On the Divine Names and the Mystical Theology — trans. C. E. Rolt
The translator’s English as printed (C. E. Rolt). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
Deity and on the reality of the personal Incarnation of the eternal Son of God in Mary’s Son. That is to say, that while the Philosopher appears in the Areopagite to eclipse the Theologian, the Theologian in St. John Damascene controls the Philosopher. The careful, discriminate use of Dionysius by the great Greek Schoolman is most remarkable. He assimilated the true elements while rejecting the questionable or exaggerated.
Returning once more to the Church of the West, the influence of Dionysius is seen extending, through Erigena’s translations, into the Monastic studies. The theologian Hugh, of the Abbey of St. Victor at Paris, wrote in ten books a Commentary on the Heavenly Hierarchy of the Areopagite, full of enthusiastic appreciation of the great mystic’s teaching.
Far more important than this is the influence exerted by Dionysius over the mind of St. Thomas. It is not only that St. Thomas wrote a Commentary on the Divine Names, but in the works of Aquinas his ideas are constantly reappearing. He is one of St. Thomas’s favourite authorities. As one becomes increasingly more familiar with the greatest of all the scholastic theologians this ascendancy of the Greek mystic becomes more and more impressive. But it is almost needless to say that Aquinas treats the Areopagite critically. St. Thomas is profoundly averse from everything which resembles a Pantheistic tendency. His teaching alike on the Trinity and on the Incarnation belongs to another realm of thought from that of the neo-Platonist.
At a later period misgivings arose in the Church whether the theology of the Areopagite was, in fact, altogether above suspicion. So long as his traditional identification with the disciple of St. Paul was maintained, and he was credited with being, by apostolic appointment, first Bishop of Athens, these distinctions made suspicion of his orthodoxy seem irreverent and incredible. But when the identification was questioned by the historical critics of the seventeenth century, and the tradition completely dispelled, then the term Pseudo-Dionysius began to be heard and to prevail, and criticism upon its orthodoxy arose in the learned schools in France.
1 See Parma edition of St. Thomas, Tom. XV. Opusculum vii. pp. 259-405.
Deity, and on the reality of the personal Incarnation of the eternal Son of God in Mary’s Son. In other words, while in the Areopagite the Philosopher appears to eclipse the Theologian, in St. John Damascene the Theologian controls the Philosopher. The careful, discriminating use the great Greek Schoolman makes of Dionysius is most remarkable. He assimilated the true elements while rejecting what was questionable or exaggerated.
Returning once more to the Church of the West, we see the influence of Dionysius extending, through Erigena’s translations, into monastic studies. The theologian Hugh, of the Abbey of St. Victor in Paris, wrote a Commentary in ten books on the Heavenly Hierarchy of the Areopagite, full of enthusiastic appreciation of the great mystic’s teaching.
Far more important than this is the influence Dionysius exerted over the mind of St. Thomas. It is not only that St. Thomas wrote a Commentary on the Divine Names; the Areopagite’s ideas constantly reappear throughout the works of Aquinas. He is one of St. Thomas’s favourite authorities. The more familiar one becomes with the greatest of all the scholastic theologians, the more impressive this ascendancy of the Greek mystic becomes. But it is almost needless to say that Aquinas treats the Areopagite critically. St. Thomas is profoundly averse to anything resembling a Pantheistic tendency. His teaching on both the Trinity and the Incarnation belongs to a different realm of thought from that of the neo-Platonist.
At a later period misgivings arose in the Church as to whether the Areopagite’s theology was in fact altogether above suspicion. So long as his traditional identification with the disciple of St. Paul was maintained, and he was credited with being, by apostolic appointment, the first Bishop of Athens, these distinctions made any suspicion of his orthodoxy seem irreverent and incredible. But when the identification was questioned by the historical critics of the seventeenth century, and the tradition was completely dispelled, the term Pseudo-Dionysius began to be heard and to prevail, and criticism of its orthodoxy arose in the learned schools of France.
1 See the Parma edition of St. Thomas, Tom. XV, Opusculum vii, pp. 259-405.