Corpus of works

Contents Preface by the translator and preface by St. Maximus the Confessor Saint Maximus's preface to the writings of Saint Dionysius Preface by the translator and preface by St. Maximus the Confessor The publication that the reader holds in his hands introduces him to one of the most important phenomena in the cultural history of the entire Christian world, which is studied a lot in the West 1 and so far little in our country. Here I will provide only the most necessary information about him. Became the property of society in Byzantium in the 6th century. and soon supplied with commentaries, this collection of works, linked together by the name of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, then remained a readable, thought-provoking and revered book for a thousand years. His influence quickly spread beyond the spread of the Greek language: already in the 6th century. it was translated into Syriac, then, in the 8th century, into Arabic, Armenian (718) and again into Syriac, then, in the 9th century, into Coptic and Latin (835 and 860; after that it was translated into Latin many times), at the end of the 11th century. - into Georgian and, finally, in the XIV, XVII and early XIX centuries. - into Slavic. (I am not concerned here with transcriptions - to one degree or another, inevitably, and retellings - into modern living languages.) Translating this book has always been a very difficult task - both because of its large volume and because of the complexity of its content - the complexity of speculative, stylistic and terminological. The translator had to be able to follow the author's speculations and reasoning, and the translation language had to have or be able to accept developed philosophical terminology. But once done, the translation always turned out to be a significant and multifaceted contribution to the culture of those countries to which it opened the Areopagite Corpus. Alluring with its aspiration through the “Sayings,” as the author calls Scripture, beyond the limits of the comprehensible of reason, to the Eternal, the Corpus served as a “fermentation enzyme” for the culture of almost all Christian countries. Although it is now customary among scholars to call the main author of the Corpus Pseudo-Dionysius, I will call him as he was called while the Corpus was being read. There is no danger that because of this one can confuse him with some other author, and his works with others, there is no danger. All works included in the Corpus have personal appeals, like messages. However, they are varied in genre and include ten epistles proper (at the end of the Corpus) and four different-sized treatises, or books, consisting of 15, 13, 7 and 5 chapters, respectively. These are the works “On the Heavenly Hierarchy”, “On the Divine Names”, “On the Church Hierarchy”, “On Mystical Theology”. But in the form in which the Corpus existed in Greek in Byzantium and was translated into other languages, it represented a more complex whole - it was accompanied by interpretations, scholia, or commentaries collected by St. Maximus the Confessor in the 7th century. († in 662). 2 He himself writes about it this way: “Much more extensive explanatory comments are needed to interpret many of his Dionysius the Areopagite > teachings; however, relying on God, I placed in parallel with the words arranged in order, in chapters, as the book was divided, those scholia known to me, which happened to come into my hands until now” (Prologue). Some of them, obviously, were written by Maxim himself, but to a large extent they belong to other persons, primarily John of Scythopolis (VI century). 3 With their mostly calm “scientific” tonality, the interpretations contrast with the emotionally rich, syntactically complex, bright individual style of Dionysius. In addition, in Byzantium these books were preceded by poetic (hexametric) epigraphs-epigrams, and some of the interpretations were preceded by their own interpretations. 4 In the text of the works that make up the Corpus there are references to other works by the same author, such as: “06 angelic properties and ranks”; “On the Soul”, “On the Righteous and on Divine Justification”, “On Divine Hymns”, “On the Intelligible and Comprehended by the Senses”, “Theological Essays”, “Symbolic Theology”, “On Just and Divine Judgment”, but they are unknown to us. The books “On the Celestial Hierarchy” and “On the Church Hierarchy” can be considered as one group (in the Latin version of the Corpus they are placed side by side), and the books “On the Divine Names” and “On Mystical Theology” as another. Before the essay “On the Divine Names” there should have been “Theological Essays”, and after it, as is clear from its ending, there should have been a treatise “On Symbolic Theology”. 5 Those works with the name Dionysius the Areopagite that have come down to us became known in Constantinople at a local council in 532: arguing with the Orthodox about faith, the Sevirians (moderate Monophysites) referred to these works as the works of an authoritative person, and then presented them to their opponents. The Ephesian Bishop Hypatius, who presided at the council, doubted their authenticity. 6 Since then and to this day, doubt - the doubt that they were really written by Dionysius the Areopagite mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (17, 34) - has been a persistent companion to these works. 7 The grounds for doubt remain virtually unchanged. Briefly speaking, they consist of the following. Firstly, the works of Dionysius the Areopagite were not known to the writers of the first five centuries, including Eusebius and Jerome, who, they believe, had the opportunity to mention them and would have mentioned them if they had been familiar with them. Secondly, it is difficult to identify some of the persons mentioned by the author: for example, he often speaks of a certain Hierotheus as a highly respected and widely known teacher and sometimes quotes him, but this Hierotheus is not known from anywhere else. Timothy, according to the book of the Acts of the Apostles, the disciple and companion of the Apostle Paul, is called “child” by the author; Timothy, meanwhile, became a Christian before Dionysius the Areopagite and by the time the books in which he is mentioned were written, he must have been in mature, if not advanced, years. Thirdly, the author knows the Apocalypse and the Gospel of John, written when the real Dionysius the Areopagite must have been a very old man (the exact time of his death is unknown: either about 95, under the Emperor Domitian, or about 120, under the Emperor Hadrian); He also reveals a quotation from the Epistle of Ignatius the God-Bearer to the Romans (“my love has fallen apart”), written no earlier than 107–115. Fourthly, in the book “On the Church Hierarchy” the author talks about “ancient” teachers and traditions, while Dionysius the Areopagite is a contemporary of the first Christians. Fifthly, in what the author says about the structure of churches, worship, rituals, clergy and monks (he calls them, as in the 1st century Philo of Alexandria, “therapists”), many features of a later time are seen. Sixth, the completeness and elaboration of the theological and philosophical system in these writings seems equally anachronistic, possible only at a much later time than the 1st – early 2nd centuries; They believe that “there was no one to write such works as the Areopagite ones in the first and early second centuries.” 8 Seventhly, the very complex, individually original, bold and refined language of these works does not fit well with the literature of the era of Dionysius the Areopagite - both Christian and pagan. The use of theological terms and formulations that became common from the 3rd–4th centuries is suspicious. And, finally, in these works one can see not only ideological, but also textual coincidences with the writings of the pagan Neoplatonists Plotinus (III century) and Proclus (V century), primarily with the books “Fundamentals of Theology” and “On the Essence of Evil” by Proclus. All this prompted us to call the author of the Corpus Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and consider him a writer of the late 5th century. or the beginning of the 6th century, who tried to combine Neoplatonism with Christianity. 9 The author’s orthodoxy, however, is beyond doubt: “As for the religious system of the Areopagite writings,” writes a 19th-century specialist, “in it all obviously false and contrary to Christianity concepts have been eliminated. Thus, in Areopagite writings the world appears to be the direct creation of God; matter is not recognized as the cause and source of evil; the resurrection of bodies is recognized, and the body is not considered the source of evil and sin in man; the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, and so on is revealed correctly, albeit briefly. The entire religious view of their writer is purely Christian and Orthodox. But since the writer, apparently, did not have time to free himself from the influence of Neoplatonic philosophy, his presentation of some particular subjects of Christian doctrine bears obvious traces of its influence. 10 But, apart from the peculiarities of “the presentation of some particular subjects of Christian doctrine,” it makes no difference whether the author of the Areopagitik lived in the 1st–2nd or 5th–6th centuries. - these works are the product of a transitional era, and they have such a common property that arouses special interest in them precisely in transitional eras. Their influence on such thinkers as John Scotus Eriugena, Shota Rustaveli, Albert the Great, Bonaventura, Nicholas of Cusa, Marsilio Ficino, Pico della Mirandola, Johann Reuchlin, Gregory Skovoroda, Archpriest Avvakum is known. It is not accidental, of course, that there was a sharp increase in interest in works inscribed with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite in Orthodox countries in the 14th century, during the era of hesychast disputes: both Barlaam of Calabria, an opponent of the hesychast mystics, and Gregory Palamas, their defender, both of them constantly referred to the “divine Dionysius”, quoted him, looked for support in him for their directly opposite statements. The crisis era of “Byzantine humanism”, “Christian humanism”, “pre-renaissance”, “Eastern counter-reformation” and at the same time “Orthodox revival” is colored by the strong influence of Areopagitism; 11 it was at this time that the need arose to translate them into the Slavic language, and in 1371, thanks to the Serbian elder Isaiah, they gained access to a new and very large readership. The next “peak” of interest in them - already in Rus' - falls, as the number of Russian lists shows, in the next transitional, ideological-crisis era - the 17th century. Although doubts about the authorship of Dionysius the Areopagite arose, as already mentioned, simultaneously with the discovery of works inscribed with his name in the 6th century, they prevailed until the 15th century. the prevailing point of view was that they were his genuine works. The reason for this will be discussed below. The author was identified not only with the first bishop of Athens, but also - thanks to Hildouin, abbot of the monastery of Saint-Denis in the 9th century - with the enlightener of Gaul, Dionysius (Saint-Denis) of Paris. In the 13th century Abbot of San Denis Suger (Suger), after reading the works of the Areopagite, thought of the so-called “Gothic style”, directing the church of God into the sky, towards the light. Great interest in Areopagite writings was traditional at the University of Paris. They had a serious influence on the scholastic Thomas Aquinas, but also on the German mystics - Eckhart, Suso, Tauler. From the 16th century voices of doubt are heard again and louder (George of Trebizond, Theodore of Gaza, Lorenzo Valla, Erasmus of Rotterdam, Luther). Decisive efforts to exclude Areopagite works from the list of works of the 1st–2nd centuries. made in the 19th century. Germans G. Koch and I. Stiglmayr. 12 Repeated attempts have been made to indicate the “real” author of the books and letters that make up the Corpus that occupies us. But they all remain at the level of assumptions. We don't touch on them here. In general, the strength of skeptics is precisely the negative one: they have the most solid reasons for doubt. They are most weak when trying to give their own positive explanation for the birth of these, as they must admit, fakes (for there is no way to talk about false attribution here). Hans Urs von Balthasar writes: “Unfortunately, after Koch and Stieglmayr, who limited the era of the composition to 480 and 510 years, new, untenable attempts were made to date it, the refutation of which is a waste of time. All these fragile hypotheses are a sign of a certain spiritual “color blindness”, which makes it impossible, despite all the conscientious work on details (which is undoubtedly found in Stieglmayr, Peer, Honigmann and others), to understand the general style of the Areopagite writings. This primarily refers to the author’s identifications with persons already known from other sides: as if Severus of Antioch (or Peter of Fulon) could “additionally” wear the mask of Dionysius; or vice versa, as if the author of the Corpus could in any way be anyone other than himself, write in a style other than his own! Whoever, without prejudice (and being free from the irritation and malice with which the Corpus is often approached) allows himself to be influenced by this amazing work, immediately realizes two things: firstly, that this writer is more than all others “invisible”: his personality is completely identified with his work, - secondly, that nothing in him is simply “fabricated”, he is not a “pseudonym” of another, and, moreover, that this unity, “personality-work,” radiates such power and such a radiance of holiness - this the Middle Ages recognized immediately - that in no case can he be recognized either as a “falsifier”, or even as a prudent “apologist” using a trick.” 13 Thus, the most coherent, integral and impressive of the “positive” pictures is still the picture that these works themselves create, especially - let us add to what was said by G. W. von Balthasar - with the comments that Rev. provided them with. Maxim the Confessor. And therefore, there will probably always be “deniers of deniers”, who believe that they will be less mistaken by believing in the authenticity of the writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite. Already in the 6th century. a certain presbyter Theodore responded to the doubts of the Ephesian Bishop Hypatius in writing. His work has not reached us, but it was read in the 9th century. Patriarch Photius of Constantinople, who used to take notes on the contents of the books he read. This is what he wrote down this time: “I read from Presbyter Theodore that the book of Saint Dionysius is authentic. He refuted four objections in his essay: The first is that, if it is genuine, why did none of the later fathers mention the sayings and sayings contained in it? Secondly, why did Eusebius Pamphilus, who created a description of the books of our blessed fathers, not mention it at all? Third, why does this book provide a detailed explanation of the traditions that gradually and over a long time accumulated within the Church? As follows from the Acts of the Apostles, the great Dionysius was a contemporary of the apostles. But what the book includes is, for the most part, a description of the traditions that gradually subsequently developed in the Church. So it is incredible, they say, and even completely impossible to assume that Dionysius described what grew up in the Church long after the death of the great Dionysius. Fourth, why does the book mention the message of Ignatius the God-Bearer? The heyday of Dionysius was in apostolic times. Ignatius performed the feat of martyrdom under Trajan. And he wrote the message that the book mentions shortly before his death. Having tried to resolve these four aporia, he assures that, in his opinion, the book of the great Dionysius is authentic.” 14 But it was the comments of John of Scythopolis and Maximus the Confessor that overcame the doubts of skeptics and allowed Areopagite writings to become an important part of European medieval culture - both Byzantine-Caucasian and Western European, and then the culture of the Renaissance. The interpretative commentaries themselves became an integral part of the Corpus throughout the Middle Ages. 15 And this picture - an idea of ​​how the Corpus of Works of Dionysius the Areopagite arose - is also an integral part of all medieval culture, including Russian, and has independent value for cultural historians. What is she like? According to the book of the Acts of the Apostles, the Apostle Paul, during his second missionary journey, around 50, being forced to flee from the Thessalonian Jews who were angry with his preaching, arrived in Verria and began to preach in the synagogue there, but the Jews from Thessalonica came for him there too. Having then left his companions, Silas and Timothy, in Verria, Paul fled further to Athens. We now read the book of the Acts of the Apostles: “While waiting for them in Athens, Paul was troubled in spirit at the sight of this city full of idols. So, he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with those who worshiped God, and daily in the marketplace with those who met. Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to argue with him; and some said: “What does this fuss want to say?” And others: “It seems that he is preaching about foreign deities,” because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus and said: Can we know what this new teaching is that you are preaching? For you are putting something strange into our ears. Therefore, we want to know what it is? All the Athenians and the foreigners living among them spent their time in nothing better than talking or listening to something new. And, standing among the Areopagus, Paul said: “Athenians! From everything I see that you seem to be especially devout. For, passing and examining your shrines, I also found an altar on which is written: “to the unknown God” (Τῷ ἀγνώστῳ Θεῷ). This, whom you, not knowing, honor, I preach to you. God, who created the world and everything in it, He, being the Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in churches made by hands and does not require the service of human hands, as if He needed anything, Himself giving to all life and breath and everything. From one blood He brought forth the entire human race to inhabit the entire face of the earth, assigning predetermined times and limits to their habitation, so that they would seek God, lest they sense Him and find Him, although He is not far from each of us: for in Him we live and move and have our being; just as some of your poets said: “We are His generation.” So we, being the race of God, should not think that the Divinity is like gold, or silver, or stone, which received its image from the art and invention of man. So, leaving behind the times of ignorance, God now commands people everywhere to repent. For He has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man He has appointed, giving proof to all by raising Him from the dead.’ When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear about this from you at another time.” So Paul went out from among them. Some men, having approached him, believed; among them was Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damar, and others with them” (Acts 17:16–34). This Athenian Areopagite Dionysius, converted by the Apostle Paul to the faith of Christ, is meant as the author of the collected works in question. Reading the Areopagitics with their affirmation of the complete transcendence, transcendence and unknowability of God, you just remember the words about the “unknown God” with which the Apostle Paul connected his sermon with the Athenian cultural reality. Likewise, the idea that everything that moves and exists moves and exists insofar as it participates in God, we find developed in detail in the Corpus. And this seems natural precisely for Dionysius the Areopagite mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. Perhaps the most important book of the Corpus for Christian theology is called, as we already know, “On the Divine Names.” But the theme of “names” is the same theme of Pavlov, the Apostle Paul, the teacher of Dionysius, the theme, like the transcendence-unknowability of the Divine and the penetration of everything in the world by His Providence: “about the teaching and about names and about the law” - “περὶ λόγου καὶ ὀνομάτων καὶ νόμου,” according to the Achaian proconsul Gallio, Paul argued with the Jews in Corinth (Acts 18:15). More often than other apostles, it is Paul who mentions angelic powers in his epistles, and Dionysius the Areopagite devotes one of his treatises to them, “On the Heavenly Hierarchy.” It is also noteworthy that the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (1:22-23) writes that people who call themselves wise “have become fools and have changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.” And in the Areopagite we read about the images of the “god-wise” heavenly powers and minds both in anthropomorphic form and in the form of “domestic bulls, wild lions and crooked eagles, or feathered birds that look like hairy birds... and some assorted horses, and spear-bearing archangels” (“On the Heavenly Hierarchy”, 2, 1; see also 15, 3, 8), and theologians, he says, glorify “the all-exceeding Cause,” which itself is “all in all,” the “God-originating superessentiality,” “giving It either human” or some other forms (“On Divine Names,” 1, 7–8), and “God is depicted both as gray-haired and as young” (ibid., 10, 2). “But they also ascribe bestiality to Him: they give Him the properties of both a lion and a panther, and they say that He will become a leopard and a rearing bear. I will add something,” writes Dionysius, “that seems most unworthy and strangest of all: those knowledgeable in the divine convey that It [God’s Commander, i.e. God. – Γ. He even applies to himself the form of a worm” (“On the Heavenly Hierarchy”, 2, 5). As we see, his set of images applied to God is the same as that of the Apostle Paul - it is drawn, we note, from Scripture. The Apostle was quite obviously embarrassed by their earthiness; Dionysius, as if trying to dispel this confusion, without condemnation states their presence and explains that one should not dwell on such “unlike” images and “similarities” (ibid., 2, 3–4): they are necessary only “to lead us, through what is perceived by the senses, to what is comprehended by the mind” (ibid., 1, 3). In Prologue Rev. Maximus the Confessor explains what the Athenian Areopagus was, and where it met, and why it was called that, and what were its functions and role in city government under the rule of the Romans. Dionysius was a member of this supreme court. “This Dionysius was taught the faith of Christ from Paul the Apostle, living in Athens, before even coming to the faith of Christ, the gods of heaven had counted his cunning, but when he had the faith of Christ, all this was imputed to him to be able to be,” Archpriest Avvakum wrote about Dionysius the Areopagite at the beginning of his Life. Having been converted to Christianity by Paul, Dionysius was then raised as a Christian - he himself says this - by Saint Hierotheus. “Paul,” explains Maxim the Confessor, “was their common mentor and leader.” Dionysius could communicate with Paul even after he left Athens - during the one and a half year stay of the Apostle Paul in Corinth (see: Acts 18:11). “According to the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions,” continues Maximus, “Dionysius was then installed by Christ-bearing Paul as a bishop for the believing Athenians. The Areopagite is remembered both by Dionysius, the ancient bishop of the Corinthians, and by Polycarp in his Epistle to the Athenians.” Timothy, one of Paul's companions, later became the bishop of Ephesus. Coming from the province (see: Acts 16:1-2), it was difficult for him to debate with the Greek philosophers there: Ephesus was one of the largest centers of Greek philosophical thought - “philosophers flourished in Ephesus at that time and Ionian philosophy arose there during the bishopric of St. Timothy” (from the interpretations of the book “On the Divine Names”), And Timothy turned for help to the Athenian Dionysius, thereby encouraging him to write about Christianity in a language understandable to philosophers. This explains why all four books of Dionysius the Areopagite that have come down to us are addressed by him to “co-priest Timothy.” One of the reasons for writing the book “On the Divine Names” was that Timothy sent Dionysius the works of St. Hierotheus with a request to explain them. There is also an explanation in the comments of why Dionysius, having become a Christian bishop, continued to be called the Areopagite: “You should know that even after turning to Christ, people, without embarrassment, ascribed to their names the titles that they had while still being Hellenes. That's why he called himself Areopagite. Just like the divine Justin wrote in the word “To the Greeks”: “Justin the Philosopher.” The first four of the ten epistles of Dionysius the Areopagite are addressed to "Gaius therapeutus (θεραπεύτῃ)", meaning monk. Maximus the Confessor believes that this is the same Gaius to whom the Evangelist John wrote his Third Epistle. In the seventh letter to “Saint Polycarp,” Bishop of Smyrna, Dionysius recalls how he and the philosopher Apollophanius observed in Egyptian Heliopolis an eclipse of the sun, contrary to the laws of nature, the moon turning back and then returning to its normal course across the sky, which was on Good Friday. (Protopope Avvakum writes about this: “This Dionysius, who had not yet come to the faith of Christ, with his disciple at the time of the crucifixion of the Lord was in the Solar City and saw: the sun turned into darkness and the moon into blood, the stars appeared in the sky at noon in a black form. He said to the disciple: “Either the end of the age has come, or God will guard the Word in the flesh,” because, not according to custom, the creature’s form has been changed and for this reason I am in bewilderment.”) Commenting on the last, tenth, letter of Dionysius to John the Theologian on Fr. Patmos, the commentator also recalls the letter to Polycarp in order to calculate the chronology of the last writings and life of the Areopagite. According to his calculations, it turns out that Dionysius wrote a letter to the Apostle John at the age of about ninety years (see interpretations of the tenth letter). The essay “On Divine Names” reveals the author’s familiarity with the Revelation of John the Theologian, written by him, as is known, during his exile to Fr. Patmos. It follows from this that Dionysius must have written his theological works, at least the book “On the Divine Names,” to “his fellow priest Timothy” in his tenth decade of life. Maximus the Confessor, as I have already said, played a decisive role in recognizing the authorship of Dionysius the Areopagite. The comments he provided to the Corps answered a number of questions that raised doubts. Why were the works of Dionysius not known to Eusebius and Origen? – “... Eusebius missed a lot that did not fall into his hands; Yes, he does not say that he collected everything, but rather admits that he could not get to more books. Origen—I don’t know if he knew everyone he knew—only mentioned four authors” (Prologue). Regarding the similarities between the Areopagitics and the works of the pagan Neoplatonists, the “hardworking husband” commentator notes that pagan philosophers, and especially Proclus, often use the speculations of Blessed Dionysius and even literally his expressions. It was not the author of the works that occupy us, in his opinion, who borrowed from Proclus and other “external philosophers,” but they from him: for them, after all, “it is commonplace to steal from us. For the devil is a thief,” and “not only now, but also before the coming of Christ, it was a common thing for adherents of external philosophy to steal our wisdom” (Prologue). After all, those who believe that these are not the works of Dionysius the Areopagite should see the author as a liar, “lying about himself such that he lived at the same time as the apostles and wrote letters to those whom he was not a contemporary and to whom he did not write.” This could only be done by a “bad and reprehensible” person, but the author is “a man so exalted by custom and knowledge, capable of surpassing everything comprehended by the senses and coming into contact with intelligible beauty, and through it, as far as possible, with God”! (Prologue). Like Pushkin, the commentator, as we see, believed that “genius and villainy are two incompatible things.” He also discusses why Dionysius calls Timothy “child” (παῖς): either because he is older than him in years, or because he is stronger than him in philosophy, and explains: “Although Saint Timothy believed before the divine Dionysius, the great Dionysius was more secularly educated” (from the interpretations to the book “On the Heavenly Hierarchy”). Regarding the quotation in the book “On the Divine Names” from the Epistle of Ignatius the God-Bearer to the Romans, the interpreter notes that some see this as a good reason to slander the present work as not belonging to the pen of Dionysius the Areopagite, “since, they say, Ignatius lived later than him.” And he answers: the Evangelist John, to whom Dionysius wrote, was imprisoned on Fr. Patmos under Domitian, “Ignatius was tortured before Domitian. Therefore he is before Dionysius” (from the interpretations to the book “On the Divine Names”). In the first of the interpretations to the fifth chapter of the treatise “On the Heavenly Hierarchy” we read: “The Great Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, of the rhetoricians, in the interpretations that he created for Blessed Dionysius, his namesake, says...”. This means that the commentator saw interpretations of the works of the Areopagite, written by Dionysius of Alexandria in the 3rd century, which have not reached us. In the Syriac language, however, fragments of the letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Pope Sixtus have survived, 16 showing that their author knew the message of the Areopagite to Polycarp and had, as he writes, before his eyes “the work “On Divine Theology”,” or “the book “On Theology,” which he characterizes as “a philosophical and divine work.” It seems that before him lay the “Theological Essays” (Θεολογικαὶ ὑποτυπώσεις 17) of the Areopagite, known to us only by name (mentioned by the author several times, including at the beginning of the book “On the Divine Names”, I, 1, as preceding it). The interpretations not only confirmed in public opinion that the Corpus belonged to Dionysius the Areopagite, but also authoritatively attested to the impeccable Orthodoxy of the author. One of these kind of notes: “Note the impeccable Orthodoxy of the great Orthodox Dionysius” (from the interpretations of the book “On the Church Hierarchy”), As has already been said, many eminent theologians and philosophers of East and West highly valued the Corpus of Dionysian Works. Among them is the luminary of the Slavs, Cyril (Constantine), brother of Methodius, who worked both in the East and in the West. Anastasius the Librarian, who personally knew and heard him in Rome, sending in March 875 the Corpus in the Latin translation of John Scotus Eriugena to Emperor Charles the Bald, reported in an accompanying letter that Cyril (Constantine the Philosopher) publicly praised the works of the Areopagite and recommended them to the Romans as a worthy weapon for the fight against heretics: “Finally, a great man and teacher of apostolic life, Constantine the Philosopher, who, in sacred memory of Pope Adrian II, arrived in Rome and returned the body of St. Clement in his place, entrusted to the memory of the memoriae commendaverat - rewrote?> the entire codex of the often mentioned and worthy of mentioning father and pointed out to the listeners how useful its contents were; he used to say that if the saints, namely our first teachers, who with difficulty and as if with a club beheaded heretics, had had what Dionysius wrote, then, without a doubt, they would have cut them down with a sharp sword; and he constantly repeated that then they would be much lighter, more effective or faster - after all, the word “ohu” means both “capable” and “quick” - would silence those whose mouths they stopped with great difficulty and much more slowly.”18 Let's say a few words about the wonderful image of the Wisdom of God in the glorifying theology of Dionysius the Areopagite. In one of the ten epistles included in the Areopagite corpus, to Tituhierarch, the ninth, the author complains that many do not believe the sayings about the divine sacraments (θείων μυστερίων), perceiving them only through the sensual elements added to them (προσπεφυκώτων) images. “It is appropriate,” he writes, “to see them open, in themselves, naked and pure,” in order to “honor the “Source of Life,” contemplating it pouring into Himself and standing in Itself and some single Power, simple, self-moving, not impoverished in Itself, but being the knowledge of all knowledge and always contemplating through Itself.” 19 The interpretations provided by the Corpus Maximus the Confessor explain that “the Source of life, flowing into Itself and standing in Itself,” is the “Holy and worshiped Trinity.” Simple and independent of everything, the inexhaustible Power, “which is the knowledge of all knowledge and always contemplates through Itself,” which we must also, having freed ourselves from images perceived by the senses, see (the need to ascend from a symbol perceived by the senses to the intelligible symbolized by it is one of the constant thoughts of the entire Corpus), is, obviously, the Wisdom of God. But further in the Epistle we are talking about “various types of symbolic sacred imagery applied to God,” and these types are again listed (here the imagery is both anthropomorphic and drawn from the animal and plant world, as well as from human objects and much more). After all, it is necessary, the author explains, “not only for the Holy of Holies to be kept inaccessible to many, but also for human life itself (...) to be illuminated by divine knowledge...” By the way, here, in the series of “symbolic sacredness applied to God,” it is said “that He drinks and gets drunk, and that He sleeps, and that He happens to have a hangover.” This topic is further developed in the Message in more detail. Eventually, the author begins to respond to the addressee's request. He asked to interpret the first verses of the ninth parable of King Solomon: “Wisdom built herself a house and established seven pillars, sacrificed her sacrifice, and mixed wine in her cups, and prepared her meal. He sent his servants, calling with a high sermon to the cup, saying: Let him who is mad turn away to me. And to those who require wisdom, he says: Come, eat my bread and drink the wine that I have poured out for you” (Proverbs 9:15). The Areopagite interprets these words as follows: “It’s good that the super-wise and good Wisdom is glorified in Sayings, as 20 supplying the secret cup and pouring out its sacred drink, rather, first of all, offering solid food and with lofty preaching itself gracefully inviting those who need it. After all, divine Wisdom offers double food: one solid, dense, and the other liquid, poured out, which it serves in the cup of its providential goodness. The cup, round and open, will be a symbol of the open and outgoing beginningless and endless Providence for everyone. Although it extends to everything, it abides, nevertheless, it is in itself and stands in immovable identity, completely established from within itself; The bowl stands firmly and firmly. About Wisdom, that she creates a house for herself and in it offers solid food and drink, and a cup, it is said so that it is clear to all those who gracefully accumulate the divine that by perfect Providence is the Author of being and the good being of everything, and extends to everything, and appears in everything, and embraces everything, and again Himself primarily remains in Himself, and is not in any way anything, but is eliminated from everything, Himself identical in Himself and eternally being, standing and abiding, and always being one and the same unchangeable, and never being outside of Himself, neither of His own seat and immovable abode and hearth, not being absent, but in Himself all the perfect providences working well, and occurring for everything, and remaining by Himself, and resting forever and moving, and neither resting nor moving, but, if I may say so, providential actions in immobility and immobility in providence inseparably and completely.” In essence, this is again the theory and practice of symbol, designed, as before, as elsewhere in the Areopagite, no matter what divine he is talking about, to point out the paradox of combining a resting Eternity with a dynamic present, permeated with divine energy. In Her transcendent immutability, Wisdom has a cup from which, of course, she drinks. Wisdom is one of the names of God; this is specifically discussed in the largest book of the Areopagite, “On the Divine Names.” And here, in the Epistle to Titus the Hierarch, the author further writes - in accordance with the “sacred revelation of the image of the feast” - that God “revels because of the abundance and surpassing the imagination of His feast, or, more precisely, because of the perfect state of God and His inexpressible immensity. Just as for us, in a low sense, intoxication is the immeasurable filling of the belly and the mind and the mind with wine into a frenzy, so in a higher sense, in relation to God, intoxication should be understood as nothing other than the abundant, due to the fact that it is in Him, the immensity of all goods. Likewise, the insanity that accompanies drunkenness should be understood as the superiority of God that surpasses thought, according to which the One who is higher than thinking, higher than understanding and higher than being itself rises above thinking. And simply with everything, no matter how much good there is, God is intoxicated and therefore ecstatic - as if at once overflowing with all this and at the same time - the immensity of all excess! - existing outside and beyond everything.” (In parentheses, I’ll ask the experts: is it not from here, from this image of God as a binge drunkard, that the symbolic image of truth-wine in mystical Sufi poetry originates?) The “liquid food” that the servants of Wisdom offer to people in cups, writes the Areopagite, is a symbol of “the flow that is poured out and hastens to reach everything, in different, many and divided paths to a simple and calm knowledge of God, fed by the corresponding blessings of the guide. That is why the divine intelligible Speeches are likened to dew, water, milk, wine and honey: because of their life-giving power, like water; vegetable, like milk; revitalizing, like wine; and cleansing and protective, like honey. After all, the divine Wisdom bestows them on those who come, giving and generously pouring out a stream of abundant and inexhaustible dishes. This means truly treating. That is why she is glorified as a life-giver, as well as a child-nurser, a renovator and an improver.” In the book “On Divine Names”, God’s name “Wisdom” is discussed after such names as Good, Light, Beauty, Love, Ecstasy, Zeal, Jehovah and Life. “Now,” the author begins this chapter, connecting the previous name with the subsequent one, “let us sing, if you don’t mind, the good and eternal Life as all-wise and as wisdom in itself (αὐτοσοφίαν), and most importantly, as the basis of all wisdom, above all wisdom and understanding (σύνεσιν) existing." The arrangement of names turns out to be no coincidence, for “... existing things extend wider than life, and life is wider than wisdom.” The interpretation explains it this way: “The author says that the divine name “Good” explains the entire Providence, and other names, such as “Life”, “Wisdom” and “Word” are His private manifestations.” After all, everything that exists, by the goodness of God, was created to exist and is good, that is, very good. However, not everything is involved in life, or the word, or wisdom. That is why the author contrasts such names with the universal. “More general” he calls manifestations observed in a larger number of creatures, for example, life, for it is present in both plants and animals, rational and irrational; and wisdom and the word are more private, since they can only be observed in rational beings. Glorifying the “wordless, insane and stupid” Wisdom of God, the Areopagite says that “She is the cause of all intelligence and meaning, all wisdom and consciousness.” But also feelings are an echo of Wisdom (σοφίας ἀπήχημα). Thus, both the thinking and feelings of a person, temporary phenomena, owe their existence to the eternal Wisdom, and it is participation in Her that unites a person with the One, whose unity exceeds one. But at the same time, a person does not perish, but is saved, for it is precisely this participation that is the basis of his every existence - both temporary and eternal. “...The Godhead (as the Areopagite often calls God. - G.P.) is sacredly glorified... as the Wise and Beautiful (σοφὴν καὶ καλήν), as preserving all things without violating its own nature, and as filled with all kinds of divine harmony and sacred beauty.” The Incarnation, the perception of human nature by the Son of God, when, as the Areopagite writes, “the extent of time was perceived by the Eternal,” did not violate this nature, but restored it to its original rootedness in the Eternal with His amazing Wisdom. A few words should be said here about the history of the Corpus of Works of Dionysius the Areopagite in Rus' and in Russia. 21 Completed in 1371 by the monk Isaiah in the Balkans, the translation of the Corpus of Works of Dionysius the Areopagite with interpretations by St. Maximus the Confessor became known in Rus' back in the 14th century, having arrived here, apparently, in two ways: from the Balkans to Novgorod and from there - perhaps through Constantinople - to Moscow. In Rus', these two manuscript traditions coexisted, sometimes appearing in the same lists. Like their Byzantine predecessors, Russian book writers placed the main text of the monument and commentaries on it side by side. But if the Greeks usually framed the main text with the smaller written text of the scholia, then the Russian scribes for the most part placed the interpretations in a single working space of pages that they had in common with the main text and wrote them as large as the main text. And so that the reader does not confuse the text of Dionysius with the comments to it, appropriate notes were made in the margins. However, over time, the boundaries between the texts shifted and were erased, the texts seemed to penetrate each other, and their meaning diminished. And the translation language gradually ceased to be understandable. In the manuscripts of the 17th century, during the era of the greatest interest in the works of the Areopagite, as shown by the number of Russian copies, there are complaints from readers about the confusion and incomprehensibility of the texts of the Corpus (although it was in the translation of the monk Isaiah that Dionysius then became the favorite writer of Archpriest Avvakum). Mainly this confusion prompted the monk Euthymius Chudovsky to undertake in the 17th century. a new translation of the Corpus (more precisely, an editing of the Isaiah translation). Euthymius grouped the interpretations chapter by chapter and placed them after the end of the corresponding chapters. 22 From the third quarter of the 18th century. A list of special transcriptions of the monument into the Church Slavonic-Russian language has reached us. 23 Its creator refused interpretations altogether. He created his own version of the Slavic text of the Areopagite at the end of the 18th century. and the famous Moldavian elder Paisiy Velichkovsky. He has 24 interpretations by St. Maximus the Confessor was either removed or placed (together with the later paraphrases of George Pachymer, 13th century) at the end of some chapters. Like Evfimy Chudovsky, Paisy Velichkovsky was no longer guided by the handwritten tradition, Greek or Slavic, but by printed Greek books. In 1819, the monk Moses made what seems to be the last translation of Dionysius the Areopagite into the Slavic language (a list from 1827–1829 has been preserved) 25 using previous translations, including Paisius Velichkovsky. Monk Moses was motivated to translate the work of the monk by the same reasons as Euthymius Chudovsky - the confusion in the lists of the text of “existence” and “interpretations”. He himself resorted to the traditional technique of splitting comments into small groups and inserting them into the main text, which was thus torn apart. Thus, he did not eliminate the main reasons for the confusion of interpretations with the main text (the same size letter and a single working space for pages). I completely omitted the interpretations of the messages. Subsequently, translations of Dionysius the Areopagite were no longer made into Slavic, but into Russian, and even then not of the entire Corpus; and the lists of old Slavic translations, which had hitherto decisively outnumbered the new ones, were no longer reproduced. In 1787 in Moscow, N.I. Novikov’s student D.M. Dmitrievsky, using (like Paisiy Velichkovsky) a Greek printed edition, translated the Areopagite’s treatise “On Mystical Theology” into Russian. He began the thin notebook-manuscript of his translation with a dedication to Nikolai Ivanovich Novikov. 26 It remains to mention the treatise “On the Divine Names” in Russian translation, known in the list of 1831, 27 and another translation of the same treatise, entitled “On the Divine Names” in the list from about the middle of the 19th century. 28 There are no comments on the treatise either there or there. Printed editions of the works that occupy us do not add anything fundamentally new to this picture. In 1786 and 1787 In Moscow, in the translation of Hieromonk Moses (Gumilevsky), the books “On the Heavenly Hierarchy, or Hierarchy” and “On the Church Hierarchy” were published “at the expense of the Printing Company.” Then they were reprinted several times. In 1825 and 1839 The magazine “Christian Reading” published translations of Gabriel of the Resurrection’s essay “On Mystical Theology” and the Epistles of the Areopagite. The treatise “On Divine Names” translated into Russian by Abbot Gennady (Eikalovich) was published in 1957 in Buenos Aires. And finally, in 1991, a book was published in Kyiv under the title “Mystical Theology”, containing “Mystical Theology”, “Letter to Gaius the Monk”, “Letter to Dorotheus the Monk” and “Divine Names” in the Russian translation by Fr. Leonid Lutkovsky. The interpretations were not translated. Thus, there has not yet been a single complete translation into Russian of the Corpus of works inscribed with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, with interpretations. The monument fell apart and has not yet been recreated (including the original). We are making an attempt to restore it to its “pre-scientific” form. Translating texts from the Dionysian Corpus into modern language is an extremely difficult task. Therefore, we gave the reader the opportunity, looking at the translation, to see the original. The beginning of such a publication in Russian of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite in the traditional form, that is, with the interpretations that he provided them with in the 7th century. Maximus the Confessor, was founded in 1994 by the book: Dionysius the Areopagite. About divine names. About mystical theology. St. Petersburg, 1994 (edition prepared by G. M. Prokhorov. Reissue: St. Petersburg, 1995). It was continued in 1997 with the book: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy. St. Petersburg, 1997 (edition prepared by M. G. Ermakova), and the book: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the church hierarchy. Messages. St. Petersburg, 2001 (edition prepared by G. M. Prokhorov), and completed by the publication “Dionysius the Areopagite” published in St. Petersburg in 2002 by two publishing houses, “Aletheia” and “Oleg Abyshko Publishing House”. Essays. Maxim the Confessor. Interpretations." It combined everything mentioned above, with the difference that all the translations in it were made by me and some translation corrections were proposed in the review by Yu. A. Shichalin 29 and in the review written at the request of the publishers by A. A. Rossius (for which I express my gratitude to them), were accepted. The editor of my translations of the treatises of the Areopagite, with the exception of the last one, “On Mystical Theology,” and the messages, which were edited by Hieromonk Gregory (Vadim Mironovich) Lurie, was of blessed memory Prof. Leningrad State University Alexander Iosifovich Zaitsev. I am very grateful to both of them for this. For this edition - without the Greek texts - their translation was again subjected to revision and editing as much as possible. St. Petersburg, January 2006 The nobility and brilliant wealth of the great Dionysius is evidenced by the very fact that he was elected a member of the Athenian council. After all, he was one of the Areopagites, as is clear from the story of the divine Luke about the sacred acts of the sacred apostles. For having said that the most holy Apostle Paul, having arrived in Athens and entered into conversation with some of the Epicurean philosophers, as well as the Stoics, began to preach faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the dead and the universal judgment, and non-philosophers (not truly philosophers) took him and brought him to the Areopagus, and he spoke before the people and immediately caught some people, Luke adds: “So Paul went out from among them. Some men, having approached him, believed; among them was Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damar, and others with them” (Acts 17:33–34). It was not in vain, I think, that of all those who believed then thanks to the divine Paul, the God-bearing writer named only the most noble Dionysius and added the title to his name, calling him Areopagite. I think that it was precisely because of his extraordinary wisdom and extremely impeccable life among the Athenians that Dionysius was mentioned here along with his house. You should know that, as I said, it was not given to every person to hold a council on the hill of Arius, but only to people of outstanding birth, wealth and purity of life, and therefore only worthy people participated in the council of the Areopagus. After all, it was established among the Athenians to elect nine archons as judges - the Areopagites, as Androtion speaks about in the second book of Attid. Subsequently, the council of the Areopagus became large, namely, it numbered fifty-one famous people, exclusively Eupatrides, as we said, and people outstanding in wealth and prudence, as Philochorus relates in the third book of the same Attides. The court “On Aryan Hill” was located outside the city and was named so, the Athenians say, from the dispute that took place on this hill between Poseidon and Arius about the boundaries of the city. For, according to the ancient myths of the Athenians, at this place Poseidon accused Arius of killing his son Alirrothion. And from here, by the name of Aria, the hill was called Ariev. The Areopagites judged almost all crimes and violations of laws, as Androtion says about all this in the first and Philochorus in the second and third books of Attid. That is why the zealots of wisdom disgraced by God, as Luke, who loves the truth, relates, dragged the most divine Paul - as the herald of new demons - to the council located on the Aryan Rock. But the all-great Dionysius, who was among the Areopagites that year, a most unwavering judge, gave impartial preference to the truth proclaimed by the spirit-bearing Paul, and, having decisively said goodbye to the unreasonable piety of the Areopagites, he understood the true and all-seeing Judge, Christ Jesus, the Only Begotten Son and the Word of God the Father, whom Paul preached, and immediately accepted the side of the light. And although the Romans then had power, they left Athens and Lacedaemonia autonomous; and therefore the city life of the Athenians was still under the control of the Areopagites. And the most powerful Paul initiated Dionysius into all the dogmas of salvation, and raised him as a teacher - he himself says this - the greatest Hierotheus. According to the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions, Dionysius was then installed by Christ-bearing Paul as a bishop for the believing Athenians. The Areopagite is remembered by both Dionysius, the ancient bishop of Corinth, and Polycarp in his Epistle to the Athenians. One can be amazed at the correctness and great education of this saint Dionysius, guided by a truly deep knowledge of immaculate church traditions to consider the false teachings of Hellenic philosophers in relation to the truth. The inattentiveness of disdainful experts of good taste should rather be regretted and mourned, for they balance the proper desire of other people for knowledge with their lack of education. Reading the works of some authors, without being convinced by the thought contained in them, they immediately begin to recklessly slander the author. However, since they are completely unable to direct their ridicule and refute what they say, they should turn their anger on themselves and rather mourn the fact that they themselves did not try to understand what leads to knowledge, or, in fact, did not come willingly to learn from those who are able to do so, in order to get rid of perplexities. And some people dare to accuse the divine Dionysius of heresy, completely unaware of the teachings of the heretics. Indeed, if they compared what he writes with each of the condemned heretical theses, they would understand that the teachings of those with a multitude of nonsense are as far from him as darkness is from the light of truth. What can they object to his theology of one worshipable Trinity? Or - about Jesus Christ, one with this all-blessed Trinity, the Only Begotten Word of God, who wanted to become completely human? “He passed to the end not only through the soul endowed with reason, but also through the earthly body peculiar to us, and through everything else, as was established by the right teachers. Or does anyone have grounds to refute what Dionysius said about the intelligible, intelligible and perceived by the senses, or about our general resurrection with bodies and the then division of the righteous and the unrighteous? In short, our salvation calls on us to explain in more detail as we go along, with the help of the scholia, the injustice of what they say. So be it, they say, but Eusebius Pamphilus and also Origen did not know his works. These should be answered that Eusebius missed a lot that did not fall into his hands; Yes, he does not say that he collected everything, but rather admits that he could not get to more books. And we can remember many books that he did not have, moreover, authors who lived on the same land, like Hymen and Narcissus, who were priests in Jerusalem. I read something by Hymen here; so he did not include the works of Panten, nor Clement the Roman, with the exception of only two epistles, and nothing more. Origen - I don’t know if he knew everyone he knew - only mentioned four authors. A certain Roman deacon named Peter told me that everything written by the divine Dionysius was preserved, having been placed in the library of sacred books in Rome. Dionysius writes mostly to the thrice-blessed Timothy, a disciple of the holy Apostle Paul, Bishop of Ephesus, who naturally experienced difficulties in arguing with the Ephesian defenders of Ionic philosophy and asked him, as an expert in external philosophy, to help him argue. There is nothing incredible in this, since the God-loving Apostle Paul also used the sayings of the Hellenes, having the opportunity to hear them from people who were with him and were skilled in Hellenic philosophy. And this testifies to the fact that, loving the truth, one should recognize these works as the works of Dionysius. After all, the fact that he artlessly recalls the sayings of prosperous men with him, whom both the “Acts of the Divine Apostles” and the multi-useful Epistles of the God-loving Paul recall, shows the genuineness of these writings; and especially - an extremely thorough knowledge of all dogmas. Since some people say that these are the works not of the saint, but of someone who lived after him, they must necessarily consider him to be someone forbidden and an insolent person, lying about himself such things - that he lived at the same time as the apostles and wrote letters to those whom he was not a contemporary and to whom he did not write. To invent a prophecy for the Apostle John, who was in exile, that he would return to the Asian land and teach as before is evidence of the depravity of a man madly pursuing prophetic glory. But to come up with and say that at the very time of Christ’s saving suffering he was with Apollophanius in Heliopolis, where they saw and discussed a solar eclipse - that it then did not occur in accordance with the laws of nature and was unusual; talk about yourself that he was present with the apostles when the holy remains of the Holy Mother of God Mary were carried out, and cite the words of Hierotheus, his teacher, as spoken among the funeral words; to invent messages and words, as if addressed to the disciples of the apostles - how bad and condemnable a random person must be for this, and not like a man so exalted in custom and knowledge, capable of surpassing everything comprehended by the senses and coming into contact with intelligible beauty, and through it, as far as possible, with God! Much more explanatory commentary is needed to interpret many of his teachings; however, relying on God, I placed in parallel with the words arranged in order, in chapters, as the book was divided, those scholia known to me, which happened to come into my hands until now. From the interpretations of a certain hardworking husband It is appropriate to know that some of the external philosophers, and especially Proclus, often use the speculations of Blessed Dionysius and his very words. And therefore one can think that the previously living Athenian philosophers, as he recalls in this book, appropriated his works, hid them in order to themselves look like the fathers of his divine sayings. But by God's providence real work has now appeared to expose their vanity and frivolity. And that it is common for those to steal from us, teaches the divine Basil in the Word “In the beginning was the Word.” In this speech he says this: “Therefore, I know many of the philosophers external to the Word of truth, great in worldly wisdom, who were amazed at Him and dared to add Him to their writings. For the devil is a thief and he takes our goods to his priests.” So it is here. Here are the words directly spoken by the Pythagorean Numenius: “What is Plato if not Moses speaking the Attic dialect?” As Eusebius, who was the mentor of Caesarea in Palestine, testifies, no one - neither of our co-religionists, nor of our opponents - can deny that not only now, but also before the coming of Christ, it was a common thing for adherents of external philosophy to steal our wisdom. See, for example (from the latest editions): Denys l’Aréopagite et postèrité en Orient et en Occident. Paris, 1997; Die Dionysios-Rezeption im Mittelalter. Brepols, 2000; Die Dionysios-Rezeption im Mittelalter // Archiv für mittelalterliche Philosophie und Kultur. Heft VI. Sofia, 2000. About Maxim the Confessor, see: Epifanovich S. L. Materials for the study of the life and works of the Rev. Maximus the Confessor. Kyiv, 1917; Sidorov A.I. 1) Some comments on the biography of Maximus the Confessor // Byzantine temporary book. 1986. T. 47. pp. 109–124; 2) St. Maximus the Confessor: era, life, creativity // Creations of St. Maximus the Confessor. Book 1. Theological and ascetic treatises. Per., will enter. article and comment. A. I. Sidorova. M., 1993. pp. 7–74. See: Balthazar N. U. vi. 1) Das Scholienwerk des Johannes von Scythopolis // Scholastic. 1940. Bd. 15. S. 16–38; 2) Das Problem der Dionysius- Scholien/ /Baltazar N. U. v. Kosmische Liturgie. Maximus der Bekenner. Einsiedein, 1961 (2 Aufl.) S. 644–672; Suchia B. R. 1) Die sogenannten Maximus-Scholien des Corpus Dionysiacum Areopagitieum/ /Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen I. Philologisch-historishe Klasse. 1980, No. 3. S. 33–66; 2) Die Oberlieferung des Prologs des Johannes von Skythopolis zum griechischen Corpus Dionysiacum Areopagitieum: Ein weiterer Beitr. zur Überlieferungsgeschichte des CD // Ibid. 1984, No. 4. S. 175–188; 3) Eine Redaktion der griechischen Corpus Dionysiacum Areopagitieum im Umkreis des Johannes von Skythopolis, des Verfassers von Prolog und Scholien. Ein dritter Beitr. zur Überlieferungsgeschichte des CD // ibid. 1985, no. 4. S. 177–194, Tabellen, Tafelteil. See: Ritter A. M. Stemmatisierungsversuche zum Corpus Dionysiacum Areopagitieum im Lichte des EDV-Verfahrens // Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen I. Philologisch-historische Klasse. 1980, No. 6. S. 93134. About the original structure of Kopnyca cm.: Balthazar H.U.v. La gloire et la croix. 2. Styles. D'Irénée a Dante. Aubier, 1968, pp. 141–149. See: Mansi J.-D. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. Florenz, 1759. T. 8. Coi. 817–834; or: Schwartz E. Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. Straßburg, 1914. T. IV, 2. P. 167–184. Cm.: Hausherr 1. Doutes au sujet du “Divin Denys” // Orientalia Christiana Periodica. Roma, 1936. 2. P. 484–490. Smirnov I. Russian literature about works named after St. Dionysius the Areopagite // Orthodox Review. M., 1872. P. 855. See: Denys I'Areopagite. La hiérarchie célèste / Introd. par René Roques. Paris, 1970. P. VII–XIII. Smirnov I. Russian literature... P. 869. Similar conclusions see: Roques R. L’Univers dionysien: Structure hiérarchique du monde selon le Pseudo-Denys. Aubier, 1954. Meyendorff J. Notes sur l’influence dionisienne en Orient // Studia Patristica. Berlin, 1957. No. 2. P. 547–552. See: Koch N. Proclus als Quelle des Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Bösen // Philologus. 1895. Bd. 54. S. 438–454; Stiglmayr J. Der Neuplatoniker Proclus als Vorlage des Sogenannten Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Üebel // Historisches Jahrbuch. Miinich, 1895. Bd. 16. S. 253–273, 721–748; 2) Das Aufkommen der pseudo-dionysishen Schriften und ihr Eindringen in die christliche Literatur bis zum Laterankonzil 64E // 4. Jahresbericht des öffentlichen Privatgymnasium an der Stella Matutina zu Feldkirch. Feldkirch, 1895. S. 3–96; see also: Roques R. Critique systématique et décisive de Koch et Stiglmayr/Denys l’Areopagite. La hiérarchie celeste. P. X–XIII: Introd. Balthazar N.U.v. La gloire et la croix. 2. P. 132–134. Wyller E. Henologi – Platonisme. Oslo, 1993. Vol. II. P. 284–285; Willer E. A. The Doctrine of the One in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. St. Petersburg, 2002. P. 532533. So, without these comments, the Areopagite Corpus can be called belonging to either Antiquity or Modern Times. See: Works of St. Dionysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, in Russian translation. Publication of the Kazan Theological Academy. Translation, notes and introduction by the priest. A. Druzhinin, edited by E. O. Professor L. Pisarev. Kazan, 1900. pp. 178–181. Corrected by us. The edition contains Θεολογικαῖς ὑποτυπώτεις. ― Editorial of the ABC of Faith. Monumenta Germaniae Historicae. Epistolarum tomus VII. Karolini aevi V. Berlin, 1928. P. 433. I use the article here: Goltz H. Notizien zur Traditionsgeschichte des Corpus areopagiticum sia vicum // Byzanz in der europäischen Staatenwelt. Berlin, 1983. S. 138, – as well as typescript by Prof. G. Goltz “The Divine Dionysius on the Heretics” (Pages from the history of the “Areopagitik” among the Greeks and Slavs). “From Anastasia’s abstract,” writes Prof. G. Goltz, “one can undoubtedly conclude that he quoted from his own notes.” See also: Suchla B. R. Anastasius Bibliothecarius und der Dionysius Areopagita Iatinus // Archiv für mittelalterliche Philosophie und Kultur. Sofia, 2000. S. 23–31. See p. 444 ff in this edition. Here and further in translations, italics indicate the translator's insertion. The Slavic list of the Corpus, made by the translator himself, to which all the known Slavic lists of the Areopagite directly or indirectly go back, is now stored in the Russian National (Public) Library in St. Petersburg, collection. Hilferding. No. 46. For more information about this, see my book “Monuments of translated and Russian literature of the 14th and 15th centuries.” (JI., 1987. pp. 42–59). See: State Historical Museum, Synodal collection, No. 55. In two other known lists of his translation - BAN, collection. Arkhangelsk Seminary, No. 126, and State Historical Museum, collection. Barsova, No. 213. both XVII centuries. – interpretations are placed according to traditional patterns. RSL, Museum collection. (f. 178), No. 1345. Known lists: State Historical Museum, Simonov collection, No. 5, 18th century, and manuscripts from the Neametsky monastery in Romania: B.M.N., mss. si., No. 192, 1790 (scribes Nicholas and Philip); No. 182, end of the 18th century; No. 271, XVIII century. (before 1790, autograph of Paisius); No. 264, XVIII century. (before 1790, autograph of Paisius). For information about the lists of Dionysius stored in Romania, translated by Rev. Paisiy Velichkovsky I sincerely thank Ms. Prof. Valentina Pelin. State Historical Museum, Simonovskoe collection, No. 6. TsGADA, collection. MGAMID (f. 181), No. 957/1523. State Historical Museum, Simonovskoe collection, No. 41. GBL, Museum collection. (f. 178), No. 8881. See: Meeting. Quarterly student Orthodox magazine of the Moscow Theological Academy and Seminary and the Foundation for the Unity of Orthodox Peoples. 1998. 2(8). pp. 26–27.