On the issue of Areopagite creations

(Letter to Archbishop Anthony of Finland) The reason for V.V. Bolotov († 1900 April 5) writing a printed letter dated November 18/19, 1897 to Archbishop Anthony of Finland (since 1898 Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, † 1912 November 2) was an appeal to the Most Reverend. Anthony in 1897 by the Englishman John Parker with his published translation into English of the Areopagite works and a special letter dated June 4 (n.s.). Parker's book and letter were first given to Prof. A. P. Lopukhin († 1904 August 22), who was then the editor of the “Church Bulletin” and “Christian Reading”, and Parker’s letter was translated by him for the Most Reverend. Antonia into Russian; then they were sent by A.P. Lopukhin to V.V. Bolotov for review. A letter from V.V. Bolotov, written then, also a translation of Parker’s letter made by A.P. Lopukhin, later by the Most Reverend himself. Anthony were handed over along with various other documents, partly relating to the old Catholic question, partly to the stay of the Most Reverend. Anthony in England, the chairman (1903–1909) of the Commission on the Old Catholic Question, the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Bishop Sergius (now the Archbishop of Finland) and sent by him in the past 1913 for printing and then for transfer to the library of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. The published letter from V.V. Bolotov is written on 15 sheets of regular size notepaper sewn together (57 pages); A “diagram” is drawn on a separate piece of paper. The translation of Parker’s letter, which, together with the book, gave rise to the appearance of V.V. Bolotov’s letter, written by the hand of A.P. Lopukhin on a piece of mail, has the following form. "Translation of John Parker's letter. Boulogne sur Unes [= Mer ?] Your Eminence Archbishop, I have the courage to forward to Your Eminence my translation of Dionysius the Areopagite, which I published with the aim of giving members of the Anglican Church the opportunity to understand the Greek Orthodox Church and the apostolic teaching it contains. Nothing could so completely bring the Anglican Church into contact with the Greek Orthodox Church and so successfully restore some of the apostolic traditions now forgotten, as the recognition of the authenticity of the works of Dionysius. May I ask Your Eminence that you acquaint the Anglican bishops with the traditions of the Eastern churches and especially with the definitions of the Greek church regarding these creations? In Germany a school is rapidly growing which admits their authenticity, and in France also eminent scholars are returning to this ancient view. Would you kindly tell me whether the liturgy that I translated from Latin can be found either in the original Greek or in the Syriac translation? I have the honor to remain Your Eminence's most devoted servant John Parker's book: The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, now first translated into English from the original Greek, bу the Rev. John Parker, M. A. London 1897 (it is now in the library of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy) contains a translation of works on divine names and sacramental theology, 11 letters (the 11th to Apollophanes) and the liturgy of Dionysius. Previously, he translated works on the heavenly and church hierarchies (1894). In addition, he published brochures: Dionysius the Areopagite. And Sermon preached in Paris (1893), Are the wrightings of Dionysius the Areopagite genuine? (1897), Dionysius the Areopagite and the Alexandrine School (1899). In the brochure “Are the wrightings” etc. (p. 4) he reports that he came to a firm conviction of the authenticity of the Areopagite writings “after five years of continuous research” and now, with his result, appeals “to historical criticism, and to common sense”; Among the German scientists he lists as like-minded people are Schneider, prof. Schwarz in Lüttich and Prof. Schmid in Brixen (r. 19). Notes on Parker and his argument cf. in the article by Hugo Koch, Zur Areopagitischen Frage, in Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Alterthumskunde und für Kirchengeschichte. XII. (1898), S. 361 – 2. Recognition of the authenticity of the Areopagite creations, according to Parker, could not only form the basis for the rapprochement of the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox churches, but could, given the sublime nature of these creations, also contribute to the conversion of India to Christianity (Koch, 362). In fact, at present, any attempts to defend the authenticity of the Areopagite writings must be recognized as a complete anachronism from a scientific and historical point of view. Here in Russia, the once famous learned Bishop Porfiry Uspensky was carried away by the idea of ​​​​proving this authenticity (in Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment, 1878 II, reprinted in his book: The First Journey to Athos Monasteries and Hermitages. Part II. Appendix to the second section of this part. M. 1881). In the West, the Capuchin Father Joseph von Leonissa often appears in various articles as a stubborn defender of authenticity, not heeding any reasonable arguments. The question of Areopagite creations has been subjected to detailed scientific research in recent times by two Catholic scientists, Hugo Koch, in a number of articles and in a special work Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita in seinen Beziehungen zum Neuplatonismus und Mysterienwesen. Eine litterarhistorische Untersuchung. Mainz 1900, and the Jesuit J. Stiglmayr, also in numerous articles and in the treatise Das Aufkommen der Pseudo-Dionysischen Schriften und ihr Eindringen in die Christliche Literatur bis zum Laterancoucil 649. Gymn.-Programm. Feldkirch 1895. They establish the fact of the dependence of the author of the Areopagitics on the writings of the Neoplatonic philosopher Proclus († 485) and their origin dates back to the last quarter of the 5th century (not earlier than 476, probably after 482, one must think - in Syria). For a condensed summary of the evidence for the late origin of the Areopagite, see the article on Dionysius the Areopagite by Prof. I. V. Popova, in Orthodox. Theological Encyclopedia, ed. edited by A. P. Lopukhina, vol. IV (1903), 1078–9. All the efforts of various scientists to discover the real author of works that were so important in the history of Christian theology and especially in the history of Christian mysticism, and to determine with accuracy the date and place of their appearance, have so far been unsuccessful. V.V. Bolotov in his letter examines in particular detail the story of the author of the Areopagite (in the 7th message): how he allegedly observed, together with the philosopher Apollophanes, a solar eclipse that occurred during the crucifixion of the Lord, and in this story he sees one of the most decisive evidence of the inauthenticity of the Areopagite writings. But he does not consider it necessary to necessarily recognize the author as a falsifier in the usual sense, who committed a forgery precisely with the direct purpose of misleading readers, etc. in his unique way of writing - on behalf of Dionysius the Areopagite - he finds it possible to see only a special literary form. Undoubtedly, this view, as V.V. Bolotov himself notes, deserves special attention. Your Eminence Your Eminence Vladyka, Alexander Pavlovich sent me the book and letter from Rev. John Parker, addressed to Your Eminence. I assume that I will not go against the intentions of Your Eminence if I transmit these lines to you, Vladyka, directly, not “viâ Editorial X Thu. and CV." I do not know what information Your Eminence has at his disposal about the personality of Rev. Parker. Judging by the fact that his book is dedicated to the French l'abbé D'Anviers; that Regensburg Dr. Ceslaus Maria Schneider is in friendly correspondence with Parker and that Parker himself wrote the following. "creations": “Holy Scripture in the Roman Church” and “Apostolic Traditions according to the Teachings of the Council of Trentine”, it seems that one has to conclude that Parker is a papist. I skimmed his book rather than looked at it. The thing is completely ordinary, with the typical features of bad works “coming from the pen of the British. First of all, there is a rush that brings the Englishman closer to the Jew: provisions that require proof are presented as if they were indisputable (for example, p. 128: “Ignatius suffered in 107, Dionysius in 119”); the author does not disdain “truths” that have long been refuted (pp, 139. 140: “an eclipse during the crucifixion - mentioned by Phlegon”); typical is his “key to the ecclesiastical history of the first century” (p. xv): from Acts. 1, 8; Ear. 1, 23 the conclusion is drawn that already under the apostles Christianity existed throughout the world [and in Australia, and in Patagonia, and in China, Reverend Sir?] and that by the end of the first century a Christian would have become a Roman emperor, if only he had not been killed by the cruel Domitian [strange concepts of Providence, if an eccentric tyrant can cross out the paths of Providence and delay their implementation for too much 200 years!]. To all this Rev. Parker is the husband of the most pillar-like legend. He believes that he is doing this by taking up arms in defense of the Parisian bishopric of Dionysius the Areopagite, while the learned French do not consider it possible to waste ink on such stories. The English are usually praised for their common sense. At Rev. Parker, on the contrary, there is some kind of crack in the sensorium commune (a certain acquaintance of M. O. Koyalovich 1 characterized someone: “his brains are scrambled”), and this alone makes him unsuitable as a researcher of the question of Areopagiticä Parker imagines that this question can be solved with a cheap couple of pages directed against one argumentum e silentio - and with a solemn indication of the differences in the views of opponents, and the laudable red words of Erasmus of Rotterdam. As a legend believer, he - so to speak - (p. vij) revels in the fact that Areopagitica contains the most incredible things, Parker believes that he is achieving triumphs with his warfare: after all, Dr. Schneider (p. xvj) informed him that "in Germany it is now admitted that external evidence is in favor of the authenticity of Dionysius." To appreciate the “importance” of this message, one need only remember how the question is posed about Areopagitica. The writer of these works was either Dionysius the Areopagite himself or deliberately impersonated Dionysius the Areopagite. But in 1861 Dr. appeared. Nipler and deceived many 2. Hipler argued that this writer was not Dionysius the Areopagite and did not pretend to be Dionysius the Areopagite, but was mistakenly taken by others to be Dionysius the Areopagite. The author of these works was the monk Dionysius of Rhinocurur, who lived in the second half of the 4th century. - “But excuse me,” the Hiplerians object: “and epistola 10 “John, the Theologian Apostle and Evangelist, imprisoned on the island of Patmos”?! - Oh, no, no! this inscription was given by mistake by ignorant scribes. - “And Jacob ἀδελφόθεος”?! - Oh, no, no! You just need to read ἀδελφός. At first, you see, it was A Δ E ΛΦΟ C, and then someone corrected it to A Δ E Λ F Θ C, which was then read as A Δ E Λ PHOFEOS. – “And the presence at the burial, or – let’s agree – the contemplation of the “life-giving and God-receiving body, σώματος” of the Mother of God”?! - Oh, no, no! You need to read not σώματος, but “σήματος”: we are talking about contemplating the Holy Sepulcher. - “And finally” τῆς ἐν τῷ σωτηρίῷ σταύρῷ γεγονυίας έχλείψεως “?! - Oh, no, no! You need to read ἐχλάμψεω;: we are not talking about an eclipse, but about a radiance, about the sign of the cross in heaven in the 4th century. And all the witty people in Germania docta admitted that Dr. Hipler proved his thesis brilliantly, glänzend. And when it came to reference with ancient manuscripts and the ancient Syriac translation, all these “must read” things failed spectacularly. "External evidence" destroyed the Hipplerian web. A Rev. Parker imagines that they have destroyed the second half of the above dilemma. But her “external evidence” did not shake her at all. It is now only formulated more clearly: Either a deceiver or a literary mask writes under the name Areopagite (Nowadays, Jules Verne travels both to the moon and to the center of the earth: a man of the 5th - 4th centuries tried to place himself in the 1st century and, on behalf of Dionysius the Areopagite, begin correspondence with the men of the Apostolic Age. Areopagitica, therefore, is not a forgery, but only a literary form). And it is on the last half of this alternative that everyone deciding this issue should focus their attention; because this hypothesis, freeing the author of these works from the shameful stigma of a falsifier, well explains the anachronisms that are unacceptable in the authentic writings of the 1st century. Of course, Areopagitica also debunks this hypothesis; but even here in Russia, Filaret’s indication of the “tense syllable” of these creations, in an article by prof. I. Smirnova in “Orthodox. Review,” is explained in sufficient detail: instead of profundity there is stiltedness and pomposity, and not a single department of dogmatics will suffer from the fact that Areopagitica will be declared inauthentic 3 . In fact, instead of youthfully healthy strength - which is natural to imagine the men of the apostolic age - in Areopagitica one senses a strained Neoplatonist who “will not say a word in simplicity” and does not know how to take a step without a superlative degree. Eg. pag. 120 Parker, he would like to raise “Κύριος” to the superlative degree (τὸ κύρος, καὶ τὸ κύριον καὶ τὸ κύριστον). 4 The well-known expression “the divine Jesus has come” originates from Areopagitica, and its meaning in the Slavic translation is obscured: in the original “Ἰ ησοῦς ὁ ὑπερθεος", Prebog, Vyshebog, is a favorite word of the pseudo-Areopagite, Park pp. 16, 7. 24, 20. 26, 7. 130, 5: the Super-God. - I strongly doubt that the church of the apostolic age would allow any of the believers to use such a philosophically absurd expression as “ὑπέρθεος” for all Semites. God is primarily the land of desires (Heb. “El” God and “el” to are identical in root: therefore, for the somite, God is “He to Whom” [man stretches out his hands, gravitates with his whole being], i.e. - in the language of philosophers - the final goal). And since a person thinks of God as the Absolute, as the All-Perfect, then “Higher-absolute”, “Higher-all-perfect” will already be a contradictio in adjecto, a logical thoughtlessness, an attempt to jump above one’s own head. - The ancient church too seriously contrasted its monotheism with pagan polytheism (Cor. 8: 4-6), too consistently denied the pagan gods to - instead of the One God - allow talking about the High God. The term "οπέρθεος" originated in the head of the Neoplatonist, who did not shake off his fatal polytheistic past from his shoulders. Where gods turned out to be instead of God, little gods were not slow to appear: semidei, rustica numina, fauni, And the word θεός was so vulgarized (let us only recall the lackeys ἀποθεώσει!), that it seemed inconvenient to apply it to the One True God, and (“need for cunning inventions”) they composed “ὁ Ὑ πέρθεος” 5. This is one of the Areopagitica flowers. – But for criticism of their authenticity, in my opinion, Epistle 7 is of extreme importance, where the author claims that he was an eyewitness to the eclipse during the crucifixion of the Lord. Since ἐκλείψεως is firmly established here, no Dionysius of Rhinocurur could have written this epistle. Here the speaker is either the Areopagite, a contemporary of the Lord’s crucifixion, or a person impersonating the Areopagite. Tertium non datur. Whatever the purpose of the forgery (“forgery” or just a “literary mask”), the main and essential question is this: in epistola 7 we read either evidence (and therefore something valuable) or writing (and therefore a waste of ink). – Which of these alternatives is appropriate? Here's the question! To appreciate epist. 7 of the verb Areopagite, allow me, Your Eminence, to touch on the general question of what a miracle is. I think that every understanding (thoughtful) theologian will admit that, by performing miracles, the Creator does not come into conflict with the laws of the nature He created. That is, a miracle is not a violation of the laws of nature: it is a special case of their highest application. If a natural phenomenon is “- a”, then a miracle is not “- a”, but “+ a 3”, respectively “+ a x”. The highest area of God's relationship to man in theological language is called "economy", οἰκονομία. And miracles are performed – so to speak – in an “economic way”: maximum action in terms of human needs with minimum expenditure: no “unproductive” expenses (cf. John 6:12). Of course, Almighty God could, in the calmest weather, send torrential rain and with this downpour dry up the Red Sea; however, “the Lord drove up the sea with a strong south wind all night long [= a prolonged intense action of natural force], and the waters parted” (Ex. 14:21). And in the desert of Sin, He could have sent Israel a field of ripe wheat, and yet He gives manna, a natural phenomenon for this area (albeit in microscopic sizes). He could have transported the whole Lake of Gennesaret to Rafidin by air, however, instead, He exudes water from the stone (analogy: natural drilling of artesian wells). In order to feed those who “wept” with meat, He could, by air, transport whole herds of oxen, sheep or chamois into the desert (Num. II, 22: this is what immediately comes to mind for Moses); however, the wind brings “krastel from the sea.” And Christ Himself could have commanded that waterpots be filled with sand, and this sand turned into wine. However, He transforms water into wine, which the vine - slowly, by its natural strength - turns into wine. And in the desert, Christ could take a handful of sand and turn every grain of sand into bread. However, according to His command, five loaves of bread and two fish are taken from the boy, and the miracle is reduced to the moment of extraordinary fragmentation of this natural food and acquires a quantitative character (extraordinary intensity of natural action). Thus, miracles rely on the natural forces of nature and... represent a certain economization in their use, and not aimless wastefulness. Origen also noted that the “darkness” during the crucifixion of the Lord was a local phenomenon, and not a worldwide one. Its obvious goal - to strike with horror the witnesses of the Calvary event - was achievable only in Jerusalem and in Judea (those who were not in Jerusalem from the stories of eyewitnesses of the Lord's crucifixion could understand the meaning of this darkness, from the sixth hour to the ninth hour). But in Lapland, in Japan, in Patagonia, this “darkness” would not achieve its goal, since eyewitnesses of the event did not have - due to historical conditions - the opportunity to understand the meaning of this phenomenon. Gospel (Luke 23, 45 “and the sun is darkened” και ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥ λιος AC b D against τοῦ ἡλίου ἘΚΛΙΠΟ᾿ΝΤΟΣ in א BC*L) 6 in any case does not force us to understand this phenomenon in the sense of a solar eclipse (τοῦ ἡλίου ἔχλειψις in the sense of the astronomical term). a) The solar eclipse was unnecessary in terms of purpose. It was necessary to make a certain impression on people. Darkness in broad daylight (no matter what this impotence of the sun's rays depends on) makes an impression not only on people, but also on animals. And even an astronomically educated witness to the horrors of Calvary would have experienced the psychological effect of this darkening of sunlight no less than the most ordinary Jew: since this darkness in its intensity was either equal to or superior to a total solar eclipse, and the astronomer was deeply convinced that on that day a solar eclipse was physically impossible, Solar eclipses are possible only during new moons, when the moon stands between the sun and the earth (order: ☉ ☾ ♁), not during full moons, when the earth stands between the magnifying glass and the sun (☉ ♁ ☾) and, moreover, the darkness lasts quite unusually; A total solar eclipse (the covering of the entire disk of the sun by the disk of the Moon; lasts “only about 8 minutes.” True, a total eclipse is inevitably preceded by a partial eclipse, and the total eclipse also ends with the transition to a partial eclipse - so with both partials together, such an eclipse lasts more than 2 hours; but the “darkness” at the beginning and end of it is so insignificant that it is not even noticed at all forewarned viewers. then he too would have succumbed to a feeling of horror, heightened by the fact that the physical cause of the darkening of the sun would remain unknown. If it cannot be argued that in order to achieve the immediate goal (darkness - horror) an eclipse (in the sense of the astronomical term) was required; then, perhaps, we should assume that this goal was best achieved precisely through ἔχλειψις. I cannot even agree with such a ratio theologica: an eclipse under these circumstances would create a minus rather than a plus in the general impression of the darkening of the sun. In Jerusalem there were α) people who were completely uneducated (and such, of course, were the majority), β) educated people, respectively semi-educated (and there were quite a few of them) and γ) highly educated, respectful people, people with special astronomical knowledge (and there were extremely few of them). But for uneducated people, every solar eclipse is terrible, and the eclipse of the 14th of Nisan would be no more terrible than others - Semi-educated people “knew” - that is, “they heard from people)” - that during full moons there are no solar eclipses; but this “knowledge” (“levis haustus” of Bacon) was too superficial to become a clear, unshakable scientific “conviction” of the absolute impossibility of a solar eclipse on that day. Above all, the phrase reigned: “an eclipse is a natural astronomical phenomenon.” The darkness of the 14th of Nisan was terrible for such people while its “cause” was unknown. But once the phrase was uttered: “Yes, it’s just an eclipse!”, and for the competent riffraff, “everything” became “clear,” and their excited hearts were already beating evenly. - Finally, persons educated in a specially astronomical sense, like members of the “calendar commission” (“sôd ha-ibbûr”) - but these were the associates of Annas and Caiaphas, and their souls were too dark to pay attention to the sky. Yes, and it’s too much trouble! Let us remember that at this very time they were negotiating about the “title” on the cross and received an irrevocable answer: ὃ γέγραϕα, γέγραϕα. And the question of “title” was more important to them than ten thousand eclipses. These little men went too far too far. When Pilate confronted them with the formidable “omen” (John 19, 14.15 b), they had the baseness to renounce the messianic ideals of their people (John 19, 15 as) and then ruined their relationship with Pilate, apparently forever, when they allowed themselves the impudence to threaten him with either blackmail or the completely vile “kalumniâ” (“defamation” - "slander"), John. 19, 12. They “came back”, and now Pilate apparently “responded” to their “deduction”: this “title” could have been a “protocol” for a long, very long case about the “political unreliability” of the Jews, with secret inquiries and “biased” interrogations, and the Israeli legislators were taken by Cain’s fear for the integrity of their own skin. That is, I believe that under the given circumstances there was no one to perform such a “supernatural” miracle. b) The solar eclipse on that day was physically impossible (this is shown above: ☉ ♁ ☾ . But if - according to the unsearchable plans of the Supreme Mind - precisely this physically impossible was required, it would have happened in a “supernatural”, but not “unnatural” way - supra naturam in the sense of ultra naturam (= like “+ a x”), but not contra naturam (like “- a”). What I mean by “ultra naturam”, I explain in the accompanying diagram: a solar eclipse would occur as shown by the red arrows [b] with the red circle [B]. The moon, which in the morning (from the 13th to the 14th of Nisan) was seen on the western horizon (in “opposition” to the rising sun), would have rushed with extreme speed along its natural path and in six hours [from the first to the sixth, in ours: from 6 a.m. to 12] passed that semicircle that, according to the natural order, it had to travel in 16 days (15 - 30 Nissan). Then, for three hours (VI – IX = 1 – 3 hours in the afternoon) the moon almost stood, covering the Solitz disk with its disk. Finally, at three o’clock (IX – XII = 4 – 6 in the afternoon) the moon, with even greater speed than in the morning, rushed along its path and by the time the sun set it was already visible - in “opposition” to it - on the eastern horizon - in the place where it should have been on the night from the 14th to the 15th of Nisan. – Thus, everything would come down to a purely quantitative moment: to the extreme speed of the moon’s movement: during these 12 hours (morning - afternoon - evening) it would “survive” an entire synodic month. Diagram. The upper edge of the solar disk Circle in black ink [A] = normal course of the moon (as indicated by the black arrow [a]), with the places of the moon marked on the 7th, 13th, 14th [full moon, crucifixion day, Friday], 15th, 16th, 22nd and 30th Nisan. Circle in red ink [B] = normal course of the moon during solar eclipses. The movement of the moon through the disk of the sun as indicated by the red arrow [b]). Circle with a blue pencil [C] ·· the flow of the moon along the pseudo-Areopagite (in the direction indicated by the green arrow [c]) 7. Arrow [b] everywhere has the same direction as arrow [a], and the order: 14th, 15th, 16th, 22nd, 30th of the month, 1st, 7th, 14th, 15th of the next month, corresponds to the order of hours I-XII according to the Jewish reckoning. But the spoken Areopagite precisely states that εχλειψις was contra naturam. In the diagram this is represented by the blue circle [C], and the Green arrow [c] at all points has the opposite direction to the black [a] and red [b] arrows. “Dionysius” personally knows the pagan philosopher Apollophanes, who does not believe in Christ – and asks “Polycarp” (apparently the bishop of Smyrna) to ask this Apollophanes some questions. “What do you say (λέγεις) about the eclipse (τῆς ἐκλείψεως) that happened on [the day of] the saving cross? After all, we were then together in Iliopolis, together (with you) we stood and saw how the moon strangely (παραδόξως) was approaching (ἐμπίπτουσαν) on the sun, [strangely] because then it was not the time of conjunction (συνόδου καιρός), - and then supernaturally (ὑπερφυώς) from the ninth hour until the evening stood in a place diametrically opposite to the sun (εἰς τὸ τοῦ ὑλίου διάμετρον ἀντικαταστ ᾶ σαν ). Remind him of another detail: he knows what we saw (then), that its ἔμπτωσις [the first contact of the moon’s disk with the western (during natural eclipses) point of the solar disk] began from the east (έξ ανατολών), and it reached the [opposite] edge of the sun [= the solar disk was covered by the moon's disk, i.e. the eclipse became total = No. 3], then retreated (άναποδίσασαν) [T. i.e. the eclipse again became partial = “No. 4], And moreover, both ἔμπτωσις and ἀνακάθαρσις [= last contact of discs = No. 5, end of eclipse] followed but at that point (at which this always happens), but at the point diametrically opposite [= i.e., the first contact of the disks occurred at the eastern point of the solar disk, and the last - at the western]. A lot of supernatural (τὰ ὑπερϕυῆ) phenomena occurred (ἐστι) at that time, possible (only) for the one and only culprit, Christ.” “Dionysius” recalls that then Apollophanes himself said: “Here, dear Dionysius, the intervention of divine factors (in natural phenomena) is seen,” ταῦτα, ὦ καλὲ Διονύσιε, θείων ἀμοιβαί πραγμάτων 8 . Movement of the moon's disk (No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) during a natural solar eclipse And that's all. The question arises: why, cui bono, did the Lord create so much “supernatural” - or rather, unnatural? For two people in Iliopol to look, wonder, and not come to any morally valuable result? After all, Apollophanes, having drawn a conclusion in the form of a “common place,” remained a pagan, and Dionysius, it is assumed, converted only thanks to the preaching of the Apostle Paul. Two eyewitnesses were unable to publicize this event so that it would be entered into the Alexandrian astronomical annals and become known to those who should have known about it. It is enough to note that already Julius Africanus († c. 240) knows nothing about the fact that a solar eclipse occurred during the crucifixion: he, like Origen, directly disputes this 9. Meanwhile, great miracles are described. On the night from the 13th to the 14th of Nisan, the moon still moves in the direction of the black arrow [a], but from the morning of the 14th of Nisan it already flies in the direction of the green arrow [c], which is diametrically opposite. In order for this to become physically feasible, it is required that the kinetic energy of the moon first of all become zero, and then the moon is charged with new energy to move in the opposite direction, and by sunset on the 14th Nisan, this energy must go to zero, and the moon - once again - is charged with energy to continue its movement in the normal, but diametrically opposite direction described by Dionysius (in the diagram [circle C on the 15th of Nisan]). But when kinetic energy is reduced to zero, it essentially turns into heat. The moon, a toy weighing 1/80 of the entire globe, therefore 4.687 and a quarter trillion pounds (this number consists of 22 digits), rushes at an average speed of 1022 meters per second. (Our mile is 1066, 70 meters. A cannonball flies only 632 meters per second). If the moon suddenly stopped, its temperature (assuming that the mass of which the moon is composed has the heat capacity of even iron) would increase by 1142°! But, after an eclipse, the moon at three o’clock (and according to “Dionysius” almost in the blink of an eye) flies through the space for which it naturally spends about half a month, i.e. at this time it flies at a speed of approximately 112.444 meters per second (at a speed of 105 versts per second). And all this kinetic energy had to turn into heat again, i.e. The temperature of the moon should rise by 13,823,000°! And no one noticed all these miracles - Dionysius did not even suspect about them! Biblical miracles are not distinguished by such extravagance. If someone, when explaining such incredible wonders, took the point of view that they expressed the objective compassion of irrational nature with the Creator (Not only the subjective, mentally imaginable only by man); then how to answer the question: why does only the moon suffer these horrors, and the king of inanimate nature - the sun - does not take any part in them? After all, if we talk about an eclipse of the sun, we speak from a purely subjective point of view: it seems to us that the disk of the moon is eclipsing the sun; in fact, the shadow of the magnifying glass only covers the ground. Consequently, no solar eclipses objectively occur, and therefore this ratio theologica (“the suffering of the creature”) does not explain anything in this scientific question. From all that has been said, it is clear that for the earth it is completely indifferent what shadow covers it, and there is not the slightest reason to insist that the darkening of the sun at the hour of the Lord’s crucifixion was an astronomical phenomenon (the factor is the moon), and not a meteorological one (the factor is a special state of the air, something like the Egyptian darkness or the notorious London fogs). So, because of the epistola "Dionysii" septima, theologians are not prompted to declare war on astronomy. Instead of any bravery against adversaries, it is better to admit the fact that this message is a stupid forgery of an overly cunning scientist of the 5th-6th centuries. 10 Rev. J. Parker propagates among “members of the English Church” the works of Dionysius in the hope that this will help the English understand “the Greek Orthodox Church and the apostolic teaching it contains.” In these words, I admit, there is a lot that is unclear to me. Firstly, for the English, who are able to form their own judgment about the “Greek Orthodox Church,” translations into English are probably not needed, since for this class of society the Greek original is also understandable. Secondly, it seems to recall with a bench: “You’re welcome”! please! They bought from us!” After all, Rev. J. Parker translated both “Hierarchies” of Dionysius into English back in 1894. “Nothing can bring the Anglican Church so completely into contact with the Greek Orthodox Church as the recognition of the authenticity of the works of Dionysius.” Hello there! This logic is completely “soft-boiled” for me. It is assumed that the morals of the Russian peasant will be amazingly ennobled if he is forced to listen to Beethoven's symphonies on Sundays. Well, great! Take action, play music! - Oh, no! It is first required that the man confess that these symphonies are genuine creations of Beethoven. - Well, what about without this confession? – But if Areopagitica, in your opinion, is such an excellent source for getting acquainted with the spirit of the Greek Church, then from them Anglicans will in any case become familiar with the spirit of the Greek Church, completely regardless of who owns these works. Rev. J. Parker expects Your Eminence "to make known to the Anglican bishops the traditions of the Eastern churches and - in particular - the declarations (the declarations) of the Greek church regarding these creations" and - probably - to induce Your Eminence not to hesitate in communicating this message to the English bishops - adds: “There is a rapidly growing school in Germany which admits their authenticity; and in France, outstanding scientists are returning to the ancient view.” First of all, about schools. I don't know who Rev. J.. Parker means by “outstanding scientists,” but I strongly suspect that these are some “little abbeys who are used to beating little tombs in their living rooms” about the renewal of Catholicism, about the miracles of Lourdes, and even about the great love of St. father to France and - perhaps - to this poor schismatic Russie, which so needs unity with the “center of unity”. In a word, under the shadow of the Vatican in France, theological science is gaining ground, and the opinions of these “distinguished scholars” can perhaps be completely ignored. – Germany is a different matter, and Dr. Schneider is probably Parker's source here. In this case, it is not superfluous to recall that the famous article by Prof. Langen in Revue Intern, de Theologie 1893 (Volume I), 591 about the “School of Hierotheus” begins with the words: “What Areopagite, disciple of St. Paul, did not write any known works, this is beyond any doubt for those who understand the matter. It would not be worth wasting words on this, “if in our time, when, for well-known church “purposes, they are trying to obscure (and if possible, then completely drown out) even the most indisputable scientific truths, they had not “dared to make an attempt to bring the Areopagite into the possession of creations, the authorship of which, as we will see later, he never made any claims to.” The signs of the times are: “Àreopagitica. Creations of St. Dionysius the Areopagite. Protecting their authenticity von Dr. Ceslaus M. Schneider, "Regensburg, Manz 1884". And Stöckl in his “History of the “philosophy of Christian patristic times” (Mainz “1891)” is already trying to exploit this literary “feat (Leistung) of Schneider on the Solomon-wise basis that he would like to put into play 11 “the question of whether these creations belong to the Areopagite.” Therefore, why be surprised if Schneiders and Co. roar: “Great! victorious"! And the Parkers believe them. And of course the Parkers would be pleased to kill three birds with one stone. How good it would be for St. It would be beneficial for the throne if in an authoritative letter to the Anglican bishops from Russia a) confirmed the views on Areopagitica of Parkers, Schneiders and Co., and then b) because of Areopagitica a black cat ran between the Russian Church and the Anglicans and c) between the Russian Church and the German Old Catholics! And good people - German Protestants - would have fanned this spark without any evil intent! Of course! After all, they already taught these German (albeit in Bonn and Munich) professors advice - not to interfere with these “Orientalen”: they will amaze you with their obscurantism. In the final lines of Rev. J. Parker asks Your Eminence to inform him that the liturgy of Dionysius the Areopagite, which he, Parker, translated from Latin [and I note: he translated without saying a single word that this liturgy is used by the Syrian Monophysites - on the contrary, in his preface, pag. 185, expressing his “opinion” that this liturgy was written by St. Dionysius the Areopagite “for the therapeuts near Alexandria,” - “written no earlier than the death of James, the apostle and martyr, in 42, and probably no later than 67, when Dionysius, at the request of St. Paul, left Athens in order to meet with the apostle in Rome, from where the apostle sent him to Gaul"] "can be found either in the original Greek [text] or in the Syriac translation." But I understand why this question is being asked. Who, it seems, if not an Englishman, would know that in London, in the British Museum in two Syrian manuscripts Add. 14,690 fol. 66 b – fol. 69 a and (part of) Add. 17.128, fol. 23 b–f. 28 b read the Syriac text “Anaphora of Saint Mar-Dionysius, Bishop of the City of Athens”? At the risk of overstepping the limit in which Your Eminence was pleased to listen to my opinion, I will nevertheless express the brief meaning of my long speech. If there is other information that leaves no room for doubt that Rev. John Parker is a Roman Catholic: his letter deserves no answer. These guys are too impudent. It seems that a Russian with a high position cannot take a step in a foreign direction without some Vatican servant spinning head over heels around him: some padre Vanutelli or Tondini de’ Quarenghi, or père Jonquet. “No answer” from them alone would be a useful lesson for these Vatican reptiles. But if the answer to John Parker is considered inevitable by Your Eminence, then perhaps it will be enough for the questioner to hear that the most authoritative among all Russian theologians, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, at the beginning of this century classified Areopagitica as Dubia. – And then, on the second question, Rev. J. Parker may be content to refer to Brit. Mus. Add. 14,690 and Add. 17.128. Asking for your holy blessing Your Eminence most humble novice V. Bolotov. P.S. I will return the letter and book to Alexander Pavlovich. Professor St. Petersburg Theological Academy, † August 23, 1891 A. B. Fr. Hipler, Dionysius der Areopagite. Untersuchungen über Ächtliert und Glaubwürdigkeit der unter diesem Namen vorhandenen Schriften. Regensburg 1861. For example, W. Möller took the side of Hipler; J. Draseke especially zealously defended Hipler's hypothesis. Hipler himself, however, in the end, under the influence of the arguments of Koch and Stieglmayr, abandoned (in a letter) the opinion he had once expressed, as reported by N. Koch, Zur Areopagitischen Fragé (1898), S. 367; Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita (1900), S. 4. I. Smirnov, priest. Russian literature about works with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite. Orthodox Review, 1872, I, 842–876. A.B. In fact, the Greek text here (De div. nomm. XII, 2) is given by Parker, obviously in a distorted form and the translation is incorrect: “Wherefore Lordschip is parallel, to τὸ Κῦρος καὶ τὸ κύρι o ν, καὶ τὸ καριστον “[sie]; in the note: “The rendering of which may be, the lordly, and the lordlier, and the lordliest.” In the edition of Corderius it reads (Migne, s. gr. t. 3, p. 969C): διὸ καὶ κυριότης παρὰ τὸ κῦρος * (options in the note: παρὰ τὸ κυρῶ – cod. Saliguaci major, παρὰ τὸ κῦρος καὶ το κορῶ – cod. τὸ κυριεῦον; Latin translation (S. 970C): quapropter dominatio Graece a κῦρος derivato nomine, idem est quod firmatio, firmamentum et firmum, ae firmans seu ratificans. In the translation of Erigena (Migno, s. 1. t. 122, p. 1168B): propter quod et dominatus a Domino] Erigépa seemed to read τὸ κύριος instead of τὸ κῦρος ], et dominabile, et dominari. It is necessary, however, in this case to note that the expression “ὑπέρθεος” in the Areopagite works - undoubtedly of a Neoplatonic character and origin - has a special meaning outside of one or another relation to pagan polytheism. Precisely, and this expression should serve the author of these works to designate the so-called “apophatic” moment in the teaching about God, like other names and epithets attached to the Divine with the preposition ὑπέρ - (ὑπεράγαθος, ὑπερούσιος, ὑπέρηνωμένη ἑνάς), should indicate that the Divinity in Itself is always above any human idea or concept of Him with any positive qualitative content, no matter what name it is expressed (ὑπερώνυμος). From this side, the term ύπέρθεος has, so to speak, a subjective epistemological meaning. Cp. De myst. theol. With. V (Migne, s. gr. t. 3, c. 1048A): οὐδέ ἒ ν, οὐδὲ ἑνότης, οὐδὲ θεότης, ἢ ἁ γαθότης, οὐδὲ πνεθμά ἐστιν ὡ ς ἡμ ᾶ ς εἰδέναι. An ancient commentator notes on this matter (Migne, 8. gr. t. 4, p. 429 B): On the other hand, you need to keep in mind that the word itself θεός was used in a broad sense in Christian literature long before the appearance of Areopagite writings; The concept of “God” already had a wide scope, for example. by Clement of Alexandria. Cp. IN . V. Bolotov, Origen’s Teaching on the Holy Trinity. St. Petersburg 1879, p. 84. The Areopagitian author indicates that SV. Scripture sometimes applies the name θεός to angels and people. Do cael. hier. XII, 2. (Cf. Dan. IV, 5, Exod. VII, 1; Po. LXXXI, 6; John X, 34). He himself, as is known, develops, in the spirit of Neoplatonism, but at the same time in accordance with the traditions of Eastern theology of the previous time, the doctrine of the “θέωσίς” of man. Wed. N. Koch, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, 1900, S. 190 – 7. In general, about the Eastern doctrine of θέωσις cf. AND . V. Popov, The idea of ​​deification in the ancient Eastern Church, in Questions of Psychology and Philosophy, 1909. No. 97, 165 – 213. A special answer is given, from the point of view of the doctrine of θέωσις, to the question: Πῶς ὁ πάντων ἐπέκεινα καὶ ὑπὲρ θταρχίαν [= θεὸς in the Areopagite writings] ἐστὶ καὶ ὑπὲρ ἀγαθαρχίαν, in the second letter of the Areopagite. The judgment of V.V. Bolotov in this case is, therefore, too harsh. – Regarding the meaning of the Semitic EI, Elоah, V.V. Bolotov accepts de Lagarde’s explanation here. According to another, traditional understanding, defended even today by various scientists, אִל is derived from אול to be strong. Wed. Archimandrites have different opinions about these names and their assessment. (now Bishop of Poltava) Theophan, Tetragram or Old Testament divine name יהיה. St. Petersburg 1905, pp. 228–237, 237–242. On the use of Semitic El in the Bible as applied to people, cf. p. 232 (especially Ezek. XXXI, 11 and XXXII, 21). As for the word θεός, the author has Areopagitik, De div. nom. XII, 2, it is compared about θε ᾶ σθαι and περιθέειν (θέειν = τρέχειν). Among the ancients, this word was also derived from τίθημι, αἴθω. But K. Brugmann, Griechische Grammatik. 3 Aufl. München 1900, S. 43, θεός from * θ F εσο – ς : Middle-Upper German. ge-twäs, "Gespenst", lit. dvȃsé, “Geist”, [slav. spirit]. A.B. AC b D = Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Syri – secundus corrector, Bezae. NBC*L=Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraenii Syri – prima scriptura, Parisinus. In the original drawing by V.V. Bolotov, different circles and arrows are depicted in different colors. In the attached reproduction of this drawing, since it is impossible to give a color image, they are instead marked with the letters A, B, C - a, b, c. The solar disk is depicted by V.V. Bolotov in both this and the next drawing in red ink. A.B. Migne, S. gr. t. 3, p. AB 1081 ῃ ρι ῳ σταυρῷ γεγονυίας ἐκλείφεως ; ἀμϕοτέρω γὰρ τότε κατὰ Ἠ λιούπολιν ἄμα παρόντε τε καὶ ? ( οὐ γὰρ ἦ ν συνόδου καιρός ) α ὖ θίς τε αὐτήν ἀπὸ τῆς ἑννάτης ὣ ρας ἄχρι τῆς ἑσπέρας εἰς τὸ τοῦ ὑλίου διάμετρον ὑπερφυῶς ἀνικαταστασαν. Ἀνάμνησον δέ τι καὶ ἕ τερον αὐτόν οἴδε γὰρ , ὅ τι καὶ τὴν ἔμπτωσιν αὐτήν ἐξ ἀνατολών ἑωράκαμεν ἀρξαμένην , καὶ μέχρι τοῦ ἡλιακου πέρατος ἐλθοῦσαν , ε ἶ τα ἀναποδίσασαν , καὶ αὐθις οὐκ ἐκ ? κατὰ διάμετρον ἐναντίου γεγενημένην . Τοσαῦτά ἐστι τοῦ τότε καιροῦ τὰ ὑπερϕυῆ to αὶ μόν ῳ Χριστῷ τῷ ?? ἀριθμός; – – – V.V. Bolotov understands the second half of this story about the eclipse “Ἀνάμνησον γεγενημένην · as a description of the movement of the moon from east to west, which continued even after it covered the sun, in the same unusual direction in which it approached its eastern edge before its covering; Having already come into opposition again, that is, having described almost a full circle as a whole, she changed her unusual movement to a normal one. This is shown in the first drawing by V.V. Bolotov (circle C). "Ἀνχποδίσασαν" (cf. No. 4 on another drawing) are understood here as a general indication of the moon’s retreat from the position when it covered the entire sun, i.e., the transition of a total eclipse to a partial one. Further words: “to αὶ α ὖ θις οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν ἔμπτωσιν to αὶ τὴν ἀνακάθαρσιν , ἀλλ ’ ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ διάμετρον ἑναντίου γεγενημένην are interpreted as a contrast between the points of first and second contact of the moon and the sun during the movement described in Areopagitics to the diametrically opposite points of both contacts during ordinary eclipses. The ancient commentator on the Areopagite writings and his later ones, however, understand this place differently, precisely in the sense of indicating the reverse movement of the moon, which began immediately after the position in which it covered the solar disk. During ordinary eclipses, the opening or “cleansing” (ἀνακάθαρσις) of the solar disk begins from the same edge that was covered by the moon in the first place. And in this case, even though the moon was then moving not from west to east, but in the opposite direction, the similarity with ordinary eclipses would be more complete if the opening of the solar disk began from the eastern edge, from which the eclipse began. But this was not there either, and the moon, having reached the western edge of the sun and covering the entire solar disk, then went back, so that the western edge of the sun was revealed first. S. Maximi Scholia in epistolas s. Dionysii, Migne, s. gr. t. 4, p. 544B: Ἐξ ἀνατολών γὰρ ἐλθουσα ἡ σελήνη ὑπέδραμε τὸν ἥ λιον, καὶ ἔφραξεν ὅ λον τὸν δίσκον αὐτοῦ. Ε ἶ τα οὐκέτι ἐπὶ δυσμάς παρῆλθεν , ἀλλ ’ ἀνεπόδισε π ᾶ λιν ἐπὶ ἀνατολὰς , k αὶ ἐγυμνωσε πρῶτον μέρος τὸ δυτικὸν τοῦ ἡλιχκου δίσκου ’ εἰς τοὐπίσω γὰρ ἀνέδραμεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἐναντιον διάμετρον τοῦ ἡλίου ἐπὶ ἀνατολάς ὥ στε μηκέτι τὴν ἔμπτωσιν καὶ τὴν ἀνακαθα p σι and ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μέρους γενέσθαι . Here "ἀναποδίσασαν" is understood literally - in the sense of reverse movement. In the words "οὐκ ἐ to τοῦ αὐτοῦ" to τλ., according to this understanding, ἔμπτωσις and ἀνακάθαρσις of the same eclipse described in the Areopagitics. Of the later authors cf. about this eclipse for example. in the Jesuit R. Halloix in his Vita s. Dionysii, in notes, Migne, s. gr. t. 4, p. 702 – 707 (with drawing). Accordingly, the words "ε ἶ τα ἀναποδί σασαν" κτλ should be translated: "then I went back, and at the same time there were both ἔμπτωσις and ἀνακάθαραις (covering and opening), but on diametrically opposed ones (covering on the eastern point of the solar disk, opening on the western).” So translated by Parker, b. 149: “then receding back, and again, both the contact and the re-clearing, not taking place from the same point, but from that diametrically opposito.” Cp. translation of Erigena (Migne, s. 1. t. 122, p. 1180C): “deinde retrogradientem, et iterum non ex eodem et occasum et repurgationem, sed secundum diametrum econtrario factam.” Therefore, in the first drawing by V.V. Bolotov, the right half of circle C, starting from the western edge of the solar disk, is redundant; in the second figure, in relation to the course of a natural solar eclipse presented on it, “ἀναποδζει” (No. 4) should mean the secondary presence of the moon in position No. 2. Such an understanding must be recognized as more consistent with the text of this place than that proposed by V.V. Bolotov. But for his argumentation, one or another interpretation of this passage does not matter, and it retains all its strength equally under one and the other interpretation. A.B. Julius Africanus, in the fifth book of his chronicle, makes a remark about the message in the chronicle of Phallus, a Samaritan (one must think) Hellenist and freedman of the emperor Tiberius (M. J. Routh, Reliquiae sacrae. Ed. 2. Vol. ll. Oxonii 1846, p. 297 - 8): τοῦτο τὸ σκότος ἔκλειφιν τοῦ ὑλίου Θαλλός ἀποκαλεῖ ἐν τρίτ ῃ τῶν ἱστοριῶν, ὡ ς ἐμοί δοκεῖ, ἄλόγως. Εβραῖοι γὰρ ἄγουσι τὸ πάσχα κατὰ σελήνης ιδ ’ – - – πῶς ο ὖ ν ἔκλειφις νομισθείη κατὰ διάμετρον σχεδόν ὑπαρχούσης τῆς σελήνης ἡλί ῳ; The words about Phlegon further found in the surviving text of Africanus's chronicle are obviously a later insertion, as Whiston and Routh believe (478 - 9): ἐν πανσελήν ῳ ἐκλειφιν ἡλίου γεγονέναι τελείαν , ἀπὸ ὥ ρας ἔκτη; μέχρις ἐννάτης δήλον ὡ ς ταύτην . Origen in Tract, in Math. 35, reading Luke. 23, 45: τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος considers it a later change of the original text (maybe even on the part of “insidiatores ecclesiae Christi”); darkness, like the earthquake and other events at the crucifixion, is recognized as local phenomena only. He also knew the chronicle of Phlegon of Trallia, a freedman of Hadrian; but responding to the objections of non-believers regarding the reliability of the gospel story about the darkness that came during the crucifixion of the Lord in view of the fact that historians have no mention of this fact, he admits that Phlegon did not note at all that it was during the full moon: non significavit in luna plena hoc factum (although in the Greek passage of his commentary on the same gospel there is a remark of a different kind, Routh, 11, 479). According to Origen (p. Cels. Il, 59), in any case, Phlegon spoke of darkness and earthquake in connection with the story of the death of Christ. But it is possible that Origen, referring here to Phlegon, did not have it at hand, and Phlegon himself could allow arbitrary and erroneous combinations (cf. Col. I, 14: “in the 13th or 14th book of the chronicle” Phlegon even mixed up Christ and the Apostle Peter). (Cf. (Harnack Preuschen, Geschichte der altehristl. Litteratur bis Eusebius. I, 1. Lpz. 1893, S. 867). Phlegon's message about the eclipse and the earthquake that happened in Bithynia is preserved in the chronicle of Eusebius (Greek text by Sincellus): ἔκλειψις ἡλίου μεγίστη τῶν ἐγνωσμένων πρότερον ᾳ ἔκτ ῃ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐγένετο , ὥ στε καὶ ἀστέρας ἐν οὐρανῷ φανῆναι σεισμός τε μέγας κατὰ Βιθυνίαν γενόμενος τὰ πολλὰ Νικαίας κατεστρέψατο. A number of special treatises on the issue of the eclipse mentioned by Phlegon appeared, by the way, in the 18th century. in English about establishing the difference between the fact noted by Phlegon and the darkening of the sun during the crucifixion of the dissertation by A. A. Sykes, A Dissertation on the Eclipse mentioned by Phlegon. Or, An Inquiry whether that Eclipse had any Relation to the Darkness which happened at our Saviour’s Passion. London 1732. The reasoning of W. Whision, The Testimony of Phlegon vindicated, is directed against it. London 1732 (with a collection of extracts on the eclipse from authors of the first six centuries). The answer to it was A. A. Sykes, And Defense of the Dissertation on the Eclipse mentioned by Phlegon. London 1733. This was followed by J. Chapman's treatise, Phlegon examined Critically and Impartially. In Answer to the late Dissertation and Defense of Dr. Sykes. Cambridge 1734. Sykes wrote then A second Defense of the Dissertation upon the Eclipse mentioned by Phlegon. London 1734. Chapman also published Phlegon Reexamined: In Answer to Dr. Sykes's Second Defense of his Dissertation concerning Phlegon. Cambridge 1735. Routh, II, 479, also mentions Whiston's Sex Dissertations. On the testimony of Phlegon, Julius Africanus and Origen, cf. H. F. Clinton, Fasti Romani. Vol. II. Oxford 1840, p. 279 – 280 M. J. Routh, Reliquiae sacrae. Ed. 2. Vol. II. Oxonii 1846, p. 477–480. A. B. This 7th letter of “Dionysius” gave rise to the appearance of other forgeries with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite. Thus, he is credited with a treatise on astronomy and meteorology, available in Syriac and published by M. A· Kugener, Un traité astronomique et météorologique syriaque attribué à Dcuys l'Areopagite, in Actes du XIV-c Congrès international des Orientalistes, t. II, Paris 1907, p. 137 – 198 (with introduction and translation into French). Then there is the legendary “autobiography” of Dionysius or his story about his conversion to Christianity, where he reports about the eclipse of the sun and the earthquake that happened during the death of Christ; he witnessed them when he was in Iliopolis in Syria, and he could then compare his record of them with the story of the Apostle Paul about the circumstances of the death of the Savior, when Paul came 14 years later to Athens preaching the gospel; this convinced him of the truth of the gospel. This autobiography and its contents are also mentioned by Parker, b. vij. This monument was also published in Syriac by M. A. Kugener, Une autobiographie syriaque de Denys l’Aréopagitc, in Oriens Christianus, t: VII (1907), 1910, p. 292–348. A significant excerpt of the Coptic (Said) translation was published even earlier by O. von Lemm, Eine dem Dionysius Areopagita zugeschriebene Schrift in koptischer Sprache, in the News of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, vol. XII, no. 3, 1900, p. 267 – 306 (with translation into German). The Arabic text of the legend was cited by P. Peeters in his article in the Arabic magazine Al-Machriq. t. XII, 1909, p. 118–127 (Re historia, sancti Dionysii Areopagitae hujnsque epistola ad Apollophanem); He published the Latin translation of the Arabic edition in Analecta Bollandiana, t. XXIX, 1910. p. 302 – 322: La vision de Denys l’Aréopagitc à Heliopolis (with a detailed introduction). The Armenian translation was published by R. N. Akinian, in the Armenian magazine Hantees. 1913, t. XXVll, p. 641 – 659. Kugener considers both the treatise and the autobiography to be Syrian works (first 5th – 6th century, second late 6th – early 7th century). Peeters suggests Greek originals for both monuments. St. Maximus the Confessor (†662) did not yet know his autobiography. But Abbot Gilduin at the beginning of the 9th century may have already had it at hand. Gilduin himself can be suspected of inventing another special document - the letter of Dionysius to Apollophanes, which is known only in Latin and was placed by Gilduin in the Vita sanetissimi Dionysii compiled by him and was then published as the 11th letter of Diopisius. (Cp. Peeters, pp. 310–313). A.B. More precisely, the underlined German expression can be translated: “to cause hesitation.” [Note by V.V. Bolotov; in the German text it is, S. 592: “in der Schwebe lassen wollen”].