The mysticism of Dionysius the Areopagite and the Eastern Christian tradition preceding it

These are excerpts from Golitsin's book Et Introibo ad altare Dei: the mystagogy of Dionysius Areopagita: with special reference to its predecessors in the Eastern Christian tradition (Analekta Blatadon 59; Thessalonike: Patriarchikon Idruma Paterikon Meleton; George Dedousis, 1994). This is his doctoral thesis written at Oxford with Kallistos Ware. The works, which went down in history under the name Corpus Areopagiticum, had a significant influence on the development of world philosophy over the last one and a half thousand years. The “Corpus Areopagiticum” includes the following works: “On the Divine Names”, “On the Church Hierarchy” (“On the Church Hierarchy”), “On Mystical Theology” (“On Mystical Theology”), “On the Heavenly Hierarchy” (“On the Heavenly Hierarchy”), ten Epistles (four Epistles to Gaius the minister, the Epistle to Dorotheus the liturgist, Sopater the priest, Polycarp the hierarch, Dimophilus the minister, Titus the hierarch, John the Theologian). Corpus Areopagiticum aroused great interest already in the Middle Ages. Since the Council of Constantinople in 533, it has been actively discussed. Both the largest scholastic of Eastern Christianity, John of Damascus, and the largest scholastic of the Western world, Thomas Aquinas, turned to him. Based on the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, the Irishman John Scotus Eriugena and the French thinkers Alan of Lille and Alexander of Gaels developed their Neoplatonic views. The ideas of Dionysius the Areopagite had a significant influence on the development of the philosophical quests of the thinkers of the Saint-Victorian school. With the beginning of hesychast disputes in Byzantium in the 14th century, the authority of Dionysius the Aoreopagite was invoked by both ascetic Palamites and their opponents, the Varlamites. Dionysius the Areopagite influenced European mystics such as Meister Eckhart. Dionysius the Areopagite aroused great interest among the Neoplatonists of the Renaissance: Nicholas of Cusa, Marsilio Ficino, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, who placed the Areopagite above Plato and Aristotle. The ideas of the Areopagite were discussed by Lorenzo Valla, Erasmus of Rotterdam, and leaders of the Reformation. The study of this most interesting monument of world philosophical thought, which absorbed the traditions of Eastern and Western cultures, was repeatedly addressed in the twentieth century. These are studies by M. V. Bezobrazova, Sh. I. Nutsubidze, A. F. Losev, S. S. Averintsev, G. M. Prokhorov, V. V. Bychkov, M. N. Gromov, V. V. Milkov. The fact that interest in the Areopagitics is growing in connection with the history of Russian philosophy is proven by the most interesting publication: Makarov A.I., Milkov V.V., Smironova A.A. “Ancient Russian Areopagitics” (M., 2002). Corpus Areopagiticum had a significant influence on the development of Russian philosophy. Fragments of it have already been translated in Kievan Rus (“Izbornik Svyatoslav 1073.” “Izbornik 1076”). Corpus Areopagiticum gained particular popularity in Muscovite Rus', which is explained by the philosophical interests of Russian thinkers of the 14th–17th centuries. A significant milestone in the Russian history of the Areopagitik was the fact that in 1371 the Serbian monk Isaiah, a prominent church and public figure and abbot of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery on Athos, completed his global work (and this is truly a global work, indicating the readiness of the language to perceive the entire complex conceptual apparatus of Dionysius) on translating the corpus of Dionysius’s works into the Slavic language with commentaries Maximus the Confessor and prefaced the translation with his preface. The translation of Isaiah came to Rus' in two ways: from Athos to Novgorod and from Athos to Moscow. These two manuscripts in Rus' passed into two traditions of translation of Dionysius the Areopagite and existed in parallel; sometimes one could find a comparison of them in the same texts. In addition to Isaiah, Maxim the Greek and Metropolitan Cyprian translated the works of Dionysius the Areopagite. The corpus of Dionysius’ works was translated again in 1675 by the monk of the Chudov Monastery, Euthymius. We see quotes from Dionysius the Areopagite in the works of Nil Sorsky, Sylvester Medvedev, Ivan the Terrible, Andrei Kurbsky, Archpriest Avvakum. Works under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite introduced Russian scribes to the traditions of Neoplatonism and medieval mysticism and thereby expanded the boundaries of Russian philosophical culture, showing new horizons of philosophical searches. In many ways, to understand Russian medieval thinkers, it is necessary to understand the teachings of Dionysius the Areopagite himself. We present to your attention a translation by Petkina C. O. of the study Alexander (Golitzin) “Et introibo ad altare dei. “The mystagogy of Dionysius Areopagita, with special reference to its predecessons in the Eastern Christian tradition” reveals a number of interesting aspects of the teachings of the famous Byzantine philosopher and theologian and thereby allows us to turn in a new way to the works of Russian thinkers. Ionaitis O. B. 1. Dionysian problem: Consensus? The body of Dionysian writings cannot be called extensive. It is contained in a third of the volume of the Migne Patrologia and covers three treatises of short content, the Divine and Ecclesiastical Hierarchies, the Divine Names, a very short essay on "Mystical Theology" and finally the "Epistle" (Epistole). His influence on subsequent theology of East and West, however, cannot be overestimated, and as regards the East, perhaps more significantly than hitherto assumed. To their importance for medieval thought it is necessary to add the continuing interest in them of modern humanities. The number of works devoted to Dionysian teachings numbers in the hundreds and includes the publication of four substantial monographs published in the 70s. However, despite such extensive research on the Dionysian problem, "uncertainty" remains an appropriate description of the state of the modern consensus. The consensus owed to two German scholars, Hugo Koch and Joseph Stieglmayer, who independently published important papers at the turn of the century comparing the teaching of evil in The Divine Names with Proclus' De malorum Subsistentia and found striking parallels. In the same year, Stiglmayer published a large article “Das aufkommen der Pseudo-Dionysischen Schriften”, in which he proved the time period for the creation of the “corpus of Dionysian works” in the first decades of the 5th century and the place of creation in the region of Syria-Palestine. He justified his assumption of the place and dating in 5 points: 1. Absence of any mention of a corpus of writings earlier than the 4th century. 2. Mention of it within the framework of the Chalcedonian time system (451 AD). 3. Evidence of this is in the philosophy of Proclus. 4. Explicit reference to EN III 3.7. to the chant of Creed during Holy Communion, a practice introduced in Antioch by Peter the Monophysite in 476. 5. A clear warning from Dionysius, who considered Christian dogma to be a reflection of imperial policy, enacted by the Genoticon from 482 to 518. Geographically, the use of the Creed, the first quotations of Dionysius and the general liturgical coverage are limited to Western Syria. While Stiglmayer continued to write articles of great value, in particular concerning SD and Neoplatonism, Koch's article “Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite in seinen Beziehungen Zum Neo-platonismus and Mysterienwesen” appeared in 1900, the most important single study examining the pagan roots of the teachings of Dionysius. This monograph, which remained a kind of Bible for subsequent scholars, presented in comprehensively detailed lexical, literary and conceptual parallels of the “Dionysian corpus” and the works of late antiquity associated with religion and philosophy. In thirty-three subheadings, ranging in subject matter from "Final Dogma" to "Mystical Harmony and Silence", Koch, with the help of an invaluable reference to the book, counters anyone who might dispute the conclusion that Dionysius took more from late Platonism, especially from Proclus, than from any Christian before or since. But what does it mean that SD borrowed from paganism? Is it just a matter of terminology or is it much deeper? Here we reach an impasse in the dispute, which means the end of consensus. Koch and Stiglmeier came to a general agreement about the “when” and “where” of the Dionysian works, what they took from late Neoplatonism. The “who” and “what” of SD continues to inspire significant debate. Returning to what was said earlier, it should be noted, for example, that while everyone agrees that Dionysius was not the apostle turned by Paul into the Areopagite, no one can determine his identity. And not because of a lack of candidates. Over the intervening fifty years, Dionysius has been variously identified as Ammonius Saccas, Dionysius the Great of Alexandria, a follower of Basil Caesari in Cappadosia, the last of the Diadochi of Damascus, and Sergius of Reshaine, among others. Unless new evidence is found, any future attempts to determine the identity of our author will no doubt be as unsuccessful as all previous efforts have been. In recent years, any attempts to unravel this have been abandoned. While the search for this “someone” has been abandoned, the debate around the “what” continues to remain unabated. Of course, these two problems are related. René Roger summed up the interpretive dilemma perfectly: “...The classification of interpretations is presented as the result of a unique originality,” fitting neatly into that gap between “despite” and “despite.” The list of candidates provides a striking illustration of the gap when filled: two are pagans (Ammonius and Damascus), two are Catholic Christians (Severus, Peter and Sergius). The principle is simple: once the practical impossibility of accurately establishing the identity of Dionysius is admitted, then there is no way for a scientist seeking an explanation of the thoughts of the mysterious author to avoid the enormous influence on this search of his own inclinations and predilections. How else can one explain a number of academic studies analyzing the corpus of Dionysius’s works, which are the mirror opposite of each other? Dionysius the apologist dresses up in the clothes of a pagan in order to convert to Dionysius the pagan, the fifth feuilletonist, dressing up in new religious clothes in order to overthrow? Both Von Ivanka and Hathaway wrote half a century later than Stiglmeier and Koch, and both made preparations to use later publications. These are the limits of consensus and at the same time the completion of our apology. Any interpretation of Dionysius cannot be made without an element of personal bias on the part of the scientist. This leads us to review the work of scientists whose efforts are most prominently represented in this article and therefore we believe that our efforts will be justified. Neoplatonist or Christian? Not all scholars who focus on the relationship of the "Dionysian body of writings" to Neoplatonism take such an unclear position on their essence and consequences as Hornus. Andrew von Ivanka, in a series of articles published in Plato Christianes, argues that Dionysius is a Christian apologist who deliberately engages in undermining the activities of the Neoplatonists, ordering the world by depriving this system of its content, placing the Christian worldview in this empty shell. He correctly understands the importance of Dionysius's refusal to resort to the causal chains characteristic of Plotinus and the later, more complex hierarchy of the Neoplatonists, a refusal that destroys the almost mathematical ontogeny created by such significant philosophical efforts to construct the world rationally, and which radically changes the original meaning of the triad, mouh-peoodoV-epist ojh so important for SD as an attempt to describe the source of being. Rather, it is a given being; since the Dionysian hierarchy is devoid of any demiurgic function and is sent instead of knowledge or clarification. At this point, however, von Ivanka goes a step further and denies any function of hierarchy at all. He sees the knowledge of God as immediate, but he is mistaken in seeing the hierarchical illumination as a mere hanging appendage, and the hierarchy itself as a kind of decorative gimmick left solely to attract potential conversion from philosophy. "The Divine and Ecclesiastical Hierarchies", two rather long treatises; become incomprehensible if they are considered as apologist projects, and Dionysian originality remains less than half-expressed once his point of view on hierarchy as an object of reflection is ignored. A few years later, Roland Hathaway, as noted above, takes a completely opposite position. He reverses the roles of wolf and sheep's clothing to read Dionysius as an attempt to transform Christian monotheism into Neoplatonist metaphysics, "Proclus in a biblical setting." Hathaway's assumptions and general approach can be briefly examined in the following remarks of his commentary. “The Pseudo-Dionysian description of Divine Providence as without beginning or end, together with the unconditional acceptance of the metaphysics of Proclus, means that the subjects of Providence are also eternal... special caution is necessary in approaching Pseudo-Dionysius... and in understanding his art of writing” hidden in every line and every word.” The meaning of this is indeed sinister, but Hathaway's efforts to express it are a little over the top. Proclus cannot be discovered within the “corpus of Dionysian works” without very great originality. Although Hathaway attempts to check, as in his claim against the literal accuracy of the text, Dionysius "gives causation in a subordinate order", he remains even more unconvincing than von Ivanka. Perhaps the most useful section of his book is his analysis of the controversy surrounding SD authorship, to which we can add some of his remarks related to the importance of the Logos to the Iefmps for the hierarchy. Between these two directions we find an authoritative study of the Dionysian hierarchy by René Roger in L Univcos Dionysien, to which our article is greatly indebted. Since we depend here to a large extent on this work of Roger and the work of his other works, our Chapter III is essentially a summary and interpretation of L'Univcos and we will limit ourselves here to two short comments. First, although Roger's relationship to Dionysius is largely benevolent, his approach still seems to us to be extremely dependent on his assertion of Neoplatonist primacy (in his approach, Neoplatonist primacy outweighs). Throughout L'Univcos there are 87 references to patristic authors. Secondly, while he states that "Mystical Theology" is the central part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, Roger's distinction between Qcologia (theology) (the conversation about God "Divine and Mystical Theology") and Oikonomia (the created world; "Divine and ecclesiastical hierarchies"), which he resorted to in order to consider the hierarchy in isolation from the rest of the writings of the corpus, establishes an artificial division in the teaching of Dionysius and destroys the connections of his system. Roger's subtle distinction becomes a deep chasm in the views of Jean Vanneste, as expressed in his work "Le Mystere da Dion". Vanneste, strives to explain the Dionysian knowledge of God exclusively in terms of “Divine Names” and “Mystical Theology”, supporting which he tirelessly highlights the methods of this knowledge. The unity of the corpus of Dionysian works is not only broken here, but is considered rather in isolation from the hierarchies than in connection with them. "Divine Names" - "Mystical Theology" can safely be achieved through the teachings of Proclus and reveal dubious assumptions regarding the possibility of Christian influence on Dionysius. Being deprived of the environment of church and liturgy allows Vanneste to find it reasonable to write in Mystical Theology a “natural mysticism”, free from any specific Christian elements, free even from Christ and expressions, instead of cold, impersonal rationality, “a separate and prominent emphasis on the human Spirit in relation to the Absolute.” Before we try to object to the statement regarding the "autonomy" of the human Spirit and DN-MT, we would like to make a few comments regarding Vannest's attitude to the already noted concept of "mysticism". We do this not only because the concept itself and its use are decisive in understanding the writings of Dionysius, but also because Vanneste shows us a truly classic example of scientific sacrifice in all positive faith towards one's own surroundings. "Mystical theology" may be based on experience and some possibility of direct comprehension of God, but is not a necessity for such experience. Vanneste knows a different distinction. In his opinion, the “true mystic” must refer to his own experience, expressing his personal delight. Therefore, Dionysius in his eyes is "a theorist who is more interested in maintaining a precise and rigorous articulation of his conceptual system than in describing the untold details of life experience." We emphasize how this changes his author's assumption of the actual incomparability between the theoretical and the hypothetical, the theological and mystical, and his insistence that the subjective element dominates any actual... mystical work. This position must certainly have its origins in the Roman Catholicism of Vanneste. It invalidates, or at least ignores, the evidence of much of the Greek patristic tradition, in which the degree of subjectivity, so to speak, direct reference to personal experience, is very limited. Such a writer as a saint of the 11th century. Simeon the new theologian is an almost unique figure. Therefore, we fully admit that Vanneste evaluates Dionysius on the basis of Western Christian mysticism, perhaps the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, than on the immediate environment of the Areopagite: Gregory of Nyssa, Evagrius of Pontus and, in general, the entire spiritual monastic tradition of the Eastern Church. We are also confident that here we stand at the solution to the reasons for the refusal of MT and DN as a complex part of a whole that includes hierarchies and its tendency to see the origins of Dionysian teaching more in paganism than in the influence of Christian predecessors on it. We think that this is the only reason why he could dismiss the SD's references to traditional Christian themes as a kind of “smokescreen.” Another pure case of personal preference for confessional traditions, giving a competent scientific approach, is the monograph "Gott und die Scienden" by Berchard Brons, which contains frequent line-by-line notes. A quotation from Martin Luther promoting the idea that Dionysius was more Platonist than Christian opens the article and is repeated regularly throughout the article, contradicting Brons's claim that he is interested in strictly objective terminological analysis. Indeed, the Dionysian dictionary has been carefully and comprehensively studied, but the accompanying comments, although generously peppered with references to the study of Proclus by Beyerayats and other sources, related to Neoplatonism seem insignificant in relation to the patristic works. In one place we find an ecclesiastical tradition specifically mentioned which serves to illustrate our point about partiality. In concluding his incisive critique of Dionysian triadology, Brons points to Dionysian "causality" in relation to tradition, which fails as a consequence of Augustinian leadership in using the triad, oudia-swh-nous, as the basis for the necessity of Trinitarian discernment. Proclus puts forward a similar accusation earlier, connecting the name of Marius Victorinus to the name of Augustine. We readily admit the validity of this accusation, but we strongly object to the conclusion that Brons draws from here. Dionysius could not accept the definitions proposed here because this possibility had been recognized a century earlier as unacceptable by the Cappodosians in their defense of trinity versus singularity (rule based on the principles of legality and justice). And even if Dionysius had wished to accept this distinction, neglecting his ecclesiastical tradition and apophaticism, this would have been impossible without the motivating force of the works of Augustine, whose works were unknown in the Greek-Christian world until the 14th century. Therefore, when Brons referred to the ecclesiastical tradition, it could only mean the Latin Christian tradition. Consequently his approach to the Archaeopagite remains the same as that of Tudor and Elizabethan gentlemen such as Giles Fletcher and Richard Chancellor who reported to sixteenth-century England from Muscovy, revealing an excellent grasp of detail and an excessive mixture of hostility, contempt and incomprehension towards foreign things in general. In Bronsov's presentation, Dionysius becomes not only incomprehensible, but also completely incomprehensible. Moreover, he is confused when considering the “ontological, non-human sphere,” Orts Losigkut, a phenomenon whose existence he nevertheless correctly states, but whose logical basis he erroneously locates in the area of ​​​​the distinction between essence and energy, already outlined by the Cappodosians and others. He can only expose it as the result of Dionysian "destructive modifications" of Proklovian metaphysics. Similar combinations of careful investigation and distorted interpretations appear again and again throughout the book, equaling in impact the very reasonable dissemination of Harnus's article, which we examined above. The main accusation remains the same: Dionysius is trying to dress himself in the clothes of monism, alien to the Gospel. Brons here erroneously acknowledges Dionysius's views on nature and virtue, refusing to see their necessary opposition. In short, the Dionysian understanding of the Fall is not similar to St. Augustine's later clear distinction between the sensible and the supersensible. In this also, the author of the “corpus of Dionysian works” diverges from the Western tradition and reflects in his own. Brons is not aware of this distinction, which is revealed again in his analysis and rejection of the Incarnation in the “corpus of Dionysian works” as baseless, as a copy of the Dionysian scheme of divine Providence (Hornus’s “timeless symbol”) of the created world and God as formative, united, timeless organism (monism and “circle”). And finally, in contrast to the “cosmic” and “ecclesiastical” assessments of the hierarchies, Roger presents his own picture with a rigidly structured ontology, radically alien to the categories and necessary conditions of theology, based on the sacred scripture (hierarchy, history, revelation). It remains for us to consider the remaining monographs concerning SD against its philosophical environment. Corsini’s “Tratto de Divinis Nominibus” is a useful and competent study of the DN “Divan Names” and subsequent Neoplatonist comments on the first two hypotheses of the dialogue. The distinction between eu mh or and eu or is read as the source of Dionysian apophatic and cataphatic theologies. Corsini is careful to point out the fidelity of the basis of the DN ("Divine Names") to the one God and Creator, which is of particular importance to the second chapter and the euasus/diaroidus distinction as the basis for the debate about Unity, Trinity and the names of God. His detailed analysis of the treatise with reference to Parmenides and, in particular, to the Proklovian commentary continues to be valuable. We must agree with him in his distribution of names or uodra in the realm of created reality. It seems to us that this was done mainly in order to avoid the essence/energy distinction, which he especially rejects as well as the emanations of Proclus. But nevertheless, here we see a flaw in his indication of the influence of Dionysian primacy in patrist literature. We put forward a similar objection on the same point to another no less remarkable and much revealing teaching of late Neoplatonism to their Christian commentators with the help of Stephen Gersh in his work “From Iamblichus to Eriugena.” Before we begin Gersh's analysis of the teachings of Iamblichus and his followers in relation to SD, especially DN and MT, it is necessary to note the cogency of his rejection of the essence/energy distinction as the true distinction of God. It states that it arises from the difficulties of the transcendental/immanent problem of God, i.e. more than in the operation of two different ways concerning the relation between the divine cause and the created effect. Gersh concludes his proof by stating that this distinction is not found anywhere in Proclus. The latter statement may indeed be true, but it still does not meet the obligations that Dionysius has to his predecessors. This is noted in the article by all three scholars - Corsini, Brons and Gersh - who agree in rejecting the distinction originally insisted upon by modern scholars by Vladimir Lossky, although there is no consensus among them about what Qeia duomata/uodta makes reference in The Divine Names. Perhaps Brons, with his obvious confusion at the fact of their Orts Losigkeit, is at least a victim of his assumptions. Two other books published in the 1970s. "Hiera Mesiteia" by Hermann Goltz and "Thearchia" by Walter Neidl will not detain us long. We readily accept Goltz's assertion that Dionysius took the Church as his main theme. We can grant some truth to his argument for a sociological explanation of SD, partly subdued by the conflict between bishop and monarch. Of course, the corps must be considered within the framework of the hierarchical society of the era. On the other hand, it is unlawful to consider the Dionysian teaching only in the sociological aspect, because we are confident that there is a risk of making a serious mistake, such as Goltz, in asserting that Dionysius has been defined once and for all as a clearly bogus Neoplatonist. Moreover, Goltz made no attempt to reread it in the light of the previous tradition. The same is the case with Neidl's assertion that the Christian God cannot be identical with the ens realissimus of Angelicus Doctor and, in fact, contradicts Plotinus' apophatic theology of the Church Fathers, and thus Dionysius was rejected without verification, as it was before. From the middle of the last decade to the present, the most prolific author studying Dionysius has been Paul Rorem. His Biblical and Liturgical Symbols appeared first in collaboration with Colm Leubheid with an English translation and annotation of the SD, a proof of the treatise by the Treatise Commentaries on the corpus together with the compiler of a subsequent history in the Medieval Greek East and Latin West and a significant number of important articles during this period of time. In all these impressive works, Rorem focused mainly on a careful analysis of the Dionysian text, referring in his studies, in particular, to the previous works of Vanneste, Roger and P. Scazzo, to whose names we will of course add the work of B. Brons. On the one hand, his close attention to the text as such reveals a truly significant portrayal of Dionysius's thought, hitherto ignored. For example, he emphasizes the real connection of the “corpus of Dionysian writings” with the Liturgy, so contrary to Vanneste’s bifurcation, and the importance indicated by Moses in “Mystical Theology” on the “Dionysian prototype ... for the hierarchy” in “ecclesiastical names”. On the other hand, since his focus is on the sources of the Areopagite in Neoplatonism, in particular Iamblichus, and since the assertion (characteristic also of Hornus) that this philosophy is fundamentally alien to the Christian faith, for a scholar of the Lutheran Church, his presentation of the Areopagite is emphasized later as a purely intellectual effort, a kind of "brainstorming": "In general, the Dionysian work is mainly epistemological." There is something that is a truly Christian opinion about Dionysius. In one article, Rorem even makes use, rather hesitantly, of Hathaway's suggestion that John of Damascus (or someone in his circle) is the real author of the Dionysian corpus. This belief permeates the later work, but the Christ of Dionysius remains a "cosmic figure" serving as the embellishment of a system whose strict metaphysical justifications are eventually freed of any Christian elements. The key to Rorem's suggestion is the absolute unity of the corpus itself. His claim that Mystical Theology represents a "methodological prologue" to Dionysius's subsequent exploration of biblical and liturgical symbols. The argument that requires the (structure of) treatises (the new order is used to translate the corpus) successfully presents the Mystical Theology as a kind of détente. The negative method inevitably destroys Christian attributes in order to reveal the “infinite” structures of the Neoplatonist worldview. Therefore, Rorem is forced to insist over and over again that Dionysius lacks any eschatology. He is simply deprived of it. But still, as we will see, the texts of the code present some difficulties. In addition, Rorem's exclusive focus on Iamblichus as a source of Dionysian spiritual interpretation seems to prevent him from exploring Dionysian sources in the Christian tradition, such as Origen, who uses similar concepts within Christian Platonism and has a clear eschatological pathos. A similar appeal to the Areopagite's adaptation of the works of Iamblichus, mone-proodos-epistriphe, which Rorem rightly emphasizes as central, but whose transformation under the thought of Dionysius he refuses to see. The corpus in the eyes of this scientist remains what it was for the philosopher - a way of describing the "infinite" relationship achieved between cause and effect. In short, the failure to study Dionysius in his patristic context makes Rorem's work limited and one-sided, for what it is is expressed not without some irony. His description of the Areopagite concludes as "infinity" and abstraction.