers the mentioned Martyrologies to the seventh century, and alleges reasons, by which he would prove this, not convincing, it is by no means proved that they are in truth to be referred to it. Here are the words in which he sets them out in the place just cited. There are, he says, three reasons in all why we have included all these Martyrologies in the seventh century: one, that they are simpler than the Martyrologies of Usuard and Ado, as appears sufficiently from mutual comparison, although in some of them the churches have added some of the more illustrious of the more recent Saints, to whom for a certain cause they consecrated a particular office; the second, that they relate fewer things about Dionysius the Athenian than Usuard and Ado, who praise Aristides. The third, that before Usuard and Ado the churches had their tables, their Martyrologies, as Usuard himself teaches in the Epistle to the emperor Charles, in which he professes that he made his Work "from certain Martyrologies of the preceding Fathers." Launoy therefore was impelled to believe that the Martyrologies of which we speak here were written in the seventh century by three reasons, which he sets out in these words. But none of them gives as proved what he wishes. This will become evident from what is now to be said. The first he draws from the simplicity in which the said Martyrologies excel the Martyrologies of Usuard and Ado. But what then? Let these be simpler than those, and at the same time let the greater simplicity in which they excel be an indubitable indication of the age in which some Martyrologies excel others; it would follow from this only that they are older than the Martyrologies of Ado and Usuard; and since these, as is now admitted among absolutely all the learned, were composed only in the ninth century, and indeed not before it had already elapsed in great part, nothing at all prevents those other simpler ones from being believed to have been composed only in the eighth century, and perhaps even in the ninth, when it had just begun.

[186] is not given as proved, Let us now examine the second reason which he brings forward; by this, inasmuch as it is drawn solely from their relating fewer things than Ado and Usuard about Dionysius the Athenian, Launoy gives what he wishes as proved no more than by the preceding one. Further, as regards now the third, drawn from the Martyrologies employed by the Churches before Usuard and Ado, it does not even follow from this that the Martyrologies praised by Launoy snatch the palm of antiquity from the Martyrologies of Usuard and Ado, much less that they must have been written in the seventh century, to which Launoy ties them. For what? Did not other Martyrologies, than those which this writer recounts and ties to the seventh century, exist before Usuard and Ado too, which could then be employed by the churches? Surely no one will deny that already from the seventh century, nay already from the sixth, the Martyrology which is found marked by many with the name of Jerome was customarily read or employed in some churches, who has turned over what our Sollerius writes about that Martyrology in his Preface to Usuard. Launoy therefore does not prove by the third reason which he alleges either the antiquity which he ascribes to the Martyrologies praised by him, and therefore it cannot be concluded from them that the opinion of two Dionysiuses, the one Areopagite and the other Parisian, prevailed already from the seventh century, and therefore before the middle of the eighth century. But what if those Martyrologies were written only in the eighth century, in which the Little Roman Martyrology, which Launoy together with these refers to the seventh century, was woven? Surely nothing occurs which compels us to believe that they were not composed at that time; but whether they were in fact composed at that time, and not later, is very much doubtful, absolutely no reason being available by which the matter might be solidly proved. Whatever therefore Launoy may also argue about those Martyrologies, I shall not adduce these either as part of the argument in order to prove that the opinion which distinguishes Dionysius the Areopagite from the Athenian prevailed already from the eighth century, whether when it was already advanced or when it had not yet elapsed in its middle part.

[187] it is nevertheless proved from the Little Roman, which, since on different days In place of all, for that purpose, I shall have the Little Roman Martyrology, which, as I have already warned so often above, our Sollerius invincibly proves in his Preface to Usuard to have been composed before the middle of the VIIIth century. In order therefore, leaving others aside, to stop a little at that ancient Martyrology, I transcribe here beforehand its two announcements of Dionysius, of which it supplies the one on the third and the other on the ninth day of October. The former is expressed in these words: At Athens, of Dionysius the Areopagite, who suffered various torments under Hadrian, as Aristides is witness in the Work which he composed on the Christian religion; this Work among the Athenians

is held most illustrious among the memorials of the ancients; and the latter in these: At Paris, of Dionysius the bishop, with his companions, punished with the sword by Fescenninus. Since therefore the author of the said Martyrology records Dionysius the Areopagite on one day and in one place, and Dionysius of Paris on another, it does not seem to be doubted that he distinguished the latter from the former, and therefore that the opinion of two Dionysiuses now to be established here certainly prevailed before the middle of the eighth century, before which, as has been said, he wove his Martyrology. But, say those who champion the opinion of one Dionysius, it by no means follows from the fact that Dionysius the Areopagite is placed at the third day of October and Dionysius of Paris at the ninth in the praised Martyrology that the author of the Martyrology distinguished the latter from the former. They suppose so because it not seldom happens that one and the same Saint is placed twice in the Martyrologies, as is clear from Sts. Eustathius and Alexander, of whom the former is announced on the 25th day of January and again on the 5th day of June, and the latter on the 16th day of May and again on the 12th day of December, in the Sirletian Menology of the Greeks.

[188] Nor does it stand in the way, says Noël Alexandre, that at the third day of October Dionysius the Areopagite is announced at Athens, Dionysius the Areopagite and the Parisian, other marks of distinction too and at the ninth Dionysius, prelate of Paris, at Paris; for thus, as he says, two Dionysiuses distinct from each other, of whom one suffered at Athens and the other at Paris, are not indicated, but it is only intimated that the memory of one Dionysius is celebrated in those cities, although he did not suffer at Athens but at Paris. Just as therefore St. Ignatius did not fall at Antioch but at Rome, although in the Martyrology at the 1st of February is read: "At Antioch, of St. Ignatius, bishop and martyr." Nor did St. Paulinus die at Trier, but as an exile in Phrygia, although it is written in the Martyrology at the 31st of August: "At Trier, of St. Paulinus, bishop." Nor did St. John Chrysostom depart this life at Constantinople, but in Pontus, although in the Martyrology at the 27th of January it is said: At Constantinople, of St. John Chrysostom. So neither ought St. Dionysius to be understood to have suffered at Athens, although it is read in the Martyrologies: "At Athens, of St. Dionysius the Areopagite." In this manner some, and by name Noël Alexandre, argue against the argument which is drawn, for establishing the distinction between the two, from the diversity both of the day and of the place at which Dionysius the Areopagite and the Parisian are put in the aforesaid and other Martyrologies, judging that it is thoroughly washed away by them because, although one and the same Saint cannot die on different days or in different places, he can nevertheless be celebrated, both in one and in different places, twice, or on two different days, either by reason of the commemoration of the day on which he died, or on other different grounds. But rightly? By no means indeed; for so many other marks of distinction occur in the two announcements transcribed here that it is wholly incredible that Dionysius the Areopagite is not distinguished from Dionysius of Paris by the author of the Martyrology from which these are plucked. Here is how Launoy, speaking of the Martyrology of Usuard, which contains some others besides, not therefore to be recounted here, opportunely for the present purpose recounts those marks in his Discussion of Millet's Response to Sirmond, chapter 7.

[189] The Dionysius, he says in almost the same words as I give here and apply to the Little Roman, against which, by reasons brought forward here from Ménard, who suffers on the fifth day before the Nones has the Athenian Aristides as witness of his Passion; the Dionysius who suffers on the seventh day before the Ides has no witness of his Passion; the Dionysius who suffers on the fifth day before the Nones has no companions in his Passion; the Dionysius who suffers on the seventh day before the Ides has companions in his Passion; the Dionysius who suffers on the fifth day before the Nones suffers by various kinds of torments, yet not ascertained; the Dionysius who suffers on the seventh day before the Ides suffers by an ascertained punishment, namely the cutting off of his head; the Dionysius who suffers on the fifth day before the Nones — under what prefect he suffers is not said; the Dionysius who suffers on the seventh day before the Ides is said to have suffered under the prefect Fescenninus. Thus, roughly, as I have already said, Launoy. Hear now also what Ménard, in his Diatribe on the single Dionysius, answers to these various antitheses drawn from Usuard and occurring also in the two announcements of the Little Roman given above. And his answers to the first and second I shall open more conveniently below, when they come to be confuted; what he replies to the third I now set out. The Dionysius who suffers, he says, repeating almost the words of Launoy, on the Vth day before the Nones is tortured with various torments; but he who on the seventh day before the Ides is afflicted with a certain kind of death, that is, the cutting off of the head. But if Usuard omitted the various torments, this contributes nothing to the distinction of two Dionysiuses. And that Dionysius, pontiff of the Parisians, was tortured with various tortures before he was struck on the neck is plain both from his Acts and from Gregory of Tours, book 1 of the History, who writes thus: "Of these, Dionysius, bishop of the Parisians, afflicted with various punishments for the name of Christ, ended the present life by the impending sword."

[190] adduced here, And these things Ménard says to the third of the antitheses mentioned above; and to the fourth he answers thus: The Dionysius who suffers on the Vth day before the Nones — under what … prefect he suffers is not said; he who on the VIIth day before the Ides, under the prefect Fescenninus. Nothing is concluded from that. But if Usuard had named different … prefects, then a distinction would appear. So he; and from all that he replies, whether to this or to the other things occurring in the two said announcements and objected by Launoy, there is had almost solely that these do not conflict with each other, and that all the things handed down both in the one and in the other are such that they could suit one and the same Dionysius, and therefore that from the fact that some things about Dionysius are recorded at the third, and others at the ninth day of October, in the same announcements, a distinction of two Dionysiuses, of whom the one fell in martyrdom at Athens and the other at Paris, cannot be inferred. But be it that those two announcements do not conflict with each other, nor contain anything which prevents them from being able to suit one and the same Dionysius; yet from the different narratives, though not conflicting with each other, which they supply about Dionysius, it can be concluded that the discourse is not about one and the same Dionysius in the one as in the other, even for this reason: that a Martyrologist who inserted two announcements of this kind at two different days in the sacred Calendars woven by himself, and yet did not wish to designate by them two Saints distinct from each other but only one and the same, would certainly commit a thing deservedly to be received with the laughter of all; nor is it in any way credible that the author of the Little Roman was so stupid as to wish to offer himself to be mocked by all.

[191] and from the sacred Calendars of the Greeks Come, let them bring forward another Saint, even one, who is celebrated at two different days, either in the present-day Roman Martyrology or in any other, with announcements as different from each other as are the two of Dionysius already given from the Little or old Roman. If they confess that this cannot be done, and therefore that no Saint different from Dionysius is found celebrated twice in this way in any sacred Calendars, why do they believe that Dionysius alone is so celebrated twice? But, they will perhaps say, Dionysius is celebrated with announcements so different in the Little Roman and other sacred Calendars on two different days because the former of those announcements was taken from the Greek, and the latter from the earlier Latin, sacred Calendars, and it happened that Dionysius was found celebrated in one manner in these and in another in those. But if the author of the Little Roman judged, and further wished to signify, that the Dionysius whom he found celebrated in one manner by the Greeks and in another by the Latins was one and the same Saint, why did he mark him at two different days? Because he observed that his memory was recalled on one day by the Greeks and on another by the Latins? But still other Saints are read in the Little or old Roman whose memory or feast is recalled on one day by the Greeks and on another by the Latins, and yet I find none of them commemorated twice in the Little Roman. On what foundation then is it asserted that the author of the Little Roman did for Dionysius alone what he is known to have done for absolutely no other Saint?

[192] Moreover, how also will they give it as proved that the author of the Little Roman, it is fought in vain, from the sacred Calendars of the Greeks which had been put together before his age, drew the memory of Dionysius the Areopagite among the Greeks at the third day of October, and the eulogy with which he adorns him? From this perhaps, that the Greeks then in truth, and therefore most probably also before the age of the praised author, commemorated Dionysius the Areopagite in their sacred Calendars? But what if the author of the Little Roman brought Dionysius the Areopagite into the Martyrology woven by himself at that day, and also adorned him with a eulogy which he had drawn from the same writer, not for that reason, but because he had learned from Aristides, a writer most celebrated among the Athenians, whom he praises, that he underwent martyrdom on the third day of October? Indeed absolutely nothing seems to hinder or stand in the way of the thing being believed to have happened so, and therefore the reason by which they maintain that it came about that Dionysius is celebrated, with the most different announcements transcribed above here, at two different days in the Little or Old Roman Martyrology must be held as at least doubtful and uncertain. But let us even grant for the moment that the author of the Little Roman received from Greek Calendars older than himself the Dionysius whom he celebrates at the third day of October; not even so will they make out that Dionysius the Areopagite and the Parisian are held by him for one and the same Saint. For what? Will they perhaps assert that both Dionysiuses are held for one and the same by the Greeks too? But if the Dionysius whom the Greeks celebrate at the third day of October is no other with them than the Dionysius noted at the ninth day of the same month in the sacred Calendars of the Latins, why do the Greeks not likewise add to him the companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, who are joined to Dionysius in these? Because it did not concern the Greeks to commemorate them, as having deserved well of the Latin church alone, and not also of the Greek?

[193] So indeed, in both his Annals and his Annotations made on the present-day Roman Martyrology, the most Learned Cardinal Baronius, celebrates, employing marks, distinguishes the one from the other; and after him Millet and Ménard, answering the second antithesis related above of the two announcements of the Little Roman, or, if you prefer, of Usuard, in one of which Dionysius is celebrated with companions and in the other without companions, maintain, or affirm by their mere will, that this latter was received from the sacred calendars of the Greeks, in which Dionysius is likewise celebrated without companions; but since in the sacred Calendars of the Greeks other Saints from the Latin church are also commemorated who are known to have deserved no better of the Greek church than Rusticus and Eleutherius, by the reason alleged, which the praised writers put forward as a pretext and build upon absolutely no foundation, these two holy martyrs, who, as of Dionysius in the Work

of the Gospel helpers and in martyrdom companions, ought to have been commemorated together with him, appear very little likely to have been omitted in the Calendars of the Greeks; nor does it seem that those who maintain similar things would have taken refuge in it if they had known any other way of escape. However that may be, since Martyrologists, whenever and wherever they employ different announcements, are wont to celebrate different Saints too, they are to be judged to do that very thing also when they celebrate namesakes, unless the contrary is solidly and invincibly proved. And since this is so, and those who defend the opinion of one Dionysius by no means prove that the discourse in the two announcements adduced above from the Little Roman is about one and the same Dionysius, the author of the said Martyrology must be judged to celebrate one Dionysius by one of those announcements and another by the other, especially since, other marks of distinction besides being employed, as I have already taught above, he celebrates both Dionysiuses on two different days and in two different places.

[194] [which André du Saussay himself, though a keen patron of the opinion of one Dionysius, acknowledged,] And indeed that Dionysius the Areopagite is distinguished from Dionysius of Paris by the Little Roman is so plain that André du Saussay, though a keen patron, if anyone was, of the opinion of one Dionysius, was compelled to confess it, and preferred, rather than go against so open a truth, when he had observed that the said Martyrology was adverse to his preconceived opinions about the Areopagite (go to Sollerius in his Preface to Usuard, number 75), in a manner to vomit forth curses on it, and basely to recant the things which he had gloriously sung before in praise of that sacred monument as well as of Rosweyde, who had edited it. Further, that very thing had already been acknowledged long, nay at least seven centuries, before Saussay by St. Ado, bishop of Vienne, who prefixed that Martyrology, found by himself at Aquileia, to the Martyrology woven by himself, as he himself testifies in his Preface to it. Surely, unless we admit that Ado likewise acknowledged it, why shall we say that Dionysius the Areopagite is celebrated on one day and the Parisian on another by that holy Martyrologist? Indeed, since he had before his eyes the Little Roman Martyrology, found by himself at Aquileia and carried from there into Gaul, and held it, as he himself teaches us in the place just cited, in the greatest esteem, it appears certain and indubitable that he judged, chiefly on its faith and authority, that Dionysius the Areopagite was different from Dionysius, prelate and martyr of Paris, and hence related the latter on one day and the former on another in his Martyrology. But, they will say, even though Ado announces Dionysius the Areopagite on the third and the Parisian on the ninth day of October, he is nevertheless not to be judged to distinguish the latter from the former, nor indeed does he distinguish the one from the other.

[195] as also, as here They will perhaps suppose so, namely because, since Ado distinguishes from one another all the martyrs Dionysius whom he celebrates either by express addition of the places in which they met death, or at least by some designation, and yet marked Dionysius the Areopagite without making any mention or designation of place, he seems to have done so lest he should be thought to have wished to distinguish him from the Parisian. But how little happily this turns out for those who thus try to make Ado a patron of the opinion of one Dionysius, anyone will easily find who has not been reluctant to consult the Martyrology woven by him. For since in it not a few martyrs appear without any mention at all of the place in which they underwent Martyrdom, who would certainly believe that Dionysius the Areopagite is marked by Ado without designation of place for the cause they would have? And indeed, if Ado, as they contend, did not wish to distinguish Dionysius the Areopagite from Dionysius of Paris, to what purpose, in the announcement of the latter which he supplies at the ninth day of October, did he expressly name Rusticus and Eleutherius, the companions of Dionysius in martyrdom, whom he had not found distinguished by their names in the Little or Old Roman? To what purpose did he not also commemorate these in his announcement at the third day of October, if he wished to speak of one and the same Dionysius in this as in that? What the patrons of the opinion of one Dionysius could answer to these things I do not sufficiently see. Will they perhaps say that whatever Ado supplies about Dionysius at the IIIrd day of October was taken from the sacred Calendars of the Greeks? But since the Little or old Roman Martyrology beyond all controversy lit Ado's way, and its announcement at the third day of October agrees almost even in the very words with the announcement supplied by Ado, who would easily bring himself to think that the latter was taken by that holy martyrologist from elsewhere?

[196] But be it even that Ado took that announcement from the sacred Calendars of the Greeks; it is shown, Ado, it certainly cannot be doubted that he drew the announcement which he supplies at the ninth day of October from the Little or old Roman; and if the matter stands so, to what purpose, if he wished to take care not to seem to distinguish Dionysius the Areopagite from the Parisian, did he in this latter distinguish by their names the two companions of Dionysius in martyrdom, contrary to what the author of the Little Roman Martyrology did, no mention of them being meanwhile made in the other announcement which he supplies at the third day of October? To what purpose did he not add the title of Areopagite both to the Dionysius whom he records at the IXth and to the Dionysius whom he records at the IIIrd day of October? Surely, since by no means could he have taken care either more certainly or more easily not to seem to distinguish the one from the other, Ado would not seem likely to have proceeded as he does unless he had wished to distinguish Dionysius the Areopagite from the Parisian, even if, as they would have it, he had taken the announcement which he supplies at the third day of October from the sacred Calendars of the Greeks. And so from all that has just been said about Ado we have chiefly two things: the one is that this writer acknowledged that Dionysius the Areopagite and the Parisian are not held by the author of the Little or Old Roman for one and the same Saint; the other, that these two Saints are distinguished from each other by that same writer himself. Nor is this done by that Martyrologist of the ninth century alone, but also by two other writers who likewise flourished at that time, namely Eriugena and Usuard. And as regards the former, the matter can without difficulty be gathered from what has already been said above; and as regards the latter, he celebrates Dionysius on the third and again on the ninth day of October; which surely is an argument that two Dionysiuses, different from each other, the one Areopagite and the other Parisian, are commemorated by him.

[197] He does not indeed distinguish the Dionysius whom he celebrates on the third day of October the opinion also of two Dionysiuses, which also of Usuard, with the title of Areopagite, contrary to what Ado does; but that the discourse is about none other than that most celebrated prelate of Athens is most evident both from the very text supplied by this Martyrologist about the Dionysius he celebrates, in which everything sounds of the Areopagite, and because this was most certainly taken from Ado, by whom no other Dionysius than the Areopagite is beyond all controversy celebrated at the third day of October, as everyone will confess who has learned from our Sollerius's Preface to Usuard the sources from which this Martyrologist derived his waters. Nor is there reason for anyone now to argue from this that Dionysius is recorded on the third and again on the ninth day of October by Usuard only by Ado's example, and therefore that it does not follow from this deed of his that he judged Dionysius the Areopagite distinct from the Parisian, or went over to the opinion which distinguishes the one from the other. For although he drew from Ado both what he sets forth at the third and what at the ninth day of October about Dionysius, or rather about two Dionysiuses, he nevertheless did not do it without a previous examination by which he carefully discussed whether a twofold or only one Dionysius was to be set down. How true this is is clear even from this, that in the Announcement by which he celebrates Dionysius, prelate and martyr of Paris, at the ninth day of October, he adorns Rusticus and Eleutherius, the companions in martyrdom of the Dionysius just mentioned, with the due and true titles of their dignity, namely the former with that of priest and the latter with that of deacon, and therefore rightly corrected Ado, who wrongly ascribes to Rusticus only the dignity of deacon and to Eleutherius on the contrary that of priest.

[198] [judging, as is proved, it must be said, older than the middle of the VIIIth century.] Moreover Usuard, in his preface to the Martyrology woven by himself and inscribed to the emperor Charles the Bald, prefixed to Molanus's Martyrology, speaks thus: Which thing … compelled me, though unworthy, to this, that I should collect into a certain unity, from certain Martyrologies of the preceding Fathers, the sacred festivals of the Saints to be recalled every year; and I recalled in their very solemnities how many excesses of my own negligence, which I also desired to be purged by such an office. Besides, I was also provoked on this matter by the pious, though succinct, descriptions of the venerable priests, namely Jerome and Bede; of whom the former, studying brevity, and the other leaving very many days of the Calendar untouched, are found to have passed over many things necessary to this Work; following whom, however, I judged that I should also follow in this very business the wider footsteps of Florus, a memorable man, especially in his second book. For there he both corrected and added many things which he had omitted in the former. But if anything, besides what I received from them, has been increased or changed at this time, it will be able to be recognized that it was sought out by me with sagacious investigation. Since therefore Usuard, as he teaches us in these words, wove his Martyrology with the greatest zeal and diligence, and noted nothing in it different from the Martyrologies of the preceding Fathers which he had to light his way which he had not found, a sagacious investigation being first made, consonant with the truth, and moreover made in one of the two announcements of Ado about Dionysius, at the third and ninth day of October, the change or correction already related above, it is indeed not to be doubted that he carefully examined these and observed that Dionysius of Paris is recorded in the one and the Areopagite in the other. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and he nevertheless brought the same two announcements into the Martyrology woven by himself, it is likewise surely not to be doubted that he wished in this way to distinguish Dionysius the Areopagite from the Parisian, and judged that the one was in fact distinct from the other and therefore rightly distinguished by Ado. And so we now have, besides Eriugena, two further martyrologists of the ninth century — to pass over Notker, who wove his Martyrology only toward its end — namely Ado and Usuard; who, since they flourished after the opinion of one Dionysius had already arisen, and yet embraced, as has been said, not this but the opposite opinion of two Dionysiuses, it follows that they held this, and not that, for true and ancient, nay most probably judged it older than the middle of the eighth century.

§ XI. Other weighty reasons, drawn chiefly from the sacred calendars of the Greeks, which demonstrate that among these too the opinion of two Dionysiuses prevailed of old, are brought forward.

[That the opinion of two Dionysiuses flourished among the ancient Greeks too, from the Greek,] The things I discoursed in the § immediately preceding only demonstrate that the opinion which sets down Dionysius the Areopagite as different from Dionysius, prelate and martyr of Paris, flourished in the Latin church before the middle of the eighth century; here I am now going to adduce, chiefly from the sacred Calendars of the Greeks, things which show that the same opinion also prevailed of old in the Greek church, and therefore most probably already from the same time as in the Latin. And first indeed, in order to do this, I transcribe here in Greek and Latin the Eulogy of St. Dionysius the Areopagite which bears on the present purpose, and which Chifflet supplies entire in his Dissertation on the one Dionysius from the Synaxarion of a Ms. of the Collège de Clermont at Paris, and which is also exhibited in part by Sirmond, On the two Dionysiuses, chapter 7. In Greek it is expressed in these following words: Ἀθλησὶς τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν ἐπισκόπου γενομένου Αθηνῶν Διονυσίου τοῦ Αρεοπαγίτου, ὅς ἐτύγχανεν εἑς τῶν ἐν Αθήναις ἐνδόξων πλούτῳ καὶ σοφίᾳ περίβλεπτος. νόμος δὲ ἦν ἐν ἀυταῖς ἐννέα κριτὰς προκατέζεσθαι παρὰ τὸν ἄρειον πάγον διαφέροντας τῶν λοιπῶν, τὰς φονικὰς κρίνοντας κρίσεις· ὧν εἱς ὑπῆρχε καὶ Διονύσιος. Τοῦ δὲ θείου Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου κηρύξαντος ἐν Αθήναις, ἄκρος τὴν σύνεσιν ὢν, ἐπέγνω τὴν ἀλήθειαν καὶ ἐπίστευσεν είς Χριστὸν, καὶ χειροτονεῖται παῤ ἀυτοῦ ἐπίσκοπος Αθηνῶν, καὶ τὰ ἀπόῤῥητα μυεῖται παρὰ τοῦ σοφοῦ Ιεροθέου· διὸ καὶ μόνος ἐν γράμμασιν ἐκτίθεται τῶν ἐπουρανίων ταγμάτων τοὺς διακόσμους, καὶ πάσης ἱεραρχίας καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικῆς διατάξεως ἐφερμηνεύει τοὺς τύπους.

[200] Οὗτος ὁλοκαυτοῦται ἐν πυρὶ συλληφθεὶς ὑφ᾽ ἑλλήνων, συγκατακαέντων ἀυτῷ καὶ τῶν ἑτέρων ἀυτοῦ συγγραμμάτων· ἃ φασὶ τινὲς ἐν μόνῃ τῇ τῶν Ρωμαίων ἀποκεῖσθαι βιβλιοθήκῃ· εὑρίσκονται δὲ παῤ ἡμῖν βιβλία ἀυτοῦ δέκα. Καταλαβὼν δὲ τὰ ἑσπέρια ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας Δομετιανοῦ, καὶ πολλὰ θαύματα ἐπιδειξάμενος μετὰ τὸ ἀποτμηθῆναι τὴν κεφαλην χερσὶν ἰδίαν ὑποδεξάμενος μέχρι δύο μιλίων ἐβάδισε, καὶ οὐ πρότερον ἀπέθετο ἀυτὴν, ἕως συνήντησε πιστῇ γυναικὶ, ὀνόματι Κατούλα, καὶ ταύτης ταῖς χερσὶ τὸν ἱερὸν θησαυρὸν ἤτοι τὴν κάραν ἐπιστεύσε· σὺν ἀυτῷ δὲ Ρουστικόστε καὶ Ελευθέριος τὰς κεφαλὰς ἀπετμήθησαν· ἦν δὲ κατὰ τὸν σωματικὸν τύπον τὸ μέγεθος μέσος, ἱσχνὸς, λευκὸς, ὕπωχρος, τὴν ῥῖνα ὑπόσιμος, τὰς ὀφρῦς ἀνεσπακὼς, κοῖλος τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς, ἐπισυνοίας ἀεὶ, ὦτα μεγάλα ἔχων, πολιὸς κομήτης, μετρίως βαθυνόμενος τὴν ὑπήνην, ἀραιὸς τὴν ἔκφυσιν τοῦ γενείου, ἠρέμα προγάστωρ, μακροδάκτυλος ταῖς χερσίν· ἡ δὲ σύναξις ἀυτοῦ τελεῖται ἐν τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ μεγάλῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ: and in Latin, from Chifflet's interpretation, it runs thus: The contest of our holy father, bishop of Athens, Dionysius the Areopagite, who was one of the illustrious men of Athens, conspicuous for wealth and wisdom. Now it was the custom at Athens that nine judges, more excellent than the others, should preside on the Areopagus, as arbiters of capital causes, of whom one was Dionysius. But when the divine Paul the Apostle was preaching at Athens, as he was of subtle intelligence, he recognized the truth and believed in Christ, and was created by him bishop of Athens, and was taught the ineffable mysteries by the wise Hierotheus; whence also he alone sets out in writings the orderings of the heavenly hosts, and explains the form of every Hierarchy and of the ecclesiastical disposition. He, seized by the heathens, was wholly consumed by flames, his other books too being burned together with him, which some say survive in the library of the Romans alone. But ten books of his are found with us.*

[201] [is transcribed here, and which, accommodating it to his opinion of one Dionysius,] But having set out for the West, in the reign of Domitian, and having wrought many miracles, when he had been beheaded, receiving his very head in his hands he proceeded as far as two miles. Nor did he let it go before he met a faithful woman, named Catula, and entrusted this sacred treasure, namely his head, to her hands. And with him Rusticus and Eleutherius were beheaded. He was, as regards the form of his body, of middling stature, slender, white indeed but rather pale, somewhat snub-nosed, with contracted eyebrows, deep-set eyes, always like one in meditation, with rather large ears, long-haired and grey, the beard moderately long but thin, a little paunchy, with long fingers on his hands. His solemn day is celebrated in the most holy great basilica. The punishment of fire or flames, by which Dionysius is first handed down in this eulogy just recited to have been wholly consumed (in the East, or at Athens, as appears), certainly cannot square with the cutting off of the head by which he is afterwards narrated in the same eulogy to have consummated his martyrdom in the West. Hence Chifflet, observing this, has fastened upon the writer who wove it an interpretation by which he tried to render him, if not favouring, at least not harming, his opinion of one Dionysius. Hear how he speaks immediately before the same eulogy already transcribed here. From that ignorance of the Greeks (namely about Dionysius, who set out from Athens to Rome and was sent from there into Gaul, where he also underwent martyrdom), he says, we suppose arose the conjecture about Dionysius consumed by flames at Athens (ὁλοκαυτοῦται ἐν πυρὶ), which Sirmond relates, as favouring his opinion of two Dionysiuses, from a Ms. codex of a certain Synaxarion of the Clermont library, while yet refuting the inconsistency of the author, who presently adds that Dionysius, having set out into the West, after many miracles performed, was beheaded there. But to us, not without reason, the latter and therefore sounder statement of the Synaxarion pleases more, if indeed it cannot stand with the former. For what prevents that Dionysius, ordered to be burned at Athens, remained unharmed on the kindled pyre, and, rescued thence by divine power, turned his counsels to the Western expedition?

[202] Chifflet therefore so interprets the author of the said eulogy, so as to bring him into concord with himself, Chifflet interprets in the words given here, that by these words of his, ὁλοκαυτοῦται ἐν πυρὶ, he wished to signify only that Dionysius was ordered to be burned, or condemned to the flames, but not also that he was consumed by them; and in order to add some confirmation to this interpretation of his, or certainly to set out his mind more clearly, he reasons thus besides, after he has recited the whole eulogy which I have already transcribed: It could be doubted here whether those words, οὗτος ὁλοκαυτοῦται ἐν πυρὶ, are to be taken of a capital sentence pronounced against Dionysius; so that the sense is: "By sentence he was ordered to be wholly burned." For that would square nicely with what is presently subjoined: that Dionysius, having set out into the parts of the West, underwent martyrdom there, carried his severed head, etc., when namely he had emerged by divine power from the Athenian flames, like very many other martyrs; which would greatly stand in the way of the asserters of two Dionysiuses. But even if you admit, as the adversaries would have it, that the author of the Synaxarion, with Greek levity, conflicts with himself, while he both asserts that Dionysius was burned at Athens and yet afterwards went into the West, which are openly contradictory, they certainly reap nothing here, alleging for themselves a writing of no credit and adverse to itself; so that it is exceedingly strange that a support for their opinion was sought from this Synaxarion by industrious men. Come then, you chief centurions of strong wits, to whom the tradition of our churches is a mockery, who do not fear to call the Areopagite of the Parisians a Hilduinian fable, a Hilduinian heresy. Tell me, pray, with what design or with what mind did you wish to cite the author of this synaxarion as a witness in your cause? Because he seemed to affirm that Dionysius the Athenian was consumed by fire at Athens with his writings? If he did, by what reasoning, I ask, does he presently admonish that this same man, when he had passed into the West, was beheaded with Rusticus and Eleutherius, and, having taken this very head in his hands, carried it two miles from the place of punishment until he laid it in the lap of Catula, a pious woman?

[203] Thus further he has taught us that he escaped unharmed from the Athenian pyre, the part of the Eulogy, whose author either himself whether through invisibility or by another miracle of divine Providence, which certainly is established to have been common to him with very many other martyrs of Christ. But this the adversaries flatly deny of our Dionysius, and therefore contend that the author of the Synaxarion with Greek levity has bound fabulous things to true ones. Either approve his whole testimony, or reject the whole. It is absurd to think that both oracles and little tales are received from the same mouth. The praised Chifflet therefore contends that the Clermont Synaxarion which he praises, or rather the eulogy of Dionysius already produced from it, must be interpreted either in the manner or way which he assigns and which I have also set out above, or certainly rejected entirely, because otherwise one and the same author would have to be said to have written conflicting things and to have mixed true things with false or fabulous ones. But what if the said eulogy was woven not by one and the same, but by two different authors, the one older and the other more recent? What if the former part of the eulogy, which records that Dionysius was wholly consumed by flames and runs from the beginning up to these words, But having set out for the West, was first written alone by an author preceding the middle of the eighth century? What if then the latter part, which hands down that Dionysius was beheaded in the West and runs from the same words to the end, was added to it by a more recent author, who flourished only after the middle of the eighth century, for this reason, that he wished thus to correct the former part of the eulogy, which he saw was adverse to the opinion deeply imbibed by himself about Dionysius who set out into Gaul and gained the palm of martyrdom there, or at least (for perhaps he did not examine whether it was true and what it contained) to make it fuller by adding the things which he believed about Dionysius?

[204] to be ancient, or because Surely, since in the former part of the eulogy transcribed here, mention having been made of two Works, of which St. Dionysius the Areopagite wrote one on the Celestial and the other on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, it is asserted that other books of his are said by certain persons to survive in the library of the Romans alone, it must have been written before the eighth century, inasmuch as by then Scholia had been woven by St. Maximus, a writer of the seventh century, not only on the Celestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarchy but also on all the Works which are now circulated under the name of the Areopagite, and these were then certainly found not only at Rome but in many other places too. But as regards now the latter part of the eulogy, since the things which are narrated in that latter part about the head laid by Dionysius in the lap of a matron named Catulla, when he had carried it, already cut off from him, with his own hands, were first committed to writing by Metaphrastes, who, as is now admitted among all, flourished in the tenth century, it appears indubitable and certain that this part was written by an author who flourished only after Metaphrastes. And so now we have at the same time that the former part of the given eulogy was written by one writer and the latter part likewise by another; and how deservedly this can be maintained will become evident from what is now to be said

more fully. Although indeed ὁλοκαυτοῦται, he was consumed by fire, is sometimes found used to signify the same as he was sacrificed, or was tortured by the burning of fire, which one, ordered to be burned, escaped by divine power, it is nevertheless clear that it is not so used in the given eulogy even from this, that in it Dionysius is handed down to have been burned together with the books woven by him, which certainly no one would say are signified to have been sacrificed or immolated in such a manner.

[205] about Dionysius having suffered in the East, or at Athens And since this is so, and therefore the former part of the eulogy by no means admits the interpretation assigned by Chifflet, it must surely be that this had one author and the latter part another, inasmuch as the latter, handing down that the Saint expired by the cutting off of his head in the West, and so conflicting diametrically with the former part, which records that he was consumed at Athens, or in the East, by the burning of flames — an author who, perhaps not having sufficiently examined the former part, or having examined it indeed but not approved it, enlarged the other eulogy of the Dionysius of whom we speak here by the latter part woven by himself, for the causes which I assigned at number 203. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and the eulogy of the Saint transcribed above here had, from what has already been said, two different authors, of whom one flourished before the eighth century and writes that Dionysius fell at Athens, it follows that it is by no means to be wholly rejected, contrary to what Chifflet would wish, and that on the contrary it is a not wholly invalid argument that the opinion of Dionysius the Areopagite having suffered in the East, or at Athens, and not in Gaul or the West, flourished among the ancient Greeks who flourished before the latter part of the recited eulogy was written, or before its more recent author, whatever Chifflet may argue to the contrary in the words transcribed above here. But let us even grant for the moment that a writer was found who was so little consistent with himself as to have handed down to memory in the Eulogy transcribed above here both that one and the same Dionysius was consumed by fire in the East, or at Athens, and that he consummated his martyrdom by the sword in Gaul, or the West, and other things not sufficiently coherent; not even from this will it follow that nothing can be made out from it for the opinion of two Dionysiuses, which sets down one of them as crowned with martyrdom at Athens and the other in Gaul.

[206] Come, let us weigh the matter accurately. The author of the Greek eulogy of which we speak here, whoever he may be, hands down, it is proved, must have been received from an ancient hands down to memory in its former part that Dionysius the Areopagite was wholly consumed by flames at Athens, or in the East. What then? Did he perhaps commit this to writing from his own genius with some Greek levity, with no guide? Do you affirm it? Let us see with what appearance of truth. One and the same Dionysius the Areopagite could not die by the burning of flames in the East, or at Athens, and at the same time by the cutting off of the head in the West, or at Paris; and since the author of the Eulogy hands down to memory in its latter part, from earlier monuments or writers which, as you certainly will not deny, he himself judged also worthy of credit, that the Saint expired in the West by this latter kind of death, who would believe that he was at the same time so senseless, even if it be granted that he wrote conflicting things, as to have handed down in the former part of the same eulogy woven by himself, without surety, without witness, finally without any foundation, that the same Saint fell in the East by the punishment of fire? It sometimes indeed happens that one who believes one of two opposed or contradictory assertions afterwards admits the other, the former being abandoned; but at the same time, that anyone should do so wholly destitute of every reason, or even adhere to one of contradictory assertions rather than the other, never, or certainly very rarely, happens; and since this is so, who would believe it came about that one who admitted two opposed or contradictory assertions, and also recorded them in writing, relied on reasons for doing so as regards the one, but not likewise as regards the other? Will you perhaps say that the author of the Eulogy, because he did not observe that one and the same man could not lose his life in the East by the punishment of fire and at the same time in the West by the cutting off of the head, wrote that Dionysius gained the crown of martyrdom by both the one and the other kind of death? But to whom, I ask, would you make that even in any way credible?

[207] Since therefore it appears necessary, from all that has already been said, that the author of the eulogy of which we speak here was impelled by some reason monument or tradition, to hand down that the Dionysius who, he says, expired in the West by the cutting off of his head, also fell in the East by the burning of flames, what else, I ask, shall we say than that this latter punishment, by which he says the Saint died in the East, was received by him either from a tradition which flourished among the ancient Greeks, or, which I should prefer, from a literary monument in which it was recorded? But Chifflet contends that the Greeks, since they did not know that Dionysius, leaving Athens, went to Rome and was sent from there by Pope Clement into Gaul, where he also underwent martyrdom, wrote only from conjecture that he was consumed by the punishment of flames in the East, or at Athens. So, namely, he betrays not obscurely in the words recited at number 201. But what then? Since indeed the conjecture from which the Greeks then wrote this beyond all doubt — as Chifflet cannot deny and himself sufficiently intimates — preceded the knowledge by which they had perceived that the same Dionysius fell in the West by the cutting off of his head, it follows even from this that the Greeks, before they ever wrote that Dionysius shed his blood for Christ in the West, his head being cut off, handed down to memory that he fell in the East by an entirely different kind of death, and therefore that the wholly opposite opinion, which distinguishes the former from this latter Dionysius, and sets down that he flew to heaven not at Paris but at Athens, having shed his blood for Christ, must be thought to have prevailed among the Greeks before the opinion which sets down that Dionysius the Areopagite was both killed at Paris by the cutting off of his head and is one and the same with Dionysius, prelate of Paris.

[208] [as also from the Basilian, inasmuch as its author, in the eulogy transcribed here,] Further, that I should the more readily believe this, and that everyone further can not undeservedly believe it, is also brought about by the Basilian Menology of the Greeks, woven, as is now agreed among the learned, toward the end of the tenth century, in which St. Dionysius the Areopagite is adorned at the third day of October with this following eulogy, which it will therefore be helpful to have transcribed here at least in Latin: The great Dionysius, in the city of Athens, one of those who excelled in glory, riches and wisdom, was a judge of causes in what they call the Areopagus. But when the holy Apostle Paul, having set out for Athens, was preaching Christ, as he was of keen wit, he easily understood the truth and believed in Christ, and, having been baptized, is ordained bishop of Athens, and taught many of the Greeks (it should have been translated of the heathens), and baptized them when converted to God. He also learned the secret mysteries of God from the holy bishop Hierotheus, and wrote many books on the heavenly powers. And being denounced to the prefect of Athens by the idolaters he is seized with two disciples; and when they had undergone many torments, he himself is first beheaded, who lifted up his head with his hands for two miles, nor did he lay it down before, meeting a Christian woman, he handed it to her. Afterwards his two disciples too were beheaded. Here then is yet another sacred monument of the Greeks, or, if you prefer, its author, a Greek hagiologist, who, although, from what has been said, he flourished not before the tenth century, and therefore only after the opinion of one Dionysius had been commonly received by the Greeks too (go to number 112 and following), nevertheless writes, or certainly indicates not obscurely, that Dionysius the Areopagite was afflicted with martyrdom at Athens, although in the kind of punishment by which he underwent it he does not agree with the author of the synaxarion spoken of above, and so most openly distinguishes him from Dionysius, prelate of Paris, inasmuch as no one will deny that the latter underwent martyrdom at Paris.

[209] at Athens Nor do we have only this from the eulogy just transcribed here, by which Dionysius is celebrated by that Greek hagiologist; but also, since he ascribes to Dionysius the Areopagite the carrying of the head already cut off and some other things customarily attributed only to the Dionysius who was bishop of the Parisians, that writings or documents which confused him with the former undoubtedly lit his way. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, by what reasoning shall we say it came about that he did not likewise confuse both Dionysiuses, the Parisian and the Areopagite, or indicated that the latter underwent martyrdom at Athens, which is just as if he had most expressly distinguished the one from the other? Will you perhaps assert that both Dionysiuses, namely the Parisian and the Areopagite, are indeed held by that Martyrologist for one and the same Saint, but that he erred in assigning the place of the martyrdom, or the arena, when he ought to have assigned Paris for it? But how, I ask, would you give in any way as proved this, which surely no one would admit unless it were solidly proved? Because he records some things which square only with Dionysius of Paris, and so seems to be speaking of that holy prelate who gained the palm of martyrdom at Paris, or, to speak more exactly, near Paris? But he likewise hands down to memory some things which, as will be plain to one considering it, square only with Dionysius the Areopagite. That therefore this hagiologist, even though he had before his eyes writings which confused both Dionysiuses, nevertheless placed the arena of the Areopagite at Athens, and at the same time ascribed to this Saint of ours some things which square only with Dionysius of Paris, appears to have come about from this, that he both copied almost entirely the eulogy or encomium lighting his way, which had been fused together partly from the deeds of Dionysius the Areopagite and partly from those of Dionysius of Paris, and drew the arena of the martyrdom, which he nowhere found expressed in it, from a Greek monument which assigned Athens for it, or at least received it from an ancient tradition which still flourished among the Greeks and was known to him.

[210] Surely, since, as has been said, he was alive only in the tenth century, the arena of Dionysius from an ancient in which very many writings confusing Dionysius the Areopagite with the Parisian are known to have been circulated among the Greeks, nothing at all prevents his being believed to have had before his eyes such a eulogy or encomium as I have spoken of. Nor is there any reason either why it should be asserted that he could not have learned the arena which he assigns to the martyrdom of Dionysius the Areopagite from some literary monument of the Greeks or from an ancient tradition still flourishing among them. For although perhaps no monuments now survive among the Greeks which hand down that Dionysius the Areopagite suffered at Athens, it does not follow from this that absolutely no writing of this kind survived already even from the age of the hagiologist. As regards the ancient tradition, from which he could likewise have learned the arena of the martyrdom endured by Dionysius the Areopagite, this indeed, the opinion of one Dionysius, at once Areopagite and prelate of Paris, who suffered in the West and not in the East at Athens, having been received everywhere with the lapse of time, has wholly perished today among the Greeks; but why not among these, in the age of the writer who wove the Basilian Menology,

or the Xth century, could it still have in some way flourished? Surely nothing occurs by which I should believe for certain that this did not happen. It therefore appears to me all but certain and indubitable that either an ancient tradition which still flourished among the Greeks, or some literary monument of theirs, supplied him with what he hands down to memory about the place or arena of the martyrdom endured by Dionysius the Areopagite. For unless the matter stands so, whence, I ask, did he draw what he writes about Dionysius the Areopagite having suffered at Athens? Will you perhaps say, from the sacred Calendars of the Greeks, which, because they announced Dionysius the Areopagite at Athens at the third day of October, he interpreted of the arena in which the Saint had contended for the faith, and not of the place in which only the commemoration of the contest was kept?

[211] marks on the faith of a monument, But, besides that Calendars of the Greeks in which Dionysius is announced at Athens, with no other indication added by which he might be signified either to have suffered there or to have obtained a commemoration there on account of his passion, are not found today, so far as I know, the author of the Basilian Menology would by no means seem likely to have been moved by an announcement of this kind — by which it would have been doubtful whether Dionysius was handed down as only venerated at Athens, or as having also suffered there — to mark the arena of the martyrdom endured by Dionysius at Athens; because, since in the tenth century, in which, as has already been said, he at length flourished, not a few writings or monuments, and by name the Dionysian Acts woven by Methodius, Syncellus and Metaphrastes, in which it was most expressly handed down that Dionysius the Areopagite both preached the faith and shed his blood for it in Gaul, were commonly circulated among the Greeks and worn in the hands of almost all, it can scarcely, or not even scarcely, be doubted that he had read at least some writing or monument of this kind, and he would not seem likely easily to have allowed himself to record the arena of Dionysius elsewhere than where he had found it noted in it. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and he therefore did not receive the arena of the martyrdom endured by Dionysius, which he places at Athens, from sacred Calendars of the Greeks such as I have spoken of, what else remains than that he be believed to have drawn it either from some other literary monument of the Greeks, or from an ancient tradition which still flourished among them? And indeed, since at that time, the opinion of Dionysius having suffered in Gaul having been imbibed by almost all the Greeks, the contrary tradition, which set down that the Saint suffered at Athens, though it perhaps still obtained in some way among some, had been not a little disparaged, he most probably drew what I have said not from it but from a monument expressed in writing; and this, since the Greeks of the ninth and tenth century, as having then embraced the opinion which sets down Dionysius the Areopagite as having suffered at Paris and therefore as the same as Dionysius of Paris, would certainly not have placed the arena of Dionysius the Areopagite at Athens, was undoubtedly drawn up or written before the end of the eighth century.

[212] [Menology, and from the deed of Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople, related here] Wherefore, since the author of the Basilian Menology received from a monument of this kind the arena of Dionysius the Areopagite which he marks at Athens, as is clear from what has already been said, he certainly, or, if you prefer, the Eulogy transcribed above here by which he celebrates Dionysius the Areopagite, is an argument that the opinion which sets down Dionysius the Areopagite as having suffered at Athens, and therefore as different from Dionysius of Paris, flourished before the end of the eighth century, or among the ancient Greeks. And indeed that this undoubtedly stands so it is permitted to gather also from the deed of Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople from the year 784 to the year 806, already mentioned above from Hilduin's Areopagitica, by which he, when it had been related to him about Dionysius the Areopagite that he had both gone to Rome, leaving Athens, and, having been sent from there into Gaul, had undergone martyrdom there, ordered inquiry to be made solicitously through his legates, sent either to Rome or into Gaul, whether these things were consonant with the truth. For since at that time, as appears from what I discoursed in § V, the Commentaries of the Gauls, in which these things were maintained not obscurely, had been communicated to the Greeks, to what purpose did Tarasius order inquiry into their truth, or whether Dionysius the Areopagite, a bishop having been substituted for him at Athens, had gone into Gaul and fallen there in martyrdom? For no other cause, you will say, certainly than that he still remained doubtful and wavering about the matter. Nicely indeed; but to what purpose did he still remain doubtful and wavering about the matter? To what purpose, when he had at hand the praised Commentaries of the Gauls expressly maintaining that Dionysius the Areopagite suffered in Gaul, and had probably also read them, did he order inquiry to be made solicitously into it through his legates, sent, as has been said, either to Rome or into Gaul, namely in order to explore what was to be believed?

[213] That indeed, unless he had found out that the opinion which sets down Dionysius the Areopagite as having suffered at Athens and as different from the Parisian deed; nor from the things which, in the words recited here, still flourished among the Greeks at that time, or certainly had flourished not long before, he would seem neither likely to have done, nor even likely to have doubted whether the Commentaries of the Gauls communicated to the Greeks, which maintained not obscurely that Dionysius the Areopagite suffered at Paris and was the same as Dionysius of Paris, were consonant with the truth. And since this is so, the mentioned deed of St. Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople, is indeed a not wholly invalid argument too that the opinion which sets down Dionysius the Areopagite as having suffered at Athens and as different from Dionysius of Paris still obtained among the Greeks before the end of the eighth century. But there will perhaps be someone who again objects to us here (for I do not think that anyone will dispute about the Menaea or similar monuments of the Greeks, as of too doubtful credit and of a more recent age) Baronius, in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year 109, number 45, first reasoning thus: Lest anyone think that those Acts of Dionysius the Areopagite were then first found and written by the cited authors (namely Methodius, Syncellus and Metaphrastes), let him accept what Hilduin, writing to the same emperor Louis (go to his Reply to that prince in Surius, number 10), testified in these words about the monuments of the ancient Greeks: "Even to this day the elders of the Greeks and the inhabitants of Athens, taught by the writings of histories and the traditions of successions, maintain that Dionysius was at that time the first bishop in the same city, when Timothy, likewise a disciple of Paul, ruled the church of the Ephesians; and that he himself, a bishop having been substituted for him, went to Rome, and, as they have found out, was consummated by a glorious martyrdom among the nation of the Gauls;" and then, after some further words of Hilduin transcribed, in which the deed of Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople, just discussed, is set out, continuing in this manner: Certainly indeed, even if no testimonies ever were available of the mutual agreement of the Greeks and of attestation from their writings, their own silence would stand in place of a thousand witnesses.

[214] For calling to mind how they have always been the most tenacious guardians and champions of their own things, Baronius, or about the Greeks, who, to the Gauls, Dionysius the Areopagite, and that this is implanted in them by nature, inasmuch as they contend so much among themselves about the native city of Homer, we do not think they were so liberal as to have so easily given to the Gauls so great a man, the wisest of the wise, the remnant of Athens, the distinguished disciple of Paul, their own first bishop, that, when the Gauls claimed him for themselves, they were wholly silent, and as if by sworn silence no one ever dared even lightly to contradict. For if, by any slightest proof, either from the monuments of the church of Athens or by some uncertain and doubtful tradition, or report received from anywhere, they, rivals of the glory of the Latins, could have opposed these things about Dionysius, it is not to be thought that they would have restrained themselves from claiming what was theirs. But because in a matter well attested and plainly perceived they would have seemed to act too calumniously, so far were they from contradicting with protest, that rather all who treated of that matter of their own accord cast the vote of their opinion in mutual agreement. Thus far the most learned father of the ecclesiastical Annals, contending here chiefly two things, the one indeed from Hilduin's words and the other from his own genius. The first is that the Acts of St. Dionysius which have Methodius, Syncellus and Metaphrastes as authors were taken from ancient monuments of the Greeks; the second, that absolutely nothing was available to the Greeks by which they could have protested against the Gauls claiming Dionysius the Areopagite for themselves as the apostle of their nation.

[215] as the apostle of their nation But these two things asserted by Baronius, which, if they were true, would be an argument that the opinion which sets down Dionysius the Areopagite as having suffered at Athens and as different from Dionysius of Paris did not flourish among the ancient Greeks, it is not exceedingly difficult to confute and wholly uproot. To give this as accomplished, I begin from what is proposed in the last place in the words recited from Baronius. And first indeed I do not sufficiently see how Baronius, a man otherwise certainly most learned, could contend what I have said from the fact that the Greeks did not contradict the Gauls asserting that Dionysius the Areopagite announced the Gospel to their nation. For what? Did the Gauls, when about the middle of the VIIIth century they began to call the Dionysius who brought the light of the Gospel to the Parisians the Areopagite, so claim him for themselves as to take him wholly away from the Greeks? If they had done so, there would surely have been reason for the Greeks to protest, nor do I doubt that they would in fact have protested. But although the Gauls then asserted that Dionysius the Areopagite came into Gaul, leaving Greece, and, created prelate of the Parisians, handed on to their nation the most holy dogmas of salvation and faith, they by no means denied that he was by nation a Greek and the first bishop of the Athenians, and so by no means took him away from the Greeks. To what purpose then would these have contradicted them, and protested by bringing into light monuments by which they would have proved that Dionysius never left Greece? Did Baronius perhaps judge that a city to which the other cities of Greece had ascribed the glory of Homer's birth would have contradicted and protested against them because they affirmed that that most celebrated prince of poets had at some time stayed with them and composed a part of his poetic compositions? That indeed the wholly singular industry and acumen of a man learned in every respect does not permit me to suppose; and since this is so, it surely occurs to one to wonder how he brought himself to think, and also committed to writing, that the Greeks would have contradicted the Gauls for the mentioned cause.

[216] claiming for themselves, But, you will perhaps say, Baronius judged that the Greeks would have done so because the Gauls asserted that Dionysius underwent martyrdom, or was born into heaven, in Gaul. What then? Could it deservedly be judged from this that the Greeks would have contradicted the Gauls, when the latter were meanwhile ascribing to a Greek man the conversion of their nation and the glory placed in it? That indeed does not appear so to me. And indeed so far were they from being likely to contradict the Gauls for asserting that Dionysius the Areopagite underwent martyrdom in Gaul, that on the contrary they seem, from what has been said above, to have assented to those same Gauls much more easily than was fitting, when they had received from them the Commentaries already so often mentioned above, which maintained that Dionysius the Areopagite came into Gaul and was the same as Dionysius of Paris, or the fictitious and fabulous Dionysian Acts. Nor do I wonder that they were so minded. For that the conversion to the faith of the most celebrated nation of the Gauls should be ascribed to a Greek man by the Gauls themselves in them,

they saw; and since they could not but count this very honourable to themselves, it was surely easy to come about that they assented to the Gauls very readily, the matter being hardly examined, and in like manner also adopted whatever they understood to be handed down about Dionysius the Areopagite in the Commentaries communicated by them to themselves. From the silence, therefore, observed by the Greeks when the Gauls about the middle of the VIIIth century claimed for themselves Dionysius the Areopagite as the apostle of their nation, Baronius wrongly contends that absolutely no proof could have been brought forward by them by which they might have contradicted the Gauls in that matter, whether from the monuments of the church of Athens, or from some uncertain and doubtful tradition, or finally from a report received from anywhere.

[217] They did not indeed then bring forward any writings or monuments did not contradict, or about ancient monuments, by which they might overthrow what the Gauls asserted about Dionysius the Areopagite and wished the Greeks to be persuaded of; but since it by no means concerned them to do so, as you will without difficulty decide from what has already been said, I would not easily believe that no monuments or writings of this kind, which they could have opposed to the Gauls, existed with them. And the things which I discoursed above show sufficiently and more than sufficiently that I am deservedly so minded. But, you will ask, what will you at length make out from all these things? That the things brought forward by Baronius about the silence of the Greeks mentioned above cannot bring it about — which bears chiefly on this point — that what I asserted above about the opinion distinguishing Dionysius the Areopagite from Dionysius of Paris, which flourished among the ancient Greeks, should not stand firm and unshaken: but whether it is not likewise overthrown by the things which the same Baronius first argues from Hilduin's words must now be considered. So that I may do this more orderly and in a manner more accommodated, as far as can be done, to the reader's grasp, I transcribe here again beforehand the words of Hilduin on which he builds what that writer contends. Even to this day, says Hilduin in his Reply to the emperor Louis the Pious, number 10, the elders of the Greeks and the inhabitants of Athens, taught by the writings of histories and the traditions of successions, maintain that Dionysius was at that time the first bishop in the same city, when Timothy, likewise a disciple of Paul, ruled the church of the Ephesians; and that he himself, a bishop having been substituted for him, went to Rome, and, as they have found out, was consummated by a glorious martyrdom among the nation of the Gauls; and from these words Baronius contends in the place assigned above that the Dionysian Acts which Methodius, Syncellus and Metaphrastes wove were taken from the ancient monuments of the Greeks.

[218] But here too, as it certainly appears to me, he is not to be assented to. [from which he argues that the departure of Dionysius from Athens to Rome was maintained by the Athenians] For what? Hilduin asserts in the recited words that it is maintained by the Athenians, from ancient monuments as well as tradition, that Dionysius the Areopagite presided as bishop over the church of the Athenians at the time when Timothy, a disciple of the apostle Paul like himself, governed the church of the Ephesians. So it stands, and I believe that what he affirms to be maintained by the Athenians was in truth maintained by them, nor is there reason why what he says to be maintained by the same should be called into doubt. But what then? Is the same to be said also of the departure of Dionysius to Rome, Athens being left? Does Hilduin affirm that this too is maintained by the Athenians from the ancient Histories of the Greeks and at the same time from tradition? Surely, if the words just recited are considered only in themselves, there seems also to be reason why it might seem so to someone. But since Hilduin does not everywhere speak exactly and according to the laws of correct construction, and at the same time insinuates not obscurely that what he affirms is maintained by the Athenians about the martyrdom of Dionysius endured in Gaul was not drawn by them from the ancient histories of the Greeks and from tradition, it appears to me most probable that he likewise did not wish to insinuate this about the departure of Dionysius to Rome, Athens being left; so that, even if I should grant for the moment that Hilduin wrote nothing that is not consonant with exact truth, it would nevertheless not yet follow from this that what he says is maintained by the Athenians about the journey undertaken by Dionysius to Rome, Athens being left, must on that account have been drawn by them from ancient monuments.

[219] nothing to the contrary can be inferred; But let us grant even that Hilduin judged, and further wished to signify, that what he asserts about the Roman journey of Dionysius maintained by the Athenians was drawn by them from ancient monuments as well as tradition; not even from this will you draw anything by which you may make out that the opinion which sets down that Dionysius the Areopagite did not come into Gaul, and was different from Dionysius of Paris, did not obtain among the ancient Greeks. Come, let Hilduin assert even in the most express words that what has been said about the departure of Dionysius to Rome, Athens being left, is maintained by the Athenians. That writer, although he is not of bad faith in citing monuments and writers, as I taught above, is nevertheless not to be held in such esteem that it ought not to be feared lest he have anywhere swerved from the truth, either through error or through a false report brought to him. What then if he wrongly referred the Writings of Histories and the traditions of successions, from which the elders of the Greeks and the inhabitants of Athens maintained that Dionysius the Areopagite presided over the Athenian church at the same time as Timothy governed the church of the Ephesians, also to his departure to Rome, a bishop having been substituted for him at Athens? Surely that Hilduin was deceived in that matter, if he truly wished to signify what has just been said, appears most probable even from this, that, since today no Greek writing older than Hilduin's age is found anywhere in which Dionysius the Areopagite is recorded to have migrated to Rome, Athens being left, likewise none in which this was handed down seems to have been found in Hilduin's age; especially since this writer cites none by name, who nevertheless most diligently sought out all the monuments or writings which could in any way support the opinion of one Dionysius which he defended, and for the most part distinctly recorded those found in his Reply to the emperor Louis the Pious, and therefore, if a writing or monument of this kind had been found anywhere in his age, he would seem likely to have known it, and when known, not likely to have passed it over in silence in the same Reply just mentioned.

[220] Moreover, since before the middle of the VIIIth century, and therefore before Hilduin's age, the opinion which distinguishes Dionysius the Areopagite from the Parisian, and sets him down as having suffered at Athens and not having set out into the West, flourished among the Greeks and was also committed to writing, as is clear from what has been said above, [nay, that monuments of this kind did not exist even among the Athenians, from the Work of Aristides,] that indeed is also an argument that the opposite opinion, or things which would serve to establish it, were not recorded in literary monuments at that time either. There is added that monuments of this kind, if any had then been found, ought to have existed with the Athenians, inasmuch as they maintained from them what Hilduin says, and at the same time to have been held by them in honour and esteem. But that any monument or writing which made Dionysius the Areopagite the same as the Parisian, or asserted that he migrated to Rome, a bishop having been substituted for him at Athens, then existed with the Athenians, much less was held by them in honour and esteem, appears little likely. This opinion holds because, as the author of the Little Roman Martyrology testifies today in the eulogy of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, the Work of Aristides woven on the Christian religion was then held by the same Athenians in the greatest honour and esteem; and in it it seems to have been handed down that Dionysius the Areopagite underwent martyrdom at Athens under the emperor Hadrian. At Athens, says that ancient martyrologist, of Dionysius the Areopagite, who suffered various torments under Hadrian, as Aristides is witness in the Work which he composed on the Christian religion.

[221] Will you perhaps deny that it follows from these words of the Little Roman who, as appears, recorded the arena of Dionysius at Athens, that the martyrdom of Dionysius at Athens was recorded by Aristides in the praised Work? But although the recited words, if considered in themselves, barely and simply, do not necessarily require that this was done there by Aristides, there are nevertheless some things which persuade that this martyrologist drew the arena of Dionysius the Areopagite, which he seems to place at Athens, from Aristides, or from his Work which he praises. And first indeed, that the arena of Dionysius is recorded at Athens by the author of the Little Roman in the words just transcribed here you will decide not at all ineptly, as appears, from the things which I discoursed above from the same author for establishing the opinion of two Dionysiuses; and as regards now Aristides, from whom he learned the arena of Dionysius the Areopagite which he assigns, since he asserts that Dionysius was afflicted with various torments, and calls Aristides as witness for this assertion of his, all those things were most probably recorded by him; and hence it comes about that it also appears most probable that the place in which the Saint suffered these things was recorded by him. But which? Paris or Athens? Since Aristides was an Athenian philosopher, as St. Jerome testifies in chapter 20 of the Ecclesiastical Writers, and also lived at Athens, and therefore, if Dionysius the Areopagite had suffered at Paris, he would seem not likely to have known all the torments which he underwent, and therefore not likely to have recorded them one by one, as from what has been said he probably did, I judge that the martyrdom of Dionysius both took place at Athens and was recorded there by Aristides. Now indeed, since this is so, and the author of the Little Roman makes Aristides the witness for the various torments with which he records Dionysius was afflicted, he most probably learned from him the place too in which he notes the Saint suffered.

[222] and which, contrary to what Ménard argues, by the author of the Little Roman But Ménard, speaking in his Diatribe on one Dionysius, at once Areopagite and prelate of Paris, of Usuard, who likewise cites Aristides in the present eulogy of our Saint, affirms on page 113 that the citation of such an author is very suspect to him, because, namely, as he subjoins, no one of the Greeks, whether ancient or more recent, cited him for Dionysius the Areopagite: not Eusebius, who treats of the Areopagite in book 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 4; not Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, who, treating of him in the epistle to the Athenians, says that he was bishop of Athens, as may be seen in Eusebius, book 4 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 7; not Metaphrastes …, not Methodius, not Syncellus, not Nicephorus, not Suidas, who treat of Dionysius; not the Greek church in its Menaea and other liturgical books; not the Menologies of Constantinople and of Sirleto; not Maximus, bishop of Cythera, in the Life of St. Dionysius; who, if they had had him, and had read in him that St. Dionysius was put to death at Athens, would undoubtedly have followed him. So he; but since the author of the Little Roman merits entire credit, as our Sollerius shows in more than one place in his Preface to Usuard, and is therefore not to be judged to ascribe to authors, as handed down by them, things which they do not in truth hand down, it must be held for certain and indubitable that the things which that martyrologist says were in truth committed to writing about Dionysius the Areopagite by Aristides in the Work woven on the Christian religion.

[223] is rightly cited, from the Work, Nor does it matter that Aristides is cited for Dionysius the Areopagite by none of the Greeks, whether ancient or more recent; for of the two Greeks older than the rest whom Ménard says did not do so, the one, namely Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, was a contemporary of Aristides, and had perceived no less than he the things which concerned Dionysius the Areopagite, so that he did not find it necessary to cite him in order to win credit for his statements about him; the other, namely Eusebius, cited for Dionysius the Areopagite not Aristides but only Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, because the latter was more illustrious than the former, and he judged it not necessary for his purpose to cite another besides. As regards now the rest, namely Methodius, Syncellus, Nicephorus, Suidas, Maximus bishop of Cythera, and the authors of the Greek Menologies and Menaea, who likewise are said by Ménard nowhere to cite Aristides for Dionysius the Areopagite when they treat of him, these are all more recent than the middle of the eighth century, and it is very uncertain whether the praised Work on the Christian religion, in which Aristides handed down to memory that Dionysius the Areopagite consummated his martyrdom by various torments endured for Christ, still existed in their age. Ado indeed, who certainly flourished even after the middle of the eighth century, nay after Methodius and Syncellus, speaks in this manner of the aforesaid Work of Aristides: This Work is held in the highest honour among the Athenians, and is held most illustrious among the monuments of the ancients, as the more skilled of the Greeks affirm; and from these words someone will perhaps contend that the mentioned Work of Aristides still existed in Ado's age, and therefore after Methodius and Syncellus, and could have been praised by these two writers for Dionysius the Areopagite, of whom they treat.

[224] held in honour among them, it appears it must be said. Surely, since Ado puts all the words which he employs in the recited text in the present tense, he seems to speak of a thing which still existed at the time when he was writing these things; but that holy Martyrologist speaks so of the Work of Aristides, not because he had either seen it himself or knew that it had been seen by other men of his age and therefore still existed, but because he followed the credit, and almost the very formulas of speaking, of others who had spoken so of that Work before him; and lest anyone think this said by me without ground, the Little Roman Martyrology edited by our Rosweyde, which it is now placed beyond all controversy was employed by Ado for weaving his Martyrology, speaks thus of the Work which Aristides composed on the Christian religion: This Work is held most illustrious among the Athenians among the memorials of the ancients; which formula of speaking everyone will confess was brought by Ado into his Martyrology both according to almost the very words in which it is expressed and according to what is signified by them, who has perceived that the Little Roman Martyrology lit Ado's way, which, as I have already said, is certain. Ado indeed, after his pronouncements in praise of the Work composed by Aristides, presently adds: As the more skilled of the Greeks affirm; but by these he understands not men who flourished in his own age, but Eusebius, who mentions the Work woven by Aristides in book 4 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 3, and perhaps still other Greek writers who had flourished before him, and indeed long before, and had recorded the said Work of Aristides with praise. Whatever therefore Ménard may argue, it appears it must be admitted that Aristides, in the Work which he wrote on the Christian religion, committed some things to writing about Dionysius the Areopagite, and that he is therefore rightly cited by the author of the Little Roman for the same Dionysius; and since that ancient author, already inserted in our Work among the Saints at the 31st day of August, on which he is venerated, also handed down to memory in the praised Work, as I have taught, that Dionysius suffered at Athens, and therefore the things which distinguish him from Dionysius of Paris, and this Work was in honour among the Athenians, it does not likewise appear that monuments existed among them, much less were in honour, in which either the contrary, or that Dionysius, Athens being left, went to Rome, was handed down to memory; so that, in whatever manner the matter is taken, it can by no means be inferred from the things which Baronius argues from Hilduin about those monuments that the opinion of two Dionysiuses did not flourish among the ancient Greeks.

* arbiters arbitros

§ XII. That the opinion of two Dionysiuses prevailed of old both among the Greeks and among the Latins is proved by still other arguments.

The Catalogue, mentioned here, of bishops who passed from one see to another, Sirmond, in chapter 5 of his Dissertation on the two Dionysiuses, having premised that translations of bishops and changes of sees were not in use according to the Old discipline of the Church, nay on the contrary were forbidden by a prohibition passed and often repeated, then continues thus: Among the Latins indeed this (namely that bishops should not be transferred from one see to another) was formerly observed so religiously that for nearly nine hundred years the law stood inviolate, and it was laid as a crime to Pope Formosus that, setting aside the episcopate of Porto, which he formerly held, he had ascended by a new example to the summit of the Roman see; since it was established that before him, of all the Pontiffs who had sat at Rome, chosen from priests and deacons, none had been taken from the bishops. But among the Greeks and Orientals there was not the same religion and constancy. For they sometimes, though more rarely, made use of translations of this kind. Which, in order to defend them, those who made use of them (for there were not lacking those who protested) heaped up the examples of earlier times together with the answers of the Pontiffs who taught that it was lawful, if at any time necessity or great utility required. And so, when Proclus had migrated from the see of Cyzicus to that of Constantinople, there were brought forward, as may be seen in Socrates, book VII, chapter XXXV, Alexander, translated from a certain city of the Cappadocians to that of Jerusalem, Perigenes from that of Patrae to that of Corinth, Gregory from Sasima to Nazianzus, Meletius from Sebaste to Antioch, Dositheus from Seleucia to Tarsus, Reverentius from Arca in Phoenicia to Tyre, John from Gordus in Lydia to Proconnesus, Palladius from Helenopolis to Aspona, Alexander again from Helenopolis to Hadriani, Theosebius from Apamea in Asia to Eudoxiopolis, Polycarp from Sexantaprista in Mysia to Nicopolis in Thrace, Hierophilus from Trapezopolis in Phrygia to Plotinopolis, Optimus from Agdamia in Phrygia to Antioch in Pisidia, and Silvanus from Philippopolis in Thrace to Troas.

[226] [in which the Areopagite does not appear, is an argument that he never passed to Paris:] The same men, treating the cause of Formosus, Auxilius also recites in the little book which he wrote to Leo, bishop of Nola, chapter XXII, except that he also adds Germanus, who had passed from the same Cyzicus to the royal city, like Proclus, after the times of Socrates. Thus far Sirmond; and since in the Catalogue of bishops translated from one see to another woven by Socrates, which that writer recites in these words, Dionysius the Areopagite does not appear, nor did Auxilius add this Saint of ours to them, which nevertheless would have helped not a little the cause of Formosus which he was defending, that indeed is an argument that the translation of Dionysius the Areopagite from the Athenian see to the Parisian was neither known to nor committed to writing by the ancient writers, either among the Greeks or among the Latins (for otherwise either Socrates or at least Auxilius would have recorded it), and therefore that not the opinion which sets down Dionysius the Areopagite as having suffered at Paris, but the contrary one, which records the arena of his martyrdom at Athens, flourished of old both among the Latins and among the Greeks. Millet observed that not all the bishops who had passed from one see to another are recounted in the Catalogue of them produced by Sirmond from Socrates, from which the latter draws the chief force of his argument, and hence chiefly contends that the argument formed by Sirmond from the same Catalogue for the opinion of two Dionysiuses proves nothing at all. But hear how Launoy therefore takes him up in his Discussion of Millet's Response to Sirmond's Dissertation on the two Dionysiuses, chapter 12. When he saw, he says (namely Millet), that Socrates, from whom Sirmond acutely disputes, had not recounted all the bishops who had migrated from one see to another, he at once turned over all the annals and histories of the ancients, and from them designates by name what other prelates too had passed from one see to another; nay, also those who had undertaken various journeys for the preaching of the Gospel. But in so great a recension of migrating or journeying bishops no Areopagite appears; although no migration or journey of a bishop is then recorded which would have been more illustrious and more august from the age of the man, the distance of the places, and the dignity of the Apostolic embassy.

[227] So he, contending namely that the argument formed by Sirmond for the opinion of two Dionysiuses from the Catalogue of bishops translated from one see to another supplied by Socrates, [and although this is not much strengthened by the fact that, in that Catalogue, enlarged also with other bishops of this kind, among these] in which Dionysius the Areopagite does not appear, is strengthened rather than overthrown by Millet's response. But, to confess the truth, the things which Launoy brings forward in the recited words do not seem to me to press very much against Millet. For although that writer, in his Response to Sirmond's Dissertation on the two Dionysiuses, page 113, adds to the bishops recounted by Socrates some others still who, leaving the former episcopal see which they had obtained, passed to another, he nowhere indicates that absolutely all who did so are recounted by himself; nor would it be a wonder that Dionysius the Areopagite is not counted by Socrates among the bishops who changed their see, even if he had in fact at some time ascended the Parisian chair, Athens being left, since that historiographer in the aforesaid Catalogue does not even record Peter, who nevertheless, when he ascended the Roman chair, the Antiochene being left, supplies an example of episcopal migration more illustrious and more august even than the Areopagitic one, if this had ever had place. Hence Ménard, in his Diatribe already so often mentioned, chapter 12, argues not at all ineptly in this manner against Launoy's answer, which is expressed in the words just recited: In order to attack which argument (namely the one deduced by Sirmond from the Catalogue supplied by Socrates, already praised more than once), Millet very learnedly showed that this catalogue (namely the one exhibited by Socrates) is not so accurate that certain others cannot be added, and he produces eight bishops who passed to other churches, namely St. Peter, more memorable than Dionysius, from that of Antioch to that of Rome, Eustathius from that of Beroea to that of Antioch, Maximus from that of Diospolis to that of Jerusalem, Eudoxius from Germanicia to that of Antioch, Methodius from that of Olympus to that of Tyre, etc.

[228] Nor does it stand in the way that in that recension of Millet's Dionysius the Areopagite is not recorded; the Areopagite likewise does not appear, yet from the fact that by none, for since only eight are enumerated, it is no wonder if he is not recounted, although his translation is memorable, which it is no wonder that Socrates omitted, who in his Catalogue passed over the more celebrated migration of St. Peter. From this

therefore, that among the bishops who are added by Millet to the Catalogue of Socrates, and who either passed from one See to another or undertook various journeys for the preaching of the Gospel, Dionysius the Areopagite is likewise not recorded, Launoy by no means makes out what he wishes; or, to declare more openly what I think, the argument formed by Sirmond from the Catalogue of Socrates for the opinion of two Dionysiuses is not much strengthened. But can strength not be added to it from elsewhere either? Since an argument which is drawn from the silence of only one writer has for the most part very little strength for either denying or maintaining any fact, but frequently avails very much for the same end if it is universal, or extends to absolutely all writers, the argument deduced by Sirmond from the Catalogue of Socrates, although, considering only the Catalogue from which it is drawn, which does not mention Dionysius the Areopagite, it has not very much strength, will surely be not a little confirmed if Dionysius the Areopagite is likewise not counted among those who changed their episcopal sees, both in all the Catalogues, wherever extant, in which bishops translated from one see to another are recounted, and by all the writers who on any occasion have set up a discussion about the migrations of bishops from one see to another. Let us consider, then, whether the matter stands so. Auxilius, as Sirmond teaches in the words recited above, having recorded the same bishops whom we have seen above changed their sees, adds only one, Germanus, who had passed from Cyzicus to the royal city, or Constantinople; and would most probably also have added Dionysius the Areopagite, if he could have done so without prejudice to the truth, because the example of such a holy man, who had passed from one see to another, would have been most fit for defending the cause of Formosus at which he was aiming, who was accused because, the chair of Porto being left, he had occupied the Roman.

[229] [who recount such bishops as I have spoken of, the Areopagite is counted among these, is not a little confirmed:] Ivo of Chartres recounts in the prologue of his Decree the same bishops translated from one see to another as Auxilius, and he too did not judge that Dionysius the Areopagite should be added to them. Nicephorus Callistus, although he enumerates more bishops translated from one see to another than are recounted by Socrates, nevertheless makes no mention in their Catalogue of the passage by which Dionysius the Areopagite migrated to the Parisian chair, Athens being left. Moreover, to add Roman Pontiffs too to the writers who, when they spoke of bishops translated from one see to another, made no mention of Dionysius the Areopagite, Hadrian the second in Epistle 32 to the bishops of the synod of Douzy, and Stephen the fifth in his first Epistle, where they weigh the necessity of episcopal translations and confirm it by the examples of blessed Peter and others, did not mention a translation of the Areopagite to the Parisian see. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and absolutely no writing or monument of tested credit has hitherto been produced by those who make Dionysius the Areopagite the same as the Parisian, and therefore contend that he went to the Parisian chair, Athens being left, which, setting up a discussion, whether incidentally or of set purpose, about the migrations of bishops from one see to another, recounts the passage of Dionysius the Areopagite to the Parisian see, nor does it appear likely that one ever will be produced, hence surely the argument of Sirmond for the opinion of two Dionysiuses related above, or rather what that writer intends to prove by it, is not a little confirmed. For since the passage of Dionysius the Areopagite to the Parisian Chair, if it had ever had place, would undoubtedly have been more illustrious and better known than that it could have escaped absolutely each and every one, who would easily bring himself to think it would have come about that an event of this kind should be passed over in silence, not by one or another only, but by all, and even by those very ones whom it most concerned to commemorate it?

[230] [nor in any way from the things which, either about writers recording the migration of the Areopagite to Paris,] Ménard indeed affirms in his Diatribe, already so often praised, chapter 12, that the migration of Dionysius the Areopagite to the Parisian chair, the Athenian being left, is by no means passed over by Methodius and many others who took down the Acts of Dionysius the Areopagite with the pen, counting among these also Nicephorus Callistus, who, although he does not mention Dionysius the Areopagite in the Catalogue woven by himself of the bishops who changed their see, leaving the former one which they had occupied, nevertheless hands down to memory that he migrated to the West, Athens being left, and so intimates not obscurely that the Saint passed from the Athenian to the Parisian chair, especially since he committed to writing some other things besides about Dionysius which likewise require it. But since Nicephorus flourished only in the fourteenth century, he is too remote from the age of Dionysius the Areopagite to be capable of winning certain and indubitable credit by his own authority alone for the things which he writes about this Saint of ours. Nor is there reason either why he should be judged to deserve it in view of the earlier monuments from which he drew his assertions about Dionysius. For whatever he hands down to memory about Dionysius he undoubtedly drew either from the Methodian or Metaphrastian Acts of the Saint or from the encomium of the same composed by Syncellus; and no one will deny that both this and those are to be held in very slight esteem who has weighed in the balance of truth the things which I discoursed in the first five §§ of this Commentary. As regards now the many others whom Ménard also says in the place cited wrote, no otherwise than Methodius and Nicephorus, about Dionysius the Areopagite and mentioned the passage by which he migrated to the Parisian see, the Athenian being left, these certainly were no others than those who flourished either after the Areopagitica were written by Hilduin, or after the fabulous Acts of the Saint were drawn up when the eighth century had already elapsed in its middle part; and since this is so, and certainly nothing is available by which the contrary may be proved, why, I ask, should we give entire credit to those many others whom Ménard does not name rather than to Methodius or Metaphrastes?

[231] Further Ménard, in order to show that the deep silence about Dionysius the Areopagite in absolutely all the ancient catalogues of bishops [or about the disciples of the Apostles, who, leaving the sees which they had founded, to others, as from the words of Eusebius here] who migrated from one see to another is not to be wondered at, alleges in his Diatribe already mentioned so very often, chapters 12 and 13, that it was handed down to memory by Eusebius that the disciples of the Apostles, of whom St. Dionysius the Areopagite was one, migrated for the sake of spreading the faith through the whole world to other regions and nations, leaving the sees which they had founded, and yet they are not found counted by the ancient writers among the bishops translated from one see to another; adding also, which Millet too had done before him, that Dionysius the Areopagite did not properly change his see, but wholly left it in order to apply his mind to the preaching of the Gospel. I transcribe here the words of Eusebius, so that, even from reading these, the studious reader may perceive how little they help Millet and Ménard, or, if you prefer, the cause which they defend. In the said Eusebius, book 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 31, from Christopherson's version, they run thus: Quadratus likewise is numbered among those who excelled in the splendour of glory and virtue in the same times: whom they report, together with the daughters of Philip, to have been illustrious with the gift of prophecy. And besides these there were very many others, most celebrated in the same age, who both succeeded the Apostles most nearly, and, as disciples of such great and such distinguished men, adorned with excellent and divine virtue, added indeed a well-fitted structure to the foundations of the churches laid splendidly by the Apostles in every place; who also more fully and abundantly enlarged the preaching of the divine Word, and scattered the saving seeds of the kingdom of heaven far and wide through the whole world. For almost all the disciples who lived at that time, kindled with a more ardent zeal and love of heavenly wisdom, and struck in their minds by a certain longing for the divine Word, carried out exactly the precept of the Saviour delivered before; and willingly shared their goods with those who were in want of means.

[232] are transcribed, we learn, continually migrated to nations, and yet Then, setting out from their homes abroad, they discharged the office of Evangelists, and strove with all care and thought to preach Christ to those who had not yet at all heard the word of faith, and to deliver the Scriptures of the holy Gospels. Who, when in certain foreign places they had only laid the foundations of the faith, and had appointed other pastors, and committed to them the care of those who had recently been brought to the faith, to be carefully cultivated in the doctrine of Christ, betook themselves to other regions and nations with divine grace and power. For very many admirable powers and miracles were wrought through them up to that time by the help of the most holy Spirit; so that a great multitude of men, persuaded at the very first hearing of the preaching, received with eager zeal into their minds and embraced the piety and worship which is due to God alone, the maker of all things. Most of the disciples of the Apostles, therefore, such as St. Dionysius the Areopagite also was, set out from their native land, as Eusebius witnesses, to foreign regions, to announce Christ and his sacred doctrine to the nations inhabiting them; and when they had laid the foundations of the faith somewhere, and had substituted for themselves other pastors or bishops to have care of the new planting, they continually betook themselves to one region after another, to scatter the seeds of the divine Word in these too, leaving the former peoples among whom they had sweated at the Gospel work. But although all these Apostolic Men, who undoubtedly were apostolic, as we speak, or bishops of no fixed place, are not found counted by the ancient writers among the bishops translated from one see to another, I do not sufficiently see how it ceases from this to be a wonder that Dionysius the Areopagite, if he truly at some time migrated to the Parisian see, the Athenian being left, is likewise not found counted by the ancient writers among the bishops translated from one see to another.

[233] [are counted by the ancients among the bishops translated from one see to another,] For what? Did all those who recounted bishops translated from one see to another perhaps have the purpose of counting among these no bishops who had lived in the first centuries of the Christian era and had changed their episcopal sees? If the matter stands so, to what purpose did the supreme Pontiff Hadrian the second, in his letter praised above, count among the bishops who had migrated from one see to another St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, translated from Antioch to Rome? Those therefore who recounted bishops translated from one see to another thought that not all who had lived in the first centuries of the Christian era and had changed their episcopal sees, but only those who, never remaining attached to any determinate church which they had governed by the episcopal office, had continually migrated to one see after another in order to propagate the faith of Christ far and wide, were to be excluded from their number, and in fact excluded them; and deservedly indeed. For since, in order that a bishop be passing from one see to another,

is lawful, or certainly not to be laid as a crime, they for the most part enumerated bishops who had passed from one see to another in order to prove it, they would surely have ineptly counted among these, as Andrew, Thomas and some other Apostles, so also the disciples of the Apostles who, no otherwise than they, never bound to any fixed see, had continually migrated to one region after another for the sake of spreading the Gospel in every direction; and that Dionysius the Areopagite, even if it were granted that he migrated from Athens to Paris, is not to be counted among disciples of the Apostles of this kind, or apostolic bishops, as we commonly speak, of whom alone Eusebius sets up the discussion in the words just recited, as will become evident to one considering them, is shown by the example of the Apostle Peter, who, leaving the see of Antioch, went to the Roman, and yet is not to be counted among the bishops who, attached to no fixed see, continually migrated to one region after another for the sake of preaching the Gospel. For as Peter remained perpetually bound to the Roman see after his passage to it, so also Dionysius, if he ever passed to the Parisian see, remained perpetually bound to it afterwards, not having been translated to another see.

[234] Now indeed, since the matter stands so, there surely seems to be no reason, on account of the disciples of the Apostles recounted in general by Eusebius in the recited words, [by Ménard, who does not prove the matter by the addition given here either, are recorded, it is shown to be lowered,] who continually migrated to one nation after another and yet are not found counted by the ancient writers among the bishops translated from one see to another, why it should cease to be a wonder that Dionysius the Areopagite is likewise nowhere counted among such bishops. Nor does what Ménard adds, as I have said, about Dionysius, who did not properly change the Athenian see but wholly left it, accomplish this any more. For although, if we granted that Dionysius did in truth at some time come into Gaul and to Paris for the sake of preaching the Gospel, it could easily have happened, nay would most probably in fact have happened, that the Saint thought, not of exchanging the Athenian see for the Parisian, but solely of announcing the Gospel to foreign nations, there would not on that account be reason why he should not be counted among the bishops who had migrated from one see to another by those who, when they wove a catalogue of bishops translated from one see to another, without setting out the design with which this was done, could have inserted Dionysius the Areopagite in it with no less right and no less aptly to their purpose than Peter the Apostle; especially since it could not have been said that Dionysius the Areopagite, bound to no fixed see, continually migrated to one church after another, but on the contrary that he had had a fixed see, first at Athens, and then at Paris, as those very persons who contend that the Saint migrated from Athens to Paris confess. Moreover, if Dionysius is not counted among the bishops translated from one see to another for this reason, that he did not properly change his see but wholly left it out of zeal for propagating the Gospel, to what purpose is it not at least recorded by the ancient writers that he left his see in order to devote himself to the preaching of the divine word? Will the apostolate of Gaul in Dionysius, says Launoy, Discussion, chapter 13, be less worthy of the letters of the ancients than the migration of some bishop from one see to another?

[235] But let these things now suffice on that matter; I now proceed to another argument, [nor the other, which is drawn from the words of Hosius at the council of Sardica of the year 347,] likewise attacked in vain by Ménard, by which I give it as proved with Sirmond that Dionysius the Areopagite never migrated from the Athenian see to the Parisian, and therefore neither preached the Gospel in Gaul nor is one and the same with Dionysius of Paris. In the first canon of the Synod of Sardica Hosius speaks in this manner: An evil custom as well as a pernicious corruption must be uprooted from the foundation, so that it be not lawful for a bishop to pass from his own city to another city. For the cause is manifest for which anyone attempts to do this: since no bishop has been found in this matter who passed from a greater city to a lesser, whence it appears that they serve ambition, in order to exercise dominion. Sirmond, having likewise recited these words of the Synod of Sardica, presently subjoins thus: Do you hear that up to that day no bishop had been found who had passed from a greater city to a lesser? Review the Catalogue; you will recognize that this was truly said by Hosius. For to whom is it obscure that Constantinople, for example, was more powerful than Cyzicus, Antioch than Sebaste, Tyre than Arca, Tarsus than Seleucia, Nazianzus than Sasima? Compare now therefore with the city of Athens Lutetia of the Parisians, not such and so great as it is now, but how little it was, I will not say in the age of the Areopagite, but even three hundred years later, when it was called by the Caesar Julian πολίχνη, that is, a little town: you will surely understand that either Hosius imposed on the Synod, which it is wicked to say, when he denied that anyone had passed to a lesser city, or that Dionysius was not bishop at Paris after Athens. Thus far Sirmond, contending, namely chiefly, nay solely, from these words of the council of Sardica, celebrated in the year 347, already recited, No bishop has been found in this matter who passed from a greater city to a lesser, that Dionysius the Areopagite, who flourished in the first and partly in the second century of the Christian era, never passed from the Athenian see to the Parisian; and deservedly indeed: for since in the age of the Areopagite the city of the Athenians, as is now admitted among all, was far greater, more populous and more illustrious than Lutetia, indeed from the aforesaid words of the council of Sardica, or, if you prefer, of Hosius, adopted by it, it is rightly concluded that Dionysius the Areopagite did not pass from Athens to Paris — unless perhaps you would have it, which however I do not think will easily be said by anyone, that bishop Hosius either did not know all the changes of episcopal sees, or deliberately imposed on the council.

[236] by the reasons adduced to the contrary by Millet Millet, in order to overthrow this argument, which surely appears very valid, first brings forward some things which bear either nothing or certainly very little on the matter, and then subjoins another response, which comes a little closer to the difficulty, drawn from the episcopal see which Dionysius, in going from Athens to Paris, did not change but left, and already touched on by us above. Hear how he speaks in his response to chapter 5 of Sirmond's Dissertation, §3: Thirdly, he says, … we say that Dionysius did not properly change his see, but wholly left it, in order to apply his entire cares to the preaching of the divine word, which was the custom of apostolic Men, as we prove from the most weighty testimony of Eusebius (it has already been brought forward by us at number 231 and following) at the end of this chapter; and with that mind he went to Rome, and then traversed various provinces of the West with the Gospel torch. From which it is no wonder if no one places him in the list of those bishops who changed their see. But that he afterwards founded the church of the Parisians happened beyond his design; for he left Athens, Publius being substituted, thinking nothing of Paris, though perhaps of Gaul in general; at which time there was no episcopal see at Lutetia with which he could be said to have exchanged the former. So he, wishing namely that Dionysius the Areopagite, although he in fact passed from the Athenian see to the Parisian, was nevertheless recorded among the bishops who passed from one see to another in no list of them, and therefore not by Hosius and the Fathers of the council of Sardica, who adopted his words just recited, because he did not change the Athenian see but wholly left it, not in order to go to the Parisian, but solely in order to devote himself to the preaching of the divine word and the propagation of the faith.

[237] But with whatever end at length, or design, or manner it be set down to have come about and by Ménard, that Dionysius the Areopagite left the Athenian see, he would indeed afterwards have been created bishop of the Parisians, and so have passed from a greater city, namely Athens, to a lesser, namely Lutetia; and since this is so, indeed, if Dionysius truly left the Athenian see and was afterwards made prelate of the Parisians, how Hosius could have said in the Synod of Sardica, saving the truth, that no bishop up to his own age had been found who had passed from a greater city to a lesser, I do not sufficiently see. But Ménard, in order to break the force of the argument deduced from the canon of the Synod of Sardica related above against the Parisian see of Dionysius the Areopagite, takes another way in his Diatribe, already so often praised, chapter 12, number 4. Here are his words. Since, he says, a little before the times of the council of Nicaea many bishops readily migrated to other sees in order to possess richer priestly offices, this abuse was provided against in the councils of Nicaea and Antioch and afterwards of Sardica, namely in canon 1, where it is decreed ἵνα μηδενὶ τῶν ἐπισκόπων ἐξῃ ἀπο πόλεως μικρᾶς εἰς ἐτέραν πόλιν μεθίστασθαι 1. That it be lawful for none of the bishops to pass from a small city to another. Then it subjoins: "For the pretext of this cause is manifest; for no bishop could be found who strove to pass from a greater city to a lesser; whence it has been established that they are kindled by a burning desire of having more, and serve rather arrogance, that they may seem to have greater power." Wherefore, when the canon says that no bishop was ever found who passed from a greater city to a lesser, it is to be understood of those ambitious and avaricious bishops, on account of the reason which it brings forward here: but not of those most holy apostolic men and disciples of the Apostles, who, as has been excellently shown by Millet from Eusebius, not kindled by the flames of avarice and ambition but set on fire by divine love, migrated from their cities to others, whether greater, or lesser, or equal, for the sake of propagating the faith.

[238] Surely, since Hosius would seem likely to have spoken more aptly and more suitably to the argument he was treating by saying, [comes out wholly nerveless: but against the third, which from the appellation of bishop of Athens,] No bishop, given to avarice and ambition, who passed from a greater city to a lesser, has been found in this matter, than by saying on the contrary, No bishop, fleeing avarice and pride, who passed from a greater city to a lesser, has been found in this matter, the interpretation which Ménard here attributes to these words of Hosius, or of the council of Sardica, No bishop has been found in this matter who passed from a greater city to a lesser, can seem not at all inept: yet since Hosius would not seem likely to have spoken wholly rightly either if he had said, No bishop, given to avarice and ambition, who passed from a greater city to a lesser, has been found in this matter, and most probably did not think of restricting his words to a definite class of bishops, it appears most probable that he spoke in general of all bishops, both those who were not and those who were ambitious and avaricious; especially since his words, taken in general of absolutely all bishops, offer nothing at all which is to be repudiated or less admitted, and general locutions, whether of authors or of councils, to be restricted to

particular ones are not to be restricted without a solid reason, which is not found here. Whatever therefore either Millet or Ménard may argue, the argument which is drawn by Sirmond, in order to prove that Dionysius never passed from Athens to Paris, from the words of Hosius, or of the Synod of Sardica, transcribed above here, does not on that account come out wholly feeble and nerveless. But in order to prove still more fully that Dionysius did not migrate to Paris, Athens being left, I now add with Sirmond a third to the two arguments already adduced to this end in the present §. Do you wish, says that writer in his Dissertation on the two Dionysiuses, chapter 5, that the Greeks should teach you by another reason too that they never believed in any episcopate of Dionysius besides Athens? Grant me this first, which you certainly cannot deny, that bishops who migrated from one see to another, after they had migrated, laid aside the name of the former see and took the name of the latter. For who called Gregory, after he left Sasima, bishop of Sasima, and not of Nazianzus?

[239] [is drawn from the appellation always given to the Areopagite, Gregory Nazianzen wrongly,] Who named Proclus any longer of Cyzicus after he had been translated to the royal city? Or who inscribed upon the epistle of Proclus to the Armenians the title, not of Constantinople, but of Cyzicus? Such is the argument which I add with Sirmond to the others already adduced above; but hear now what Millet opposes in order to weaken it and make it go up in smoke. I wonder, he says, that the adversary (namely Sirmond) is clever against himself, when he alleges as an example the appellation of Gregory Nazianzen, and I give him thanks, who helps our cause with a testimony than which there could SCARCELY be another clearer. Gregory had first been created bishop of Sasima: he had then administered the church of Nazianzus under his father Gregory; finally he was raised to the see of Constantinople, where he presided for some time, the clergy, people, emperor and council of bishops confirming his election. Does anyone call him archbishop of Constantinople? Is it not of Nazianzus, whose people he had nourished with the word of God and instructed by the cares of many years? So do you too, reader, philosophize about our Dionysius, who spent more years at Athens than at Paris. And so, just as Gregory Nazianzen is constantly called, not archbishop of Constantinople from the Constantinopolitan see which he held last, but bishop of Nazianzus from the Nazianzen see, because he presided over this longer than over the Constantinopolitan, so also Millet contends that Dionysius the Areopagite is constantly called, not bishop of Paris from the Parisian see which he held, but bishop of Athens from the Athenian see, because he presided over this longer than over the Parisian, and that hence therefore it cannot be concluded that he was never bishop of Paris. But bishops are customarily named, by the constant custom of the Church, not from the see which they occupied longer, but from the see which they occupied last; and the example adduced of Gregory Nazianzen, translated to the Constantinopolitan see and yet never distinguished by the name of archbishop of Constantinople, neither proves the contrary nor proves what Millet wishes. In order that the matter may come out manifest, and that I may snatch from him this weapon in which that writer chiefly glories, I wish to discourse a little more at length about Gregory Nazianzen and the Constantinopolitan see occupied by him for a short time.

[240] Launoy, in his Discussion of Millet's Response to Sirmond, chapter 13, number 4, is adduced; for he, as both from the things which, in the words writes thus: For the rest, about Gregory Nazianzen there is no reason why a contentious rope should be drawn. For he, although most worthy of the see of Constantinople, was nevertheless never held by all as prelate of Constantinople. On which matter Ambrose and the other bishops of Italy wrote thus to the emperor Theodosius: "For in the council lately, when Maximus, bishop, had made known, by reading the letters of Peter, a man of holy memory, that the communion of the church of Alexandria remained with him, and had taught by clear testimony that his ordination had taken place secretly within private houses, because the Arians still held the basilicas, bishops commissioned for it ordaining, we had nothing, most blessed of princes, in which we could doubt of his episcopate, since he had testified that violence had been brought on him, resisting, by most even of the people and clergy. Yet, lest we should seem to have defined anything presumptuously in the absence of the parties, we thought your clemency should be instructed by letters given, that he might be provided for according to the usage of public peace and concord. Because in truth we observed that Gregory by no means claimed for himself the priesthood of the church of Constantinople according to the tradition of the fathers. We therefore in the synod judged that nothing should be rashly decided on the things which seemed to have been prescribed to the bishops of the whole world. So much so that at that very time those who declined the general council are said to have acted at Constantinople. For when they had learned that Maximus had come to these parts in order to plead his cause in the Synod — which, even if the Council had not been proclaimed, by right and the custom of our forefathers, as Athanasius of holy memory and lately Peter, bishops of the church of Alexandria, and most of the Orientals have done, so that they would seem to have taken refuge in the judgment of the Roman church, of Italy and of the whole West.

[241] For since, as we have said, they had learned that he wished to try his case against those transcribed here who had refused his episcopate, they ought certainly to have awaited our judgment too concerning him. We do not claim the prerogative of the examination, but there ought nevertheless to have been a fellowship of common judgment. Lastly, it ought first to have been established whether the priesthood seemed to be taken away from this man before it was conferred on another, especially by those by whom Maximus complained that he had been either deprived or attacked with injury. And so, since our fellowships received bishop Maximus into communion, because it was established that he had been ordained by Catholic bishops, we did not think he should be removed from his claim to the episcopate of Constantinople." There are therefore two things on account of which Gregory was not called archbishop of Constantinople. The first, that the Latins never acknowledged Gregory as bishop of Constantinople, nay, retaining the communion of Maximus, held him as intruded. The other, that not even among the Greeks did he hold the episcopate of Constantinople peaceably, but after the Synod, by which he seems to have been confirmed bishop, in order to calm the quarrels that had arisen on account of his election, he abdicated that same episcopate. But whether these two things square with the Areopagite let the honourable old man (namely Ménard) see at leisure, who in this business of Gregory exults so youthfully, and, as if victory had been won over his adversary, rejoices wonderfully. Ménard answers three things to the praised epistle.

[242] against Ménard First: "This epistle is not of St. Ambrose, but is spurious and supposititious, nor is it found among his epistles." I did not say the epistle was Ambrose's, as he writes: for I speak thus, "on which matter Ambrose and the other bishops of Italy wrote thus to the emperor Theodosius:" it is an epistle of the Council of Italy, which is inscribed thus in Sirmond's appendix to the Theodosian code: "To the most blessed emperor and most clement prince Theodosius, Ambrose and the other bishops of Italy." This epistle is not found among the epistles of Ambrose, because it is an epistle of the Council, not of Ambrose. On this ground he will, I suppose, repudiate another epistle of the same Council, which is inscribed in like manner in the same appendix. Next, "the things which are related in it about St. Gregory Nazianzen are so involved and perplexed that scarcely any sound sense can be drawn from them." Ménard cannot easily understand this epistle; what then? Others understand it without difficulty. Then, "there is a manifest error there, when Maximus, the adversary of Nazianzen, is called bishop of the church of Alexandria, who was never its Pontiff." Ménard, upon your good faith, when you say, "Maximus is called bishop of the church of Alexandria." Do you so invert the arrangement of the words, that an error may appear for you to reprove? Thus speak Ambrose and the other bishops of Italy: "When Maximus, bishop, had made known, by reading the letters of Peter, a man of holy memory, that the communion of the church of Alexandria remained with him;" what did Maximus make known by reading the letters of Peter, a man of holy memory? "That the communion of the Church of Alexandria remained with him." And these are the things which he names involved and perplexed.

[243] Launoy argues, Besides, Ménard, not attending to the different times of Gregory, plays a trick: from the things which Ambrose writes about Gregory in the prologue of the books On the Holy Spirit to the Emperor Gratian: "How many, then, hast thou cleansed both at Constantinople and today in the whole world? Damasus did not cleanse, Peter did not cleanse, Ambrose did not cleanse, Gregory did not cleanse, for ours are the services. But thine are the sacraments. He acknowledges therefore Gregory as bishop of Constantinople, whose service he used for overthrowing the Arian heresy, which was then raging most at Constantinople." Good God! What consequence is this? From such an antecedent one would equally gather that Damasus, Peter, Ambrose were bishops of Constantinople. The matter stands thus: Ambrose looks back to that time in which Gregory delivered many orations on the faith at Constantinople and recalled many Arians from heresy; this time precedes the translation of Gregory, it does not follow it. From the time he was made bishop of Constantinople, he began to be blown upon by all the winds of envy, and to be accused of violating the canons which prohibit the translation of bishops. Nor was it permitted him to do that which Ambrose recounts; but he had done it before. Rightly indeed does Launoy here contend that Gregory Nazianzen, though a most holy man and most worthy of the Constantinopolitan see, was nevertheless not held by all for the legitimate prelate of Constantinople; and although I would not dare to vouch for all the rest which he maintains, and above all what he asserts about the episcopate of Constantinople never having been peaceably possessed by Gregory Nazianzen does not seem consonant with exact truth, there was nevertheless reason why it could not undeservedly seem to Launoy that Gregory never peaceably possessed that episcopate.

[244] So that both this, and that Gregory was not held by all for the legitimate prelate of Constantinople, and also from Gregory's ... to the see of Constantinople may become plain to the reader, and so that a not inept reason may be rendered him why that Saint was not wont to be called bishop of Constantinople from the Constantinopolitan see which he held, I set out here in compendium how Gregory received the church of Constantinople to rule and abdicated it very shortly after, intermixing also the chief circumstances which accompanied both these events; so doing at the same time that the things in the epistle of the bishops of Italy, praised and recited by Launoy, which seemed to Ménard so involved and perplexed that scarcely any sound sense could be drawn from them, may for the greater part become plain and clear to everyone. Gregory Nazianzen, then, in the year 379, as both Pagi in the Critica at the year 378, number 22 and following, and at the year 381, number X and following, and our Cuper in his preliminary Treatise on the Patriarchs of Constantinople to tome 1 of August, number 127, teach, undertook, not indeed the episcopate, but the care of the Constantinopolitan church, in place of a legitimate bishop, which the Constantinopolitan church then lacked, and carried it on vigorously, the Arians, who were then raging most at Constantinople, being repressed, and not a few of them converted to the faith. In the same year 379 Maximus the Cynic, who, having been beaten with rods by the Arians in the year 372 and deported from Alexandria to the Oasis, had returned to Alexandria in the year 378, destined by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, for Constantinople, to be created prelate of that city, by the fleet

of Alexandria, which according to custom carried grain from Egypt to Constantinople, put in there together with three bishops from Egypt joined to him, by whom he might be ordained bishop. He first so deceived Gregory, who, as I have said, was acting in the place of the bishop of the Constantinopolitan church, by a feigned appearance of piety, that he became his intimate friend. But the hypocrite, not very long after, laying aside the mask, began with Hammon and six other sailors, suborned by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, to plot about seizing the throne of Constantinople, and a little afterwards conspired with the bishops delegated by Peter and with others, a rabble of factious men bought with the gold of the priest Thassius, seized the Basilica of the Anastasia by night, and, driven from there, was tonsured and ordained in the house of a flute-player.

[245] And when afterwards, the people of Constantinople no longer bearing the sight of him, [promotion, and the spontaneous abdication by which he soon deserted it, related here in compendium,] he had been compelled to leave Constantinople, he betook himself to Thessalonica, where the emperor Theodosius was staying, and when he had been rejected by him too he returned to Alexandria, and having obtained, or, as others would have it, extorted, letters in his favour from bishop Peter, he hastened to the West, went to the emperor Gratian at Milan, and offered him a notable little book on the faith against the Arians. Partly therefore in this way, partly by frauds and lies, and by name by the letters which he had obtained in his favour from Peter of Alexandria, he drew to his side the bishops of Italy who wrote the epistle to the emperor Theodosius related above by Launoy, and at the same time brought it about that they drew it up in his favour, when report had already been made to them about Gregory Nazianzen, raised to the Constantinopolitan see after the expulsion of Maximus from the city of Constantinople. For this saint, when he had already for some time carried on the care of the Constantinopolitan church in place of a bishop, had bound to himself most closely the love of many, and first of all of the emperor Theodosius himself. And he indeed in the year 380, on the 26th day of November, presented Gregory with the greater basilica, taken away from the Arians; and the people thereupon placed him in the chair of Constantinople; in which, when he had also been confirmed, or rather lawfully placed for the first time, by the Synod gathered at Constantinople in the year 381, a little afterwards, the same Synod still lasting, on account of certain disturbances that had arisen, certain bishops of Macedonia and Egypt also carping at his election, he of his own accord abdicated, out of zeal for peace, that see, which he had undertaken only unwillingly, when he had not yet been acknowledged either by Pope Damasus or by the bishops of Italy as the legitimate bishop of the Constantinopolitan see.

[246] it is clear, he was not held by all for the legitimate bishop of Constantinople And these are the things which I thought should chiefly be set out here in compendium about the manner in which Gregory Nazianzen went to the Constantinopolitan see and a little afterwards deserted it. Whoever desires the same explained more at length and also confirmed by testimonies, let him go to our Cuper in the place cited above and to Pagi in the Critica at the year 379, number 8 and the five following. I now return to Launoy. That Gregory Nazianzen was not held by the bishops of Italy for the legitimate bishop of Constantinople is clear sufficiently and more than sufficiently from the compendium already given, or rather from their epistle to the emperor Theodosius, partly recited by Launoy, on which this is founded as regards this matter. Moreover, since Gregory, in the same Synod which had confirmed him in the Constantinopolitan see, abdicated it of his own accord, there was surely reason why he could seem never to have peaceably possessed that see, especially since some bishops in the very Synod which had approved it still contradicted his promotion to it, as I have just set out; so that therefore Launoy not at all ineptly noted, whatever Ménard may argue to the contrary, both that Gregory Nazianzen was not held by all as prelate of Constantinople, and that he never held the Constantinopolitan see peaceably. Ménard indeed, in order to convict of falsehood Launoy, who, as I have already taught, contends from their praised epistle that Gregory was not held by the Latin or Italian bishops for the true bishop of Constantinople and that these communicated with Maximus the Cynic, alleges the epistle of Pope Nicholas I to the emperor Michael, in which that Pontiff wrote to him thus: Was not Maximus driven out of Constantinople after effort was made by Pope Damasus, as his letters to various persons indicate? But that, says Launoy in the place just cited, is found neither in the epistles of Damasus, even those which have been wrongly attributed to him, nor in any old writer, Greek or Latin. Nay, it is repugnant both to this (namely the one given above and also inserted by Labbe in tome 2 of the Councils) epistle of the Council of Italy, and to the history of the Council of Constantinople, which deposed Maximus… Wherefore Nicholas in this matter suffered something human.

[247] was held, and scarcely peaceably, nor except That Nicholas indeed, when he wrote to the emperor Michael what his words just recited contain, suffered something human, as Launoy says, appears indubitable. Hear how our Papebroch speaks in his Annotations on the Life of St. Gregory Nazianzen woven by Baronius, tome 2 of May, page 406, letter m. Hermant rightly notes, he says, that in this (namely what he asserts about Maximus driven out of Constantinople through the agency of Damasus, and about the epistles written by him which indicate it) Nicholas is mistaken: for Maximus had been driven out of the city (of Constantinople) by the people, nay had also been repudiated by the very emperor to whom he had gone, before Damasus was informed of these matters; from whose epistles to Ascholius, recently published by Holste in the Roman Collection, it is established that Maximus first became known to Damasus when there was already a question of holding a Council at Constantinople for ordaining a Catholic bishop of that City; concerning which he writes back to Ascholius, Euridicus, Severus, Uranius, Philip and John, bishops of Macedonia, from whom he had received letters about Maximus. Maximus therefore — which is also now plain from the account set out above of how Gregory Nazianzen went to and left the see of Constantinople — was not driven out of Constantinople through the agency of Damasus, contrary to what Nicholas wrote in his epistle to the emperor Michael mentioned above. But, you will now perhaps ask, did Damasus then certainly communicate with him? It appears most probable indeed that this Pontiff, when Maximus, having first put in to Italy, had first circumvented the Italian bishops by the letters of Peter of Alexandria and by frauds, communicated with him for some space of time, no otherwise than the other bishops of Italy who wrote to Theodosius the epistle related above by Launoy; and although not long after, namely being better informed of the matter by the bishops of Macedonia just praised through Papebroch, even before the synod of Constantinople of the year 381, in which the see of Constantinople was both confirmed, or rather conferred, to Gregory and abdicated, he disapproved of the fraudulent and illegitimate manner in which Maximus had tried to seize the see of Constantinople, he did not however hold Gregory Nazianzen for the legitimate bishop of Constantinople.

[248] It is permitted to decide so both from what Pagi writes in the Critica at the year 379, number 9, possessed that see for a very brief time, and also from this, that, since Gregory, in the same synod in which he had been raised to the see of Constantinople, presently abdicated it of his own accord, both Gregory's promotion to the see of Constantinople and the spontaneous abdication by which he had renounced it most probably became known to Damasus at almost the same time. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and it is not proved from the things which Ménard asserts that Damasus did, or which he in fact did, that what Launoy says about St. Gregory Nazianzen not being held by the bishops of Italy for the legitimate bishop of Constantinople is foreign to the truth, it remains that it may have come about that Gregory, partly for this reason, partly because, from what has been said, he occupied the see of Constantinople scarcely peaceably, or certainly only for a very brief space of time, was not commonly called bishop of Constantinople. But if further anyone still rejects these two reasons on account of which St. Gregory Nazianzen was not wont to be adorned with the title of bishop of Constantinople, and at the same time contends that Dionysius the Areopagite, though he had passed from the Athenian see to the Parisian, nevertheless in exactly the same way as St. Gregory Nazianzen, though he passed from another see to the Constantinopolitan, was not called bishop of Constantinople, need not have been called bishop of Paris, but continued to be called of Athens, I bring forward another reason which brought it about that Gregory Nazianzen, though translated from another see to the Constantinopolitan, is nevertheless not called bishop of Constantinople, scarcely doubting that the studious reader, impelled by it, will confess that from this example of Gregory Nazianzen it by no means follows that Dionysius the Areopagite, if he had passed from the Athenian see to the Parisian, need not have been called bishop of Paris, contrary to what the custom of the Church requires.

[249] nay, by what reason, before occupying the see of Constantinople, Although St. Gregory Nazianzen is commonly adorned by all with the title of bishop of Nazianzus, he nevertheless never governed the Nazianzen church with the office of bishop, but only carried on its care, supplying the place of the legitimate bishop. So I am taught by the Life of that most celebrated bishop, inserted in our Work at the IXth day of May, on which he is venerated here, in which Baronius, who wove it, writes in this manner at number 77: From this charge of Gregory's, in which, his father striving for it, he undertook the care of administering the Nazianzen church, some have judged that he was ordained bishop of the Nazianzen church; and this was so widely spread, and the report of it so increased, that not only does Gregory the priest affirm it in the encomium, but his disciple St. Jerome too says that he was ordained first bishop of Sasima and then of Nazianzus; which the others also affirmed without any doubt, such as Socrates, Rufinus, Sozomen and all the others; nay his adversaries too laid it as a crime to him, who also, by way of insult, called him a thrice-bishop when he had already been elected bishop of the see of Constantinople. To oppose all these would seem rash, were it not most thoroughly ascertained by the most certain testimony of Gregory himself that the matter stands otherwise. But before these things we ought to know that the canons of Nicaea are opposed to a bishop being substituted for one who is living; which ecclesiastical sanction Augustine, who was substituted for Valerius while living, groaned that he had once been ignorant of. This sacred rule our Gregory kept unimpaired, who, as we have seen, undertook that church to be cared for only for a time, while his father lived, and so also publicly attested. Who also afterwards, when there was question of substituting someone for his father, writes these things to Gregory of Nyssa: "For it is established among all that I was created prelate not of Nazianzus but of Sasima; although, out of reverence for my father and of those who contended with me as suppliants, we accepted the charge for a short time, as it were as guests." These things Gregory wrote after, having set out from Constantinople, he returned to his homeland, as will be plain below.

[250] the same also after he had abdicated this Since therefore Gregory wrote the words which Baronius attributes to him in this text only when, the see of Constantinople

having been abdicated, he had returned, it is surely manifest from the testimony of this holy prelate himself, as Baronius says in the recited words, that he did not preside as bishop over the Nazianzen church before he ascended it; and that he did not preside as bishop over the Nazianzen church either at the time when he had returned to Nazianzus, the see of Constantinople having been abdicated, the same Baronius likewise teaches us in the Life of Gregory woven by himself, which I have already praised, number 152, having first premised some things which show that the care of the Nazianzen church was again undertaken by that holy prelate when he had abdicated the see of the Constantinopolitan church, writing thus: Gregory remained there (namely at Nazianzus) until firm security should be restored to it, and some excellent prelate should be set over it there. For he treated with Helladius, metropolitan bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, successor of the great Basil, that he should set Eulalius, a most approved man, as bishop over the Nazianzen church. He himself meanwhile was meditating a withdrawal into solitude, when Philagrius, his intimate, warns him in a friendly way not to abandon that church of which he had once undertaken the care. To whom Gregory, giving an account of his coming and of his affairs, writes these things on that matter: "But if it is dangerous to leave a church, as you write, which church, pray? If ours: you say rightly, and I say the same myself; but if one in no way belonging to us, nor assigned and decreed to us, we are free of blame. But if we are bound for this reason, that we carried on its care for a little while, many others certainly would be bound by the same reason, as many, namely, as have had the care of guests." He treated of these matters also with Theodore of Tyana, to whom a letter on that matter is extant.

[251] Eulalius having at length been ordained bishop of the Nazianzen church, could be called bishop of Nazianzus, and in fact was so called. a false rumour spread that Gregory had been deprived of the Nazianzen see by Helladius, bishop of Caesarea. Then Gregory, in order to free Helladius and the other bishops who had ordained Eulalius from that calumny, at once wrote a letter to Gregory of Nyssa, in which he both excuses them and also frankly professes that he had never been ordained bishop of the Nazianzen church. But although Gregory had thus consulted the reputation of the bishops, nevertheless, since he could not avoid the murmuring of the common people about himself, that he had held a slender church in contempt, he thought it should be borne with a patient mind. Thus far Baronius, subjoining then how Gregory, having cast off all care of the Nazianzen church too, withdrew to his father's country estate, and, after a life spent there most holily, at length closed his last day with many works of virtues. Since therefore St. Gregory carefully carried on the care of the Nazianzen church both before and after he occupied the see of the Constantinopolitan church, as has already been proved, and was therefore, before he was promoted to the see of Constantinople, commonly held by all for the bishop of the Nazianzen church, although he certainly did not then govern it with the office of bishop, for the same cause surely, when he had already abdicated the see of Constantinople and had again undertaken the care of the Nazianzen church, he could again be commonly held for bishop of Nazianzus. And indeed that Gregory was then again in truth held for bishop of Nazianzus is clear from the things which we have just related at number 250 from the Life of that holy bishop woven by Baronius.

[252] Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and bishops are wont to be named from the see which they last either occupied or certainly are reckoned to have occupied, [With no better success, those who were not named from the last see which they occupied,] what wonder that Gregory Nazianzen was called, not bishop of Constantinople from the Constantinopolitan see, in which he sat at some time after he had occupied, as was thought, the Nazianzen, but bishop of Nazianzus from the Nazianzen, which, the Constantinopolitan being abdicated, he was judged to have sought again and therefore to have occupied last? Here then indeed is a reason, wholly solid, as it certainly appears to me, on account of which St. Gregory Nazianzen, although he passed to the see of Constantinople, was not on that account called bishop of Constantinople. And since this is so, and the same or a similar reason does not occur which is suited to bring it about that Dionysius the Areopagite, if he passed to the Parisian see from the Athenian, ought not to have been called bishop of Paris, the example of Gregory Nazianzen, who passed to the see of Constantinople and yet is not wont to be distinguished by the name of bishop of Constantinople, is surely wrongly adduced in order to prove that Dionysius the Areopagite, even if he had passed from the Athenian see to the Parisian, need not have been called bishop of Paris, and therefore that Sirmond's argument related above is of no strength. Nor to this end, or in order to show that the usage by which bishops translated from one see to another were named from the latter see which they occupied was not constant and perpetual in the Church, do they with better success adduce three further examples by which they would prove that that usage was sometimes not observed, namely those of Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theodore of Perinthus, and St. Methodius the martyr, all of whom, although they were translated from one see to another, as they would have it — namely the first from that of Nicomedia to that of Constantinople, the second from that of Heraclea in Thrace to that of Antioch, and finally the third from that of Patara to that of Tyre — were nevertheless named not from the latter but from the former see which they held.

[253] For, to treat in the first place too of Eusebius, who is objected here first, Eusebius, from Nicomedia to Constantinople, he indeed, when he had been raised to the see of Constantinople, is called by Philostorgius — who had already narrated this in book 2 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 10 — afterwards in chapter 17 of the same book, in the edition of Godefroy, bishop not of Constantinople but of Nicomedia. But this is to be ascribed not to Philostorgius, whose writings we no longer have entire, but to Photius, who contracted them into an Epitome, as the very title which that History bears testifies. For since this latter writer held Eusebius for the standard-bearer of the Arian faction and at the same time for one intruded by it into the see of Constantinople, hence it came about that he was unwilling to honour him with the name of bishop of Constantinople, even though meanwhile he had found him so called in the writings of Philostorgius which he was contracting (for he, being himself an Arian by sect, would most probably not have abstained from attributing that more honourable naming to the Arian Eusebius). Moreover, among the ancient writers who, contrary to what Photius seems to have done, regarded the condition of fact, not of right, as Launoy says, Eusebius of Nicomedia is called bishop of Constantinople from the see of Constantinople, to which he was translated from that of Nicomedia, though not by right but by force, as in the Valois edition Socrates, book 2 of the History, chapter 9, and Sozomen, book 3 of the History, chapter 6, give assurance, who both expressly distinguish Eusebius with the appellation of bishop of Constantinople, and Theodoret, who in the Catalogue of the bishops of Constantinople, book 5 of the History, chapter 40, toward the end, inserts the Arian Eusebius, translated from Nicomedia to that see. But if further not a few other writers, likewise ancient, are perhaps found who do not deign to give Eusebius the appellation of bishop of Constantinople, these are to be judged to have followed the example of Photius, and so to have dealt with Eusebius because Eusebius had never occupied the church of Constantinople by right and according to the prescription of the ecclesiastical canons, but had been intruded into it by force — as those very persons who adduce the example of that Arian bishop in their own cause confess — its legitimate prelate St. Paul being expelled, who they knew was therefore restored to that see or church when Eusebius had been carried off from life.

[254] Let us now proceed to Theodore of Perinthus, who is objected above in the second place. Theodore, from Heraclea in Thrace, as they would have it, to Antioch, Theodoret, book 2 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 3, writes thus of him in the Latin version of Christopherson, which I use here, being about to use that of Valois thereafter: Using this helper, Eusebius, Theognis and Theodore of Perinthus (Theodore was indeed a man of learning exquisite beyond the rest, and wrote Commentaries on the sacred Gospels; he is commonly named the Heracleote) very frequently, since they dwelt nearby, came into the emperor's presence; and from this text of Theodoret Ménard contends in his Diatribe, already praised so very often, chapter 13, that Theodore of Perinthus, when he had passed from the see of Heraclea to the see of Antioch, was not called bishop of Antioch; but, says Launoy, Discussion, chapter 13, at the time when Theodoret wrote that which is related in the words just recited about Theodore the Heracleote, he was not yet bishop of Antioch, had not yet succeeded Euzoius, who, as Socrates witnesses, first died at the Vth consulate of Valens and Valentinian the Younger; which consulate corresponds to the year of Christ CCCLXXVI. Thus the praised Launoy; but whatever may be said of this answer of his, which you may not undeservedly disapprove, Theodore the Heracleote, or (for the same city of Thrace was called first Perinthus and afterwards Heraclea, as Theodoret witnesses in book I of the History, chapter 28) of Perinthus, praised above by Theodoret and called the chief of the Arians in book 2, chapter 8, is certainly (go to Henri de Valois in his Annotations on Philostorgius's Ecclesiastical History, book 9, chapter 13) distinct or different from the Theodore translated from Heraclea to Antioch, who is more commonly called Dorotheus.

[255] Moreover, even if it were otherwise, this Dorotheus or Theodore, and finally Methodius from Patara substituted, after the death of Euzoius, as bishop of the Arian sect at Antioch, presided there as bishop only to the Arians, as is understood from Sozomen, book 6, chapter 37, and from Socrates, book 5, chapter 3; so that, even if he was translated from the see of Heraclea to that of Antioch, he undoubtedly arrived there only through the faction of the Arians in schism, and therefore, not held by Theodoret for the legitimate patriarch of Antioch, would always have been called only bishop of Heraclea. Hence you will now gather that, on either ground, it could easily have come about that the same Theodore, called above by Theodoret of Perinthus, was called by Augustine and other writers generally Heracleota or Heracleotes, and not bishop of Antioch; unless perhaps, which may seem more probable, Heracleotes or Heracleota is with them a gentile name, and Theodore was so called by them because he was born at Heraclea in Thrace, as is admitted by all, in exactly the same manner in which the St. Gregory praised above is now wont to be called by almost all, the title of bishop being omitted, Nazianzen from Nazianzus, the place of his birth, as may be seen with us in tome 2 of May, page 574. It remains that we now speak of Methodius, who is opposed to us above in the third place. He passed from the see of Patara to that of Tyre, as Suidas witnesses, and yet, says Ménard in his Diatribe already praised so very often, chapter 13, when he is cited by Leontius in the book On Sects, action III, he is called not bishop of Tyre but of Patara, in this manner: Μεθόδιος ἐπίσκοπος πατάρων. But, answers Launoy to this objection of Ménard, Discussion, chapter 13, Leontius did not call Methodius bishop of Tyre, because he did not know that he had been translated from the church of Patara to that of Tyre. He had in his hands the Commentaries which Methodius had composed when he was bishop of Patara, and cited them, as they were inscribed with the name of Methodius, bishop of Patara.

[256] translated to Tyre are adduced. And this answer of Launoy indeed by no means displeases. But however it stands, since by absolutely all other writers by whom the writings of the aforesaid Methodius are cited this holy prelate is called bishop not of Patara but of Tyre, Leontius alone, who distinguishes him with the name of bishop of Patara, and perhaps did not know of the passage of Methodius from the see of Patara to that of Tyre, as Launoy suspected in the words just recited, cannot bring it about that we should believe that either Methodius or other bishops who lawfully migrated from one see to another did not take for themselves the name of the latter see. And indeed, since Gregory Nazianzen, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theodore of Perinthus, who are likewise adduced as examples, are not suited to bring this about either, from what has already been said, and no bishop of the church, whether Greek or Latin, has hitherto been produced who, translated from one see to another, was not named from the latter see which he occupied, the custom or usage by which bishops, when they had migrated from one see to another, were named from the see, not which they had occupied longer, but which they had occupied last, is to be held as indubitably constant and perpetual, not only among the Greeks, from whom alone (go to number 238) Sirmond argues, but also among the Latins. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, the argument by which Sirmond contends, even from the fact that the appellation of bishop of Athens perpetually clung to Dionysius the Areopagite, that he never migrated to Paris, the Athenian see being left, surely stands firm and unshaken; and since, on account of what has already been said, the ancients, both Greek and Latin, as nowhere distinguishing Dionysius the Areopagite with the title of bishop of Paris, undoubtedly also judged that he never passed to Paris, it follows that they likewise thought that the same Saint of ours suffered not at Paris but at Athens, and therefore is different from Dionysius of Paris.

§ XIII. The remaining things which show that the opinion of two Dionysiuses flourished of old both among the Greeks and among the Latins are brought forward, and it is concluded that Dionysius the Areopagite is most certainly different from the Parisian.

Since the Parisian episcopate of the Areopagite, and other things, by constant From the perpetual usage of the Church, by which those who passed from one see to another took to themselves the name of bishop from the see which they occupied last, we contended with Sirmond in the § immediately preceding that Dionysius the Areopagite, because he is not found called bishop of Paris by the ancient writers, never migrated to this see, the Athenian being left; now, even without regard to that usage, I set about proving that very thing chiefly from the silence alone, about the passage of Dionysius to the Parisian see, both of absolutely all the writers and of any other men illustrious in dignity who flourished before the middle of the eighth century. Come, let us first of all consider whether even one author of tested credit, whether Greek or Latin, who flourished before the middle of the eighth century, and who added either to Dionysius the Areopagite the title or appellation of bishop of Paris, or to Dionysius of Paris that of Areopagite, has ever been found. I have carefully examined all the books, all the codices, all the Councils, in which I judged that any mention whatever, even only one preceding the middle of the eighth century, either of Dionysius the Areopagite or of Dionysius, bishop of Paris, would be found; and nowhere, in so great an abundance of literary monuments of various kinds, could I find any writer, or Father, or Pontiff, or finally anyone else at all, who, when he had occasion to speak of Dionysius the Areopagite or of Dionysius of Paris, and in fact spoke, either distinguished the latter with the title of Areopagite or the former with that of bishop of Paris, or in any way indicated by any word that the Areopagite ever came into the West and, Athens being left, migrated to Paris.

[258] The Severian heretics, in the most celebrated conference, to be mentioned by us more than once below, bearing on that, the ancients, both the Greeks, who here which they held with the catholics at Constantinople in the year 533, praised the Works which are circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite in support of the heretical opinions which they defended. But neither these, who then attributed them to Dionysius the Areopagite, nor the catholics, who did not admit the same as undoubted Works of our Saint, then brought forward anything from which even a shadow appears either of a journey of Dionysius the Areopagite undertaken from Athens into the West, or of a passage made from the Athenian chair to the Parisian. St. Anastasius of Sinai, who flourished as the sixth century was growing old and the seventh beginning, records Dionysius the Areopagite and the Works attributed to him in the Work woven by himself which is inscribed ὁδηγὸς, in Latin Guide of the Way. But he too supplies nothing which in any way favours the Parisian episcopate of the Saint. St. Maximus, a writer of the seventh century, composed Scholia on the Works which are found marked by not a few with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite; but neither in these, nor in the quite prolix Prologue set before the Scholia, in which he discourses not a few things about Dionysius the Areopagite, nay even makes mention of his promotion to the Athenian see, does he anywhere hand down to memory anything by which he in any way insinuates that he was of the opinion which sets down that Dionysius the Areopagite passed from the Athenian see to the Parisian. Leontius of Byzantium, who, as Cave teaches in the Literary History, flourished about the year 590, praises Dionysius the Areopagite twice, namely once in book 1 On Sects, Action 3, and again in book 2 against Eutyches and Nestorius, and nowhere suggests anything from which you might gather that the Areopagite ever migrated from Athens to Paris.

[259] The same also holds — to pass over Dionysius of Corinth and Eusebius Pamphili, older than all the rest — are recounted, as regards Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem in the seventh century, and John Damascene, a writer of the eighth century, of whom the former in the epistle written to Pope Honorius, and the latter in his books On Images, speaking of Dionysius the Areopagite, distinguish him only with the title of bishop of Athens. I know indeed that all the praised writers did not need, considering the plan of their purpose, to make mention of this controverted passage by which Dionysius the Areopagite migrated to the Parisian chair, the Athenian being left. But that nothing at all which in any way serves to insinuate it even somewhat obscurely is supplied either by them or by any other Greek writers, happens indeed most of all to be wondered at, especially since there are not lacking those who committed to writing that St. Dionysius the Areopagite presided as bishop over the Athenian church. For what? Will you perhaps assert that the Athenian episcopate of the Areopagite was indeed known to them, but not likewise the Parisian? But be it so: since indeed it appears little likely that the passage of Dionysius the Areopagite to the Parisian see, if it had ever had place, could have escaped all the ancient Greeks, much less did in fact escape them, it comes about even from this that it is by no means to be believed that Dionysius the Areopagite migrated to Paris, Athens being left. Moreover, if the Greeks nowhere recorded the passage of Dionysius the Areopagite to the Parisian see because they had not perceived it, to what purpose did they not at least make mention of the Athenian see left by him in order to go to foreign nations for the sake of preaching the Gospel? To what purpose also did they nowhere record the journey undertaken by him to Rome? Were they perhaps likewise ignorant both of this and of the abdication of the Athenian chair made by Dionysius? But how could all be ignorant of a thing done, so to say, in their sight? To no one indeed, so far as I think, who is not ready to admit things which are repugnant to almost every appearance of truth, will this appear credible.

[260] and the Latins, Now indeed, since all the ancient Greeks wrap in so deep a silence — which cannot but seem a thing to wonder at — not only the passage of Dionysius the Areopagite to the Parisian see but also all the things which are recorded by more recent writers to have preceded it, and which, if they had ever happened, they could not but have had ascertained, they certainly seem to me to have believed neither these things nor that, namely that Dionysius the Areopagite, Athens being left, presided as bishop over the church of the Parisians; so that therefore they did not adhere to the opinion which makes Dionysius the Areopagite the same as the Parisian. That the same is to be decided of the ancient Latins I now show by a like manner of reasoning. In the year 649 at Rome, under Pope Martin, the first of this name, a crowded council of a hundred and five bishops was celebrated against Sergius, Pyrrhus, Cyrus and Paul, Monothelite heretics, in which the Writings customarily circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite were often praised, and therefore mention of this Saint was made more than once; and although the Areopagite was more than once adorned there with the title of bishop of Athens, he was nevertheless nowhere called prelate of Paris, the Fathers speaking everywhere in such a manner that they nowhere supplied anything at all from which you might in any way gather that the Saint ever migrated to Paris, Athens being left. In the year 680 against the same Monothelites the sixth general Synod was celebrated at Constantinople, consisting of 289 Fathers; and in its sixth Action there was read and received by the Fathers the epistle of Pope Agatho to the emperor Constantine and to the augusti Heraclius and Tiberius, in which that Pontiff honours Dionysius the Areopagite with the title of bishop of Athens indeed, but not likewise of Paris. The anonymous author or writer who wove the older Acts of St. Dionysius of Paris, already praised so often above and published by Bosquet, flourished at the beginning of the eighth century, as I shall teach below in the Commentary to be prefixed to those Acts of St. Dionysius of Paris; and that writer, although he handed down to memory, as appears, that Dionysius was sent into Gaul by Pope Clement, nevertheless nowhere distinguishes him with the appellation or title either of Areopagite or of bishop of Athens, or indicates that he at some time occupied the Athenian see.

[261] Hence further it comes about that he seems by no means to have adhered to the opinion to the Romans also, to whom two, which sets down that Dionysius the Areopagite, the Athenian chair being left, at some time occupied the Parisian. For since, as has already been said, he ascribes the mission of Dionysius of Paris into Gaul to St. Pope Clement I, and hence seems to have been zealous for the honour and glory of the church of Paris, as thus bringing its beginnings as near as he could to the times of the Apostles, it does not appear that he would have allowed himself, if he had judged that Dionysius of Paris was either the Areopagite or had come from Athens into Gaul, the see of that city being abdicated, nowhere to call him Areopagite nor to make mention of the Athenian see at some time occupied by him — neglecting, namely, so to publish the honour which he would have perceived would accrue to the church of Paris from this most celebrated apostle, asserted to it, who was a disciple of St. Paul the Apostle, the doctor of the nations. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and absolutely no other Latin writer who flourished before the middle of the eighth century committed to writing that Dionysius of Paris came from Athens into Gaul and was previously bishop of the Athenians, it appears indubitable even from this that among the Latins too the opinion of the chair among the Athenians occupied by Dionysius of Paris before he came into Gaul and to Paris did not flourish before the middle of the eighth century. How true this is there is an argument besides, that even after the opinion of one Dionysius had already arisen, the Roman Pontiffs themselves were so minded that they did not ... the Athenian chair of Dionysius of Paris

believe in, nay not even Stephen II himself, by others III, who, when he had been restored to health in France by the merits of Dionysius of Paris, ordered a church to be built at Rome in honour of this Saint, even though meanwhile he most probably wished it, in order to gratify some of the Gauls, and perhaps the monks of Saint-Denis, to be dedicated to St. Dionysius the Areopagite and also given to Greek monks to inhabit.

[262] Hence our Sirmond, in his Dissertation on the two Dionysiuses, chapter 6, writes in this manner: mentioned here by Sirmond To which … of the Roman Pontiffs, to speak of these chiefly, did it ever come into mind to call Dionysius of Paris the Areopagite, or to signify that the Areopagite held any other episcopate than the Athenian? Stephen II, they say, was freed from illness by Dionysius of Paris. Who denies it? The same, mindful of the benefit, set about founding a sacred building at Rome in honour of Dionysius; when it was founded, Paul, Stephen's brother and successor, dedicated it. What then? Did either Stephen or Paul name this Dionysius the Areopagite? Or was it perhaps more difficult for Stephen, when he wrote that he had been healed by Dionysius the martyr, to add the name of Areopagite, if he had believed him the same, than it was afterwards for his brother Paul, who, when he sent the books of Dionysius the Athenian to king Pippin, announced that he was sending the Works of the Areopagite? Let the champions of Dionysius turn over their chests and shake out the diplomas of the Pontiffs, as many as they have, from Zachary, whence they are wont to begin, to Innocent the third; nowhere will they find in these anything named otherwise than "St. Dionysius the martyr," and "the Monastery of blessed Dionysius the martyr," "the Abbots of blessed Dionysius the martyr." Let them turn over the Roman ones too, and what we were just observing in the Greek writers they will notice in Martin, Agatho, Hadrian, Roman Pontiffs: whenever they praise the Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, he is perpetually called by them bishop of Athens, never of Paris; which surely would have been fitting to be done if, Athens being left, he had migrated to Paris.

[263] and, later than the middle of the eighth century, are added, Martin and Agatho I now let pass, about whom one may see in the Secretarium V of the Roman synod and in Action IV of the sixth synod. The words of Hadrian to Charlemagne on Images are, "St. Dionysius the Areopagite, who was also bishop of Athens." Tell me, pray, when he said "who was also bishop of Athens," why did he not add "and of Paris," if he believed he had also been prelate of Paris? Here is reasoning from which indeed everyone would conclude that the Roman Pontiffs, even after the opinion of one Dionysius had arisen, or after the middle of the VIIIth century had already elapsed, did not hold Dionysius of Paris for the Areopagite, or for the Dionysius who was bishop of Athens and disciple of Paul the Apostle. And this indeed appears to be pronounced chiefly of Hadrian, who is mentioned last. For since, writing to Charlemagne, king and at the same time emperor of the Gauls, he attributes to Dionysius the Areopagite the title of bishop of Athens, who would easily judge it would have come about that he did not likewise attribute the title of bishop of Paris to the Areopagite, if he had judged that it belonged to him, in order to gratify the Gauls, whom he strove most of all to win over to himself, who were already then beginning to make Dionysius of Paris the same as the Areopagite, and chiefly indeed the monks of Saint-Denis, who strove to spread more and more the opinion of one Dionysius, raised up by themselves, as appears, or certainly already then much promoted, and, as it seems, were very strong in favour with Charlemagne? But as regards the remaining Roman Pontiffs praised in Sirmond's reasoning transcribed here, someone will perhaps contend that they — if however you except Martin and Agatho, older than the middle of the VIIIth century, of whom it has already been spoken above — did not so certainly remove the Athenian episcopate and the title of Areopagite from Dionysius of Paris, because, namely, Stephen and then his brother Paul are narrated to have done at Rome things from which they can seem to have judged Dionysius of Paris the same as the Areopagite and bishop of Athens.

[264] to the Pontiffs, on account of the objection made here But that the reason on account of which they can seem to have so judged is very weak appears even from this, that the things which Pope Stephen and his brother Paul are narrated to have done at Rome in honour of Dionysius of Paris they could easily have done, as I have already insinuated, to gratify some Gauls very powerful with their king, by whom they knew that Dionysius of Paris was stubbornly held for the Areopagite, even though they judged the two Dionysiuses different; so that it is not necessary here to bring forward more on this matter. It must therefore remain certain and indubitable that the Roman Pontiffs, not only those who flourished before, but also some who flourished after the middle of the VIIIth century, did not hold Dionysius of Paris for the Areopagite, because they always abstained from attributing both the title of Areopagite and that of bishop of Athens to Dionysius of Paris. Do you perhaps still go on denying it? But for what cause? Because at Rome, when they keep the festal day of Dionysius of Paris, in the very Sacrifice of the Mass the things which suit Dionysius the Areopagite are customarily recited, and the Martyrology which Rome now uses professes that these are one and the same? That is the only thing which can be objected by name against what I have already said of the Roman Pontiffs. But, says Sirmond in his Dissertation on the two Dionysiuses, chapter 6, who does not see how futile and empty that reasoning is? For if, because in the Mass of our Dionysius mention is made of the Areopagite, we wish both to be confused, what forbids that, because on the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God the Gospel proper to the Magdalen is used, we should contend that both Marys were the same? But if we hold this to be absurd, and understand that the Church in that Gospel regarded nothing other than the likeness of names, who would think him cautious enough who suspects that it regarded anything else in the reading of Dionysius? Wherefore let them cease, if they are wise, to make sport with this kind of quibbles; let them cease also to flatter themselves on the name of the Martyrologies. For what Martyrology was there at Rome up to our age which they could abuse for their error? Those which were the most ancient, as they themselves acknowledge, and as Cardinal Baronius confirms from the codex of St. Cyriacus, commemorated a single Dionysius, who is venerated on the VIIth day before the Ides of October, that is, the Parisian; of the other they were silent, not because they confused the two — far from it, this delusion was recent — but because it seemed enough at that time that this one should be celebrated at Rome.

[265] But when it pleased that the Areopagite too should be brought into the Martyrology, not excepted, wrap in silence, they inscribed him separately on his own day, that is, the Vth day before the Nones of October, and distinguished him from ours by every mark. And so the fact that in the latest edition of the Roman Martyrology they are not distinguished is a new error, as I have said, proceeding, as they say, from Pietro Galesini; who, following the Hilduinian heresy, in order to fuse one out of two Dionysiuses, transferred the things which were read of the Areopagite on the Vth day before the Nones to the VIIth before the Ides and adapted them to the Parisian, and, what is wonderful, persuaded sensible men, against the faith of the old copies and against the whole history of the Roman Church. Thus far Sirmond; and surely, whatever is now done at Rome, whatever is written in the Roman Martyrology or even Breviary about Dionysius of Paris and the Areopagite, can by no means bring it about that we should judge that the latter was confused with Dionysius of Paris by the Romans of whom we spoke above. For what? Do not the learned today, the Roman Pontiffs themselves not even protesting, determine with unanimous consent, and also publicly assert, that certain and indubitable credit is not to be given to the Roman Martyrology and Breviary in historical matters, nor are the things handed down in those ecclesiastical books to be attributed to the Roman Pontiffs whose approval they bear? Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and neither the councils, Fathers, Roman Pontiffs, nor finally the writers who before the middle of the eighth century spoke of Dionysius the Areopagite or the Parisian ever ascribed to this one the title or appellation of Areopagite, or to that one the title of bishop of Paris, nay since, even when it would have been most opportune and almost necessary, they did not record the passage of Dionysius the Areopagite to the Parisian see, the Athenian being left, who, I ask, would bring himself to think either that this was then believed, or that Dionysius of Paris was then judged one and the same with Dionysius the Areopagite? Nay, who would not rather hold himself persuaded that the contrary opinion, most clearly founded, as we have taught above, in the Little Roman Martyrology, then flourished among all?

[266] and the arguments formed thence and adduced above, although mostly negative, Indeed I do not sufficiently see what can still be required in order that everyone should be bent to this, besides the things which have been said both in this and in the three immediately preceding §§. Is it perhaps required that it be found expressly and distinctly noted in writers older than the middle of the eighth century that Dionysius the Areopagite is different and distinct from Dionysius of Paris, and that the former of these never came into Gaul, the Athenian chair being left? But did not other Saints not come into Gaul, although they are nowhere narrated by the ancients not to have come into Gaul? Are not many homonymous Saints held by all for Saints distinct from one another, although they are not expressly said to be distinct from one another by the ancient writers who treated of them? Will anyone perhaps deny that St. Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, is different from St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, and from the very Dionysius the Areopagite of whom we treat here, because perhaps no ancient writer is found who has expressly asserted that these two latter Saints are to be distinguished from the former? But if you answer that this is by no means required in order that we acknowledge these Saints and other homonyms as distinct from one another, why, pray, is it required in order that we make Dionysius the Areopagite different from Dionysius, prelate of Paris? Because perhaps no marks of distinction either, by which we could recognize the latter as different from the former, occur among the ancient writers who treated of them? But who, I ask, having weighed the things which I discoursed in § X, would still deny that clear marks of distinction, by which you may separate one Dionysius from the other, are supplied by the Little or old Roman? But, to return still to the coming of Dionysius into Gaul, or to his passage from the Athenian see to the Parisian, I hear it further objected that the arguments by which we have hitherto rejected it are only negative, and therefore prove nothing. I confess most of them are only negative; but what then? Are they also drawn only from a particular, and not from a universal, silence of the ancients?

[267] the arguments are very valid, By no means indeed; for we judge that there most probably, nay undoubtedly, was never place for the passage of Dionysius the Areopagite to the Parisian see, not because one or another, but because absolutely all the ancient writers of tested credit who flourished before the middle of the eighth century, nay synods, Fathers, Pontiffs too, are silent about it: and that in a negative argument of this kind, as it is called, there is very much strength, is admitted among all the learned, especially if the fact about which it is concerned is such that at least some of those by whom it is passed over in silence would undoubtedly have known it if it had been, and when known would most probably have recorded it; which that it has place here too

does not appear to be doubted. For if Dionysius the Areopagite had passed from the Athenian see to the Parisian, who would believe it would have come about that an event of this kind, which would surely have been very illustrious, would have been either unknown to absolutely all, or, if known, passed over in silence, not even excepting those from whom both the reason of the cause they were treating and other circumstances of the times and things from which they took the matter of their writing required that it be recorded? Who also (for most of the things which I have already set out at length above I now repeat here in compendium, that the matter may come out clearer) would suppose it would have come about that the Areopagite, if he had ever migrated to the Parisian see, Athens being left, would have been called by absolutely no one bishop of Paris from the Parisian see which he would have occupied last, while meanwhile the perpetual custom of the Church obtained that those who migrate from one episcopal see to another are named from the see, not which they occupied first, but which they occupied last? Surely, as regards myself, I am so minded that I judge neither this, nor that, nor even that Dionysius of Paris, if he had been one and the same with the Areopagite, would have been honoured with the title of Areopagite by absolutely no ancient writer, would have come about; but if you are not yet moved to think the same with me, or to deny the Parisian episcopate of Dionysius the Areopagite, by the negative reasons just adduced — which nevertheless, as it certainly appears to me, are very valid — you ought indeed to be moved to it by the argument which I proposed above, formed from the first canon of the Synod of Sardica.

[268] For this is not so negative that it cannot also be held for positive. [and to these a positive one too is added against the same episcopate of Dionysius,] In order that the matter may come out manifest, I wish here to set again before the reader's eyes the words of the canon which chiefly bear on this. They run thus: No bishop has been found in this matter who passed from a greater city to a lesser. Since this assertion of the praised Synod, which was celebrated in the year, as I have already warned above, 347, is universal, and therefore teaches us that there was no bishop up to the year 347 who had passed from a greater city to a lesser, it surely supplies a positive argument, from which it is legitimately and rightly concluded that Dionysius the Areopagite, as comprehended under the universal assertion by which it is affirmed that no bishop who had passed from a greater city to a lesser had been found up to the year 347, never passed to Paris, Athens being left. Here then is an argument by which you surely ought to be moved to confess that Dionysius the Areopagite never presided as bishop over the church of Paris, deduced not from the silence of the ancients only on this matter, but from the positive assertion of a very ancient synod, which both declares that no bishop up to the year 347 passed from a greater see to a lesser, and, as being universal, extends itself beyond all doubt to Dionysius the Areopagite; so that indeed it must be wholly certain and indubitable, considering both the positive and the negative manner of arguing, that Dionysius the Areopagite never passed from the Athenian see to the Parisian. Nor is there reason why you should perhaps still oppose here with Ménard, and contend that Lutetia or Paris, in the age of Dionysius the Areopagite, or in the first century of the Christian era, was, compared to Athens, neither a small city nor lesser than it. For since it is called by the Caesar Julian πολίχνη, a little town, and by Ammianus Marcellinus the stronghold of the Parisians, and therefore in the fourth century of the Christian era, in which both Julian and Ammianus flourished, Lutetia was only a small city, it was certainly not greater, at the time when they would have Dionysius migrate to it from Athens, or in the first century of the Christian era, than the Athenian city, as celebrated as it was most ample.

[269] the opinion of one Dionysius, which attributes it to him, false, And since this is so, and therefore the canon of the synod of Sardica related above cannot be consonant with the truth if Dionysius had passed from the Athenian see to the Parisian, it remains indubitable that there was never place for this event, as I have already said. Hence further, since Dionysius the Areopagite, from what has been said, was not held by the synod of Sardica, celebrated, as has been said, in the year 347, for a bishop who had passed from a greater see to a lesser, or from the Athenian see to the Parisian, it now follows that neither was he then judged by the same synod to be one and the same with the Dionysius who had at some time been prelate of the church of the Parisians. Now indeed, since this is so, what, I ask, would you still bring forward in order to maintain that the opinion which sets down Dionysius the Areopagite as the same as the Parisian flourished before the middle of the VIIIth century, or rather that the contrary opinion did not flourish before that epoch of time? Perhaps that in the canon of the synod of Sardica the Parisian episcopate is neither expressly denied to Dionysius the Areopagite, nor is this Saint asserted to be different from Dionysius of Paris? So it entirely stands. But not even from this is what you wish made out. For although the things you say are not expressly stated in the praised canon, they nevertheless follow legitimately from other things which the same canon supplies, as is sufficiently and more than sufficiently clear from what has already been said. And so, even the things being passed over which could be argued here for our matter about Dionysius of Paris first sent into Gaul under Decius, and about the sacred relics of the Areopagite brought from Greece into Gaul, and which will come to be examined below in their places, it seems at length placed beyond all controversy, partly from what has just been said, partly from other things which we disputed above in §§10 and XI about the Little or old Roman Martyrology and about the Clermont Synaxarion of the Greeks and the Basilian Menology, that the opinion of two Dionysiuses flourished before the middle of the VIIIth century, nay even before the Vth century.

[270] [and that the other, on the contrary, of two Dionysiuses is certainly true, it is concluded.] Further, since this is so, and absolutely all the monuments adduced, as I have already shown in the first five §§ of this Commentary, by the patrons of the opinion of one Dionysius in order to prove it or make it older than the middle of the eighth century — namely the writing of Visbius, the epistle of Aristarchus, chronographer of the Greeks, to Onesiphorus the primicerius, the Acts of Dionysius to be published, and the others woven by Metrodorus, Metaphrastes and Syncellus — are either wholly supposititious, which is also to be said of some other documents praised above, or spurious, or certainly merit no credit, which holds by name also (go to number 87) as regards the Acts of St. Sanctinus, what remains but that we pronounce that the opinion of one Dionysius arose only after the middle of the eighth century, and is therefore far more recent than the opposite opinion, which sets down two Dionysiuses? Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and the opinion which distinguishes Dionysius the Areopagite from the Parisian was undoubtedly handed down earlier than that which confuses these two Saints, we must give place here to the following dictum of Tertullian, which I have recited above: From the very order it is made manifest that that is true which was handed down first, but that is extraneous and false which was brought in later; and therefore the opinion which distinguishes Dionysius the Areopagite from the Parisian must be held for true, and the opposite, on the contrary, which confuses both Dionysiuses, namely the Areopagite and the Parisian, for false: which has now, so far as I think, been shown by reasons by no means invalid, but wholly solid and almost invincible, so clearly that I suppose there will hardly be anyone henceforth who does not judge Dionysius the Areopagite different from the Parisian, especially if he has considered that Methodius, the Achilles of the adversaries, has already been snatched from them by me above by the invincible weight of reasons: both because the Acts woven by Methodius, a man surely most holy, have hitherto not come forth into light, and because I have shown in §§4 and 5 that these, even if they still existed and had not perished, are such that they are by no means suited to win certain and indubitable credit for the things which they maintain.

§ XIV. The noble birth of Dionysius, his Fatherland, riches, learning, probity of life, dignity.

[From the dignity of Areopagite in which the Saint was eminent, that he was by birth] Hilduin, in his Reply to the emperor Louis, praised so very often above, number 3, writes thus: That he was most noble in birth, and was renowned at Athens as distinguished in the teaching of philosophy, the ancient or present ages have learned by the testimony both of other histories and of the Acts of the Apostles. St. Dionysius therefore excelled in birth, if Hilduin records true things of him here. Launoy accuses this abbot of Saint-Denis of imposture because he praises the Acts of the Apostles, or St. Luke, their author, in the place just cited, for the nobility of birth of St. Dionysius; but not rightly, as everyone will without difficulty gather from what I discoursed at numbers 6 and 7 of this prefatory Commentary. Certainly that Dionysius was noble by birth is clear even from this, that at Athens he was of the senate of the Areopagites, or judges of the Areopagus, and none were admitted into it except those who were illustrious for nobility of birth, as Isocrates in the Areopagitic Oration, Budé on the Pandects, Sigonio on the Republic of the Athenians, and finally St. Maximus in the Preface prefixed by himself to the Works of St. Dionysius, or, if you prefer, to the Scholia which he wove on them, give assurance. Letting the others pass, I transcribe only the words of Isocrates and of St. Maximus which bear on this. Those of the former, as they were rendered into Latin by Budé on the Pandects, are these: Our forefathers … were so zealous for temperance that they publicly set that Areopagitic council over the ordering of men's manners; into whose number only those could hope to be co-opted who, sprung from illustrious birth, had given very many proofs of virtue and modesty by the honesty of their life; whence at length it came about that that assembly was not undeservedly by far the most excellent of all Greece; and those of the latter, in tome 1 in Cordier, these: The very senate of the Athenians alone, into which he was chosen as a counsellor, manifests the nobility and illustrious riches of the great Dionysius. For he was one of the Areopagites, as St. Luke declared, describing the sacred Acts of the holy Apostles. These things, which even alone show that Hilduin was wrongly accused of imposture by Launoy for citing Luke for the nobility of Dionysius's birth, that holy Scholiast of the Works which are circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, St. Maximus, supplies, and that at the very beginning of the praised Preface; and, some things being interposed, he supplies the following words besides, which likewise bear on the present subject.

[272] noble, appears indubitable, and that hence also by fatherland he was For it is to be known, as I warned before, that it was not for any man whatever to be enrolled in the senate of the Areopagus, but those who among the Athenians excelled in birth and riches and probity of life, and besides were reckoned illustrious, gave their opinion in the senate of the Areopagus. And these things, so far as I think, prove sufficiently and more than sufficiently that St. Dionysius was illustrious for nobility of birth, even from the fact that he was of the number of the Areopagites, or judges of the Areopagus. Nor that he excelled in birth only, but also that St. Dionysius the Areopagite was by fatherland an Athenian, is to be gathered from the dignity of Areopagite in which he was eminent

seems. At Athens, even before the age of Solon, there was a magistracy or court consisting, as Sigonio teaches in book 1 On the Republic of the Athenians, chapter 5, of nine men only, of whom one was called king, another archon, a third polemarch, and finally the remaining six Thesmothetae; and Solon, as the same Sigonio likewise teaches in the place cited, by a law passed, ordained that none should be admitted into the Areopagus except those who had been either archons or certainly Thesmothetae in that court of nine men. Further, it was not lawful for anyone to be reckoned among the Thesmothetae — which is most probably likewise to be said of the king, archon and polemarch of the same court, if access to the Areopagus lay open to these too — unless he proved himself an Athenian on both parents' side up to the third generation. So Julius Pollux expressly teaches us, Onomasticon book 8, chapter 9, having recounted the nine archons, of whom six are called Thesmothetae, writing in this manner: Ἐκαλεῖτο δέ τις Θεσμοθετῶν ἀνάκρισις· ἐι Αθηναῖοι εἰσιν ἑκατέρωθεν ἐκ τριγονίας καὶ τῶν δήμων ποθέν· καὶ εἰ Ἀπόλλων ἐστὶν ἀυτοῖς πατρῶος καὶ Ζεὺς ἕρκειος· καὶ εἰ τοὺς γονέας εὖ ποιοῦσι· καὶ εἰ ἐστρατεύοντο ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος· καὶ εἰ τὸ τίμημα ἐστὶν ἀυτοῖς &c. Now there was a certain examination called that of the Thesmothetae: namely whether they were Athenians on both parents' side up to the third generation; and from which demes. Whether Apollo Patroüs and Zeus Herceus belonged to them. Whether they did well by their parents. Whether they served in war for their country, and whether they had a suitable property rating, etc.

[273] is believed an Athenian, some things persuade. Yet whether truly Further Halloix, priest of our Society, in the Lives of the illustrious Writers of the Eastern church who flourished in the first century of Christ, page 621, where he begins the notes on the Life of Hierotheus woven by himself, having premised almost the same things as I have already brought forward about the Thesmothetae of the Athenians, subjoins: Of this examination (namely the one which the Thesmothetae had to undergo before they were admitted into the Areopagus), or disquisition, or inquisition (for it can be called by so many names), Demosthenes, that prince of the orators of Greece, touched some mention briefly at the end of the appeal against Eubulides, where he strives to prove that he is an Athenian on both sides, and has fellow-clansmen of Apollo Patroüs and Zeus Herceus. See the oration of the same Demosthenes against Neaera, especially in the Decree on the Plataeans. And that it may be understood how highly the Athenians valued their citizenship, Demosthenes writes in the same oration that there was a law among them, μὴ ἐξεῖναι ποιήσασθαι Ἀθηναῖον, ὃν ἂν μὴ δί ανδραγαθίαν εἰς τὸν δῆμον τῶν Ἀθηνάιων ἄξιον ᾖ γενέσθαι πολίτην, "that it was not lawful to make an Athenian of anyone except him who, for vigorous service rendered to the Athenian people, is worthy to be made a citizen." And he adds that the grant was not valid unless it was approved by the secret votes of more than six thousand Athenian men in the following assembly. And from all these things it can indeed seem most probable, nay all but indubitable, that St. Dionysius the Areopagite was an Athenian by fatherland. For since he was an Areopagite, or senator of the Areopagus, he had previously discharged the office either of archon or certainly of Thesmothete, who, as is clear from what has already been said, had to be Athenians by fatherland, as appears to be decided from what has been said above.

[274] Yet here two things occur on the other side on account of which it can be doubted whether Dionysius was truly an Athenian by fatherland: was by fatherland an Athenian, Dionysius, of Caesarius adduced here, the first is that the law or custom by which those who discharged the office of Thesmothetae among the Athenians had to have Athens for their fatherland was in use only in ancient times, but not likewise, as appears, in the age of Dionysius; the second, that it is affirmed by Bl. Caesarius, brother of St. Gregory Nazianzen, who flourished in the IVth century, in the Theological Questions, as they were published at Augsburg in the year 1626, that Dionysius sprang not from Athens but from Thrace. The words in which this is done there by that holy writer are these: In Thrace, Mars, surnamed from execration, from which, as from the disobedient Esau, Dionysius the Areopagite sprang for us, who was a disciple of the divine Apostles, etc. If therefore Caesarius is to be stood by here, Dionysius can seem to have been born not at Athens but in Thrace. But is there nothing on account of which it is right to depart with reverence from the adduced testimony of this Saint? Could it also be so explained that Caesarius is understood to have spoken, not of the birth which Dionysius obtained in Thrace, but of the forefathers of this Saint of ours who had sprung in Thrace? I would by no means object to Caesarius being so explained, nay on the contrary I would judge that he must certainly be so explained, if only it could be proved sufficiently solidly from elsewhere that Dionysius was an Athenian by fatherland. But whether the matter does not stand otherwise seems able to be doubted. Calmet indeed, in the Biblical Dictionary, writes thus of Dionysius the Areopagite: St. Chrysostom calls him (namely St. Dionysius the Areopagite) an Athenian citizen in the same place (namely book 4 On the Priesthood, chapter 7), and not without likelihood; for the Areopagites were for the most part taken from the citizens. Others fetch the Man from Thrace; yet the credit of this opinion is sought only from a single witness, and certainly of too little authority to avail for persuading.

[275] But St. Chrysostom, who is alleged here, and who, to whom Chrysostom, as is shown, if he openly made St. Dionysius the Areopagite an Athenian by fatherland, would either destroy or even surpass by his authority the authority of St. Caesarius, as his contemporary, in the place cited by Calmet supplies only the following words which bear on the present purpose: Ὁ δὲ Αρεοπαγίτης ἐκεῖνος, ὁ τῆς δεισιδαιμονεστάτης πόλεως ἐκείνης οὐκ ἀπὸ δημηγορίας μόνης ἠκολούθησεν ἀυτῷ μετὰ τῆς γυναικός; and although these in the published editions of the Works of St. Chrysostom are so rendered into Latin as expressly to signify that Dionysius the Areopagite was a citizen of the Athenian city, they nevertheless by no means prove what Calmet wishes if they are considered in their Greek source. For since among the Greeks the prepositive article with the following genitive of a substantive noun signifies, according to the precepts of accurate Syntax, possession or effect according to the varying nature of the thing of which the discourse is, I do not sufficiently see why these Greek words of this Saint, ὁ τῆς δεισιδαιμονεστάτης πόλεως ἐκείνης, should, as is done in the published editions of Chrysostom, be rendered in Latin citizen of that most superstitious city, and therefore must necessarily signify that Dionysius the Areopagite was an Athenian citizen. For why could not the word inhabitant be substituted for the word citizen? Surely, since whoever inhabit any city, whether they are or are not its citizens, are not ineptly said in a certain manner to belong to it, it appears very doubtful whether Chrysostom in the recited words makes Dionysius the Areopagite an Athenian citizen or only an inhabitant. Moreover, let us grant even that Dionysius the Areopagite was expressly called an Athenian citizen by Chrysostom in the place cited; not even from this will it follow either that this Saint of ours was born at Athens, or that Chrysostom wished by the words transcribed here to place his birth there.

[276] [is not opposed, the testimony, and the abrogation, in the age of Dionysius, of the ancient law by which the Areopagites had to be Athenians,] For since it not seldom happens today, and also happened formerly, that all the most celebrated and most powerful cities have enrolled foreigners too among the number of their citizens, whether in regard of merits, or for a price received, or finally for some other cause, why could it not have come about both that Dionysius, though not born at Athens, was nevertheless enrolled among the citizens of the Athenian city for his singular services and merits toward it, and that he was therefore called an Athenian citizen by John Chrysostom? That formerly among the Athenians absolutely no outsider was received into the number of the Athenian citizens except one judged worthy to be made a citizen for vigorous service rendered to the Athenian people, and that this could be attained by no one except with great difficulty, is plain from the words of Demosthenes recited above from Halloix. But although, in the age of Dionysius the Areopagite, those who were admitted into the Areopagus still had to be Athenians by fatherland, yet that severe law, first passed, as appears, by Solon and then restored by Demetrius, son of Antigonus king of Macedonia, by which all who were foreigners were kept from obtaining the right of Athenian citizenship, appears most probably to have been antiquated or abrogated in the age of Dionysius the Areopagite, as also that those who were admitted into the court of the Thesmothetae then no longer had to prove themselves Athenians on both parents' side up to the third generation. This opinion holds because, although the most celebrated as well as most illustrious senate of the Areopagites at Athens was not yet extinct even in the fourth century of the Christian era, or in the age of Eusebius of Caesarea, though oppressed by very many tyrants and subjugated by the Romans, it had nevertheless suffered very many vicissitudes, nor does it appear likely that such a selection of persons as had been held of old continued to be held in it even in the age of Dionysius.

[277] makes one doubt, And indeed that this was then no longer done is made plain from this, that long before Dionysius was born the Romans had brought Athens into their power, and then these too were admitted into the Areopagitic senate and therefore sometimes created Areopagites, as Johannes Meursius teaches in the book inscribed Areopagus, or On the Areopagitic senate, chapter 5, from the testimony of Cicero in the Oration for L. Cornelius Balbus and from a certain ancient Greek Inscription. I transcribe here both the latter and the former. The testimony of Cicero is expressed in these words: Led by which error I have myself seen some unskilled men, our citizens, at Athens in the number of the judges and Areopagites; and the Greek inscription, to which I also add a Latin interpretation prepared by me, runs thus: Τον. λαμπροτατον. Ανθυπατον. τῆς. ελλαδος. ρουφιον. φηστον. καὶ. Αρεοπαγειτην. η. ἐξ. Αρεοπαγου. βουλη. καὶ. η. βουλη. τῶν. Τριακοσιων. καὶ. ο. δημος. ο. Αθηναιων. ευνοιας. ενεκα. καὶ. ευεργεσιας. τῆς. περι. την. πολιν. ανεστησεν. προνοουντος. φλαβιου. Πρυλαδου. The most illustrious proconsul of Greece, Rufius Festus, also an Areopagite, the Areopagitic senate and the tribunal of the three hundred and the Athenian people created, on account of the goodwill and beneficence shown toward the city, Flavius Pryladus being procurator. Since therefore the ancient law, by which it had been decreed that those who were admitted into the Areopagus should be Athenians by fatherland, had been abrogated in the age of our Saint, as is clear from what has already been said, it must surely be doubtful whether he was truly an Athenian by fatherland.

[278] But although this is so, it nevertheless appears more probable that Dionysius was born at Athens, or was an Athenian by fatherland. although meanwhile he was more probably an Athenian by fatherland: This opinion holds, first indeed because, although in the age of Dionysius access to the Areopagitic senate lay open to Romans too, of all those who were enrolled in it most were even then Athenians by fatherland, as appears most probable and as Calmet observes in the words recited above; and then because, although by the words recited at number 274 Chrysostom, against the testimony of Caesarius related above, which asserts that Dionysius sprang from Thrace,

is not openly opposed, from what has already been said, it can nevertheless be so explained as to be understood not of Dionysius but only of his forefathers, who had their birth in Thrace. So St. Gregory Nazianzen, already mentioned so often above, although he is said by Euphrantas, bishop of Tyana, in the fifth Collation of the fifth Synod, to have sprung from Arianzus, is nevertheless believed to have been born at Nazianzus, or to have been a Nazianzen by fatherland (see tome 2 of May of our Work, page 376, in the Annotations at letter a), because Euphrantas can be understood of the parents of Gregory, who had been born at Arianzus, Gregory meanwhile having been brought into the light at Nazianzus by his mother. Moreover, although the ancient law by which those who were admitted into the Areopagus had to be Athenians had already, from what has been said, been abrogated in the age of Dionysius, it can nevertheless be that this had place only as regards the Romans, because the Athenians had to yield to these as masters of affairs; so that therefore Dionysius, since he was of the Areopagitic senate, and could not have attained to it if he had been a Thracian by birth, as can be contended from Caesarius, more probably was an Athenian by fatherland. And hence it can now be gathered what must be answered if someone perhaps contends that, because in the age of Dionysius the Romans too, who certainly were not Athenians, were admitted into the Areopagus, those who were not noble were also then admitted into it, and therefore that Dionysius perhaps was not noble. Moreover, it does not appear to be doubted that the Romans themselves who were admitted among the Areopagites in the age of Dionysius, nay even before it, were noble by birth.

[279] For the rest, so as also on this occasion to answer what I now observe can still be objected against the Saint's nobility, further, since the Areopagites for learning as well as probity, the Meursius praised above writes in chapter 5 of On the Areopagitic Senate that, Athens having been brought into the power of the Romans, all were promiscuously co-opted into the Areopagus; but the text of Lucian which he brings forward for his purpose by no means gives this as proved, as will become evident to one considering it; so that therefore, the same text notwithstanding, it is to be held that Dionysius was indeed noble by birth. Let us now proceed to the other things which, likewise from the dignity of Areopagite in which Dionysius was eminent, can seem to be maintained about this Saint of ours when not yet converted to the faith, and in fact are to be maintained. George Pachymeres, in his Proem to the Paraphrase woven by himself of the Works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, supplies these following words, which it will suffice to have transcribed here in Latin: It was not … for anyone whatever to be reckoned among the Areopagites, but for him whom much wisdom and an upright life and freedom from fault in all things had raised to so great a dignity. Michael Syncellus, whose words likewise I transcribe only in Latin, writes thus in the encomium of St. Dionysius composed by himself: Whence (namely from the Athenian city) this Dionysius took his origin, and where, a most noble president and holding the first place among the judges of the Areopagus, he exercised the magistracy as an honorary judge, whose excellence of birth and distinguished glory were committed copiously to writing by Androtion and Philochorus, Athenian writers. Hence too it is easy to conjecture that his parents were nobles, excellent and renowned for virtue. For among the Athenians, high-minded men, he would not have been raised to so lofty a rank unless he had joined to illustrious birth too wisdom and the ornaments of the mind, prudence, justice, fortitude.

[280] as is proved here from Socrates and Isocrates, Since therefore those who were co-opted into the Areopagitic senate among the Athenians had to be conspicuous also for the praise of wisdom and for probity of life, as Pachymeres and Syncellus teach in the words just recited here, it certainly follows from the fact that St. Dionysius was one of the Areopagites that he excelled both in knowledge of many things and in probity of life. But lest anyone perhaps call into doubt whether the Areopagites had to be such as these two writers say, because Pachymeres and Syncellus lived only after some centuries had already elapsed from the age of Dionysius, nay also because Syncellus writes in the words already given some things foreign to the truth, or certainly resting on no foundation, as will become evident from what is to be said below, two far older writers opportunely occur here, namely Socrates and Isocrates; of whom the former (again I give the words of both only in Latin) says to Pericles in Xenophon, Memorabilia book 3: But does not the Areopagitic senate, O Pericles, consist of approved men? And the latter has thus in the Areopagitic oration: But I confess that I shall say many things which have been received by them; not because Lycurgus either found or devised those things, but because, imitating as well as possible the government of our forefathers, he instituted among them a democracy tempered with aristocracy, such as was among us; and he willed that the magistrates should be created not by lot but by votes, and passed a law that the elders who preside over all affairs should be chosen with as much zeal and care as they say our forefathers chose those who were to be Areopagites. Moreover, not only are the things which Socrates mentions above, and those which Isocrates mentions here about the care with which those who were to be Areopagites were chosen, an argument that these were conspicuous for signal virtue; but also that they excelled in virtue as well as wisdom it is permitted to gather even from this, that, as is found handed down to memory among the ancients, judgment was always given in the Areopagitic senate so holily and justly that neither any defendant nor any plaintiff could ever deservedly complain of the iniquity of the sentence.

[281] Demosthenes, setting up the discussion about the Areopagus in the Oration against Aristocrates, and from other Greek writers, says, in Johannes Meursius's Areopagus, page 24, in Latin from that writer's version: Here alone no one ever, whether a defendant condemned or a plaintiff losing his cause, could show that judgments had been wrongly given. The things which Aristides writes in the Panathenaic, in the same Meursius at the place cited, come to the same. Hear how he speaks rendered in Latin by him. For nothing, he says, is to be found more excellent than the Areopagus, if one seeks; and just as from prophetic waters breaths are wont to be sent up together, so this place too seems to emit a perfect, and almost divine, knowledge of law. And so it is honoured with such consent of all that those who are defeated by its judgments are content equally with the victors. Lycurgus in the oration against Leocrates declares thus in Latin, again from the version of the same Meursius at the place cited, in praise of the Areopagus: Having as the most beautiful example of the Greeks the council on the Areopagus; which so excels among the other tribunals that even those who are convicted confess that judgment is given wholly justly. And these testimonies of the ancient writers already brought forward surely suffice for us to believe that those who were enrolled in the most ample Areopagitic senate (for these were not few in number, as may be seen in Meursius's Areopagus, chapter 5) were illustrious at once for the praise of wisdom and of virtue, and by name of justice; yet in order that the matter may be still more evident, I gladly add to these, again from Meursius's version, what Pausanias writes about the Messenians, who, about to make war on the Lacedaemonians, wished first to propose their cause to the Areopagites for judgment. They (the Messenians) say, he says in his Messeniaca, that Polychares was not handed over by them to the Lacedaemonians, because they themselves had not surrendered Euaephnus; that they had wished, however, the cause to be tried either among the Argives, who were kinsmen of both states, or in the council of the Amphictyons; that they had wished also to entrust the same matter to the Areopagitic senate of the Athenians, which had long been accustomed to try cases of bloodshed.

[282] Since therefore causes were brought to the Areopagites for judgment even from foreign regions, one Latin too being added to them, it is proved, that indeed is also an argument that these were most of all renowned for an eminent reputation for learning as well as virtue, and by name for equity. But lest anyone perhaps again object here that the matter stood so indeed long before the age of Dionysius, but not likewise when this was already in course, or when the Romans were already masters of Athens, I also add to Pausanias the Latin writer Valerius Maximus, who writes thus in book 8, chapter 1: A mother of a family of Smyrna killed her husband and son, when she had learned that a young man of the best disposition, whom she had borne to a former husband, had been killed by them. Which matter, when it was brought to him, Dolabella referred to Athens for the cognizance of the Areopagus; because he himself could bear neither to free a woman polluted with two murders nor to punish her, impelled as she was by just grief. Considerately and gently did the magistrate of the Roman people act; but the Areopagites too no less wisely, who, the cause being inspected, ordered both the accuser and the accused to appear after a hundred years, moved by the same feeling as Dolabella. Gellius too relates the same, though in other words, in book 12 of the Attic Nights, chapter 7. Wherefore, since hence the Romans too seem from time to time to have committed the more difficult causes to the judgment of the Areopagites, nay even, as St. Maximus witnesses in his Preface to the Works of St. Dionysius, permitted for a sufficiently long time (see Meursius On the Areopagitic Senate, chapter 3, page 16) that Athens should use its own laws, and that the Areopagites should freely discharge their offices as before, it seems to be held as indubitable that these were renowned for the reputation of learning as well as of equity and virtue even at the time when Rome already ruled Athens and Dionysius was living among them.

[283] besides were eminent, nay also were strong in riches, The words of Cicero indeed, recited at number 277, by which that orator insinuates that there were in his age in the Areopagitic senate men who were unskilled, can in some way bring it about that we judge that some too were found among the Areopagites in the age of our Saint who did not deserve to be commended for knowledge and learning; but in that place Cicero speaks only of Romans admitted into the Areopagus; who, since they were chosen into it, as appears, not so much in view of the virtue and gifts of nature in which they were strong as in regard of the power in which they stood with the Athenians, it can easily have come about that some of them were destitute not only of skill and knowledge of affairs but also, which in fact happened with some, as Meursius insinuates in his Areopagus, chapter 5, page 31, of virtue and probity, although meanwhile the others who were co-opted as judges of the Areopagus were such as the Areopagites are asserted above by Socrates and others to have been. Whatever therefore may be said of the recited words of Cicero, it does not indeed appear to be doubted that at least most of those who were different from the Romans and were enrolled in the Areopagus in the age of our Saint were adorned with those gifts of soul which antiquity had required in the Areopagites, and were therefore remarkable for knowledge of various things, and above all of the laws, and for virtue. Nor is it to be doubted either that the Areopagites were besides sufficiently provided with riches and abundance of goods. For the words of Pollux and of St. Maximus, recited at number 272, most clearly teach us this.

[284] [with all those prerogatives, but not likewise with the first place among the Areopagites] Now indeed, since this and the other things which I have discoursed in the present § about the prerogatives of the Areopagites stand, as I have said, so, we now have from the dignity of Areopagite in which he was eminent that Dionysius the Areopagite shone forth among the Athenians, before he was converted to the faith, not only by nobility of birth and, as appears more probable, Athenian birth, but also by riches, virtue and learning, nay by knowledge of Philosophy too, whatever some may argue to the contrary. But can it likewise be deservedly gathered from it that Dionysius the Areopagite was both a heathen priest and president of the Areopagitic senate? By no means indeed. Michael Syncellus says indeed, in the words transcribed above here, that Dionysius was in the Areopagus both a most noble president and held the first place among the judges of that senate; but that this cannot be gathered from the sole dignity of Areopagite in which the Saint shone, everyone sees; so that it is not necessary to discourse more on this matter here. But since the matter stands so, whence did Syncellus draw what he writes about the first dignity of Dionysius in the Areopagus? Since absolutely nothing is found in earlier or older writers and monuments which can in any way support him in that matter, he more probably committed it to writing from some conjecture sought further than is fitting, and perhaps solely from a rumour prevailing among the common people, accustomed easily to admit magnificent titles of the Saints. However that may be, since the source from which he drew it is wholly unknown, and Syncellus lived several centuries removed from the age of Dionysius, the following dictum of Baronius must have place here: What is brought forward about things so ancient without the testimony of some older writer is despised.

[285] And let these things suffice about the first place among the Areopagites ascribed to Dionysius without foundation; place, and shone forth among the Athenians also by priestly dignity. but as regards now the priestly dignity in which he was also eminent among the heathens, Baronius writes thus in tome 1 of the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year 47, number 35: Among the Athenians, in that most celebrated court praised by the mouth of all, which was called the Areopagus, priests likewise were judges; and the supreme priest of all, asking the opinion of each, collected the votes; and if the most learned man records true things here, it will also follow from the dignity of Areopagite in which Dionysius shone that he, not yet converted to the faith, had besides a priesthood, namely such as there was among the heathens, joined with the dignity of an Areopagitic senator. But the things which are contained in the recited words of Baronius are not founded in any testimony of antiquity either. He praises indeed for his assertions an Areopagitic Decree expressing them, which the historian Josephus recites, citing also in the margin book 14 of this writer's Antiquities, chapter 16; but in Josephus, neither there nor in any other place, is any trace or vestige found of the things which Baronius sets forth about the priesthood of the Areopagites; so that this most distinguished man most probably (I know not in what way) fell into error here, too much distracted by the other matters which he treated in his most vast work of the Ecclesiastical Annals.

§ XV. Dionysius is converted to the faith by St. Paul the Apostle; how, at what age of his and when this was done, and whether he had Damaris for his wife.

Dionysius is converted to the faith with Damaris and others: At length St. Paul the Apostle, when he had preached the Gospel at Thessalonica and Beroea not without fruit, though the Jews raised tumults in both places, is narrated in Acts 17, verse 15 to have been brought to Athens, and then it is presently subjoined: Now while Paul waited for them (Silas and Timothy) at Athens, his spirit was stirred within him, seeing the city given to idolatry. Hence, therefore, as Luke, the sacred author of the Acts, continues to narrate, disputing daily not only with the Jews, who had a synagogue there, but also with the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, he was dragged by some, to whom he seemed to announce new gods, for that reason to the Areopagus, or Areopagitic senate, to which, namely (go to Meursius On the Areopagitic Senate, or the Areopagus, pages 34 and 73), it belonged to take cognizance and judge of Religion and of new or foreign gods which had not been instituted by the forefathers. And taking hold of him, says Luke in verse 19, they brought him to the Areopagus, saying: May we know what this new doctrine is which is spoken of by thee? Further Paul, when he was now standing in the midst of the Areopagus (this was a celebrated place at Athens where the Areopagites were wont to assemble), delivered to the judges of that most celebrated tribunal and the others standing by a plainly excellent oration full of the spirit of God, which Luke recites entire in the cited chapter from verse 22 to verse 31; and when he had made mention of the Lord's Resurrection from the dead, he was not permitted to continue further. For, as Luke presently subjoins in verse 32 and the two following, When they had heard of the resurrection of the dead, some indeed mocked, but some said, We will hear thee again concerning this. So Paul went out from among them. But certain men, adhering to him, believed; among whom was also Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them. Although therefore St. Paul the Apostle was compelled to break off the oration which he delivered in the Areopagus, it nevertheless did not lack all fruit, nay on the contrary was crowned with a wholly signal one, one of the Areopagites too, namely our Dionysius, being converted to the faith of Christ together with some others, among whom was also a woman named Damaris.

[287] the word woman, with which she is designated by Luke, signifies wife there, And these things, and no more, are read about our Saint in sacred Scripture; and although they are only few, they nevertheless offer chiefly four things to be discussed by us here now, namely how, at what age and when it happened that Dionysius was converted to the faith; and moreover whether he had for his wife Damaris, with whom he is narrated by Luke to have been converted to the faith. I begin from discussing the last of these. The Greek text corresponding to the Latin text just recited, by which Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them are narrated in Acts 17, verse 34, or the last, to have been converted to the faith by St. Paul the Apostle, runs thus: Τινὲς δὲ ἄνδρες κολληθέντες ἀυτῷ ἐπίστευσαν· ἐν οἷς καὶ Διονύσιος ὁ Αρεοπαγίτης, καὶ γυνὴ ὀνόματι Δάμαρις καὶ ἕτεροι σὺν ἀυτοῖς· and since both the Greek word γυνὴ, which occurs here, and the word mulier, which is read above in the Latin text, are of themselves no more determined to signifying a wife than to signifying any woman, it seems it can be doubted whether the Greek word γυνὴ was used in this or in that signification by Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles in the Greek idiom; nay, although it seems to most of the learned to have been used by Luke in the latter signification, there are nevertheless also some who judge that it is employed by Luke in the cited place only for signifying a wife. And among these Halloix, priest of our Society, holds not the lowest place.

[288] Halloix, whose words bearing on it So that the reasons by which he strives to establish that opinion in the Lives of the Illustrious writers of the Eastern church, page 228, may be better understood and at the same time more conveniently examined, I transcribe here for the greater part the very words in which they are proposed by that writer. They run thus: If the words of the Evangelist are diligently attended to, both his mind and the signification of the words will become sufficiently clear. For to me indeed it is sufficiently evident that the Evangelist wished first to disclose in general that some adhered to Paul, and (that the force of the Greek word κολληθέντες may be kept) were glued to him, and believed in Christ: and then specifically to designate the household of Dionysius the Areopagite, that is, himself and his wife and his domestics, when he said: ἐν οἷς καὶ Διονύσιος &c, which would have been more clearly rendered thus: "among whom also Dionysius the Areopagite and his wife named Damaris, and the rest with them," that is, the domestics, following the example of the father and mother of the family. For the word ἕτεροι properly is THE REST, since the latter is made from the former. Wherefore those words "and others with them" do not signify all others besides Dionysius and Damaris (for thus the same thing would be said twice, since it was said above of the others: "But certain men, adhering to him, believed"), but signify only those who believed jointly with Dionysius and Damaris, and by their example and incitement, or the whole family. It is true indeed that the sense would have been clearer if the word ἀυτοῦ, his, had been added, and it had been said καὶ γυνὴ ἀυτοῦ, "and his woman." But that is not customary, or certainly not necessary; which can be confirmed by many examples.

[289] For neither did St. Chrysostom himself are recited here, (whom those who think the contrary confess to be on our side), when he used γυναῖκα for wife, neither, I say, did he himself add the word ἀυτοῦ, his, in order to make his meaning clearer, but said simply thus in the fourth book On the Priesthood: Ὁ δὲ Ἀρεοπαγίτης ἐκεῖνος, ὁ τῆς δεισιδαιμονεστάτης πόλεως ἐκεῖνης οὐκ ἀπὸ δημηγορίας μόνης ἠκολούθησεν ἀυτῷ μετὰ τῆς γυναικός; which the interpreters have rendered thus, and well: "But did not that Areopagite, citizen of that most superstitious city, follow him together with his wife at a single oration" namely Paul's? Where, however, he did not say μετὰ τῆς ἀυτοῦ γυναικὸς, with his own wife, but only μετὰ τῆς γυναικὸς, "with the wife." For it is sufficiently understood. So too in the sacred Letters that ἀυτοῦ is frequently omitted, as in the former to the Corinthians, chapter 7, verse 3: "Let the husband render the debt to the wife," in Greek Τῇ γυναικὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ την ὀφειλομένην εὐνοιὰν ἀποδιδότω. Where it is not said τῇ γυναικὶ ἀυτοῦ, to his wife. So more often in that same chapter. Nor does it favour the contrary opinion that in the Latin of Luke it is "mulier." For there it is the same as "uxor." Just as also in that of Paul, the same chapter 7, verse 4: "The woman has not power of her own body, but the man. And likewise the man also has not power of his own body, but the woman." Where the word "mulier" is twice put for "uxor," and in the Greek in both places it is γυνή. Nor is wife expressed otherwise in Scripture almost than by the word γυνή. In which signification you will find the word γυνή used by Paul in the single chapter already cited at least sixteen times, and frequently indeed without the addition of the pronoun. So in verse twenty-seven: Δέδεσαι γυναικί; μὴ ζήτει λύσειν. Λέλυσαι ἀπὸ γυναικός; μὴ ζήτει γυναῖκα. "Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." So in verse XI he had said: Καὶ ἄνδρα γυναῖκα μή ἀφίεναι. "And let not the husband put away his wife."

[290] Thus far Halloix; nor indeed wholly

ineptly, contends: but since that word neither of itself, contending that the word γυνὴ, in Latin mulier, is employed by Luke in the sacred text recited above to signify wife; so that surely even from the things which he brings forward here it is sufficiently and more than sufficiently clear that Hilduin, contrary to what Launoy (see this Commentary, numbers 7 and 8) judged, did not lack every reason for which he might judge that Dionysius and Damaris were spouses and were converted to the faith by Paul the Apostle together with their whole household. But, the matter standing so, what is to be thought of the whole reasoning of Halloix, expressed in the words already recited? The word, indeed, both the Latin mulier and the Greek γυνὴ, is not seldom used in the sacred letters to signify the same as uxor wife, nor is the addition of any pronoun always required for that. But in the examples which he brings forward both from St. John Chrysostom and from the sacred Letters, those words, as will become evident to one considering them, are determined to signifying the same as uxor either by other words joined to them or by the very subject treated of; so that from those examples it can by no means be argued that the same words, which surely are not of themselves determined to signifying a wife, are used in the text of Luke of which we speak here to signify a wife, unless perhaps they are understood to be determined to that signification either by other words which it contains or by the subject with which it is concerned. Let us consider, then, whether the matter stands so. In the sacred text of which we speak here, certain men are first said by Luke to have adhered to Paul and believed, without determining who these were. And since this is so, this sacred Writer, by then adding Among whom also Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them, can seem to determine, at least in part, those who adhered to Paul and believed, and therefore by the others whom he records as converted to the faith by Paul with Damaris and Dionysius to understand a certain and definite class of some, contained under the men whom he first said indefinitely adhered to Paul and believed, and extending to fewer than these extend to.

[291] nor by others occurring in Luke, to that signification, I suppose so because otherwise, as Halloix has already observed before me, Luke would assert the same thing twice, which appears absurd in so short a text as is the one of which we treat here. For since he writes that certain men, among whom he says were Dionysius and Damaris, adhered to Paul and believed, by this very fact he indicates that besides Dionysius and Damaris still others had been converted to the faith; so that surely, when he then subjoins that still others adhered to Paul together with Dionysius and Damaris, he must be judged to have written the same thing twice unless some definite class of those converted to the faith is understood by these. Hence further it comes about that these words of Halloix recited above about the sacred text of Luke which we are discussing here — Those words "And others with them" do not signify all others besides Dionysius and Damaris (for thus the same thing would be said twice, since it was said above of the others, "But certain men, adhering to him, believed"), but signify only those who believed jointly with Dionysius and Damaris — do not seem wholly inept, nor certainly foreign to what the matter is. But is, as he subjoins, by the words of Luke which he cites, And others with them, the household of Dionysius and Damaris necessarily to be understood, and is therefore the word, both the Latin mulier and the Greek γυνὴ, by which she is designated in the sacred text, determined to signifying a wife? How that can indeed be asserted for certain, I do not sufficiently see; for although the word, whether the Greek γυνὴ or the Latin mulier, in order to be used to signify the same as uxor, does not always require the addition of some pronoun, it is nevertheless not determined certainly enough to signifying the same as uxor in the adduced text of Luke from the fact that Luke, by these words And others with them, does not set up the discussion about all those of whom he had spoken by these, But certain men, adhering to him, believed.

[292] as here by one reason For what if by the words And others with them Luke wished to indicate not the household of Dionysius and Damaris, as Halloix judged, but certain other more illustrious persons? That surely appears to me not at all unlike the truth. For besides that Luke, where he spoke of certain men converted to the faith by St. Paul the Apostle without determining who these were, presently counts among these Dionysius the Areopagite, certainly more illustrious than all the others converted to the faith at Athens by Paul, two other things bring it about that I suppose the sacred text of Luke of which we speak here can be not at all ineptly so explained: the one is that Luke, if he had wished to designate the household of Dionysius and Damaris by these words And others with them, would seem likely to have done it otherwise than he does, in the Greek idiom employed by him; the other is that, although the word γυνὴ, in order to be determined to signifying a wife, need not necessarily have a pronoun joined to it, the Evangelist nevertheless would seem likely here to have joined to it the pronoun ἀυτὸς, put in the genitive case, according to the common and received manner of speaking, in order to remove the ambiguity of the expression, if he had wished to signify that Damaris was the wife of Dionysius. Come, considering the natural and commonly used manner of speaking, do you judge that anyone, whether he uses the Greek or the Latin idiom, would speak correctly and rightly if, wishing to signify that Dionysius and Damaris were enrolled among the heavenly ones with their household, and that she was his wife, he used only these following words: Dionysius and a woman named Damaris and others with them have been placed by God among the heavenly ones?

[293] They reply indeed — which I have just touched upon, and by a second it is proved, and which Halloix too insinuates not obscurely in the words recited above — that in Luke's text the word γυνὴ, or mulier, is determined to signifying the same as the word uxor signifies by the following words, And others with them, inasmuch as by these, because they are preceded by these, But certain men, adhering to him, believed, the household of Dionysius and Damaris is designated. But in order to answer this last point, from which chiefly they make Damaris the wife of Dionysius, otherwise still than I have already done, and at the same time to show that Luke, if he had wished to designate the household of Dionysius and Damaris by the aforesaid words, would not very probably have spoken as he speaks in the text related above: for the most part the Greeks, when by a pronoun to which they prefix the preposition σὺν they wish to signify the household or company of those of whom they have just spoken, place a relative pronoun before the preposition σὺν; so that, if Luke had wished to designate the household of Dionysius and Damaris, he would seem likely to have used not only these words, καὶ ἕτεροι σὺν ἀυτοῖς, but the following, καὶ ἕτεροι, ὅι σὺν ἀυτοῖς; especially since the word ἕτεροι does not properly signify, as Halloix would have it, the same as ceteri the rest in Latin, but, as all the Lexicons of the Greek tongue which I at least have been permitted to see give assurance, entirely the same as alii others in Latin; and the word ἕτεροι, or others, if it has subjoined to it only these two words, σὺν ἀυτοῖς, in Latin with them, and not the following three, ὅι συν ἀυτοῖς, in Latin who were with them, seems to signify in the alleged sacred text which we are examining not necessarily household or company, but only fellowship in the conversion.

[294] It is not therefore sufficiently evident to me, as it was to Halloix, is determined, that Damaris was not the wife of Dionysius, more probably, that Luke, when he first disclosed in general some who adhered to Paul, then designated specifically the house of Dionysius the Areopagite, that is, himself and his wife and his domestics. Halloix indeed, in order to prove both that the house or household of Dionysius is designated by Luke and that Damaris is held for his wife, argues further in the following manner: If St. Luke had wished to signify some other woman, and not the wife of Dionysius, he would have added, as is customarily done, the particle τις, a certain, and would have said: Καὶ γυνή τις, ὀνόματι Δάμαρις, "And a certain woman named Damaris." But neither is there τις in the Greek, nor "quædam" in the Latin. But when discourse is set up indefinitely, as seems to be done in Luke's text, about some person, whether man or woman, everyone knows that this is not seldom, nay very often, done, contrary to what Halloix would have, without the addition of the particle quædam or any other equivalent; and writers commonly met with will easily teach this to one not sufficiently acquainted with the matter. Now indeed, since this is so, and from what has already been said it appears very doubtful whether Luke wished by these words And others with them to designate the household of our Saint and of Damaris, the word γυνὴ, mulier, with which he designates Damaris, is certainly no more determined to signifying a wife from these same words than from elsewhere. Nay on the contrary the same word seems to be used by the sacred Writer solely to signify a woman or female in general, because he does not join to it — whatever they may argue to the contrary — the pronoun ἀυτοῦ, his, otherwise than he would probably have done according to the commonly received manner of speaking if he had wished to signify that Damaris was the wife of Dionysius. And hence it now comes about that, the weight of the reasons on both sides having been carefully balanced, it appears more probable that Dionysius was not joined in marriage with Damaris. But although I suppose so with most of the learned, far be it from me nevertheless to pronounce this opinion of mine and theirs certain and indubitable.

[295] the contrary opinion meanwhile For besides that the reasons which make for it are not wholly convincing, as it is easy to perceive from what has already been disputed, the contrary opinion, founded on reasons by no means wholly inept, as I have already warned above, has moreover three holy fathers supporting it, namely Chrysostom, Ambrose and Maximus, the Scholiast of the Works of Dionysius already praised above. I transcribe the words of each which bear on this. Those of Ambrose in his epistle to the people of Vercelli, already cited above, are these: Yet from this number (namely of the philosophers) the Apostle did not depart without a grace. For indeed Dionysius the Areopagite too believed, with Damaris his wife and many others. And so that assembly of the most learned and eloquent showed by the example of those believing that they had been overcome by a simple disputation; those of Chrysostom, which are included in the words of Halloix already given above, these following: But did not that Areopagite, citizen of that most superstitious city (Athens), follow him together with his wife at a single oration (namely Paul's)? and finally those of St. Maximus, in Cordier, in his Prologue which he set before the Scholia woven by himself on the Works of St. Dionysius, these: I indeed do not think that it was without cause that, before all who then believed through the work of St. Paul, the excellent Dionysius alone was by the God-bearing writer (namely St. Luke)

named, his dignity also being added (for he says, the Areopagite); nay rather I conjecture that mention was made of him with his household both on account of the excellence of his wisdom and on account of his eminent manner of blameless life among the Athenians.

[296] appears not certainly false. In these words indeed the last of the praised Fathers nowhere expressly calls Damaris the wife of Dionysius; but since he openly declares that in the Acts of the Apostles mention was made not only of Dionysius the Areopagite but also of his house or household, and no other words by which mention of Dionysius and his household is set up occur in the Acts of the Apostles than these following, already recited above, But certain men, adhering to him, believed; among whom also Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them, Maximus undoubtedly judged that by these, Among whom also Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them, mention of Dionysius and his household is set up, and therefore that there by Damaris the wife of the Saint, and by the others who are narrated to have been converted to the faith together with her and Dionysius, the domestic staff of our Saint and of Damaris, or the persons who belonged to their household, are designated by Luke. Now indeed, since this is so, and the two other holy Fathers just praised also held themselves most certainly persuaded, as is clear from what has already been said, that Dionysius was joined in marriage with Damaris, and the things already disputed above show that they did not lack every reason for so supposing, the opinion which holds Damaris for the wife of Dionysius is not certainly false, nor would I dare pronounce it such, although meanwhile the contrary appears more probable on account of what has been said above.

[297] Let us now discuss the other things which the words of Luke about Dionysius offer for discussion, Further, the things which, from two epistles partly recited here, namely how, at what age and when the Saint was converted to the faith. In the second tome of the Works which are circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, and edited by Cordier at Antwerp in the year 1634 (whose edition, as I would wish the reader to be warned here, I always use in the course of this Commentary), page 88 and following, there is recited an epistle written, as the title bears, to St. Polycarp, in which Dionysius, or certainly the writer who imposed on himself the name of Dionysius, addresses St. Polycarp in this manner, in order that he should try to bring to the faith Apollophanes the philosopher, formerly the companion of Dionysius, some other words still being premised: Say to him (namely Apollophanes): What do you think of that eclipse of the sun which happened at the saving cross? For then both of us, present together at Heliopolis and standing by, saw in a wonderful manner the moon coincide with the sun (and yet it was not the time of conjunction), and again about the ninth hour of the evening the same restored supernaturally to the diameter opposite the sun. Nay, recall to his memory something else too. For he knows how we saw that meeting of the Moon begin from the East and come as far as the edge of the Sun, and only then spring back, and again that that meeting and withdrawal took place not from the same side, but from the opposite of the diameter. These are the things which then happened wholly above nature, and can be done only by Christ, the creator of all things, who does great and wonderful things of which there is no number. Say these things to him, if it is lawful, and do you, Apollophanes, refute them, if you can, and that against me, who was then present together with you, and at the same time looked on and observed everything with admiration. Finally then, inspired by I know not what spirit, Apollophanes too burst forth into prophecy, and, turning to me, said: These, O illustrious Dionysius, are the vicissitudes of divine things.

[298] Moreover, yet another epistle stands in tome 2 of the Works of St. Dionysius, page 273 and following, in the same Cordier, [customarily circulated under the name of Dionysius, are drawn out, are wholly uncertain,] published also by many others, and written, as some would have it, by Dionysius the Areopagite to Apollophanes, when the latter had already been converted to the faith of Christ; and in it Dionysius writes thus to Apollophanes, some other things still being premised: After … the supernal light of the paternal glory, by its own will, let down the rays of its splendour upon the darkness of your mind, at the same time it poured into my inmost heart that I should recall to you a matter full of piety: namely how, when we were staying at Heliopolis (I was then about twenty-five years old, and you almost of the same age as I), on a certain sixth day and likewise at about the sixth hour, the sun was horribly darkened, the moon passing under it, not because God, but because the work of God could not shine at the setting of his true light; and how I then asked you what you, most prudent Man, thought about this; and you gave an answer of such a kind that, fixed deep in my mind, it can slip away by no oblivion at all, not even by the image of death. For when the whole world had been uniformly covered with the foul gloom of darkness, and the globe of the sun had already begun to be cleared and to shine again, then, taking up the rule of Philip Aridaeus, and having contemplated the spheres of heaven, we discovered, what was otherwise most well known too, that an eclipse of the sun could not have happened at that time: Then we observed that the Moon had come under the sun from the East and had obstructed its rays until it hid the whole, though at other times it was wont to meet it from the West; nay, we noted also that, when it had come to the extremities of the sun and had covered its whole disc, it then ran back toward the East, although it was a time which demanded neither the presence of the moon nor the meeting of the sun. I therefore, O sanctuary of manifold learning, being ignorant of so great a mystery, addressed you thus: What does this thing mean, O Apollophanes, mirror of learning? Of what mysteries do these unwonted portents seem to you indications? But you, with a divine mouth rather than with the speech of a human voice, said: "These, O good Dionysius, are changes of divine things." Finally, when I had noted the day and the year, and had perceived that that time agreed, the signs crying out together, with what Paul had once announced to me as I hung upon his mouth, then I both gave my hands to the truth and freed myself from the bonds of falsehood.

[299] are drawn out from the epistles, are wholly uncertain, If therefore both the epistles already praised are to be ascribed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite as their genuine author, it will be permitted to gather from their words just recited chiefly four things here. And of these, the first — which does not bear closely on the present purpose, and which, if it were true, would be a by no means doubtful argument that Dionysius was imbued with the knowledge of Philosophy, as I decided above — will be that Dionysius, having been excellently cultivated in polite letters in his fatherland, or, as indeed appears more probable from what has been said above, at Athens, betook himself into Egypt, according to the custom then still fairly usual, in order to learn there the more abstruse sciences and above all mathematics; the second, that Dionysius saw at Heliopolis in Egypt the prodigious eclipse of the sun which happened while our Lord Jesus Christ was hanging on the cross; the third, that the Saint was then twenty-five years old, and therefore was about forty-two years old when he was converted to the faith at Athens by Paul the Apostle, which most probably happened in a space of almost sixteen years from the Passion of Christ — inasmuch as he only arrived there (go to tome 5 of June of our Work, page 402, number 13) about the year XLIX, and the Passion is customarily tied for the most part to about the year XXXII or the following; and the fourth finally, that it came about partly through that eclipse seen by Dionysius that he was converted to the faith when Paul was announcing the Gospel at Athens. But that the epistle which was written by Dionysius the Areopagite to St. Polycarp is not a genuine offspring of Dionysius is far more probable from the things which I shall bring forward below when I treat of the Works customarily circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite; so that from it none of the said four heads, and by name not that which concerns the eclipse seen by Dionysius, which happened while our Lord Jesus Christ hung on the cross and helped the Saint's conversion, can be made certain and indubitable. As regards now the other epistle, which Dionysius wrote to Apollophanes, this is rejected as spurious and supposititious by not a few even of those very persons who contend that the Works which are circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite truly have this Saint for their author; so that it is still less suited than the other, written to Polycarp, to win certain and indubitable credit for the things which it supplies to be gathered about Dionysius.

[300] But, you will say, Hilduin writes thus in the Life of St. Dionysius written by himself, number 5: nor do they come out more certain from Hilduin, For he (namely Dionysius), being in his twenty-fifth year of age, and copiously imbued with almost all the arts, roused by zeal for increase, together with Apollophanius, his fellow philosopher, out of desire for the discipline of Astrology, migrated to Heliopolis in Egypt; where, living together with him, when the God-man, our Lord Jesus Christ, hung fixed to the cross for the salvation of the world through the envy of the Jews, and the sun, fearing the death of its Lord, changed the rays of its light into the horror of foul night, and covered the regions of the world with the gloom of darkness, astonished at the sign of that same darkness, previously unseen and unheard of, as one taught in the disciplines of all letters, he said: This night, which we wonder to have descended new to our eyes, has signified the coming true light of the whole world, and has declared with serene condescension that God will shine forth upon the human race; and in these words Hilduin teaches us almost the same things as I have just said are understood about our Saint from the praised epistles of Dionysius to Polycarp and to Apollophanes. I confess it runs so; but that writer, who cannot make certain and indubitable by his own authority alone the things he writes about things so ancient, drew them either from the very two said letters, or certainly (see this Commentary, number 41) from the epistle of Aristarchus to Onesiphorus the primicerius, supposititious and of no credit according to what has been said above. Whatever therefore Hilduin writes too, whether about the age of twenty-five years at which Dionysius went to Egypt with Apollophanes, or about the prodigious eclipse seen by him which happened at the Passion of our Lord, he by no means brings it about that all those things, and by name the things which are understood about the manner, time and year of age at which Dionysius was converted from the two epistles praised above which are circulated under the name of Dionysius, come out more certain.

[301] Nor is there reason either why Syncellus should be adduced to this end, [the year meanwhile in which the Saint was converted being defined fairly closely.] who in the encomium of St. Dionysius composed by himself praises, for the eclipse seen by Dionysius while Christ was suffering, a tradition derived from parents to children; for since Syncellus flourished only in the ninth century, and therefore, from what is to be said below, long after the Works which are circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite had been discovered, that that tradition did not first arise from these, for

who would assert for certain? But, you will say, since the matter stands so, by what means, then, at what age of Dionysius, and in what year shall we say that this Saint was converted to the faith of Christ by Paul? Since the Acts of the Apostles, in the place already cited so very often above, mention only one oration, delivered by Paul in the Areopagus, by which Dionysius could have been moved to embrace the faith, it certainly appears indubitable that it came about by this, the grace of God co-operating, that Dionysius converted himself to the faith; but whether any other things besides contributed anything to it is wholly uncertain. Hilduin indeed, in the Life of St. Dionysius woven by himself, number 6 and the two following, makes mention of a disputation set up by Paul with Dionysius, of a miracle wrought by the Apostle, and of very many other things besides which preceded the conversion of Dionysius; but all these, besides that they do not sufficiently agree with the things read about the Saint's conversion in the Acts of the Apostles, were taken from the likewise spurious and supposititious epistle of Aristarchus to Onesiphorus (go again to number 41 of this Commentary); so that they merit absolutely no credit. As regards now the year in which Dionysius was converted to the faith, Paul the Apostle, as I have already warned, citing tome 5 of June of our Work, first came to Athens about the forty-ninth year of Christ; and since this is so, and the Saint was converted to the faith by Paul when he had first put in at Athens, as the Acts of the Apostles testify, we certainly have the year in which this was done determined fairly closely. In about the year of Christ XLIX, therefore, Dionysius was converted to the faith; and since he was then a senator of the Areopagus, and therefore undoubtedly a man of weight, it appears most probable that this happened in about the thirtieth or even fortieth year of his age.

§ XVI. Whether he had Hierotheus as his master, and whether the latter ever occupied the Athenian chair as bishop, or even certainly existed in the nature of things.

To the Dionysian Works, which make Hierotheus the teacher of Dionysius, In the Works customarily circulated under the name of St. Dionysius the Areopagite not a few places occur in which this Saint of ours, or certainly he who hides under his name, most clearly betrays that Hierotheus was his teacher. And first indeed he does so in the Book On the Divine Names, chapter 2, in these following words: But these things have also been sufficiently explained by us elsewhere, and very greatly celebrated beyond the mode of nature by our renowned teacher (namely Hierotheus, as he expressly names him a little after) in his Theological Elements; then he does that very thing still more clearly in chapter 3 of the same book, writing thus: And here perhaps not undeservedly a reason is to be rendered why, when our eminent teacher Hierotheus had accurately collected the theological principles, we, as if they did not suffice, have written both others and this present theological Treatise. Moreover, in chapter 4 of the same book again, toward the end, he first writes thus: These things too our renowned initiator in sacred things, inspired by the divine spirit, set forth in his amatory Hymns, which it will not be out of place to recall, and to weave as it were a certain sacred head to this discourse of ours on love; and then he subjoins to these words of his the words of his praised teacher, expressly and distinctly calling him Hierotheus; so that indeed St. Dionysius the Areopagite, or certainly he who fabricated the Works customarily circulated under the name of the Areopagite, teaches us very plainly that Hierotheus was his teacher. But although this is so, I judge it is to be doubted whether he was in fact the teacher of Dionysius the Areopagite, if the authority alone of those Works is considered, inasmuch as these, from what is to be said below, were more probably foisted upon Dionysius the Areopagite. In order therefore that something certain may be decided here, it must be considered whether anything besides occurs from elsewhere which proves that Hierotheus was the teacher of Dionysius the Areopagite.

[303] At the IVth day of October, on which Hierotheus stands inserted in many sacred Calendars, some sacred calendars of the Greeks agree: he is adorned in the Great Menaea of the Greeks with this following eulogy, which I transcribe here only in Latin, the version being taken from Halloix in the Lives of the Illustrious Writers of the Eastern church who flourished in the first century of the Christian era: He was in the Areopagus one of the nine senators. Who, first imbued with the doctrine of the faith by Paul the Apostle, was then ordained bishop of Athens. And he himself instructed the great Dionysius in the same doctrine of faith in Christ. The same also was precentor at the most holy burial of the Mother of God in the most holy assembly of the Apostles, wholly going out of himself, wholly forsaking himself, and held by all by whom he was heard and seen to be seized by God and a divine praiser. At length, his life well spent, when he had gladdened God by his illustrious manner of living and signal virtues, he departed to the Lord. Hierotheus therefore imbued St. Dionysius the Areopagite with the doctrine of the faith, and therefore was his teacher, if only the eulogy of him already transcribed here from the Menaea is consonant with the truth; and with this two Menologies of the Greeks, namely the Sirletian and the Basilian, agree in the eulogies with which they likewise honour Hierotheus at the IVth day of October. But since all those sacred Calendars of the Greeks are much more recent than the Works ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite by the reckoning of many, it is scarcely, or not even scarcely, to be doubted that what they record about Dionysius the Areopagite, instructed in the doctrine of the faith by Hierotheus, first flowed from the said Works.

[304] There is added that the things which the same eulogy already given from the Menaea records were done by Hierotheus at the obsequies of the most holy Virgin Mary but neither do these, as is proved, were taken, even as regards almost the very words in which they are set out, from the book On the Divine Names, chapter 3. I transcribe here the passage corresponding to them in that place, so that the matter may become evident even from the comparison of the two alone. Thus then, in the cited book and chapter, Dionysius the Areopagite, or certainly he who imposed this name on himself, speaks of Hierotheus: He (namely Hierotheus), after the theologians, as you know, excelled all the other sacred praisers, wholly going out of himself, wholly forsaking himself, and suffering fellowship with the things which he praised; finally he was judged by all by whom he was heard and seen, both known and unknown, to be inspired by the divine power and plainly a divine praiser. Here surely are words not much discordant from the words which bear on the subject just mentioned in the eulogy given from the Menaea; so that even hence it does not appear to be doubted that the author of the eulogy drew from these the things which I have already said. Hence further it comes about that it appears most probable, nay even all but indubitable, that the rest too of the things handed down about Hierotheus in the eulogy recited from the Menaea, and found at the same time either expressly marked or at least indicated in the Works ascribed to Dionysius, were likewise taken from these by the author of the same eulogy.

[305] merit any credit in this matter, Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and it is hitherto doubtful and uncertain whether the Works customarily ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite truly belong to him, the deeds which are narrated in them must likewise be of doubtful credit; so that therefore the things which are related in the eulogy given from the Menaea about Dionysius the Areopagite instructed in the doctrine of the faith by Hierotheus, and about the latter's deeds at the funeral of the most holy Virgin Mary, by no means merit indubitable credit, because, as appears from what has been said, they were undoubtedly taken only from Works more probably foisted upon Dionysius the Areopagite. Nor would the matter be otherwise even if they had not been drawn by the author of the Menaea from the Writings attributed to Dionysius. For besides that he commits to writing very many things straying very far from the truth, as daily experience teaches us, he lived so many centuries removed from the age of Dionysius the Areopagite that the things he writes about this Saint of ours without the testimony of an older writer or monument are either to be wholly despised, or certainly to be held in only slight esteem. And so now it comes about, in great part, even from this, that it can likewise not undeservedly be called into doubt whether Hierotheus, as is handed down in the Menaea and the Basilian Menology, was ever bishop of the Athenians.

[306] nor was Hierotheus ever bishop of Athens. And indeed that Hierotheus never presided as bishop over the Athenian church appears sufficiently certain from elsewhere. For what? Since in the eulogy given from the Menaea he is narrated to have been not only bishop of Athens but also the teacher of Dionysius the Areopagite in the doctrine of the faith, the authors of the eulogy as well as of the Basilian menology most probably, nay all but undoubtedly, wished to signify that Hierotheus was the first bishop of the Athenian church; nay since Dionysius did not make the Athenian see vacant by his death before about the year 120, Hierotheus must surely, unless you wish to attribute to him an age which surpasses belief, have sat first of all in the Athenian see, if he ever occupied it. But that no one presided as bishop at Athens earlier than Dionysius the Areopagite is established from Eusebius Pamphili. For he, in two places of the Ecclesiastical History, the only ones in which he mentions Dionysius the Areopagite, most manifestly declares that he was the first bishop of the Athenian church: in the former, namely book 3, chapter 4, in these words: Add to these (namely the bishops) that Areopagite, Dionysius by name, whom Luke in the Acts of the Apostles writes was converted to the faith after Paul's address delivered in the Areopagus among the Athenians, and who, another Dionysius, pastor of the church of the Corinthians, narrates, was designated the first bishop of the Athenian church; and in the latter, namely book 4, chapter 22, writing in this manner: He (namely St. Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians) declares moreover that Dionysius the Areopagite, converted to the faith by Paul the Apostle (for so the Acts of the Apostles relate), first administered the episcopate of the Athenian church.

[307] [Nay, whether he ever was in the nature of things can be doubted, nor from the things which] Thus Eusebius Pamphili; by which words surely, since he openly testifies that Dionysius the Areopagite presided first as prelate over the Athenian church, he in no way permits us to believe that Hierotheus governed the Athenian church with the office of bishop first of all. Further, since no writer either who flourished before the VIth century, and before the Works commonly ascribed to Dionysius were discovered, anywhere makes mention of a teacher of Dionysius named Hierotheus, nay no memory of him stands either in the Little or old Roman Martyrology or in any other older sacred Calendars, it seems that it can be doubted not only whether Hierotheus presided as bishop over the Athenian church, but even whether he ever existed in the nature of things. For if he had ever existed in the nature of things, and had been of such holiness, learning and celebrity of name as is boasted, who would easily bring himself to think it would have come about that he should be passed over in silence both in all the ancient sacred Calendars and likewise by all the ancient writers? No one surely, so far as I think, unless perhaps someone who does not shun the mark of excessive credulity. But some things seem to prevent Hierotheus from being eliminated at once both from the Catalogue of the bishops of Athens and from the class of things which have at some time existed, which in his Life,

composed by himself and inserted among the Lives of the illustrious Writers of the Eastern Church who flourished in the first century of Christ, Halloix writes. And first indeed he says that the glory of being the first bishop of Athens fell to Dionysius the Areopagite, the name of St. Hierotheus being passed over in silence by some, because, when the latter had departed into other lands, Dionysius remained much longer at Athens to found the church there. But since there is the deepest silence about an Athenian episcopate of Hierotheus, not only among some, but among absolutely all writers of tried faith older than the eighth century, that which, as I have said, Halloix says by no means proves that Hierotheus was ever bishop of Athens, or even that he existed in the nature of things at all.

[308] Whether the other things which he still brings forward which are related concerning him accomplish this better, let us examine. In the said Life, chapter 4, he records the following of Hierotheus: Those books having been composed in such a style as was then fitting, and commended to Dionysius the Areopagite, his singularly beloved disciple, he departed into other regions, and, having passed through Italy and Gaul, he penetrated into Spain. For that he was there and spread the seed of the Gospel far and wide is sufficiently established; but he settled chiefly among the Arevaci (these are a people of Tarraconensian Spain), and chose as the seat of his episcopate the city of Segovia, situated among them. Whence also he is found inscribed, with no false praise, as the first bishop of Segovia in the series of prelates. This people, therefore, he brought over from the superstition of many gods to the worship and religion of the one true God, and from wild and barbarous manners to human equity and to the gentleness and modesty of the Christian life. Of the other things which he gloriously performed, and of the gift of prophecy with which his hearer St. Dionysius indicates not obscurely that he was endowed by God, and likewise of the other gifts granted him by God, nothing in particular has been handed down to memory; but that he placed a most blessed end, like a golden colophon, upon his life, spent diligently in holy labours and studies, is held as thoroughly established. Since indeed his name is entered among those Saints who are celebrated by the Church with sacred honours or a solemn commemoration, both in the Greek and in the Latin Martyrologies. In the Roman, indeed, on the fourth day of October, in very few words thus: "At Athens, of St. Hierotheus, disciple of the blessed Apostle Paul." But in the Menology more fully: "The birthday of our holy father Hierotheus, who was one of the number of the Areopagites, who, having been instructed by the Apostle Paul, instructed that great Dionysius the Areopagite in the faith of Christ. And having lived well and religiously, he passed to the Lord."

[309] So there. Of the place, however, or time or manner of his passing nothing sufficiently certain has been ascertained. For although Spain now possesses his most sacred head, and his sacred relics, and deservedly glories in it as in a most precious pledge, yet that it was anciently taken from Greece, the very Greek inscription affixed to that same head makes plain. For it was found thus in Greek characters: ΚΕΦΑΛΗ ΙΕΡΟΘΕΟΥ· and not in Latin: Head of Hierotheus; nor likewise in the vernacular speech of that nation among whom so great a treasure lay hidden. Wherefore it must be judged that nothing is nearer the truth than that these noble relics of so great a man were carried away from Greece into Spain (in whatever way at length this came about). Now, however, the Cistercian religious of the monastery of Sandoval in the territory of León possess them, and, having more certainly identified them, hold them in very great honour. Thus far the Life of Hierotheus composed by Halloix; and on the last words, nearly, of this Life (in which he also asserts, without the testimony of any sufficiently ancient writer, that Hierotheus was an Areopagite and was converted to the faith by the Apostle Paul before the latter had arrived at Athens), which treat of the translation of the relics of Hierotheus into Spain, the same Halloix observes: So divine a pledge is preserved … by the Cistercian religious of the monastery of Sandoval, in the diocese of León, where the most learned and at the same time most religious Francisco Bivar saw and uncovered it. The monks indeed showed him the head, but he showed them the hidden token of the head, which had escaped them. For they could produce no writing by which they might prove that it was that of St. Hierotheus; but he, when he had uncovered the head, wrapped in a small linen cloth, found a Greek inscription as most certain testimony.

[310] preserved in the monastery of Sandoval, are recorded, Thus far Halloix: hear now how this writer himself, who, in the words already recited, records that those sacred relics were uncovered by Bivar in the monastery of Sandoval, speaks in his Annotations on the fictitious Chronicle of Flavius Lucius Dexter, at the year of Christ 71. After, he says, I had put an end to Commentaries of this kind at Rome, having returned into Spain, when I happened to be staying among the Cistercian monks of the monastery of Sandoval, of the diocese of León, and was diligently turning over the sacred chests of relics, I learned that the head of the divine Hierotheus was preserved there. For so the old monks asserted it had been handed down by their elders. And the sacred head indeed stood among the relics; but a writing concerning the matter was lacking. Nevertheless it came into my mind to strip the skull of the small linen cloth in which it had been kept for many years past, most tightly wrapped and sewn with threads, if perchance it might be possible to find some testimony of the matter within; and behold, under God's auspices, a most ancient little piece of parchment, half a finger in length, was found with part of the skull, the abbot and all the monks being present, with Greek characters of this kind: ΚΕΦΑΛΗ ΙΕΡΟΘΕΟΥ, which means, Head of Hierotheus. An incredible joy suddenly entered the minds of all, and for so great a gift, the abbot so ordering it, a procession was solemnly celebrated in thanksgiving, and a Mass of the same divine doctor and prelate was sung on the very day of the finding, which was the fifth of April in the year of the Lord 1625, dedicated to the feast of St. Isidore.

[311] the contrary or opposite, that these either in no way at all Thus the praised writer Bivar; let us now discuss both the things which he here relates of Hierotheus and those which Halloix relates in the words given above, and which, if they were true, would prove that this man is by no means to be held a fictitious Saint. I begin from the journey by which Hierotheus, having left Greece and travelled through various regions, at length penetrated into Spain. Halloix, in order to give this as proved, cites in his Annotations on chapter 4 of the Life of Hierotheus the Chronicle of Flavius Lucius Dexter at the year 71. But besides the fact that that Chronicle by no means has in its support the Greeks, who make mention neither in their sacred Fasti nor anywhere else of a journey undertaken by Hierotheus into Spain, it is now held by all the learned for an altogether fictitious monument and of no credit: and since this is so, the journey of Hierotheus into Spain related by Halloix, of which we speak here, deserves no credit whatever, inasmuch as it is founded solely on a monument spurious in every respect; nor is it necessary to bring forward more in order to prove that that journey never took place. Hence, further, it follows also now that it is not to be believed either that Hierotheus was the first bishop of the church of Segovia in Spain, which Halloix, in the words transcribed above, asserts likewise on the sole credit of the same spurious Chronicle. And in very fact also, that Hierotheus did not preside as first bishop over the church of Segovia becomes altogether certain and beyond doubt even from this, that St. Fructuosus, the ancient and certain patron of the Segovians, first occupied that see, as the Marquis of Agropoli, afterwards also Marquis of Mondéjar and Count of Tendilla, showed most luminously, first in the most learned Commentary which he published under the title of Discurso Histórico, and then in another Work which he entitled Ecclesiastical Dissertations for the honour of the ancient patrons against modern fictions.

[312] Whatever, therefore, is narrated by Halloix and others either about the Spanish journey of Hierotheus deserve credit, or of the thing which they ought to prove, or about his Segovian episcopate, certainly, unless it be confirmed by better monuments than those which have hitherto been adduced, will by no means bring me in any way to persuade myself that Hierotheus certainly ever existed in the nature of things, much less that, having traversed various regions, he penetrated into Spain and there presided as first prelate over the church of Segovia. Let us now examine whether the other things which are recorded of the relics of the same Hierotheus are not of a nature at least to bring it about that he is believed certainly to have existed in the nature of things. Two things are contained in the words of Bivar just recited which tell in favour of the sacred relics of Hierotheus recorded by him and Halloix, or of their genuineness; the one is the testimony which he says was found in the small linen cloth in which the relics of Hierotheus had been wrapped, inscribed on a most ancient little piece of parchment in Greek characters and words signifying Head of Hierotheus; the other, the tradition which was transmitted from their elders to the older monks of the monastery of Sandoval. That I may now declare what is to be thought of those two heads, on which alone are built the things which Bivar, and Halloix from him, relate of the relics of Hierotheus preserved in the monastery of Sandoval, and likewise of those very relics themselves, I begin from the former of them.

[313] Since, by the admission of Bivar himself, absolutely no writing to be proved by no means at all, as the reasons existed in the possession of the monks of Sandoval which would prove that what was shown to him was the head or skull of Hierotheus, and since these men, moreover, were undoubtedly ignorant whence, when and by whom these relics had been brought to their monastery, it comes about even from this that I hold the inscription or testimony, couched in only two Greek words signifying the head of Hierotheus, as very suspect. From the very Greek language, indeed, in which that inscription or testimony is expressed, they contend that the head of Hierotheus first existed among Greek men, and was afterwards, whether against their will or with their consent, translated from Greece into Spain; but rightly? By no means, in truth. For why could not Spaniards have attached an inscription expressed in Greek characters to a head already existing among themselves, not brought from elsewhere, which they either believed to be the head of Hierotheus, a Greek man, or wished to be held for the head of Hierotheus? Do you think perhaps that they were so ignorant of the Greek language as not even to be capable of expressing and forming two words in the Greek tongue? But let us grant even that the head, which is believed by the monks of Sandoval to be the head of Hierotheus, was brought into Spain from Greece; neither would it follow from this that it is the head of the Hierotheus frequently mentioned in the Works commonly ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite. For what if, after the discovery of the Works ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, from which the knowledge of Hierotheus was first drawn, some Greek impostor brought from Greece into Spain the head preserved at Sandoval, and falsely asserted that it was the head of Hierotheus, adducing as testimony the inscription with which he himself had furnished it? Surely, since nothing seems able to be alleged by which you could prove that this certainly did not happen, and since not a few frauds were formerly committed, as is sufficiently agreed among the learned, in the relics of Saints, especially in those which were transferred from one region to another, who, I ask, would assert for certain that absolutely no fraud and guile intervened in the relics of Hierotheus, which no writing extant at Sandoval proves to be truly those of Hierotheus?

[314] brought forward here into the open, Moreover, since in the inscription or testimony which was found in the wrapping of the relics Hierotheus is not distinguished by the title or appellation of Saint, and only the bare name of Hierotheus is joined to the word head, it can be doubted whether they are the relics of the Hierotheus who is mentioned in the Works ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, or of another of the same name. But indeed, to come now to the second thing on which what they record about the relics of Hierotheus preserved in the monastery of Sandoval is founded: the older monks of the monastery of Sandoval had understood from their elders that the relics which Bivar says he found in the said monastery of Sandoval, with the attached inscription which he records in the words transcribed above, were those of Hierotheus. So it altogether stands: but the elders from whom the monks of the monastery of Sandoval had understood this did not add who that Hierotheus was whose relics they said existed among them; so that neither from the tradition which the praised monks alleged are the things which are related about the relics of the Hierotheus mentioned in the Works of Dionysius, preserved in the monastery of Sandoval, rendered more certain. Nor is there reason for you to reply further that no Hierotheus other than the one who is mentioned in the Works commonly ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite is found entered in the number of the Saints; for even if this be so, it does not straightway follow that the Hierotheus whose relics Bivar found in the monastery of Sandoval is the very one who is thrust forward in the Dionysian Works as the teacher of Dionysius. For since the inscription which Bivar found attached to the head included neither the title of Blessed nor of Saint prefixed to Hierotheus, what if that head was neither of a Blessed nor of a Saint, but only of a Man named Hierotheus, who, although he does not stand inscribed in the sacred Fasti, nevertheless closed his last day leaving behind him a reputation for sanctity?

[315] Indeed, that the matter stood so I would easily believe even from this, persuade, in what way they are suited, is sufficiently clear, that it is established in custom, and constant usage prevails, that in the inscriptions by which sacred relics or reliquaries are marked, the title either of Saint or at least of Blessed is prefixed to the names of the Saints whose they are. However that may be, the things recorded by Bivar, who besides, in ascribing certain Saints to Spain and in championing the fabricated Chronicle of Dexter, deserves either no credit or at least only a moderate one, cannot, because of the things which I have opposed to his words just recited, bring me in any way to persuade myself that Hierotheus either came into Spain, or even ever certainly existed in the nature of things. Several sacred Fasti of the Greeks indeed, as I have already noted above, list Hierotheus in the number of the Saints on the fourth day of October; but since they do this, as cannot be doubted, solely on the credit of the Dionysian writings, which, as I shall show below, more probably do not have Dionysius the Areopagite as their author, these too are not of a nature to make me hold Hierotheus for an undoubted Saint who once existed, any more than is the present-day Roman Martyrology; for even though in this also Hierotheus is commemorated on the fourth day of October, the most learned men who reformed it thought fit to adopt Hierotheus only because they found him both not rarely mentioned in the Works ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, and entered among the Saints in the Sirletian Menology; but that this Menology, inasmuch as it was compiled only in a more recent age, and the Works commonly ascribed to Dionysius, can in no way at all bring it about that Hierotheus is held for an undoubted Saint who once existed in the nature of things, is clear enough and more than enough from what has already been said.

[316] Furthermore, those who contend that Hierotheus is to be held for an undoubted Saint, [as neither from the apparitions of Hierotheus which are narrated as granted to a Nun,] and that he was the teacher of Dionysius the Areopagite, still summon to the defence of their cause the Life of Catherine of Jesus, a Nun in the great convent of the Order of St. Mary of Mount Carmel at Paris, written in the past century by Madeleine of St. Joseph, prioress of the same convent, at the command of Cardinal Bérulle of the Holy Roman Church, in which, in French words which I render into Latin, the following things are read of the said Nun, named Catherine of Jesus: In these great straits she almost always received much help from several of the number of those Saints whom we have mentioned; and further from saint Hierotheus, whose presence she frequently enjoyed, since he appeared to her many times. God had granted her this Saint, that she might be directed by him, and be helped in certain Works and other things which occurred in her Life, which was wholly directed by God and by the Saints whom He had granted her here to spur her on to the perfection which He required of her; from these words, therefore, of the praised Life they contend that Hierotheus, inasmuch as he is recorded both to have appeared rather often to the praised Nun and to have assisted her in great straits, is by no means to be held for a fictitious Saint who never existed in the nature of things. But besides the fact that nothing at all compels us to admit as true whatever is narrated in the aforesaid Life of Catherine, visions, apparitions and revelations, especially those which are said to have been made to women, however pious, are wont to be admitted very rarely, and not without the greatest caution, since very often both illusion and imagination have a place in them.

[317] and an objection sought besides from elsewhere. Moreover, what is the chief point, it is agreed among all the learned that visions and apparitions made to particular persons have not such force that they can render certain and undoubted any matter which is controverted among historians and called into doubt for want of ancient monuments by which it might be confirmed. Neither, therefore, does what is narrated of the visions and apparitions of Hierotheus granted to the aforesaid Catherine render it certain and undoubted that he ever was in the nature of things. But there will perhaps still be someone who contends that it is not to be doubted that Hierotheus existed in the nature of things, because very many things are recounted of him in the Dionysian Works, and their author, even if he falsely feigned himself to be Dionysius the Areopagite, nevertheless does not seem likely to have attributed all those things to a person who had never existed in the nature of things. But neither is this of a nature to bring it about that Hierotheus is believed certainly to have existed in the nature of things. For why could it not have come about that the author of the Dionysian Works, who imposed on himself the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, deliberately attributed all the things which he writes of Hierotheus to a fictitious person, lest, if he had ascribed them to a true person, or one who had once existed in the nature of things, the fraud or imposture might perhaps in the lapse of time be detected from the things which might perhaps have been handed down to memory about that true person by other writers not seen by him? Indeed, that it did not in very fact happen so is by no means certain, and therefore it must needs remain doubtful whether Hierotheus existed in the nature of things; and whether that which can chiefly still be brought forward to prove the contrary settles the matter, the following § will disclose.

§ XVII. Whether he was present at the obsequies of the most holy Mother of God, Hierotheus also being present at them, and what is to be thought of some other things which are narrated of the Saint and are founded almost solely on the Works ascribed to him.

From the words of Nicephorus, which Nicephorus Callistus, book 15 of his Ecclesiastical History, chapter 14, writes thus of St. Pulcheria, empress of Constantinople: While Marcian held the sceptre of the Roman empire, she together with him took great pains to find by every means the venerable, immaculate and God-bearing body of her (namely, of the most holy Mother of God), and to deposit it in the church. And so she summoned Juvenal, archbishop of Jerusalem, and the bishops of Palestine, who had come to Chalcedon for the holding of the council, and asked whether the divine temple and sacrosanct body of the Mother of God was still found among the Palestinians in that tomb in which it had first been laid: that she wished it to be translated thence and brought into this her temple, that it might be the guard and protection of the imperial city. For since both the city itself and the temple had been dedicated to her, she said it was fitting that her sacred body also should not be absent from them. To which words Juvenal replied: That in the sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures the death of the holy and ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, is not at all related: but that it is received by a most ancient and altogether most true tradition that, when her death was at hand, the Apostles came aloft in the air to Jerusalem from the very ends of the earth, where they had been dispersed to carry out their preaching; that by a most auspicious vision the hymns of the divine powers were heard: and that without any noise, in a manner altogether wonderful, her Word and Son came, and received her divine Spirit into His hands.

[319] But that her sacrosanct body, borne forth with angelic and at the same time Apostolic hymnody, are recited here, was laid in a certain tomb in the region of Gethsemane, and that until the third day the angels sang perpetual songs in that place in honour and praise of the Mother of God. And when on the same third day he who had not been present with the choir of the Apostles at the death of the virgin Mother had arrived (that this was Thomas is asserted, as may be seen in Nicephorus, book 2, chapter 23, and below from the Euthymiac History), and had with prayers most earnestly besought that sacred assembly to open the tomb, so that he too might pay the due and last honour to the mother of the Word, and when, the seal having been removed, the sepulchre had been opened, her sacred body was not found at all: but only her grave-bands were found in their place untouched and inviolate, just as if the body had left them a little before, and indeed fragrant with an indescribable sweetness of odour. Thus far Nicephorus; and he next subjoins some things by which he teaches that the most sacred body of the Virgin Mary, joined again with the soul and endowed with immortality, was carried into the heavens by the ministry of angels, and that so it seemed also to the Apostles themselves, since they had not found it in the tomb in which it had been laid; and then presently he makes discourse of those who were present at the obsequies of the most holy Mother of God. Here are the words in which he sets this out.

[320] Further, he says, he added that there were then present there with the disciples [by these words, that Dionysius together with Hierotheus at the most holy Mother of God's] that most holy Timothy, Dionysius the Areopagite, and the great, divine and wise Hierotheus: as Dionysius himself has testified on this matter in his writings to Timothy concerning the blessed Hierotheus: "He also met with the hierarchs, inspired by the divine power, when both I and he, and many others of our holy brethren, had come together to the sight of the body which had received the author of life and God. There was present there also James, the brother of the Lord, and likewise Peter, the supreme and venerable summit of the Theologians. Then after that sight it seemed good that all the hierarchs, each as he was able, having sung a hymn, should celebrate the infinitely powerful goodness of the divine virtue. You remember well how there, after the theologians themselves, he far surpassed all the other sacred initiates, wholly going out of himself, wholly dwelling in mind outside himself, and altogether suffering in harmony with the things which he sang, so that by those by whom he was heard

and seen, he was at the same time known to be inspired by the divine power, and judged a divine singer of hymns. But what shall I tell you of the things which those holy men then uttered in theology, since, unless I have forgotten even myself, I remember that I heard many hymns and certain parts of those divinely inspired praises while you were singing?"

[321] [was present at the obsequies of the Mother of God, and some other things we are taught;] When Juvenal had said these things, the princes themselves asked him to send to them that holy tomb, well sealed together with the sacred garments: and when it had been so transmitted by Juvenal, they consecrated and deposited it with pious hands in the very great church of Blachernae built by them, next to the sacred and divine table. This was done while Marcian was still living. For her venerable garment was brought some while after, under Leo: and it was placed in the round church which Leo the Great built, as we shall tell in his history. Not a few things indeed are we taught by Nicephorus in these words, which I have now recited both in this and in the two immediately preceding numbers; and first, to pass over other things, that the most holy Virgin Mary died and was buried not at Ephesus, as very many contend, but at Jerusalem; then, that the same most holy virgin was assumed into the heavens with body and soul together; third, that the Apostles, carried aloft through the air from the various parts of the earth into which they had been dispersed to preach the Gospel, came together in a wonderful manner at Jerusalem when the death of the Mother of God was imminent; fourth, that St. Dionysius the Areopagite and Hierotheus, his teacher, were present at that supernatural assembly; and fifth and finally, that in proof of this matter the Writings or Works which are circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite were cited by Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem, in the speech which he delivered to Marcian and Pulcheria, the Augusti, at the time of the council of Chalcedon, that is, in the year 451, and which the recited words of Nicephorus contain.

[322] but these are drawn from the Euthymiac History, supplied from it by Damascene, But of these five heads only the last three concern our purpose, and these alone therefore I undertake to discuss, leaving the other two untouched (although meanwhile I would not doubt that the most holy Mother of God was assumed into heaven with body and soul together), at the same time intending to show also that these do not suffice to make it believed that Hierotheus ever existed in the nature of things. Let us come to the matter itself. The Apostles, when the death of the most holy Virgin Mary was imminent, are said in the speech of Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem, exhibited by Nicephorus (go to his words already recited), to have been transported at one and the same time through the air to Jerusalem from various parts of the world far distant from Jerusalem, by an altogether singular and unheard-of miracle. But whence did he learn of so prodigious a transportation of the Apostles? From the most ancient and most true tradition, you will doubtless say, which still flourished at that time in Palestine. Most rightly indeed; for so the very speech which Nicephorus attributes to Juvenal teaches us. But whence did Nicephorus have it ascertained that this speech was delivered by Juvenal to Marcian and Pulcheria, the Augusti? John Damascene, in the second Homily on the dormition of the blessed Virgin Mary, having first set down an address to the sepulchre of the Mother of God and certain words which he attributes to it by the figure of personification, then subjoins thus: You see, most beloved Fathers and Brethren, with what words this most celebrated sepulchre addresses us. But that these things are so is clear from the Euthymiac history, in which, book III, chapter XL, it is written expressly thus: "We have said above how saint Pulcheria built several churches in the city of Constantinople. One of these is that which was built at Blachernae in the first years of the reign of Marcian, of divine memory.

[323] When, therefore, they had erected there a venerable shrine to the most praised and most holy Mother of God and perpetual Virgin Mary, and words bearing on this point and had adorned it with every kind of ornament, they sought for the sacrosanct body which received God. And having summoned Juvenal, archbishop of Jerusalem, and the bishops of Palestine, who were then staying in the royal city on account of the council assembled at Chalcedon, they address them in these words: We have heard that at Jerusalem there is a principal and distinguished church of the Mother of God and perpetual Virgin Mary, in the place which is called Gethsemane, where her body which bore life was laid in a coffin. We wish therefore these relics to be brought hither, that they may be a protection to this imperial city. To these things Juvenal answered thus: Although the things which happened at the death of the holy Mother of God are not at all set forth in the pages of the holy and divinely inspired Scripture; yet we have received from an ancient and most true tradition that at the time of her glorious dormition all the holy Apostles, who were traversing the world for the salvation of the nations, were raised aloft in a moment of time and came together at Jerusalem: and when they were there, an Angelic vision appeared to them, and the divine melody of the heavenly powers was heard. And so with holy and heavenly glory she commended her holy soul to God: and her body, which had received God, borne forth with Angelic and Apostolic chant, was deposited in a coffin at Gethsemane: in which place the angels did not cease for three whole days to lead choirs and sing. But after three days, the angelic singing having ceased, the Apostles who were present, since Thomas alone, who had been absent, had come after the third day and wished to venerate the body which had borne God, opened the tomb.

[324] And her most praised body they could by no means find: are recited here, but when they had found the linen cloths lying, and had been suffused with the indescribable odour which proceeded from them, they closed the coffin. Then, astonished by the oracle of the mystery, they could think only this, that He who was pleased to take flesh in His own person from the virgin Mary, and to be made man and born of her, God the Word and Lord of glory, and who after the birth preserved her virginity incorrupt, was pleased also, after she had departed, to honour her immaculate body with incorruption and translation before the common and universal resurrection. There were present then with the Apostles the most holy Apostle and first bishop of the Ephesians Timothy, and Dionysius the Areopagite, as the great Dionysius himself testifies in the things which he wrote concerning the blessed Hierotheus, who was himself then present, to the aforesaid Apostle Timothy, in these words: Since even among the God-inspired prelates of sacred things themselves, when we also, as you know, and many of our sacred brethren had come together to behold the body which gave the beginning of life and received God (and there were present also James the brother of the Lord and Peter, the supreme and most excellent summit of the Apostles), then, the body having been seen, it pleased all to celebrate with hymns, as each was able, the infinite goodness of the divine power: after the Theologians he surpassed, as does not escape you, all the other heralds of sacred things, wholly going out of himself, wholly rapt outside himself, and so affected that he seemed joined with the things which he sang, and by all who heard and saw him, and to whom he was either known or unknown, he was judged seized by the divine power and plainly a divine author of hymns.

[325] are drawn from the History; But why should I hold discourse to you of the things which were divinely spoken there, since, unless I have forgotten myself, I know that I often heard from you some parts also of those divine chants. The emperors, having heard these things, asked of the archbishop Juvenal that that holy coffin, together with the garments of the glorious and most holy Mother of God which had been placed in it, be sent to them, secured with a seal. And when they had received it, they deposited it in the venerable shrine of the holy Mother of God which is situated at Blachernae. And thus indeed these things were done." Now compare these words supplied by John Damascene from the Euthymiac History, as he himself says, with the words of Nicephorus Callistus transcribed above, and you will see that the narrative expressed by these agrees with the narrative expressed by those, not only as to substance, but also as to almost all the circumstances. Wherefore, since Nicephorus, being a writer only of the fourteenth century, is much more recent than John Damascene, who flourished in the seventh century and cites the Euthymiac history, it follows that he drew his narrative either from this, or from a similar literary monument which had originally been taken from the same History (for no older writing is found from which these things could have flowed entire); so that this narrative cannot deserve greater credit than the Euthymiac History. In order, therefore, that we may be able to decide something about the former, we must examine what is to be thought of the latter.

[326] but with this, how certainly, contrary to Lambeck, Lambeck, in book 8 of his Commentaries on the imperial Library, page 171 and following, writes thus: It is to be noted fourthly … that the narrative (namely that given by us above from Nicephorus) … is taken from another much older history, which St. John Damascene (go to his words recited above) calls the Euthymiac, not indeed, as someone might falsely believe, because it was composed by a certain Euthymius, but because it contained the life and deeds of St. Euthymius, archimandrite or abbot in Palestine, who died in the year of Christ 472. I am fully persuaded, however, that the author of that Euthymiac history was Cyril the monk, disciple of St. Sabas the abbot, who died in the year of Christ 531, of whom there is still extant in Laurentius Surius, in the first tome of the approved Histories of the Saints, at the 20th day of January, a certain narrative of the life and deeds of St. Euthymius. The title of this narrative in Surius is this: "The Life and deeds of our holy Father, the great abbot Euthymius, by Cyril the monk. But perhaps the whole history has been rendered in paraphrase by Metaphrastes." Thus Surius: I, on the contrary, hold for certain that that Euthymiac History of Cyril was not rendered in paraphrase by Symeon Metaphrastes, that is, enlarged by a somewhat broader and more copious exposition, but, the other way round, that it was abbreviated and reduced to an epitome either by the already mentioned Metaphrastes himself or by someone else. For this is clear even from the very opening of that narrative which is now extant; since, although it has been abbreviated just as the History itself, it nevertheless retains some sort of shadow of its former amplitude; namely, a general commendation of historical study, which would befit not any sort of narrative, but a regular or complete History.

[327] To this, besides many other arguments of the same kind, is added whose words are transcribed here, thought, that it is certainly established from the oration of St. John Damascene cited above that that Euthymiac History of Cyril the monk, when it was still entire, was of such great size that it was divided not only into chapters but also into books. For after St. John Damascene has there set forth at considerable length, and with much ornament of thoughts and words, how and with what circumstances he himself believes the most glorious Assumption of the most blessed Mother of God took place, at length he closes and confirms that narrative with the authority of the Euthymiac History, as being

from the fortieth chapter of whose third book he recites word for word that whole passage in which is contained the speech of Juvenal, archbishop of Jerusalem, on the death and Assumption of the Blessed Mother of God, delivered before the emperor Marcian and his consort Pulcheria at the Synod of Chalcedon. For although the passage already mentioned is no longer found in the abbreviated Life of St. Euthymius which is now extant, there is nevertheless no doubt at all that it once existed in the entire Euthymiac History, and was omitted through the fault of the abbreviator, as pertaining less to the deeds of St. Euthymius. For St. Euthymius lived in the times of Juvenal, archbishop of Jerusalem, and of the synod of Calchedon or Chalcedon, and therefore it is not surprising that Cyril mingled many things also about the deeds of Juvenal and about the Synod of Chalcedon into that very ample History which he wrote of the Life of St. Euthymius. Would that that History had come down to us entire! For now we have only the Epitome mentioned above, in which, although in some places mention is still made in passing of the archbishop Juvenal and of the Synod of Chalcedon, yet most things pertaining to the same have been omitted; and among these also that excellent passage on the death and assumption of the Blessed Mother of God, the preservation of which we owe to St. John Damascene.

[328] Thus far Lambeck, contending, namely, that the Life of St. Euthymius the abbot, from the Life of St. Euthymius by Cyril of Scythopolis, written by Cyril of Scythopolis, is the very History which is praised by St. John Damascene under the name of the Euthymiac History, although meanwhile the things which have been transcribed above, and which were once read in it by John Damascene, are nowhere found in that Life. Since, however, Cyril of Scythopolis was an author of the best faith and repute, as may be seen in our work, tome 2 of January, under St. Euthymius, page 299, and also lived nearly contemporary with most of the things which he committed to writing, assuredly, if the Euthymiac History praised by John Damascene had been composed by him, as Lambeck would have it, it could by no means be called into doubt whether the things recorded in it about the speech delivered by Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem, to Marcian and Pulcheria, the Augusti, and about the things said in it, accord with the truth. But the reasons by which Lambeck was impelled to contend that that Euthymiac History is one and the same with the Life of St. Euthymius written by Cyril of Scythopolis in no way render proved what he would have. For, to begin with refuting those things which he brings forward first in proof of his opinion, from the opening of the narrative or Life of Euthymius, as it stands published by Surius, it does not at all follow that this is only a compendium or epitome of a more prolix History or Life; for that opening was composed not by the biographer of St. Euthymius, Cyril of Scythopolis, but by Metaphrastes, although meanwhile (see tome 2 of January of our Work, page 302) it coheres in continuous series with the rest of the narrative in Surius, just as if it were Cyril's own.

[329] a writer of the best faith, composed, different But let the matter even be as Lambeck would have it, and accordingly let the Life of Euthymius published by Surius be only a compendium or epitome of a more prolix Life composed by Cyril of Scythopolis; by what reason, I ask, does Lambeck render it proved that there was likewise committed to writing in this Life what John Damascene affirms he read in the Euthymiac History about the speech delivered by Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem, to Marcian and Pulcheria, the Augusti? The monks of the Benedictine Congregation of St. Maur published, among the Analecta Graeca edited by them in the year 1688, a most prolix Life of St. Euthymius the abbot by Cyril of Scythopolis, from a codex of the best repute, which was then preserved among the manuscripts under number 3063 in the distinguished Colbertine library; in this work, however, which appears to be the genuine and original Life of St. Euthymius, and such as it was written by Cyril of Scythopolis, there occurs absolutely no trace of the speech adduced above by John Damascene from the Euthymiac History, which Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem, delivered to Marcian and Pulcheria, the Augusti; nor can any sufficiently solid reason be brought forward which would persuade that the said speech, though related by Cyril of Scythopolis, was omitted in the Life of St. Euthymius which I have mentioned, published by the Benedictine monks of St. Maur. That speech, indeed, concerns the deeds of St. Euthymius rather little; but even from this it appears that one must conclude that it was not related by Cyril of Scythopolis, a writer assuredly, from what has been said, of the best repute and accurate, in the Life of St. Euthymius composed by him, and that this Life therefore is not the same as the Euthymiac History.

[330] into the open Moreover, who would assert for certain that, because that speech pertains rather little to the deeds of Euthymius, it would have come about that he who set these forth in compendium would not have recorded it? But indeed, Lambeck says further, the Euthymiac History or Life of the monk Cyril of Scythopolis, when it was still extant entire — that is, the one in which the things which John Damascene supplied above from the Euthymiac History were noted — was divided not only into chapters but also into books; so that it was certainly of no small bulk or size. I admit, so it is: for, for the things which Damascene gives above from the said History, he cites its third book and fortieth chapter. But what then? This by no means supports Lambeck, but rather opposes him. For since the Euthymiac History praised by Damascene was divided into several books and chapters, while on the other hand no Life of St. Euthymius is found which is divided into several books, it appears beyond doubt that this Life, whether such as it stands in Surius or such as it was published by the monks of the Benedictine Congregation of St. Maur, cannot be one and the same with the Euthymiac History praised by John Damascene. But, you will say, Cyril of Scythopolis wrote the Lives of three Saints, namely of St. Euthymius, of St. Sabas and of St. John the Silentiary, and these, in the order in which they are named here by me, go under the name of so many books written by Cyril (consult our Work at the 20th day of January under St. Euthymius). This objection, as a conjecture of Lambeck's — which this writer, however, does not frame, if not elsewhere, certainly not in the words just recited — Cotelier proposes in tome 3 of the Monuments of the Greek Church, page 575, and at the same time also refutes.

[331] Hear him speaking. As for the rest, he says, the conjecture of Lambeck, adduced here that the Euthymiac History, which is praised by John Damascene in oration 2 on the Assumption of the Blessed Mary from the third book, was so called because it treated chiefly of Euthymius, and was written by Cyril of Scythopolis, a monk of the monastery of St. Euthymius, the greatest part of the things which he narrates being taken from that monastery; and that it consisted of three books, the first on the life of Euthymius, the second on the life of Sabas, the third on the life of John, bishop and solitary; that conjecture, I say, rests on no foundation and lacks all probability. For what, I ask, has a History of Marcian, Pulcheria and Juvenal, and also of the death and Assumption of the Mother of God, to do with John, the bishop and Hesychast, who flourished under Zeno and the following emperors? Add that nothing similar is read in the life of John. Finally, in the Pandect of Nicon, Royal Mss. 2423, 2424, Sermon 35, as in Lambeck, book 5, Ms. Codex 251, there is cited from the Euthymiac History a narrative about the Eunuch Chrysaphius and Flavian of Constantinople, almost exactly as it stands in Theophanes' Chronography, page 84 C. That account, moreover, can in no way pertain to the said John, nor to the affairs of Euthymius or of the Euthymians. I append it, that it may also be compared with Nicephorus, Ecclesiastical History XIV 47.

Ἐκ τῆς Ἐυθυμιακῆς ἱστορίας. Ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις καὶ μακάριος Φλαβιανὸς, ὁ τοῦ μακαρίου Πρόκλου την προεδρίαν Κωνσταντινουπόλεως (Al. την ΠΚ. μετὰ τὸν ἅγιον Πρόκλον) διαδεξάμενος. Χρυσάφιος τις εὐνοῦχος τοῦ παλατίου τοῦ Θεοδοσίου τοῦ μικροῦ, τῇ Φλαβιανοῦ χειροτονίᾳ φθονήσας, ὑπέθετο τῷ βασιλεῖ ἀκάκῳ ὄντι, δηλῶσαι τῷ πατριάρχῃ ἀποστεῖλαι τὰς ὑπὲρ τῆς χειροτονίας εὐλογίας. ὁ δὲ Φλαβιανὸς, καταροὺς ἄρτους ἀπέστειλεν εὐλογίας· καὶ δηλοι ὁ Χρυσάφιος, ὅτι χρυσὰς ζητεῖ ὁ βασιλεύς. ὁ ἐπίσκοπος ἀντεδήλωσε, μὴ ἔχειν μὲν χρήματα ἀποστεῖλαι, εἰ μή τισι (Al.τι) χρῆσομαι, φησὶ, τῶν ἱερῶν κειμηλίων· πλην πάντα τὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῖς πτωχοῖς ἀφιερῶνται· γίνεται οὖν ἐκ τούτου οὐ μικρὰ λύπη ἐν τῷ μέσῷ, Πουλχερίας ταῦτα μὴ εἰδυίας.

[332] In the edition of the Works of St. John Damascene prepared by Michel Le Quien at Paris in the year 1712, the reasons show it distinct, these Greek words are likewise adduced by this writer in his annotations on the second Homily on the dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and are rendered into Latin thus: The holy and blessed Flavian received the presidency of Constantinople after the blessed Proclus. A certain Chrysaphius, a Eunuch of the palace of Theodosius the younger, burning with envy at the ordination of Flavian, suggested to the emperor, who was by no means wicked, that he should signify to the patriarch that he ought to send eulogiae or gifts on account of his ordination. Chrysaphius further declared besides that the emperor was asking for money in gold. But the bishop replied that he had no money to send, unless he were to take it on loan against the sacred treasures, since all the resources of the Church were consecrated to the use of the poor. This therefore created great vexation, Pulcheria knowing nothing of these things. Indeed it is manifest that these things concern the deeds neither of John the Silentiary, nor of Euthymius or Sabas. Wherefore, since they are not only not recorded in the Lives of these three Saints written by Cyril of Scythopolis, as they are extant today, but it also appears most probable that they were not recorded in them as they were originally composed, it is indeed not to be doubted that the Euthymiac History praised by John Damascene, from which the things already recited were taken, is different and distinct from the praised Lives of the three Saints, or, if you prefer, from the three books which either constitute or comprise them.

[333] [does not deserve credit, certain things related above by Nicephorus are not certain,] Moreover, even though those three Lives written by Cyril may indeed be held for so many books, yet they are nowhere called by this most trustworthy writer a History divided into three books. All things, therefore, having been carefully weighed, it appears most probable, nay altogether beyond doubt, that the Euthymiac History was not written by Cyril of Scythopolis. And since this is so, and the History accordingly has an uncertain and altogether unknown author, it can be called into doubt whether he deserves entire credit here, nay whether he did not invent at his own pleasure, or at least commit to writing from untrustworthy rumours of the common people, many of the things which he records and which are found handed down to memory by absolutely no other older writer of tried faith; as also, and by name indeed, whether the things he recounts about the speech delivered by Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem, to Marcian and Pulcheria, the Augusti, and about the various things asserted by him in it, accord with the truth. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, fittingly indeed both the Apostles,

when the death of the most holy Virgin was imminent, were transported in a wonderful manner to Jerusalem from the various parts of the earth into which they had been dispersed, and the testimony of Dionysius the Areopagite, which insinuates that both this our Saint and Hierotheus were then present with them, was adduced by Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem, is not proved from that speech, or from the Euthymiac History in which it is included; and since from this History, as I have already shown, whatever things are recounted by Nicephorus in the words transcribed above, and in the speech of Juvenal to Marcian and Pulcheria, the Augusti, included in them — whether concerning that wonderful transportation of the Apostles to Jerusalem or concerning Dionysius, who was then present with them and at the obsequies of the most holy Mother of God together with Hierotheus — were originally drawn, he assuredly does not make these things certain by his authority, and accordingly whether Hierotheus ever existed in the nature of things remains, as I laid down before, altogether uncertain.

[334] nor by the testimony ascribed to Dionysius, even if this also, not of Christ's, Nor can this and the other things already said be made certain from the testimony of Dionysius the Areopagite which Juvenal is said to have cited. For besides the fact that, from what has already been said, it is very doubtful whether that patriarch of Jerusalem alleged the testimony of Dionysius, it is also very uncertain whether it truly belongs to Dionysius. Moreover there are also those who contend that, even if it truly were Dionysius's, it would nevertheless by no means follow from it both that the Apostles were transported to Jerusalem to attend to the funeral of the most holy Virgin Mary and to behold her sacred body, and that Dionysius and Hierotheus were then present with them. Various men who are of this opinion could be adduced here; but let Serry be one in the place of all, who in the sixty-fifth of his exercitations on Christ and His virgin mother, number 10, writes thus: We shall not be loath to add one thing only, in order to put fables as far away as possible: that that prodigious arrival of the Apostles flying together to the obsequies of the virgin by no means rests on the support and authority of pseudo-Dionysius, although in relating that fiction John Damascene and Symeon Metaphrastes, in their orations on the dormition of the Mother of God, and Nicephorus Callistus, book 2 of his History, chapter 20, display his name. For what Pseudo-Dionysius has in chapter 3 of the Divine Names is said not of the body of the virgin, to behold which they came, but of the sepulchre of Christ the Lord. And thence arose the error, that the praised writers read σώματος for σήματος in the Greek text, and made a body out of a sepulchre; namely the body of the Virgin out of the sepulchre of Christ the Lord.

[335] This is the observation of the learned men Claude Joly, Jacques Combefis, as Serry and others contend, of the sepulchre, Louis Thomassin and Tillemont, strengthened by the authority of St. Maximus and of Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, who long ago read SEPULCHRE, not body, σήμα in Greek, not σώμα. Here are the very words of pseudo-Dionysius: "Even among our pontiffs themselves, who were moved by the divine Power; when both we, as you also know, and many of our holy brethren had come together for the sake of seeing the sepulchre, not the body, which had received the Author of life and God (and there were present also James, the brother of the Lord, and Peter, the greatest and most ancient pillar of the theologians), and it had pleased, when that had been seen, that the goodness of the divine weakness, endowed with infinite power, should be praised by all the pontiffs, each as he was able." Which words reason itself also requires to be understood of the sepulchre of Christ which was seen, not of the body of the Mother of God which was seen, even if no authority of eminent men supported it. For what is it that, when that had been seen, the Apostles are said to have praised the goodness of the divine weakness, except that it was a matter of the weakness assumed by God that Christ died, and was even buried? He was crucified through weakness, yet He liveth by power. 2 Cor. XIII, verse IV. If, therefore, Serry is to be agreed with here, both the Apostles and Dionysius and Hierotheus came together in a wonderful manner at Jerusalem, not to behold the body of the most holy Virgin, but the sepulchre of the Lord.

[336] But Baronius, having stated beforehand, in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year 48, number 7, that that passage of Dionysius, mentioned here by Serry and above by us more than once, but of the sacred, as Baronius, whose words here is to be understood not of the sepulchre of the Lord, but of the body of the Mother of God, and that it was so understood in fact by John Damascene, Andrew of Crete, Epiphanius the priest, Metaphrastes, Euthymius, Maximus, Glycas and others, then proceeds thus, in order to render his opinion on the matter proved: But let us investigate the matter itself a little more accurately; and that these things may be rendered easier and more certain, let us set down here the words of Dionysius himself, which are read thus in Greek: Ἐπεὶ καὶ παῤ ἀυτοῖς τοῖς θεολήπτοις ἡμῶν ἱεράρχαις, ἡνίκα καὶ ἡμεῖς, ὡς οἶσθα, καὶ ἀυτὸς καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν ἱερῶν ἡμῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐπὶ την θέαν τοῦ ζοαρχικοῦ και θεοδόχου σώματος συνεληλύθαμεν &c. These last words of Dionysius denote beyond doubt that those erred, among whom was Anastasius, who interpreted them as the flesh containing the divinity of Christ; for at the time when Christ was fixed to the cross and rose from the dead, Dionysius had not yet been converted to Christ, nor indeed had Paul. Another was the interpretation of Hilduin (as we have said), that those words are to be taken not of the body of the Mother of God but of the sepulchre of the Lord's Body: which Matthew Galenus greatly favours in his Areopagitic Preface, although he himself thinks that the same can more rightly be taken of the house of John the Evangelist, into which the most holy Virgin was received.

[337] are recited, would have it, and various things into the open, But let each of them say, I should like, what reason there was that, not only Hierotheus and Dionysius, but also the Apostles, previously dispersed through the world, came together to behold the sepulchre of the Lord, or the house of John, and applied then all their zeal and force of spirit to behold or praise them? Had they not often seen them at other times and been able to praise them more abundantly? Granted that Hierotheus and Dionysius, or any other disciples of the Apostles who had never hitherto seen it, came together there and were divinely stirred to its praises; what shall we say of the Apostles, who, remaining at Jerusalem for many years after the Ascension of the Lord, as we have seen, and always having before their eyes both the sepulchre of Christ and the house of John, should then above all have come to behold them, and have been freshly stirred to praise them? Thus far Baronius, and rightly indeed; for who would believe it came about that the Apostles, who had very often looked upon the sepulchre of the Lord, should then again, when Dionysius and Hierotheus, converted not long before the fiftieth year, had come to Jerusalem, have come to behold and praise it, transported in a wonderful manner to Jerusalem from far-distant regions? Serry, therefore, and the others who judge that Dionysius is to be interpreted of the sepulchre of the Lord, do not seem to have noticed that the said coming of the Apostles, whether to the body of the Virgin or to the sepulchre of the Lord, could not have happened before about the fiftieth year, when Dionysius the Areopagite had already been converted to the faith; at which time it is not probable that the Apostles were gathered in a prodigious manner from the various parts of the earth into which they had been dispersed, to behold the sepulchre of the Lord, which they had already seen very often.

[338] the objection also, telling to the contrary, Nor does Serry prove what he would have by the reason alleged by him. For this very St. Maximus, whom he praises on his own side, overturns it. The matter is clear from the following words of Lambeck, which I subjoin, and which include the words of St. Maximus bearing on it: Thus far that ancient Latin version; where, as may be seen, the interpreter rendered την ἀπειροδύναμον ἀγαθότητα τῆς θεαρχικῆς ἀσθενείας as the very powerful goodness of the Divine infirmity. What, then, is this Divine infirmity or weakness, whose goodness endowed with infinite power the holy Apostles so greatly praised after the contemplation of the Body of the deceased Mother of God? None other, assuredly, than the most humble contraction into narrow bounds of the incomprehensible and all-comprehending Divine Majesty, by which it willed to imitate human infirmity and weakness, when it assumed flesh in the womb of the Most Blessed ever Virgin Mary, and lay hidden there until the birth for nine months like a most tender infant. For although by την θεαρχικην ἀσθένειαν; that is, the divine weakness or infirmity, the whole life and passion of Christ can rightly be understood, yet with respect to the Body of the deceased Mother of God, which then impelled them to praise the goodness of that Divine weakness, it is chiefly the mystery of the Incarnation and Nativity, which took place in the womb of the Blessed ever Virgin, that is to be understood here.

[339] from St. Maximus St. Maximus the martyr, who died in the year of Christ 662, confirms this in his Scholion on this passage in these words: Θεαρχικην ἀσθένειαν ἐνταῦτα φησι την ἑκούσιον τοῦ Ὑιοῦ ἄχρι σαρκὸς, ἁμαρτίας δίχα, συγκατάβασιν. Ἁμαρτίαν γὰρ πάντη ἀγνοήσας, κατηξίωσεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, μὴ ἐκστὰς τῶν ὀικείων, ἀναμαρτήτως ἁμαρτία γενέσθαι, ἵν᾽ ἡμᾶς τοὺς δουλωθέντας τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, διὰ τῆς δἰ ἑαυτοῦ ἡμῶν ὑιοθεσίας εἰς την ἀρχαίαν ἐπαναγάγῃ ἐλευθερίαν. Πλούσιος γὰρ ὢν θεότητι, πτωχεύει την πλουτοποιὸν πτωχείαν, ἀναλαβὼν ὑπερφυὼς την ἡμῶν σάρκα, ἴνα ἡμεῖς την ἐκείνου πλουτούσωμεν θεότητα· καὶ ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, καὶ Θεὸς κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ὑπάρχων, την τοῦ δούλου δἰ ὑπερέκχυσιν ἀγαθότητος ὑπέδυ μορφην. Λόγος ἁπλοῦς ὢν ἐνυπόστατος καὶ γεγονὼς ἀτρέπτως σάρξ. That is: "He here calls divine weakness the voluntary condescension of the Son of God even to a body, without sin. For since He was altogether ignorant of sin, He deigned for us, not abandoning what was His own, to be made sin without sin, that He might restore to their former liberty us who were enslaved to sin, through our adoption which was made through Him. For being rich in divinity, He becomes poor with an enriching poverty, assuming our flesh in a certain surpassing manner, that we might be enriched by His divinity: and though He existed in the form of God, and was God according to essence, on account of His outpoured goodness He put on the form of a servant. Being the simple Word, He was made, unchangeably, subsisting flesh. These things St. Maximus says of the mystery of the Incarnation and Nativity of Christ, which is chiefly signified here by τὴν θεαρχικὴν ἀστένειαν."

[340] Since, therefore, by the divine weakness, whose goodness endowed with infinite power the Apostles are said, in the text of Dionysius the Areopagite included in the words of Nicephorus and of the Euthymiac History recited above, to have praised together, being solved, the reasons adduced here the voluntary condescension of the Son of God even to a body without sin is understood by Dionysius, as St. Maximus, and not ineptly as it appears, thought, and since the Son of God assumed that body from the most holy Virgin Mary, it certainly by no means appears to follow, from the fact that the Apostles, when they had seen that which they had come together to behold, are said to have praised together the goodness of the divine weakness endowed with infinite power, that that which they came together to behold must have been the sepulchre of the Lord and not the most sacred body of the Mother of God. For since from the contemplation of this body, from which the Son of God assumed a body without sin, the Apostles

could be stirred to sing the praises of our Lord, and accordingly to praise together His goodness endowed with infinite power, I do not sufficiently see why by that which they came together to behold the sepulchre of the Lord must be understood. Is it perhaps because the contemplation of the Lord's sepulchre, but not likewise of the body from which the Lord had assumed a body, was of a nature to stir the Apostles to the praises of God? But I do not think this will easily be proved to anyone. Or will you perhaps assert that, because the Apostles are not said to have broken out into the praises of the Mother of God, it was not the body of the Mother of God but the sepulchre of the Lord that was looked upon by them according to Dionysius? But that He who had assumed a body from the body of the Mother of God should be praised redounded to the praise of the Mother of God, and nothing seems to have been more natural than that the Apostles, who from the sight of the most sacred body of the Mother of God had been carried away into admiration of the Works of the Lord, should have celebrated with praises the author of these and the creator of all things rather than a creature, however most worthy of being praised.

[341] Whatever, therefore, Serry argues from the infinite goodness of God praised by them, in order to prove that, according to the text of Dionysius persuade, the body of the Mother of God which we are here disputing, the Apostles came together to behold not the body of the Mother of God but the sepulchre of the Lord, by no means renders proved what he would have, namely that the Apostles, according to Dionysius, came together to behold not the body of the Mother of God but the sepulchre of the Lord. Nor does what he says of the word σήμα, sepulchre, in place of which John Damascene, Nicephorus Callistus and Symeon Metaphrastes wrongly read σώμα, body, in the Greek text, accomplish it either. For since the things adduced by Serry do not certainly prove that it was so wrongly read by them, nay, since on the contrary it is clear enough and more than enough from what has already been disputed that it could rightly have been so read by the same men, I would certainly not dare to accuse of error the reading which the praised ancient writers have transmitted to us. Hincmar indeed, archbishop of Reims, and even Hilduin, both writers of the ninth century, formerly read sepulchre, not body; but besides being more recent than John Damascene, who flourished in the seventh century and, from what has already been said, read σώμα, body, not σήμα, sepulchre, they do not have in their support the ancient copies of the Works which are circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite and which constantly read σώμα, body, not σήμα, sepulchre. Now as regards St. Maximus, who, Serry affirms, also formerly read sepulchre, not body, he, in his Scholia on the Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, observes as follows on these words, τοῦ ζωαρχικοῦ καὶ θεοδόχου, which are read in the Greek text we are here discussing: ζωαρχικὸν καὶ θεοδόχον σῶμα, τάχα τὸ τῆς ἁγίας Θεοτόκου λέγει, τότε κοιμηθείσης, the body which received the principle of life and God, he perhaps calls that of the Mother of God, then deceased.

[342] seem to be interpreted, certain and undoubted Since, therefore, Maximus thought that the σώμα, body, which in the Greek text is called ζωαρχικὸν καὶ θεοδόχον, or is asserted by Dionysius the Areopagite to have given the principle of Life and to have received God, was perhaps said by him to be that of the Mother of God, now deceased, it is most manifest that he never read σήμα in the Greek text of Dionysius, nor sepulchre in the Latin. And indeed, since St. Maximus wrote his Scholia on the Works of Dionysius, as they had been written in Greek and not yet translated into the Latin tongue, likewise in Greek, how could he have read sepulchre, as Serry says, in a Latin text which he did not have to light his way? Whatever, therefore, either Serry or others may argue, Dionysius the Areopagite, or he who imposed on himself his name, intended to signify by the text included in the words of Nicephorus and of the Euthymiac History recited above that the Apostles, with whom he says both he and Hierotheus were present, came together to behold not the sepulchre of the Lord but the most sacred body of the Mother of God. But, even if this be so, nevertheless the things which he intended to signify by it — namely that the Apostles flocked together to behold the body of the most holy Mother of God, now departed this life, and that Dionysius and Hierotheus were then present with them — do not on that account turn out certain. For since the Works containing the same text were, more probably, from what is to be said, falsely attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, and accordingly have as their author a man who, though different from Dionysius the Areopagite, nevertheless falsely imposed his name on himself, it can not unjustly be doubted whether he did not likewise invent, just as he invented himself as the Areopagite, the things which he writes of the concourse of the Apostles to the funeral of the Virgin and of the part which both he himself and Hierotheus had in it; so that accordingly these things which he hands down to memory in the praised text must needs be very doubtful and uncertain.

[343] But indeed, you will say, even if the Works which bear the name of Dionysius the Areopagite stands in the way, and it accordingly remains whether Dionysius and Hierotheus were falsely attributed to this Saint, it can nevertheless happen, nay perhaps did happen in fact, that the true author of those Works, by whom they were attributed to the Areopagite, had ascertained, either from ancient tradition or from older monuments which have now perished, that this our Saint and Hierotheus were present with the Apostles flying together to behold the most sacred body of the Mother of God. I admit, so it stands; for not each and every thing, as will be clear from what is to be said below, which occurs in the Works ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite is certainly invented and destitute of all testimony of an older writer; but what then? Since nothing sufficiently certain has hitherto been brought forward from elsewhere which would persuade that Dionysius and Hierotheus, as is related in the oft-mentioned text of the Areopagite, were present with the Apostles coming together to behold the most sacred body of the Mother of God, we by no means assert that these things — that the Apostles came together to behold the body of the Virgin, and that Dionysius and Hierotheus were then present with them — are certainly false or invented, since perhaps they were drawn from an approved source; but we do call into doubt whether they ever happened in fact, since it is altogether unascertained by us that they were received from a source of this kind. And indeed that we do this not unjustly is clear even from this, that absolutely no writer is found older than the sixth century, in which the Works usually circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite were first brought to light, who made mention of Hierotheus, much less of his presence with Dionysius in the gathering of the Apostles to behold the body of the Virgin.

[344] In the little book written on the passing of the Virgin, indeed, which was already known from the fifth century, were present at the funeral of the Mother of God, nay whether he ever existed, the Apostles are related to have been gathered at the same moment from the various regions into which they had been dispersed, and, carried aloft through the air to Jerusalem, to have flown together to attend to the funeral of the most holy Virgin, when her death was imminent. But that Opusculum was declared apocryphal in the Roman council over which Pope Gelasius I presided, and there is now no learned man to be found who does not reject it as spurious and fabricated. Moreover, since the praised little book, in which it was narrated by an impostor that the Apostles, already dispersed through the whole world, flew together by a vast portent to the most holy Mother of God as she lay at the point of death, seems to have been composed, or rather fabricated, some while even before the written Works which bear the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, it can easily have happened that that spurious offspring lit the way for the writer who attributed these Works to Dionysius the Areopagite, and furnished him the occasion or handle for inventing also the things which he writes of Dionysius and Hierotheus having beheld the most sacred body of the Mother of God in the gathering or meeting of the Apostles. Nor is there reason for you here again to object the oft-mentioned speech which Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem, is said to have delivered to Marcian and Pulcheria, the Augusti; for although in it the passage of the Dionysian Works in which Dionysius and Hierotheus are narrated to have been present with the Apostles coming together to behold the body of the most holy Mother of God is cited by Juvenal, John Damascene, who is older than all those among whom this is found handed down to memory, learned that the aforesaid Speech, in which this was done by this patriarch of Jerusalem, was delivered by the same patriarch solely from the Euthymiac History, of no credit at all, as I have shown above, and fabricated, as it appears, in the sixth century; and at the same time also, since he cites no monument different from this, he committed it to writing out of the excessive credulity from which, as is admitted among all the learned, he suffered.

[345] [very uncertain, and it is in almost the same way with the things which from the Saint's] And so, all the things which could in any way prove that Dionysius the Areopagite and Hierotheus were present at the obsequies of the most holy Mother of God having now been weighed and discussed on both sides, I am still compelled to hold as doubtful and uncertain whether this ever happened, and hence I would not dare to assert for certain that Hierotheus ever existed in the nature of things, although meanwhile he is mentioned not only in the text cited but also in several other texts of the Dionysian Works. But let it suffice to have discoursed thus far on this argument (for I do not think it necessary to recount here either the things which are put forward by Tamayo in the Spanish Martyrology at the 4th day of October concerning Hierotheus, and which, though at times at variance even with those which I have related above from Halloix, nevertheless rest on no better foundation); let us examine what is to be thought of the other things which are chiefly still understood, or can be gathered, from the Works ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite. Some of these are supplied by the letter which Dionysius is said to have given to Demophilus, a therapeut or monk, who had transgressed the limits of duty and humanity; and the rest by another letter which the same Dionysius is said to have written to the Apostle John, an exile in the island of Patmos. And first, indeed, from the letter written to Demophilus we learn that Dionysius was once received in hospitality by Carpus, with whom he had lodged in the island of Crete, and that an altogether wonderful vision, set forth in the said letter to Demophilus, which had been divinely granted to Carpus himself, was narrated to him by Carpus; and from the letter written to John we are taught that Dionysius foretold to John, an exile in the island of Patmos, that it would come about that, freed from that exile, he would return home to Asia, and then would both write the sacred codex or Gospel and be visited by Dionysius.

[346] the letter to John, but not likewise of those things, But since these things which come forth from the latter letter just mentioned have their foundation in absolutely no other ancient monument or writer, and since it is very doubtful and uncertain whether that letter was not falsely attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, the things likewise which are founded only on it, and which, if they were true, would prove that Dionysius was endowed by God with the grace of foretelling and the spirit of prophecy, must needs be very doubtful and uncertain, since, as he who wrote the said letter feigned himself to be Dionysius the Areopagite, it may not unjustly be feared that he likewise invented the things which are recounted in it, especially since the very letter in which they are recounted, more probably spurious from what has already been said and is further to be said, ought to have vouched for them. Now as regards the things which are drawn from the letter to Demophilus, they are partly founded on it alone, partly also ascertained from elsewhere. And those indeed which in that letter alone

are founded, and which, if they accorded with the truth, would let us know that Dionysius was once received in hospitality by Carpus in the island of Crete, and that he learned from this very man the wonderful vision which he relates was granted to this host of his, must be held as doubtful and uncertain for exactly the same reason for which the things we learn from the letter to John are, as already said, to be held as doubtful and uncertain; but those things which are ascertained from elsewhere also, and which constitute the vision itself granted to Carpus, are not to be measured by the same reckoning.

[347] For although this vision, in which Carpus is said to have been reproved by Christ [we must speak of those things which are drawn from the other letter, to Demophilus.] because he had been too severe against a sinner, would not deserve undoubted credit if it were founded solely on the letter of Dionysius to Demophilus, there is nevertheless reason why it should be believed to have been granted to Carpus in fact. For the history or vision, almost the same, is narrated as a thing done in ancient times by St. Nilus the monk, a writer of the fourth century, who stands inscribed in the Roman Martyrology at the 12th day of November, and will accordingly have to be given then in our Work, in book 2 of the Letters written by him and published at Rome in the year 1662, Letter 190, page 217 and following; and Carpus, to whom it happened, is asserted to have been a bishop contemporary with the age of the Apostles. But indeed, even if the matter stands so, there is nevertheless no reason why on that account Dionysius, or he who imposed on himself his name, should deserve undoubted credit in other things also which are founded solely on the Works ascribed to Dionysius; for it can happen that he deliberately inserted here and there into his Writings something which had truly been done, in order, namely, that in the other things which he had fabricated he might more easily find credit with the reader, deceived by that art. Add that from the fact that some things which a writer hands down to memory accord with the truth, it does not straightway follow that the other things he writes are likewise to be held as certain and undoubted.

§ XVIII. When and by whom he was created bishop of the Athenians, under what emperor, and likewise on what day and in what place he underwent martyrdom, and what ecclesiastical cult he afterwards obtained.

Although Eusebius, who teaches us that the Saint was the first bishop of Athens, Eusebius, in book 3 of his Ecclesiastical History, chapter 4, writes thus in the version of Valois: Finally another Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, a most ancient writer, relates that that Areopagite named Dionysius, who, Luke writes in the Acts, first believed after that address which Paul delivered to the Athenians on the Areopagus, was the first bishop of the Athenian church; and then in book 4, chapter 23, reviewing the letters written by Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, he hands down to memory the following, in the interpretation of the same Valois: Not only (Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians) to the peoples committed to him, but also to the inhabitants of other regions and cities did he communicate his divine labours abundantly, serving the advantage and profit of all in those catholic letters which he wrote to various churches. Of which one indeed is to the Lacedaemonians…; and another written to the Athenians, rousing them to faith and to the leading of their life according to the precept of the Gospel; in which matter he rebukes the negligence of the Athenians, inasmuch as they had almost fallen away from the faith since Publius their bishop had undergone martyrdom in the persecutions then stirred up. He also mentions Quadratus, who was appointed bishop of the Athenians after the martyrdom of Publius; and he testifies that by his labour and diligence the citizens came together again into the Church and a revived ardour of faith was restored in them. He relates besides that Dionysius the Areopagite, who was converted to the faith by the Apostle Paul, as is related in the Acts of the Apostles, first of all received the priesthood of the Athenian church.

[349] [although he does not declare by whom and when it happened that he was ordained, yet this from those things] Thus far Eusebius; and although not all the words which the latter text of his just recited contains properly concern St. Dionysius the Areopagite, I have nevertheless transcribed it here entire because it will be of use below. Now let us set up discourse on the things he teaches us of Dionysius. These are only two, namely the one, that Dionysius presided as prelate over the church of the Athenians; the other, that there was no one who presided over the same church in the office of bishop before him. But although indeed we have it ascertained from Eusebius, or, if you prefer, from Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, whom he here cites, that Dionysius the Areopagite was the first bishop of all of the Athenian church, it is by no means made known, either from the passage of the latter cited by Eusebius or from Eusebius himself, when and by whom it happened that Dionysius was ordained bishop of Athens. Rufinus indeed, in the ecclesiastical History of Eusebius rendered by him into Latin, book 4, chapter 23, writes thus of Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians: In the same letter, namely the one written to the Athenians, which Eusebius praises in the words just transcribed here, he indicates that Dionysius the Areopagite, who, instructed by the Apostle Paul, believed in Christ according to the things which are indicated in the Acts of the Apostles, was ordained by the same Apostle first bishop at Athens; but Rufinus — whom Nicephorus afterwards followed in book 4 of his Ecclesiastical History, chapter 8, without having sufficiently examined the matter — interpreted Eusebius according to his very bad habit, by which he is wont to interpolate the Greek Writings to which he gave Latin dress, at times adding many things, cutting away many, or relating them only in compendium; and he expressly noted that Dionysius of Corinth, who, though he had indeed noted in his letter to the Athenians that Dionysius the Areopagite was ordained bishop of the Athenian church, nevertheless did not add by whom this had been done, ascribed that ordination in the said letter to the Apostle Paul, contrary to what the Greek words of Eusebius, which he put into Latin, convey.

[350] which concerning Rufinus and at the same time the Apostolic constitutions Hence, further, it now comes about that, since according to Rufinus indeed, but not likewise according to Eusebius, Dionysius of Corinth ascribed the episcopal ordination of Dionysius the Areopagite to the Apostle Paul, we may not unjustly doubt whether our Saint was truly ordained prelate of the Athenians by the Apostle Paul. And yet since Rufinus flourished in the fourth century, and so, as I have said, most probably translated Eusebius thus because he had it ascertained from elsewhere that Dionysius the Areopagite had been ordained prelate of the church of the Athenians by the Apostle Paul, this at least is an argument that the ordination of Dionysius was already ascribed to the Apostle Paul from the fourth century, in which, as I have already shown, Rufinus flourished. And indeed other things besides persuade that Dionysius was in fact ordained bishop of the Athenians by the Apostle Paul. In book 7 of the Apostolic Constitutions, chapter 46, the following words are read: Concerning the bishops, however, who were ordained by us in our lifetime, we indicate to you that they are these: … of the church of the Romans the first indeed was Linus, son of Claudia, by Paul; and the second, after the death of Linus, was Clement, ordained by me, Peter; and at Ephesus Timothy by Paul … at Philadelphia Demetrius by me, and by Paul Lucius of Cenchreae, Titus of Crete, Dionysius at Athens, Maroones of Tripolis in Phoenicia &c.; Thus, then, the praised Constitutions seem to testify that Dionysius was ordained bishop of the Athenians by the Apostle Paul. Hence St. Maximus, in the Prologue prefixed to the Scholia composed by him on the Dionysian Works, speaks thus: Then, as is contained in the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions, Dionysius is appointed bishop of the faithful of the Athenians by Paul, the bearer of Christ; moreover, in his Scholia on the eighth letter of Dionysius, §5, he says: He calls the holy Apostle Paul his sacred teacher, since he had ordained him bishop of the Athenian church, as is found written in the sacred Constitutions of the Apostles.

[351] St. Maximus, therefore, so understood the words of the Apostolic Constitutions recited above are discussed here, that he thought the episcopal ordination of Dionysius the Areopagite was ascribed by them to the Apostle St. Paul. But Cotelier, in his Annotations on the text of the Apostolic Constitutions just transcribed here, observes thus: It is not openly said in the Constitution that Dionysius was ordained by Paul; nor is it necessary that all the things which follow the last ὑπὸ Παύλου, by Paul, be referred to Paul: it suffices that they be referred to one of the Apostles. Surely, since to these words of the praised text, Demetrius was ordained at Philadelphia by me; and by Paul Lucius of Cenchreae, Titus of Crete, Dionysius at Athens, there is immediately subjoined, Maroones of Tripolis in Phoenicia, and yet this man was created bishop of Tripolis in Phoenicia not by Paul but by Peter, as the praised Cotelier notes, the observation of Cotelier, from which it follows that the episcopal ordination of Dionysius is not certainly ascribed to the Apostle Paul in the Apostolic Constitutions, seems not altogether inept. And yet, even if, as this writer says, Maroones was ordained bishop of Tripolis not by St. Paul but by St. Peter, I would scarcely doubt that the impostor who fabricated the Apostolic Constitutions, and speaks in them in the name of the Apostles, intended to signify by the words recited above that both this man and Lucius and Titus and Dionysius were ordained bishops by the Apostle Paul. That opinion sits with me chiefly for this reason, that this writer at times, as is agreed among all the learned, commits very grave errors, and that therefore, since it could easily have come about merely through error that he wrongly ascribed to Paul the ordination of Maroones performed by Peter, there seems to be no reason at all why all the things which follow the last ὐπὸ Παὺλου, in Latin by Paul, in the words of the Constitutions transcribed above should not be referred to Paul, contrary to what the natural and obvious sense of the words requires.

[352] Whatever, therefore, Cotelier may say, it appears beyond doubt from what has already been said that by these words the ordination of Dionysius is ascribed to the Apostle St. Paul. by the Apostle Paul Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and the Apostolic Constitutions were fabricated as early as the fourth century, as is commonly admitted, it follows from this, and at the same time from the fact that Rufinus, who flourished in the same century, likewise ascribed, as I have already shown, the ordination of Dionysius to Paul, that it was then most probably commonly thought that Dionysius had been ordained bishop of the Athenians by Paul; and since many writers also of the middle and lowest age, as Cotelier himself admits in the place cited above, held the same opinion and further consigned it to writing, it seems sufficiently certain that Dionysius the Areopagite was also in fact ordained bishop of the Athenian church by the Apostle Paul. Next it is that we should now inquire at about what time this was done. Hilduin, in the Life of Dionysius composed by him, in Surius, number 8, writes thus of this our Saint: Having renounced the errors of the pagans, he was sprinkled with the wave of sacred baptism, and so at length gave himself up to be more fully imbued by his (namely Paul's) teaching; and in the faith of the holy Trinity and in the mystery of the Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord, or in all the secrets of ecclesiastical holiness abundantly, having been instructed by blessed Paul for three years as his inseparable companion wherever he moved his step, at Thessalonica,

returning in obedience to his master, he was ordained prelate of the Athenians by the same blessed Apostle Paul, and then, at his command, he preached the Gospel of Christ and converted that same city and the greatest part of his homeland to the faith of truth.

[353] this seems to have been done about the year 52; If, therefore, credit is to be given to this writer here, Dionysius, when he had been converted to the faith and washed in the sacred laver of Baptism, clung to St. Paul the Apostle for three years as his constant companion and the partner of his labours in the journeys undertaken by him for the sake of spreading the Gospel far and wide, and only then, having been ordered by him to return from Thessalonica, where he was staying, to Athens, became prelate of the Athenians; and hence, since the Saint, as I have already shown above, was converted to the faith about the year 49, it would follow that it happened that Dionysius was ordained bishop of the Athenians by Paul about the year 52. But besides the fact that the things which Hilduin records in the recited words are founded on absolutely no testimony of antiquity that deserves entire credit, they are taken solely from the spurious and counterfeit (see again this Commentary, number 41) Letter of Aristarchus to Onesiphorus. And since this is so, the adduced text of Hilduin does not make it certain that our Saint was ordained bishop of the Athenian church three years after his conversion. And yet, since a bishop was probably not appointed at Athens before those brought over to the faith there had grown to a sufficiently large number, and since the faith does not seem to have taken such increase among the Athenians within a very short space of time, it appears sufficiently probable that Dionysius was in very truth ordained bishop of Athens about three years after his conversion, and accordingly about the year 52. Further, since all the other things which are recorded of Dionysius the Areopagite in his various Lives, composed by Hilduin, Metrodorus, Syncellus and Metaphrastes, are drawn solely from spurious monuments that deserve no credit, and accordingly it is not worth while to waste time in discussing them, nay even in reviewing them perfunctorily, I now, dismissing them all, proceed to the martyrdom of our Saint, and so to the place and time in which it occurred.

[354] but when he had held the episcopate a very long time, under Hadrian And first, as regards the time at which Dionysius suffered, the opinions of the learned on this matter differ very greatly, some contending that Dionysius fell in martyrdom under Domitian, others under Trajan, and others finally under Hadrian. But whatever others may say and further strive with intense effort to prove, it appears beyond doubt that our Saint flew up to the heavenly ones by martyrdom under Hadrian, when he had already held the Athenian episcopate a very long time. What makes me think so is the Little or old Roman Martyrology, or rather Aristides, who is praised in it, praised above already, and already entered among the Saints in our Work as an Athenian philosopher. The words of that most ancient Martyrology which bear on our matter, though already given above, I transcribe here again. Thus, then, they have at the third day of October, on which Dionysius the Areopagite is commemorated: At Athens, of Dionysius the Areopagite, who suffered under Hadrian by various torments, as Aristides is witness in the Work which he composed on the Christian religion; this Work is held among the Athenians as most illustrious among the records of the ancients. Indeed, since Aristides, as I have already shown above, was contemporary with Dionysius or at least nearly so, who would dare to deny him credit in this matter, if he wrote that the martyrdom of our Saint took place under Hadrian? For my part, says Sirmond, praised above very often, in his Dissertation on the two Dionysiuses, chapter 8, if it were clear that this was testified by Aristides, namely that Dionysius underwent martyrdom under Hadrian, I should have nothing to oppose to the authority and credit of so great a man.

[355] So he; but championing the opinion which holds that Dionysius suffered not under Hadrian whatever Sirmond too, whose reasons, but under Domitian, he presently subjoins thus: But I shall prove that he (namely Aristides) not only said nothing of the kind, but could not have said it; and then, in order to render proved the first thing which he here asserts, namely that Aristides did not say what he is asserted to have said about the martyrdom endured by Dionysius under Hadrian, he opposes to the Martyrology of Ado, in which likewise (go to the elogium of the Saint which we gave from it at number 106) Dionysius is asserted to have suffered under Hadrian, other Martyrologies, and by name indeed that of Usuard, those of Paris, Nevers, Chalon, Soissons, Vermandois and Meaux, in all of which there is no trace of Hadrian as the one under whom Dionysius suffered; and since, as he would have it, all these Martyrologies are both older and truer than the Martyrology of Ado, he contends that it came about through error or interpolation that the name of Hadrian, which is absent from these, was afterwards thrust into the Martyrology of Ado. But that the Martyrology which has Usuard as its author is not older than the Martyrology of Ado is altogether certain, and placed beyond all controversy, as anyone who turns over the Preface of our Sollerius to the Martyrology of Usuard will easily discover; and as regards the other Martyrologies praised by Sirmond, he brings forward absolutely nothing to show that these are older than the Martyrology composed by Ado. And yet, since the copies of the ancient Martyrologies seemed to him, as he himself says in chapter 3 of the praised Dissertation, the more genuine the simpler they were, perhaps also the Martyrology of Paris and the others just reviewed by name were thought by him to be older because they were simpler; but deservedly? Certainly not. The Martyrology of Usuard is simpler than that of Ado, and yet it is altogether certain that the latter is older than the former, as everyone will admit who turns over the Preface of our Sollerius to Usuard. The contracted copies of the Hieronymian Martyrology are certainly simpler than the larger Hieronymian copies, and yet no one would say that the former are older than the latter.

[356] Nothing at all, therefore, persuades that the Martyrologies praised by name by Sirmond, besides that of Usuard, were older than the Martyrology of Ado; proposed here so that accordingly it cannot be argued, from the fact that the name of Hadrian does not occur in them, that it was thrust into the Martyrology of Ado either through error or through interpolation. And indeed that the name of Hadrian was not thrust into it through error is clear even from this, that Ado, as he himself testifies, had before his eyes the Little Roman Martyrology, in which, as has already been said, the name of Hadrian is read, and accordingly, not led astray by any error but impelled by the testimony of this most ancient monument, he marked the name of Hadrian in the elogium of our Saint composed by him. But indeed, you will say, Usuard had Ado to light his way, and yet he omitted the name of Hadrian, which he undoubtedly saw marked by him in the elogium of our Saint. I admit, so it stands; but what then? Perhaps he did this not because he thought the name of Hadrian wrongly noted by Ado, but because, according to his custom, he wished to contract the more prolix text of Ado. However that may be, since the author of the Little or Old Roman Martyrology deserves entire credit, as our Sollerius teaches in his Preface to Usuard, it appears that there is no reason at all to doubt that Aristides truly, as he says, placed the martyrdom of Dionysius under Hadrian, and so I most firmly persuade myself that this happened in very fact while that prince held the reins of the Roman empire. But Sirmond proceeds, and tries to prove the second thing which he had promised he would prove.

[357] and partly also included in his words recited here Hear him striving to settle the matter. That, he says, he (namely Aristides) would not say except falsely, and I think he could not have been brought to say it. For what? Did Aristides not know that Quadratus — who at the same time at which he himself gave his Apology for the Christians to the prince Hadrian, wintering at Athens, both addressed him in person with a speech and also handed him a book composed for our religion — was the third prelate of the Athenian church from Dionysius, the successor, as the other Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, testifies, of Publius the martyr, who had succeeded Dionysius the Areopagite, the first bishop of the Athenians? Therefore if Quadratus was third from Dionysius, if Publius was between the two, who is so unfair a judge of things as not to perceive, since Eusebius in his Chronicle teaches that Hadrian came to Athens in the sixth year of his reign and spent the winter there, and the adversaries agree, that the spaces for the martyrdom of Dionysius and of Publius, and for the beginnings of Quadratus, are too narrow to be shut within five years? How much more fittingly, therefore, and how much more probably would they say that not only Dionysius but not even Publius, who succeeded Dionysius, suffered under Hadrian, but under Trajan, whose very grave and very cruel persecution is recorded, from which might seem to have arisen that great terror and consternation of the Athenian Christians, who, as the same bishop of the Corinthians narrates, were almost carried away to defection by the violence of the storm, and afterwards, by the zeal and diligence of Quadratus, who had succeeded Publius, returned to the way and recovered their former ardour of faith?

[358] included, by other reasons, into the open For in this way all things will be plain and distinct and fixed. For it will be established both that Quadratus, as is admitted, flourished when Hadrian was prince, and that his predecessor Publius consummated his martyrdom under Trajan, and that a just space of time intervened for the things which we have related, and, what is the chief point, that Dionysius the Areopagite, whom Publius succeeded, laid down his life not under Hadrian or Trajan but under Domitian, as has been said. Thus far Sirmond, contending, namely, that Aristides could not have said that Dionysius suffered under Hadrian, chiefly from the fact that the space of time enclosed between the beginning of the empire undertaken by Hadrian in the year 120, as he thought, and the accession of Quadratus to the Athenian chair, is too narrow for both our Saint and Publius, who next after him occupied that chair and afterwards obtained Quadratus as successor, to have been crowned with martyrdom within it, and for Quadratus — who, as Eusebius testifies in the words transcribed here at number 348, restored a revived ardour of faith among the Athenians — to have been able to succeed those first two bishops of the Athenians in the same chair, the Athenian Christians having meanwhile been almost carried away to defection by the terror of a very grave and very cruel persecution. But — to grant Sirmond for the moment even that only five years intervened between the beginning of the empire undertaken by Hadrian and the accession to the Athenian chair of Quadratus, who, as Jerome testifies in Letter 84 to Magnus and in the book on Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 19, being already bishop, delivered a book for our Religion to the emperor Hadrian when he was visiting the Eleusinian rites at Athens, in the year of the Christian era 125, as Pagi teaches in his Critica — why could it not have come about within the space of five years that Dionysius and Publius were crowned with martyrdom, and that Quadratus after them, when the Athenian Christians had been almost prostrated by the violence of persecution, acceded to the Athenian chair?

[359] What prevents, says Schelstrate in part 2 of Antiquity Illustrated, adduced here Dissertation 3, chapter 3, article 1, number 207, that Dionysius fell in the 1st year of the reign of Hadrian, and Publius was crowned with martyrdom in persecution in the 4th year, so that, while the prince was wintering at Athens, he was approached by Quadratus, newly elected successor of Publius, and, an apology having been published for the Christians, the same Hadrian was rendered milder

? For I by no means see what absurdity or inconsistency these things contain. Could Roman Pontiffs fall in martyrdom after one year of pontificate, and could not Publius after three or four years? Could four Pontiffs be elected within five or six years, and could not Publius, after the episcopate of Dionysius, have left the episcopate of the Athenians to Quadratus by his death within the space of five or six years? Let those see some inconsistency here who can; I certainly see none; nay rather I freely profess that it could very easily have happened that Dionysius ended his episcopate under Hadrian and that Quadratus began his after Publius, the successor of Dionysius; and I shall urge this as long as … the Martyrology of Ado is not convicted of falsehood in testifying that Aristides, who flourished under the emperor Hadrian after the year 120, left this in writing. Indeed, since the author of the Little or old Roman Martyrology, who lit the way for Ado, also left this very thing in writing, as I have already shown above, and has not hitherto been in any way convicted of falsehood in that matter, I could not but embrace the opinion expressed in the words of Schelstrate already given, which holds that Dionysius suffered under the emperor Hadrian.

[360] But that it may be still more luminously clear that Aristides, contrary to what Sirmond contends, are refuted, argue to the contrary, could have assigned the martyrdom of Dionysius the Areopagite to the reign of Hadrian, the martyrdom of Dionysius and of Publius, and the promotion of Quadratus to the Athenian see after their death, would have had to happen not within five years, as we granted Sirmond for the moment, but within the somewhat broader space of eight years, if our Saint be held to have suffered under Hadrian. For since this prince received the reins of the Roman empire to govern, not in the year 120, as very many formerly thought, but in the year 117, as Pagi shows on this in his Critica, number 7, nothing at all prevents Dionysius from being believed to have undergone martyrdom as early as the aforesaid year 117 of the Christian era; and from this to the year 125, to which the promotion of Quadratus to the Athenian chair can be attached, eight whole years elapsed. And since this is so, who would still assert that the space of time which would have intervened between the martyrdom of Dionysius, if he be held to have suffered under Hadrian, and the promotion of Quadratus, would have been too narrow for the things which had to happen within it to have been able to happen? No one surely, as I think, who has attentively weighed what has already been said. Hence, further, it now follows that Aristides certainly could have said, whatever Sirmond argues to the contrary, that our Saint suffered under Hadrian; and since the author of the Little or Old Roman Martyrology, and Ado following him, testify that he did in very truth say it, and since their testimony ought not on any head to be held either false or even suspect, I consider it beyond doubt that Dionysius was afflicted with martyrdom under Hadrian, although meanwhile I would not dare to assert for certain that this happened immediately at the beginning of the empire undertaken by that prince, as might be established from what has been said.

[361] either older than a hundred, or certainly not much less But indeed there will perhaps be someone who will now object here that Dionysius the Areopagite, if he underwent martyrdom only under Hadrian, would have been older than a hundred when it happened, and that it seems scarcely probable that he reached so advanced an age. I admit it; Dionysius, if he suffered under Hadrian, would have been older than a hundred when it happened, or at least would have approached as near as possible to the age of a hundred years; for since, as I have shown above, he was converted to the faith about the year 49, and was then about thirty or even forty years old, at the beginning of the empire undertaken by Hadrian he would certainly have numbered either almost a hundred years or even more, as will be clear to one who considers it. And hence it comes about that I persuade myself that Dionysius, whom I have already held to have suffered under Hadrian, did in very truth reach almost a hundred years, or even surpassed that age; and that it should not appear incredible or strange to anyone that our Saint attained so advanced an age, Baronius alone is of a nature to effect, writing in this manner in his Annotations on the Roman Martyrology, subjoined to the list of Saints who are venerated on the 9th day of October: Nor ought it to seem strange that so long an age (namely more than a hundred years) befell Dionysius: since it came about by a certain divine dispensation that very many of those who lived in the times of the Apostles reached a very long age; namely so that they might testify with certain knowledge the things which they had seen with their eyes; as among others Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, who reached his hundred and twentieth year: Saint Ignatius, who testifies that he saw the Lord in the flesh, writing to Polycarp (St. Jerome cites that letter in On Ecclesiastical Writers, under Ignatius), reached the eleventh year of Trajan, as the same author affirms. Certainly Quadratus, who sat after Publius, who succeeded Dionysius in the Athenian church, and ruled it in the times of Hadrian, relates that he had seen very many who had been healed in the times of Christ and had risen from the dead, as St. Jerome recounts of him in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers.

[362] Why should I mention Hermas, the disciple of Paul, whom he himself mentions Martyrdom at Athens writing to the Romans, and whose also the Book of the Shepherd is said to be? It is established that he survived to the very last times of Antoninus Pius. I would speak of Polycarp and others, did not my discourse call me elsewhere. Natalis Alexander, in the sixteenth Dissertation on the Ecclesiastical History of the first century, in order to show that the age which we attribute to Dionysius is not incredible, adds to these words of Baronius some further things about the longevity of men, sought partly from Ussher and partly from elsewhere. But since the things now adduced from that most learned parent of the Ecclesiastical Annals seem to suffice to make the long age which we ascribe to Dionysius appear neither strange nor incredible, I pass over in silence all the things which the praised Alexander brings forward bearing on it, and, the time of the martyrdom endured by the Saint having now been defined sufficiently closely, I proceed to define also the arena of the Martyrdom. That this is to be assigned to Athens appears most probable, not to say beyond doubt, even from the things which I have already discussed at number 220 and the four following. But Halloix, in the Life of St. Dionysius the Areopagite composed by him, which he supplies in the first place among the Lives of the illustrious writers of the Eastern church who flourished in Sanctity in the first century of the Christian era, chapter 3, writes thus: The Athenians … from the death of Socrates (of which they were so ashamed and repented that they presently closed all the palaestrae and gymnasia as a sign of public mourning, and punished his accusers, some with exile, others with death, and presented him himself with a bronze statue) were by no means headlong, either in undertaking an accusation against anyone concerning a new religion, or in passing judgment concerning the worship or neglect of the gods. Hence also, although there are few of the famous cities where many martyrdoms of Christians did not take place, yet at Athens, so large and celebrated a city, not even one person is easily found to have been punished for the sake of the Christian faith (of whom at least it is firmly established) with the penalty either of exile or of death, especially by public judgment.

[363] For of Publius and Quadratus, bishops of Athens and successors of our Dionysius (of whom almost alone there could be doubt), it is as like as can be to the truth he underwent that, assailed with stones or harassed in other ways by the injuries of certain private persons or by a sudden tumult of the people (as may to some extent be understood from their own Acts and those of the martyrs), they of their own accord withdrew from the city, so that there might be peace for the Christians, and met their death elsewhere; and hence someone perhaps might contend that Dionysius probably did not undergo martyrdom at Athens. But since Halloix himself admits that it came about, most probably either through the injuries of private persons or through a sudden tumult of the people, that Publius and Quadratus withdrew from the city of Athens, why could it not also have come about from the same cause or occasion that Publius and Quadratus, just like Dionysius, were afflicted with martyrdom at Athens? Quadratus (go to tome 6 of May of our Work, page 358, number 4), by the book for the Christian Religion which he offered to the emperor Hadrian when he was staying at Athens, allayed a very grave persecution stirred up against the Christians without the emperor's command, and accordingly most probably by the people in tumult; so that it may easily have come about that Publius had then fallen in martyrdom in this persecution. Moreover, Saint Jerome in his Chronicle, printed in the year 1606, at the year of Christ 127 records thus: Quadratus, disciple of the Apostles, and Aristides, our Athenian philosopher, gave to Hadrian books composed for the Christian religion; and Serenus Granius, the legate, a man most noble, sent a letter to the emperor, saying that it was unjust that the blood of innocent men should be granted to the clamours of the mob, and that they should be made defendants without any crime, only for their name and sect; and since, as it seems permissible to conjecture from these words of Jerome, at the same time at which Serenus Granius wrote to the emperor Hadrian that it was unjust that the blood of innocent men, that is, of Christians, should be granted to the clamours of the mob, Aristides the Athenian philosopher offered to that prince the apologetic book for the Christian religion in which, from what has been said, he made mention of the martyrdom endured by Dionysius, it becomes to me, even from this, very probable that our Saint underwent martyrdom both at Athens and likewise on the occasion of a tumult of the people. And content to have added these things to those which I discussed above for placing the Saint's arena at Athens, I now subjoin a few things about the day on which it took place.

[364] on the third day of October, and ecclesiastical cult The great printed Greek Menaea, the Basilian and Sirletian Menologies, in a word all the sacred Fasti of the Greeks, assign the memory of Dionysius the Areopagite to the third day of October; and although it not rarely happens that they commemorate Saints on other days than those on which they died or suffered martyrdom, yet the unanimous agreement with which both these and most of the older sacred Fasti of the Latins, and by name the Little or Old Roman Martyrology, celebrate Dionysius the Areopagite on the third day of October makes me think that he was crowned with martyrdom then, especially since nothing occurs from elsewhere which would persuade that this happened on another day. Nor do we have from the praised sacred fasti of the Greeks and of the Latins alike only the day on which the Saint most probably underwent martyrdom; but also that he has been honoured in the Church with veneration or ecclesiastical cult from a very long time already: and how true this is, namely that the Saint has enjoyed ecclesiastical veneration from a very long time already, nay from the first centuries of the Christian era, is argued by the most ancient Greek Martyrology which Hilduin praises in his Rescript to the emperor Louis, number 10. Hear how this writer speaks of that venerable monument of antiquity: We have, he says, … a Martyrology of Greek authority, obtained from a volume from the Chartisscrinia * of Constantinople, which is crumbling with such great age that it demands the greatest caution from those who touch it; in which we have found his birthday designated, and noted also that he was bishop of the Athenians.

[365] he obtained not long after. Which Martyrology, as its antiquity

demonstrates, we think, not incongruously, can be established to date from that time at which, by command of Constantine, on a known occasion, the martyrdoms of the Saints of the Lord were collected from the whole world and brought together to Caesarea. Since, therefore, Dionysius was entered in the Greek Martyrology, written as early, as Hilduin thought, as the age of Constantine the Great, and the listing of Saints in Martyrologies so ancient was for the sake of cult, it appears beyond doubt that the Saint was indeed honoured with ecclesiastical veneration, at least in the Greek church, from the first centuries of the Christian era, nay even not long after his glorious martyrdom. Further, what is no doubtful sign of the cult paid to Dionysius at Athens in particular, even in ancient times: the ruins of a church formerly dedicated there to Dionysius the Areopagite were still to be seen in the year 1676, as Jacob Spon testifies in tome 2 of his Journey of Italy, Dalmatia &c. Nor do the sacred Fasti of the Latins already praised, in which he stands inserted, and the things which will be discussed below concerning his relics, allow us to doubt that the Saint enjoyed particular veneration in the West also both in ancient times and still enjoys it today; so that it is not necessary to bring forward more on this argument here.

* perhaps of the Chartophylacium of Constantinople?

FABULOUS ACTS, FALSELY ATTRIBUTED TO ST. DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE,

By an Anonymous Author,

From our Fulda codex QMS. 5, collated with five other Mss.

Dionysius the Areopagite, bishop and martyr, at Athens in Greece. (S.)

BHL Number: 2178, 2179

SOLE CHAPTER.

The conversion of Dionysius, his ordination to the episcopate, his setting out for Rome, his departure into Gaul, his martyrdom.

While Nero held the reins of the Roman empire, Peter the Apostle After the blessed and glorious resurrection of our Lord, by which, by divine power, He raised up * in three days the true temple of God which had been destroyed by Jewish impiety ^b, and the flesh of our lowliness in Christ was advanced above all the host of heaven, above all the orders of angels, to the session of God the Father, and on the tenth day after the Holy Spirit descended upon the breasts of the Apostles, that they might receive the power of binding and loosing, and so through them the ordinance of this decree passed to all the princes of the Church, in the eight hundred and eighth year from the founding of the city Nero, the fifth Caesar from Augustus, obtained the principate. Blessed Peter the Apostle, therefore, when the rest of the Apostles, the parts of the earth having been distributed among them, had undertaken to imbue every creature with the Gospel, was himself destined by God to the citadel of the Roman empire, so that he who was first in the order of power might be first in the contest of the passion, and that the city which was bound by greater errors should of necessity be raised up by greater remedies, and that where the guilt was graver, there also the grace might be greater.

[2] For, as has been said, when the most impious Nero had extended the laws of his empire by land and sea, and the fury of his cruelty had boiled over with dire rage against the servants of Christ, he was crowned with martyrdom at Rome with Paul, in the 14th year of his most cruel reign he sent the worthy to the Heavenly ones through the trophy of martyrdom ^c. For before blessed Peter flew to the heavens through the triumph of martyrdom, he handed this power to blessed Clement, saying: As the power of binding and loosing has been granted to me by my Lord Jesus Christ, so I confer this power on you and on your successors as an eternal gift, so that whatever you shall bind on earth may be bound also in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth may avail to be loosed also among the stars. He left a successor enriched with this power, a perfect prelate of the Church, and a worthy one of the heirs * ^d. These things having thus been briefly reviewed concerning the order of the times and the Apostolic powers, I shall approach to narrate the contests of the most blessed man Dionysius.

[3] who had earlier converted Dionysius to the faith of Christ at Athens. As we have already set out above a few things concerning the order of the times: after the glorious ascension of Jesus Christ our Lord, when blessed Paul the apostle, having returned by the grace of the Holy Spirit from the error of unbelief to the way of salvation, was afterwards following with perfect religion the faith which he had before attacked, and when, according to the Lord's ordinance, he was a vessel of election among the gentiles and was preaching the name of Christ to unknown peoples, he came to Athens, and there, finding the holy man Dionysius entangled in gentile errors, he converted him to the way of salvation ^e, and, when he had been reborn in the wave of sacred baptism, he straightway formed him in the divine ordinances ^f; and when the grace of the Holy Spirit had now utterly driven out from his breast the squalor of thistles and thorns, and the fair field was raising up the fair shoot of a new crop, he began to bestow the seeds of the divine Word on untaught minds; and when the soldier of Christ was now burning daily with heavenly desires, supernal grace everywhere going before him, while he enters to plough the Pontic fields, the beloved of the Lord, by heavenly guidance, approaches Rome; and he, finding, as has been said above, blessed Clement endowed with apostolic power, was at once received by him with worthy honour.

[4] [Having afterwards set out for Rome, he is sent thence to the West with some companions by St. Clement the Pope.] At the same time, when the blessed man Dionysius clung daily to the footsteps of the most blessed Clement and gave himself up in every way to be imbued with the apostolic ordinances, he at once began to hold the greatest place of veneration with blessed Clement on account of the reverence of his holiness, and to obtain great favour of familiarity with him. But when the almighty Lord was now arranging to declare the life of the most blessed man Dionysius as an example to all, it happened that Philip, bishop of Spain, departed from the world ^g: then blessed Clement ordained saint Dionysius bishop, and handed to him the power which he had received from blessed Peter, saying: Go into the parts of the West to preach the Gospel of the heavenly kingdom, and let the power of binding and loosing be granted to you, so that, the Gospel of Christ having been spread far and wide through you *, you may deserve to hear from the Lord, with the faithful servant, that word: Well done, good and faithful servant, thou hast been faithful over a few things: I will set thee over many things. Enter into the joy of thy Lord. And he assigned him as companions Saturninus ^h, Marcellus and Lucian ⁱ, so that in the mouth of two or three witnesses the Christian religion might be handed on to unknown parts.

[5] When, proceeding together, they had arrived at the port of the city of Arles, saint Dionysius sent Marcellus into Spain ^k, to minister the word of the life of Christ to the Church. Saint Dionysius, therefore, kindled with the heat of the Holy Spirit and endowed with Apostolic power, [and of these Marcellinus having been sent into Spain and Saturninus into Aquitaine, he himself goes to Paris,] he who had received from blessed Clement the seeds of the divine word to be bestowed on the nations, not reckoning the ferocity of the unbelieving race, does not hesitate as a preacher to press upon the savage peoples; but, formed by the example of the most blessed prince of the Apostles, who had been given over to atrocious punishments by the Romans, where he learned that the error of gentilism seethed more abundantly in the Gauls, thither, fortified by divine protection, he plunged himself as a strong and true warrior, so that he who had deserved to be a confessor might not hesitate to become also a perfect martyr ^l. For, saint Saturninus having been directed to the parts of Aquitaine, he himself, with saint Lucian, saint Rusticus and saint Eleutherius, had gone to Paris.

[6] For saint Lucian, having discharged the honour of the priesthood, he directs to the city of Beauvais, [and there, Lucian having been sent to Beauvais, he labours with Rusticus and Eleutherius to plant the faith.] that he likewise might bring the Gospel of truth to the unbelieving peoples; but saint Dionysius himself remained at Paris; which city, although small, was nevertheless defiled with the errors and squalor of the gentiles. For although it was wrapped in the great dregs of the pagans, yet, fertile in lands, wooded with trees, most abundant in and filled with vineyards, it was strong in the commerce of money-changers ^m; and, walled in by the winding of the Seine, the water of its channel both ministers to the citizens an abundance of fish and is known to afford no small defence to the walls, and the water of its stream encloses a space rather of an island than of a city. When therefore the servant of God, armed with the constancy of faith, had sought out this place, the help of almighty God everywhere accompanying him, he built there, according to the strength of his means, as one still a new stranger could, a church in honour of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that the untaught people who was to be imbued with the truth of the Gospel — that he might sprinkle them there with the water of the Holy laver.

[7] And when the most blessed Man was pressing on day and night with the teachings of piety, and freeing the people of Christ from the jaws of the ancient enemy, [But the fame of this matter and of the holiness of Dionysius having been spread far and wide,] so that those whom he withdrew from the world he might send worthy to heaven, the fame of his holiness spread far and wide, and now no small crowd of peoples gloried in having a worthy bishop, and so it came about that he arranged the grades of priests to be fitted for the divine ministries, and enlarged with orders proved persons worthy by their merits. But our Lord Jesus Christ, who no longer suffered the fame of the most blessed man Dionysius to be hidden, so that, as a lamp placed upon a lampstand, he might minister the rays of his light to unbelieving minds, deigned to work such great miracles through him that he daily strengthened the hearts of the rebellious gentiles no less by the preachings than by the miracles themselves.

[8] At the same time, however, at which such things were being done, the renown of the holy Man spread itself far and wide, so much The emperor Domitian sends officers into Gaul to assail the holy Man, that, in the case of Domitian, who carried on the second persecution against the Christians after Nero ⁿ, it reached his court by common report ^o; and he burned with such rage of indignation that, wherever he had found any Christian, he should either sacrifice to the unclean gods, or, condemned to various punishments, be handed over to the sword to be punished. Constraining therefore the nations subject to him by these laws, a great persecution flowed in upon the servants of Christ; no tranquillity of the present life was now granted to those contending for Christ, no liberty of the holy Martyrs was excused, but all, observing the impious edict, by no means dared to transgress what had been decreed by Caesar. For he directs a chosen body of officers with a great din to the parts of the West, that, searching out the holy man Dionysius, he should either observe the decrees of the prince or, torn by immense punishments, be punished with the loss of his head [p].

[9] and these, finding Dionysius at Paris announcing the Gospel, gird themselves. When, therefore, the officers had received the decrees of the prince, they penetrate the borders of the Gauls, where at once the celebrated name of the blessed Man became known to them, and so, as they had been commanded, with swift course, with swelling spirits and most savage countenances, they went to Paris. And they find saint Dionysius fighting against the faithless and calling the multitude of the people to the faith by continual preaching; with him also the dire fury of the persecutors found the blessed man Rusticus the priest and Eleutherius the archdeacon [q], whom the blessed Man himself had consecrated in their orders, the companions and disciples of his preaching. These holy Men never suffered themselves to be absent from the presence of blessed Dionysius; whom the divine goodness already foreknew to be sharers of the eternal kingdom: the pious Father indeed rejoiced in the progress of his two sons, since the worthy sons also lightened the Father's burden with spiritual shoulders, so that, the load of the flesh cast off, they might be able to fly to the pure brightness of the ether.

[10] [A persecution having been stirred up against the Christians, Dionysius and his companions oppose themselves to the impious,] The sentence of persecution having therefore been published, the crowd of the impious advances rejoicing and conspires to fight against the servants of God, and in a wonderful manner the armed populace was not able against unarmed men

to resist. Then the ancient enemy, seeing that what was established to live for the Lord and to advance by the constant conversion of peoples was perishing to him, turned the whole cunning of his art to attacking what had been built up, so that he might punish with various tortures those who, already sprinkled with the water of holy Baptism, believed in the one and true God. But the holy Men, confessors and martyrs of Christ, meeting the barkings of the impious with the force of holy preaching and with great miracles, terrified by no fear of the reprobate, enriched the Church of Christ daily with new fruitfulness; and when the Church, founded by the merits and the mouth of its preachers, grew and was increased, even amid the dreadful whirlwinds and storms of the lictors, even the fierce savagery of Germany itself, subdued by compunction of heart, rejoiced now in its neck tamed to the yoke of Christ [r].

[11] and when they were questioned about their faith, with one voice Finally idols were destroyed by the very men at whose cost and zeal they had been fashioned, and, having found the harbour of salvation, they rejoiced that the shipwrecks of the idols perished. The vanquished portion of the devil then mourned, while the victorious legion of the Church triumphed over it; and when such things were being done, the ministers of cruelty were kindled with most atrocious fury, and one of them addresses the holy man Dionysius with great harshness of heart, saying: Are you that most unspeakable old man who empties out the worship of our gods and despises the statutes of the most invincible prince? Say therefore whose worshipper you assert yourself to be, or what confession you ascribe to your allegiance *? Then these three most blessed men, Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius, filled with the charism of the Spirit of the three children walking about in the furnace of fire, gave, as if from one mouth, such an answer to him who questioned them: Our condition is known to serve the Christian law; whom indeed we confess, we shall plainly make known to your ears.

[12] having most freely confessed, they are put to death, We confess the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Father unbegotten, the Son begotten of the Father alone, the Holy Spirit proceeding from both. To this the impious persecutor questions the Blessed ones: So the commands of the princes are despised by you, and your confession spurns the laws of the most invincible gods? The Saints, answering with one accord as above, said: As we have said before, Christ the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, whom we proclaim to all peoples with sure boldness, we both believe and confess and do not cease to praise together with our mouth. The holy Men persevering in this constancy of faith, the savage lictors, delaying no long space, the persecutor's blade cut off the happy necks bowed for the faith of Christ; giving back their bodies to the earth, they brought their blessed souls into heaven [s]. For, to show the victory conferred by the divine goodness on its martyrs, when the heads were seen cut off from the bodies, their tongues, as they could, confessed the Lord. O truly most blessed fellowship, and pleasing to our God!

[13] O holy and truly praiseworthy brotherhood, among whom there could be neither first nor second nor third, and Dionysius then prodigiously carrying in his hands the head cut off from him, but who, confessing the glory of the holy Trinity, deserved to be consecrated by a threefold martyrdom on a small hill [t] more than a mile from the city! The precious bodies, finally, lay on the summit of the hill with their heads cut off, and there was fulfilled in the martyrs of Christ what the prophet had once foretold would come to pass, that in the sight of the Lord the deaths of the just should remain precious; for, to declare the glorious merits of the first martyr and priest, so that through him by whom the saving fruit had first begun to arise, his glory and triumph might likewise be the greater, the holy lifeless corpse of the most blessed Dionysius, the venerable pontiff, raised itself up, and with blessed hand began to carry in its arms the head cut off from the body, severed by the lictor's sword and dangling, and carried it from that summit of the hill with firm steps almost two miles [u], by a new and previously unheard-of miracle, the lifeless body running in the manner of a living one and a man already dead walking with firm soles.

[14] The impious, therefore, fearing [The heathen plan to throw the bodies of Rusticus and Eleutherius into the Seine. But a matron,] lest the converted peoples, with most faithful and proved devotion, should entomb and consecrate the bodies of the blessed Rusticus and Eleutherius, which would be of profit to them as a patronage, having taken counsel, decreed that they should be placed on ships and sunk in the deepest whirlpool; but the almighty Lord, good and just and merciful, who has never denied His mercy to the human race, who drowned the counsel of Pharaoh in the wave of the Red Sea, and cut off the neck of Holofernes by a woman's stroke, Himself destroyed the counsel of the shameless by the art of His mercy, so that the wave of the whirlpool should not drown two illustrious lights, but the Church should have strong warriors of Christ. For a certain matron, Catulla by name, who, although she was still held bound to the errors of the pagans, nevertheless showed both in mind and in deed that she desired to be converted to the faith of Christ through the example of the martyrs — inspired, then, by the mercy of God, she sought a counsel of excellent virtue, and asks the executioners to come to a banquet; and when she had spent upon them an abundance of the hospitality offered, she drove out of their memory the things which they had undertaken to do [x].

[15] Then she disclosed the secrets of her breast to her faithful servants, Catulla by name, acting, they are secretly carried off and hidden, that, having withdrawn the precious bodies of the blessed Martyrs by stealth, they should secretly hide them in a cut * stone, far from the said city, in a small field which she had prepared to be sown with a crop [y]: and they, fulfilling her commands in haste, carry out what had been ordered them. O praiseworthy theft, which brought loss to no one, but rather conferred blessed gain on all! And when, as is the custom, the consecrated field brought forth the crop of its sowing, it was so enriched by the abundance of the blessed Martyrs that its cultivators both acquired a hundredfold fruit, and deserved salvation for the homeland, and consecrated a great treasure for posterity [z].

[16] [and when the persecution abated, the place in which they had been laid is adorned with a mausoleum and also a church:] The aforesaid mother of the household, therefore, not unmindful of these sacred Martyrs, as soon as she saw that the heat of the persecution had cooled, sought out with all solicitude the place keeping the bones of the holy Martyrs, and, having found it, marked it by the construction of a great mausoleum; and we believe, not undeservedly, that this venerable woman without doubt clung to the holy Martyrs, because, had not the Redeemer of all willed her to come to the knowledge of His name, He would by no means have poured into her breast a counsel of such great piety. For we trust without any ambiguity that she who kept the bones of the blessed Martyrs attained by their intercessions to the truth of the faith. A very great crowd of Christians, therefore, which had been converted by the admonition of the blessed Martyrs, with every effort and endeavour, with whatever strength it could, with all devotion and the greatest zeal, building a church over the blessed corpses of the holy Martyrs, buried them, three in number, to the glory of the holy Trinity, with worthy spices [aa]; at whose worthy bodies, the clemency of almighty God assisting, signal miracles are daily made manifest.

[17] the author, setting forth here in general what miracles happen in it For what speech or what tongue would suffice to recount the miracles of such great Martyrs, when they cannot be retained even by human minds themselves? To the infirm health, to the crippled their step, to the blind sight, to the deaf hearing, and to the dumb speech is restored; unclean spirits are expelled from possessed bodies, and pious vows grow rich with happy hearing. We believe that we ourselves, though undeserving, are to be helped by the sacred prayers of those whose series of passion we, dull and unworthy, have presumed to make known to you, not from the capacity of our own wit or the industry of our own sense, but what has been laid open to us by the report of the old faithful, and what * we have learned in part, in some old little pages, a few things, as we could, rubbed out over a long space.

[18] at the same time also he declares whence he drew what he has written. For as we have learned from the conversation of elders, skilled men, fearing God and burning with the zeal of holy charity, they took pains to put into sacred writings many things about the illustrious contest of the blessed men, to the praise of Christ and the glory of the Martyrs, for the memory of posterity; but, negligence stealing upon them * and the envy of the ancient enemy bringing it about, they are said to have been consumed by the burning of flames [bb]. For the skilful capacity of human minds can weigh from the few things which have been said the greater things which are passed over in silence. This, however, we trust without any doubt, that they underwent many contests for Christ, since up to the present the divine power deigns daily to declare such great miracles through them. And the martyrs of Christ Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius suffered on the 7th before the Ides of October under the emperor Domitian, at Paris, a city of the Gauls [cc], our Lord Jesus Christ reigning, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. It does not appear probable that Domitian would have sent officers into Gaul for the sake of seizing Dionysius alone, as is indicated here to have been done.

q. At the time at which Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius were afflicted with martyrdom, the name of archdeacon was still unknown in the Church. In our codex O Ms. 19 Eleutherius is called only deacon.

r. In our codices P Ms. 155 and O Ms. 19 these things are rendered a little differently in the following words: And when the Church, founded by the merits and the mouth of its preachers, even amid the whirlwinds and storms of the lictors, likewise grew and was increased, even the fierce savagery of Germany, subdued by compunction of heart, rejoiced that it had now submitted its neck, tamed, to the yoke of Christ.

s. In all our manuscript copies this faulty construction occurs, with a difference of only a few little words intervening.

t. Whether Dionysius and his Companions, the martyrs Rusticus and Eleutherius, were killed on a hill will be examined below in the Commentary to be set before their Acts.

u. What is to be thought of this prodigy which is related here the Commentary to be set before the Acts of Dionysius and his Companions will likewise disclose.

x. Of the matron mentioned here, and of the deed ascribed to her, there will also be a place below, in the Commentary just mentioned, for speaking more fully; meanwhile, from the fact that she is said here to have been still bound to the errors of the pagans, but in the Metrodorian Passion of the Saint to have been still seized by the terrors of the gentiles, it seems to follow that the latter flowed from the Latin Acts which we edit here by translation, as you will find set forth more fully and further proved in the preliminary Commentary, §4.

y. From this place or text of the Latin Acts which we edit, compared with the place which corresponds to it in the Metrodorian Passion of Dionysius, it is not a little confirmed that the latter flowed from the former by translation, as the things which I discussed in the preliminary Commentary, number 68 and following, demonstrate.

z. I asserted in the preliminary Commentary, number 71, that the six copies of the Latin Acts which exist with us agree almost everywhere sufficiently well from the beginning up to the place where the bodies of Dionysius and his fellow martyrs being carried off by stealth and secretly buried is treated, and that from there the copy which our codex P MS. 155 exhibits differs not a little from the five remaining copies; and that the studious reader may perceive how true this is, and at the same time all the things in which that copy differs from these, by a comparison of the Acts as they are edited here from our Fulda codex Q Ms. 6 with the same Acts as they exist in our codex P MS. 155, I transcribe here the copy of the Acts exhibited in the latter from the place at which it begins to disagree with the five remaining copies. The words in which it is couched from that place to the end are these: The aforesaid mother of the household, therefore, as soon as she saw that the heat of persecution had cooled; the place,

keeping the bones of such great Martyrs, she approached most reverently, with what honour she could, together with the holy priests of the Lord and crowds of the faithful, and made known openly to all, on the same most sacred day, the incomparable treasure which she had long kept to be of profit to herself and to posterity; on which day blessed Dionysius with his companions fulfilled his contest in triumph and deserved to receive the crown of victory from the hand of the Lord, and, a precious witness of the Lord Jesus, possessed the starry senate: and she marked that very place by the building of an eminent mausoleum. The bodies of the Saints also having been buried with worthy veneration, their garments, namely the tunic, the hair-shirt and the sandals of the precious Dionysius, and the chasuble of saint Rusticus the archpriest and the dalmatic of blessed Eleutherius the archdeacon, except for the portions which were taken by the devotion of the faithful as relics of the elect of the Lord, are preserved to this day with the reverence of due cult. By whose merits and prayers the same venerable woman, reborn in the name of the holy Trinity of water and the Holy Spirit, handed over all that she could possess to the Lord Jesus Christ and to the Martyrs themselves, and, celebrating sacred vigils at their bodies as long as she survived, in good confession and conversation, to the glory of Christ and of the holy Martyrs, deserved, by their intercession, to pass away. In process of time, however, the number of the faithful having been multiplied, the Christians, most devoted to the patronage of blessed Dionysius, built at great expense and with excellent adornment a basilica over the bodies of the precious Martyrs; where daily, our Lord Jesus Christ working, their merits are proved to be shown by the frequency of miracles, through their intervention the blind receiving sight, the crippled their step, and the deaf hearing. But neither is this to be passed over in silence, that those vexed by unclean spirits, when they are led by divine power to the tombs of the said witnesses of Christ to be examined, are compelled by the command of the Saints themselves to indicate, the names being designated, in what place each of the Martyrs is laid. And their memorable passion was celebrated on the 7th before the Ides of October, in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 96, and from the Passion 64; and of the age of the most blessed Dionysius about 90; the 16th year also of the reign of Domitian, most cruel Caesar, coming on; our Lord Jesus Christ reigning, to whom is honour and glory, power and dominion, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, from eternity and now and without end. Thus the praised copy of the Acts; and that a certain copy which lit the way for Hilduin did not differ much from this in the things which it relates in the words already given, anyone will easily discover who compares with these the things which this writer hands down to memory in the Life of Dionysius composed by him, number 35 and following.

aa. That the church over the bodies of Dionysius and his fellow martyrs was built not by the very Christians who had been converted to the faith by them, but by others who lived later, is asserted in the copy of the Acts which our codex P. Ms. 155 exhibits (go to the words which I have recited from it at the preceding letter).

bb. What place in the Metrodorian Passion of Dionysius corresponds to these words and to some others contained in the preceding number, and likewise what is to be thought of that place or text of it in which Metrodorus declares that he drew the things he writes of Dionysius from an ancient narrative and firm antiquity, the preliminary Commentary teaches at number 77 and the two following.

cc. In the Passion composed in Greek by Metrodorus, the martyrdom of Dionysius is entered, both in Cordier and in Lanssel, not on the seventh before the Ides but on the seventh before the Kalends of October; but since no writer, either Greek or Latin, has ever noted that Dionysius suffered on the seventh before the Kalends of October, or the 25th day of September, it appears beyond doubt that the word Kalends crept into the said Passion, or rather into the copy of it which lit the way for Lanssel, solely through the carelessness of copyists, and that accordingly the word Ides, which was originally entered in it by Metrodorus, must be substituted for it. And since this is so, and Dionysius accordingly suffered, according to the Metrodorian Passion, just as according to our Fulda codex, from which we give the Latin Acts here, and the remaining manuscript copies of these existing with us, on the seventh before the Ides, or the ninth day of October, this is again an argument that the Metrodorian Passion of Dionysius flowed by translation from the Latin Acts which we edit; namely because, since absolutely all the Greeks note that Dionysius the Areopagite suffered on the third day of October, Metrodorus would most probably, nay undoubtedly, have assigned the martyrdom of Dionysius to this day also, if he had drawn what he writes of him from Greek monuments, and not from Latin ones, which constantly assign the martyrdom of Dionysius and his fellow Martyrs to the ninth day of October. Now add these and the other things said at letters x and y to those which I discussed in the preliminary Commentary, § IV, on that same argument, and it will be still more luminously clear that the Greek Passion of Dionysius composed by Metrodorus flowed by translation from the Latin Acts edited here by us, especially if you compare these with that from head to heel. Nor do I doubt that it will also come about that, if you compare the Life of Dionysius written by Hilduin, beginning from the place at which the mission of Dionysius into the Gauls is narrated, with the aforesaid Latin Acts, you will admit that these lit the way for that writer. Go also to the preliminary Commentary, number 93 and the three following. As to whether Dionysius and his fellow martyrs were crowned with martyrdom under the emperor Domitian, as is asserted here in the Latin Acts, the Metrodorian Passion also agreeing, the Commentary to be set before their Acts below will disclose.

* al. sese is omitted

* al. reliquit.

* al. the Gospel of Christ having been spread far and wide through you,

* al. rudem populum

* al. eos is omitted

* al. condicioni

* al. his triumph might lie open to his glory

* al. hominem jam mortuum

* al. sexto

* supply factum,

* read pertigerit

* al. quæ

* read subrepente

APPENDIX CONCERNING THE RELICS OF THE SAINT.

Dionysius the Areopagite, bishop and martyr, at Athens in Greece. (S.)

CHAPTER I.

Whether the relics of Dionysius the Areopagite are kept in the monastery of Saint-Denis in France.

Since Dionysius, who underwent martyrdom at Paris, and is thought to rest there in body, or at least to have rested there long, Pope Innocent III, having held a council at Rome, is distinct from Dionysius the Areopagite, as I showed in the preliminary Commentary, I do not inquire here whether relics of the Dionysius who fell at Paris, but whether relics of Dionysius the Areopagite, who died at Athens, brought thither from elsewhere, are preserved at Paris. The reason why I do this is a writing which occurs in the Life of St. Dionysius of Corinth with us, tome 1 of April, page 744 and following, and which runs thus: In the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 1215, Innocent III, Pope of the holy Roman Church, convoked a general Council at the City. To this council came together from every nation that is under heaven the shepherds and Prelates of holy Mother Church, namely Patriarchs, archbishops, pontiffs and abbots, and other persons of inferior grade and order, of whom there was no number. Kings also and princes of various peoples were present either in person or through envoys: but the venerable man, the abbot of Blessed Dionysius the Areopagite, Henry by name, could not attend with the rest, because the weakness of advanced age did not permit it. He sent, however, for himself and for his church a religious and honourable man, Master Emeric the prior, with other persons of the same church, who should present themselves in his place, as best they could, to the presence of the Lord Pope. The Council having been dissolved, leave to depart was granted to each.

[2] But the Lord Pope, wishing to make manifest to all the benevolence and favour and pious affection of love to the monks of Saint-Denis, who had come to it, which he both then had and had always had toward the venerable monastery of Blessed Dionysius, called to himself the aforesaid Emeric and his companions, and gave them, as a pledge of perpetual charity, a priceless treasure, namely the body of the most holy Dionysius the Confessor, bishop of the Corinthians, that they might translate it with them with due honour into France and present it on his part to the church of Blessed Dionysius with all reverence. He delivered to them besides letters testimonial of his largesse, strengthened with the seal of the holy Apostolic See. And they, receiving with fitting thanksgiving so noble, so holy, so venerable a deposit, gladdened by the free munificence of the supreme pontiff, returned into France as quickly as they could. And when they had come to the church of Blessed Dionysius de Strata on the 9th before the Kalends of March, namely the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day, the venerable abbot and community came to meet them with solemn procession, clad in albs and silken copes, with lighted tapers, the bells being rung, and the whole clergy and people accompanying: and so with hymns and praises the glorious Confessor and pontiff of the Corinthians, Dionysius, was brought into the church of the most holy Areopagite Dionysius, and, a high Mass of the Confessor himself having been solemnly celebrated in solemn vestments, he was placed within the apse which is situated above the bodies of the Holy Martyrs behind the altar, in the Holy of Holies, in an ivory vessel becomingly arranged.

[3] But since the manner and cause of this Apostolic donation, [the body of St. Dionysius, with the letters testimonial which are exhibited here added,] and the indulgence which was granted by him to all who should devoutly approach to honour the sacred relics of this holy Confessor, are most fully contained in his authentic letter, we have taken care to subjoin it in this place, so that the truth of the thing done may be held more certainly not only by those present but also by posterity. Innocent, bishop, servant of the Servants of God, to his beloved sons the abbot and community of St. Dionysius of Paris, greeting and Apostolic benediction. Whether the glorious martyr and pontiff Dionysius, whose venerable body rests in your church, is to be considered the one who is called the Areopagite, converted by the Apostle Paul, there are various opinions of various men. For some declare that Dionysius the Areopagite died and was buried in Greece, and that there was another Dionysius who preached the faith of Christ to the peoples of the Franks: but others assert that he came to Rome after the death of Blessed Paul and was destined by St. Clement the Pope into Gaul, and that it was another who died and was buried in Greece; both, however, excellent in work and illustrious in speech. We, however, wishing to prejudge neither opinion, but desiring to honour your monastery, which pertains immediately to the Roman church, the sacred pledge of Blessed Dionysius which P. * of good memory, Cardinal priest of the title of St. Marcellus, then legate of the Apostolic See, brought from Greece to the City, we devoutly

direct to you through our beloved sons Emeric the prior and certain others, envoys of your monastery sent to the general Council; so that, when you have both sets of relics, no doubt may remain henceforth that sacred relics of Blessed Dionysius the Areopagite are held at your monastery: do you therefore receive them reverently, rendering us this return, that a spiritual commemoration of us may always be made to God in your prayers, and that, according to the offer of these same envoys of yours, the anniversary memory of our death may be solemnly celebrated. And to all who shall devoutly come together to venerate these sacred relics we relax, by Apostolic authority, forty days of the penances enjoined on them.

[4] [he bestows. This, brought into France, wrongly for that of St. Dionysius of Corinth.] Let it therefore be lawful for no man at all to infringe this page of our grant and remission, or to oppose it with rash daring: but if anyone shall presume to attempt this, let him know that he will incur the indignation of almighty God and of His blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. Given at the Lateran, on the day before the Nones of January, in the 18th year of our Pontificate. In the narrative contained in the words already recited and set before the Papal Bull which is subjoined to them, the Dionysius whose sacred body Pope Innocent III is related to have given to the monastery of Saint-Denis in France is held to be Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians; nay, it is asserted, both in the aforesaid narrative and also in the History of the abbey of Saint-Denis edited by Michel Félibien in the year 1706, page 219, that on the day on which that sacrosanct pledge was brought into the said monastery a solemn Mass of this holy bishop was celebrated by the monks of Saint-Denis; but whence did either the author of the narrative just supplied, or the monks of Saint-Denis, have it ascertained that the saint Dionysius whose sacred body, brought from Greece to Rome by Peter — namely Peter of Capua, Cardinal priest of the Holy Roman Church of the title of St. Marcellus (see Oldoini in the History of the Roman Pontiffs and Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, tome 1, column 1162 and following) — Innocent III bestowed on the monastery of Saint-Denis, was none other than St. Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians? Indeed, since in the Bull which Innocent attached to this sacred body sent by him into France it is not indicated by so much as a word whose Dionysius it was, Sirmond, having recited the words of the aforesaid Bull which chiefly bear on this, addresses the monks of Saint-Denis in France thus, not undeservedly, in his Dissertation on the two Dionysiuses, chapter 6, towards the end: I here question your good faith: whose Dionysius do you believe the relics to be which were brought from Greece to Rome by Peter of Capua and sent to you by Innocent?

[5] contrary to the bull of Innocent, concerning which at the same time You are wont to say the Corinthian's; for so you had to speak, lest you should confess the Areopagite. But what Oedipus reported the Corinthian to you, since Innocent does not explain? Then, how is it consistent that, the body of Dionysius of Corinth having been brought to you, Innocent should say that the body of the Areopagite would be with you without doubt, if it was not with you before? But if that body was the Areopagite's, as appears, not the Corinthian's, it is assuredly clear that the relics of the Areopagite are now with you by the kindness of Innocent, but that he was not the bishop of the Parisii, to whom he did not come except dead. Certainly it appears beyond doubt that the sacred remains of Dionysius which Innocent sent into France were held by some to be the body of Dionysius the Areopagite; for Innocent, after he had indicated not obscurely in the said Bull that he doubted whether the Dionysius whose relics were preserved in the monastery of Saint-Denis was the Areopagite, presently, addressing the monks of Saint-Denis, subjoins: We … desiring to honour your monastery, devoutly direct to you the sacred pledge of blessed Dionysius which Peter of good memory, Cardinal of St. Marcellus, brought from Greece to the City; so that, when you have the relics of both, no doubt may remain henceforth that sacred relics of blessed Dionysius the Areopagite are held at your monastery; but how could this reasoning of his, by which he argued that the body of St. Dionysius the Areopagite would be with the monks of Saint-Denis beyond all doubt after they had received the sacred remains of Dionysius which he was sending to them, be valid, if neither Innocent, who doubted whether the relics of Dionysius preserved in France were the Areopagite's, nor any others held these to be the relics of Dionysius the Areopagite?

[6] I would believe, therefore, that those from whom Peter of Capua, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, and of the relics sent by him some things who was taken from among the living in the year 1209, as Oldoini teaches in the place cited above, had received those sacred pledges in Greece, believed them to be relics of Dionysius the Areopagite, and, by the documents which they adduced to render their good faith in this matter proved, brought it about that at least both Peter of Capua and Innocent the third did not doubt whether they were relating the truth, and that the latter also believed that either those which he sent into France, or those which he knew had previously been preserved there, were genuine relics of Dionysius the Areopagite. And the sacred remains of Dionysius which Peter of Capua brought to Rome from Greece were not only held by some to be relics of Dionysius the Areopagite; but it also appears sufficiently probable that they were in very truth relics of Dionysius the Areopagite. The opinion sits with me because, since the Dionysius who underwent martyrdom at Paris is undoubtedly, as I have already shown, different from Dionysius the Areopagite, and the monks of Saint-Denis up to the age of Pope Innocent the third possessed the body of no other Dionysius than him who had fallen at Paris for the faith, the relics brought from Greece to Rome by Peter of Capua were probably those of Dionysius the Areopagite, as the Greeks from whom he received them asserted. The matter indeed is not certain, since the Church venerates still other Saints who bore the name of Dionysius; but since indeed no other place claims for itself the possession of the body of Dionysius the Areopagite (for the monastery of St. Emmeram does not come to be mentioned here, since it is relevant only if Dionysius of Paris is not different from the Areopagite), it seems sufficiently probable that the sacred remains of Dionysius which Peter of Capua brought from Greece to Rome are to be held for relics of Dionysius the Areopagite.

[7] Nor is there reason why anyone should perhaps object here the Greek elogium of Dionysius the Areopagite observed here, declares, recited in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts already given, number 199 and following, in which Dionysius is asserted to have been wholly consumed by flames; for besides the fact that it can happen that, even if Dionysius had perished by the burning of flames, all his bones were not consumed by the fire, that elogium does not deserve entire credit, nay not even the first part of it in which this is asserted, since it supplies some other things too which are not certainly true, as will be clear to one who considers it. But indeed there will perhaps be someone who, contending that the relics which Innocent III sent into France, brought from Greece to Rome by Peter of Capua, were not only probably but certainly the body of Dionysius the Areopagite, will now argue thus: Innocent the third indicated in his Bull to the monks of Saint-Denis that, the relics which he was sending having been brought to them, there would certainly be relics of St. Dionysius the Areopagite with them; but this he could not have done, with truth preserved, unless he in fact thought that either the relics of Dionysius preserved in the monastery of Saint-Denis, or the others brought from Greece which he was sending thither, were certainly relics of Dionysius the Areopagite. And since this is so, and the relics which Innocent said were preserved in the monastery of Saint-Denis were certainly not those of Dionysius the Areopagite, it must be either that Innocent wrongly indicated what I have said to the monks of Saint-Denis, or that the relics brought from Greece to Rome, which he sent into France, were certainly those of Dionysius the Areopagite. Tillemont, in tome 2 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, page 674, seems to hold in no value the reasoning of Innocent, because neither the relics brought to Rome by Peter of Capua nor the others preserved in the monastery of Saint-Denis were certainly relics of St. Dionysius the Areopagite.

[8] was held to be the body, and is still held today. But whatever be the case in this matter, since indeed nothing at all occurs in the bull of Innocent from which you could extract that the relics which he sent into France were held by him to be the sacred remains of Dionysius of Corinth, the monks of Saint-Denis certainly held them wrongly to be the body of this holy prelate, unless perhaps they were impelled to it by solid reasons sought from elsewhere than the Bull of Innocent and unknown to me; and since they have not yet brought forward such reasons, they seem to have held the relics of Dionysius sent to them by Pope Innocent III to be the relics of Dionysius the Areopagite only with the design of not being compelled to depart from the opinion by which they stubbornly contended both that this Saint was crowned with martyrdom near Paris and that his relics were preserved among them. Meanwhile the monks of Saint-Denis, up to the beginning of this century, religiously guarded the relics of Dionysius sent into France by Innocent III among their sacred treasures in an older reliquary covered with silver plates, keeping also likewise the original of the bull attached by Innocent to those sacred pledges in the archive of their monastery, and every year, on the eighth day of April, on which they celebrated the feast of this Saint — which is an argument that they are held by them even today to be the relics of Dionysius of Corinth — they were wont to expose them to public veneration, as I understand from the Paris Breviary and at the same time from Félibien's History of Saint-Denis, both printed and praised above already.

* al. Peter

CHAPTER II.

Whether the abbey of Longpont possesses the head of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, and whether some part of it at least is not in the duchy of Luxembourg.

[That the head of the Areopagite is with them the monks of Longpont, as an instrument,] In the diocese of Soissons is situated a monastery of the Cistercian Order which is named Longpont; its religious assert that they possess the head of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, brought from Constantinople into France by Nivelon, bishop of Soissons, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, and given to them by him. In our literary stock there exists an instrument setting forth how that sacred pledge came to the monks of Longpont, signed by the Prior of the said monastery and two religious priests of the same on the 30th day of January of the year 1690, and communicated to us. That instrument, therefore, before I put forward my opinion of that sacred pledge preserved among the praised cenobites, I transcribe here entire, translated by me from the French tongue, in which it is written, into the Latin tongue. It runs thus: Brother Charles Joseph Cottin, Bachelor in Theology of the faculty of Paris, Prior of the abbey of St. Mary of Longpont of the Cistercian Order in the diocese of Soissons, to all who shall see these present letters, greeting in the Lord, who is wonderful in His Saints and who keeps all their bones: we make known that, having been requested by our most reverend abbot general of Cîteaux, by letters which he deigned to write to us at Paris on the 23rd day of the present month of January, to set out in order and commit to writing for him the proofs, notices and documents concerning the head of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, which has been religiously preserved for five hundred years in our said monastery of Longpont, for the sake of obeying and satisfying the desire of our said most reverend lord we went to the place of the treasury of our relics, which is situated behind the high altar of our church.

[10] There, accompanied by Dom Nicolas Quinquet and Dom Pierre Lallouette, in which some things are recorded about that sacred treasure, religious priests of our community, after the ceremonies required and customary in such a case, we opened an ivory case furnished with crystals and silver figures; from which we drew out a small silver chest, worked in filigree, ten inches long and about six wide, on whose lid there is an open rose, around which are inscribed in Gothic characters these four Latin words: Head of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite; and above and around the aforesaid lid, on small silver plates, are inscribed or impressed, likewise in Gothic characters, these three following verses:

Longpont is ennobled by the Areopagite's Happy head, which in this vessel is placed, Whose teaching of life may this flock follow.

And after the opening of the said little chest or reliquary had been made, we found enclosed in it and wrapped in a piece of white silk the bones of a human head, together with the sinciput or forehead, the occiput and the two sides, without any fracture, and around, and with nothing interposed, on the said bones of the head, beginning above from the place of the left ear and going around through the whole hinder part, we distinctly read these four words expressed or inscribed in Greek in ancient ink: κεφαλη του αγιου Διονυσιου Αρειοπαγιτ.

[11] and at the same time from whom and how Among all the bishops of Soissons, Nivelon de Chérisy pursued the abbey of Longpont with particular affection, since he was the son of Gérard de Chérisy, lord of Muret, and of Agnes, who in the year 1131 gave the place named Longpont, which was then a parish of which they were the lords, to the Cistercian Order, that there might be built there a monastery, which has kept the name of Longpont; where they gave themselves, and where they spent the rest of their life in the exercise of all kinds of Christian virtues. King Philip Augustus, when he had enrolled a huge army for the recovery of the Holy Land in the year 1202, gave it to Baldwin, count of Flanders, to command with supreme authority, since his majesty himself could not undertake the journey on account of the English war. Among the first and most ardent prelates of France who joined these forces of crusaders was St. Nivelon the bishop. This Christian army, turning aside from the direct road which leads to Palestine, by a hidden judgment of God turned toward Constantinople, to restore to Alexius the Younger, the emperor, the throne which, as is known to all, his uncle Alexius Comnenus had usurped.

[12] he came to them, is set forth, The count of Flanders and the Christian army in the following year besieged and stormed the city of Constantinople. The pious bishop Nivelon, desiring to make his diocese a sharer in the abundant spoils of this imperial city, applied every care to recover a part of the relics with which the emperors of the East had enriched it from the age of Constantine the Great, its founder; and when he had obtained a multitude of the more notable ones, he sent part of them into France through faithful persons to whose trust he consigned them; but he kept the other part, which he himself brought into his episcopal city, and which, namely in the year 1205, as it is permissible to gather from the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 9, column 365, he distributed to the cathedral church and to several other churches and monasteries, and by name he carried to the monastery of Longpont the head of blessed Dionysius the Areopagite and a cross of the wood of the Lord. These are the very words of the Lessons of the Soissons Breviary which are read on the feast of the sacred relics, which from the time of that translation is solemnly celebrated every year throughout the whole diocese on the Sunday which next follows the feast of Dionysius in the month of October, when the Cathedral church sings at Mass in the ancient Prose:

Our cenobites hold The head of the Areopagite.

[13] gives assurance, It is therefore the constant tradition of the whole Diocese of Soissons that the true relic of the head of St. Dionysius the Areopagite is preserved in the monastery of Longpont, and whoever should doubt of that precious deposit could by the same reasoning doubt also of the genuineness of the relics of the cathedral church, of the most celebrated abbeys of blessed Mary and of St. John of the Vineyards, and of several other secular and Regular churches of the city and diocese of Soissons, which possess most of their relics from the liberality of the pious bishop Nivelon. Further, since it would have been difficult for that pious prelate to carry into France in different Reliquaries all the sacred relics which he had gathered at Constantinople, it is credible that he enclosed them all together in cases, and, so that he might be able to distinguish some from others when he had arrived, marked them with the name of each Saint written on, and ordered to be inscribed on the bones of the head of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, or found inscribed, in Greek letters these words, which are still read there sufficiently distinctly: Κεφαλη του αγιου Διονυσιου Ὰρειοπαγιτ. In faith of which and of all the things said above we have drawn up this writing in the form of a summary record of the thing done, that it may be of use in time and place and wherever it shall be fitting, which we have signed and caused to be signed by the two religious assisting us named above, and have fortified with the seal of our community on the 30th day of January in the year 1698. It was signed F. Cottin, Prior of the abbey of Longpont, F. Nicolas Quinquet, F. Pierre Lallouette.

[14] Thus the praised instrument; which certainly shows luminously that it is asserted by the monks of Longpont that the head of St. Dionysius the Areopagite is in their possession, assert, and that entire in very truth, nay that this is believed in the diocese of Soissons. But do the monks of Longpont in very fact possess that sacred pledge? There is certainly no reason why Nivelon, bishop of Soissons, from whom they received it, should be held suspect. Moreover the fifth Lesson of the Paris Breviary, customarily read on the third day of October concerning St. Dionysius the Areopagite from the year 1700, runs thus: His head (namely that of Dionysius the Areopagite), deposited in the imperial chapel of the city of Constantinople, was given by Baldwin, who first of the Latins ruled in the East, to Nivelon, bishop of Soissons, then staying there, about the beginning of the thirteenth century; and those who composed the said and the other Lessons of the Paris Breviary on Dionysius the Areopagite seem to have handed down to memory in them only those things which, after accurate and diligent examination, they found to accord with the truth; so that accordingly what they relate in the words recited above about the head of Dionysius the Areopagite having been deposited in the imperial chapel of the city of Constantinople before it was handed to Nivelon by Baldwin is most probably not foreign to the truth. And since this is so, and that sacred pledge had probably been preserved in the imperial chapel of this city long even before Baldwin occupied Constantinople, the place alone in which it was then preserved makes it less to be feared that what was not the head of Dionysius the Areopagite was held at Constantinople, some fraud intervening, for the head of this Saint. Hence, further, it now comes about that, since the same head of Dionysius which had long been preserved in the imperial chapel was undoubtedly handed by Baldwin to Nivelon and by him afterwards to the monks of Longpont, it appears sufficiently probable that that sacred pledge is in very fact in their possession.

[15] And this being so, it follows besides from the words of the instrument already given, with the things which Halloix in words inasmuch as an entire human head is indicated by them, that the monks of Longpont possess the entire head of Dionysius the Areopagite also. Halloix indeed, in his Annotations on the Life of Dionysius the Areopagite composed by him, in his work on the Illustrious Writers of the Eastern church who flourished in sanctity and learning in the first century of the Christian era, page 241, relates that the skull or upper part of the head of St. Dionysius the Areopagite is preserved in a village of the duchy of Luxembourg named Aquila; but this appears foreign to the truth. That judgment may be passed on the matter, I set before the reader here all his words which bear on this, however prolix. They run thus: There are those who say that a memorial of this consecration (of Dionysius the Areopagite as bishop), performed by the hand of Paul, still exists in the territory of Luxembourg, in the village of Aquila. This village is about an hour's journey distant from the city of Trier. There is there a small church sacred to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, and in it the skull of the same saint, or rather the crown of the skull, on whose outer part a white cross is seen, while the rest of the skull is blackish. The more common talk is that Paul impressed this cross on Dionysius while he consecrated him: that of some, however, not then, but while he washed him with the saving water. For it is admitted that the sign of the cross is used in both sacraments, and Dionysius himself teaches it in the book on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapters 2 and V. Nevertheless that Cross, whatever at length it may be, whether formed in Orders or in Baptism, is a passing cross, signing only outwardly, and not penetrating inwardly even to the bones and inhering in them. Whence it follows either that it was done by miracle that that Cross passed through the skin and settled upon the skull: or certainly that it adhered, so impressed, in a manner unknown to us. For what is called the Character of a Sacrament is altogether different from a cross of this kind.

[16] transcribed here, about the skull of Dionysius, For that is impressed not on the body but on the soul, and adheres to it indelibly, and is conferred only in three sacraments, according to that canon IX of the council of Trent, session seven: "If anyone shall say that in three Sacraments, namely Baptism, Confirmation and Order, a character is not imprinted on the soul, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible sign (whence also they cannot be repeated), let him be anathema." But that cross which is formed outwardly by a bishop or a Priest is a bodily sign, and deletable, and common to all the sacraments. A third opinion, however, concerning the time of the impressed cross is that of John Bertels, abbot of Echternach, who in his History of Luxembourg relates that the sign of the Cross was impressed on the top of the skull by the Apostle St. Paul when he was being sent away by him, already a bishop, into the Gauls with a blessing. But this opinion cannot be held, unless it be said that Dionysius was twice sent into Gaul, once by Paul, once by Clement after the death of Paul. But that he was sent by Paul no ancient writings show the least trace: that he was sent by Clement, as will be clear later, very many. Arnold de Raisse mentions this skull in his Hierogazophylacium, or Treasury of the sacred Relics of Belgium, page 349.

[17] preserved elsewhere, records, do not seem true, probably possess. Concerning the same skull and the impressed cross there communicated with me eyewitnesses, John Roberti, doctor of Sacred Theology and then Professor of sacred letters here at Douai, and Fr. John Sebastian, at the same time master of Philosophy in the academy of Trier: of whom the latter indeed, having set out to Aquila for that very cause, examined the matter most diligently and wrote to me in full: among other things, that that cross is smooth and not at all porous, although the rest of the skull is porous: then, that from that skull, which, bound round with silver, forms a little bowl, wine is customarily taken by pilgrims against headaches. Whence both on account of the abundance of miracles and on account of the graces

granted by the Pontiffs, it is held in great honour there. But that that skull, or rather the topmost part of the skull, is that of the Areopagite himself, the natives assert they hold from the ancient tradition of their elders. But whence or when they received it they do not have handed down to memory. Thus far Halloix; and Raisse, in the place which he cites, indeed mentions the skull of the Areopagite, or at least its summit, which is preserved in the village of Egel, in Latin Aquila, in the duchy of Luxembourg: but neither he nor Halloix brings forward anything to render proved that that skull is that of Dionysius the Areopagite. What, then, if that skull is not that of Dionysius the Areopagite, but of the Dionysius who suffered near Paris and is, as I have shown above, distinct from him? However that may be, since what is said of the skull of the Areopagite preserved in the village of Aquila rests only on popular tradition, very often false, it must needs be very doubtful and uncertain whether that skull, of which it is besides unknown whence and when it was brought thither, truly belongs to Dionysius the Areopagite. And since this is so, and nothing else persuades that any part is missing from the head of the Areopagite preserved, as appears from what has already been said, with the monks of Longpont, it seems more probable that it is entire with them.

APPENDIX THE SECOND

Of the Writings which are circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite.

Dionysius the Areopagite, bishop and martyr, at Athens in Greece. (S.)

What are the Writings customarily circulated under the name of the Areopagite, Of the Works which are said to have been composed by Dionysius the Areopagite, some are still extant; others, if they ever existed, now lost, are known only from the Works ascribed to the same Dionysius and still extant, in which they are cited. And the former indeed consist of four books, of which the first is entitled On the Celestial Hierarchy, the second On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, the third On the Divine Names, the fourth On Mystical Theology, and besides of ten Letters, of which four are noted as given to Gaius, one to Dorotheus, one to Sosipater, one to Polycarp, one to Demophilus, one to Titus, and one finally to John the Evangelist. As regards the Works not now extant, or certainly, if they ever existed, now lost, they constituted six books in all, in the first of which was treated mystical Theology, in the second the Soul, in the third the divine Hymns, in the fourth the Just and divine Judgment, in the fifth the things which are perceived by intelligence and sense, and in the sixth finally the Hypotyposes or Theological Outlines. Further, to the books still extant which were composed by Dionysius the Areopagite some add besides a Letter to Apollophanes, and another written to Timothy on the death of Paul; but since both the latter and the former bear, as is agreed among the learned, undoubted marks of forgery, and are commonly denied to Dionysius the Areopagite by the very patrons of the Areopagitic Works, these two compositions being passed over, it is almost solely controverted whether the others, reviewed above and still extant, proceeded from Dionysius the Areopagite, in whose name they are inscribed.

[2] and what is to be accomplished in this Appendix is set forth. And some indeed, whose opinion from the sixth or at least the seventh century up to the sixteenth century prevailed with almost all, only a few protesting from time to time, judge that all those Writings are to be attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, whose name they bear; others on the contrary, themselves not few in number, who flourished in the sixteenth century and later, utterly deny all those Works to him, even though the author himself, through the things he writes, presents himself in more than one place as Dionysius the Areopagite, and pronounce them spurious and falsely attributed to this our Saint. Whether, then, we are to assent to these or to those, I undertake to discuss in this Appendix. And to me indeed it appears far more probable that the Works which bear the name of Dionysius the Areopagite do not truly have this Saint as their author; but in order to establish this opinion of mine I shall not adduce all the weighty reasons which are found here and there in the authors who held the same opinion before me, but, that I may study brevity here as far as can be done, only those which I shall judge the stronger. In order, therefore, to accomplish this — not neglecting meanwhile, in the treatise now to be subjoined, the reasons which militate for ascribing the said Works to Dionysius the Areopagite — I shall begin by proving, concerning those Works, what I think will add no small weight thence to my opinion which I have already indicated, from the silence of absolutely all the Fathers who flourished in the first four centuries of the Christian era, intending afterwards to adduce other arguments which conduce to the same end. For the rest, I give notice beforehand that of the various editions of the Dionysian Works which have come out I shall for the most part use that of Cordier of the year 1633, and I approach the matter itself in the following chapter.

CHAPTER I.

Whether the Works of Dionysius were cited by any of the Fathers who flourished in the first three centuries of the Christian era.

Origen, contrary to what they contend, the Dionysian Works, Since absolutely none of the Fathers who flourished in the first and second centuries of the Christian era is recorded to have cited the Works customarily circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, and since the very men who contend that those Works are to be ascribed to our Saint admit this, I proceed to the third century. This, therefore, offers two, namely Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria. And those who strive to make the Saint the genuine author of those Works affirm that the former, indeed, who flourished about the year 230, cited Dionysius the Areopagite, or, if you prefer, his Works; and that the latter not only cited them but also illustrated them with Scholia. Let us examine, then, whether those who affirm this are to be assented to. Origen, they say, in the first Homily on St. John writes thus: For in Him, as the divine mouth speaks, we move and are; and, as the great Dionysius the Areopagite says, the being of all things is the divinity above essence. Certainly Dionysius is cited here most openly, and the testimony adduced from his Works is read in the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 4; but what follows from that? The Homilies on St. John are the offspring, not of Origen, but, as is agreed among all the learned, of another author whose name is unknown. This is clear even from the fact that he who composed those Homilies sets up discourse in them about the Manichaeans and Arians, who arose only after Origen. Moreover, in that very Homily in which Dionysius the Areopagite is cited, he attacks the errors of the same heretics; so that the argument drawn from this Homily has no strength at all by which to render proved that Dionysius the Areopagite was cited by Origen.

[4] Nor is there reason why you should contend, from that Homily, that he was at least cited by an author of the fourth century, did not cite, nor did St. Dionysius of Alexandria write Scholia on them: if not of the third. For at what time he who composed the praised Homilies flourished is obscure, and nothing at all occurs which compels us to make his age earlier than the sixth century. And these things now adduced show sufficiently and more than sufficiently, as I think, that the argument sought from the praised Homily, by which they would prove that Dionysius the Areopagite was cited either by Origen or by an author of almost equal or nearly equal age, is altogether nerveless. Let us now turn our discourse to St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, who, as I have already shown in tome 2 of October, where he was treated, exchanged life for death in the year 265. That he wrote Scholia on the Works or books of St. Dionysius the Areopagite — which, however, from what is to be said, appears foreign to the truth — several writers affirm, or at least can seem to affirm. And among these, as they would have it, the first place is held by St. Anastasius, surnamed the Sinaite, who, born as the sixth century was growing old, closed his last day in the following century. Next to him is St. Maximus the martyr, who likewise flourished in the seventh century and wrote Scholia on the Works which are circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite. To these, further, are added Nicetas Choniates, who flourished about the year 1200, and John Cyparissiota, or, as others write, Cyparissiotus, surnamed the Wise, who flourished in the twelfth or thirteenth century (for the time at which this learned Greek lived cannot be determined with sufficient certainty). And these, and no more ancient writers, the champions of the Dionysian Works are wont to bring forward in order to render proved that Dionysius of Alexandria wrote Scholia on the books of St. Dionysius the Areopagite; but whether they settle the matter by their testimony, whether true or supposed, must now be examined.

[5] And first, indeed, from the testimony of Nicetas Choniates and of John Cyparissiota the contrary indeed by the words, which here in Greek together they can have not much support, since they lived too remotely from the age of both Dionysiuses, namely the Areopagite and the Alexandrian; but as regards St. Anastasius the Sinaite and St. Maximus, one must speak otherwise of them, and by name indeed of St. Anastasius the Sinaite. That I may examine his testimony, whether true or counterfeit, duly and conveniently, I transcribe here all the words in which it is couched, from the book whose title is ὁδηγὸς, in Latin Guide of the Way, in Greek and at the same time in Latin from the version of Gretser, a priest of our Society. The Greek in the said book, chapter 22, runs thus: Αγέννητον, ἤγουν ἄκτιστον, μόνον τὸ θεῖον ὑπάρχει, καὶ ἰδοὺ, εὑρίσκομεν εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Διονύσιον ἐν κεφαλαίῳ ἐπιγεγραμμένῳ περὶ μεγάλου καὶ σμικροῦ περὶ Θεοῦ λέγοντα οὕτως· ἀμείωτον, ἀγέννητον, οὐχ ὡς μήπω γενόμενον, ἢ ἀτελείωτον, ἢ ὑπὸ τοῦδε, ἢ τόδε μὴ γενόμενον, οὐδ᾽ ὡς μηδαμοῦ μηδαμῶς ὂν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ὑπὲρ πᾶν ἀγέννητον. Ειπὼν δὲ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ἀγέννητον, πολλὰ ἀγέννητα ἐσήμανεν, ἤτοι ἄκτιστα. Καὶ μην πῶς τοῦτο δυνατὸν; οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀγέννητος, εἰ μὴ μόνος Θεός. Τάυτην γοῦν την χρῆσιν παρήγαγε Μανιχαῖός τις, βουλόμενος δεῖξαι καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους καὶ την ψυχην καὶ τὰ ὕδατα ἄκτιστα, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, ἀγέννητα. Πάλιντε μίαν οὐσίαν λεγούσης τῆς Ἐκκλησίας εἶναι πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους ἀγγέλους, ὁ ἀυτὸς θεῖος καὶ ἀποστολικὸς Διονύσιος πολλὰς οὐσίας ὀνομάζει τὰς ἄνω δυνάμεις· ὁ γοῦν μέγας Διονύσιος, ὁ Αλεξανδρείας ἐπίσκοπος ὁ ἀπὸ ῥητόρων ἐν τοῖς σχολίοις, οἷς πεποίηκεν είς τὸν μακάριον συνώνυμον ἀυτοῦ Διονύσιον, οὕτω λέγει, ὅτι ἀγέννητον εἴωθεν καλεῖν ἡ ἔξω φιλοσοφία πᾶσαν ἀόρατον φύσιν· ὁμοίως καὶ οὐσίας τὰς ὑποστάσεις· κᾴν τούτου φησὶ κατὰ τοὺς ἐξω εἴρηνται τῷ ἁγίῳ Διονυσίω αἱ τοιαῦται φωναὶ καταχρηστικῶς· ὥστε οὐ χρὴ ἀσκόπως καὶ κατὰ τὸ ἡμῖν δοκοῦν ἑρμηνεύειν τὰς τῶν ἁγίων φωνὰς καθὰ καὶ σήμερον ποιοῦσι τινές.

[6] and are given in Latin, attributed to Anastasius the Sinaite, not obscurely, And the Latin which corresponds to this Greek is the following: God alone is unbegotten and uncreated: and yet in St. Dionysius (namely the Areopagite, in whom I find the things which are subjoined here, in the book On the Divine Names, chapter 9), in the chapter whose title is "On the Great and the Small," these things are read of God: "Needing nothing, which can neither be increased nor diminished

; unbegotten, not as though not yet begotten, or as though it were imperfect, or as though it were not, or were not from this or that, nor as that which is nowhere and in no way, but as that which is above every unbegotten." And saying "above every unbegotten," he signified many unbegotten or uncreated things. And how can this be? For no one is unbegotten except God alone. Did some Manichaean, then, insert this part with the design of showing that angels also, the soul and the waters are uncreated, that is, unbegotten? Again, whereas the Church teaches that the substance of the angels is one, the same divine and Apostolic Dionysius names the supernal powers "many substances." But the great Dionysius of Alexandria, made bishop from the number of the Rhetors, in the Scholia which he wrote on the Dionysius of the same name as himself, has this: External Philosophy is wont to call every invisible nature unbegotten, and likewise to call hypostases substances. After whose manner St. Dionysius spoke in these places, namely using these words improperly. Wherefore we ought not to interpret the sayings of the Saints improvidently and rashly, as some have been accustomed to do at this time.

[7] contrary to what some, Thus St. Anastasius the Sinaite; and by these words he most luminously testifies that Scholia were written by St. Dionysius, patriarch of Alexandria, on St. Dionysius the Areopagite, as most of those who ascribe the Works bearing the name of Dionysius the Areopagite to this holy bishop of Athens stubbornly, and not altogether undeservedly, contend; nevertheless those who deny those Works to St. Dionysius the Areopagite deny that Scholia were written on them by St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria; but in order either to break or to enervate the testimony of St. Anastasius the Sinaite now adduced, which they admit opposes them at least in appearance, they do not all employ one answer. For some, among whom Pearson holds a place in the Vindiciae of the Letters of St. Ignatius, chapter 10, contend that the Dionysius who, as appears, is asserted by Anastasius the Sinaite and the others related above to have written Scholia on the Dionysius of the same name as himself, is to be taken not for St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, but for a certain ancient rhetor or orator, different from St. Dionysius of Alexandria, and that thus Anastasius departs from the truth, and accordingly wrongly ascribes Scholia on the Areopagite to this holy bishop of Alexandria; others on the contrary affirm that Scholia were indeed written by St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, on a Dionysius of the same name as himself; by this, however, they understand not Dionysius the Areopagite, but some other, perhaps Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, most illustrious also for his writings in the second century of the Christian era. But that those are not to be assented to who take Dionysius, the scholiast of the Areopagitic Works, for a certain ancient rhetor of Alexandria who was different from St. Dionysius, patriarch of Alexandria, I have already shown in tome 2 of October of our Work, page 112, number 49 and the two following.

[8] Now as regards those who contend that by the Dionysius of the same name as Dionysius of Alexandria, but, as is shown here, on whom he is here asserted by St. Anastasius the Sinaite and the others mentioned above to have written Scholia, Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, or another of the same name is to be understood, I indeed pronounced, in the tome of our Work just now cited, page 115, that they are to be assented to. But, the matter having been recalled to examination, I cannot but change the opinion which I had at first embraced. For although Anastasius, in the text given above, wishing to signify that Scholia were written by Dionysius of Alexandria on Dionysius the Areopagite, whom he had mentioned before, would have spoken more accurately and better by saying, The great Dionysius of Alexandria, made bishop from the number of the rhetors, in the Scholia which he wrote on this very Dionysius, than by saying, The great Dionysius of Alexandria, made bishop from the number of the rhetors, in the Scholia which he wrote on the Dionysius of the same name as himself, it can nevertheless happen, nay seems in very truth to have happened, that he did not everywhere pursue the utmost accuracy in speaking or writing, and that accordingly, even by his less accurate manner of speaking, he meant it to be signified that Scholia were written by Dionysius of Alexandria on Dionysius the Areopagite. And indeed that he did in very fact mean to signify this I show by the following argument, which I now subjoin, and which impelled me to change my former opinion. St. Anastasius the Sinaite, or he to whom, from what is to be said, the words were falsely attributed as Anastasius's, in the praised text raises against himself a difficulty, consisting in this, that Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, whereas God alone is unbegotten, calls many things, as it appears, unbegotten, and at the same time, whereas the Church asserts that all angels are of the same essence, names the supernal powers many substances, and so seems to make the supernal powers or angels of different essence; and to solve this objection or difficulty St. Anastasius has recourse to the Scholia composed by St. Dionysius of Alexandria on the Dionysius of the same name as himself, in which the latter taught that the Dionysius of the same name as himself spoke after the manner of profane or external Philosophy, which is wont to call every invisible nature unbegotten and likewise to call essences substances.

[9] is wrongly, they contend, declared: And since this is so, the Dionysius whom Anastasius, in order to solve the difficulty raised, says is asserted by Dionysius of Alexandria, in the Scholia written on the Dionysius of the same name as himself, to have spoken after the manner of profane Philosophy, or improperly, was certainly none other than Dionysius the Areopagite, since otherwise, contrary to what Anastasius intends, the difficulty raised would by no means be removed. Now indeed, since this is so, neither in these words of the text adduced from Anastasius, The great Dionysius of Alexandria, made bishop from the number of the rhetors, in the Scholia which he wrote on the Dionysius of the same name as himself, has this: "External Philosophy is wont to call every invisible nature unbegotten; and likewise to call hypostases substances. After whose manner St. Dionysius spoke in these places," does it seem that by the Dionysius of the same name as the Alexandrian, on whom the latter wrote Scholia, another Dionysius is to be understood than he who is asserted by Dionysius of Alexandria to have spoken after the manner of profane Philosophy. For besides the fact that St. Dionysius of Alexandria would seem likely to have said that Dionysius the Areopagite spoke improperly in the places assigned above on the occasion of Scholia which he had written on Dionysius the Areopagite rather than on any other Dionysius, Anastasius would have spoken obscurely and, as appears, unfitly, if, having stated beforehand that Scholia were composed on the Works of Dionysius, he had said that Dionysius is asserted in them to have spoken improperly, and another Dionysius were to be understood by the latter than by the one on whom he said before that the Scholia were written. Whatever, therefore, they argue to the contrary, it is declared by the words recited above and attributed to Anastasius the Sinaite that Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite were written by Dionysius of Alexandria.

[10] but those words are not Anastasius's, But indeed, you will say, did Dionysius of Alexandria, then, in very truth write Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite, and did St. Anastasius the Sinaite testify to this? To me indeed neither the one nor the other seems to be so. For although by the words recited above from the book which is entitled Ὁδηὸς, in Latin Guide of the way, it is signified, as I have already shown, almost certainly that Dionysius of Alexandria wrote Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite, it is nevertheless most doubtful whether those words are Anastasius's, and whether they were not thrust into his text by a writer of a later age. Nay, that they are most probably — not to say more — not Anastasius's will be clear from what is now to be said. Anastasius the Sinaite sets immediately before the words transcribed above these following (see Gretser in the place cited above): The monuments of the fathers, especially the dogmatic ones, have not been translated into the speech of all nations, nor carried to all regions. Whence it comes about that heretics have found occasion of adding some things and taking away others; which we have learned by experience. For the rest, that the things which we have said may become more manifest, we shall recount in particular some examples of corruptions occurring in the writings of the Fathers. Thus far Anastasius; and who, having heard these things, would not expect that some things would be recounted by him in which heretics, by adding or taking away something, corrupted the sayings of the holy Fathers? But in the text of Anastasius transcribed above, which is immediately subjoined to the words just given, and which is certainly very prolix, does absolutely no example of a corruption or depravation of this kind offer itself? Anastasius indeed asks of himself whether these following words, which occur in the text recited by him from the book of Dionysius On the Divine names, chapter 9, Above every unbegotten, had not been inserted into the genuine text of Dionysius by some Manichaean, in order to show that angels, the soul and waters are uncreated; but by the things which he presently subjoins he clearly declares that absolutely no fault of depravation or corruption made by the Manichaeans lies in this, as anyone who has attentively weighed the text of Anastasius transcribed above will without difficulty discover.

[11] Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and he adduces no example of depravation, but on him, as from an ancient codex of the royal Library of Paris contrary to what he said just before that he would do, in so long a text and in the other words besides subjoined to it, indeed even from this it becomes very doubtful to me, not to say something worse, whether it proceeded here from Anastasius the Sinaite, or was thrust into his text by another writer. This doubt of mine, further, is not a little increased by the fact that Leo Allatius, in the Syntagma on the Engastrimythus, page 528, contends that the book of Anastasius the Sinaite which is entitled ὁδηγὸς, in Latin Guide of the way, has been variously interpolated, and in this matter has not a few agreeing with him. Sollerius indeed, in the Appendix to the Patriarchs of Alexandria prefixed to tome 5 of June of our Work, page 118 and following, defends the οδηγὸν of Anastasius the Sinaite against the severer censure of Aubertin; but although indeed he shows there that that Work has been interpolated less than some would have it, he nevertheless admits not obscurely that some truncations and additions have come to it, nor does he bring forward anything which sufficiently proves that the words recited above, nay the whole chapter 22 which contains them, were not added to the οδηγῷ of Anastasius by an interpolator of a later age. And indeed, besides the things just said, what makes me think that all those words, nay almost the whole of the said chapter, flowed from interpolation is the Greek manuscript codex 1084 of the royal Library of Paris, written in the tenth century, as seemed to those who published in print in the year 1740 tome 2 of the Catalogue of the manuscript codices of the said Library. For from this, as the most learned Dom Pingré, canon Regular of the abbey of St. Genevieve at Paris, royal astronomer and Geographer of maritime affairs, deigned in his great kindness to inform us after inspecting and diligently examining that codex, all those things which in the edition of the οδηγοῦ prepared by Gretser, from these words χωρισθήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, shall be separated for all eternity, occurring on page 330, line 2, up to these words ἀλλ᾽ ἅμα συνῆλθον,

but came together at once, occurring on page 344, line 30, are read, are utterly missing; and since in Gretser's edition of the οδηγοῦ, in that interval which lies between those two pages, almost the whole of chapter 22 and all the words recited above from it are contained, it is permissible to suspect that these were thrust by an interpolator into the manuscript codex which Gretser used in preparing that edition.

[12] Nor is there reason for you to reply that the praised codex of the royal Library of Paris, it is proved here, were thrust in; from which those words are absent, ought rather to be called truncated; for what prevents this from being deservedly asserted is the sequence of the matter which Anastasius treats, which, those words being cut off or omitted, is by no means broken or disturbed. This will be clear from what is now to be said. Anastasius, treating of the mystery of the Incarnation, utters these following words, already given above in part, on page 329 and following: The fire of the divinity has at no time or in any respect been separated from the humanity, nor will it ever be separated for all eternity; and after these words, in the praised manuscript codex of the royal library of Paris, absolutely all the things which I have recited above, and which put forth that Scholia were written by Dionysius of Alexandria on Dionysius the Areopagite, being omitted, there immediately follow these things, which, already given above in part from Gretser's edition, page 344, run thus in Latin in it on page 345: But the divinity and the flesh, informed by a soul partaking of reason, came together at once. For this is what is wont to be called the hypostatic union. And since these two texts make a sense by no means mutilated or gaping, indeed it cannot be asserted for certain that the praised codex of the royal Library of Paris is truncated because the things which intervene between those two texts in Gretser's edition of the οδηγοῦ are altogether absent from it. Now indeed, since this is so, and the other things alleged above persuade further that Gretser's edition is rather interpolated at the place where these things are read, it appears almost beyond doubt that those things, and by name all those which indicate in it that Scholia on the Areopagite were written by Dionysius of Alexandria, flowed from an interpolator of a later age. But, you will say, St. Maximus, as I myself have already shown in our Work, tome 2 of October, page 114, number 56, was later than the age of Anastasius the Sinaite by only about twenty-five years, and this scholiast of the Dionysian Works, as he stands edited, likewise testifies in his Scholia on our Saint, as they stand now edited, employing almost the same words which Anastasius employs, and which I have also already recited above, that Scholia on St. Dionysius the Areopagite were written by St. Dionysius of Alexandria.

[13] [and one must speak in like manner of the same words as they are exhibited by Maximus;] I admit; so it stands: nay St. Maximus, who testifies this, perhaps survived St. Anastasius the Sinaite by a much smaller space still: but what then? Michel Le Quien, in his Opinion on the Areopagitic Writings (go to tome 2, page 240, of the Venetian edition of the Works of Dionysius the Areopagite of the year 1756), near the beginning, comments thus on the words of Anastasius the Sinaite transcribed above, by which Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite are attributed to St. Dionysius of Alexandria, or on the observation included in them: This observation of Anastasius, further, is also read entire among the Scholia (namely those ascribed to St. Maximus) on chapter V of the Celestial Hierarchy; though nevertheless it does not exist in the old codices, but only in the most recent and the printed ones; so that accordingly it has been taken over from chapter XXII of the ὁδηγοῦ. What, then, if that observation, or the words by which St. Maximus testified that Scholia were written by Dionysius of Alexandria on Dionysius the Areopagite, were mixed by an interpolator only in the tenth century or later into the Scholia composed by St. Maximus on the same Dionysius the Areopagite? What if they also were taken not from the Work of Anastasius the Sinaite which is entitled ὁδηγὸς, in Latin guide of the way, but from elsewhere, and thrust into the said Work of Anastasius itself also, either at that time or later or even a little earlier? Surely, since the words which put forth, in the said Work of Anastasius the Sinaite, chapter 22, that Scholia were written by Dionysius of Alexandria on Dionysius the Areopagite were thrust into it by an interpolator, as I have already shown above, it can easily happen, nay perhaps did in very fact happen, that the interpolation which I have mentioned occurred in the place of the Anastasian Work related above only about the tenth century or a little later. But let us grant even that the words transcribed above both from the ὁδηγῷ of Anastasius and from the Scholia composed on Dionysius the Areopagite, which expressly declare that Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite were prepared by Dionysius of Alexandria, proceeded not from interpolators of a later age but from those two holy Men themselves; not even so can it be certainly proved that Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite were written by Dionysius of Alexandria.

[14] For it can happen that SS. Anastasius and Maximus held Scholia composed by another and even if it were otherwise, since the Scholia to Dionysius of Alexandria to be Scholia composed by St. Dionysius of Alexandria. The matter will be clear from what is now to be said. Michel Le Quien, in the Opuscule cited above and inserted in the said tome 2 of the Venetian edition of the Dionysian Works, page 422, having stated beforehand that St. John of Scythopolis also composed Scholia on the Areopagite, which exist confused with the edited Scholia of St. Maximus on him, presently records thus: Anastasius the librarian, in his letter to king Charles the Bald on his Latin translation of the Areopagitica, testifies this also of the Greek Scholia which he had translated along with them: "Of the Scholia or Paratheses themselves, whichever have at their foot the sign of the life-giving cross are related to have been devised by Maximus, confessor and monk. The rest are related to be those of St. John, bishop of Scythopolis." I have not yet hitherto come upon an old copy of the Anastasian translation in which the Scholia of Maximus were distinguished from those of John. But Ussher of Armagh, in his handwritten Theological Library, a Fragment of which William Cave recites under John Maxentius (whom, through I know not what stupor, because he pleaded the cause of the Scythian monks in the West, he took for John of Scythopolis), left these things to be observed about the Scholia of Maximus and John: "John of Scythopolis wrote Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite just as Maximus did. But in the books of Dionysius edited from the year 1562 inclusive, the Scholia of John and Maximus have been confused together, which were distinct not only in the older editions which were current in the time of Cyparissiotes, but also in both the codices which Morel used: in one of which the Scholia of John of Scythopolis are placed in the margin without a name; and in the other, separately (after the complete text of Dionysius has been finished), the Scholia marked with the name of Maximus, the shorter because they had been separated from the fuller ones of John, with which Morel joined them.

[15] Further, those published Scholia of the Scythopolitan are the very same ascribed by some, are John of Scythopolis's, which have been attributed by others to Dionysius of Alexandria. Which is clear from a sentence cited by Cyparissiotes from the scholia of Dionysius, which is found in those scholia in so many words. But that that sentence is the Scythopolitan's, not Maximus's, is clear from the Latin version of the Scholia of the Scythopolitan, made by Robert, bishop of Lincoln, and preserved in the library of Corpus Christi College at Lincoln, in which it is found." These are the words of Ussher, a sufficiently accurate critic, from which it becomes most certainly certain that the Scholia of the Scythopolitan on Dionysius survive even today, and that they are those which are indiscriminately assigned to St. Maximus, since very few and very small are those of which Maximus was the parent; and I have noticed that these are often separated from the others by Morel, words of this kind being interposed, ἄλλως, είς τὸ ἀυὸ. Thus far the praised Le Quien, subjoining afterwards some other things besides by which he renders clearly proved that Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite were composed by John of Scythopolis; and the sentence — to come now to that on account of which chiefly I have transcribed Le Quien's words here — cited by Cyparissiotes from the Scholia of Dionysius of Alexandria, on account of which Ussher thought that the Scholia attributed by others to Dionysius of Alexandria are to be ascribed to John of Scythopolis, is read in the praised Cyparissiotes, inserted in the Library of the Ancient Fathers, Lyons edition, tome 21, from page 378, Decade 1, chapter 1, and is nothing but an observation by which Dionysius of Alexandria, explaining the place of the letter written by Dionysius the Areopagite to Titus the bishop, in which Theology is divided into mystical and philosophical, and the latter is asserted to produce faith and to bind fast the truth, having first brought forward these following words, which as to substance are found in the Areopagite in the same place, Philosophical and demonstrating Theology produces faith and demonstrates the truth, presently subjoins, That is, it seals the truth of the things which are said as with a certain seal, and binds it together as with a bond, and brings it about that those who hear believe.

[16] it can happen that these nevertheless But the other part of Theology, which is Symbolic, joins one to God through the things which are done, by a certain disposition and informing of the thing itself, which indeed he (namely Dionysius the Areopagite) called ἀδιδάκτους μυσταγωγίας. Such is the sentence or observation on St. Dionysius the Areopagite which Cyparissiotes proposes as made by St. Dionysius of Alexandria; and since in the Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite, which, as is clear from what has already been said, were composed partly by John of Scythopolis and partly by St. Maximus, the same observation, couched also in the same words, is read on the aforesaid place of the Letter written by Dionysius the Areopagite to Titus, and yet it has as its author not St. Maximus but John of Scythopolis, as is clear from the Latin translation of the Scholia of the Scythopolitan made by Robert — bishop of Lincoln in the 13th century, referred with us among the Passed-over at this day — and preserved in the library of Corpus Christi college at Oxford, Ussher certainly not undeservedly thought that the Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite customarily attributed by some to Dionysius of Alexandria are to be ascribed to John of Scythopolis, especially since the praised Cyparissiota supplies yet another Scholion, which, existing among the Scholia edited under the name of St. Maximus, is also the Scythopolitan's, under the name of Dionysius of Alexandria, Decade 2, chapter 2. Now indeed, since this is so, and the Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite to be ascribed to John of Scythopolis most probably lit the way for St. Maximus, the scholiast of Dionysius, and for St. Anastasius the Sinaite, who are both more recent than John of Scythopolis, it can easily have come about that these two writers ascribed to St. Dionysius of Alexandria the Scholia composed on Dionysius the Areopagite by John of Scythopolis.

[17] by the words recited here, SS. Anastasius and Maximus, And hence, since they had read in these that external Philosophy is wont to call every invisible nature unbegotten, and likewise to call hypostases substances, and that Dionysius the Areopagite, while he calls the supernal powers many substances, and wrote that God is above every unbegotten, spoke after the manner of external or profane philosophy, that this had been asserted by Dionysius of Alexandria

they asserted, the former, namely Anastasius the Sinaite, writing thus: The great Dionysius of Alexandria, made bishop from the number of the Rhetors, in the Scholia which he wrote on the Dionysius of the same name as himself, has this: External Philosophy is wont to call every invisible nature unbegotten, and likewise to call hypostases substances. After whose manner St. Dionysius spoke in these places, namely using these words improperly; and the latter, in the Scholia on chapter V of the celestial Hierarchy, noting thus: Why further, since the Church teaches that all the holy angels are of one substance, does St. Dionysius (namely the Areopagite) name many powers? That great Dionysius, bishop and orator of Alexandria, in the Scholia composed by him on the blessed Dionysius of the same name as himself, notes that external Philosophy is wont to call every invisible nature unbegotten, as also essences supposita; and hence he says that words of this kind were used improperly by saint Dionysius.

[18] But indeed, that I may now set out also the things which seem to oppose my opinion already explained, by that which is set forth here, Bernardo de Rubeis of the Order of Preachers, in the Dissertation against Michel Le Quien and others which he inserted in tome 2 of the more recent edition of the Dionysian Works prepared at Venice in the year 1756, chapter 5, having set out the opinion by which Ussher of Armagh (go to the words of Le Quien recited at number 14 and following) thought that the Scholia composed on Dionysius the Areopagite and attributed to Dionysius of Alexandria are to be restored to John of Scythopolis, presently subjoins thus: But it would be most strange, say I, that Anastasius the Sinaite, who lived in the sixth century and prolonged his life at most to the beginnings of the seventh century, as the continuators of Bolland note at the 20th day of April, should have been ignorant of the Scholia of John of Scythopolis, a writer of the same sixth century, and should have attributed them to Dionysius of Alexandria! Indeed the two passages which Cyparissiota brings forward in chapter 1 of the first Decade and chapter 2 of the second Decade under the name of Dionysius of Alexandria are found in so many words in the Scholia which have come out under the name of St. Maximus: and a greater wonder arises, that the name of John of Scythopolis could be blotted out by oblivion, and in its place be substituted the Great Dionysius, bishop and orator of Alexandria! So he; but the continuators of Bolland, our predecessors, do not note at the 20th day of April that Anastasius the Sinaite prolonged his life only to the beginnings of the seventh century at most; they do say that Anastasius in living (see tome 2 of the said month, page 850, number 2) reached only to the times of Heraclius (for a marginal addition indicates that he died then); but since Heraclius, as they themselves note, reigned from the year 610 up to the year 641, they by no means prevent the death of Anastasius from being deferred up to this last year. Nay rather our Sollerius, in his Appendix to the patriarchs of Alexandria prefixed to tome 5 of June, page 118, number 68, thought that nothing prevents Anastasius the Sinaite from being believed to have lived up to about the year 660.

[19] Further, since this is so, and John of Scythopolis flourished in the fifth century, impelled in this way, for Scholia prepared by Dionysius of Alexandria, its middle part having already elapsed, and exchanged life for death at the beginning of the next following century, as Bernardo de Rubeis, praised above, teaches in the Dissertation which he prefixed to tome 2 of the Venetian edition of the Dionysian Works, chapter 3, he preceded Anastasius in age by almost an entire century. And since this is so, it ought not to have seemed so strange to the praised Bernardo de Rubeis that Anastasius the Sinaite was ignorant of the Scholia composed by John of Scythopolis on Dionysius the Areopagite and attributed them to Dionysius of Alexandria. Moreover, it can easily have come about that the Severian heretics, accustomed to falsify and deprave the books of the Fathers, as the same Anastasius the Sinaite discloses in more than one place in his ὁδηγῷ, or Guide of the Way, transcribed before the age of Anastasius the Scholia prepared by John of Scythopolis on Dionysius the Areopagite, and, the name of the genuine author being removed, prefixed to them the name of Dionysius of Alexandria, by which they might be able to maintain against the catholics, who had then denied it or at least called it into doubt, that the Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, which they had praised for their own purpose at the conference of Constantinople in the year 532, were to be held for true Works of this Saint. What, then, if a copy of the Scholia written by John of Scythopolis, and yet marked with the name of Dionysius of Alexandria as their author, lit the way for Anastasius, and when he had read in it the Scholion on the fifth chapter of the Celestial Hierarchy couched in these following words, External Philosophy is wont to call every invisible nature unbegotten, and likewise to call hypostases substances; after whose manner St. Dionysius (namely the Areopagite) spoke in these places, namely using these words improperly, he committed to writing the words transcribed above, by which he ascribes this Scholion to the great Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, and St. Maximus also, illustrating Dionysius the Areopagite with Scholia, afterwards adopted and transcribed them?

[20] [they held; certainly they were either deceived by fraud, or have been interpolated.] It is clearly evident that the matter could certainly have happened so. But indeed, you will say, if the Scholion couched in the words just transcribed here was composed by John of Scythopolis, why is a Scholion couched in the same words not found today among the Scholia edited under the name of St. Maximus alone, and yet, as has been said, confused with the Scholia composed by John of Scythopolis? I answer that this could have happened because, since the Scholia of John of Scythopolis are joined with the Scholia of St. Maximus in the edition of both, and the Scholion of John of Scythopolis just transcribed here is, as appears, contained in the Scholion of St. Maximus recited above, in which Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite are ascribed by Maximus to Dionysius of Alexandria, it seemed good to those who either transcribed those Scholia or sent them into the public light by the benefit of printing to recite only this latter Scholion, the former being passed over, lest they should say the same thing twice. And so we now have at the same time not only the reason why St. Anastasius, nay St. Maximus also, was ignorant of the Scholia of John of Scythopolis and ascribed them to Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria; but also how the name of John of Scythopolis could be blotted out or removed from the Scholia which bore it, and the Great Dionysius, bishop and orator of Alexandria, be substituted in its place. All things, therefore, having now been diligently weighed, it certainly appears to me most probable either that the texts of SS. Anastasius the Sinaite and Maximus transcribed above, in which Scholia composed on Dionysius the Areopagite by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, are cited, were thrust into the Works of both these Saints by interpolators of a later age, or at least that it was brought about by the fraud of several impostors, or certainly of one, that both Anastasius and Maximus cited Scholia of this kind.

[21] But the latter, both as regards St. Anastasius, And to me indeed it seems much less probable that it came about by the art of some impostor that Anastasius the Sinaite praised the Scholia composed on Dionysius the Areopagite by John of Scythopolis as Scholia composed by Dionysius of Alexandria, than that the text transcribed above, in which Scholia written by Dionysius of Alexandria on Dionysius the Areopagite are mentioned, was thrust by an interpolator of a later age into the οδηγὸν of Anastasius in the place cited above. This opinion sits with me, first indeed, because it is very doubtful whether the Scholia composed on the Areopagite by John of Scythopolis were in fact ascribed to Dionysius of Alexandria as early as the age of Anastasius; second, because I do not have it ascertained whether in the Latin translation of the Scholia of the Scythopolitan (go again to the words of Le Quien recited above, as also to Bernardo de Rubeis, in the Dissertation which he prefixed to tome 1 of the Venetian edition of the Dionysian Works, chapter 3), made by Robert of Lincoln in the 13th century and preserved in the library of Oxford, such a Scholion as I exhibited at number 19 occurs; third, because in the most ancient codex of the royal library of Paris praised above the text transcribed above, in which Scholia composed by Dionysius of Alexandria on the Areopagite are praised, is absent from the οδηγῷ of Anastasius; and fourth and finally, because, since indeed from the things which I discussed above concerning John Cyparissiota there seem to have existed in the 12th or 13th century, in one or the other of which he, as appears, flourished, certain Scholia on the Areopagite which, by whomsoever at length they were composed, were believed by some to have been composed by Dionysius of Alexandria, it can easily have come about that among them, composed perhaps even as early as the tenth century, there existed such a Scholion as I exhibited at number 19, and that it was therefore thrust into the οδηγὸν of Anastasius under the name of St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria.

[22] Now as regards St. Maximus, likewise it appears to me much less probable as as regards St. Maximus, by reasons, that he — unless perhaps (which, however, I do not think) we are to agree with certain of those who ascribe to John of Scythopolis, as is understood from Morel's edition of the Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, the Prologue prefixed to the Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite edited under the name of St. Maximus alone — was impelled by some art of an impostor to cite Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite as prepared by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, or did in very fact cite them, than that the text commonly attributed to St. Maximus and transcribed above, in which Scholia composed by St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, on Dionysius the Areopagite are praised, was thrust into the Scholia edited under the name of saint Maximus alone by an interpolator of later times. Why this opinion sits with me I set forth. In the Prologue prefixed by him to the Works of St. Dionysius, St. Maximus answers thus those who deny these to that holy bishop of Athens because neither Eusebius Pamphili nor Origen lists the books or Works of Dionysius the Areopagite: It must be said that Eusebius omitted very many things which had not come into his hands. For he does not say that he collected absolutely everything; nay rather he admits that innumerable books in no way reached him. I could also recount many which he himself did not have, and these indeed of his own region, such as those of Hymenaeus and Narcissus, who held the priesthood at Jerusalem. I indeed came upon some books of Hymenaeus. But neither did he note the works of Pantaenus, nor of Clement of Rome, except only two letters. Nor several others. Origen, however, I know not whether he listed all, certainly SCARCELY four.

[23] into the open Maximus, therefore, in order to defend that the Works which are circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite in very fact have this Saint as their author, replies nothing else to the objection drawn from the silence of Origen and Eusebius concerning the Dionysian Works than that Eusebius did not mention several other books, and that Origen mentioned scarcely four. But if St. Maximus, whether impelled by the truth of the matter or deceived by the fraud of an impostor, had believed that Dionysius of Alexandria wrote Scholia on the Dionysian Works, who, I ask, would persuade himself that he would have answered the objection drawn from the silence of Eusebius and Origen about the Works of Dionysius the Areopagite as he does? Nay rather, who would think that the same Scholiast, saint Maximus, would not have answered that Origen and Eusebius indeed did not speak of the Works customarily circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, but that Dionysius of Alexandria, the contemporary of Origen and to Eusebius

older by about one century, not only praised them but also illustrated them with Scholia? Surely, since by that answer he would have shut the mouth of all those who either denied the Areopagitic Works or called them into doubt, and yet, omitting it, he takes refuge in another, and answers that Eusebius and Origen did not cite all authors, and that accordingly nothing can be had from their silence for denying the Dionysian Works to the Areopagite, it is certainly clear even from this that Maximus did not believe that Scholia had been composed by Dionysius of Alexandria on Dionysius the Areopagite. Moreover, if Scholia which had been written by Dionysius of Alexandria on Dionysius the Areopagite had been at hand for St. Maximus, as the patrons of the Areopagitic Works would have it, who would believe that it would have come about that he made mention of them in his Scholia in only the one place mentioned above?

[24] adduced here, appears more probable, nor what is now further proposed, Certainly St. Maximus would not have omitted so weighty a testimony as was that of St. Dionysius of Alexandria, but would have illustrated his Prologue and his Scholia with it as with a new light; and since this is so, and yet St. Maximus did not do it, it indeed appears beyond doubt that he had before his eyes no Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite which, whether deceived by fraud or led by the truth of the matter, he believed to be those of Dionysius of Alexandria. And since this is so, it certainly appears more probable that the Scholion on the Areopagite attributed to St. Maximus, which I transcribed here at number 17, and which, as I showed from Le Quien at number 13, is absent from the old codices, was thrust into the Scholia of St. Maximus by an interpolator of a later age, either from Anastasius the Sinaite, into whose Οδηγὸν it had already been brought as early as the 12th century and perhaps even earlier, or from elsewhere. Further, since, from what has already been said, the two texts, of which one is wont to be ascribed to St. Anastasius the Sinaite and the other to St. Maximus, were more probably thrust both into the Scholia of the latter and into the Work of the former which is entitled in Greek Οδηγὸς, in Latin Guide of the way, by an interpolator of a more recent age, there will perhaps be someone who will now contend that it came about through the inconsiderate precipitancy of the same interpolator that Scholia on the Areopagite are attributed in the said two texts to St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria; who, having to light his way certain Scholia on the Areopagite which were ascribed to Dionysius, the Alexandrian rhetor, ascribed these, the matter not having been sufficiently examined, to St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, because he wrongly thought him the same as that rhetor of the same name.

[25] And this indeed neither altogether displeases me, nor wholly conflicts with the things which I have already said, is therefore to be despised, either to our matter or this, since I have not asserted that Scholia on the Areopagite were composed by St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, but have only shown that that Saint is asserted to have done so either in the two texts just mentioned again, thrust by the hand of an interpolator into the Οδηγὸν of St. Anastasius and into the Scholia of St. Maximus, or by these two Saints themselves, deceived by the art of impostors; and although I have declared that it seems to me that Scholia on the Areopagite bearing the name of St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, composed perhaps as early as the tenth century, existed in the 12th or 13th century, I have nevertheless not asserted for certain that Scholia of this kind actually existed, much less that among them there existed such a Scholion as I exhibited at number 19. Meanwhile, that certain Scholia existed which bore the name of Dionysius, the Alexandrian rhetor, and yet ought not to be ascribed to St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, does not sufficiently accord with the things which I discussed in tome 2 of October, page 112, number 49 and the three following. For there I laid down that by Dionysius, the Alexandrian rhetor, by whom Scholia on the Areopagite are said by Nicetas Choniates and John Cyparissiota to have been written, there is to be understood not an Alexandrian rhetor distinct from St. Dionysius, patriarch of Alexandria, but this very Saint. But I did this only because I then thought that by the texts transcribed here at number 17 Scholia on the Areopagite were attributed to St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, by SS. Anastasius the Sinaite and Maximus, and did not suspect that these two Saints had either been deceived in that matter by the art of impostors, or interpolated by the hand of a more recent writer. But since, from what has already been said, one or the other of these holds, and indeed it appears more probable that of the aforesaid texts the one was thrust by an interpolator into the Οδηγὸν of Anastasius and the other into the Scholia of St. Maximus, indeed whether he had to light his way Scholia which, composed by John of Scythopolis, openly bore the name of St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, or others which, because they were marked as composed by Dionysius the rhetor, he wrongly ascribed to St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, makes little difference to our matter, as will be clear to one who considers it.

[26] But, even if the matter stands so, I can by no means assent to those or what can be objected from the book of Anastasius, stands in the way at all. who contend that Scholia inscribed with the name of St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, did not exist in the age of Nicetas and John Cyparissiota, from the fact that Scholia of this kind are not cited by other writers who are of either equal or nearly equal age; for since those who argue thus cannot but admit, and in very fact do admit, that Scholia bearing the name of Dionysius, the Alexandrian rhetor, existed at that time, and yet these are praised by no others than Nicetas and John Cyparissiota, everyone sees that they certainly argue wrongly in the way I have said. For the rest, if the book entitled in Greek Οδηγὸς, in Latin Guide of the way, which is attributed to Anastasius the Sinaite, consists perhaps, as Richard Simon contends in tome 2 of the Bibliothèque choisie, chapter 2, of various excerpts collected by a compiler partly from the works of Anastasius himself and partly from those of other writers, not even so will anything be had from the text of the said book transcribed here at number 19 for believing that Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite were written by St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria: for on that hypothesis chapter 22 of the Οδηγοῦ, from which that text was recited at the said number, was perhaps taken from the writing of an author who by error held Scholia which had not been composed by St. Dionysius of Alexandria for Scholia composed by this holy prelate. However that may be, since indeed on the said hypothesis it will be very doubtful whether the aforesaid chapter of the Οδηγοῦ proceeded from Anastasius or from another, it would by no means be of a nature to claim Scholia on the Areopagite for St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria. And these things concerning the Scholia [ ] ascribe the Dionysian Works to the Areopagite, seek an argument for establishing their opinion, I would wholly enervate, I have discussed so diffusely; content to have now noted this further, I proceed to the things which I have resolved to discuss in the following chapter.

CHAPTER II.

Whether the Dionysian Works were cited in the 4th century either by the council of Nicaea, or by SS. Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen and Chrysostom.

Neither did the council of Nicaea, held in the year 325, In the Arabic copies of the first Council of Nicaea are read eighty canons, held in the highest veneration by several sects of the East, namely the Jacobites, Nestorians, Abyssinians, nay also by the Greeks and Maronites, which Pisanus and Turrianus rendered into Latin, and which Abraham Ecchellensis the Maronite contends are legitimate; and since in the thirty-first of these canons, where the manner of receiving into the Church those who are established to have been heretics is handed down, these following words occur, And after the bishop or priest in whose hands he is has done these things, he ought to anoint him with the prayer of the Chrism and sign him thrice with the sign of the Cross, anointing and praying over him the prayer of Dionysius, and these, as they say, are exhibited in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 7, the Areopagitics, or those who hold the Works customarily circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite for genuine Works of this Saint, contend that no doubt at all remains that the Dionysian Works were praised, and so had also been written, before that council, held in the year 325 and accordingly in the 4th century. But how little this argument of theirs avails can be shown with no trouble. For first, all the ancient collections of the canons of that first council of Nicaea exhibit not more than twenty canons. Second, Theodoret, book 1 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 8, and Rufinus list only twenty-two canons; for although the latter, in book 1 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 6, numbers twenty-two, he divides the seventh and eighth canon into two.

[28] [cited the Areopagite, nor was this done either by Athanasius, inasmuch as the Questions] Third, the copies of the council of Nicaea which St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, and Atticus of Constantinople transmitted to the Fathers of the fifth council of Carthage numbered only twenty Canons. Fourth, the African bishops, after all the canons enacted by the council of Nicaea had been sought out with great diligence in the East, obtained not more than twenty. Fifth, in that collection of canons which the Greek church used at the time of the council of Chalcedon only twenty are contained. Sixth and finally, Dionysius Exiguus and the other collectors of canons list only twenty. Hence, further, it comes about that the remaining sixty are hissed off by the learned as counterfeit; and even if they were not held by the learned as counterfeit, the prayer which is recited in that thirty-first Nicene canon would nevertheless be apocryphal and fabricated, since it neither exists nor ever existed in the Works of Dionysius. Therefore, to prove that the Works whose author imposed on himself the name of Dionysius the Areopagite were cited and attributed to him as early as the fourth century, the first council of Nicaea, held in the year 325, is wrongly adduced. Whether St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, who died in the year 371 and accordingly flourished in the fourth century, is adduced to the same end with better right must now be examined. Questions to Antiochus the duke are circulated as composed by Athanasius, concerning which the Benedictines, monks of the Congregation of St. Maur, who edited the Works of Athanasius and at the same time those Questions in a fresh printing at Paris in the year 1698, speak thus in the second tome of these, page 231, in the Notice prefixed to the Works to Antiochus the duke, number 5: The Questions to Antiochus, which have long appeared among the published works of Athanasius, were not composed at first as they now exist; but whereas they were once fewer in number, and not more than XXXV in the old Latin editions and in certain manuscripts, and in others XLI, they now exist to the number of CXXXVI, the copyists always adding new questions; whence it comes about that the codices vary much among themselves; so they, adding some other things besides, partly to be of use to us here presently, as soon as I have set out how the champions of the Dionysian Works argue from those questions.

[29] As regards, therefore, the eighth of these, in which it is asked how many orders and natures of angels there are, [to Antiochus the duke, which would prove the matter, to that Saint, as by reasons,] the answer is given, The nature is one, as also of men. But there are nine orders, as Dionysius, most skilled in Theology, teaches, which are of this kind: Angels, Archangels, Principalities, Powers, Virtues, Dominations, the Seraphim furnished with six wings, and the Cherubim adorned with many eyes, and the Thrones. Concerning the one substance of the Angels

Gregory of Nyssa also speaks, in the seventeenth chapter of his book On Man; and since this answer contains mention of Dionysius, and indeed, as is clear from the circumstances, of the Areopagite, they contend that this our Saint, or the celestial Hierarchy composed by him, in which the Orders of angels are treated, was cited by Athanasius. But, say the praised Benedictine monks immediately after the words already recited, It is altogether evident that these questions are not Athanasius's, but that some were excerpted here and there from various authors, others composed by various writers; whence it came about that some exist more excellent and more elegant than others, and not unworthy to be read. Those Questions indeed, and by name the one just now proposed, in which Gregory of Nyssa, more recent than Athanasius, is praised, are not to be denied to Athanasius on the ground that some Fathers later in age than Athanasius are mentioned, since the Fathers who are cited in those places, and by name Gregory of Nyssa, who is praised in the Question just proposed, are not mentioned in the most ancient codices, as the aforesaid Benedictine monks testify they discovered from inspecting them.

[30] But, say the same Benedictine monks, brought forward into the open here, It is shown clearer than light from elsewhere that they are not Athanasius's: 1, from the kind of style, unpolished and inelegant, at least for the most part; for the style is by no means consistent with itself, because many things have been excerpted from various writers, the name being suppressed; 2, from the many trifles which anyone will easily notice; third, from what is said of images and their cult at number XXIX; for although, as Eusebius witnesses, very many in his time kept painted images of the Apostles with honour in their homes, the use of images was not then so frequent. Finally from many other things which it is not pleasing to bring forward, lest we should dwell longer than is fair on proving a most evident matter. Among very many other things on account of which the praised monks contend that those Questions are not Athanasius's can be counted the heresy mentioned in question 115, which asserted that Christ the Lord assumed an incorruptible body from the most holy Virgin Mary, and which did not arise before the council of Chalcedon, held in the year 451 and accordingly long after the age of Athanasius. Add the very many erroneous things occurring in those questions, which show most luminously that they are altogether unworthy of Athanasius and accordingly do not have him as their author. But indeed, they say, St. Anastasius the Sinaite and St. John Damascene, of whom the one flourished in the VIIth and the other in the VIIIth century of the Christian era, praised those Questions under the very name of St. Athanasius. I admit, so it stands; and Turrianus proves this indeed in his Proem to the Constitutions of Clement of Rome; but what then?

[31] it is shown, falsely attributed, Since those Questions, as is clear from what has already been said, were in the lapse of time greatly increased both in number and by the adscititious authorities of the Fathers, who would believe that the questions which St. Anastasius the Sinaite and St. John Damascene praised under the name of Athanasius were those very ones which are now circulated? Moreover, since absolutely no author who flourished before Anastasius the Sinaite and John Damascene mentioned Questions to Antiochus the duke as composed by Athanasius, it can happen that, even from a time preceding the age of Anastasius the Sinaite and John Damascene, some questions of this kind were fabricated under the venerable name of Athanasius in order to win authority for the things that were said, and were wrongly reckoned to be truly Athanasius's by Anastasius the Sinaite and John Damascene, who seem not much to be commended for criticism. However that may be, since indeed Anastasius the Sinaite and John Damascene nowhere praise the eighth of those Questions, in which mention is made of Dionysius and of the Celestial Hierarchy composed by him, and since their number, as is beyond doubt from what was said above, grew greatly in the lapse of time, it is altogether uncertain whether among them in the age of these two Saints there was the aforesaid eighth, in which mention was made of Dionysius the Areopagite. Some indeed among the questions to Antiochus the duke now edited were taken from other Works of Athanasius, as the praised Benedictine monks also observe in the place cited above; but no one affirms that the same eighth, in which mention of Dionysius is made, is of their number. For the rest, the Questions to Antiochus the duke which are circulated under the name of St. Athanasius are so certainly falsely attributed to him that not even most of those who have striven to claim the Dionysian Works for Dionysius the Areopagite have dared to summon them to the defence of their cause.

[32] Let us now turn our discourse to St. Gregory Nazianzen, who likewise flourished in the fourth century, [or even by St. Gregory Nazianzen, inasmuch as he, although in the place related here] and who, as they would have it, also praised the Works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite. That most celebrated holy Father, in Oration 38, delivered on the Nativity of Christ, making discourse of the Seraphim seen by Isaiah, as he narrates in chapter 6 of his Prophecy, one of whom cried to the other Holy, Holy, Holy, the Lord God of hosts, reasons thus: Θεοῦ δὲ ὅταν εἴπῳ, λέγω Πατρὸς καὶ Ὑιοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος … οὕτω μὲν οὖν τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων, ἃ καὶ τοῖς Σεραφὶμ συγκαλύπτεται καὶ δοξαζέται τρισὶν ἁγιασμοῖς εἰς μίαν σονιοῦσι Κυριότητα καὶ Θεότητα, ὅ καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν πεφιλοσόφηται καλλιστάτε καὶ ὑψηλότατα· and by these words, which in the interpretation of Billy sound thus in Latin, Now when I say God, I say Father and Son and Holy Spirit … Thus namely the Holy of Holies, which are both veiled by the Seraphim and celebrated with three sanctifications, coming together into one Dominion and Deity, as also another before us has most beautifully and most subtly philosophised, St. Gregory Nazianzen teaches that God one in essence or substance and three in persons is designated by the cited text of Isaiah. Further, Dionysius the Areopagite, or the author of the Dionysian Works who imposed on himself his name, in the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 73, having recited the text of Isaiah which I have just transcribed here, subjoins: These … most sublime hymnologies of the celestial intelligences … we have explained … in the things which we have written On the Divine Hymns … let it suffice for the present to repeat … that the monad and unity which is in three persons … penetrates all things.

[33] And since he thus, as appears, gathered from the threefold repetition of the Seraphim in Isaiah, by reasons, by an anonymous writer Holy, Holy, Holy, and from the singular word, Lord, the unity of the divine essence and the trinity of Persons, and no one is found to have done this before the age of Dionysius the Areopagite, they contend hence that by him who, as Gregory Nazianzen says in the words recited above, had, as has been said, most beautifully and most subtly philosophised before him from the mentioned text of Isaiah, none other than Dionysius the Areopagite was understood by him. But the anonymous author of the problem concerning the Dionysian Works, published in French at Paris in the year 1708 and then rendered into Latin and edited at Venice in the year 1756, tries in this latter edition to solve this objection in Latin in this manner: It is more probable that St. Gregory Nazianzen drew that sublime argument from St. Athanasius rather than from St. Dionysius the Areopagite. Here is the text of St. Athanasius, which I report entire, that its agreement with the text of St. Gregory Nazianzen may appear more clearly: "And these sanctifications," are his words, "are joined together into one on account of that inimitable * unity. For in this very thing, that those most ample living creatures utter the glorification thrice, while they say Holy, Holy, Holy, by the threefold number they show three perfect, absolute, entire persons; just as under the single word, Lord, they declare one substance." From which there is no one who does not see, first, that the words of St. Gregory Nazianzen related above cohere more with the words of St. Athanasius than with the words of St. Dionysius. Second, that the words of St. Athanasius display something more excellent and more sublime than the words of St. Dionysius: for from this glorification repeated thrice by those Seraphim he demonstrated the equality of the three Divine Persons, and from this word "Lord," recited only once in this admirable canticle, the unity of the essence; whence not undeservedly St. Gregory pronounced of him: "he has most beautifully and most subtly philosophised."

[34] into the open Nor would it avail anything to reply here that St. Athanasius made that observation in explaining the fourth chapter of the Apocalypse, while St. Gregory does not indicate from which place of Scripture, namely from Isaiah or from the Apocalypse, he borrowed this testimony. For since this glorification is the same and expressed in the same words, whether in Isaiah or in the Apocalypse, it matters little whether it was drawn from the one or from the other place of Scripture, provided the same argument is drawn from it. I am not indeed unaware that there are those who contend that in place of these words, "As also another before us," one should read, "As some other of our elders"; and that in this latter sense those words cannot so conveniently be understood of St. Athanasius, who, since he departed from human affairs a little before the death of St. Gregory Nazianzen, could not be called by him one of our elders. But these words of St. Gregory Nazianzen can fit very well St. Dionysius the Areopagite, who we know preceded St. Gregory by very many years, and was the first and only one of the old Fathers to have noticed this. To this difficulty three things can be replied: first, that the learned Jacques de Billy, who is reckoned among the more illustrious interpreters and those more skilled in the Greek tongue, renders these words of St. Gregory Nazianzen from the Greek thus: "And another before us," and not, "some one of our elders."

[35] adduced here, For although this expression οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν is mostly used for "elders," nevertheless in its proper signification it indicates nothing else than "those who were before us." Second, Nicetas, in the Commentaries which he published on this thirty-eighth Oration of St. Gregory, testifies that this Holy Doctor had before his eyes none other than St. Athanasius, whose words also he reports, that he may better disclose their agreement with the words of St. Gregory. Finally, not to dwell further on a word which can have several significations, if the words of Gregory Nazianzen convey this sense, "as some other of our elders" &c., we reply that St. Gregory survived St. Athanasius by eighteen years; for Athanasius departed this life on the 2nd day of May in the year 371, and Gregory on the 8th day of the same month in the year 389, and accordingly he could with the best right reckon St. Athanasius in the number of his elders. Of which thing indeed, not to depart from Ecclesiastical History, we have an example in the Apostles themselves; for Philo, speaking of the Therapeutae, says that they study the Philosophy which they had received from their elders: "They give attention to the Philosophy handed down to them by their elders." And yet Eusebius and Nicephorus

testify that this Philosophy of which Philo speaks is nothing other than the Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul. If, therefore, Philo could call the Apostles elders with respect to the Therapeutae at a time when several of them were still living, why could not Nazianzen give this title to St. Athanasius, whom he survived by eighteen years?

[36] Thus far the praised anonymous author; but did St. Gregory Nazianzen, in the text which I have transcribed above in Greek and Latin together, did not praise Dionysius the Areopagite, have regard to St. Athanasius, as he would have it? This appears to me very doubtful and uncertain; for whatever he argues in the words just given, Jacques de Billy does not render with sufficient felicity these Greek words of Nazianzen, Ἄλλῳ τινὶ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν πεφιλοσόφηται καλλιστάτε καὶ ὑψηλότατα, by these Latin ones, Another before us has most beautifully and most subtly philosophised. This opinion sits with me because in this exposition or interpretation no word at all is found which corresponds to the Greek word τῶν, and these Greek words τις τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν, by a phrase most received among the Greeks, signify not simply Someone before us, but Someone of those who were or lived, or even flourished, before us; and since this is so, and, as Halloix contends in his work on the Life and Works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, question 2, the said Greek words are not wont among the Greeks to signify of themselves Someone of those who wrote before us, it appears beyond doubt that the aforesaid interpretation, which Billy fitted to the Greek words of Gregory Nazianzen just given, is not accurate.

[37] Now indeed, since this matter — on which see also Pearson in the Vindiciae of the Letters of St. Ignatius, chapter 10, page 147 — for certain stands so, the recited words of Nazianzen seem to be rendered in Latin, Another of those who were before us; and since this is as much as if it were said, Another of our elders, and by this manner of speaking Greek writers are wont to signify a man who died either before they were born or long before they write, Gregory most probably indicated by him who, he says in the place cited above, had most beautifully and most subtly philosophised, not Athanasius or anyone with whom he had still lived, but another who had departed from among the living long before he wrote these things, and accordingly was one of Gregory's elders. Hence, further, it now comes about that, by the admission of the anonymous author himself whom I praised above, he cannot so conveniently be understood to have spoken of St. Athanasius; the same anonymous author does indeed add that Athanasius could have been held by Gregory Nazianzen for one of his elders; but he does not sufficiently prove it. For whether Philo, whom he adduces as an example, understood by the Philosophy which he says the Therapeutae received handed down from their elders the Gospels and Epistles of St. Paul, or the doctrine drawn from them, and accordingly called the Apostles the elders of the Therapeutae at the very time when several of them still survived among the living, can be controverted, even if it be granted, contrary to what some contend, that the Therapeutae of Philo were Christians.

[38] And since this is so, it cannot be concluded thence that Athanasius could rightly have been held for one of the elders of Gregory Nazianzen, is not proved, yet the Areopagite who survived him by only about 18 years. Further, since Gregory, just as Dionysius, calls the heavenly spirits to whom they ascribe the glorification of God which they mention in the places cited Seraphim, as is done in Isaiah chapter 6, while Athanasius on the contrary distinguishes the same spirits by the appellation of living creatures, as is done in chapter 4 of the Apocalypse, indeed even from this it seems that it can be doubted whether Gregory Nazianzen, in the place cited above, had regard to Athanasius and not to Dionysius. But what at length? Did Gregory Nazianzen, then, truly cite the Works of Dionysius the Areopagite? Since Dionysius, in chapter 7 of the celestial Hierarchy, relates only barely from Isaiah chapter 6 how the Seraphim praise God in heaven, and affirms in the same place that he has explained the words with which they do this in the book On the Divine Hymns, it must be either that Gregory, if in expounding the same words he had regard to Dionysius the Areopagite, had this book before his eyes, or at least that he gathered from the cited chapter 7 of the celestial Hierarchy how those words were expounded by Dionysius in that book, which, if it ever existed, is no longer found. But no argument at all is available by which either the one or the other could be certainly proved.

[39] perhaps did not praise, Moreover, since many Writings of St. Dionysius of Corinth and of St. Dionysius of Alexandria and of other holy Fathers who lived before St. Gregory Nazianzen have perished, it can happen that in one of these, which had been composed either by Dionysius of Corinth or certainly by another distinct from the Areopagite, the aforesaid words of the Seraphim in Isaiah chapter 6 were expounded in the manner related above, and that Gregory Nazianzen accordingly understood him who had done this by him whom he says had most beautifully and most subtly philosophised. Surely, since he does not express the name of him of whom he says this, and someone perhaps different from the Areopagite explained the words of the Seraphim mentioned above in the manner said before Gregory, it must needs be very doubtful and uncertain whether he said that another or the Areopagite had most beautifully and most subtly philosophised. Pearson, praised above, in the Vindiciae of the Letters of St. Ignatius, chapter 10, also contends from the grand and sublime style which Dionysius the Areopagite kept in writing that this our Saint ought to be understood by him whom Gregory Nazianzen, in the place cited above, says had most beautifully and most subtly philosophised; but it appears beyond doubt that Nazianzen spoke so there in view of the very interpretation which he saw had been fitted by someone before him to the text of Isaiah recited at number 32, and not with regard to the style or words in which it was expressed. However that may be, since indeed Gregory Nazianzen nowhere openly designates the Dionysian Works, indeed neither does this holy Father suffice for it to be certainly believed that those Works were known and cited as early as the 4th century. And since this is so, I now turn my discourse elsewhere.

[40] or finally by John Chrysostom, inasmuch as by a sermon, The Areopagitics, in order to prove that Dionysius the Areopagite, or, to speak more accurately, the Works customarily circulated under his name, were cited as early as the 4th century, summon also to the defence of their cause St. Chrysostom, who flourished in the 4th century and at the beginning of the 5th century exchanged this mortal life for the immortal; and they do this because in the Sermon on the false prophets and false teachers, edited by Gerard Vossius and others and ascribed to St. John Chrysostom, the unknown author, having admired the sublimity of the genius and of the Works of Dionysius, in which he discourses of God and the angels, calls him the Bird of heaven, speaking thus of holy bishops and ancient doctors: Where is Evodius, the good odour of the Church and successor of the Apostles? Where Ignatius, the dwelling-place of God? Where Dionysius the Areopagite, the bird of heaven? To this argument of the Areopagitics, further, the author of the Problem, proposed to the learned in French and published by the Paris press in the year 1708, replies thus in the Venetian edition in which it afterwards came out in Latin in the year 1756: I do not know why the champions of St. Dionysius summon this testimony of St. Chrysostom to the defence of their cause. Is it doubted whether this holy doctor read in the Acts of the Apostles that the Areopagite was converted to the faith by St. Paul? Who can suspect that he was ignorant that Dionysius was bishop of Athens? What wonder, therefore, if he speaks of him? But our question turns not on this, whether St. Chrysostom mentioned Dionysius, but whether he asserted that he wrote some books; which certainly cannot be proved from these words, "Where is Dionysius, the bird of heaven"; otherwise Evodius also would have to be said to have written some books, because he calls him the good odour of the Church and successor of the Apostles.

[41] What, then, does St. John Chrysostom intend when he names him the Bird of heaven? [in which, contrary to what the anonymous would have it, the Works of the Areopagite are had in view,] That which several Greeks have committed to writing about him. He had been imbued by St. Paul, says Pachymeres, with sacred and divine knowledge; St. Paul, others assert, had made him a contemplator of invisible things, and on account of his signal candour of mind and the excellence of his virtues had communicated to him the more sublime mysteries which he had learned in his rapture even to the third heaven. In order, therefore, to set before our eyes this sublime contemplation of St. Dionysius, St. Chrysostom calls him "Bird of heaven"; not because he wrote the books falsely adjudged to him. So he; but they satisfy the argument sought from the words of Chrysostom, as he thought, about Dionysius the Areopagite by no reason at all, as it appears to me at least. For the author of the praised sermon, when he called Dionysius the Areopagite the bird of heaven, seems to have had regard to the Works composed by him, as he supposed, with the utmost sublimity, in exactly the same way as St. Augustine seems to have had regard to the Gospel and Epistles of St. John when he called him the Eagle, writing thus in Tractate 36 on the same John: John himself is the Eagle, the preacher of sublime things, and the contemplator with fixed eyes of the inner and outer light. Nor does what the author of the Problem says of Evodius bear on the matter at all; for nothing is more common than that holy Men should be called the good odour either of Christ or of the Church, even if they have profited the Church by absolutely no Works published to the light. In order, therefore, to show against those who strive to claim those Works for the Areopagite that the Works customarily circulated under the name of St. Dionysius the Areopagite were not praised by John Chrysostom, one must have recourse elsewhere, and examine whether the sermon praised above, which is ascribed by them and by the author of the Problem himself to St. John Chrysostom, in very fact has this holy Father as its author.

[42] Montfaucon, who together with other Benedictine monks of the Congregation of St. Maur published all the Works of St. John Chrysostom in a fresh printing, falsely to him, as the reasons, lists the sermon praised above On the false prophets and false teachers among the spurious Writings, or those wrongly attributed to Chrysostom, in tome 8, and speaks of it first thus in the preliminary Admonition: It is evident that this oration has been enlarged, revised and changed by many: nor does one manuscript codex occur which agrees with another. Gerard Vossius had edited the longer homily in Latin only: and to his Latin interpretation Fronton du Duc fitted the shorter Greek Homily from some copy; so that in not a few places it presents a gaping and mutilated sequence; and yet, if you join the last words, where the gap begins, with the following ones, where it ends, you would think nothing is lacking. After these of Vossius and Fronton, Savile edited the longer oration; but corrupted in many places; we at length from the Coislin codex

CCCXLIX bring forth this one sound and whole, far different from that of Fronton and Vossius and more agreeing with that of Savile; and to these words, by which (whether rightly or otherwise I do not examine) he prefers the more prolix copy of the Homily here treated, edited by himself, to the more contracted one published by Fronton du Duc, he presently subjoins these following words, which bear more closely on our purpose: He who falsely assumed the name of Chrysostom in the title (namely of the Homily of which we are speaking here) feigns himself to be bidding a last farewell to his people: "The time of my dissolution is at hand," he says. Here all the signs of νοθείας at once present themselves. The style is low and abject, different by the whole heaven from Chrysostom's manner of speaking: the diction is inelegant; the laws of Grammar are mostly violated, insipid Epithets are heaped up to the point of nausea. Finally Dionysius the Areopagite is mentioned as a most celebrated writer.

[43] brought into the open here, Yet his Writings, which are held spurious by all the learned, were made and published some centuries after the death of Chrysostom. Nestorius is listed among the heretics; whence is argued how great was the unskilfulness of this Greekling, namely the one who falsely attributed the said Homily to Chrysostom. Thus the praised writer; and the text of the Homily so denied by him to St. Chrysostom, in which Nestorius is listed among the heretics, or rather enemies of the faith, is couched in these following words: Where is Marcion, where Valens, where Manes, where Basilides? Where Nero; where Julian, where Arius, where Nestorius, where all the adversaries of the truth, of whom the Church cried out, "Many dogs have compassed me about"? Further, that you may now understand why the Homily of which we are here speaking is to be denied to St. Chrysostom because Nestorius is mentioned in it as a heretic: St. Chrysostom, as we have already shown in tome 4 of September, in which this Saint was treated with us, exchanged this mortal Life for the immortal in the year 427; but Nestorius began to form his heresy only at about that time, and was not openly held for a heretic until some years more had elapsed. And since this is so, St. Chrysostom could not have counted him among the heretics, and accordingly the Homily in which this is done is most certainly to be denied to him. But indeed there will perhaps be someone who, lest he be compelled to admit that that Homily — which meanwhile Pearson, with Ussher, in the place cited above, ascribes to John the Faster, patriarch of Constantinople from the year 582 up to the year 595 — was falsely attributed to St. Chrysostom, will now reply here that the name of Nestorius was thrust into its text just recited by the hand of a more recent interpolator. But although indeed that Oration or Homily has been enlarged, revised and changed by not a few, as Montfaucon teaches in the words transcribed here at number 42, after the inspection of several copies of it, yet neither the praised Montfaucon nor any other writer whatever supplies anything which would persuade that the name of Nestorius is lacking in any copy.

[44] proved to have been done, falsely attributed, demonstrate. Moreover, let it be granted even that the name of Nestorius was thrust into the aforesaid Homily, or into its text just recited, by a more recent interpolator; not even from this will it follow that that Homily is to be held for a genuine offspring of St. Chrysostom. For the other indications of forgery or νοθείας which Montfaucon alleges in the words recited above show sufficiently and more than sufficiently that it is to be counted among the spurious Works, or those wrongly attributed to this Saint. But even if we were to grant for the moment that the same Homily, into which, then, the name of Nestorius as a heretic was inserted by an interpolator of a more recent age, is to be held for a genuine offspring of Chrysostom, not even so will you have anything from it to prove that the Works of Dionysius the Areopagite were cited by St. Chrysostom. For since (go to the words of Montfaucon recited at number 42) the said Homily has been enlarged, revised and changed by many, and indeed it must be asserted, in order that it may be held for a legitimate offspring of Chrysostom, that the name of Nestorius was thrust into it by an interpolator, by equal reasoning and on no less foundation it could be affirmed that the name of Dionysius the Areopagite was also thrust into the same Homily; and if this be asserted, nothing certainly will be had from the oft-mentioned Homily to prove that the Dionysian Works were praised by Chrysostom; so that accordingly, in whatever way it is considered, it is by no means of a nature to persuade that the Works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite were either praised or indicated by Chrysostom. And thus we now have what was to be shown in the present chapter, namely that it is not certainly proved that the Dionysian Works were cited in the 4th century either by the first council of Nicaea or by SS. Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen and Chrysostom; whether, however, this is sufficiently proved as regards two others, about whom there is still dispute, we shall discuss in the following chapter.

* al. indivisible

CHAPTER III.

Whether John of Dara, who wrote Commentaries on both Hierarchies of Dionysius the Areopagite, flourished in the fourth century, and whether he, and Isaac, who is related to have cited the Areopagite, were disciples of St. Ephrem.

John, archbishop of Dara, who wrote on the Areopagite, and Isaac the Syrian, Cabassut, in the Ecclesiastical Notice of Histories, Councils &c., page 293, number 4, writes thus: Abraham Ecchellensis the Maronite, distinguished by manifold knowledge of things and skill in the Oriental tongues, in his letter to Jean Morin, priest of the Oratory of Jesus, gives assurance that John, the Syrian bishop of Dara, wrote in the fourth century Commentaries on both Hierarchies of Dionysius the Areopagite; and besides that Isaac the Syrian, a disciple of saint Ephrem, who flourished as the third century was verging toward the fourth, composed books on the Angels, in which he frequently uses the testimony of the Areopagite. Ecchellensis indeed affirms that the matter is plainly ascertained by him, since he has often read through the books of these men written in Syriac. So he; and Ecchellensis asserted what is here asserted of John, bishop of Dara, or rather, on account of what is to be said below, metropolitan, not only in the letter given to Morin, but also in his Annotations on the little book of Hebed-Jesu, a Syrian author, granted the public light together with it. This is taught by the very Jean Morin whom Cabassut says was addressed by letter by Ecchellensis, writing thus in his work On the Sacred Ordinations of the Church, in his Annotations on the Ordinations of the Syrians, page 493, number 22: Abraham Ecchellensis the Maronite, a man excellently learned and well deserving of Oriental letters, has lately edited in Latin and Syriac the little book of Hebed-Jesu, a Syrian author, and illustrated it with Annotations; in which he says that John, bishop of Dara in Syria, wrote Commentaries on the books of St. Dionysius, and that he has an old copy of them, in which it was written that a certain Syrian abbot had sent out that book with 250 other volumes in the year of Alexander 1243, that is, of Christ 932; and Abraham writes that that John, bishop of Dara, lived in the fourth century.

[46] Ecchellensis asserted that he who cited him flourished before the 5th century; But this latter he teaches by no argument. The most illustrious and most learned prelate François Bosquet, bishop of Lodève, when he had heard this at Rome, had the book copied, and carried the copy with him to Paris, and when these Syriac things began to be struck on the press, he informed me that he had had the Opuscula of John of Dara copied, and handed me the codex itself to use. Having obtained the book, I turn it over in many places, but nothing occurs to me which would argue such great antiquity. Thus the praised Morin; and having set forth some other things besides which prove what he says last, and which I omit because other things to be alleged by me below accomplish it more strongly, he subjoins: The present-day Syrians relate that John of Dara was a disciple of St. Ephrem. If, therefore, credit is to be given both to the Syrians in this matter and to Abraham Ecchellensis in all the things which, by the witness of Morin and Cabassut, he left handed down to memory about John of Dara and Isaac the Syrian, these two were both disciples of St. Ephrem the Syrian, who, as we showed at the 1st day of February, on which he has already been treated with us, closed his last day in the year 378; and the one, indeed, born in the third century, frequently used the testimony of the Areopagite in the Treatise written by him on the Angels; and the other also wrote Commentaries on both Hierarchies of Dionysius in the 4th century. But although indeed I would believe Ecchellensis that John, archbishop of Dara, composed Commentaries on both Hierarchies of the Areopagite, and that Isaac the Syrian wrote a Treatise on the Angels and frequently cited the Areopagite in it, it nevertheless appears altogether beyond doubt, whatever Ecchellensis may have said, that those two writers, namely John, archbishop of Dara, and Isaac, neither lived in the fourth century of the Church or as the third was growing old, nor were ever under the discipline of St. Ephrem, deacon of the church of Edessa.

[47] [but John, whom, by the words recited here, archbishop of Dara in the 4th and 5th century] And first indeed, that John, who was archbishop of Dara, a city of Syria on the borders of the Persians, and wrote Commentaries on both Hierarchies of Dionysius the Areopagite, was not living in the fourth or fifth century, nay could not have been, the praised author of the problem proves in Section 2, part I, proposition 2, article 7. The words by which he accomplishes this in his Latin edition prepared at Venice in the year 1756 I transcribe here, intending however to apply correction where they present a version not at all tolerable (for he who made that Problem Latin from the French has not everywhere acquitted himself with sufficient felicity in this matter): which I have thought should be done elsewhere also, the same reason occurring, in transcribing other Latin texts of the same Problem. Meanwhile the said words run thus: In the whole of Asia, as far as it extends, within whose provinces Syria also is contained, there exist only two places which are called Daras, or Daria as others would have it. The former Daras, which is now called Tauris, is a town of Coelesyria, that is, of lower Syria, which is one of the parts of Palestine. The latter is a city of Mesopotamia, thence called Anastasiopolis, distant four or five leagues from the city of Nisibis. Further, it is certain that in neither of these places could this John have held an archiepiscopal chair in the fourth century. Not indeed in the former; for first, it seems incredible that a metropolitan see was established in an ignoble place, such as Daras was at that time, since by the old discipline of the Church archbishoprics were nowhere erected in villages. Second, this Daras is distant only two leagues from Damascus, a city which had formerly been the capital of Syria, now of Phoenicia, and the ninth metropolis under the patriarch of Antioch. It could not therefore have been the see of an archbishop, unless we would set up two metropolises only two leagues distant from each other; which is altogether abhorrent from the truth. Third, this Daras is not situated on the extreme borders of the Persians, since Arabia lies between Persia and Syria. This John, therefore, could not have been archbishop of this town which is called Daras.

[48] Nor likewise in the other Daras, called Anastasiopolis, situated on the extreme borders of the Persians, could not have been, the anonymous author proves, can this archiepiscopal chair, in which this John sat in the fourth or fifth century, be placed,

since it is established from most certain monuments that at that time this city did not yet exist, and was raised from its foundations only in the sixth century. For Anastasius occupied the empire of the East in the year 491, and after seventeen years, that is, in the year 508, founded this city in a certain field which was called Daras or Daria, because in it Alexander the Great had fought a signal battle with Darius and routed his whole army. Nor did Anastasius only give his name to this city, but he also girded it with very strong walls to beat back the onsets of the Persians and to free Mesopotamia from their incursions. He likewise adorned it with great and most beautiful buildings; he built in it churches, porticoes, baths for the convenience of the inhabitants, and omitted nothing by which he might render it most noble and most magnificent, as Evagrius relates after Nicephorus. Since, therefore, it is established from the testimony of these two historians that the emperor Anastasius undertook the building of this city only in the year 508, this John could not have held the archbishopric of this city in the fifth century. I do not indeed deny that Procopius asserts that this Dara was a hamlet or village before Anastasius raised it into a city; but it is altogether improbable that an archiepiscopal see was established in that place, since it was only an episcopal see after it had been changed by the emperor into a magnificent and most strongly fortified city. But if Daras was not a city before the year 508, how could John have been its archbishop in the fourth century? It is necessary, therefore, that another Daras be assigned on the borders of the Persians, of which he could have been archbishop; and since in the Councils held through the first five centuries of the Church no bishop or archbishop of Daras or Daria on the borders of the Persians is ever read to have subscribed, it must necessarily be affirmed that this John did not sit as archbishop of that city before the sixth century, and accordingly was not a disciple of Ephrem.

[49] Thus far the anonymous author of the Problem, demonstrating most luminously indeed that John could not have been archbishop of Dara in the fourth or even the fifth century, between the year 700 and 850, and therefore was not a disciple of St. Ephrem, deacon of the Church of Edessa. But when, then, did John, archbishop of Dara, who wrote Commentaries on both Hierarchies of Dionysius the Areopagite, live and govern that see? Joseph Assemani, a Syrian Maronite, teaches us this in the Bibliotheca Orientalis, which came out from the Roman press in the year 1721, tome 2, page 118, writing thus there of John, bishop of Dara: Writers vary about the age of John. Abraham Ecchellensis, in the Notes on Hebed-Jesu, page CXXXII, writes that he lived in the fourth century. Nairon, in the Euoplia, part 2, page CXV, contends that he flourished between the fifth and sixth century. Jean Morin, in the Notes on the Ordinations of the Syrians, number XXII, page CCCCXXII, throws him back to the seventh century, and affirms that he wrote after the year of Christ 692. William Cave finally, in the Historia literaria, tome 2, page CXXXI, places him between the sixth and seventh century. But that he neither flourished before the year of Christ 700, nor can his age be extended beyond the year 850, is shown chiefly by two arguments.

[50] as other things which are adduced here from Assemani, The first, because he names in his Work Philoxenus of Hierapolis, Severus of Antioch, James of Sarug, John Philoponus and the Hagarenes, men namely of the fifth, sixth and seventh century, of whom Philoponus, if the history of the Dynasties of Abulpharagius is to be believed, was living when Amr, under Omar, king of the Saracens, in the year of the Hegira 21, of Christ 641, stormed Alexandria. The second, because we have his works copied in a most ancient parchment codex, which Moses of Nisibis, abbot of Scete, testifies that he acquired for his monastery in the year of Christ 932, as is gathered from the following note prefixed to the codex. "For the honour and glory and exaltation of the monastery of the holy Mother of God of the Syrians, which is situated in the desert of Scete, the humble and sinful Moses the Archimandrite zealously acquired this book together with very many others, namely two hundred and fifty, of which he bought most, and received some offered to him as a gift by certain persons, when he set out to the city of Baghdad on the business of this sacred desert and of the monks dwelling there. May God, for the glory of whose name and for the profit of those reading in them he undertook labour of this kind, spare him and his departed and all who have a part in them, and reward them in the kingdom of heaven. And let it be lawful for no man, by the living word of God, to claim any of them for himself in any way and convert it to his own right, or to delete or expunge or scrape off this note, or to bequeath them to anyone by testament, or to take them out of this monastery. Whoever shall dare otherwise, let him be anathema. Spare thy soul, wretch.

[51] [demonstrate, occupied that see, and accordingly did not flourish in the fourth century;] And their arrival in this monastery, together with the aforesaid Moses the Archimandrite, took place in the sixth year after, namely in the one thousand two hundred and forty-third year of the Greeks," of Christ 932. That codex formerly belonged to the Clarissimus Abraham Ecchellensis, who makes mention of it both in the Notes on the Catalogue of Hebed-Jesu at the page cited, and in the Index of Authors whose testimony he used in his Eutychius Vindicated: but now it is kept in the Vatican Library among the Ecchellensian Codices, number XVI; and since it was written before the year of Christ 932, it is necessary that the author flourished as the eighth century was verging into the ninth. Certainly the author of the Catalogue of Liturgies in Schulting, in the place to be cited below, observes that he published a Liturgy in the year of Christ 725. Thus the praised Assemani; and although he does not declare in the words already given that John, bishop of Dara, of whom he treats, wrote Commentaries on both Hierarchies of the Areopagite, he nevertheless lists in the Catalogue of Writings composed by that John, which he afterwards recounts, some things being set before it, those Commentaries or books written on the celestial and ecclesiastical Hierarchy of the Areopagite; so that he certainly speaks of the same John of Dara as Ecchellensis, and so that accordingly the John of Dara mentioned by the same Ecchellensis flourished not in the fourth century, as he says, but between the year 700 and 850, and was certainly not a disciple of Ephrem, who departed this life in the year 378, contrary to what the present-day Syrians contend.

[52] Let us now examine whether Isaac, who is mentioned by Ecchellensis, as I showed above, as having written a Treatise on the Angels and often cited the Areopagite in it, but Isaac, whom not without anachronism a disciple of St. Ephrem flourished as the third century was verging toward its end and was a disciple of St. Ephrem the Syrian. The anonymous author of the Problem already more than once mentioned, intending to prove that both the latter and the former stand otherwise, shows beforehand that an anachronism is manifestly committed by those who contend that that Isaac flourished as the third century was verging to its end and at the same time was a disciple of St. Ephrem, arguing in the following manner: Before I bring forward Isaac, who is the other writer of the fourth century who is said to have frequently cited St. Dionysius the Areopagite, there occurs to be noted an anachronism which takes away all the force of this argument. Here are the words of Cabassut by which it is asserted: "Isaac, a Syrian priest, who flourished as the third century was verging to its end, had composed a Treatise on the Angels, in which he frequently uses the testimony of the Areopagite." So speaks Cabassut, when he teaches us that Abraham Ecchellensis wrote to Morin about these two disciples of St. Ephrem. But how can these two things be reconciled, namely that Isaac flourished in the third century verging toward the fourth, and that the same man was a disciple of St. Ephrem? For if this disciple of St. Ephrem had flourished towards the end of the third century or towards the beginning of the fourth, St. Ephrem his teacher would likewise have had to be illustrious a little before or at least at the same time; but this cannot cohere with the chronology of this father, because at that time he was scarcely born. Sozomen relates that he was born at Nisibis or in its neighbourhood; but he does not designate the time at which he was born; it can, however, more probably be said that he came forth into the light in the time of Constantine the Great, who was made emperor in the year 306 of the Christian era. But whatever be the case about the time at which St. Ephrem was born, this at least is certain and undoubted, that he was a disciple of St. James of Nisibis up to the death of this holy bishop, which according to Baronius took place in the year 338; and it is improbable that St. Ephrem himself, who was then a youth and a hearer of St. James, had disciples under his discipline.

[53] could be set down, Besides, St. Ephrem, deacon of the church of Edessa, went to the heavenly ones in the year 378, on the first day of February according to the Latins, or on the 28th day of January according to the Greeks; for the emperor Valens, who died in the month of August of the same year, was still living, as St. Jerome notes, when St. Ephrem died; and from elsewhere it is certain and ascertained that St. Ephrem survived by one month St. Basil, who is reported to have died on the first day of January in the year 378. It is therefore most evidently established that St. Ephrem departed from human affairs in the year 378. Further, if Isaac was a disciple of St. Ephrem and lived towards the end of the third century, since a disciple cannot precede his master in age, St. Ephrem must at least have flourished at the same time; from which it follows that he was illustrious in the Church for about eighty years; which no one has yet asserted, nor can it cohere with the things which we have said above. This Isaac, therefore, either was not a disciple of St. Ephrem, or, if he was, could not have flourished in the third century verging toward the fourth. Further, these things having been set down beforehand about the anachronism which is committed if he be held to be a disciple of St. Ephrem, the same author contends that no Isaac is found in ecclesiastical History who could have been a disciple of St. Ephrem the deacon. From the beginning, he says, of the third century to the end of the sixth there exist only three authors who bear the name of Isaac. The first is the one whom Gennadius lists in the number of those writers who flourished before the fourth century; but he was beyond doubt a Jew, since his book bears this title: The Faith of Isaac, formerly a Jew. The second (go to Gennadius in the Catalogue, chapter 66) lived in the fifth century, and died under the reign of Leo and Marcian about the year 454.

[54] nor in very fact to have existed, The third lived up to the end of the sixth century, and St. Gregory the Pope mentions him in the third book of his Dialogues. As, therefore, this last Isaac lived too long after St. Ephrem to be held his disciple, it remains to be discussed which of those bears the four characteristics of the Isaac about whom there is controversy, namely 1. Whether he flourished towards the end of the third century or towards the beginning of the fourth. 2. Whether he was a Syrian by nation. 3. Whether he heard St. Ephrem as his teacher. 4. Whether he wrote in the Syriac tongue. That Isaac, further, who St. Dionysius in the Treatise

on the angels is said to have cited, cannot be confused with the one of whom Gennadius speaks. First, because that former Isaac is said to have written in Syriac, but this one in Greek. Second, because the former composed a Treatise on the Angels; but this one discoursed not on the Angels but on the Trinity and Incarnation, as may be seen in Father Sirmond, who granted the public light to his Works extracted from the manuscripts of the Pithou library, and asserts nothing of this treatise on the angels, which the patrons of the Areopagite themselves falsely attribute to him; nay rather the champions of saint Dionysius themselves admit that this book has not yet come forth into the light. They would have it, finally, that neither Greek nor Latin writers, because they did not know the Syriac tongue sufficiently, ever mentioned this Isaac, the disciple of St. Ephrem; but the Jew about whom there is controversy was known to Gennadius, and his book on the Trinity and Incarnation is read praised and is written out in the library of the Fathers: the Isaac, therefore, of whom Gennadius speaks is other than he who is believed to have cited Dionysius the Areopagite.

[55] As regards the second, who died about the middle of the fifth century, the same said anonymous author contends, it is not probable that he, although a Syrian by nation, was nevertheless a disciple of St. Ephrem, since about eighty years intervene between the deaths of the two; for St. Ephrem died in the year 378 and Isaac in the year 454. And this is certain, that the books of this Isaac of whom we speak, of which Trithemius exhibits a catalogue, are found in the Library of the Fathers, and that no mention is made there of any book on the angels written by this author; which most evidently proves that this Isaac cannot be confused with him who in his supposed Treatise on the Angels frequently uses the testimonies of St. Dionysius. Finally Sozomen, speaking of the disciples of St. Ephrem, lists among the more illustrious Abbas, Zenobius, Abraham, Simeonides, and has nothing of John of Dara and Isaac, who certainly, on account of their celebrated learning, ought to have held the first places among the hearers of this holy Deacon. All these arguments taken together can persuade any sensible man that these two writers neither lived in the fourth century of the Church, nor were ever under the discipline of St. Ephrem, deacon of Edessa. Thus far he; but whom at length shall we say was the Isaac who, in the Treatise on the Angels written by him and read by Ecchellensis, frequently praised Dionysius the Areopagite?

[56] Assemani, praised above, in tome 1 of the Bibliotheca Orientalis, none other than he who, of the three of the same name, which came out in the year 1719, lists chiefly three whose name was Isaac. And of these, the first two of whom are mentioned by Gennadius in the Catalogue, chapters 26 and 66, and above also by the praised anonymous author of the Problem, the first is Isaac, the disciple of St. Ephrem; the second Isaac, priest of Antioch, certainly different from the Isaac already mentioned; and the third finally, who is himself also certainly distinct from the two preceding, Isaac of Nineveh, from monk become bishop and then again from bishop monk. That I may more easily define which of these composed the Treatise on the Angels in which he rather often praised the Areopagite, and that at the same time the things which are to be said may be more clearly understood, I set forth beforehand from Assemani an account of each. In the tome of the Bibliotheca Orientalis just cited, page 165, he writes thus of the first of the said Isaacs: The Syrian author of the Life of St. Ephrem, in Nitrian Codex V, counts Isaac among the chief disciples of the same. "Ephrem," he says, "had very many Hearers: yet distinguished above the rest are celebrated his disciples Zenobius, deacon of the church of Edessa, Isaac, Simeon, Abraham, and others whom we deliberately pass over." Almost all the Syrian and Arab writers mention the same man, as John Maro in the Treatise against the Nestorians and Eutychians: Gregory Barhebraeus, commonly Abulpharagius, in the History of the Dynasties, page LXXXXI, George Elmacin Homaidus in the Chronicle, on Theodosius the Younger, and Ebnarrahebus in the Oriental Chronicle, which the Clarissimus Abraham Ecchellensis edited, page CDXXXV, although they wrongly confuse him with the other Isaac, priest of Antioch, of whom there will be discourse below.

[57] To this Isaac the praised author of the Life of saint Ephrem, in the place cited, assigns a place among the Syrian writers: by Assemani in the Bibliotheca Orientalis, by the words, "Further, each of his disciples, according to the wisdom given him, wrote Sermons and Expositions, or Commentaries: and, illuminated by the Divine light, they brought the light of truth and everlasting salvation to many mortals." To him, if I conjecture rightly, is to be ascribed the Work which Gennadius reports in the Catalogue, chapter 26, in these words: "Isaac wrote on the three Persons of the most holy Trinity and the Incarnation of the Lord a Book of most obscure disputation and involved speech": which the Clarissimus Jacques Sirmond edited among the "Dogmatic Opuscula of the old Fathers" at Paris in the year 1630. For the other Isaac, whom the same Gennadius in chapter LXVI calls a Priest of Antioch, was a disciple not of Ephrem but of Zenobius, as we shall show below. But as to what Sirmond noted on the faith of the Pithou Codex, that this Isaac was a Christian from a Jew, a learned man suspected some fault in that codex. Since, if Isaac, having left the Jewish sect, had embraced the Christian faith, Gennadius and his abbreviator Honorius of Autun would certainly have noted it in the Catalogue. Of his age Suffridus Petri of Leeuwarden writes thus in the Notes on the Catalogue of Gennadius: "This Isaac is known neither to Trithemius nor to his appendix; he seems, however, to have flourished about the year 450, as far as appears from the sequence of the Catalogue." Nay, from the sequence of the Catalogue it appears that he flourished about the year 380. For he is placed before Macarius the Egyptian and Evagrius Ponticus, whose age scarcely extends to the year 400, at least that of Macarius, who, as we shall show below, died about the year 390. Certainly Sirmond places Isaac before the year 400.

[58] which here Nor does it stand in the way that the same Isaac, in Gennadius chapter XXVI and in Sirmond page CLI, expressly asserts two natures in the one person of Christ. For Petau, On the Incarnation, book III, chapters VI and VII, demonstrates that several Greek and Latin fathers before the times of the Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon used these words also. All these things Assemani says of the first of the three said Isaacs, who, contrary to what the praised author of the Problem judged, was a disciple of St. Ephrem; and of the second of the same three Isaacs, or of Isaac, priest of Antioch, he hands down to memory the following in the said Oriental Library, page 207: Isaac, surnamed the Great, priest of Antioch, was illustrious under the emperors Theodosius the Younger and Marcian in the middle of the fifth century. He had as teacher Zenobius, disciple of St. Ephrem, as the priest Abraham Mardenus noted from John Barsusan, Patriarch of the Jacobites, at the foot of our Syriac codex IV, whose words we shall copy below: and this is also gathered both from the writings of the same Isaac against the Nestorians and Eutychians; and especially from that poem in which he lamented the ruin of Antioch: for Nestorius published his heresy in the year of Christ 429; and Eutyches about the year 448. The ruin of Antioch at length took place in the year 459. Which most certain epoch of time proves that Isaac was a disciple not of Ephrem, as some write, but of Zenobius.

[59] given, the mentioned, For St. Ephrem, the master of the same Zenobius, died according to the Syrians in the year 373, or in the year 378 according to others, as we said above on page LIV, and at that time Zenobius was deacon of the church of Edessa, as was demonstrated on page XXXVIII; and so a little after the aforesaid year, that is, about the year 390, he seems to have had our Isaac as a hearer. Hence is washed away the conjecture of Nairon, who in the Euoplia, part 1, page XXXXVII, confuses this Isaac with the other of the same surname, the Ninevite. For the latter indeed was a bishop, and flourished after the year 500, as we shall demonstrate in its place: but our Isaac died a simple priest a little after the Synod of Chalcedon. Further, on page 210 he shows that the Isaac of whom he writes these things departed this life in the year 460, and then on page 445, of the age of the third of the Isaacs mentioned above — whom he had shown beforehand from an anonymous writer to have been from monk bishop of the Ninevites and then again from bishop monk, and a Syrian by race — he writes thus: But the age of Isaac is more clearly demonstrated from his own writings, which exist in our Library. For in the praised Nitrian Codex XX, page CCXV, the testimony of James of Sarug, who, as was shown above, was illustrious at the beginning of the sixth century, is used by him. And in the Greek Ms. Codex CCCXCI, in which are contained ninety sermons of the same Isaac translated from Syriac into Greek by Patricius and Abraham, Monks in the Laura of saint Sabas, the last place is occupied by the "Letter" of Isaac himself "to St. Simeon Stylites the younger," surnamed "Thaumastorites," who σἰ θαυμασῷ ὄρει, "on the wonderful mountain" near Antioch, under Justinian and Justin the younger, lived most holily upon a column, and in the year of Christ 593, on the 26th day of May, under the emperor Maurice, was called to heaven, as is clear from Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History, book VI, chapter XXIII, and from Nicephorus Magister in his Life, last chapter.

[60] It is necessary, therefore, that our Isaac flourished as the sixth century was verging to its close. is listed in the third place, Hence, above all, the opinion of Nairon is to be rejected, who in the Euoplia, Part I, chapter 2, number XXII, confuses this Ninevite Isaac with the other, the disciple of St. Ephrem. Besides, the conjecture of Lambeck and of William Cave is by no means to be admitted, who think that our Isaac, after abdicating the episcopate, came from the desert into Italy and lived near Spoleto in an Asceterion founded by himself; and accordingly they make him one and the same with the Isaac whose manners and miracles St. Gregory the Great describes in the Dialogues, book III, chapter XIV, testifying that he was wont to have in his mouth a saying of this kind, "A monk who seeks possessions on earth is not a monk." For our Isaac went from Mesopotamia not into Italy but into Egypt, where he closed his day in the desert of Scete, as is gathered from his praised Life. And so we have an account also of the last of the three said Isaacs; but let us now examine whether any of them wrote the Treatise on the Angels in which he frequently praised the Areopagite. That the first two indeed, of whom the one ceased to live about the year 400, the other either in the year 459 or, as appears, not long after, did not do it is clear even from this, that Assemani, in listing the Works composed by them, neither numbers among them a Treatise on the angels, nor supplies anything from which it is permissible to suspect that a work of the kind was elaborated by either of them.

[61] Moreover, the older of the two said Isaacs, whom Assemani teaches in the words recited above to have been a disciple of St. Ephrem, is most probably; and a Syrian by nation, is related to have written only one book on the Most holy Trinity and the Incarnation of the Lord, which is mentioned by Gennadius in the Catalogue, chapter 26

, and nothing occurs which suggests a suspicion of other works written by him; and as regards the second, or younger, of the said two Isaacs, Assemani lists from page 214 of tome 1 of the Bibliotheca Orientalis not a few ascetical Works composed by him; but no more among these than among the Works of this Isaac listed (go to number 55) by Trithemius and brought into the Lyons Library of the Fathers does anything occur which bears any sort of appearance of a Treatise on the Angels. Assemani does indeed also indicate in the place cited that the Isaac of whom we are speaking here composed polemical Works besides, and that he has only a few of these; but nothing at all persuades that among the polemical writings of that Isaac which Assemani did not have there existed one in which the Angels were Treated. It remains, therefore, that we examine whether the Isaac of whom we gave an account above in the third place from Assemani perhaps wrote a Treatise on the Angels. Although indeed Assemani nowhere expressly affirms that a work of this kind was elaborated by him, he nevertheless teaches on page 451 that Dionysius the Areopagite's On the Celestial Hierarchy was praised by that Isaac, adding there also that the same Isaac of whom we are speaking here was among the first praisers of Dionysius the Areopagite, or of his Works. Moreover, of this Isaac, whom he teaches was a Syrian by race, he records generally thus on page 446: Isaac the Ninevite composed seven tomes on the governance of the Spirit, on the divine mysteries, on judgments and polity; what, then, if of those seven tomes there was one in which the celestial polity, or the Angels, was treated, and it was therefore inscribed Treatise on the Angels in the codex which lit the way for Abraham Ecchellensis? The thing is certainly not lacking every appearance of truth, and so it comes about, partly from it and partly from other things already said, that it turns out to me most probable indeed that the Treatise on the Angels, which Abraham Ecchellensis (go to number 45) said he had read, was written in Syriac by that Isaac.

[62] and he of Ephrem, patriarch of Antioch, Further, since all credit is perhaps not easily to be denied to Abraham Ecchellensis and to the Syrians, who assert that John of Dara and Isaac, of whom the one wrote commentaries on both Hierarchies of Dionysius the Areopagite, the other composed a Treatise on the Angels in which the Areopagite is praised, were disciples of St. Ephrem, the anonymous author of the Problem, already so often praised, after the words recited above, tries to show who could be the Ephrem whom John and Isaac had as teacher, writing in this following manner: Since the authority of Abraham Ecchellensis, who testifies that he read in the Syriac tongue that these two authors (namely John of Dara and Isaac) were disciples of St. Ephrem, is not so easily to be rejected, in order that the things which this author asserts in the letter given to Morin may be reconciled with those which are more conformable to sounder Criticism, it can be asserted, not without some foundation, that this Ephrem of whom Ecchellensis speaks is not that most holy deacon of the church of Edessa, but the illustrious Ephrem the Syrian, who, having attained through various grades of honour and dignity that lofty dignity of count of the East, was at length raised to the patriarchal see of the church of Antioch about the year 526. This holy Prelate, therefore, who, as Photius notes, was most learned and had composed several books, had acquired such fame of celebrity that it may deservedly be conjectured that he attracted several disciples, among whom, not without the appearance of truth, can be listed both this author called John of Dara and Isaac the Syrian, who died as the sixth century was verging to its end, and who lived at a time when he could have been under the discipline of this holy Patriarch.

[63] It does not escape me that those who would have it that this Isaac, was perhaps a disciple. who praised St. Dionysius, was unknown to Greek and Latin writers, and that his books have not yet been granted the public light, will despise this conjecture of ours as futile; but we can reply to them that St. Gregory the Pope mentioned this Isaac, who flourished in the sixth century, and that Trithemius (this writer's Isaac is different from Gregory's Isaac) composed his elogium, and that several learned men have adjudged to him the Treatise on Contempt of the world which is read in the Library of the Fathers. But this difficulty being omitted, this is most certain, that, if this Isaac be asserted to be a disciple of St. Ephrem, patriarch of Antioch, the argument which is drawn from the testimonies of John of Dara and Isaac will be of no moment for persuading that there existed two authors who in the fourth century turned over the Works of Dionysius, and of whom one illustrated both Hierarchies of this Father with Commentaries, and the other cited very many texts in his Treatise on the Angels. For everyone sees that these two authors, if they published such books, as Ecchellensis testifies, must necessarily have lived after the fifth century, at which time the Works of St. Dionysius were in the hands of very many, and accordingly he will not wonder when he learns either that John of Dara illustrated them with Commentaries or that Isaac praised them. Thus far the author of the Problem; and this conjecture of his, proposed in the words already recited, by which he asserts whose Ephrem's disciples John of Dara and Isaac, praisers of the Dionysian Works, perhaps were, I think by no means to be disapproved as regards Isaac, provided it be transferred from the Isaac mentioned by Gregory the Great, Dialogues book 3, chapter 14, of whom he frames it, to Isaac the Ninevite, related above in the third place from Assemani, who flourished in the same sixth century as the Isaac of Gregory the Great, and, as I have already shown, most probably wrote the Treatise on the Angels; but as regards John of Dara, since he, as is clear from the words of Assemani recited above, flourished between the year 700 and the year 850, he certainly could not have been a disciple of Ephrem, patriarch of Antioch from the year 527, as may be seen in the Chronological History of the Patriarchs of Antioch prefixed to tome 4 of July with us, up to the year 545; so that undoubtedly, as regards John of Dara, whom the Syrians indeed, but not likewise Ecchellensis, contrary to what the anonymous author of the Problem notes above, make a disciple of St. Ephrem, the aforesaid conjecture has no place.

CHAPTER IV.

Whether St. Cyril and St. Juvenal, the one patriarch of Alexandria, the other of Jerusalem, in the 5th century, cited the Works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite.

At the Conference of Constantinople the Severian heretics, In order that the Severian or Acephalous heretics, who contended that there is only one nature in Christ, contrary to what the council of Chalcedon, held in the year 451, had defined, might be brought into concord with the Catholics adhering to the definition of the praised Council, the emperor Justinian caused a Conference to be held between the latter and the former; which, although it is attached by Labbe — who supplies its Acts, written by Innocent, bishop of Maronia, in tome 4 of the Councils from column 1763 — to the year 533 on account of the letter of Justinian to Pope John, ought nevertheless to be bound to the year 532, as Pagi shows in his Critica at this year. And at this Conference, which was repeated on a second day, there were present bishops, of the catholics indeed five, namely Innocent, bishop of Maronia, the very one who teaches us this in Labbe at the place cited, Hypatius, archbishop of the city of Ephesus, John of Bizye, Stephen of Seleucia and Anthimus of Trebizond; and of the Severians six, namely Sergius of Cyrrhus, Thomas of Germanicia, Philoxenus of Dulichium, Peter of Theodosiopolis, John of Constantina and Nonnus of Ceresina. Further, to come now, this notice having been set forth beforehand, to what chiefly concerns our purpose: the bishop Hypatius, on the second day of the Conference, when discourse had at once been set up concerning the council of Chalcedon, in which what I have said had been defined, inquired of the Severians, who reproved and condemned it, in what (go to the cited tome of the Councils, column 1766) that council had sinned; and the Severians answered that it had sinned in that it had laid down two natures in Christ, and, some things further being set before it, gave this reason for this answer of theirs: Whereas blessed … Cyril and blessed Athanasius, bishops of the city of Alexandria, Felix also and Julius of the Roman Church, Gregory too the wonder-worker and Dionysius the Areopagite decree one nature of God the word after the union, those men, transgressing all these, presumed to preach two natures after the union.

[65] [that testimonies of the Areopagite had been adduced by Cyril in the books against Diodorus and Theodore,] Moreover, when the Catholics had answered that the testimonies of Felix and Julius of the Roman Church, likewise of Gregory the Wonder-worker and of Dionysius the Areopagite, adduced for the unity of the nature of the divine Word, were so false that not even Cyril had been willing to mention them, the Severians, some other things which I omit for brevity's sake having been set before it, replied: We can show that blessed Cyril used these testimonies in the books published against Diodorus and Theodore: but then the Catholics said: Now especially you make even those books against Diodorus and Theodore doubtful, as forged, saying that they were put forth against the dead * they could not refute the falsehood. For if they were put forth against the dead, much more had he occasion to put forth the same testimonies against Nestorius and those who wrote against his (namely Cyril's) chapters. But now it appears that in those books also heretics, falsifying, added them. The Severians, having heard this answer of the Catholics, asked: If, then, we can show from ancient Rescripts and from the archives of Alexandria that both are so, what will you say? And the Catholics replied to this question: If they were shown in the times of blessed Proterius or of Timothy, surnamed Salofaciolus, they will be indubitable; but since those who oppose the orthodox confession of two natures have now for a long time retained those ancient things in their possession, pardon us if we hesitate to receive our adversaries as witnesses.

[66] For we have shown that that famous letter of blessed Julius was manifestly Apollinaris's, the Catholics denying it, they asserted were adduced; written to Dionysius; and as for that which you call the testimony of saint Gregory the wonder-worker, persuade Severus and those who think as he does to confess that he decreed the flesh incorrupt, and then you are to be believed, that the things also which were said of one nature are his. But what ought to have been said first, this we say last; for those testimonies which you say are Dionysius the Areopagite's, whence can you show that they are true, as you suppose? For if they were his, they could not have escaped blessed Cyril. And why do I speak of blessed Cyril, when blessed Athanasius also, if he had known for certain that they were his, would before all things have put forth the same testimonies at the council of Nicaea concerning the consubstantial Trinity against the blasphemies of Arius about a different substance? But if none of the ancients remembered them, whence you can now show that they are his, I do not know. And so I have now set forth, partly, as the plan of our purpose requires, in the very words of Innocent, bishop of Maronia, who was present at the Conference, the things which were done between the Severians and the Catholics on the second day of the Conference of Constantinople; and since, by St. Cyril, in the books which he against Diodorus and Theodore

wrote, Dionysius the Areopagite was cited, or, if you prefer, testimonies taken from his Works were brought forward, as the Severians asserted and the Catholics on the contrary denied, I now undertake to examine, as the plan of my purpose requires, whether we are to assent to these or to those, intending at the same time to discuss whether St. Cyril ever cited St. Dionysius the Areopagite or his books.

[67] When the Catholics denied that testimonies of St. Athanasius, of Felix and Julius, Roman Pontiffs, of Gregory Thaumaturgus and of Dionysius the Areopagite had ever been employed by Blessed Cyril, and although these, whether those books to Cyril even in the letters which he wrote to Nestorius, to prove the unity of the nature of God the Word with the humanity assumed by the Word, and the Severians had replied, We can show that blessed Cyril used these testimonies in the books published against Diodorus (namely of Tarsus) and Theodore (namely of Mopsuestia), Hypatius answered in the name of the Catholics, Now especially you make even those books against Diodorus and Theodore doubtful, as forged: saying that they were put forth against the dead, who could not refute the falsehood. For if they were put forth against the dead, much more had he occasion to put forth the same testimonies against Nestorius and those who wrote against his (namely Cyril's) chapters. But now it appears that in those books also heretics, falsifying, added them. To the Severians, therefore, who asserted that testimonies of Dionysius the Areopagite and of others were used by Cyril in the books written against Diodorus and Theodore, Hypatius replied chiefly two things; the one indeed, that it was doubtful whether these were not falsely attributed to St. Cyril; the other, that the testimonies of the Areopagite and of others which Cyril alleged in the said books had been fraudulently thrust into them by heretics. And the first, namely what Hypatius answered in the former place, seems not sufficiently firm and solid.

[68] did not rightly call into doubt whether they were not falsely attributed, For the books written by Cyril against Diodorus and Theodore were read in the fifth ecumenical Synod, held at Constantinople in the year 553, in Session V, and admitted by the Fathers as genuine Works of Cyril, as may be seen in Labbe, tome 5 of the Councils, column 456 and following; and Liberatus the deacon in the Breviarium, chapter X, Leontius of Byzantium On the Sects, Action eight, and Eulogius of Alexandria in Photius' Excerpts also held them as such. Moreover the reason on account of which Hypatius called into doubt whether the books which they praised as written by Cyril against Diodorus and Theodore were not falsely attributed to that holy Father seems of no weight at all. For why could not Cyril have brought forward, in other books composed against Diodorus and Theodore, who had already been taken from among the living, testimonies of Dionysius the Areopagite and of other holy Fathers which he had passed over in the books or letters written against Nestorius while he was still living? Indeed I do not see it. For since the letters given to Nestorius preceded the books written against Diodorus and Theodore, why could it not have come about that Cyril, after he had written the former, found the mentioned testimonies of the holy Fathers about which we are here discoursing, not previously known to him, and then alleged them in the books which he was writing against Diodorus and Theodore? Why also could it not have come about that those testimonies, however well known to him, came into Cyril's mind then indeed, when he drew his pen against Diodorus and Theodore, but not likewise when he fought against Nestorius by writing letters? Hypatius, therefore, considering neither the truth of the matter nor the reason which he alleged, did not rightly call into doubt whether the books written against Diodorus and Theodore were not falsely attributed to Cyril.

[69] [yet that testimonies of the Areopagite were thrust into the same, with full right,] But did he doubt without good reason whether testimonies of Dionysius the Areopagite and of the other holy Fathers whom we praised above had been fraudulently thrust into those books by Heretics, and signify to the Severians that his mind was in doubt about the matter? Indeed it appears to me that Hypatius with the best right suspected there the fraud and deceit of heretics. Liberatus indeed, praised above, in his Breviarium of the cause of the Nestorians and Eutychians, chapter X, writes: Basil… the deacon, taking the tome of Proclus (bishop of Constantinople) which he had written to the Armenians, came to Alexandria, and, joining the petitions of the Armenians to his own petitions, offered them to Cyril, bishop of the same city. Moved by which (as rumours report) Cyril wrote four books, three against Diodorus and Theodore, as authors of the Nestorian dogma, and another book on the Incarnation; in which are contained uncorrupted testimonies of the ancient Fathers, that is, of Felix, Pope of Rome, of Dionysius the Areopagite, bishop of the Corinthians, and of Gregory the wonderful, surnamed Θαυματουργοῦ; and thus he seems to favour the Severians, who said to Hypatius at the Conference of Constantinople that testimonies of Dionysius the Areopagite and of the other holy Fathers whom I mentioned above were alleged by St. Cyril in the books against Diodorus and Theodore, especially if, of these four words included in the text of Liberatus just recited, of Dionysius the Areopagite, bishop of the Corinthians — in which, since St. Dionysius the Areopagite was not bishop of the Corinthians, a fault most certainly lurks — the word Areopagite is to be retained, and on the contrary the word Corinthians is to be expunged, the word Athenians being substituted for it, as Le Quien contends in his Opinion on the Areopagitic books.

[70] Hear how this writer speaks on this argument there. as here, whatever to the contrary from Liberatus Garnier, he says, did not heal this place (the text of Liberatus just transcribed here) by removing the word Areopagite, as if Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, who flourished in the second century, could rather be believed to have been praised by Cyril. For it is established that Liberatus here (namely in the place cited above) narrates briefly what was done at the conference of Constantinople with the Severians; from whose Acts accordingly we are taught that the designation of Areopagite is to be retained; but that this writer, by a lapse of memory, put bishop of the Corinthians for that of the Athenians, although perhaps it ought to be called an error of the notaries. But his text can perhaps be restored thus: "In which are contained uncorrupted testimonies of the ancient Fathers, that is, of Felix, Pope of Rome, of Julius to Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, of Dionysius the Areopagite and of Gregory, surnamed the wonderful." For Leontius, Action VII On the Sects, calls that Dionysius to whom the letter of Pope Julius was said to have been given bishop of Corinth. So Le Quien; and the reason on which he builds what he here says he seeks almost solely from the intention of Liberatus to narrate succinctly and in compendium the things which were done at the Conference of Constantinople of the year 532; but did Liberatus, in inserting the words recited above into his Breviarium, in very truth have it as his purpose to set forth in compendium the things which were done at the said Conference of Constantinople? This does not appear to me altogether certain. For to the words which I have already given above Liberatus subjoins only the following, from which this could in any way be gathered: And although in those books sayings of Theodore published against the Arians are praised, they nevertheless contend that he himself was the master of Nestorius.

[71] Against whom the Catholics, defenders of the truth, answered the Acephali thus, can be argued, by more than one reason that the books are not Cyril's, since the testimonies which he is said to have put in them against the dead he did not use against the living Nestorius, neither in the synod nor in any letters. Whence they say that neither did Cyril cite them nor did he publish the books; but that thus everything which was done at the Conference of Constantinople between the Catholics and the Severians or Acephali is by no means set forth in compendium, everyone certainly who has weighed what I related above of that Conference from Innocent the bishop will without difficulty recognise; but, however this matter stands, it appears that it is by no means to be doubted that Liberatus had to light his way the Acts of the said Conference of Constantinople written by the praised Innocent, bishop of Maronia; and since these teach, not obscurely, as is clear from what was said above, that the Severians asserted at the said Conference of Constantinople that testimonies of the Areopagite were alleged in the books of Cyril against Diodorus and Theodore, it appears sufficiently probable that Liberatus, impelled by those Acts, wrote in the text related above that testimonies of Dionysius the Areopagite are contained in the aforesaid books of Cyril. But since only the Severians, as the same Acts disclose, asserted that testimonies of this kind were contained in those books, and the Catholics on the contrary denied it, why did Liberatus give credit to the former rather than to the latter? Did he perhaps have at hand the very books of Cyril against Diodorus and Theodore, and find that the testimonies of the Areopagite which the Severians had mentioned were contained in them? But let it be so; whether those testimonies had been employed in the said books by Cyril himself, or on the contrary had been thrust into them by a heretical hand, could be doubted, and Liberatus does not openly declare either. He does indeed call the same testimonies uncorrupted; but it can happen that heretics thrust genuine and uncorrupted testimonies or sentences, taken from the Writings of the ancient Fathers and above all from the Works customarily circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, into the books of Cyril against Diodorus and Theodore, who had not employed them.

[72] is proved, they suspected, Moreover, even if we were to grant for the moment that Liberatus meant to signify that these books had not been corrupted by heretics, and that the testimonies of the Areopagite which they contained had therefore proceeded from saint Cyril himself, not even from this will it turn out sufficiently certain that testimonies of the Areopagite were in very truth employed by Cyril in the said books. For since Liberatus is later than the Conference of Constantinople by at least a hundred years, I do not see why one should stand with Liberatus, who ascribed those testimonies to Cyril, rather than with Hypatius, who, speaking at the said Conference in the name of the Catholics, suspected that the same testimonies had been added to the books of Cyril by heretics. Nay rather, although indeed Hypatius argued not sufficiently rightly, as I have already shown above, from the fact that Cyril had not brought forward those testimonies against Nestorius while still living, that they were not afterwards alleged by this holy patriarch of Alexandria in the books written against Diodorus and Theodore, nevertheless, from the fact that both the Apollinarists had falsely attributed to Pope Julius the letter to Dionysius marked with that Pontiff's name, and the Nestorians had falsified the letter written by Athanasius to Epictetus, he could certainly deservedly suspect whether heretics likewise, who had long had the books of Cyril against Diodorus and Theodore in their power, had not added to those books testimonies of the Areopagite and of other Fathers which Cyril had never brought forward elsewhere, when it would have been most opportune; and since this is so, it appears that one should stand with Hypatius, who suspected this from what has been said, rather than with Liberatus, who is much more recent than Hypatius. And indeed the things which I shall now bring forward persuade me also that the books of Cyril against Diodorus and Theodore were in fact corrupted by heretics, as Hypatius suspected.

[73] and the words of Anastasius the Sinaite recited here, Anastasius the Sinaite, in the Οδηγῷ, chapter 10, towards the end

writes thus: It will not be beside the point for the studious to observe this likewise in this place. The Catholics who live at Alexandria told us that after the times of blessed Eulogius the Pope (of Alexandria) there was here an Augustal prefect, a Severian, who for a long enough time had and maintained fourteen calligraphers or copyists of the same opinion with himself, to whom he gave the task of falsifying and depraving the books of the Fathers, especially those of St. Cyril; when we had come upon his letter to Successus, we found that saying, "we say two natures in Christ," genuine and uncorrupted in some Alexandrian copies: but some had, "we say two natures united." Others: "we say two natures to be considered." And when we were in great grief, the lord Isidore, prefect of the Patriarchal Library, brought out to us a book in which the sentence of Cyril was found uncorrupted. With similar wickedness they corrupted a saying of saint Ambrose also: for in place of his "Let us keep the difference of the divinity and the flesh" they put "the difference of the reading." They corrupted besides the saying of blessed Proclus about Christ, when he says; "that He was born without corruption; that He entered through closed doors without hindrance; in whom Thomas recognised the conjunction of the natures": in place of ἀφθάρτως written with ω the Gaianites say ἄφθαρτος, that is, free from corruption: and in place of the affirmative article which says οὗτην συζυγίαν, "whose conjunction of natures," that is, of Christ, they substitute the negative particle in this manner: οὐ την συζυγίαν, &c.". "Thomas did not recognise the conjunction of the natures, &c." So in that one. "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again": by the name of the temple of Christ they understand the assembly of the Apostles dispersed and gathered again. Where they did not blush to affirm with most shameless mouth that it would have profited the professors of the Synod of Chalcedon to profess two hypostases in Christ, but not two natures; for nature, they say, indicates several hypostases.

[74] Since, therefore, there was labour at Alexandria after the age of St. Eulogius with such zeal as is here narrated by Anastasius the Sinaite [they bring it about that we can suspect the very same with greater right, and it is therefore whether Cyril] in falsifying the writings of the holy Fathers and above all of St. Cyril, indeed even from this it can not unjustly be doubted whether the books of Cyril against Diodorus and Theodore, testimonies of St. Dionysius the Areopagite and of the other holy Fathers whom I related above having been thrust into them by the fraud and deceit of the Apollinarists, were not falsified even from the time which next followed the age of blessed Proterius and of Matthew Salophaciolus, patriarchs of Alexandria, of whom the former, killed by heretics, fell a martyr in the year 457, and the latter ceased to live in the year 482, as may be seen in the Chronological History of the patriarchs of Alexandria prefixed to tome 5 of June of our Work. I know indeed that St. Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria, after whose age, as Anastasius the Sinaite narrates in the words given above, there was labour at Alexandria as much as possible in falsifying the books of the holy Fathers and especially of St. Cyril, left vacant by his death in the year 604 the Alexandrian chair, in which he had succeeded John only in the year 577, and that accordingly Hypatius and the Catholics adhering to him at the Conference of Constantinople, held in the year 532, could not have been moved by the things which Anastasius writes about the books of the Holy Fathers, and especially of Cyril, falsified at Alexandria after the age of Eulogius, to suspect that the books of Cyril against Diodorus and Theodore were falsified. But since from this indeed the deceit of heretics in falsifying the books of the holy Fathers becomes more and more evident, it comes about even from this that we at least, with greater right, can suspect that the books of Cyril written against Diodorus and Theodore were corrupted or falsified even before the Conference of Constantinople by heretics, who often used similar fraud elsewhere also before it, and so can hold as sufficiently probable — and in very fact it seems that it should be held — that there were thrust into them testimonies of the Areopagite and of other holy Fathers, in appearance favouring the opinion of the Severians about one nature of God the Word in Christ after the union of the Word with human nature, which Cyril never alleged elsewhere when it would have been most opportune for him, by the Apollinarist heretics, who no less than the Severians strove to twist the holy Fathers and their sayings to their own opinions.

[75] [it is uncertain whether he praised the Works of the Areopagite, nor is it more certain whether Juvenal did so.] Now indeed, the matter standing so, although indeed testimonies of Dionysius the Areopagite seem to have been alleged in the books written against Diodorus and Theodore, such as they existed at the time of the Conference of Constantinople, it nevertheless appears very doubtful and uncertain, all things having now been considered, whether St. Cyril had employed them himself, or on the contrary they had been added by heretics to the books composed by him. Hence, further, it now comes about that it is likewise very doubtful and uncertain whether St. Cyril ever praised the Works inscribed with the name of the Areopagite. Now as regards St. Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem, it is asserted by Nicephorus Callistus that he cited the Works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite in the Oration which he delivered to Marcian and Pulcheria, the Augusti; but since this assertion of his flowed originally only from the Euthymiac History, of altogether slight credit, as I showed in the Commentary set before the Acts of our Saint already given, § XVII, it must needs be likewise doubtful and uncertain whether Juvenal ever truly praised the Dionysian Works, as everyone, I think, who has attentively turned over the same Commentary at the place cited will without difficulty recognise. Far be it, meanwhile, that by the things which I discussed there I should either bring prejudice to the ancient tradition by which, in the age of Juvenal, as several hand down to memory, it was believed that the most holy Virgin Mary was buried in Palestine, or make the reader doubt whether Juvenal sent from Jerusalem to Marcian and Pulcheria, the Augusti, at Constantinople the funeral coffin and the grave-bands or garments of the same most holy Virgin. These things will have to be discussed at another time and place; now I proceed to examine in the following chapter the things which pertain to our purpose.

* supply qui

CHAPTER V.

When the Dionysian Works first began to become known, and afterwards became known everywhere to all.

The Dionysian Works, concerning which from Le Nourry Le Nourry, in the Apparatus to the Bibliotheca maxima of the Ancient Fathers, tome 1, in which the writers of the first and second century of the Church are treated, speaks thus of the Works of saint Dionysius in Dissertation X, chapter 19: In them (namely in the Writings of the Areopagite) heresy against the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ is proscribed no less openly than all the errors against His divinity and the one nature of the three divine persons. For of the incarnate Son of God we read these things in various places: "The principal goodness of God … made truly a partaker of all that is ours, without sin, and united to our lowliness, the state of its properties being preserved, and that altogether unconfused and inviolate." And in another book: "The most divine Word … through the unconfused assumption of humanity." And in Letter IV to Gaius: "Inasmuch as He was God and Man, by conversing with us He exhibited a certain new θεανδρικὴν ἐνέργειαν." What plainer, what clearer has ever been written by any author after the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches had been spread abroad? For which reason we can gather by no light conjecture that our writer, when he saw the greatest disturbances being stirred up by the Nestorian and Eutychian heretics, then applied his mind to writing, in order to confound both and to defend with all his strength the side of the Catholic Church.

[77] And that this might succeed for him more happily, he prefixed to his writings the assuredly great and venerable name of Dionysius the Areopagite. some things are brought forward here, Those Works of his, therefore, seem to have proceeded from him between the year 431, in which the Ecumenical synod of Ephesus was held against the Nestorians, and 451, in which that of Chalcedon was held against the Eutychians. Not, however, brought at once into the public light and received by all, but they came forth gradually and imperceptibly; so that they did not come into the knowledge of all before the Conference of Constantinople mentioned above, in the year 533 (rather in the year 532). Further, this can be adduced in confirmation of this opinion, that these writings are found cited by no one in these Ecumenical councils, not even (see the Commentary already set before the Acts of our Saint, § XVII) by Juvenal of Jerusalem, who sat among the first Fathers of both synods. And no other cause of this silence can be brought forward, except that the Dionysian works, then emerging from darkness, were known to scarcely anyone before the council of Chalcedon. Further, if you ask why several things occur in our author plainly similar to those which Gregory Nazianzen wrote, it can be answered not absurdly that those things were taken up by our author — who often says both that he received his own from others and that he reports the opinions of others — for his own uses, the name of Gregory being suppressed, and rendered in his own style and in unusual manners of speaking.

[78] Thus the praised author; and since he asserts that the Dionysian Works were first composed in that space of time which intervened between the year 431 and the year 451, before the space enclosed between the years 431 and 451, whatever Pearson, and since, as I shall show below, he seems to be assented to in this matter, they were most probably known to no one indeed before the said space of time, and about the year 450 still known only to a few. But Pearson, praised above, in the Vindiciae of the letters of St. Ignatius, chapter 10, writes things from which, if they accord with the truth, it would follow that the Dionysian Works became known long before the year 431, or the space which intervened between this and the year 451. For having first set down some things from which it follows that they were certainly known about the middle of the fifth century, he presently subjoins things which require that the same Works became known much earlier still. And first indeed he asserts that Dionysius, or the author of the Works which are circulated under his name, lit the way for SS. Augustine and Jerome, of whom the former died in the year 430 and the latter in the year 419. But the things which he brings forward to prove this as regards St. Augustine are of absolutely no moment, so that it is by no means necessary to refute them here; and from the fact that Dionysius is said to have been the first to lay down distinctly and definitely nine orders and grades of angels, and that Jerome numbered as many orders of angels, he concludes what I have said as regards this holy Father. But he brings forward nothing at all which would be of a nature to persuade in any way that Dionysius was the first of all to distinguish nine orders of angels. Nor would you rightly infer, from the fact that Dionysius and Jerome hand down the same doctrine of the orders of angels, that the former lit the way for the latter. For who would deny that Jerome could have drawn it from the same source of the sacred Scriptures from which Dionysius drew it? Who would assert for certain that Dionysius did not rather borrow from Jerome?

[79] whose reasons, his very words also being partly recited, Neither, therefore, does he prove what Pearson would have as regards St. Jerome; but whence indeed it would follow that the Dionysian Works were known long even before the epoch assigned by me above,

would likewise follow: the same writer vehemently contends, from the fact that some things most similar to those which are read in the Dionysian Works are found in Gregory Nazianzen, that this holy Father borrowed very many things from the Works of Dionysius. Hear how he answers the question in which it is asked whether Dionysius borrowed not a few things from Gregory Nazianzen, or on the contrary the latter from the former (for it appears most probable that the one took his things in part from the other). I indeed, he says, believe that Dionysius by no means borrowed from Gregory; because that writer is plainly different from all other ecclesiastical writers, and like only himself. He conformed almost everything to the newer school of the Platonists, and most shrank from the words and notions of the holy Fathers. Whoever observes the whole framework of his Work, the admirable roundedness of the thoughts sought from Philosophy, and the perpetual wellspring of words formed on the same anvil, will never judge that he drew his things from Gregory or from any other Christian whatever. But whoever has read the orations of Nazianzen, painted with all the colours of native Rhetoric and triumphing chiefly in the best manner of speaking, will easily admit that, whenever he turns aside to certain more obscure and more philosophical matters, he derived those notions from elsewhere and handed them on as lucidly as he could. Thus the praised writer; but to this argument of his I answer with Le Nourry (go to his words just recited) that it can easily have come about that all the similar things which are found in Dionysius and in Gregory Nazianzen were taken up for his own uses from Gregory, the latter's name being suppressed, by Dionysius, who often says both that he received his own things from others and that he reports the opinions of others, the elegant and excellent style in which they had been written being meanwhile changed into an altogether new and unusual style.

[80] are reviewed here, And by this answer the argument of Pearson related above is wholly, as it appears to me at least, lightened. But indeed Pearson presses, and, having set before it some things which I omit because they bear less on the matter, contends that Dionysius, or the author of the Works inscribed with his name, must undoubtedly be understood by him whom Gregory Nazianzen, in the place cited, says had most beautifully and most subtly, or, as others have translated, most sublimely philosophised in explaining the text of Isaiah on the Seraphim related above; and if he is to be assented to in this matter, we must needs admit that the Dionysian Works were known long even, contrary to what I laid down above, before the space of time which intervened between the year 431 and the year 451; but although indeed I laid down above in chapter two with Pearson — however other writers, and by name Nicetas and other Greek Commentators of Nazianzen, contend the contrary — that Gregory Nazianzen, in the place cited above, did not have regard to Athanasius as one who had most beautifully and most subtly philosophised on the mentioned text of Isaiah, I pronounced nevertheless that it is very doubtful and uncertain whether Gregory had regard to Dionysius, and that in very fact our Saint was perhaps not praised by Gregory; and that it may become clear how deservedly I did this, and at the same time it may become more doubtful whether Gregory had regard to none other than Dionysius, an argument not altogether inept occurs here. Nazianzen, towards the end of oration 34, enumerating the various orders of angels, does not count the Seraphim and Cherubim among them, or at least does not distinguish them from the Thrones; and this is an argument that the book of the celestial Hierarchy did not light his way.

[81] For since in it Dionysius both counts the Seraphim and Cherubim among the orders of angels and are refuted, argues to the contrary, became known, and at the same time most luminously separates them from the Thrones, it does not seem likely that Nazianzen, if he had had the praised book of the celestial Hierarchy before his eyes, would have dissented in listing the Orders of angels from Dionysius, or the author of that work, whom he would have said had most beautifully and most subtly philosophised. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and the celestial Hierarchy therefore does not seem to have lit the way for Nazianzen, indeed even from this it becomes still more doubtful and uncertain whether the same holy Father had to light his way other books of Dionysius, and by name the one which he wrote On the Divine Hymns, which, if it ever existed, I have already noted is no longer found, and whether, on account of that place of the said book On the Hymns in which Dionysius explained the words of the Seraphim praising God in Isaiah chapter 6 (see what was said above at number 32), he understood this our Saint by him whom he says in the place cited above had most beautifully and most subtly philosophised; so that accordingly Pearson by no means makes it certain from Gregory Nazianzen that the Works which are circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite were known as early as the 4th century, and so before the epoch fixed by us above. But, you will say, when at length did those Works begin, without any controversy, to become known? That I may be able to determine this better, it will help to have shown beforehand when John of Scythopolis wrote Scholia on them.

[82] Bernardo de Rubeis, already praised above more than once, in the Dissertation prefixed to the Venetian edition of the Dionysian Works of the year 1756, as the things which here concerning John of Scythopolis chapter 3, having said not a few things beforehand about John of Scythopolis and the Scholia composed by him on the Areopagitic Works, inquires at number 5 who he was and at the same time at what time he flourished, and writes to this end thus: I return to the author, John of Scythopolis, of whom it is not yet sufficiently known who he was. And indeed the words both of Anastasius the librarian and of Photius … cause difficulty. The former calls John of Scythopolis, the author of the Scholia, a bishop; the latter treats of a John of Scythopolis whom he calls now Scholasticus, now advocate, with no mention made of episcopal dignity. Nevertheless Photius himself mentions John of Scythopolis as a prelate in codex CCXXXVI; where he reports the Synodical letter of Sophronius of Jerusalem, written against the Monothelites in the year 635, in which is mentioned "Blessed John, prelate of Scythopolis, who teaches, and wrote piously about the Synod of Chalcedon." But at what time did he flourish? Le Quien, in the Oriens Christianus, tome III, places John among the bishops of Scythopolis in the patriarchate of Jerusalem probably about the year 496.

[83] are brought forward, Let the matter stand so; it still remains doubtful whether he made the Scholia on Dionysius. The episcopal dignity attributed to their author by Anastasius the librarian favours it; but the difficulties taken from Photius bring no light trouble. The praised Le Quien, in Damascene Dissertation 2, seems to attribute the aforesaid Scholia to John of Scythopolis, who was attacked by Basil the Cilician and attacked him in his Writings; but he distinguishes him from John, bishop of Scythopolis, in the Oriens Christianus. Why could not Anastasius the Librarian and Photius be reconciled, if we should say that John of Scythopolis, formerly Scholasticus and advocate, a most illustrious man on account of the Writings composed against the deserters of the Church and against Basil the Cilician, afterwards obtained the infulae of the church of Scythopolis? The times agree. Le Quien notes that John presided over his church up to about the year 518, in which Theodosius had taken it to govern, subscribed to the Synodical letter which John of Jerusalem gave against Severus of Antioch in the year 518, Θεοδόσιος ἐπίσκοπος τῆς Σκυθοπολιτῶν. But John of Scythopolis, Scholasticus or advocate, who already about the year 471, asked by Julian, patriarch of Antioch, had drawn his pen against the deserters of the Church, and afterwards pursued Basil the Cilician, could without doubt have reached this year. Most worthy of notice is another chronological note, which the Annotation brought forward above at number 2 on chapter VII of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy offers, where the followers of the fables of Origen are said now to have come forth in Palestine.

[84] [and other things persuade, do not seem, and became known everywhere to all after the year 532.] Namely great commotions were stirred up in the monasteries of Palestine in the year 531 for the dogmas of Origen; but begun already before, the monk Nonnus being the instigator, who, having for that reason been ejected from his monastery before the year 518, treated in the same year, in order to be restored again, with John, who had been substituted for Elias, patriarch of Jerusalem. Noris narrates these things more at large in On the fifth Synod, chapter I, and Pagi at the year 532, number III. At this time, therefore, the author of the Scholia could most truly note, "That the followers of the fables of Origen had now come forth; which time certainly suits most of all John, the distinguished writer against Basil the Cilician and the deserters of the Church, and bishop of Scythopolis." John, therefore, the Scholiast of the Dionysian Works, whether he be meanwhile one and the same with John, bishop of Scythopolis, or different from him, most probably wrote his Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite towards the beginning of the sixth century; and a writer who certainly mentioned the Dionysian Works and is older than John of Scythopolis is not found, as it is permissible to gather from the things which I discussed in the preceding chapters. Andrew, bishop of Caesarea, indeed, and Proclus, the Athenian philosopher, are also asserted either to have praised or to have employed the Dionysian Works; but Andrew published the books in which he did this only about the year 500, and was accordingly only contemporary with John of Scythopolis; and as regards Proclus, Suidas and Pachymeres do not make it certain that he employed the Dionysian Works. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, it follows from all that has already been said that the Dionysian Works certainly became known to no one before the space of time enclosed between the years 431 and 451; but that, as the fifth century was growing old, having been known a little before to only a few, they began little by little to become more and more known. And thus I have now shown when they first began to be known; and that I may now also show the other thing which I likewise resolved to show here: the praised Dionysian Works, which after the middle of the fifth century became, from what has already been said, more and more known in the lapse of time, became known everywhere to all after the year 532, in which they were praised by the Severians at the conference of Constantinople then held, as becomes manifest from the councils and fathers everywhere met with, by whom they are found cited after that time; so that it is not necessary to prove this by more.

CHAPTER VI.

What weight the long space of the first four centuries of the Church, during which they were praised by no one and unknown to all, has toward denying the Dionysian Works to the Areopagite.

Since the Dionysian Works, if they had had the Areopagite as their author, That the Works which bear the name of Dionysius the Areopagite were altogether unknown to all in the first four centuries of the Christian era, and perhaps even almost up to the middle of the fifth century, much less praised by anyone, is clear even from this, that of the writers who are said by the Areopagitics to have then praised the Works inscribed with the name of Dionysius, and whether they did so I have already examined in the preceding §§, absolutely none certainly praised them or had knowledge of them, as anyone will without difficulty gather from the things which I have already discussed on this argument. But if those Works had been composed by Dionysius the Areopagite as early as the first century of the Christian era, who would believe that it would have come about that they remained so long hidden, and were not praised by any ecclesiastical writers under the name of the Areopagite up to the fifth century? How did it come about that neither Eusebius nor Jerome, writers who before

them had flourished, made mention of them anywhere in reviewing them? Hear how Le Nourry, in the Work and tome cited above, dissertation 10, chapter 6, proposes this negative argument, sought chiefly from the silence of Eusebius and Jerome, and at the same time tears up the reasons by which the Areopagitics strive to wash it away. They say … (namely the Anti-Areopagitics, as he says) that the writings of Dionysius, although they had been unknown to all other writers, could nevertheless not have escaped the very great diligence of Eusebius, who had searched through the chests of so many libraries and churches, and especially of that of Athens, where they ought to have been preserved with the greatest care, and who had spared no labour in searching out the Works of the ancients. And that all the writings of our author were not known to Eusebius is clear from this, that he nowhere ever made mention of them.

[86] Baronius, most eminent both in learning and in the purple, openly denies by silence, neither by Eusebius, that the writings of Dionysius were wholly unknown to Eusebius. And if you ask him why Eusebius was silent about them, he answers that that writer, of crafty and wily mind, since he saw that the Arian heresy, which he favoured, was destroyed by these books, passed them over with a deceitful and fraudulent silence. But this answer of the most learned man so displeased Halloix, the keenest defender of the Areopagitica, that he hisses it off not without disdain in these words: "For as to what some say, that he did this by fraud, I think it an insult. For what is there so clear for the eternal divinity of Christ which is not contained much more clearly in the sacred Scriptures? … Nor did (the Catholics) cite blessed Irenaeus, who most clearly professed the eternal coexistence of the Son with the Father." And to these things can be added that honourable mention is made in Eusebius not only of Irenaeus, but also of Clement of Alexandria and of very many others whom we shall show in their place to be plainly contrary to the Arian heresy. Wherefore others contend that nothing certain can be gathered from that silence of Eusebius about the Works of Dionysius; since he passed over in silence several other Writers, most celebrated both for their writings and their learning, and above all Athenagoras, who had published an excellent Apology for the Christian Religion and a book on the resurrection of the dead. But if you should say that the writings of Dionysius, both by the name of the author and by their number and by the very arguments which are treated, ought to have been transcribed far more often than all the others, and multiplied in various places, you will at once receive the answer that the books of Athenagoras, although perhaps shorter, seem no less worthy to be copied and multiplied by Christians. But the Anti-Areopagitics object that certain things occur in the writings of Dionysius, namely about the sacred books of the Scriptures, about the eclipse of the sun when Christ was dying, about the falling asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and very many others, which, if they had come into the knowledge of Eusebius, could never have been passed over by him.

[87] nor seem to have had to be passed over by Jerome, Some draw the same argument from the silence of Jerome, especially in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers. For thence they conclude that the works of our Dionysius were unknown to him, and not published before his times. As if indeed, say the Areopagitics, there were no other reason for Jerome's silence? For he had resolved to discourse only of those writers whom Eusebius recounted. But this was to be fortified by them with sure supports of reasons. For Jerome himself openly testifies that his mind had been otherwise, when he signifies in these words that a great difference lies between himself and those who published catalogues of profane writers: "Those Ancients, unrolling histories and annals, were able, as from a vast meadow, to weave no small garland for their Opuscule. What am I to do, who, following no forerunner, have myself, as the saying is, as the worst of masters: although Eusebius Pamphili in the ten books of the Ecclesiastical History has been of the greatest help to us." For there he declares not obscurely that he had no forerunner as master, and that Eusebius only was of the greatest help to him. And in very truth that holy Doctor mentions certain authors of whom no recounting exists in Eusebius. Thus the praised writer; and presently he brings forward the argument by which the Areopagitics contend that it cannot rightly be argued from Jerome's silence about the Dionysian Works against those things asserted by certain Anti-Areopagitics, namely that the same Works were known to St. Jerome. But since we have shown above that the Dionysian Works were not known to St. Jerome, the said objection of the Areopagitics by no means strikes us, and accordingly the negative argument retains its entire force, by which, because the Dionysian Works seem to have lain wholly hidden in the first four centuries of the Christian era, and not to have been praised by Eusebius, Jerome or others, we argue that they did not yet then exist in the nature of things, and accordingly do not have Dionysius the Areopagite as their author.

[88] The anonymous author of the Problem praised above proposes, in part 1, proposition 1, article 1, in this following manner the reasons for which the Areopagitics contend that the Dionysian Works lay hidden in the first centuries of the Church: and the reasons for which they were concealed in the first four centuries, Since St. Dionysius the Areopagite composed his books at the prayers of St. Timothy, and commended to him in each of them not to communicate them to those who had not yet been initiated into the Christian mysteries, since they would either have despised them or out of malice adulterated their doctrine, it is probable that this holy Prelate, in order to comply with the will of Dionysius, kept this sacred deposit hidden with great zeal, and did not disclose it to others except a few distinguished men who could both recognise the excellence of the Areopagitic Works and use them most holily. Pachymeres subjoins another reason, namely that the Athenian Philosophers, among whom Proclus, wishing to claim the Works of Dionysius for themselves as their legitimate parents, or at least desiring to copy out their doctrine and sentences at will without the mark of plagiarism, withdrew them from the public light and kept them secret and hidden with great care. Other authors, however, testify that the old Heretics hid them for several centuries, until, first dug out of the Vatican Library by a certain Peter of Rome and carried over into Greece, they first began to become known there. There are not lacking also those who think that they fell into the hands of certain men who, since they could not attain to their understanding nor know the value of the treasure which they possessed, kept them laid away so long until they were found in the time of St. Gregory. Finally some learned men contend that St. Dionysius exhorted the Catholics not to communicate these books, whose understanding exceeded the ordinary powers of human wit, except to men most commended for knowledge and probity, who gradually failing, there no longer survived anyone to whom they could be committed. And authors of this kind say this is the reason why St. Jerome did not list Dionysius in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers; judging it unfitting to bring into the public light books which contained so many and such great mysteries.

[89] So he; but from the end which the author of the Dionysian Works proposed to himself it appears that those books ought not to have been hidden. by other reasons, Hear how the same anonymous author reasons to prove this, in the place cited above, article 2. First, he says, if St. Dionysius composed his books in so sublime a style, if he used words and sentences so remote from common usage, he is surely to be believed to have done so with no other aim than to instruct the Heathen Philosophers, who mocked the eloquent simplicity of the Gospel, and to make plain to them that the mysteries which are reported to us in the sacred Gospels are arguments more apt for exercising and sharpening the wit and for displaying eloquence than those about which they themselves were wont to dispute in their profane books. By which manner of acting indeed he as it were compelled the gentile philosophers, profane novelties being hissed off, to apply their mind to the contemplation of the Gospel truths alone. But how could the wise men of the gentiles have made use of this holy design which Dionysius had proposed to himself in composing his books, if it is true, what we saw in the preceding article, namely that the Areopagite so greatly commended to Timothy that he should communicate them to none but the prelates of the Church alone? Second, St. Maximus, in the Prologue to the books of Dionysius, notes that Timothy, harassed by the force of the arguments of the Ephesian philosophers, bound Dionysius, who had searched into all the secrets of heathen philosophy, to write some books from which weapons might be drawn to beat back their onsets and overcome them.

[90] which the same ought not so long Further, if the matter stands so, it is altogether improbable that they could have been concealed so long; nay rather it is to be held for certain that Timothy himself brought them into the open, so that through them, as through certain torches, the wise of this world might be illuminated and instructed, and, the excellence of our mysteries being known, be drawn to the Christian faith. Besides, Timothy was not alone in being attacked by the gentiles, nor had he alone to contend with the heathen philosophers, but the other bishops also, and others on whom the office of instructing the people had been imposed, had beyond doubt to enter into frequent contests with the pagans, whether to draw them to the Catholic religion by overturning their errors, or to confirm them in the faith by clearing up their doubts. It was necessary, therefore, that the books of St. Dionysius, which contained doctrine so accommodated to these uses, should be constantly in the hands of the sacred prelates and of those who had been chosen especially for catechising; which surely ought to be an argument to us that these books were at that time published to all, and that copies of them were very greatly multiplied. And in very truth, who can ever persuade himself that so many men destined to instruct the peoples, and dispersed in so many and such various places, could have used one single and the same copy? Besides that, beyond the autograph which St. Dionysius had sent to Timothy for solving and unravelling the sophisms of the Ephesians, and the other copies written out in this city, it is to be thought not without reason that very many others existed at Athens, not only with St. Dionysius and the other ministers of the Athenian church who could attain to their understanding, but also with the heathen philosophers themselves, who, as we have already seen above from Pachymeres and other apologists, used the Areopagitic books and falsely claimed them for themselves.

[91] show to be hidden, If ever an occasion occurs for publishing some ecclesiastical book, it certainly presses then when the enemies of religion abuse it or falsely claim it for themselves. What means, therefore, more suited and safer could be available for confounding these philosophers than to copy out several copies of these books and to demonstrate their true and genuine parent? This was surely to stop the most shameless mouth of the heathens themselves, and to expose them publicly as pure and stinking plagiarists; this was to defend the dogmas of the Christian religion asserted and confirmed in these books, and to meet all those inconveniences which could in no way be avoided by suppressing these books and withdrawing them from public knowledge. When heretics and other abandoned men abused the divine Scriptures or the works of Ecclesiastical Writers, so far was it from the Catholics of that time suppressing and hiding those books, that on the contrary they were wont to multiply the copies of the same books and spread them among the people with the greater zeal and the greater effort, the more the heretics strove either to adulterate them or to counterfeit them under false names; which indeed could easily be demonstrated by several examples drawn from ecclesiastical History. Besides

ought the Apostles to have been deterred from publishing the canonical books because Basilides, Valentinus, the Gnostics, Ebionites, Gaianites and very many other men of this bran either adulterated the sacred books or forged false ones under the name of the Apostles? This economy certainly did not please the divine Luke, who published his Gospel for no other cause than to turn the faithful away from the reading of the false Gospels which were published in his time by heretics, and to restrain and beat back the Pseudo-Apostles who struggled against St. Paul. The beloved disciple of Christ likewise was asked by the bishops and Christians of Asia to publish his Gospel for no other cause than that the errors of Cerinthus and Ebion, then gaining strength, might be routed by his genuine testimonies.

[92] As to the last, finally, no one will ever be able to persuade himself brought into the open here, that the Areopagitic books were unknown in the first centuries of the Church for this reason, that there was no one endowed with such keenness of mind as to be able to attain to their understanding, since it is certain that there existed at that time so many most learned prelates and so many most holy priests of Christ the Lord fit not only for unravelling the weightier mysteries of the Christian religion but also for interpreting and expounding the sacred Scriptures, whose doctrine, as being far more sublime than that which is contained in the books of Dionysius, requires a livelier keenness of mind and a more sublime knowledge. Surely no one will be able to persuade himself that the so many mysteries comprised in the divine books were revealed and opened to so many ministers of Christ, and that the Dionysian books were hidden and unknown for this sole reason, that there was no one endowed with such keenness of mind as to be able to perceive their mysteries. So weak a reason ought certainly to move no sensible man to believe that the Works of St. Dionysius were so rare and little known in the first centuries of the Church, as the Apologists contend. Thus far the praised anonymous writer; and by the reasons which he brings forward the other reasons, for which the Areopagitics contend that the Dionysian Works remained hidden in the first four centuries of the Christian era, are wholly struck down; but since indeed, from the things which are read in the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 1, in the book On the Divine Names, likewise chapter 1, and in the book On Mystical Theology, again chapter 1, Dionysius the Areopagite, or he who imposed on himself his name, may not altogether undeservedly seem to have commended to Timothy that he should not communicate the sublime doctrine which he was handing on to the untaught and to those who had not been initiated into the mysteries of our faith, it can be answered besides that Dionysius did not forbid the things which he was writing to Timothy to be communicated to learned men who had embraced the Christian faith; and since it appears beyond doubt that such men existed in no small number even in the age of Timothy, there was certainly no reason why, from the fact that Dionysius did not wish his Works to be communicated by Timothy to the untaught and to those alien from the faith, they should have had to lie hidden and remain unknown to all in the first four centuries of the Christian era.

[93] [and the things telling to the contrary are struck down, this indeed, that those Works] Nor does what they say of Proclus, the Athenian philosopher, who is said to have hidden the Dionysian Works, bear on the matter at all, since Proclus flourished only about the middle of the fifth century; and what they also say of the untaught, who, having obtained the Dionysian Works, neglected them, as not understood by them, and left them covered in darkness, avails nothing more, since the reasons just adduced by the anonymous writer make it most probable and almost beyond doubt that it would have come about that several copies of the Dionysian Works would have been made not long after they had been written, and it appears very little credible that all these would have come into the hands of the untaught, who would not have known how to value those Works. Add these things to those which are contained in the words of the anonymous writer just recited, and I do not doubt that you will at length admit that there was no reason why the Works inscribed with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite should have had to be hidden in the first four centuries of the Christian era. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, how did it come about, if they were written as early as the first century of the Christian era, that they lay hidden up to the fifth century and only then came forth from darkness into light? It can indeed be said that the book which is entitled On the Deaths of the persecutors lay hidden through far more centuries and came forth into light only in the century just past; but that book either is to be ascribed to Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius, with Baluze, who first granted it the public light, or has as its author a Lucius Caecilius who is different from Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius.

[94] [that they did not exist in the 1st century, and accordingly do not have the Areopagite as author, is an exceedingly strong argument,] If the first, it seems to have been known to St. Jerome, since he, in On the illustrious Writers of the Church, chapter 80, counts among the Works composed by Firmianus Lactantius a book On the Persecution, and this seems able to be understood as the book On the Deaths of the persecutors; but if the second, since Lucius Caecilius, different from Firmianus Lactantius, is known to have composed no other book than the one which is entitled On the Deaths of the persecutors, and this is only of small bulk and of no very great moment, there is indeed no reason why we should wonder that that Opuscule lay hidden through several centuries. But since the Dionysian Works are of no small bulk and such that, if they had been written as early as the first century of the Christian era, they could only with the greatest difficulty have lain hidden through the three centuries next following, and have been constantly passed over in silence, not only by Eusebius and Jerome, who record the ecclesiastical writers and their Works, but by absolutely all other writers too, even at the time when it would have been most opportune to praise them, the negative argument which is formed thence certainly appears not a little firm, and has so much weight with me that even on that account I think that the Dionysian Works did not exist in the first century, but were fabricated much later under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite.

CHAPTER VII.

Whether the Councils, Fathers, Pontiffs and writers who after the fifth century praised the Dionysian Works under the name of the Areopagite do not break the force of the negative argument sought from the ignorance of the same Works through the earlier centuries.

[To the negative argument against the Areopagite the Areopagitics oppose Councils and Pontiffs;] In order to break the force of the negative argument which I formed in the preceding §§ from the ignorance of the Dionysian Works through the first four centuries, the Areopagitics argue in this following manner: In the Lateran council, held in the year 649 while Martin I occupied the Roman Chair of St. Peter, there was read before the Fathers of this council an excerpt from the letter of St. Dionysius given to Gaius the monk, so that by the genuine reading of that testimony those heretics might be confounded who had falsified it. To the praised Lateran council is added the sixth ecumenical Synod, held at Constantinople in the year 680 under Agatho, in which the Works marked with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite were cited most honourably more than once. Moreover, It is certain (so the Areopagitics proceed in the anonymous writer very often praised above) that the supreme Pontiffs St. Gregory the Great, Martin I, Hadrian I, Agatho, Nicholas I and Paul I made very much of St. Dionysius, and not only celebrated his Works with the highest praises but also cited them. Sophronius likewise, bishop of Jerusalem, St. Maximus the martyr, St. John Damascene, the venerable Bede, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, and very many doctors and Theologians, of whom it would be no less easy than tedious to weave a list, acknowledged St. Dionysius as the genuine parent of these Works. And since so many councils, so many supreme Pontiffs and holy Doctors approved these books attributed to St. Dionysius as genuine offspring of this disciple of St. Paul, it cannot be doubted that, some conformity of doctrine being presupposed between the writings of St. Dionysius and the writings of St. Clement of Alexandria and St. Gregory of Nyssa, these two latter drew their things from the former, who was illustrious in the first century of the Church.

[96] Thus the champions of the Areopagitic Works; but to these the same anonymous again answers thus first, but since Pope Gelasius and the fifth general Council the Areopagite, and rightly indeed: If Councils and Pontiffs mentioned the books of St. Dionysius so honourably, if they venerated him as a most ancient Father and doctor of the church, what was the cause that Pope Gelasius made no mention of the writings of St. Dionysius in the Roman council, although in that Council were treated those Opuscula of the Fathers which the Catholic Church receives, such as are those of St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. John Chrysostom, Theophilus of Alexandria, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and St. Prosper? It may perhaps be replied that this Council was held at Rome at a time, namely in the year 494, when the Areopagitic books had not yet become sufficiently known in the Latin church, and accordingly it is no wonder that Pope Gelasius passed them over in silence, although he lists very many other Greek Fathers also who lived up to the fifth century. But whence comes it that in the fifth General Synod, held under Pope Vigilius and the emperor Justinian, the Fathers of this council, after they had declared that they received whatever had been decreed in the other four earlier ecumenical councils, afterwards (namely in Session 3) subjoin, "Besides these we follow in all things also the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine, Theophilus, John of Constantinople, Cyril, Leo, Proclus &c.," no mention being made of St. Dionysius? The Patrons of St. Dionysius will reply beyond doubt that this Council did not enumerate all the Fathers who were illustrious in those earlier centuries of the Church. This indeed I most willingly concede: But since St. Dionysius, whether one regards his most holy discipline under St. Paul, or his venerable antiquity, or the sublimity of his heavenly doctrine, ought to hold the first place among the Fathers, no one will ever be able to persuade himself that the Fathers of that council, if they had certainly known St. Dionysius as the genuine author and parent of the Works which are circulated under his name, would have passed him over, and would have preferred to him several other Fathers whose authority in the Church is not so great.

[97] to which the Dionysian Works were very well known, to the Fathers of the Church Nor does that vain and futile answer avail, namely that that Council passed over St. Dionysius in silence because his Works were not yet sufficiently known and explored. For this council was held in the year 553, that is, 20 years after that celebrated conference of the Catholic bishops and the Severians, in which there was long and much dispute about the books of St. Dionysius. Those books, therefore, were known and explored at that time, and twenty years before were worn by the hands of all. Besides, in the Acts of the same council are read very many excerpts from those books which St. Cyril had published against Theodore and Diodorus, in which he frequently uses the testimonies of St. Dionysius. How, then, could the fathers of that council have been ignorant of the writings of St. Dionysius? It is indeed true that Hadrian the first, supreme Pontiff, in the Rescript to

Charlemagne asserts that St. Gregory the Great adorned St. Dionysius the Areopagite with the highest praises, and testified that he was an ancient Father and Doctor. But the opinion of Hadrian, although supported by the authority of St. Gregory, does not settle the controversy. For Hadrian, in the letter to Charlemagne, recites only a certain testimony from a Homily of St. Gregory, in which this Pontiff cites Dionysius on the credit of those who thought him the genuine parent of those Works. "Dionysius the Areopagite," says this Pontiff, "an ancient, namely, and venerable Father, is said to say that from the hosts of the least Angels &c." But from the fact that St. Gregory called Dionysius an ancient Doctor of the church, he did not thereby settle the dispute, nor could St. Gregory have settled it, who, as he himself testifies in book 9, Letter 69, was unskilled in the Greek tongue, and consequently had nowhere read the controverted books of the Areopagite.

[98] From this, however, it does not follow that this Author, [did not number, and the later Pontiffs brought nothing from them into the divine Office,] who is circulated under the venerable name of St. Dionysius, whoever he may be, is not to be held, with better right than several others who lived after the fifth century, as a Father and Doctor of the Church, since so many councils, supreme Pontiffs and Doctors have not only used his authority and testimonies, but also, with unanimous consent after so many centuries, have always acknowledged and celebrated him as such. Our argument therefore tends only to demonstrate that neither Pope Gelasius nor the Fathers of the fifth council, if they had had it certain and ascertained that the works which are inscribed with the name of St. Dionysius are genuine offspring of the holy Martyr, would have passed him over in that long series of Fathers which they wove in those two councils. Besides, if the supreme Pontiffs and councils after Gelasius and the Vth Synod pursued the writings of St. Dionysius with such great veneration, if they held him to be their genuine parent, why did they not decree their reading in the Church. Certainly the supreme Pontiffs who ordered the divine Office selected chiefly for the lessons of the Office those Opuscula of the Fathers which best suited the solemnities which are celebrated through the seasons of the year. Which certainly gives a certain prerogative to those Fathers above the others whom the Church does not grant this honour in the divine Offices. Since, therefore, both his most holy discipline under the Apostle Paul and his venerable antiquity and the sublimity of his doctrine rendered the holy Areopagite most commendable, and several things exist in his books admirably suited to various solemnities, such as are those which he recites on the dormition and funeral of the Blessed Virgin Mary, on the Orders of the Angels and their Hierarchies, on the Sacraments &c., it is incredible that the Pontiffs and councils, if they had really been persuaded that those books which bore the name of Dionysius were his genuine offspring, would have inserted nothing from them into the divine Office.

[99] Thus far the praised anonymous; and these things being set forth beforehand, [nor do the Councils which praised the Dionysian Works prove these to be, as things which] he presently undertakes to prove that from the Councils, supreme Pontiffs, and very many writers and holy Fathers who after the fifth century praised the Works customarily circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, no right over these belongs to our Saint, or that it by no means comes about thence that those Works are to be ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite as their genuine author; and first indeed he proves this as regards the Councils in the following manner: The Councils, he says, cited the Areopagitic books as a Work composed by some writer of the fourth or fifth century, whose doctrine was solid and most opportune both for attacking heretics and for confirming the dogmas of the Christian Religion. They cited them in exactly the same way as several other Authors of the fifth, sixth and following centuries. In one word, finally, they alleged those books under the name of the author which they bore prefixed. Which indeed wins authority for those books and greatly illustrates their Author, but does not specifically determine his person. For all know very well that the Councils and Fathers, in enacting their canons, used certain Works, little or not at all anxious in searching out their genuine authors, thinking it sufficient for them to oppose those books which had been received by the Church to the errors of the heretics. If the champions of St. Dionysius contend that the councils, by bringing forward such testimonies of Dionysius, in some way admit and confirm that they are of that author, namely Dionysius, under whose name they praise them, we shall willingly grant this, provided they themselves likewise admit that those books whose testimonies are praised by the councils under the name of any Father or writer are the genuine Work of the same Father or writer.

[100] are brought forward here, But I shall never believe that the Areopagites will subscribe to this condition, unless they are willing, against the common consent of all the learned, to admit that the Dialogues on the Trinity praised by the Lateran council, and the history of the passion of the Image of Jesus Christ in the city of Berytus, related in the seventh council, are most certain offspring of St. Athanasius, because these Councils praised them under the name of this holy Doctor, although it is certain and undoubted that Works of this kind were falsely attributed to St. Athanasius. For as regards that Dialogue on the Trinity, its forgery appears clearer than the midday light, since its author mentions that addition made to the Nicene Creed by the council of Constantinople, and explains those six epithets attributed to the Holy Spirit by that council, which certainly cannot fit Athanasius, who preceded that council. The history likewise of the passion of the Image of Jesus Christ in the city of Berytus cannot be ascribed to him, since Sigebert in his Chronicle refers it to the year 775, and Cardinal Baronius, in the Martyrology at the 9th day of November, testifies that he had in his hands a certain old manuscript of this sermon of St. Athanasius, in which it was reported that this miracle took place under Constantine the younger and Irene his wife. Which thing impelled the most learned Cardinal to adjudge this treatise rather to another Athanasius, a bishop in Syria, than to the great Athanasius. I pass over several other anachronisms which may be seen in this history, since it is sufficiently established from the things we have said that it was falsely attributed to St. Athanasius. Second, if Dionysius is to be considered the genuine author of those books which are attributed to him because the Lateran, Constantinopolitan and second Nicene Councils cited them, the Apologists must also admit that the Works of other Fathers which are praised in these three councils are likewise genuine offspring of those Fathers.

[101] show, prove are to be attributed to the Areopagite, The Sermon on St. Thomas, therefore, will be a Work of St. John Chrysostom, because it is read cited under the name of this Father in two of these councils. The letter to Julian likewise, praised under the name of St. Basil, and also the Homily on the one Lawgiver of the two testaments ascribed to St. John Chrysostom, and the Spiritual Meadow of John Moschus reported under the name of Sophronius, and other Works of this kind, will be legitimate offspring of those authors whose name they bear; because the fathers of these councils cited them under the name of those illustrious writers. As, therefore, it is improbable that the Apologists of St. Dionysius will admit these absurd consequences, so from the fact that several councils frequently cited the Areopagitic books under the specious title of this illustrious bishop of Athens it cannot rightly be inferred thence that they are true and genuine offspring of the same holy bishop. And in very truth, whoever has been somewhat versed in the reading of the sacred councils will be able with no trouble to notice, as the learned father Natalis Alexander very well notes in the Fourth Century of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 6, article 8, that the Fathers of the general councils did not put much work into judging the Works of the Holy Fathers according to the rules of criticism and into detecting and determining their genuine authors; but, since they were certain that those Works had come forth from some ecclesiastical author, it was enough for them to praise them under the title of that author which they bore, and to pluck from them those arguments which were better suited to defending the ancient tradition and establishing the faith of the Church. The argument, therefore, drawn from the testimonies of the Councils is not sufficiently firm to claim the peaceful possession of these books for St. Dionysius the Areopagite.

[102] And these are the things by which the praised author renders it proved that from the Councils and in the same way of the supreme Pontiffs who praised the Areopagitic Works, which praised the Dionysian Works no right at all over them belongs to our Saint; here now is how he demonstrates this as regards the supreme Pontiffs, and very many other writers and holy Fathers. Martin I, he says, in the first Lateran Council, and Agatho, in the letter which he gave to Constantine Pogonatus, reported in the sixth general Synod, do indeed celebrate the books adjudged to St. Dionysius; but each celebrates them having regard to those testimonies which are cited by these two councils. For the most honourable mention of the holy Areopagite which is read made in them likewise impelled them to praise that doctrine under this author's name, no other examination being set beforehand as to whether these books, or the texts drawn from them, had proceeded from Dionysius or not. Likewise, when Hadrian I declares that the testimonies taken from St. Dionysius and related by the councils exist in the same books: when Nicholas I, writing to the emperor Michael, calls St. Dionysius an ancient Father and Doctor of the Church; when finally Paul I writes to Pepin, king of the Gauls, that he is sending him as a gift the books of St. Dionysius the Areopagite; all these things do not prove that the holy prelate of Athens is the parent of those Works; because these three supreme Pontiffs do not praise these books and their author except on the credit of those Councils which cited these books in the manner which we have related.

[103] Almost the same can be said to have happened with the books inscribed with the name of the Areopagite as reasons into the open as with the Canons of the first council of Nicaea. Since Innocent I had declared, both in the letter which he wrote to the clergy of Constantinople and in that which he gave to Theophilus of Alexandria, that the Roman Church does not receive other canons than the canons of the Nicene Council: "For the Roman Church does not admit other Canons." Pope Zosimus, who succeeded Innocent, when he wished to subject to a new examination the cause of Apiarius, who, condemned in the sixth council of Carthage, had appealed to the Roman See, keenly defended against the Fathers of that Council that this right of appeal had been granted to the Apostolic See by the canons of the council of Nicaea. Several other pontiffs likewise who next followed Zosimus, such as Boniface I and Celestine I, championed the right of appeals to the Roman Pontiff in virtue of the Canons of the council of Nicaea. St. Leo himself, in the letter given to the emperor Theodosius, speaking of the appeal of St. Flavian from the sentence of deposition passed by Dioscorus in the pseudo-council of Ephesus to the judgment of the Apostolic See, has these words: "But which after

an appeal has been interposed is necessarily required, the decrees of the canons published at Nicaea testify, which were enacted by the priests of the whole world." Here, then, is how all these Roman Pontiffs establish the right of appeals to the Roman see in the canons of the council of Nicaea; and yet not even a trace of such appeals is to be seen in the canons of this council; but this whole right is founded on the fourth canon of the Council of Sardica, which was held some years after, that is, in the year 347.

[104] adduced here As, therefore, no one would dare to assert that the fourth canon of the council of Sardica is to be held for a canon of the council of Nicaea because several Roman Pontiffs cited it as a Canon of the council of Nicaea; so by equal reasoning it can be said that the books which are attributed to St. Dionysius, although praised more than once under his name by supreme Pontiffs and Councils, are not on that account to be asserted as certain offspring of his. It can also be said in confirmation of this answer that Pope Zosimus and other Pontiffs cited the canon of Sardica as Nicene for no other cause than the testimony of Innocent the first, asserting that the Church does not receive other canons than the Nicene: "For the Roman Church does not admit other Canons." From which it is also permissible to conjecture that those councils and those Pontiffs who after the seventh century praised the books attributed to the Areopagite without any previous examination praised them on the credit of St. Gregory the Pope, who had written: "Is said &c." Relying on whose testimony they held those books as legitimate offspring of the Areopagite.

[105] persuade, we must speak, the negative argument proposed above retains its force. But however the matter stands, this one thing is most of all to be noticed, that, just as the citation of a Canon of the council of Nicaea for a canon of the Synod of Sardica takes nothing away from the right and authority of the Roman See concerning appeals, since that Sardican canon was received by the whole Church long before it was approved by the Trullan synod, and, this general acceptance being supposed, it matters little whether it be ascribed to one or the other of these two councils, so it matters little or nothing for the end which the Roman Pontiffs and councils proposed to themselves in citing the testimonies of St. Dionysius whether the author of those books lived in the first century of the Church or at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth, since they not rarely use also the authority of several fathers who flourished long after the times of the Areopagite, and who do not display that excellence, sublimity and solidity of doctrine which we discover in the Areopagitic writings. From all these things it is easy to understand that the Fathers, Doctors and Theologians who either lived contemporary with these councils or next followed them adjudged these books to St. Dionysius relying on the citations of the supreme Pontiffs and of the councils, namely of the Lateran, the Constantinopolitan and the second Nicene: and that these councils held them as genuine offspring of St. Dionysius from no other source than on the credit of those authors who mentioned them either in the fifth or in the sixth century. Thus far he; and since the writers of the VIth and perhaps also of the Vth century, on whose credit Pontiffs, Fathers and other writers of a later age attributed the Dionysian Works to the Areopagite, likewise win for our Saint no right over them, as will be clear from what is to be said below, neither can the said supreme Pontiffs and Fathers accomplish this, and the force of the negative argument which I proposed above accordingly remains entire, although meanwhile several Councils, Pontiffs and Fathers cited the Dionysian Works.

CHAPTER VIII.

Whether the length of time during which, after the fifth century, Dionysius was esteemed the author of the Works inscribed with his name does not likewise enervate the negative argument sought from the ignorance of the same Works through the earlier centuries.

[The long possession of the Dionysian Works, in which Dionysius after the ninth century] Whether the Dionysian Works, which are found praised by absolutely no one through the first four centuries of the Christian era and became known to only a few in the fifth century, truly had Dionysius as their author was still doubted by some in the sixth and seventh, nay even in the ninth century. And that the matter was still doubted in the sixth century the Conference of Constantinople, held in the year 532, as I showed above, manifestly discloses. For in it (go to this Appendix, number 66) Hypatius, speaking in the name of the catholics, called into doubt whether the Works which were praised by the Severians as Dionysian had been composed by Dionysius. The Areopagitics say indeed that Hypatius called into doubt only whether the testimonies which were brought forward by the Severians as Dionysian had not been thrust into the Dionysian Works. But since the Severians, in order to prove what they had asserted, did not appeal to the Dionysian Works, which both they and the Catholics undoubtedly had at hand, it appears certain that Hypatius, or the Catholics, called into doubt whether these very Works, and not only whether the testimonies taken from them, were Dionysius's. I proceed to the age of St. Maximus, or the seventh century.

[107] That it was certainly still doubted then whether the Works inscribed with the name of Dionysius was, the possession were truly Dionysius's is clear even from this, that St. Maximus, in the Scholia composed by him on the Dionysian Works, attacks in more than one place those who denied them to Dionysius the Areopagite. Further, as regards the ninth century, Theodore the priest, who then flourished, tried, as Photius teaches in the Bibliotheca, codex 1, to claim the Dionysian Works for our Saint the Areopagite, four arguments of the adversaries being solved; which is certainly no doubtful argument that there still existed then those who doubted whether the Dionysian Works were truly Dionysius's. But although the matter stands so, the very men who now deny them to our Saint admit, with almost unanimous consent, that through the six centuries which elapsed from the ninth century up to the fifteenth century, in which Lorenzo Valla flourished and began to call into doubt whether the Dionysian Works truly had Dionysius as their author, the same Works were ascribed to Dionysius, as their genuine author, by all everywhere, no one protesting. Since, therefore, the tradition of so many centuries, by which the Works marked with the name of Dionysius were ascribed to our Saint, confirmed him in a manner in the possession of them, the champions of our Saint, or of the Works which bear his name, contend that he cannot be dislodged from it by the negative argument which is sought from the silence and ignorance of the earlier writers.

[108] by no means Dionysius, And they are of this mind, further, first indeed because that long possession is as it were a certain prescription, which standing, the Works inscribed with his name cannot be denied to Dionysius; second, because, even if the right of Dionysius over those Works were not clearly established, an equitable judge would nevertheless be bound to adjudge them to St. Dionysius, because, when rights are equal, possession prevails; third, because, the possession of the Dionysian Works remaining with Dionysius, the champions of the Areopagitica ought not to have to prove the Saint's right to them, but it is for the Anti-Areopagitics, who either deny or contest that right, to bring forward authentic and undoubted monuments by which they may overturn the possession and the presumption of legitimate right which it includes; fourth and finally, because, if ever a right is uncertain and doubtful, such as the right of Dionysius over the Works inscribed with his name is believed to be by the Anti-Areopagitics, the condition of the possessor is always the better, and so the condition of St. Dionysius is the best, since the possession of the Works whose author is controverted was with him for more than eight centuries, and was not meanwhile either interrupted or disturbed by any grave opposition, but on the contrary was confirmed from time to time by the testimony of some Council, or supreme Pontiff, or finally of a weightier Father or writer. Thus from the length of time during which the Works of which we are here discoursing were ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, or from the long possession, so to speak, of several centuries during which they were esteemed to belong to him, argue the Areopagitics, or those who consider Dionysius the genuine and true author of those Works.

[109] because it neither induces prescription, But since this reasoning of theirs is founded partly on tradition, partly only on the length of time during which the Dionysian Works were ascribed to our Saint for several centuries, and the prescription arising from it, against which the Anti-Areopagitics cannot plead exception, let us examine whether tradition and such possession together, from which they contend what I have said, suffice for claiming those Works for Dionysius, and first indeed whether possession can accomplish this. Although the possession of goods, whether those pertaining to lay or to ecclesiastical persons, induces prescription after ten, twenty, thirty or forty years according to the quality of the goods, nay even after a hundred years against the Roman Church, which alone enjoys this privilege, yet the reasoning is not the same concerning the goods of the mind, for example concerning books, the possession of which, however long, never prescribes against their legitimate author, or cannot produce a right by which another, by whom they were not composed, is held to be their legitimate author. Relying on this principle, several learned men, without any injury, have dislodged from that possession those who had been esteemed, even for a very long space of years, the authors of books composed by others, and had therefore in a manner possessed them. For in order that possession be just, a just title is required; without which, as possession cannot be entered upon, so neither can it be preserved or continued, especially if it is a matter of books, or of the right which one claims for oneself to be held as their legitimate author, and which certainly, since books are not subject to the law of prescription, those to whom they are falsely attributed can by no means claim for themselves from the peaceful possession, however continued through several centuries, or from the opinion by which they were esteemed their authors.

[110] Although, therefore, St. Dionysius the Areopagite was esteemed through several centuries, no one protesting, the author of the books which bear his name, nor by a just title, which either in Dionysius's and so in a manner claimed peaceful possession for himself, we nevertheless judge that this possession is not just, and accordingly not apt to win for Dionysius a legitimate right by which he may be held their true author, unless it can be shown to be founded on a just title. But what, I ask, would you assign for a title of this kind? Perhaps — to come now to the second thing on which the reasoning we are here discussing is founded — the ancient tradition by which, handed down from century to century, it is clearly seen that those books were ascribed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite by the writers who flourished in the sixth century of the Christian era and by others following them? But did those writers of the sixth century have it certain and ascertained that the Areopagite was the author of the said books? If the matter stands so, on what foundation did that certain knowledge or cognition of theirs rest, by which it was brought about that they ascribed those books to Dionysius and so, so to speak, attributed their possession to him — or, what comes to the same, by what reason were those writers impelled to ascribe the aforesaid books to Dionysius the Areopagite and so to attribute their possession to him? This certainly not in

any other thing could they have set it than either in the testimony of one or several writers who flourished before the sixth century, or in the very inscription prefixed to the books, by which they were attributed to Dionysius, or finally in both these titles together.

[111] And the former of these indeed, without the latter, can claim for some writer the just and legitimate possession of some Work; anciently prefixed to those works but the latter without the former is not always certain, as will be clear from what is to be said, but more often false or at least ambiguous. Let us examine, then, whether the writers of the sixth century ascribed to this Saint the books about which it is controverted whether they are Dionysius the Areopagite's, or, if you prefer, could have ascribed them, either from one of the two said titles or from both together. But if the Areopagitics, or those who attribute the books inscribed with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite to this Saint, contend that they were deservedly adjudged to this Saint by the writers of the sixth century because they had the name of Dionysius the Areopagite prefixed on their front, they judge that title, by which they would have it that the possession of the said books was thus deservedly attributed to the Areopagite by those writers, either altogether certain and infallible, or only uncertain and ambiguous. If they consider it only doubtful and little firm, why do they accuse those who oppose themselves to this possession of the Areopagite, resting on that hypothesis only on a doubtful and uncertain title? Everyone knows that a coloured title and the common error arising from it can neither change the natures of things nor bring it about that a book which by error is ascribed to some author becomes in very fact his Work. For since possession is founded on title, it follows the condition of the title; so that, if the title is false or unjust, the possession likewise is unjust, and that, if the title is uncertain and ambiguous, the possession likewise is uncertain and ambiguous, or, to speak better, it is likewise uncertain and ambiguous whether he to whom the possession is attributed has a right to it, especially when the question is raised concerning books, against whose authors, as I have already shown, there is never prescription.

[112] by the name, But if the Areopagitics judge that the title which is sought from the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, which the Dionysian Works bore, and which brought it about that the writers of the sixth century adjudged them to Dionysius the Areopagite, was altogether certain and firm, and accordingly sufficed for those Works to be attributed to Dionysius and transmitted to posterity as his genuine offspring, and further contend, on account of a possession of more than nine hundred years joined with that title, that the same Works truly have Dionysius the Areopagite as their author, they will be compelled by parity of reason to admit as genuine Works of their authors not a few other compositions which by the judgment of all the learned are held spurious, and are known to have been falsely attributed to the venerable names of the authors with which they are inscribed on the front; and above all indeed, to omit several others, the Dialogues on the Trinity and the Disputations of St. Athanasius with Arius, ascribed to this holy Father for several centuries, the Treatises on the Cardinal Works and on the revelation of the head of St. Joseph, which bear the name of St. Cyprian, the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox, which are circulated under the name of St. Justin, and finally the Treatises on Leviticus attributed to St. Cyril: for those who first of all had those compositions in their hands, having found the name of those authors prefixed to them, transmitted them to posterity under the same name, and they have come down to our age under the same inscription, absolutely no one protesting except in these last centuries.

[113] or in another Here are the consequences, which, since they certainly are not to be admitted, and yet, if on account of the title just related the works which are circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite were to be ascribed to him, would have to be admitted, by this very fact show that that title does not suffice for these to be ascribed to Dionysius, or for the long possession of those Works in which Dionysius has been to be rendered legitimate; and since this is so, and the reasoning is the same concerning other books, the learned require, for them to be ascribed to some definite author, a certain and irrefragable testimony of an ancient writer to that effect; but a testimony of this kind, on which the writers of the sixth century who first attributed the possession of the Dionysian Works to Dionysius could have founded it, is not found; and before I prove this, I exhibit the anonymous author of the Problem, very often praised above, discoursing of a testimony of this kind and the conditions required for it. In order, he says, that some book may be discerned as the legitimate offspring of some author, this general rule is handed down, namely, if several ancient writers, or even one who is distinguished by some name and speaks in words not obscure, bring forward some testimonies from it, or declare that it belongs to him, under that condition, however, which we shall note below. Hence it is that the first letter of St. Clement to the Corinthians is received by all, because St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius and St. Jerome praised it under the name of this Pontiff, although it was hidden and unknown up to the time of Patrick Young, who, having obtained it in an old manuscript, granted it the public light in the year 1663. For this reason also the most learned father Sirmond published in print a certain Treatise on the Trinity and incarnation under the name of Isaac, relying solely on the testimony of Gennadius, who mentions this Work and numbers Isaac among those writers who lived towards the end of the fourth century.

[114] Likewise on the sole testimony of Marius Mercator we now know for certain of the anonymous writer that certain Treatises, which were formerly attributed to some Fathers, belong to others. For we are not persuaded from elsewhere that the sermon attributed to St. John Chrysostom on this text of the Gospel, "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down," is Nestorius's; and that the Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul, formerly adjudged to St. Jerome, are Pelagius's; and that the sermons against various heresies have Eutherius the Nestorian as their author and parent, than from the testimony of this writer, whose Works became known after some years. In order, therefore, that some book may be held legitimate on the testimony of one author, these conditions are necessary. First, that other writers of equal authority are not opposed to him. For this reason the book of Hermas was never held for Canonical, although St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Tertullian cited it, because several of the Ancients, such as Eusebius, Jerome, Rufinus &c., banished it among the apocrypha. Second, it is necessary that this author should have acquired some celebrity of name among the Ancients. For how many ecclesiastical authors are now held as certain and legitimate on the sole testimony either of Eusebius, or of Gennadius, or of Photius, who either simply mentioned these writers or reported some excerpt? Third, this testimony ought to be clear and certain, not doubtful and equivocal; for frequently the similarity of the titles which are prefixed to books, and of the things which are treated there, renders us doubtful about the legitimate author of some Work, if he who cites does not explain himself clearly enough.

[115] Hence it is that, since several Fathers have said that St. Athanasius published a certain symbol of Faith, by words but have not sufficiently expressed the matter and manner of this symbol, we cannot be certain whether that which begins with these words, "Whosoever will be saved," really proceeded from the same Father. Fourth, it is required that this testimony so specifically determine the author that no error, no equivocation, can arise thence. For similarity of names, offices and regions is very often the cause that one is taken for another, as for example the similarity of names between Sixtus the Philosopher and Sixtus the Pope brought it about that the sentences written by Sixtus the Philosopher were attributed to Sixtus the Pontiff. Anastasius the Sinaite likewise, since he had another of the same name as successor in the see of Antioch, gave occasion for confusing them and for doubting to which of them those Works of Anastasius which are held in the Library of the Fathers under the name of St. Anastasius are to be ascribed. Likewise the great conformity which is discovered between the two Macariuses in profession, office and the time in which both flourished is the cause that it cannot be judged which is to be held the genuine author of those fifty Homilies which bear the name of St. Macarius. Finally, the testimony which we use in order to ascribe a book to some author ought to be drawn from a Work of which it is most certainly established who is its legitimate author, on whose credit such a writing is received.

[116] For a testimony which is drawn from a book either counterfeit set forth here, or having some marks of forgery can be nothing but uncertain and doubtful. Hence it is that the History of the Passion of the image of Jesus Christ in the city of Berytus is by common judgment denied to St. Athanasius according to this rule, because, although in a certain fragment of the council of Caesarea it is reported that Peter, bishop of Nicomedia, asserted that St. Athanasius was the author of this narrative, it is nevertheless established that that Fragment is apocryphal and counterfeit; since this council of Caesarea, in which the blood which flowed from the side of Jesus Christ was treated, was altogether unknown to all antiquity. Now therefore it is necessary that we transfer these rules to our matter, and see whether in the Works of the Fathers of the first four centuries of the Church there exists any testimony, relying on which the writers of the fifth and sixth centuries had a legitimate title for asserting the possession of those books to St. Dionysius, and discuss whether the testimonies of these Fathers have chiefly the three last conditions which we related above; namely first, whether a testimony of this kind is clear and not at all doubtful; second, whether it specifically describes and determines the author in question; third, whether it is drawn from a genuine and legitimate work. If one of which three conditions be lacking, nothing certain can be argued from such a testimony. Thus far the author already so often praised; and that, as we have begun, we may follow his manner of arguing in this matter to the end, I am now going to adduce the things from which it becomes clear that in the writings of the Fathers or writers who flourished in the first four centuries of the Church there is found absolutely no testimony furnished with the three conditions which he brings forward here last, on which the writers of the sixth century could have founded the right of Dionysius the Areopagite over the books customarily attributed to this our Saint.

[117] of one or several, earlier than the middle of the 5th century That the authors of the first four centuries, by whose testimony they could have done this, nowhere cited the Dionysian Works, I have already shown above; but since it greatly matters that the reader be thoroughly convinced in this place how true this is, I recount here again, in the order in which they flourished, the Fathers or writers earlier than the middle of the fifth century of the Church whom the champions of the Dionysian Works are wont to adduce for their purpose, assigning again the place in which I have already proved above that they did not, contrary to what the Areopagitics contend, praise the Dionysian Works, and adding also from time to time some things in confirmation of what I said before. The Fathers, therefore,

or writers to be recounted here by us, whom the Areopagitics praise for their purpose, are the following; first Origen, who, as they would have it, cited the Areopagite in the first of his Homilies on St. John; but those Homilies, as I showed in this Appendix, numbers 3 and 4, were falsely attributed to Origen, and nothing proves that their true author lived before the sixth century. Second, Dionysius, patriarch of Alexandria in the third century, who, as the Areopagitics judge that Anastasius the Sinaite in the Ὁδηγῷ and St. Maximus in the Scholia composed on the Areopagite testify, wrote Scholia on the Works of the Areopagite; but that neither St. Anastasius the Sinaite nor St. Maximus testifies this certainly and clearly becomes most luminously evident, unless I am mistaken, from the things which I discussed in chapter 1 of this Appendix. Third, the thirty-first canon of the Council of Nicaea, held in the year 325, in which, as they say, a prayer which occurs in Dionysius, the celestial Hierarchy, chapter 7, is praised; but the things which I brought forward in this appendix, numbers 27 and 28, clearly prove that that canon is counterfeit, and the prayer which is praised in it as Dionysius's fabricated.

[118] Fourth, saint Athanasius, who, as they contend, and by the testimony of the writers reviewed here praised the celestial Hierarchy of Dionysius in the Questions to Antiochus the duke; but no one will fail to admit that those Questions were falsely attributed to St. Athanasius who has attentively turned over the things I discussed on this argument above in this Appendix, number 29 and the two following. Fifth, St. Gregory Nazianzen, who, besides supplying in his Works not a few things similar to those which are read in the books inscribed with the name of the Areopagite, seems, in explaining the words or glorifications of the Seraphim praising God in Isaiah chapter 6, to have praised Dionysius, or the Works which are circulated under his name; but the things which I have already brought forward in this Appendix, first at number 32 and the seven following, and then at number 80 and following, make it most probable, not to say more, both that it does not follow, from the fact that Athanasius supplies some things similar to those which are read in the Areopagitic Works, that he drew them from Dionysius, and that this our Saint is not to be understood by him whom Athanasius, expounding the words of the Seraphim in Isaiah chapter 6, says had most beautifully and most subtly, or most sublimely, philosophised. Sixth, St. John Chrysostom, by whom, as they would have it, St. Dionysius the Areopagite was called the bird of heaven in the Sermon on the Pseudo-prophets and false teachers; but the things already adduced above in this Appendix, number 40 and the four following, altogether persuade that that sermon was falsely attributed to St. John Chrysostom, or at least, if the matter stands otherwise, that the name of Dionysius the Areopagite was thrust into it by an interpolator. Seventh, John, archbishop of Dara, and Isaac the Syrian, who are said to have flourished in the fourth century and to have been disciples of St. Ephrem.

[119] But that John, archbishop of Dara, who wrote Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite, is founded, prevails, proves that he is the author of those Works. and Isaac the Syrian, who frequently praised the Dionysian Works in the Treatise on the Angels written by him, neither flourished in the 4th century nor were disciples of St. Ephrem, deacon of the church of Edessa, is most manifestly clear from the things which I discussed in this Appendix, chapter 3. Eighth, St. Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, who, as the Areopagitics would have it, used testimonies of St. Dionysius the Areopagite in the books written against Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia; but although indeed, as they say, Cyril seems to have written books against Diodorus and Theodore, and these accordingly, as I have already shown above, were not falsely attributed to that holy patriarch of Alexandria, I have nevertheless shown in this Appendix, in the chapter just cited, that it is very doubtful and uncertain whether testimonies of Dionysius the Areopagite were not thrust into them by the fraud of heretics, as also that the testification of Liberatus the deacon is of no profit at all to the Areopagitics for proving the contrary. And these are the authors whose testimonies the Areopagitics are chiefly wont to allege for their purpose; and since each and every one of them is most certainly destitute, as it is easy to gather from what has already been said, of the conditions assigned above, which we showed are required in order that they might claim the Dionysian Works for the Areopagite, the Areopagitics by no means, in alleging those authors in defence of their cause, claim for Dionysius the Areopagite a right over the books which are circulated under his name, or, what comes to the same, by no reason bring it about that the books which are inscribed with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite ought to be held his genuine offspring; the matter, namely, standing thus, that, although indeed the tradition from which it is held that those books are to be ascribed to Dionysius has lasted a very long time, it is nevertheless not perpetual and constant, but, begun only from the 5th or 6th century, fails certainly in the fourth century and the three earlier ones, and the writers of the sixth century, therefore, who attribute the Dionysian Works to the Areopagite, or ascribe their possession to our Saint, had absolutely no just title on which they could have founded it; whence it comes about that neither does possession of this kind prove that Dionysius is the author of those Works.

CHAPTER IX.

From the letter of St. Ignatius the martyr to the Romans, which is cited in the book On the Divine Names directed to Timothy, it is shown that this book was not composed by Dionysius the Areopagite.

[Although indeed on account of the letter of St. Ignatius to the Romans alone, in the book On the Divine Names] Against the Areopagitics, or those who contend that the Works customarily circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite were composed by this our Saint, we have hitherto fought only with negative arguments; now we undertake to carry on the matter against them with positive ones also adduced. And omitting those which can have place only if Dionysius be asserted to have come into the Gauls, contrary to what we showed in the preliminary Commentary actually happened, we presently begin from that which can be formed, even if the coming of Dionysius into the Gauls is not admitted, from the letter of St. Ignatius praised in the book On the Divine Names, chapter 4. Some of the Anti-Areopagitics, who contend that the Areopagite died before Ignatius the martyr, are wont to argue from the said letter in the following manner: Dionysius the Areopagite died some years before St. Ignatius; and since the latter wrote the letter to the Romans of which we are speaking only a little before his death, Dionysius could not have cited it, and the book entitled On the Divine Names, in which the same letter is cited, accordingly does not have Dionysius the Areopagite as its author. So they; but rightly? By no means indeed. Hear how St. Maximus speaks, commenting in his Scholia on the Areopagite on the place of the book On the Divine Names cited above. From this also, he says, some think that they opportunely refute this book (namely On the Divine Names), as though it were not that of St. Dionysius, because they say that Ignatius is later than he; and how could one mention later men?

[121] praised, wrongly this to Dionysius, as after Ignatius under Hadrian, But this is all invented, however it may seem to them; for St. Paul, who baptised Dionysius, was later in time than saint Peter, after whom Ignatius was made bishop of Antioch, when Peter had set out for Rome; but saint Paul, who baptised Dionysius, survived a long time, and Dionysius lived after him. Further, John the Evangelist is in exile in Patmos under Domitian, to whom Dionysius writes back; but Ignatius suffers before Domitian, so that he is older than Dionysius. Thus far that holy scholiast of the Areopagite, and partly indeed rightly: for although saint Ignatius passed to the Heavenly ones by martyrdom not before but after the reign of Domitian, namely under Trajan, who reigned from about the year 100 up to the year 117, and the praised holy writer accordingly errs much in assigning the time at which this most celebrated martyr suffered, he nevertheless most rightly places his martyrdom before that of St. Dionysius the Areopagite. And we indeed showed in the preliminary Commentary, § XIX, that this our Saint underwent martyrdom under Hadrian, the successor of Trajan, under whom Ignatius suffered; but against this epoch fixed by us for the martyrdom of Dionysius Launoy rises up at the very beginning of his Judgment on the books of Dionysius the Areopagite. And since this is so, in order that this epoch may remain firm and unshaken, and at the same time that it may become clear that this book cannot be denied to Dionysius on the sole head that the letter of Ignatius to the Romans is praised in the book On the Divine Names, it pleases me in this place, before I proceed to other things pertaining to the present argument, to refute that Anti-Areopagitic writer.

[122] From the fact, then, that St. Maximus, intending to show that the letter of Ignatius to the Romans could have been praised by St. Dionysius the Areopagite, whatever, by the words transcribed here, who, as he holds, obtained the palm of martyrdom under Domitian, wrongly holds that Ignatius died before the reign of Domitian, he argues or observes thus: Surely the epoch of the Areopagite's death (he binds it to the reign of Domitian) must have been held by all as most ascertained, since, in order that it might be retained by Maximus, it compelled Maximus to err so gravely in ecclesiastical History (namely by marking the death of St. Ignatius before the reign of Domitian). I should like those to turn this over again and again in their mind who throw the martyrdom of the Areopagite back into the time of Hadrian, and throw it back for no other reason than to contradict that opinion about the martyrdom of the Areopagite which, a thousand years ago, on account of its constancy, could not be torn up by Maximus. But Maximus and the contradictors of Maximus, in order to establish one and the same thing, sinned, the latter in the time of the Areopagite's martyrdom, the former in the age of Ignatius, because they fought against the first and true tradition concerning the years of both. Launoy contends, therefore, that Maximus, in order to show that the letter of Ignatius to the Romans could have been praised by Dionysius the Areopagite, anticipated, or marked too early, the time of the martyrdom endured by Ignatius, and was unwilling to remove the martyrdom of Dionysius from the age of Domitian, because he thought it altogether certain that it happened in that age, to the reign of Hadrian; as also that Dionysius underwent martyrdom under Domitian and not under Hadrian, contrary to what we laid down in the preliminary Commentary.

[123] But St. Maximus, marking the martyrdom of Ignatius before the reign of Domitian, Launoy, by the words, was undoubtedly ignorant (for the known holiness of the man prevents him from being thought to have lied) that that holy martyr shed his blood for Christ not then but under Trajan, and accordingly marked the martyrdom of Ignatius at an undue time solely through error; and since this is so, why could it not have come about that that holy scholiast of the Areopagite was likewise ignorant of the time at which Dionysius endured martyrdom, and accordingly referred it also, solely through error, to the reign of Domitian, and not to that of Hadrian, as he ought to have done? Indeed, why Maximus is to be thought to have had the time of the Dionysian martyrdom ascertained rather than that of the Ignatian I do not see. Now indeed, since these things are so, and Maximus, as in the time of the Ignatian, so also in that of the Dionysian martyrdom

could err, surely, just as it cannot be concluded from the fact that he notes that Ignatius underwent martyrdom in the time preceding the reign of Domitian that that saint was truly afflicted with martyrdom then, so neither would you deservedly argue from the fact that he writes that Dionysius obtained the palm of martyrdom under Domitian that it was in very truth done then.

[124] and Daillé, by various, by which writers, It is not worth while, therefore, to turn over in mind rather often, in order that we may know for certain that the epoch of the Dionysian martyrdom is to be placed under Domitian, what Launoy says in the words recited above, and it accordingly remains that Dionysius underwent martyrdom only under Hadrian, as we showed above from the old Roman martyrology, or from the Athenian Philosopher Aristides, who is cited by it (go to the preliminary Commentary, number 359). But indeed, what I did not do in the place cited, let us now for the moment meet here Daillé, who despises the said testimony of the Little Roman and of Ado, and contends that the time at which Dionysius underwent martyrdom cannot be defined from them. In his treatise on the books which are circulated under the name of the Areopagite, chapter 14, he reasons in the following manner: Now therefore let us see by what authors the Areopagitics try to establish that absurd and incredible little fable of theirs about the passion of Dionysius under Hadrian. They cite first as witness Aristides the Athenian, that very man of whom we spoke lately. Well and good. If they adduced any other, either a foreigner or of a more recent age, I would not undeservedly fear lest either his country or his age had played the man some trick. Now since they praise a fellow-citizen of Dionysius, and, as is probable, a disciple, there is no fear that he would lie about a most well-known matter.

[125] from Aristides, the martyrdom of Dionysius under Hadrian What, then, does Aristides say? He says (you say) that Dionysius was crowned with a most glorious martyrdom under Hadrian. Where and when does he say this? "He wrote it," you say, "in that very Work on the Christian Religion which he offered to Hadrian at Athens." Give me the book, that we may inspect the testimony. The book, you say, I do not have; it has perished; nor is there any report that it has been seen for some centuries back. A pretty proof indeed, and worthy of fable-tellers. Would that, would that, I say, the book were extant. I do not doubt that, if it were extant, it would lay open and scatter the whole mystery of your fable; and I am strongly urged to think that it was deliberately extinguished by your forebears for this very cause, as there is great suspicion that not a few other works of the men of old were deliberately removed by them, lest, if they survived, they should harm the fables in which they themselves rejoiced. Now, since you neither exhibit the testimony on which you rely, nor deny that the book in which you affirm it was written has perished, we must necessarily use arguments, in order that we may understand whether Aristides either wrote or could have written in that book what you affirm. That he did not write it I have already demonstrated above from this, that neither the adversaries nor the patrons of the Areopagitic books, nor even their chief, Maximus, knew in the sixth and seventh century that Dionysius died under Hadrian; nay rather they knew something plainly different, namely that he suffered martyrdom before the times of Hadrian and even of Trajan himself; and in this, although discordant in the rest, they agreed.

[126] For neither party could have been ignorant of that former point concerning the time of Hadrian, if it had been written by Aristides, a man of the highest standing, marking, in that Work; which you yourselves report was held as most illustrious among the monuments of the ancients among the Athenians, that is, among Greek men, and so fellow-countrymen of both parties. And that both were ignorant of this is established from this, that it is incredible, if they had known it, either that the adversaries would have been so shameless as to object that Dionysius suffered before the times of Trajan, or that the patrons would have been so foolish as to dissemble that he suffered under Hadrian. Add to these now the Greeks more recent than Maximus, Methodius, and of the ninth century Symeon Metaphrastes, and Suidas, and Michael Syncellus, and the authors of the Menaea and Synaxaria among the same nation; of all of whom there is certain proof that they did not know that this had been written by Aristides concerning the time of Hadrian, from the fact that, as we shall presently show, the rest relate that Dionysius suffered under Domitian, and two of them, Suidas and Syncellus, under Trajan; none placed it under Hadrian; and this proves what we would have the more strongly in that, since they all thought the books which are circulated under the name of Dionysius were true, this opinion most evidently drove them thither, to say that the martyr suffered under Hadrian rather than either under Trajan or under Domitian. No one, therefore, ought to doubt that those who did not follow this, which their zeal and practice demanded, never saw it in their Aristides.

[127] Now who would believe that what was in Aristides was indeed seen and noticed by Latin guests and foreigners, and by name he carps at Ado, by reasons while the Greeks, his fellow-countrymen and natives, either did not see it or did not notice it? But why do I speak of the Greeks? There were not even any Latins a little older (if you except Ado alone, of whom presently) who saw this in Aristides, who do not deny that they saw this in him. For who would think that Hilduin, Ratbert, Hincmar, Vincent of Beauvais, Matthew of Westminster, and all the other men of the Areopagitic sect would have related that Dionysius suffered under Domitian, if they had learned from Aristides that he was killed under Hadrian? But all of them, as we shall immediately show, referred the passion of this most holy Martyr to the times of Domitian. Therefore they plainly did not know that Aristides had related otherwise. Nor is this finally to be omitted, which, even if it were alone, would demonstrate that nothing of this kind was written in the book of Aristides. Both Usuard and the writers of the old Martyrologies of Gaul, which we praised above on the credit of Sirmond, mention this book. Of all, this is the one voice and constant consensus: "That Aristides, an Athenian man, wonderful in faith and wisdom, in that Work which he composed on the Christian religion, testifies that Dionysius the Areopagite, after a most illustrious confession of the faith, after the gravest kinds of torments, was crowned with a glorious martyrdom." They say that Aristides testifies that Dionysius, tortured with the gravest torments for the faith of Christ, gloriously consummated his martyrdom, which it is both most probable was written by Aristides and we willingly admit. That he suffered these things under Hadrian they do not say. Therefore the silence of these men too about so memorable a matter argues that nothing of this kind was written by Aristides.

[128] For why would Usuard and the other writers of Martyrologies have been silent about this, brought into the open if it had been written by Aristides, rather than Ado, who mentions it? Nor indeed is it clear, from the things which we were lately disputing, that it could have been written by him. For since Aristides, a man of the same memory, could not have been ignorant of the things which we have there laid down beforehand, namely the episcopate and martyrdom of Dionysius and of Publius, who succeeded him; neither assuredly was he ignorant of that which we demonstrated necessarily follows thence, namely that Dionysius suffered long before the beginnings of Hadrian; and the piety and wisdom of the most celebrated man do not permit us to believe that he would write what he himself knew to be false. Thus far the praised writer; and he contends with Sirmond, as he most luminously makes manifest by the words just recited, that Aristides — whatever the holy martyrologist of Vienne, Ado, may write — neither marked the martyrdom of Dionysius the Areopagite under Hadrian nor could have marked it. And the reasons indeed for which he asserts the latter, namely that Aristides could not have marked the martyrdom of the Areopagite under Hadrian, are exactly the same which impelled Sirmond to affirm the same thing, and how little suited they are to prove that thing I showed in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts already given above, number 358 and the two following; and as regards the former, the reasons which he brings forward to prove it are indeed different from the reasons employed by Sirmond; but neither by them does he render proved what he would have.

[129] and here For he contends chiefly from the fact that St. Maximus and other Greek writers were ignorant that Dionysius suffered under Hadrian, nay even wrote the contrary — which, however, they undoubtedly would not have done, inasmuch as they would by no means have been ignorant of it, if Aristides, a holy Man contemporary with St. Dionysius and most worthy of credit, had marked the martyrdom of Dionysius under Hadrian — that Aristides did not mark the martyrdom of Dionysius under Hadrian, or, what comes to the same, did not write that our Saint suffered under this emperor. But why could it not have come about, contrary to what Daillé thought, that St. Maximus never saw the Apologetic book of Aristides for the Christian religion, in which this holy Athenian philosopher placed the martyrdom of Dionysius under Hadrian, and was therefore ignorant that the martyrdom of St. Dionysius was assigned by Aristides to the reign of this prince? Eusebius in the Chronicle most openly marks the martyrdom of St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, under Trajan (go to tome 1 of February of our Work, page 19, number 31), and yet St. Maximus, as we have already seen above, affirms in his Scholia on the Areopagite that Ignatius was crowned with martyrdom long before Trajan, nay even before Domitian. And since this is so, and he was therefore most probably ignorant of the said Chronicle of Eusebius (for if he had known it, he would not seem likely to have dissented from Eusebius in assigning the epoch of the Ignatian martyrdom), what, I ask, prevents him from being believed to have been ignorant also of the Apologetic book of Aristides on the Christian Religion? Is it perhaps that the Work of Aristides was better known than the Chronicle of Eusebius, and worn by the hands of more?

[130] by other reasons But the matter seems to stand otherwise; nay, since the Work of Aristides is no longer found now, while the Chronicle of Eusebius still survives entire, and since it is not ascertained when it perished, it may not undeservedly be doubted whether it had not perished as early as the age of Maximus, and even earlier, so that it could not have lit the way for this Saint. The anonymous author of the Little or Old Roman Martyrology, first edited by Rosweyde, who, as our Sollerius teaches in his Preface to Usuard, flourished before the middle of the eighth century, nay before the year 742, and composed his said Martyrology, does indeed cite in it, at the third day of October, the Work of Aristides for the emperor Hadrian, under whom he says Dionysius suffered, and affirms that it is held among the Athenians as most illustrious among the records of the ancients; but it does not follow from this that this writer himself, who, as you will easily gather from what has already been said, flourished after St. Maximus, had the praised Work of Aristides before his eyes; for it can easily have come about that he took the elogium of our Saint at the said day of October, in which the Work of Aristides is praised, from a Martyrology composed by an earlier writer for whom that Work lit the way, and so praised the same Work only on the credit of the latter. Hence, further, it now comes about that from the fact that the Work of Aristides is cited in the Little or Old Roman Martyrology it by no means follows that the anonymous author who composed that Martyrology, and accordingly also St. Maximus, who before

him flourished, that Work still survived in his age. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and St. Maximus could easily, also from other things said above, have been ignorant of the Work of Aristides and of the epoch of the Dionysian martyrdom fixed in it, it certainly cannot be inferred from the fact that he marks the martyrdom of Dionysius under Domitian and not under Hadrian that Aristides likewise did not mark it under Hadrian.

[131] Now as regards the other Greek writers more recent than Maximus, refuted, to the contrary, namely Methodius or Metrodorus, Symeon Metaphrastes, Michael Syncellus, and the authors of the Menaea and Synaxaria, these indeed do not write that Dionysius underwent martyrdom under Hadrian; but since they are not in agreement in assigning the emperor under whom it took place, and two of them, namely Suidas and Syncellus, relate that Dionysius suffered under Trajan, and the rest under Domitian, this indeed is no doubtful argument that the martyrdom of Dionysius was not marked under Domitian by the unanimous consent of all the Greeks. What of the fact that those who note that Dionysius suffered under Domitian drew this from St. Maximus, who, from what was said above, most certainly went astray in assigning the epoch of the Ignatian Martyrdom? Moreover, since Trajan, under whom Suidas and Syncellus assign the martyrdom of Dionysius, governed the reins of the Roman empire next before Hadrian, under whom the author of the Little or Old Roman Martyrology, citing Aristides, says Dionysius suffered, they do not much disagree from Aristides, or from the author of the Little Roman, in assigning the epoch of the Dionysian martyrdom, since they may have had regard equally to the end as to the beginning of Trajan's reign. Nor does it bear on the matter at all that the Latins, strangers in the affairs of the Greeks, and not the Greeks themselves, knew that Dionysius suffered under Hadrian; for the Latins, or, to speak better, the author of the Little Roman, or certainly he whom this author had to light his way, learned it not from his own countrymen but from a Greek man most worthy of credit, namely St. Aristides, the Athenian philosopher.

[132] Hincmar indeed, Ratbert, Hilduin, Vincent of Beauvais and others place the martyrdom of Dionysius under Domitian. the authority of the Little Roman also being rejected, argue, But they most probably learned this either from St. Maximus or from other more recent Greek writers, and accordingly deserve no greater credit than these; and although they would perhaps have written that Dionysius suffered under Hadrian, if they had thought it in any way probable, it cannot nevertheless be concluded from the fact that they did not do so that Dionysius suffered under Domitian and not under Hadrian. For the authority of St. Maximus and of the other more recent Greeks who place the martyrdom of Dionysius under Domitian stood in the way of their daring to assign another epoch to that event. But Daillé proceeds and asks why Usuard did not write, as Ado did, that Dionysius suffered martyrdom under Hadrian. He suspects, namely, that this came about because Usuard did not think that Dionysius suffered under Hadrian. But Usuard, contrary to what Daillé thought, is more recent than Ado, and so contracted into compendium, in the new Martyrology composed by him, the more prolix elogia with which the latter had from time to time adorned the Saints in the Martyrology composed by him, that not rarely he omitted, by his mere choice, not a few things, even sufficiently worthy of note, which he found set forth by Ado in more diffuse speech; and since this is so, who would assert for certain that Usuard, in the elogium of Dionysius the Areopagite, passed over the name of the emperor under whom he found in Ado's Martyrology that this Saint suffered for no other cause than to correct an error which he thought lay in it on that head? But indeed Daillé, after the words which we have just recited from him, having brought forward against Ado some other things of lesser moment besides, presently turns his pen against the Little or old Roman, from which he at length notices that the epoch which Ado assigns to the martyrdom of Dionysius was drawn, discoursing on not a few things by which he tries to diminish and utterly tear up the credit and authority of that ancient monument first edited by Rosweyde.

[133] who suffered martyrdom, wrongly deny, But since he does not prove his assertions by certain and undoubted arguments, and most of them are of such a kind that they can easily be refuted from the things which our Sollerius disputed about that Martyrology in the Preface prefixed to Usuard, or in very fact have already been refuted, as will be clear to anyone comparing these with those, it appears at least more probable, if not altogether certain, that our Saint truly underwent martyrdom under Hadrian, as is marked by the author of the Little Roman and by Ado following him, whatever Launoy and Daillé argue to the contrary in the words transcribed above. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and accordingly Dionysius did not shed his blood for Christ until Ignatius had already passed to the Heavenly ones by martyrdom, he could indeed have praised the letter written by the latter to the Romans, and some Anti-Areopagitics wrongly deny to him the Book On the Divine Names even on the ground that the said letter is cited in it. But, even though this be so, the said book is nevertheless to be denied to Dionysius the Areopagite from the fact that it both contains the citation of the mentioned letter and is inscribed to Timothy, bishop of Ephesus. For since Ignatius mentioned Onesimus, who had succeeded Timothy, on his death, in the see of Ephesus, in the letter written by him to the Ephesians, and this letter is earlier than the other letter mentioned above, which the same Ignatius gave to the Romans, Timothy had already closed his last day when the latter was written.

[134] [yet from the fact that that book is at the same time inscribed to Timothy, you would deservedly do so;] And since this is so, the book On the Divine Names could not both have been inscribed by Dionysius to Timothy and have praised in it the letter of Ignatius to the Romans; and since both are done together, this indeed is a most strong argument that the mentioned book was composed not by Dionysius, who undoubtedly was not ignorant that the death of Timothy happened before the letter written by Ignatius to the Romans, but by another writer of a later age, who did not know whether Timothy died before or after the letter written by Ignatius to the Romans. And in order to extricate themselves from this the Areopagitics turn themselves in various directions, some even asserting with Baronius that the Timothy to whom the book On the Divine Names is inscribed is not the one who was the disciple of Paul, but a certain other, the Younger, son of Pudens the senator, whose name is reported in the Roman Martyrology and in the Acts of SS. Perpetua and Felicity; but, says Le Nourry in his often-praised Dissertation on the Works of St. Dionysius, chapter 9, Others on the contrary assert that that Timothy was the true disciple of Paul, and attack the opinion of Baronius with these reasons. 1. All writers before Baronius, both Greek and Latin, were of that opinion. 2. Our author relates that Timothy had been inaugurated into the episcopal dignity, and wishes his Works to be examined and corrected by him. 3. The same author himself, in the letter to Titus, whom Baronius and other Areopagitics concede was a disciple and companion of Paul, mentions the same Timothy. 4. In all the manuscript codices that Timothy is recorded to have held the Ephesian episcopate, over which the disciple of Paul presided. 5. Finally our Author, as we have said, boasts that he lived in the times of the Apostles, and accordingly of the same Timothy.

[135] Thus far those others of whom Le Nourry here speaks, nor the reasons which from the mind of some Areopagitics and rightly indeed. Hence, says Le Nourry in his Dissertation presently praised again, chapter XI, that answer about Timothy having been scorned, some Areopagitics boldly affirm that these following words, And the divine Ignatius also writes: My love is crucified — the words of Ignatius writing to the Romans, which are cited in the book On the Divine Names, and which we contend could not have been cited in it by Dionysius — were imprudently and ineptly thrust into the text of Dionysius by someone unknowing and ignorant of things. And they think this can be demonstrated by several considerations. First, because the aforesaid authority of Ignatius did nothing for Dionysius's argument. For Dionysius there proves that the word ἔρως, "love," is taken in a good sense among the sacred Authors. But the same word in this very letter of Ignatius is used for concupiscence and earthly love. Second, because, this pericope and sentence of Ignatius being removed, the discourse of Dionysius coheres better with itself. Third, that testimony of Ignatius is placed altogether absurdly in the midst of the testimonies of sacred Scripture. Certainly a more prudent Dionysius would have given it a place after all the testimonies of divine Scripture, and also after the authorities of his master Hierotheus brought forward by him in the same place. Finally the period which precedes this sentence of Ignatius contains a most rotten falsehood, and one altogether unworthy of so learned an author. And this period is couched in these words: "It has seemed to some of our expounders of the sacred Scriptures that the name ἔρωτος, of love, is more divine than the name ἀγάπης, of charity." But this, they say, is most false.

[136] For if the name "love," ἔρωτος, were more divine are alleged here, in mind, than the name "charity," ἀγάπης, the sacred writers would beyond doubt use it more frequently. But the word ἔρως is not found even once in the new Testament, where the word ἀγάπη occurs more than ninety times: and in the old you may read the word ἀγάπης very often, but the word ἔρως is used only twice, in the books of Proverbs, to signify impure and profane love. Whence they conclude that both the aforesaid phrase and the very sentence of Ignatius were thrust into the books of Dionysius by some idle man. Thus far some Areopagitics, who think that the sentence of Ignatius writing to the Romans, brought forward above, was thrust into the Dionysian book On the Divine Names by some ignorant writer of a later age; but hear how the three latter considerations of reasons which they bring forward in the words just transcribed to confirm this opinion of theirs are refuted by Le Nourry in the place cited above. As to what … (says this writer) is objected, that, this period (namely the sentence of Ignatius cited in the book On the divine names) being removed, the Dionysian discourse coheres better with itself, it is altogether light and of no moment. For the same could be said of other books of authors in which several testimonies of the ancients are heaped together to prove something. For if one or another is removed, the discourse of the writer will mostly seem to cohere better with itself too.

[137] the contrary Then, if as often as the discourse is judged to cohere better with itself when some period is deleted, you were to say that that period was added to the text of the author, so many things in the Works of the Fathers of the Church, and above all of our author, would have to be said to be sewn on and inserted in them that the Areopagitics would one day repent of having objected these things. But, they say, Dionysius could not have interposed the testimony of Ignatius in the midst of other testimonies of sacred Scripture: but would have put it in its own, that is, the last, place. Nor is this argumentation of greater weight. For who would believe that writers are so bound by these laws of citing books that

it is never permitted to depart a nail's breadth from them? For if these things were so, how many testimonies of the ancients, good God, will occur in various books of later writers imprudently thrust in by the unknowing and ignorant, and thereafter to be deleted from them? For how many writers did not even think of that method of citing which is now required? How many testimonies of Scripture and of the older Fathers will you find mingled in their Works? Nor was there indeed reason for them to object rather disdainfully that the period which is set before this sentence of Ignatius contains a most rotten falsehood. For in the manner in which it is stated nothing is discovered in it but what is most true. For these are, as was said above, the very words of our author: "It has seemed to some of our expounders of the sacred Scriptures that the name of Love is more divine than the name of Charity." "To some," he said, not "to all." But he thought so constantly that it had seemed so to some that he straightway indicated the writers and the writings where it is handed down. And certainly those who object these things themselves also admit that that name of Love is found in other books of sacred Scripture than those which are cited by our author.

[138] prove, These things the praised Le Nourry; and that I may now confute here also that which the mentioned Areopagitics object in the first place in the words recited at number 35: the name ἔρως, in the words of Ignatius which are cited in the book On the Divine Names, can be used for spiritual and divine love, although in what follows it is taken for the extinguished fire of concupiscence. Now indeed, since this is so, and the author of the Dionysian Works could not ineptly think that the said name is taken by Ignatius there in a good sense, he could indeed cite the aforesaid authority of Ignatius as bearing on the argument which he was treating; so that accordingly, contrary to what the Areopagitics contend, it ought not to be asserted to have been thrust into the text of Dionysius. And indeed that it ought by no means to be asserted is clear even from this, that absolutely no copy of the book On the Divine Names has hitherto been able to be assigned in which the same authority or sentence of Ignatius is not found written. And since this is so, and it would undoubtedly be otherwise unless this had been used in the very original Dionysian text, it ought to be considered as having proceeded not from an interpolator or writer of a later age but from the very author of the Dionysian Works; and now, since Timothy, to whom the book On the Divine Names is inscribed, was, from what has been said, already dead when Ignatius wrote to the Romans the letter in which the said sentence is found, it follows that this book was certainly not written by Dionysius the Areopagite, who would assuredly not have been ignorant of this. Hence, further, it now also follows that, even from the fact that the book On the Divine Names is both inscribed to Timothy and contains the citation of the letter of Ignatius to the Romans, it can by no means have Dionysius the Areopagite as its author, whatever the Areopagitics argue to the contrary by some reasons alleged above.

CHAPTER X.

That the Works which are inscribed with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite are not his is shown from the ancient tradition which is cited in them for the baptism of infants.

[The Greek Epithet which is given to the tradition about Baptism by the writer of the Areopagitic Works] In the last chapter of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, § XI, Dionysius the Areopagite, or the anonymous author who assumed his name to himself, speaks in the following manner: πλήνγε οτι καὶ περὶ τούτου ταῦτά φαμεν, ἅπερ οἱ θεοειδεῖς ἡμῶν ἱεροτελεσταὶ, πρὸς τῆς ἀρχαίας μυηθέντες παραδόσεως, εἰς ἡμας προήγαγον· and these words, committed to writing by the writer of the Dionysian Works when making discourse of the Baptism of infants, whose interrogations, renunciations &c. the heathen mocked because infants are incapable of them, sound thus in Latin in the interpretation of Cordier: Nevertheless on this matter (namely on the Baptism of infants) we also say this, which our deiform teachers, having received it from ancient tradition, have transcribed to us. Further, since the author, if he be Dionysius the Areopagite, could have understood here by those whom he calls his deiform teachers no others than St. Paul and the other Apostles, and these certainly could not have received the doctrine of the Baptism of little ones, which without any controversy is not older than Christ, from ancient tradition, contrary to what the author of the Dionysian Works discloses in the cited text, this indeed is an argument that by those to whom the author of the Dionysian Works says the doctrine about the Baptism of little ones mocked by the heathen came from ancient tradition there are to be understood not the Apostles but others who flourished long after the Apostles, and that he accordingly, forgetful of his design in this place, here manifestly lays aside the person of Dionysius the Areopagite, which he imposed on himself throughout his whole Work.

[140] Thus the Anti-Areopagitics argue from the place of the same Works cited above that the author of the Dionysian Works did not flourish in the first century, or in the age of the Apostles, and accordingly that Dionysius the Areopagite cannot be their author. Nor indeed is this argument of theirs destitute of force and strength. is attributed by the writer, and which never only the same, The Areopagitics indeed, in order to enervate and tear it up, contend that the word or Epithet ἀρχαίος, which in the Dionysian text qualifies the substantive παραδόσις, in Latin traditio, signifies not what in Latin is priscus or antiquus, but the same as in Latin Primus; but hear how Morin, after he had asked in what way the author of the Dionysian Works, if he is the Areopagite, can be said to have received from ancient tradition that his teachers or pontiffs, that is the Apostles, received the Baptism of infants and preserved it up to his own time, reasons opportunely for the present purpose in the place presently cited. Lanssel, he says, so perverted this period (namely the text of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy recited above) in his translation that he left scarcely anything sound in it: "Although we also say this on this matter, which our divine Pontiffs" (the Apostles) "mystically taught from the first tradition of Christ, have brought down even to us." First he supplied "the Apostles." Then, contrary to the notion of the word ἀρχαίας, he translated "first." Finally he adds of his own wit "of Christ." Nor does this perversity of translation wipe away all absurdity from the text. For with it the last words "have brought down even to us" do not well agree. For granted that he was an immediate successor of the Apostles, that he lived with them through the whole time of their preaching, and that John the Evangelist was still surviving when he wrote, he says ineptly that they brought that tradition down even to us.

[141] which in Latin is first or primigenial, This manner of speaking necessarily requires a long interval of time, and agrees very well with the epithet ἀρχαίας, ancient, which is given to the tradition in the text. Lanssel renders a witty reason for his perversity in his Annotations: "Otherwise a doubt would be raised about the antiquity of St. Dionysius. For if he was a disciple of St. Paul, how does he say that his teacher was taught these things from ancient tradition?" But this is what he says, nor can it be explained otherwise with the text entire. The most ancient interpreters, Scotus and Sarracenus, translated, "taught from ancient tradition." Périon, "Received from the ancients." Vercellensis, "Taught by their elders." Ambrose, "From pristine tradition." The most ancient interpreters the best of all, the most recent the worst of all. Pachymeres in his paraphrase left the text unchanged, μυηθέντων καὶ τούτων ἐκ αῤχαίας παραδόσεως, they having been taught from ancient tradition. Thus far Morin, contending, namely, that the word αρχαιὸς, which in the text related above necessarily imports a long interval of time through which the doctrine of the Baptism of little ones was brought down to the author of the Dionysian Works, can in no way be taken to signify the same as the word first signifies.

[142] as Cozza, by the words transcribed here And indeed I shall prove by yet another reason that the word αρχαιὸς is in very fact by no means employed in that text to signify the same as the word first, after I have set before the reader's eyes the things which Cozza brings forward to prove the contrary in the Vindiciae Areopagiticae, edited at Rome in the year 1702. Thus, then, he reasons in the said work, part 2, chapter 15, number XI. The whole force of the difficulty, therefore, is restricted to that adjective "Ancient." Nevertheless on this matter (he here recites the Dionysian text already given above) "we also say this, which our deiform teachers, having received it from ancient tradition, have transmitted to us." But neither does this seem to me to press, since those words mean the same as "from the first tradition." And so Ambrose the Camaldolese reads in his version; "which our holy teachers, taught from pristine tradition"; in which sense Rivet himself seems to use it. And therefore father Halloix, question 2 on the Life of St. Dionysius, in the answer to the XIIth reason of Scultetus, says: This tradition was called by our author ἀρχαῖα παραδόσις, that is, "the first or primigenial tradition." For since ἀρχαιὸς signifies several things, its significations are to be taken according to the subject matter. And among others (as can be learned from the Lexicons), as ἀρχὴ signifies beginning, so ἀρχαῖον signifies first, not only old or ancient. For something can be first and yet not old or ancient: and likewise ancient and not first. From which, he says, those words of Dionysius are to be read thus: "On that matter we say these things, which our divine initiators, taught from the first tradition, have carried forward to us."

[143] Since, therefore, under the name of initiators, "Deiform or divine INITIATORS," contends, come the Apostles, whom he previously calls "divine leaders," as St. Maximus explains in the Scholia on this place; and these were taught by Christ, who first handed down the doctrine of the Church and taught the Apostles themselves, thence it comes about that it is verified of them that they were taught from the first tradition. St. Dionysius could also have understood by initiators and sacred leaders Hierotheus, Mark and Luke the Evangelists, Justus, whom he cites in the book On the Divine Names, chapter XI, Antipas and other fellow disciples, who, taught by the Apostles, can very well be said to have been taught from the first tradition, as from the tradition of the Apostles. So from Halloix. Which answer does not seem foreign to the mind of the abbot of Vercelli, who in the extract of this place of Dionysius reads: "Upon this article, namely concerning baptised children, we say what our doctors, taught by their elders, have handed down to us." These things the praised Cozza, meaning, namely, that the Greek word ἀρχαιὸς has two significations, of which the one is the same as is signified by the Latin word primus or primigenius, the other the same as is signified by the Latin word antiquus, and that accordingly, from the fact that the author of the Dionysian Works qualifies the substantive παραδόσις, or tradition, with the epithet ἁρχαιὸς in the text recited above, it does not follow that he meant to signify that the tradition existed as ancient by which he says the catholic doctrine on the Baptism of little ones came to him.

[144] But although indeed the word ἀρχαιὸς at times signifies among Greek authors to signify in Greek the same as primus or primigenius in Latin, it is nevertheless never employed by them in a signification of this kind unless at the same time the thing signified by the substantive which is qualified by the epithet ἀρχαιὸς can be called

and in very fact is ancient. Cozza appeals to the Greek Lexicons; but these very Lexicons oppose him. That it may be clear how true this is, let us, obeying Cozza, consult the Greek Lexicons. Among these the Thesaurus of the Greek tongue constructed by Henri Estienne and published in print in the year 1572 stands out most of all. It, then, which for that reason can be for me here in place of all the Greek Lexicons, attributes to the word ἀρχαιὸς, taken in its proper sense, two significations, of which it teaches that the one is the same as is signified by the Latin word Pristinus, the other the same as by the likewise Latin word Antiquus; and although the former of those significations seems different from the signification which the word antiquus brings, yet the adjective or epithet antiquus also fits in a certain sense the things to which the epithet or adjective Pristinus is joined. Thus the adjective or epithet antiquus also fits in a certain sense a state first had and then lost, to which the epithet or adjective pristinus is joined. For the things which, having first been had and then lost, were afterwards obtained again, are also in a certain sense ancient, and hence antiquus is sometimes used for pristinus among the Latins, as Henri Estienne teaches in the place cited above. He does indeed adduce some other things by which he insinuates that the word ἀρχαὶον signifies nothing other than τὸ ἐξ ἀρχης, in Latin, that which was from the beginning; but the things which are said to have been from the beginning can at the same time be ancient; nay I have hitherto been able to find among the Greek writers no example in which the word ἀρχαὶος signifies altogether the same as τὸ ἐξ ἀρχὴς, in Latin, that which was from the beginning, and at the same time excludes the signification which is in the word antiquus.

[145] various examples of authors show. In order, therefore, that either Cozza or other Areopagitics may render proved that the word ἀρχαιὸς in the Dionysian text recited above is used to signify τὸ ἐξ ἀρχὴς, in Latin that which was from the beginning, and excludes the signification put into the word antiquus, it is necessary that they adduce at least one example in which the said word ἀρχαιὸς is so employed by an approved Greek author; and since it seems that it will never come about that they do this, I shall by no means suffer myself to be persuaded by them that the word ἁρχαιὸς in the Dionysian text recited above signifies only the same as that which was from the beginning, or the same as the word primus or primigenius. And indeed Cozza himself does not seem to have held this firmly persuaded. For to the solution which he gives in the words transcribed above to the difficulty sought from the word ἁρχαιὸς, he presently subjoins the following: But if these things do not please, and they wish to contend with the Anti-Areopagitics in Le Nourry, cited, that those words of Dionysius cannot rightly be explained as the first tradition, but well as the Ancient, as the ancients translate, John Scotus, John Sarracenus, Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples, and some others of the more recent, it can be answered from the doctrine of St. Dionysius the Carthusian, who writes thus on this place: "Nevertheless, also of this, that is, of this matter, we say those things which our Deiform holy perfecters, that is, the Apostles, instructed from ancient tradition, that is, from the eternal Wisdom, the only-begotten of God Jesus Christ, which Wisdom testifies in the Proverbs: I was set up from eternity, and of old. And in the Gospel speaks: Suffer the little ones to come to me. And: Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, brought to us, that is, poured into us by their informing." The Carthusian, therefore, calls the doctrine of Christ ancient tradition, inasmuch as it is derived from the eternal Wisdom of the only-begotten Son of God; and since the Apostles were instructed by this eternal Wisdom of the incarnate Word, therefore Blessed Dionysius the Areopagite writes that they were taught from ancient tradition.

[146] Such is the other solution by which Cozza tries to satisfy the difficulty sought from the word αρχαιὸς; is also an argument that the Areopagite is not the author of those Works. but it appears beyond doubt that the interpretation of the Dionysian words which he adduces to that end from Dionysius the Carthusian is most remote from their obvious and usual signification, and even from the mind of the writer from whom they proceeded. And indeed Dionysius the Carthusian seems to assert by his mere choice, absolutely no argument impelling him to it, that by the deiform teachers or perfecters of whom the author of the Dionysian Works speaks in the place cited above the Apostles are to be understood; and if the ancient tradition of which the author of the Dionysian Works speaks in the place cited were to be taken there, as Dionysius the Carthusian asserts, for the eternal Wisdom, the Only-begotten of God Jesus Christ, who would not judge that the author of the Dionysian Works would have written expressly that his teachers had received the things which they had handed down to him about Baptism from the eternal Wisdom, the Only-begotten of God Jesus Christ? Certainly no apt reason at all seems able to be rendered why he would not have openly expressed the Lord Jesus Christ, from whom his teachers had received the doctrine of Baptism, but would have wished to signify Him by ancient tradition, by which He can be signified either in no way or certainly only very obscurely. The interpretation, therefore, fitted to the Dionysian words by Dionysius the Carthusian in the place just cited by Cozza by no means solves the difficulty sought from the word ἀρχαιὸς either. Nor do I see how the same difficulty could be solved more happily by the other answers brought forward. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and he undoubtedly means by the Greek epithet which is attributed to the tradition about Baptism by the author of the Areopagitic Works in the place cited above altogether the same as is signified by the Latin word antiquus, it follows that by the Deiform teachers from whom he says he learned the things which they had received from ancient tradition about Baptism he understood not the Apostles, who had received them assuredly not from ancient tradition but from Christ Jesus Himself, but other later men, to whom the Catholic doctrine on Baptism had come only by tradition. Hence it follows further that he composed the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, in which he calls the tradition about Baptism ancient, in an age which was later than the age of the Apostles, and that he is accordingly different or distinct from Dionysius the Areopagite, who flourished in the age of the Apostles.

CHAPTER XI.

The things which the author of the Dionysian Works writes on the most holy mystery of the Trinity are shown also to be an argument that he is not Dionysius the Areopagite.

The author of the Areopagitic Works the word hypostasis in the same, The author of the Dionysian Works, in the book On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 7, towards the end, writes thus: Let it suffice for the present to repeat this for the sake of memory, how that first order, illuminated by the divine goodness, as far as is fitting, with theological knowledge, afterwards transcribed it, as a beneficent hierarchy, to those following, teaching, to say it in brief, this: how the venerable and super-blessed and all-praiseworthy Divinity ought rightly to be proclaimed by the intelligences capable of God, as far as it can be known and celebrated by them, since they are, as it were, deiform, certain divine places, as the oracles testify, of the divine rest; and also how the monad and unity which is in three persons penetrates all things by its most benign providence from the supercelestial natures down to the lowest things of the earth. The praised author, therefore, in the place cited calls God ἑνάδα τρισυπόστατον, a unity subsisting in three persons, or which is in three persons; and in chapter 1, §4, On the Divine Names, he writes that God is adorned with praises, on account of the simplicity of His supernatural individuality, ὡς μονάδα καὶ ἑνάδα, as Unity; and as Trinity on account of the manifestation of His superessential fruitfulness in three Persons, ὡς τρίαδα δὲ διὰ την τρισυπόστατον τῆς ὑπερουσίου γονιμότητος ἔκφανσιν. And in chapter 2 of the same book, §4, ἡ ἐν ἀλλήλαις, εἰ οὕτω χρὴ φάναι, τῶν ἑναρχικῶν ὑποστάσεων μονὴ καὶ ἵδρυσις, ὁλικῶς ὑπερηνωμένη, the mutual abiding and collocation, if it is lawful so to speak, of the Divine Persons in one another, wholly united beyond measure into one. And somewhat after, §5, μόνη δὲ πηγὴ τῆς ὑπερουσίου θεότητος ὁ πατὴρ, οὐκ ὄντος ὑιου τοῦ πατρὸς, οὐδὲ πατρὸς τοῦ ὑιοῦ, φυλαττόντων δὲ τὰ οἰκεῖα τῶν ὕμνων εὐαγῶς ἑκάστῃ τῶν θεαρχικῶν ὑποστασεων, But the Father alone is the fount of the supersubstantial divinity, so that the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, but to each of the divine persons its own praises are preserved inviolate.

[148] uses rather often in the signification which is in the Latin word Person; A few lines before these words he had used the same word ὑποστασις in the same signification, and he does it again at the end of the same chapter in these following words: Every divine name proceeding from goodness, to whichever of the divine persons it be applied, is taken indiscriminately in the whole divine Trinity itself. Here are places certainly not few in which the author of the Dionysian Works uses the word ὑποστάσις in the same signification which is in the Latin word Persona, and several others besides in which he does this very thing could be assigned. The author indeed of the anonymous Dissertation on Dionysius the Areopagite, published in French by the Paris press in the year 1702, chapter 4, article XI, contends that in the Areopagite the word ὑποστάσις signifies not person but only something real, as this is opposed to that which exists only according to appearance or semblance, and in order to render this proved he transcribes in the margin the following text from the book On the Divine Names, chapter 2, §3. The supersubstantial name and thing of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, are distinct; but the word res occurring in this Latin interpretation is expressed in the Greek text which corresponds to it not by the word ὑποστάσις but by the word χρῆμα, and the word ὑπόστασις is employed everywhere so clearly to signify person in the said second chapter On the Divine Names, which the praised author cites, that by that chapter, if only attentively read through, he is abundantly confuted here, and it ought not therefore to detain us longer in this place. Here now is how Morin strives to prove from the said signification, in which that word is confidently employed by the author of the Dionysian Works, that he is not Dionysius the Areopagite.

[149] but since before the fourth century, The Greek theologians, he says, first began to use that name after the council of Alexandria, which was held in the year 362, the emperor Constantine having died, as Socrates testifies, book III, chapters IV and V. For the Confessors, recalled from exile, came together at Alexandria with saint Athanasius and many bishops, and among many other things which they treated, they explained the names οὐσίας and ὑποστάσεως, about which disputes had already arisen among the Catholics, and defined in what signification it was lawful to use them. "Further," (so Socrates in the last of the said chapters, in the interpretation of Christopherson) "the bishops who were present at the council of Alexandria examined this controversy about οὐσίᾳ … and ὑποστάσει …. For Hosius, bishop of Cordoba, a city of Spain, of whom we made mention before, sent by the emperor Constantine to allay the tumult stirred up by Arius, while of Sabellius

the African he was thinking to hiss off the dogma, disputed about οὐσίᾳ … and ὑποστάσει …; whence matter was supplied for another contention. But at that time not even a word was said about that controversy in the council of Nicaea; but after some began to fight about it, for that reason they decided these things about οὐσίᾳ … and ὑποστάσει … in this council; that it was not fitting, when discourse was set up about God, to use these words; for that the name οὐσίας, that is, of essence, is not found in the sacred Letters, and that the Apostle used the word ὑποστάσει … led by the necessity of handing on the dogmas. For the rest, they decreed that these words were to be admitted for a certain other reason, namely that they hiss off the opinion of Sabellius, lest through poverty of words we be compelled to think the thing which is called by a threefold name as though it were one, but that the single names of the Trinity may signify God in His proper subsisting person. These things were decreed at that time by the council."

[150] Hosius was the first (the words are now Morin's) to raise the question of this signification, disputing against the Sabellians. not in this signification, For the Sabellians contended that οὐσίαν and ὐπόστασιν are the same, and even tried to demonstrate this from the Nicene Creed, in which it is said, But if anyone shall say that the Son of God is of another οὑσίᾳ or ὐποστάσει; whom St. Basil refutes in the whole of Letter LXXVI. And since the Fathers of the council of Nicaea had defined nothing about this controversy, because it did not concern the Arians, and had been disputed by Hosius only in passing against the Sabellians, the Catholics, especially the Westerners, agreed with the Sabellians in this cause, and accused the Easterners of Arianism: and the Easterners in turn charged them with Sabellianism. Gregory Nazianzen pursues Athanasius with the greatest praises in the oration in his praise, because at the council of Alexandria he had prudently reconciled the Easterners dissenting with the Westerners. Thus Nazianzen, having explained the difficulty of essence and hypostasis and person which then vexed the Fathers, subjoins, "When that blessed man, and truly man of God and great steward of souls, perceived these things with his eyes and ears, he did not think he should dissemble and neglect so foolish and absurd a cutting up of the Orthodox faith; but brings the remedy to the disease as soon as possible. And in what manner did he do it? Both parties having been gently and kindly summoned, and the sense of the words having been diligently and accurately weighed, after he found them in agreement, and not disagreeing among themselves at all as to doctrine, he so settled the business that, granting them the use of the names, he bound them by the things." That you may see more plainly, reader, what Athanasius did in this cause, and on what thing the hinge of that question turned, read the synodal Letter of that synod to the Antiochenes in St. Athanasius.

[151] as by various reasons And that opinion which asserted that οὐσίαν is the same as ὑπόστασις was commonly embraced by the Westerners, even after the council of Alexandria, as is established from the LVIIth Letter of St. Jerome to Pope Damasus, in which he discourses at length on this matter. "Let it suffice us," he says, "to say one substance, three subsisting persons, perfect, coequal, coeternal. Let three hypostases be silenced, if it please, and one be held, &c." He judges that poison lurks under the name of hypostasis. Some Easterners also feared the same, as is evident from the most learned Letter of St. Basil to his brother Gregory of Nyssa on the difference of οὑσίας κεὶ ὐποστάσεως, which is the XLIIIrd among the Letters of Basil. The same is also gathered from the preceding Letter, XLI, to Maximus the Philosopher. At length, shortly after those times, the Alexandrian decree and the interpretation of St. Basil about οὐσίᾳ and ὐποστάσει prevailed with all the Catholics, both Eastern and Western, as is established from Theodoret in the dialogue Immutabilis, and from St. Augustine, book V On the Trinity, chapters VIII and IX, who does not doubt that in Greek three hypostases and one usia are rightly said, but in Latin shrinks from saying three substances, since the usage of the Latins bears one substance or essence, but three persons.

[152] is proved here, Since, therefore, that Dionysius confidently and without any hesitation proclaims God τρισυπόστατον, three hypostases in the deity, he manifestly shows, unawares, that he lived not only after the council of Alexandria and Saints Basil, Nazianzen and Nyssen, but also after the fourth century had ended. For whence could our Dionysius draw this distinction of ὑποστάσεως and οὐσίας from elsewhere than from the council of Alexandria and the Fathers already alleged? For before those times this signification of hypostasis and its distinction from usia was a thing altogether unknown, unheard of among all philosophers, theologians, historians, Christians and heathen. Therefore, when it was first devised and defined at the council of Alexandria in the year of Christ 362, it was so greatly contradicted, and at length towards the end of the fourth century was received with difficulty by all. St. Jerome testifies this in the place already alleged, affirming that hypostasis differs in nothing from usia. "The whole school," he says, "of secular letters knows hypostasis as nothing else but usia, and who with sacrilegious mouth will proclaim three substances?" And a little after: "Whoever says that there are three, that is, three hypostases, that is, usias, tries under the name of piety to assert three natures." Socrates testifies the same, book III of the History, chapter V. After he has diligently turned over this difficulty, "Those," he says, "who strive to explain Greek wisdom and learning among the Greeks have defined that οὐσίαν is taken in many ways; but of hypostasis they made no mention of any kind. Nay rather Irenaeus the Grammarian, in the Dictionary of the Attic tongue, calls it a barbarous word. For he asserts that it is found in no ancient writer; and that if it is found anywhere by chance, it does not signify the thing for which it is now taken. For in Sophocles, in the Phoenix, ὑπόστασιν signifies an ambush, and in Menander seasonings: it can also be said of the lees of wine in a jar." This last signification is usual with the ancient and more recent Physicians.

[153] Socrates adds of his own sense: "But although this word was not used by the ancient philosophers, but in another far different yet the more recent philosophers often misused it for οὐσίᾳ." The opinion of Socrates can be illustrated by these words of the author of the book On the world, which is attributed to Aristotle, τῶν ἐν ἄερι φαντασμάτων τὰ μέν ἐστι κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν, τὰ δὲ κατ᾽ ὑπόστασιν, and also of Themistius on the Physics 2, οἱ δὲ τὰς ἰδέας λέγοντες, ἃ μηδὲ τῷ λόγῳ χωριστὰ, ταῦτα καὶ ὑποστάσει χωρίζουσι. For in these places hypostasis is opposed to those things which appear and exist only in semblance. In the same signification Dionysius used ὑπόστασιν in chapter IV On the Divine Names, discoursing philosophically on the nature of evil, Evil, insofar as it is evil, effects no essence or origin, but only depraves and corrupts, as far as is in it, την τῶν ὄντων ὑπόστασιν, the essence and nature of the things that are, and in the same chapter, διὸ οὔτε ὑπόστασιν ἔχει τὸ κακὸν, ἀλλὰ παρυπόστασιν. Nor did the ancient interpreters of sacred Scripture understand it otherwise. This expression is found only five times in the New Testament: twice in the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter IX, verse IV, and chapter XI, verse XVII, and three times in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but everywhere the ancient interpreter translates "Substance." So also the ancient Latin translation of the seventy Interpreters, as is proved from the Latin interpretation which Flaminio Nobili collected from ancient authors and which was edited at Rome by order of Pope Sixtus V. Where ὑπόστασις is read in Greek, two or three places excepted, it is always translated Substantia in Latin, for example Psalm XXXVIII, verses VI and VIII, Psalm LXVIII, verse 2, Psalm LXXXVIII, verse XLVI, Psalm CXXXVIII, verse XV, although the translation of the Psalms was corrected by St. Jerome.

[154] But where it is not translated substance, was only used, it wanders much further from the signification which the council of Alexandria attributed to it. Deuteronomy I, verse XII: "How can I alone bear your trouble, καὶ ὑπόστασιν ὑμῶν, and your weight?" In I Kings, chapter XIII, verse XXIII, it is said of Jonathan, "And he went out from the station of the foreigners beyond Michmash," in Greek καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐξ ὐποστάσεως. In verse XXI of the same chapter it is translated substance. So in the following chapter, verse IV: "Jonathan sought to pass over to the station of the foreigners," εἰς την ὑπόστασιν τῶν ἀλλοφύλων. In Jeremiah XXIII, verse XXII, it is rendered subsistence, "If they had stood in my subsistence, and if they had heard my words," ἐι ἔστησαν ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει μου, in the same sense as substance, as is manifest: and saint Jerome testifies that the Seventy and Theodotion interpreted the Hebrew word "substance" or "subsistence," "Aquila secret, Symmachus speech." Thus far Morin; and although, contrary to what he seems to mean at the beginning, the word ὑπόστασις is found, from what is to be said below, to have been used even before the council of Alexandria of the year 362 for Person from time to time, though most rarely, it nevertheless appears beyond doubt that this was not done before the council of Nicaea of the year 325, or the IVth century. Further, the same Morin, presently after the words just recited, having transcribed also two Hebrew words, of which one corresponds to the Greek word ὑπόστασις in the text of Jeremiah of the Vulgate just adduced, and the other the Seventy and Theodotion seem to have read in it, and having alleged the different significations which are ascribed to them, observes that these differ much from the signification which the council of Alexandria attributed to the word ὑπόστασις, and then rightly proceeds to argue in the following manner: If that Dionysius did not draw this signification from the Fathers of the fourth century, whence then was it constant and fixed for him? Not from the theologians, not from the philosophers, not from the historians and grammarians, both heathen and Christian, not from sacred Scripture. Everywhere up to those times this distinction was unknown.

[155] [thence it is rightly argued that those Works were not composed before the same century,] When anyone detects the name ὁμοούσιον in some writing of an author, he at once judges, and no one contradicts, that that writing was composed after the council of Nicaea: much more when ὑπόστασιν and τρισυπόστατον in that signification. Surely it is much more unusual to read in ancient authors three hypostases in God, one οὐσίαν χαὶ θεότητα, than homoousion. St. Jerome, who turned over day and night so many Greek Fathers, ancient authors, had detected no testimony of this signification in them, and therefore could not be driven to confess three hypostases: nor could the Easterners who opposed him allege any for defending their opinion. How suitable and fitting for convincing Jerome would those testimonies of Dionysius the Areopagite have been? Yet no one opposes them. Catholics and Arians, when Jerome was at Antioch, both importunately demanded of him that he confess three hypostases, "Now, alas," he says in Letter LVII, "after the Nicene faith, after the decree of Alexandria, the West likewise joined, the new name of three hypostases is demanded of me, a Roman man, by the prelate of the Arians and by the Campenses. Who, I ask, of the Apostles handed these things down? What new Master of the gentiles

Paul taught these things, we ask, &c." It was easy to answer St. Jerome, Dionysius the Areopagite, the disciple of the Doctor of the gentiles, taught this, handed this down to the churches. Then Euzoius, prelate of the Arians of Antioch, ought to have brought forward the Works of Dionysius the Areopagite lying hidden among his brethren, if any were then known to him. Why do I say Euzoius? Since the whole West was unwilling to admit three hypostases in God with the Arians, all the bishops of the Western Arians ought to have dug out the Works of Dionysius, so that the Western Catholics might be convinced thence. Will anyone say that the Western Catholics hid them, lest they be convinced by the Eastern Catholics and by the Arians?

[156] nor is this argument, either by the things which are alleged here, All these things thus far Morin; but, the Areopagitics reply, it cannot be doubted that the Apostles expounded the adorable mystery of the most holy Trinity to the first Christians, especially the more perfect, not obscurely but clearly and plainly, and providently and diligently fortified them against heresies perhaps to be born, leaving absolutely nothing in the doctrine of that most difficult mystery wrapped in obscurities. What wonder, then, if Dionysius, the disciple of St. Paul the apostle and most skilled in Philosophy, explained the doctrine of the same mystery handed down to him by him in clearer words than other writers have done, and accordingly used the word ὑπόστασις to signify a person of the most holy Trinity? So they; but the Church of Christ, says Facundus of Hermiane in book 1 On the Three Chapters, chapter 3, even when it did not yet use the name of Person for distinguishing the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, believed and preached three, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Moreover it likewise cannot be doubted that the disciples of the Apostles and then their followers plainly explained the mystery of the most holy Trinity to the Christians to whom they handed on the dogmas of the faith, and also studied most diligently to fortify them against heresies to be born, light being added to obscure things. How, then, did it come about that the Fathers who flourished before the universal council of Nicaea, held in the year 325, nay even the Fathers of this council themselves, as St. Athanasius hints in the Letter to Jovian, used the word ὑπόστασις to signify not Person but Substance or οὐσίαν? The answer of the Areopagitics just related therefore proves too much and accordingly is nothing; and so, its further discussion being dismissed, let us now examine the other things which they are wont to answer to the argument of Morin proposed above.

[157] Although, they say, the use of this word hypostasis before the council of Nicaea was not so frequent and indiscriminate, or by other reasons, which are likewise reviewed here, it is nevertheless established that it was used by some. For Dionysius of Alexandria is read to have employed it once in the Letter to Paul of Samosata. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, writing to another Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, He declared, he says, his own hypostasis, saying: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God &c." Finally Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa praised by Theophylact, affirm that by these words of Paul, χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἀυτοῦ, the person of the eternal Father is designated. But even if it were conceded that there was no use of this word before the Dionysian times, it would nevertheless have to be admitted that there existed among Christians someone by whom it first began to be used. What, then, prevents Dionysius, a man most skilled in philosophical discipline, who knew the force of this word, handed down somewhere by Aristotle, from being said to have been the first among Christians to use it in the same sense and signification as that prince of philosophers? Thus in so many and almost the same words, in Le Nourry, Dissertation on the Works of St. Dionysius, chapter 14, the Areopagitics propose the other things which, as I have just said, they are wont to bring forward besides to tear up the reasoning of Morin brought forward above. But hear how the praised Le Nourry meets these too, which are partly to be refuted further by me below, in the place just cited.

[158] The things which … (I allege the very words of this writer, inasmuch as both these by Le Nourry changed only a little, where either a fault to be corrected or clarity of expression requires it) are adduced to prove the use of the word ὑποστάσεως seem to have nothing of solidity and support. For the more learned critics easily recognise that the Letter of Dionysius of Alexandria is falsely attributed to him and spurious. And as for the other letter, of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, to the other Alexander, no one can define at what time it was written. Baronius indeed thinks that it was given in the year 328, to which he assigns the death of Licinius; but he rests on a ruinous foundation. For Licinius ended his life not in the year 328 but in 324, as it seems to writers of more accurate criticism. Let us grant, however, that Alexander wrote his letter at the time Baronius would have it; what thence? Surely it ought to be no wonder to anyone that the word hypostasis was used by a man so near to the times of the Alexandrian synod held in the year 362; but this is certainly more wonderful, that no writer, as Petau shows, thought that he should follow in these footsteps of so great a man except after the Alexandrian synod. Which certainly demonstrates openly how little that word was in use at the beginning of the fourth century, and a fortiori in the earlier centuries.

[159] the opposing reasons being confuted, it is weakened. Nor has that any more strength and force which is objected, that this word both occurs in the Epistle to the Hebrews and is explained by Basil and Gregory in the Dionysian sense. For both Basil and Gregory wrote after the council of Nicaea, just as Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, mentioned above; and these interpreted that word in the sense usual in their times. But no one before that council judged that the same word of Paul was to be explained so. And this indeed is so certain that in the Latin version of the same Pauline Epistle the Greek word ὑπόστασις is read rendered not by the Latin hypostasis but figure of the substance. Finally, what they say, that our author was perhaps the first by whom the same word was taken in the said sense, is feigned altogether gratuitously. For our author (namely the writer of the Areopagitic Works) disputes about it, as will become most plain to anyone running through the places cited, as if the sense which he attributes to it, unknown to absolutely no one, had been received by all. Thus far the praised Le Nourry, or, if you prefer, the Anti-Areopagitics whose opinion he here defends; and some of these indeed contend altogether — which, however, the praised Le Nourry does not seem to do in the words recited — that not even the Apostle Paul himself, in chapter 1 of the Epistle written to the Hebrews, used the word ὑπόστασις to signify person, but substance or essence, adding in confirmation of their opinion that Epiphanius also, in Heresy 69, clearly takes the aforesaid word of Paul, which is rendered Substance by the Latin interpreter of sacred Scripture, for essence.

[160] Cozza indeed, that the word hypostasis was used by Paul himself for Person, But to these Cozza replies in the following manner in the Vindiciae Areopagiticae, part 2, chapter 12, §1, number 9: In my judgment the aforesaid adversaries, namely the Anti-Areopagitics, do not seem to think rightly, because, their answer standing, it would have to be said that it is signified by Paul in the place cited that the Son is the figure not of the person but of the essence of the Father, and so the Word of God would be the image of the divine Essence, which is not willingly granted by the Fathers. For Basil, Letter XLIII, Gregory of Nyssa in the book On the difference of suppositum and essence, and others admit that the Son and Word of God is the image not of the essence but of the Father, although in essence, or the ground by which He is the image of the Father is the essence, as it subsists in the begotten Son. And the reason is because the Son is the image of him whose son He is. For the image is separated from the exemplar, as the thing produced from the producer; but the divine Word is the Son not of the essence of the Father, but the Son of the suppositum and Person of the Father. He will therefore be the image of the Person of the Father, not of the essence, by whom He was begotten in likeness of nature, or rather in identity of nature. For if He were called image of the essence of the Father, from which He cannot be said to be begotten, in the same way He could also be called image of the Holy Spirit on account of identity of essence, and the Holy Spirit himself could be called image of the Son and of the Father, and the Father image of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, which no one concedes. The Word, therefore, is the image of the person of the Father, because, as living, begotten by the living Father, in likeness of nature, with the principle of life conjoined, as theologians speak.

[161] and that the Apostle is so expounded also by Epiphanius, by two texts of his Nor does Epiphanius expound otherwise in heresy LXIX: for there he intends only to prove that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and, answering a certain argument of the adversaries who said that the name Substance for indicating the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father is not found in sacred Scripture, he says it is very well found in Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying: "Being the brightness of glory and the figure of his substance"; from which words he means that the Son in His hypostasis is the figure and image of the Father by reason of the substance and nature common to both. His words are: "For the Lord is in His hypostasis both the brightness of glory and the figure of His substance. Substance, therefore, is not something available like faculties, but that very thing which is, as Moses said. He who is hath sent me, he says to the children of Israel. Therefore He who is, is being, so to speak; and this is nothing else than substance"; and he proceeds proving that there is the same substance or essence in the Father and the Son, by reason of which the Son is the figure and image of the Father. Thence it is that, when he says that the Son is like the Father, he never says that He is like the substance of the Father, but the person of the Father; wherefore in heresy LXXIII, chapter XV, treating professedly of this likeness of the Son with the Father, he says: "This is admitted among all, that neither is the Father like Himself, nor the Son like Himself, but that the Son is like the Father, and by that very fact, that He is like the Father in all things, is the Son, not the Father. Who indeed was begotten perfectly of the perfect Father, before all understanding and every reckoning and times and ages, from the likeness of the Father, in the manner which the Father alone knows, who begot Him from Himself without any passion."

[162] And in chapter XXXI, explaining in terms how the Son is the image of the Father, tries to prove by the texts alleged; he says: "It was right to believe that the Son is like the Father, since He who pervades all things, and through whom all things were produced both in heaven and on earth, is the image of Him who is above all. And an image of such a kind, not as is the figure of an animate thing, which is without soul, nor as the making of art or the work of making, but as that which is begotten is of the begetter. And since, besides, it is impious to transfer to the generation of the Only-begotten, which is prior to all ages, the proper marks and conditions of bodily and human generation; and finally, since after the example of that wisdom which human thoughts

embraces, so the generation of the Son must be required, that He nevertheless subsists and exists of Himself." Epiphanius, therefore, nowhere says that the Son is the image of the substance of the Father, but only of the person of the Father, though by reason of the nature common to both, communicated to the Son by generation from the Father; therefore neither could he use the name of Substance, to which Paul writes that the Son is like, for essence or nature, but for the person or hypostasis of the Father, to which he often proved that the Son is like. And it being gratuitously conceded that Epiphanius in that place of Paul does not take person for substance, but the very divine nature of the Father, consubstantial with the Son, as the adversaries contend; since Chrysostom, Theodoret, Basil and Gregory take substance there for the person of the Father, I oppose these sacred writers, contemporary with Epiphanius, to the same Epiphanius. Thus far the praised writer, contending that the word ὑπόστασις, which is employed by Paul the Apostle in the place cited above, necessarily signifies person there, and was not taken by Epiphanius in another signification; but that both the latter and the former are foreign to the truth, or at least very doubtful, will be clear from the things which I shall presently adduce, as soon as I have shown that neither do the writers whom he opposes to St. Epiphanius much help his cause, if he is perhaps to be said to have taken the word ὑπόστασις, employed by Paul in the place cited, for substance or essence. He first praises for his purpose Chrysostom, Theodoret, Basil and Gregory; but these wrote no sooner than when the council of Nicaea of the year 325 had already been held, and at that time, although rarely indeed, yet from time to time, especially after the council of Alexandria of the year 362, after which the same holy Fathers also prolonged their life, some Greek writers, as we freely admit, began to use the word ὑπόστασις to signify Person, others on the contrary still continuing to interpret it substance; so that it is no wonder that the mentioned holy Fathers interpreted the word ὑπόστασις, used by Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as Person.

[163] but neither the writers whom he cites for his purpose, Cozza himself observed this, and hence he presently adds to these some other writers also, earlier than the council of Nicaea, namely Tertullian, Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus and Dionysius of Alexandria, all of whom he contends likewise used the word hypostasis to signify a Person of the most holy Trinity. But the text which he brings forward to prove the matter as regards Tertullian, a Latin writer of the 2nd century, contains the word Person indeed, but not likewise, which would nevertheless be necessary, the word hypostasis. The same is the case with the texts which he brings forward to establish the matter as regards Origen and Gregory Thaumaturgus, both Greek writers of the IIIrd century. Nor does it matter that in the Latin interpretation of those Greek texts, which alone he reviews, the word person is used to signify the Persons in divine things; for Cozza himself sufficiently indicates that the word ὑπόστασις was employed by the two aforesaid writers in neither of those Greek texts to signify a Person of the Most holy Trinity, when, having recited those texts of theirs which I mentioned, he presently subjoins of Dionysius of Alexandria alone that he uses the word hypostasis in open words in the Letter against Paul of Samosata, in the Answer to question 4. Now as regards by name the said Dionysius of Alexandria, who himself also flourished in the IIIrd century, in very truth in the Letter which is circulated as written by that holy bishop against Paul of Samosata the Greek word ὑποστάσις is used to signify Person in divine things; but whether that Letter in very truth has that holy patriarch of Alexandria as its author is very doubtful and uncertain, as everyone will gather from the things which were disputed with us in tome 2 of October, in the Appendix on the Works of that Saint, chapters 5 and 6, concerning the letters of Dionysius against Paul of Samosata.

[164] has as patrons, And indeed that that Letter was falsely attributed to Dionysius of Alexandria by a writer of a later age can seem more probable even from this very fact, that in it, as has been said, the word ὑπόστασις is employed to signify person, which in this signification is found employed by absolutely no other writer of the IIIrd century, in which Dionysius of Alexandria flourished. Hence also falls what Cozza, who himself does not admit the praised letter against Paul of Samosata as an undoubted offspring of Dionysius of Alexandria, insinuates besides, namely that it cannot be denied that it was at least written by someone who flourished at the same time as Dionysius of Alexandria, namely in the IIIrd century. Moreover, even if I were to grant that the word ὑπόστασις was at times employed to signify person even as early as the IIIrd century, it would not yet follow even so that the said letter to Paul of Samosata, if it does not have Dionysius of Alexandria as its author, was written by a contemporary writer. For why could it not have come about that it was written equally by an author of the fifth or sixth century as by one of the third century, and falsely attributed to Dionysius of Alexandria? Does anything perhaps occur in the praised letter which would prevent this from being believed to have happened? But Cozza alleges nothing of the kind, nor does it appear that anything can be alleged. Whether, therefore, the author who wrote the letter which we are here treating flourished in the third or only in a later century is at least very doubtful, and accordingly it cannot be concluded for certain, from the word ὑπόστασις which is employed in it to signify a Person of the Most holy Trinity, that that word was used in this signification as early as the third century.

[165] Let us now discuss whether indeed, as Cozza contends in the reasoning transcribed above, nor did Epiphanius take the word hypostasis employed by Paul for Person, that word is taken in the said signification in Paul the Apostle, saying of the Son of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ὁ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστασεως ἀυτοῦ, the figure of his hypostasis, and was so taken also by Epiphanius against the heresies, book 2, tome 2, Heresy 69, number 70. That we may carry out the matter in the best way that can be done, it will help to have transcribed the very words bearing on this which that holy Father utters in the place cited against the Arians, who denied that the Son of God is consubstantial with the Father. They are the following: In this manner they (namely the Arians) are wont to press. Whence, they say, have we that name of Substance? Or why is the Son said to be consubstantial with the Father? In what place of Scripture is mention made of consubstantiality? Who of the Apostles ever named the substance of God? For this, namely, they are ignorant of, that to say hypostasis or substance is the same. For the Lord is in His hypostasis also "the Brightness of glory and the figure of His substance." Substance, therefore, is not something available like faculties, but that very thing which is, as Moses says. "He who is hath sent me," he says to the children of Israel. Therefore He who is, is being, so to speak; and this is nothing else than substance. Thus far the praised Epiphanius; and since he insinuates that to say hypostasis or substance is the same, and at the same time, in order to render proved that some one of the Apostles named the substance of God, adduces the text of Paul to the Hebrews already praised more than once, it appears beyond doubt that the word ὑπόστασις employed in it was taken by that holy Father not for Person but for Substance.

[166] Cozza indeed (go to his words recited above) contends or at least whether he did so, that the Son of God is called by Epiphanius the image or figure not of the substance of the Father but only of the Person, and hence that the very name of Substance, of which Paul writes in the Epistle to the Hebrews that the Son is the figure, is used by that holy Father not for essence or nature but only for the Person or hypostasis of the Father; but Epiphanius, as Cozza himself admits, tries by the words just recited and by some others which he subjoins immediately to these to prove against the Arians that the Son of God is consubstantial or connatural with the Father, and to this end alleges the very often mentioned text of Paul to the Hebrews; and since, if Epiphanius had taken the name of Substance occurring in it for Person, that text would by no means have conduced to the purpose of this holy Father just stated, as will be clear to anyone attentively considering the matter, it does not seem to be doubted that the same holy Father took the name of Substance used in it not for the Person of the Father but for the nature or essence, contrary to what Cozza thought. Nor does what this writer had set down there beforehand to establish his opinion appear to accord with the truth. For Epiphanius nowhere affirms that the Son is the image of the Person of the Father only. He does indeed relate, in the second of the two texts which Cozza alleges above, that the Son of God is the image or figure of the Father, as that which is begotten is the figure of the Begetter; but whether He is the image of the substance of the Father or only of the Person he does not openly declare. Nor will you prove that Epiphanius is to be understood of the Person of the Father, of which alone the Son is the image, if you argue with Cozza (go to his reasoning transcribed above) that the Son or Word of God is the image of him whose Son He is; and that He is the Son not of the essence or nature but of the Person of the Father; for although the Word of God is certainly not the Son of the nature of the Father, or the divine nature, considered in itself, nothing seems nevertheless to prevent Him from being called the Son of the divine nature as it is the Father's, or as it is both contained by the Father and marked with the paternal characteristics.

[167] is very doubtful, as also whether that word for person, All things, therefore, having been accurately weighed, it is at least very doubtful whether Epiphanius took the word ὑπόστασις, which is employed by Paul the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, for Person or to signify Person. Nor is it more certain whether it was taken in this signification by Paul the Apostle himself. For since the Son of God, although indeed, as I have already shown, He is not the figure or image of the nature of the Father, or the divine nature, considered in itself, may nevertheless not ineptly be called the figure or image of the said divine nature as it is the Father's and is marked with the paternal characteristics, nothing at all seems to prevent the word hypostasis, in these words of Paul to the Hebrews, ὁ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑπόστασεως ἀυτοῦ, the figure of His hypostasis, that is, of God the Father, from being taken as well for Substance as for Person; and since this is so, it must needs be very doubtful whether he took or used it for Person or on the contrary for Substance; nay rather, since the ancient interpreter of sacred Scripture took the said word of Paul for Substance, as I have already noted above, it appears more probable that it was taken by Paul also in the same signification, especially since neither by Paul nor by anyone else before the council of Alexandria, held in the year 362, is it found defined clearly enough what hypostasis or person was.

[168] which is confused by heathen philosophers with individual nature, Anastasius, in the book which is entitled ὁδηγὸς, in Latin

Guide of the way, chapter 6, writes thus: Aristotle says that persons are particular essences or singular natures. And Theorianus, in the embassy to the Armenians, says, The outside wise men define the individual, or hypostasis, and that which is one in number, as οὐσίαν, which certainly the divine Fathers do not admit. For those God-bearing Fathers say that οὐσίαν and nature are universals, which the outside writers called form or species. Therefore in the holy Trinity they professed one nature and οὐσίαν; but three hypostases, the nature, namely, and οὐσίᾳ containing several hypostases. So he; and since, as he here teaches, Aristotle confused individual nature with Person or hypostasis, and was accordingly ignorant of the signification by which something other than nature is understood by the word ὑπόστασις, indeed the author of the Areopagitic Works could not have learned from Aristotle the force by which the said word signifies only Person, and could not have been the first among Christians to employ it in this signification after the example of the prince of philosophers, contrary to what the Areopagitics (go to number 157) contend. Further, since the outside or heathen philosophers confused singular substance or individual nature with hypostasis or Person, as I have already shown from Anastasius, hence it came about that Sabellius indeed laid down one substance and one Person in God, while Arius laid down three substances or natures and also three hypostases or Persons. Nor did the error by which Nestorius laid down, as two natures in Christ, so also two Persons, arise from elsewhere. But the holy Fathers, in order to meet the said errors of those heretics, and to preserve pure and entire the doctrine of the Church, which, as Facundus of Hermiane witnesses, as I have already noted above, even then, when it did not yet use the name of Person for distinguishing the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, always believed and preached three, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, separated οὐσίαν or nature from hypostasis and Person, and distinguished them as the common from the proper.

[169] What relation, says Basil in Letter 349, the common has to the proper, and what it is is set forth, was employed by Paul himself; … the same has οὐσία to hypostasis. Cyril of Alexandria speaks in almost the same way in Letter 291. If, says Theodoret in Dialogue 1, which he entitled Immutabilis, the doctrine of the Fathers be regarded, what difference the common and the proper have, or the genus and the species and the individual, the same have substance and hypostasis. Hence it came about that at length, after the council of Alexandria held in the year 362, hypostasis or Person was for the most part defined or described by the theologians thus: An intellectual nature, terminated and complete, which is neither the same in several nor united to a worthier one so as to become its or be held by it. And from this definition, or, if you prefer, description, it is rightly understood that there are three Persons or hypostases in the Most holy Trinity, but not likewise two in Christ; but it appears very difficult to believe that the hypostasis of which Paul the Apostle writes to the Hebrews that the Son is the image or figure was either taken or understood by Paul in the manner in which hypostasis or Person is described in its definition just now given. Hence, further, it now comes about that it becomes much more probable still that the name hypostasis was taken by Paul there not for Person but for the Substance or nature of the Father, or the divine nature, not indeed simply as it is divine nature, but as it is the Father's and is marked with the paternal characteristics. And if, further, it should perhaps still displease anyone to call the Son of God the image of the divine Substance as it is the Father's and is marked with the paternal characteristics, there seems indeed to be no reason why he should shrink from calling the Son the image or figure of the thing signified by the Father.

[170] What, then, if Paul, by the hypostasis of the Father, of which he affirms the Son is the figure [and although he perhaps used the said word here for the thing signified by the father, yet] in the Epistle to the Hebrews, very often praised above, understood nothing other than the thing signified by the Father, which, as I have already shown above, is asserted by the author of the Dionysian Works, book On the Divine Names, chapter 2, §3, to be distinguished from the thing signified by the Son and likewise from the thing signified by the Holy Spirit? Indeed it seems to me by no means to shrink from every appearance of truth that the word hypostasis, which has very diverse significations, as Morin teaches in the words recited above, was in very truth taken in this signification by Paul the Apostle in the place cited. Nor is there reason for you to reply that the word hypostasis, if it be used by Paul only for thing when he says in the place cited above that the Son is the figure of God the Father, is perhaps used likewise in the same signification by the author of the Dionysian Works whenever, speaking in them of the divine Persons, he employs the word ὑπόστασις, and that accordingly the frequent use of it which occurs in the said author cannot prevent him from being held for the Areopagite; for absolutely no indication occurs in the same Apostle from which you could in any way gather that the word ὑπόστασις is not used by Paul the Apostle in the place cited only for the thing signified by the Father, whereas meanwhile the author of the Dionysian Works, when in the book On the Divine Names, §3, he sets up discourse about the thing signified by the Father, expresses the Latin word res in Greek not by the word ὑπόστασις but by the word χρῆμα; which is an argument, at least of a sort, that in other places, in which, speaking of the divine Persons, he employs the word ὑπόστασις, it is by no means used by him only for the thing signified by these.

[171] the author of the Dionysian Works is shown to have taken it for person, Moreover, these Greek words of Paul, ὁ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἀυτοῦ, are assuredly rendered not ineptly in Latin, the figure of the thing signified by Him (namely God the Father); but these words of the book On the Divine Names, §5, τῶν ἑναρχικῶν ὑποστάσεων and τῶν θεαρχικῶν ὑποστασεων, would be rendered in Latin only ineptly, of the principal things and of the divine things. That I may make this plain, it pleases me first to transcribe here the Latin interpretation of the longer Greek text in which the said Greek words are included. It runs thus: There is moreover in the superessential names of God a distinction by which not only, as I have said, according to the very union each of the principal persons is placed unmixed and unconfused; but also the things which belong to that supersubstantial divine generation are by no means reciprocal among themselves. So that the Father alone is the fount in the supersubstantial deity, and thus the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, but to each of the divine persons its own praises are preserved inviolate. Consider now attentively the phrases of this Latin text, and the single words in which they are couched, and I do not doubt that you will admit that the name thing cannot be substituted for the name Person, which is employed twice in the said text, and that the Greek words just transcribed here are accordingly altogether ineptly to be rendered in Latin by these, Of the principal things and of the divine things. And since this is so, and those same Greek words ought accordingly to be expounded in Latin by these following, of the principal persons and of the divine persons, it is not to be doubted that in the Greek text to which the Latin interpretation just given corresponds the name ὑπόστασις is employed by the author of the Dionysian Works to signify Person (for neither is it used there for Substance, since it is put in the plural number and there is only one divine Substance or nature).

[172] [and hence and from some other things it is concluded that this cannot be the Areopagite.] Nor is this done by him only in the place of the book On the Divine Names just now mentioned, but also in several others already assigned above; so that whoever has read that book cannot but be convinced that the signification in which the word hypostasis is used for Person was fixed and constant for the author of the Dionysian Works, just as if it had been known and received everywhere by all in his age. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and, as I showed above, the aforesaid word was never once employed to signify Person before the council of Nicaea of the year 325, and only rarely before the Alexandrian synod of the year 362, nay rather, since not a few even after that synod contended that the same word was either not to be used at all in this signification, or at least used it only rather timidly, this indeed is a most strong argument that the Dionysian Works were not composed as early as the first century or the beginning of the second, and accordingly cannot have our Saint as their author; especially since in the council of Nicaea, as also in that of Alexandria, held in the year 362, where there was most keen dispute about the use of the word ὑπόστασις for signifying Person in divine things, the authority of the author of the Dionysian Works is nowhere read to have been alleged by absolutely any of the Fathers for confirming or introducing that use; nay no writer at all before the fifth century is found to have cited those Works to the aforesaid end; which nevertheless, if the same Works had already then been composed, could have happened only with the greatest difficulty. Let us now undertake to propose in the following chapter two other arguments besides, of which the Areopagitics seek the one from the things which the author of the Areopagitic Works writes of the Monks, the other from the things which he writes of the Ecclesiastical ceremonies customarily employed in his age.

CHAPTER XII.

The things which the author of the Dionysian Works records of the monks, and of the ceremonies and sacred rites customarily employed in his age, demonstrate that he cannot be the Areopagite.

Since the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy mentions monks, and the monks, The author of the Dionysian Works, having said beforehand some things in the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 6, about the monks who existed in his age and the various appellations by which they were named, by some Therapeutae and by others Monks, presently sets forth the rite by which they were wont to be consecrated; and since he thus insinuates not obscurely that monks, distinguished from the rest of the Christians by tonsure and dress, existed in his age, nay that an Order of monks of this kind had been instituted even before it, and at the same time most openly relates that their profession was made with solemn and public ceremonies, just as in the Vth and VIth century, Le Nourry contends thence that the book just praised is to be denied to Dionysius the Areopagite, arguing in the following manner in the Dissertation on the Works of saint Dionysius, very often praised above, chapter 15: besides that the writers of the first centuries of the Church, and even those very ones who at the same times discoursed more accurately of the single orders of Christians, made no mention of the monastic order or of the profession of monks; certainly some most learned and most ancient investigators of Monastic Affairs refer their origin to the Pauls, Antonys and Pachomiuses. Our author, therefore, must be later than these, and cannot be called Dionysius the Areopagite.

[174] The Areopagitics, however, think that they solve without difficulty this knot of no small difficulty although the Areopagitics also distinguish a twofold kind of these, by the distinction of a twofold kind of monks. For they say that one is the kind of cenobites and hermits, who, wholly withdrawn from the people and from the society of other men

separated, led the monastic life in monasteries and cenobia or in woods and mountains. These they admit arose long after the age of Dionysius, and not before the times of Paul, Antony and Pachomius. But they contend that there was another kind of monks, who, as the chief part of the people and the more illustrious portion of the flock of Christ, were so reckoned among the laity that the first place was assigned them in the synaxis after the ministers of the Church. These, further, led privately in their houses in the cities, or together in colleges, a life pure and chaste and free from earthly cares and devoted to God alone. And they say that these monks existed in the times of the Apostles, and assert that they are those of whom Philo the Jew set up that discourse which has been transcribed by Eusebius in his History. Nor should you say that these, whom Philo calls not monks but Therapeutae, were not really monks, but devoted to the Jewish, and by no means to the Christian, religion, and that Eusebius was deceived in this matter by a vain error, as his learned interpreter Valois observes. For you will hear from the Areopagitics that the proofs of Valois against his author are null and utterly frivolous. And certainly, they say, Eusebius, a man of the highest learning, cannot without the mark of rashness be charged with so shameful a hallucination in discerning the religion of the Therapeutae. They add besides that Jerome subscribed to this opinion of Eusebius about the Christian religion of the Therapeutae in these words: "Philo, seeing the first Church at Alexandria still judaizing, wrote a book about their manner of life as if in praise of his own nation."

[175] in the age of Dionysius, as by various reasons, But surely let the Areopagitics demonstrate by invincible arguments, if it can be done, that the Therapeutae gave their name to the Christian religion; we allow it; but that they ever led the monastic life such as is described by our author they will prove, as it is thought, by no monument of antiquity ever. For first we dismiss the things which our writer (was it not Philo?) handed down of his monks (rather Therapeutae), that they lived not in cities but, having gone forth outside the cities, in gardens and little fields, and were accordingly like the Antonians, which others deny. But this above all we ask, why Eusebius, who strove with so great effort to prove that the Philonian Therapeutae were to be numbered among the Christians, nowhere said that they were monks, or had successors who, separated from all Christians by dress, tonsure, solemn vows and manner of life, professed the more perfect rule of the monastic life. Why does Jerome, so great a herald of the monastic profession, not refer the same Therapeutae to the number of the monks, and mingles and confounds them with all the other Christians of the first Church? Beyond doubt no other reason will be able to be brought forward than that neither the Therapeutae at the beginning of the nascent Church, nor any Christians in the time of Dionysius, were such monks as are recorded by our author.

[176] into the open And this indeed can be confirmed again by this, that the first times of the persecutions raging against the Christians did not bear the monastic institute. For who would persuade himself that the tyrants and worshippers of idols, who raged with the greatest cruelty against all Christians, bore with impunity those who, living in common in colleges, were more conspicuous than the other Christians by tonsure and dress and a more perfect kind of life? "The priest," says our author, "stands before the altar; … but he who is being consecrated, behind the priest …, nor does he have the Scriptures over his head … but only stands by the priest, who pursues the mystic invocation over him. Which being finished, the priest, approaching him, asks him first whether he renounces all divisible things, not only lives but also imaginings. Then he sets forth to him the most perfect life, solemnly charging him that he ought to surpass the middle manner of living. When he who is being initiated has professed all these things, the priest, having signed him with the sign of the cross, tonsures him … and, every garment being taken off, clothes him in another." But who ever committed to memory that in the first times of the Church any monk, distinguished by dress and tonsure from the other men of the Christian religion, was seen in public, or taken by the pagans, and tortured or killed?

[177] Where, I ask, is any college in which monks lived together adduced here, read to have been plundered or overthrown by pagans or emperors? If you say that something not altogether unlike these occurs in certain Acts of some martyr, it will at once be argued that those Acts are neither genuine nor sincere, and that nothing is certainly defined by their writers about the time at which that martyr died. Finally our author relates that the name of Therapeutes and Monk was worn and common in his time, and was given by his teachers to Christians solemnly professing the monastic rite. "Hence our holy teachers," he says, "pursued them with divine appellations: some called them Therapeutae, others Monks: οἱ μὲν θεραπευτὰς, οἱ δὲ μοναχοὺς ὀνομάζοντες." Who, I beseech, could these teachers of Dionysius be, who imposed those names and divine appellations on them? Not Philo indeed. For he, since he was a Jew, could not have been praised by Dionysius the Areopagite as one of his holy teachers. Who, then, are called by him teachers? Hierotheus, or others whose name has dropped out and whose memory has vanished? But these must have been celebrated in their times, and easily known to all. Why, then, did these alone, with their disciple Dionysius the Areopagite, in the first, second and third century of the Church record the names, order, state, profession, vows, tonsure, dress and colleges of monks? Certainly, since other writers through such long spaces of three centuries by no means mentioned all these things, this is surely no very light argument that in the time of Dionysius there existed no monks and Therapeutae of this kind.

[178] Thus far Le Nourry, most rightly contending, for the reasons which he alleges, that such monks as are described by the author of the Dionysian Works in the place assigned above did not exist in the age of Dionysius the Areopagite; and is proved by other things superadded, for the praised author (go to his words now recited at number 176) makes those monks different from all the rest of the Christians by dress, tonsure and the more perfect manner of life which, their profession having been solemnly made, they pursued; and it does not appear that monks who differed in that way from all the rest of the Christians had already been instituted in the age of Dionysius the Areopagite. The Areopagitics indeed thrust forward the Therapeutae recorded by Philo in Eusebius, book 2 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 17, as the monks described by the author of the Dionysian Works; but they by no means prove by the reasons which they allege that this is rightly done by them. For although, contrary to what Valois contends, the Philonian Therapeutae, who dwelt chiefly near Alexandria, were perhaps Christians by faith, Le Nourry also not opposing in the words recited above, and certainly by their manner of life afforded a certain example of the monastic life, they were nevertheless not different from the rest of the Christians, after the manner of the monks described by the author of the Dionysian Works, in habit and tonsure and in the kind of life which they are recorded to have pursued after their profession had been solemnly made; for besides that the Therapeutae praised by Philo had women joined to them, as this writer himself teaches, and that there is nothing to be found anywhere in the latter from which you could gather that women lived among the monks mentioned by the author of the Dionysian Works, he nowhere here makes mention of a singular tonsure and dress by which the Therapeutae recorded by Philo were distinguished from the rest of the men of their sect.

[179] do not seem to have existed, Jerome indeed, who judges, in the book On Writers, under Philo, that the things which Philo hands down to memory about the Therapeutae were written of the first Christians, also indicates there that it appears to him that The first Church of believers was such as the monks of his age strove to be; but although indeed either the Philonian Therapeutae or the first Christians of Alexandria, who perhaps are not to be distinguished from these, left to posterity, in view of the manner of common life which they pursued, some example of the monastic, or rather cenobitic, life, they nevertheless by no means attained its perfection, and did many things which by no means agree with the cenobitic or monastic life, as he will luminously perceive who has even perfunctorily turned over the things which Papebroch, in his Answers to Sebastian of St. Paul, article 15, number 126, observes of the first Christians, and Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 2, chapter 17, of the Philonian Therapeutae. When, therefore, Jerome asserts that the first Christians, or the Philonian Therapeutae dwelling chiefly near Alexandria, were such as the monks of his age strove to be, he is to be believed to have done this not because their manner of life was bound by any vows of religion or was perfectly monastic, but because, having some things in common with the perfectly monastic life, it was a certain exemplar or prototype of it, and in a certain sense also its beginning. And indeed, if Jerome thought that either the first Christians or the Philonian Therapeutae pursued the perfectly monastic life, or were true monks, why does he nowhere distinguish them by the name of monks?

[180] [it appears almost certain that the author of the said book is not the Areopagite,] Surely, since neither that holy father nor even Eusebius ever did this, though the one strives to commend the monastic life and the other to prove that the Philonian Therapeutae are to be counted among the Christians, this is assuredly also no weak argument, as Le Nourry hints in the words recited above, that neither the first Christians nor the Philonian Therapeutae were held by either of them for true monks who, separated from the rest of the Christians by habit, tonsure, profession solemnly made and manner of living, had professed the more perfect rule of the monastic life; so that accordingly the Areopagitics, when all the things which they bring forward about the Therapeutae recorded by Jerome and Eusebius in order to prove that such monks as are described by the author of the Dionysian Works in the place cited above existed in the age of Dionysius the Areopagite have been diligently weighed on the balance of truth, by no means prove what they would have. They allege besides for their purpose the Essaeans or Essenes, recorded likewise by Philo, as also by Josephus; but since these, as Papebroch again clearly shows in his Answers to Sebastian of St. Paul, article 15, §7, were not true monks, nay not even Christians, neither so do the Areopagitics in any way confirm their opinion about true monks who existed as early as the age of Dionysius the Areopagite. Now indeed, since this is so, and no other arguments than those already refuted support the same Areopagitics in establishing it, indeed it appears almost certain also, from the words of Le Nourry recited above and from all the reasons already adduced by which I have confirmed them, that such monks as are described by the author of the Dionysian Works in the chapter of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy assigned above did not exist in the age of Dionysius the Areopagite, and that he accordingly cannot be the author of those Works, or at least of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.

[181] This same thing, further, appears almost certain also from the ecclesiastical ceremonies and rites as also from the fact that in the same book with which, the author of the Dionysian Works affirms in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapters 2, 3 and 5, the sacred Orders were conferred and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist administered and received in his age. The Pontiff, he says in the said chapter 3, the sacred prayer

being about to celebrate at the altar of God, beginning from its incensing, goes round the whole circuit of the choir, until, returning again to the divine altar, he begins the sacred melody of the Psalms, the whole ecclesiastical order singing the sacred Psalmody with him. Thereafter, in consequence, the reading of the sacred Scriptures is recited by the ministers; which being finished, the catechumens are driven out of the sacred enclosure, and with them the energumens and the penitents, those remaining who are worthy of the sight and Communion of the divine things. Further, some of the ministers stand by the closed doors of the temple, while others do some other thing which belongs to their order. And those who hold the first place in the order of ministers, together with the priests, place on the divine altar the sacred Bread and the Chalice of blessing, a common hymnody of the whole fulness of the Church having been sung first. Upon this the divine Pontiff performs the sacred prayer and prays holy peace upon all: and while all embrace one another, the mystic recitation of the sacred volumes is finished. Then, the hands of the Pontiff and the priests having been washed with water, the Pontiff stands in the midst of the divine altar, only the chief of the ministers standing around him together with the priests.

[182] Further, when the Pontiff has praised the most holy gifts of God, rites, not yet in use in the age of the Areopagite, are recorded. he consecrates the most divine mysteries, and, having celebrated them, brings them into view under the symbols most holily set forth, and, the gifts of the divine works having been exhibited, both himself approaches the most holy communion of them and invites the others. Finally, the divine communion having been received and given, he ends in the sacred thanksgiving; and while the people look only on the divine symbols, he himself is ever led hierarchically by the divine Spirit through blessed and spiritual contemplations to the most holy beginnings of the mysteries in the purity of the divine state. Thus far the praised author, reviewing rites, with which he discloses that the most sacred Sacrament of the Eucharist was made in his age, as distinct and as regulated as they were in the fourth or fifth century of the Church; and since he does the same also in the chapters 2 and 5 mentioned above, when he sets up discourse about the rites with which Baptism and the sacred Orders were conferred in his age, and it certainly does not appear probable, as seemed to our Papebroch in tome 3 of May, in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Pachomius, number 28, that the rites in the conferring of sacred orders and the receiving of the Sacraments were as distinct, fixed and regulated in the age of Dionysius the Areopagite as they were afterwards in the fourth or fifth century of the Church, thence indeed it appears almost certain also that our Saint cannot be the author of the books in which it is asserted that the Sacraments were administered and made with rites of this kind, as was here to be shown.

CHAPTER XIII.

The strongest argument by which the Areopagitics strive to claim for this saint the Works which are circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite is refuted, and, some other things besides being adduced which bear on either denying the same Works to the Areopagite or attributing them to him, it is concluded that it is almost certain also that he does not have them as their author.

[In the Dionysian Works a wonderful holiness of the author shines everywhere. Hence the Areopagitics,] In the Works which are circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite a wonderful holiness of the author shines forth almost everywhere; and since he most luminously discloses in more than one place that he was Dionysius the Areopagite, the Areopagitics contend hence that he was in very truth that Areopagite, lest, namely, he who appears from most certain indications to have been a holy man should be held an impostor and sacrilegious. And this argument is indeed of such a kind that no other seems to fight more strongly for claiming for Dionysius the Areopagite the Works which are circulated under his name. Leonard Lessius proposes it most elegantly and at the same time most vigorously in a Letter written to Lanssel from Louvain to Paris in the year 1615. It pleases me therefore to transcribe it here entire from the apologetic Disputation of the praised Lanssel on the Writings of St. Dionysius, in which it exists. It runs thus: I received on the 24th of the same month the letter of your reverence given at Paris on the 14th of April. I wonder that, after the Vindiciae Areopagiticae of Father Martín Delrío, there still remain some who doubt about this Work, whether it is to be claimed for that author: for, the petty reasonings of the adversaries having been dissolved, he brings forward so many testimonies of ancient authors (among whom many supreme Pontiffs and men illustrious for holiness), by which those Writings are attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, that I would scarcely think there is any Writing of the ancient Fathers which can be claimed for its author by more witnesses.

[184] and above all Lessius, lest he who openly presents himself as the Areopagite, But to me the matter seems so clear that, even if testimonies of this kind were not at all available, I would not think that one who has more attentively weighed the character of the Work could be in doubt about the author. For he will easily be convinced by this single reason, by which I too have been convinced since I read that author. If that Work were not of that great Dionysius the Areopagite, who lived in the times of the Apostles, but of some later man, such as Dionysius of Alexandria, or of Corinth, or someone who lived some centuries afterwards in the times of Justinian II, about the year of the Lord six hundred and ninety, as Scaliger would have it, its author would be a liar, a hypocrite and an impostor. For he says that he had as teacher and instructor in divine things, together with Timothy, St. Paul, and then St. Hierotheus, as may be seen in the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 2, part 1, and On the Divine Names, chapter III and chapter VII. He brings forward the objection of Elymas the magician as of an equal and contemporary, On the Divine Names, chapter VIII; likewise in chapter III he says that he was present at the gathering of the Apostles and brethren who had come together to behold the body of the most blessed Virgin: that Peter and James were present there; and that Timothy was well aware of the thing; that Hierotheus, his teacher, excelled there after the Apostles in praising the divinity: he writes a letter to Polycarp, another to Titus, another to St. John the Evangelist, exiled in Patmos, and in it narrates that his liberation and return to Asia had been revealed to him. He writes to Apollophanes, exhorts him to the faith of Christ, and reminds him of the eclipse which they saw together in Egypt at the time of the Lord's passion; how they beheld it, what words they exchanged with one another.

[185] These and other things that author writes: all of which would be false and mere impostures, if he were not the great Dionysius, σύγχρονος with the Apostles, and who besides of the highest wisdom, but another, younger. But it is altogether incredible that the author of that Work wished to lie so foully and to impose upon men: for this does not befall an upright man conspicuous for wisdom. For it is established that the author of that Work was of such wisdom and knowledge of divine things that he has been an object of admiration to the highest theologians since he came forth into the light, and that no one after the Apostles is thought to be preferred, or even equalled, to him; no one has written more sublimely or more copiously of the divine nature and its perfections and operations, no one besides him has described to us the orders of the Angels, the Hierarchies, the hierarchical acts, and the whole disposition: no one interprets the sacred Scriptures and their secret senses more sublimely. He first handed down to us symbolic and mystical theology. That Work on Symbolic theology has nevertheless perished, and he gives only some specimen of it in various places; from which we can conjecture how admirable and sublime that Work was. Another also has perished, entitled Θεολογικαὶ ὑποτυπώσεις, which he himself mentions in various places. No one has more deeply or more copiously laid open the mysteries and hidden significations of the things which are done in the Sacraments. Now indeed how sound everywhere, in so great a sublimity of Theory, is the doctrine on the greatest dogmas of the Christian religion, such as on the three hypostases or persons in the most simple Divinity, on their procession and distinction, on the unity of essence, on the undivided operation, on the admirable union of the divine and human nature in the one hypostasis of the Word, on the nature of evil, on the efficacy of the Sacraments, on the most august Sacrament of the Eucharist, which, according to the opinion of his renowned Teacher (meaning Paul or Hierotheus), he says is τελετῶν τελετην, as if you should say the perfection of all the Sacraments.

[186] As regards the style, you would call it rather Angelic than human, so sublime is it; and of equal eloquence gives not obscure indications, namely so that the sublimity of the speech equals the sublimity of the conceptions. Who after the Apostles ever spoke thus of divine things: Τριὰς ὑπερούσιε καὶ ὑπέρθεε, καὶ ὑπεράγαθε, κ. τ. λ. πᾶσα θεῖα πατριὰ καὶ υἵοτης ἐκ τῆς πάντων ἐξηρημένης πατριαρχίας καὶ υἱαρχίας δεδώρηται. Τὸ θεαρχικὸν Πνεῦμα. Πρὸς τὸν ἀρχίφωτον Πατέρα. Πρὸς την ὑπεράρχιον ἀρχην. Την ἀρχικην καὶ ὑπεράρχιον τοῦ θεαρχικοῦ Πατρὸς φωτοδοσίαν ἀύλοις καὶ ἀτρεμέσι νοὸς ὀφθαλμοῖς εἰσδεξάμενοι ὑπερουσίως οὐσιώθη θεανδρικαὶ ἐνέργειαι, and a thousand other things not forced, not laboriously sought, but flowing of their own accord from the loftiest contemplation. I have read St. Augustine On the Trinity, and many Opuscula of St. Gregory surnamed the Theologian, and the most learned Treatises of other Fathers, yet none of them has seemed to me to equal Dionysius either in the sublimity of doctrine or in the majesty of speaking. For which reason not only all the scholastic doctors (some of whom have also illustrated him with Commentaries) admire him, but also the Holy Fathers who have read him, such as St. John Damascene, St. Maximus, Michael Syncellus, and many others whom Delrío reviews. From which it is established that the author of that Work was a man of the most eminent wisdom and great holiness, as one who is wholly occupied everywhere in divine things and angelic contemplations, and everywhere exhorts Timothy to the constant contemplation of divine things, leaving all things which fall under the senses.

[187] [is to be held an impostor, they contend that the author of those Works is certainly the Areopagite.] Who would believe that such and so great a man wished to lie so rottenly, and with so absurd a hypocrisy to practise imposture on the world by a certain false appearance of antiquity and Apostolic intercourse? These things do not befall an upright man of sound mind, much less a most wise and most holy one. Finally, to what end would he have done all these things and feigned himself another than he really was? Was it to lose his labours, and the glory due to them, through crime and madness? For by disclosing his name and the truth he could have acquired for himself the greatest glory, to last through the whole world and all ages, and be equalled to, or even preferred to, the greatest doctors of the Church. He could have won for himself the admiration, love and blessing of all theologians who shall ever be, and provoked the most illustrious minds to imitate him. To what purpose would he have wished, through lies and wicked deeds, through hypocrisy and most unworthy and unheard-of impostures, to deprive himself of so great a good and to wrap his name in eternal darkness? This reason so convinces me that I can doubt nothing about the author of this Work: nor will anyone, I think, doubt who, having diligently read the Work, has weighed these things. I have read it rather often and weighed everything accurately, and it has so pleased me that I chose this Dionysius as my Patron thirty-six years ago now, and have always invoked him by name in the Sacrifice of the Mass, praying for his wisdom and spirit upon myself. I have grieved from time to time that I was not better converted, nor the force of his words in many

places expressed, but other things substituted which could cast the reader into error, as I could show by very many examples. For which reason I once resolved to translate him, and to that end noted many things. But through other occupations sufficient leisure was never available. I rejoice and congratulate you that you have undertaken this labour, and on that account all theologians, especially those who are not sufficiently skilled in the Greek tongue, will owe you much, if you open to them an easy access to the reading and understanding of so great an author.

[188] Thus far Lessius; but the argument which he here proposes with great effort and equal ornament of words But not even so, since otherwise, as is proved from an anonymous author, proves too much and accordingly nothing, just as many others do. This is clear from the things which the anonymous author brings forward in the Problem on the Works of Dionysius proposed to the learned in the year 1708 and printed by the Paris press. He, after he had proposed in part 1, proposition 5, article 1, the same argument as to substance which I have already exhibited in the words of Lessius, intending presently to refute it, shows in article 2 that the forgery of books under the name of authors who had not written them had its beginning in the first centuries of the Church, writing in the following manner in the Latin edition prepared at Venice: Not only in the fourth century did this depraved custom of falsely attributing some books to other men's names prevail, but from the very beginnings of the Church we have very many examples of this forgery. The author of the Apostolic Constitutions, who was long known under the name of St. Clement, Pope and martyr, complains that from the very cradle of the Church some pernicious books, contrary to the truth, came forth in the Church, falsely inscribed to Moses, Enoch and other patriarchs of the Old Testament. It is likewise established that at that time several Gospels, Acts, Apocalypses, Letters and other things of this kind were published by Catholics under the venerable name of the Apostles; to say nothing of the heretics, mentioned by St. Epiphanius, who were celebrated for similar frauds. For the Gospels according to the Egyptians and according to the Hebrews; the Acts of St. Paul and St. Thecla, fabricated under the name of St. Luke by a certain priest, a disciple of St. Paul, carried away by a certain false zeal for his Master, and several other things of this bran, are monuments and most certain indications of this forgery.

[189] It is likewise established that St. Salvian the priest wished to lie hidden under the feigned name of Timothy, [and Letters, although falsely attributed to St. Martial, to St. Martial nevertheless,] and Vincent of Lérins under the name of Peregrinus, and that Vigilius of Thapsus, having undertaken to attack the Arians, Nestorians and Eutychians, accomplished it under the feigned name of St. Athanasius, Idacius Clarus and St. Augustine, who before him had fought with these heretics. Several other examples of this forgery could be brought forward, which have no less of wonder than the design of this Author of whom we are treating, who wished to lie hidden under the name of St. Dionysius. The Apologists of this Father, therefore, can hunt no support from the principles confirmed in the fifth proposition (namely in the number already mentioned by us just before), unless they are willing to acknowledge as legitimate those works which they certainly know to be apocryphal and counterfeit, and to be commonly hissed off as such by the learned; and these things having been set down beforehand, the aforesaid author presently, in the following article, alleges two examples of the forgery by which, even from the first centuries of the Church, books were ascribed to authors not their own, by whom those very books, however breathing holiness everywhere, falsely represented themselves to have been composed; and the first indeed, which he seeks from the Letters falsely attributed to St. Martial, he sets before the reader's eyes in these following words: I believe there is no one who would wish to deny that the two Letters inscribed with the name of St. Martial, apostle of the Gauls, of which one is given to the faithful of Bordeaux and the other to those of Toulouse, are counterfeit. It would nevertheless not be difficult to demonstrate that they are genuine and authentic, if the arguments which the patrons of the holy Areopagite bring forward in this fifth proposition were sufficient to claim the possession of those Works for St. Dionysius.

[190] inasmuch as they openly present him as their author. For first, those Letters, falsely attributed to this apostle of the Gauls, bear testimony that their author is and is called Martial, that he was an apostle of Jesus Christ, lived with Him, ministered to Him when at the last supper He instituted the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist; that he was present in the garden of Gethsemane at the time when Judas betrayed his most loving Master with the kiss of peace, that he was with the other disciples when Christ called Lazarus back from death, and finally that he saw Jesus Christ after His resurrection, and especially on the day on which He ascended into heaven. Second, these Letters are holy and written in a certain holy spirit. "They are pious," says Cardinal Bellarmine, and before him Sixtus of Siena, "they breathe piety." In them are treated the Incarnation of the Word, His Nativity, Life, Passion, Death, Burial, Resurrection and ascension into heaven. Discourse is likewise set up about the Sacrifice of the Mass, about Baptism, about Penance, about the Sign of the Cross and very many other traditions. Third, there is explained in these Letters the Mystery of the most holy Trinity, and that wonderful manner by which the Son proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Besides, all things breathe holiness, and nothing is detected in them which does not form to true and solid piety, and does not win the greatest horror for vice and love for virtue. Finally, to comprise all things in one word, they are holy, not only because all things which they contain are holy, but because their use can be holy. Some Gallican churches have borrowed from these Letters several lessons for the divine Offices, which are recited publicly in the Church.

[191] and they breathe holiness everywhere, There still exist in the archives of the Reverend Benedictine Fathers of St. Augustine at Limoges and of St. Illidius at Clermont, and also in the monastery of the Reverend Fathers of Grandmont, and in the cathedral of Limoges, several ancient manuscript Breviaries in which are read lessons of this kind in the divine Offices, taken from the Letters of St. Martial. Likewise in the Quaternarium of the Saints of the diocese of Bordeaux, printed in this city in the year 1640 and ordered by several provincial councils: "By Decree of the Provincial Councils." The Lessons of the second Nocturn for the Office of St. Martial, which is celebrated in that church on the day before the Kalends of July, are taken from the Letters which bear the name of this holy Bishop, and from his Life written by St. Aurelian: "From the Letters of St. Martial, and the Life written by St. Aurelian." Theologians and controversialists daily use the authority of these Letters, both for supporting the dogmas of the Christian religion and for attacking heretics and convincing them of several ancient traditions of the Church. The admirable fruits, likewise, which these Letters have always produced in the Church, and the illustrious elogia with which so many most celebrated men have adorned them through several centuries, ought to be a most certain argument to us that they are both holy and composed in a certain holy spirit.

[192] would have to be attributed, After so many and such illustrious testimonies, therefore, it will have to be said that their parent and author is none other than St. Martial, who lived in the first century of the Church; otherwise it would have to be said that their author was some liar and sacrilegious dissembler; which nevertheless is most far removed from the holiness of these Letters. For whether you regard the end which the author proposed to himself in writing them, or the argument which they treat, or the uses to which the Church has employed them, or the fruit which is gathered from their reading, it is most evidently established that they are holy in every way; to say nothing of those titles of holiness and piety with which they have been marked by so many writers, especially after Peter Scholasticus mentioned them at the end of the ninth century, that is, about a hundred years before they were found in a certain underground place of the Sacristy of St. Peter in the city of Limoges, Philip I reigning as king of the Gauls, that is, in the year 1010. If, therefore, the argument in which the Apologists of St. Dionysius so greatly trust proves that the books which are circulated under his name are offspring of the Areopagite, that also which we have set up for St. Martial, since it is altogether the same, will likewise most certainly prove that the Letters which are inscribed with the name of St. Martial are a genuine Work of the same Bishop.

[193] Thus far the praised author, proposing the first of the said examples; here now is how he exhibits the second. There is no one, he says, [and some Opuscula, though falsely attributed to St. Athanasius, would nevertheless have to be ascribed to this holy Father,] who doubts that the Dialogues on the Trinity and the eleven books On the Unity of the Godhead in the Trinity, no less than the disputation of Arius with Athanasius at the council of Nicaea, and the other conference which the same Holy Doctor held at Laodicea in Syria by order of the emperor Constantius, are offspring falsely attributed to St. Athanasius and published under his venerable name; and yet, if we are to stand by the principles established by the apologists of St. Dionysius in this fifth proposition, we shall be compelled to admit that all these are legitimate offspring of St. Athanasius. For first, these same books bear testimony that their author and parent is none other than Athanasius; his name is read prefixed to these Works, in which we have it testified that he was present at the council of Nicaea and disputed with Arius. In them is related in detail whatever happened in these disputations, and how he engaged with Arius before the judge Probus, who at length, the parties having been heard, adjudged the cause to Athanasius. All these things certainly demonstrate that the author of these Works is none other than Athanasius, unless we would say that their writers, who feigned the name of St. Athanasius, and who most certainly were Vigilius of Thapsus, to whom the former Work is adjudged by all the learned, and St. Maximus or Theodoret, to one or other of whom the two latter are ascribed, were liars and dissemblers; which no one has hitherto dared to say, and which cannot cohere with the holiness of those books, whose argument is holy and their use most holy; since they have served admirably both for confounding heretics and for confirming the mysteries of the Christian religion.

[194] Such is the second example of the forgery of which we are here treating which the anonymous author praised above alleges, prove the thing which they intend, sought from several works falsely attributed to St. Athanasius; and since both these and the letters falsely attributed to St. Martial (go to the words of the anonymous author recited at number 189 and following) breathe holiness everywhere, and yet are not to be ascribed to SS. Martial and Athanasius, whom they most luminously, though falsely, present as their authors, lest those by whom they were truly composed should be held impostors and liars, it follows that, since that altogether opposite thing would have to be asserted from the argument of Lessius to Lanssel which the Areopagitics are wont to urge, it certainly proves too much, and that accordingly, the Dionysian Works, which

themselves also breathe holiness everywhere, are to be attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, whom nevertheless they most openly indicate in more than one place to be their author, it by no means proves, contrary to what the Areopagitics contend. Nor does what the Areopagitics add with Lessius (go to his words recited at number 187 and following) about the end which the author of the Dionysian Works had proposed to himself bear on the matter at all.

[195] especially since the reason for which For although he could, by disclosing his genuine name, have acquired for himself the greatest glory from his Works, and won the love as well as the admiration of posterity, why nevertheless could it not have come about that, carried away by the signal zeal for defending the faith by which he was held, he wished to despise that so great good of his, and to inscribe the Works composed by him with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, in order to join greater authority to his statements? The author of the Dionysian Works, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 3, § XI, writes thus: The infinite kindness of the God-principal goodness did not cease benevolently to take care of us by itself, but, made truly a partaker of all that is ours without sin, and united to our lowliness, the state of its properties being preserved, and that unconfused and inviolate, … mercifully changed our … state on the contrary; and in the book On the Divine Names, chapter 1, §4, he also teaches the same as in the text just recited, in these following words: He who is eternal took a temporal addition and also descended to the inmost things of our nature, He who superessentially transcends the whole order of all nature, His properties nevertheless being preserved altogether entire and unconfused.

[196] the Dionysian Works, Thus the author of the Dionysian Works in the two places already cited; and since by them he teaches not obscurely that the Word of God assumed human nature, its properties being preserved altogether entire and unconfused, and accordingly has two natures, he most openly proscribes the heresy of the Eutychians, which laid down in the Word of God, as only one person, so also only one nature. Now indeed, since this is so, and he condemns no less openly, as can be shown without difficulty, the Nestorian heresy also, not a few learned men contend hence that he set his hand to writing his Works not before the year 429, about which the Nestorian heresy arose, nay not before the year 447, about which the sect of the Eutychians took its beginning, and certainly not undeservedly: for since, from the fact that he hands down a doctrine on the mystery of the most holy Trinity most clearly opposed to the heresy of the Arians on it, it is thought most probable by very many that he did not write his Works before this arose, by parity of reason it can seem most probable that he did not do so before the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies arose. There will indeed be someone who perhaps will here again object that the Dionysian Works were praised by St. Gregory Nazianzen, by St. Cyril and by Proclus, the Athenian philosopher, and were accordingly composed earlier than has just been said.

[197] most probably composed between the years 431 and 451, But although indeed SS. Gregory Nazianzen and Cyril flourished before the Eutychian heresy arose, it is nevertheless very doubtful and uncertain whether either the latter or the former praised the Dionysian Works and so had knowledge of them, as the things which I brought forward in chapters 2 and 4 of this Appendix, and likewise at number 80 and following, luminously show; and as regards Proclus, the Athenian philosopher, besides that it is likewise doubtful and uncertain, from the things which I said at number 84 of the same Appendix, whether he praised the Dionysian Works, that philosopher first flourished under Leo I, who, having obtained the empire after the death of Marcian in the year 457, departed from among the living in the year 474; so that accordingly, even if we granted that he from time to time praised the Dionysian Works, nay even employed them, it would not follow thence that these were composed by their author while the Nestorian and Eutychian heresy had not yet arisen. And I indeed, since the matter stands so, think that this was most probably done by him between the year 431, in which the ecumenical synod of Ephesus was held against the Nestorians, and the year 451, in which that of Chalcedon was held against the Eutychians. I am of this mind because, since indeed, as you will understand from several things already disputed in this Appendix, the Dionysian Works began to be known towards the end of the 5th century, nay perhaps even not long after the synod of Chalcedon of the year 451, their writing, as being, from what has just been said, not earlier than the synod of Ephesus of the year 431, seems able to be most fitly assigned to the middle of that space of time which elapsed between the year 431 and the year 451.

[198] Further, since the matter stands so, and the Nestorians and Eutychians then, [could not have been inscribed with the name of the Areopagite by their author, they would have it, is not sufficiently firm,] as is plain from the historiographers met with everywhere, stirred up the greatest disturbances, it can indeed easily have come about that the author of the Dionysian Works, no less inclined to defend the orthodox faith than they to shake it, not only drew his pen against such turbulent heretics; but also, that he might do it with better success, prefixed the great and venerable name of Dionysius the Areopagite to his Writings, having absolutely no regard for the glory which he could have claimed for himself from them, had they been inscribed with his own name. That writer was indeed besides, as appears from the things which he committed to writing, most wise as well as most holy; so that he would seem neither to have reckoned even an officious lie, as they say, lawful, nor to have been likely easily to commit it; but since, by feigning himself another than he really was, and by devising other things besides suited to confirming both that fiction and certain deeds which, though false, he held as true from public report or popular tradition, he would inflict injury on absolutely no one, nor commit lies, or other faults of whatever kind, of so grave a guilt, it can easily have come about that, through the very great ardour with which he burned for defending the orthodox faith, he thought he should by no means abstain from incurring so slight a fault, from which the greatest good would come, especially since he could with full right think that it was both in some way excusable from the excellent end for which it was committed, and also easily to be pardoned by the Lord. All things, therefore, having been diligently examined, neither does the reason for which the Areopagitics plead that the Dionysian Works, if they were not truly composed by the Areopagite, could not have been inscribed with the name of the Areopagite appear sufficiently firm and solid.

[199] Let us now examine whether the other things which the Areopagitics still chiefly allege to claim the Dionysian Works for the Areopagite and since neither the other things which the Areopagitics render proved that they were composed by him. It is not the custom of God, they say, nor of His eternal providence, to honour vain Works, full of feigned lies, with true miracles; and that the Dionysian Works, when they were applied in honour of St. Dionysius the Areopagite to the sick who were afflicted with various kinds of diseases, were honoured by God with many miracles, Hilduin, an eyewitness of the thing done, affirms in Surius, in the Letter written by him to Louis the Pious, number 4. Thus further the Areopagitics; but this support of theirs too is so weak that it seems to be stormed by the very words of Hilduin. That the matter may become manifest, it will help to have transcribed the things which bear on this. They run thus: The authentic … same books (namely the Works customarily circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite), written in the Greek tongue, when the steward of the church of Constantinople and the other envoys of Michael performed in brief their public embassy to your glory, we received as a great gift on the very Vigil of the solemnity of saint Dionysius. Which gift, as if brought to our devotion from heaven, divine grace so accompanied that in the same night Christ the Lord deigned to work nineteen most renowned miracles in the healing of the sick of various infirmities, among most well-known persons bordering on our neighbourhood, to the praise and glory of His name, by the prayers and merits of His most excellent Martyr. Thus the praised Hilduin, expressly testifying that nineteen miracles were wrought on that very day on which the Dionysian books were brought into his monastery; but since at the same time he affirms not obscurely that these were performed by Christ the Lord not by the power or application of the same books, but by the merits and prayers of his most excellent martyr Dionysius, thence indeed the Areopagitics argue wrongly also that those books were composed by St. Dionysius the Areopagite.

[200] adduce, prove that those Works were truly composed by the Areopagite, Nor would they aptly conclude this from the said miracles, even if these had occurred by either the touch or the application of the Dionysian books. For it is commonly known among the learned also that demons were cast out in the name of Christ by those who were neither disciples of Christ nor Christians, as also that miracles were very often obtained from God elsewhere through the true and ardent faith of Christians alone. But indeed, the Areopagitics say further, there is no agreement among the Anti-Areopagitics about the time at which the Writings bearing the name of Dionysius the Areopagite were composed and falsely attributed to this Saint. I admit, so it stands; and of these some attach the writing of the Dionysian Works to the fourth, others to the fifth or even the sixth century of the Church; but what then? Does it follow from this that he who prepared it flourished in the age of the Apostles, and is to be held for Dionysius the Areopagite? Those who ascribe those Works to the Areopagite likewise dissent not a little among themselves, while some contend that they were known to the Fathers of the newly born Church, others on the contrary that they remained in hiding in the earlier centuries of the Church, not all assigning one cause of the hiding; but the Areopagitics will not suffer it to be inferred thence that the Works which are circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite are spurious and falsely attributed to this Saint, and deservedly indeed: and since this is so, neither can it be inferred from the fact that the Anti-Areopagitics dissent among themselves about the time at which the same Works were falsely attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite that these are genuine and were truly composed by Dionysius the Areopagite. This last argument, therefore, which the Areopagitics are still wont to allege for their opinion, has no more strength than that which, set down just before it, they seek from the miracles by which heaven itself is said to have testified that the Dionysian Works are to be attributed to the Areopagite.

[201] Now indeed, since this is so, and the other things besides which the Areopagitics are still wont to allege for their opinion can be solved with no less ease than those already refuted, [It is concluded that the opinion which denies them to the Areopagite is almost certain also.] as will be clear to anyone who has turned over either the Dissertation of Le Nourry on the Dionysian Works, very often praised above, or other works of the Anti-Areopagitics, what still prevents us from esteeming, on account of the reasons alleged in the course of this Appendix, the opinion which denies the Dionysian Works to the Areopagite as far more probable, nay even almost certain? There was indeed a time when I embraced it only rather timidly, because, on account of the authority of SS. Anastasius the Sinaite and Maximus, whether the Dionysian Works by St. Dionysius

, patriarch of Alexandria about the middle of the 3rd century, had been illustrated with scholia, I was as doubtful as possible; but having at length been happily freed from that scruple by the reasons which I set forth in this Appendix, chapter 1, and having been made almost altogether certain, by the other reasons which I alleged in chapter 2 and following of the same Appendix, that the Dionysian Works were cited by absolutely none of the Fathers who flourished in the first four centuries of the Church, the negative argument, as they call it, which is sought from the silence of all of these about them, and by name also of Dionysius of Alexandria just mentioned, has had so much weight with me that, even on that account alone, I have judged it almost certain that the aforesaid Works had not yet been composed in the first century of the Church and accordingly do not have the Areopagite as their author. Nor do I doubt that all, or certainly very many, will come over to this opinion of mine who have weighed with attentive mind and one free of prejudices the things which I discussed in the chapters just mentioned. And universally indeed I think, from the negative argument just mentioned, that all the Works which are circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite are to be denied to this Saint; and in particular, that certain parts of them, namely the books written On the Divine Names and on the Celestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarchies, cannot be attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, the positive arguments, as they call them, which I adduced in this Appendix, chapter 9 and the three following, make almost beyond doubt as well; and since this is so, lest I waste time uselessly by repeating what has already been said, I refer the reader for brevity's sake to the chapters just mentioned, and put an end to this Appendix.