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.
Council of 649. Martin complained that the doctrine of the Areopagite was being misrepresented. Dionysius was being credited with ascribing to Christ one divino-human activity (una operatio deivirilis), whereas what Dionysius had written was a new divino-human activity (καινὴ θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια, nova operatio deivirilis)} Apart from the theological controversy implied in the respective phrases, it is remarkable to find what authority is already ascribed to its teaching.
But it is really quite impossible to appreciate the historic place of Dionysius without a study of John Scotus Erigena. It was Erigena who in reality popularized Dionysius for Latin Christendom. The Greek writings of the Areopagite had been sent to the Gallican Church by Pope Paul in 757, and remained for nearly a century unread in the Abbey of St. Denis. Then Erigena, at the request of Charles the Bald, undertook to translate them into Latin. This he accomplished for all the four principal works.
But Erigena did vastly more than merely act as translator. He incorporated the principles of the Areopagite in his celebrated treatise De Divisione Nature, in which his own speculative system is contained, and which may be said to be as representative of his mind as the De Principriis is for Origen or the Summa for St. Thomas.
Erigena bases his whole conception of Deity on the teaching of Dionysius. The treatise is thrown into the form of a discussion between the Master and a Disciple. It is an attempt to reconcile Theology with Philosophy. After the Master has insisted on the ineffable and incomprehensible nature of the Divine essence, the Disciple inquires how this proposition is to be reconciled with the teaching of the
Council of 649. Martin complained that the doctrine of the Areopagite was being misrepresented. Dionysius was being credited with ascribing to Christ one divino-human activity (una operatio deivirilis), whereas what Dionysius had actually written was a new divino-human activity (καινὴ θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια, nova operatio deivirilis).1 Quite apart from the theological controversy implied in the two phrases, it is remarkable to find how much authority was already ascribed to its teaching.
But it is really quite impossible to appreciate the historic place of Dionysius without studying John Scotus Erigena. It was Erigena who actually popularized Dionysius for Latin Christendom. The Greek writings of the Areopagite had been sent to the Gallican Church by Pope Paul in 757, and had remained unread for nearly a century in the Abbey of St. Denis. Then Erigena, at the request of Charles the Bald, undertook to translate them into Latin. This he accomplished for all four principal works.
But Erigena did far more than act as translator. He incorporated the principles of the Areopagite in his celebrated treatise De Divisione Naturae, which contains his own speculative system and may be said to be as representative of his mind as the De Principiis is of Origen’s or the Summa of St. Thomas’s.
Erigena bases his whole conception of Deity on the teaching of Dionysius. The treatise takes the form of a discussion between the Master and a Disciple. It is an attempt to reconcile Theology with Philosophy. After the Master has insisted on the ineffable and incomprehensible nature of the Divine essence, the Disciple asks how this proposition is to be reconciled with the teaching of the