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.
delivered with feeling and fire, and seemed to me an admirable performance. I am sure that he would have gained distinction in the Church, if he had lived.
“He seemed to me a fine and noble character, free from all mortal taint.”
He was a singularly refined and religious character, combining the acuteness of a philosophic mind with the fervour of a mystic. He therefore possessed undoubted qualifications for a study of Dionysius, with whose neo-Platonic ideas and mystical tendencies he was in the warmest sympathy.
The Introduction, containing a masterly exposition of Dionysian principles, is entirely the translator’s work, and, within the limits which he set himself, may be called complete. Rolt’s fervid and enthusiastic disposition led him to expound Dionysius with increasing admiration as his studies continued. He laid his original introduction aside, because to his maturer judgment it seemed insufficiently appreciative.
In its final form the Introduction is beyond all question a very able and remarkable piece of work. There are, however, several instances where the writer’s enthusiasm and personal opinions have led him to unguarded language, or disabled him from realizing the dangers to which the Areopagite’s teaching tends. He does indeed distinctly admit that Dionysius has his dangers, and says in one place definitely that the study of him is for the few: but the bearing of the whole theory of the Supra-Personal Deity on the Person of Christ and the Christian doctrine of the Atonement requires to be more thoroughly defined than is done in the exceedingly able pages of Rolt’s Introduction. It is not the business of an editor to express his own views, but yet it seems only reasonable that he should call the reader’s attention to questionable expositions, or to dogmatic statements which seem erroneous. In four or five places the editor has ventured to do this: with what effect the reader must decide. The Introduction of course appears exactly as the Author left it. The few additional remarks are bracketed as notes by themselves.
delivered with feeling and fire, and struck me as an admirable performance. I am sure he would have gained distinction in the Church had he lived.
“He seemed to me a fine and noble character, free from all mortal taint.”
He was a singularly refined and religious character, combining the acuteness of a philosophical mind with the fervour of a mystic. He therefore had undoubted qualifications for a study of Dionysius, with whose neo-Platonic ideas and mystical tendencies he was in the warmest sympathy.
The Introduction, which contains a masterly exposition of Dionysian principles, is entirely the translator's work and, within the limits he set himself, may be called complete. Rolt's fervent and enthusiastic disposition led him to expound Dionysius with growing admiration as his studies went on. He set his original introduction aside because, to his maturer judgment, it seemed insufficiently appreciative.
In its final form the Introduction is beyond all question a very able and remarkable piece of work. There are, however, several places where the writer's enthusiasm and personal opinions have led him into unguarded language, or kept him from recognizing the dangers toward which the Areopagite's teaching tends. He does indeed plainly admit that Dionysius has his dangers, and in one place says definitely that the study of him is for the few. But the bearing of the whole theory of the Supra-Personal Deity on the Person of Christ and on the Christian doctrine of the Atonement needs to be defined more thoroughly than it is in the exceedingly able pages of Rolt's Introduction.
It is not an editor's business to express his own views, yet it seems only reasonable that he should draw the reader's attention to questionable expositions, or to doctrinal statements that seem mistaken. In four or five places the editor has ventured to do this; with what effect, the reader must decide. The Introduction, of course, appears exactly as the Author left it. The few additional remarks are bracketed as separate notes.