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.
Le Quien, in a dissertation prefixed to the works of St. John Damascene, propounds the formidable inquiry: Num Pseudo-Dionysius hæreticus fuerit.} Le Quien is convinced that Dionysius employs language which confuses the Divine and the Human in our Lord; fails to distinguish accurately between person and nature; and betrays unquestionable monophysite tendencies.
On the other hand, Bernard de Rubeis, in his Dissertation says that Le Quien fails to do justice to the author’s meaning; and that Aquinas understood the author better, and thought him orthodox.
The University of Paris defended the Areopagite. The University of Louvain agreed. The Jesuits eagerly advocated his orthodoxy. Lessius, the celebrated author of the Treatise on the Divine Perfections, corresponding with another Jesuit, Father Lanssel, declared that he had read the Areopagite frequently, and had carefully studied all his writings. For thirtysix years Dionysius had been his chosen patron, always remembered by him in the Sacrifice of the Mass, with a prayer to be permitted to share the Areopagite’s wisdom and spirit. What disturbed Lessius was that the Areopagite had not been better translated. Inadequate terms had been put in the Latin rendering which might easily lead the reader into error. For many instances of this might be produced. Father Lanssel, however, is compelled to admit quite frankly that the Areopagite’s writings contain difficulties which cannot be laid to the charge of his translators. St. Thomas himself had said as much.
2 See also the Parma edition of St. Thomas, Tom. XV. 430 ff., where this Dissertation is printed. % Migne, Patrol. Grec., Tom. IV. 1002.
Le Quien, in a dissertation prefixed to the works of St. John Damascene, raises the formidable question: Num Pseudo-Dionysius hæreticus fuerit.} Le Quien is convinced that Dionysius uses language which confuses the Divine and the Human in our Lord, fails to distinguish accurately between person and nature, and betrays unquestionable monophysite tendencies.
On the other hand, Bernard de Rubeis, in his Dissertation, says that Le Quien fails to do justice to the author’s meaning, and that Aquinas understood the author better and thought him orthodox.
The University of Paris defended the Areopagite, and the University of Louvain agreed. The Jesuits eagerly championed his orthodoxy. Lessius, the celebrated author of the Treatise on the Divine Perfections, writing to another Jesuit, Father Lanssel, declared that he had read the Areopagite frequently and had carefully studied all his writings. For thirtysix years Dionysius had been his chosen patron, always remembered by him in the Sacrifice of the Mass, with a prayer that he might share the Areopagite’s wisdom and spirit.
What troubled Lessius was that the Areopagite had not been better translated. Inadequate terms had been used in the Latin rendering which could easily lead the reader into error, and many instances of this might be produced. Father Lanssel, however, is compelled to admit quite frankly that the Areopagite’s writings contain difficulties which cannot be laid at the door of his translators. St. Thomas himself had said as much.
2 See also the Parma edition of St. Thomas, Tom. XV, 430 ff., where this Dissertation is printed. % Migne, Patrol. Grec., Tom. IV, 1002.